Ramblings About Race

[bonnie]

August 13, 2010

Ramblings About Race

By Lloyd Marcus

Years ago, I visited the home of a fellow black friend. He talked about the "white people" on his job. It struck me that despite years of working with these people, company picnics and sharing birthday cakes in the office, my friend did not relate to his coworkers as Bob, Joe, or Jane. They were monolithically "white people."

I'm sure some whites relate to blacks the same way, as a monolithic group rather than individual fellow human beings. Without question, America has zero tolerance for "white racism," while "black racism" is given a pass.

Some whites even believe blacks should be racist. White liberal activist Janeane Garofalo says blacks who do not resent America are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. A white neighbor was stunned when I told him I was not voting for Barack Obama. He said, "You're black. He is black. I don't get it. What is wrong with you?"

Black and white associates, family, and friends were highly offended that I would consider the character, principles, and associations of the person requesting to be elected leader of my beloved country. It was weird enough that I, a black, openly express love for America, but I actually expected the first African-American presidential candidate to go through the usual vetting process. Clearly, in their minds, Obama's skin color trumped everything.

Eighteen months later, America is suffering the consequences of white guilt and black resentment-inspired racism. Bottom line: Racism is wrong and evil regardless of who does it.

The Obama administration and their liberal mainstream media minions are despicably exploiting race to further Obama's progressive/socialist agenda. Any and all criticism of America's first black president is attacked as racist. Consequently, Americans are more polarized and divided along racial lines than ever.

I stopped in a fast food restaurant recently. About fifteen white seniors were seated, having lunch. A few were passionately expressing their displeasure with Obama's policies. When I, a black man, sat at a table nearby, the group looked uncomfortable, and their passionate discussion abruptly ended. They obviously did not notice my "Tea Party Express" t-shirt. I was tempted to say, "Don't stop because of me -- I agree with you!"

Similar scenarios are happening across America. Criticizing the black president brands you a racist. Folks, there is something seriously wrong in our country when citizens are fearful of criticizing our president. Remarkably unpresidential, Obama uses his surrogates in the liberal mainstream media to recklessly wield their bloodstained sword of racism accusations to slash and terrorize all who dare criticize his socialist agenda.

The stakes are far too high to continue allowing Obama and company to play the should-have-been-retired-years-ago race card to shut people up, trumping logic, reason, and common sense. America and the future of our children are at risk.

Our Founding Fathers and patriots before us, such as the brave young men at Normandy, confirm that freedom is worth fighting for -- and yes, even worth paying the ultimate sacrifice for. In light of what these patriots gave for America, the sting of being called a "racist" is nothing.

Our Tea Party movement is badgered by liberal blacks and the liberal mainstream media: "What are you doing to attract blacks?"

Well, what the heck does that mean? Should tea parties serve fried chicken to attract blacks (or cannoli to attract Italians)?

The Tea Party movement will attract kindred-spirit, right-thinking Americans of all races by touting and standing up for conservative values and principles. Similar to the famous line in the movie, "If we say it, they will come."

For America to move forward, it is crucial that we cease falling prey to the divisive tactic of "pandering to groups." Identity politics must end in America. Characterless politicians such as Obama have been skillfully pitting groups against each other, dividing and conquering us, for years: blacks vs. whites, rich vs. poor, legal vs. illegal, and achievers vs. non-achievers.

Why do you think liberal politicians created hyphenated Americans, and why are they so vehemently outraged whenever anyone dares to challenge the politically correct practice? Hyphenating is crucial to dividing Americans into various, monolithic, victimized voting blocks.

My signature opening line on stage at tea parties has sparked over-the-top, angry, vitriolic responses from liberals. Their insane rage and anger comes from hearing me say, Hello my fellow patriots. I am not an African-American. I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!"

Meanwhile, this same proclamation has won me love, respect, and admiration from millions.

Thirty years ago, I attended an AA meeting. I have been sober over thirty years. At that meeting, an elderly white woman told the group about her fears and insecurities, which contributed to her alcohol abuse. I was shocked that an elderly white woman and I shared similar feelings. This incident taught me that certain feelings go beyond race, age, and gender. It is called being human.

And yet, while claiming to desire unity, shameless politicians continue to divide us by playing the old and tattered race card. I cannot relate to a black, Hispanic, or whoever agenda. We are all human beings desiring the best for our families, loved ones, and country. Brothers and sisters, that is the true American agenda.

- Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

[Bravus]

1. Yes, there are black conservatives too. Lots of them, actually.

2. Not all objections to the President are based on race.

3. But some clearly are.

This piece successfully punctures the straw man notion that all objections to Obama are racist. It says nothing useful about the proportion of objections that *are* race-based.

I agree with the overall thrust of the article that the debate should be on the merits. Of course, claims that the very centrist Obama is a socialist are not arguments on the merits...

[bonnie]

1. Yes, there are black conservatives too. Lots of them, actually.

2. Not all objections to the President are based on race.

3. But some clearly are.

[Bravus]

Nope: in fact he would be very at home in the centre-right part here in Australia. His policies and actions simply *are not* of the Left at all.

And the fact that over 50% believe his ideology is socialist (I assume this is a real stat and not one you just thought of) doesn't mean he actually is a socialist, it means over 50% of Americans don't know what socialism is.

[bonnie]

Not sure what the original post was posted for other than to say Black conservatives exist as well.....duh! I never saw the existing conservative rhetoric against Obama as anything other than 'we lost' whining politics. It would also be 'duh' to suggest people of all nationalities in this country have varying opinions. To say that all Black people do not support Obama is another 'duh'!

One thing for sure about politics, the losing side always continues with the 'whine and cheese' long past when it's all over.

[Bravus]

We'll see, I guess, in the mid-terms and in a couple of years. As I've said before, I think there's disappointment from the left, and on-going opposition from the right... but I don't think the Republicans are really offering a credible and attractive alternative at this point, and I don't think the disappointment on the left is going to translate into voting Republican.

[bonnie]

Hopefully you can accept Carvilles poll

55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama?

July 09, 2010 9:13 AM

By Jim Geraghty

Tags: 2010, Barack Obama

The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.

Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”

On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.

When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”

In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.

[bonnie]

We'll see, I guess, in the mid-terms and in a couple of years. As I've said before, I think there's disappointment from the left, and on-going opposition from the right... but I don't think the Republicans are really offering a credible and attractive alternative at this point, and I don't think the disappointment on the left is going to translate into voting Republican.

The right has always opposed him. Those that voted for him are leaving in droves. It was the moderates and independents that are responsible and they are the ones that have more than a little disappointment.

[Dr. Shane]

Disappointed liberals are not going to switch and vote Republican. They are just going to sit home and not vote at all.

[jasd]

>>Yes, there are black conservatives too. Lots of them, actually.<<

Given that the 2008 exit polls showed that between 95 and 97% of Blacks voted for Obama indicate, at least, two things: one) there is definitely hyphenation in the psyche of our Blacks, and 2) the ‘many Black conservatives’ have, apparently, gone to ground. (Latinos followed with approx 67% voting for Obama {imagine the combined vote of the Latino Population, legal and presently illegal combined with the Black vote!?}—adios Republic! Asians totted 63% for Obama – not quite, but close to Wellsville)

>>...the proportion of objections that *are* race-based.<<

It seems mathematically inescapable that it is so; however, by such apparently small numbers as to render it moot. That said, one imagines

that “race-based objections” to Obama can hardly rise to the egregious nature – as those ‘objections’ by which MSM vilified Dubya. So, given that,

I think that race-based objections noted in MSM hardly rise to the definition of comparison, but rather – suggest more – the Party whine.

>>Of course, claims that the very centrist Obama is a socialist are not arguments on the merits...<<

Might they then – go to character vis-à-vis love of country?—and might not the “very centrist Obama” not, in fact, more exemplify nascent Fascism?

I’d say so.

Quote:

Quote:CoAspen

One thing for sure about politics, the losing side always continues with the 'whine and cheese' long past when it's all over.

Except that this time, it is the winning side that has put the ‘Race Card’ in play.

As I’ve noted above, the Party whine...: “Dubya left us $400-plus billion dollars deficit in his last year in office – that’s why everything is upcreek!” Oh oh oh!—fact is, his first year in office – Obama upped the ante by almost four times!—nigh-on Two Trillion-dollar$ in deficit spending! Oh oh oh!—yet, still with the Whine: “Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush this and Bush that!”

Shazam, Allahcazam!

Quote:

Quote:bonnie

The man is a failure as a leader.

Would that we had had a Guv’nor for whom to have voted!—who had a taste for Moose rather than ‘surf and turf’ Kobe and lobster – at those prices!

Quote:

Quote:bonnie

He would be a failure no matter what his skin color was.

I proffer, instead: that he succeeds beyond his ‘hope of change’, which is why we’re presently circling the drain – heading for the politics of animal farm – and approaching the “Third Peril” of the purported vision of Geo Washington.

_______________

...thought I'd get my tuppence in afore the thought police abort this thread.

[fccool]

Quote:

Those objections that are race based were race based before he was elected.They didn't vote for him and have always been opposed to Obama. The objections that are voiced now are not stemming from that. It is coming from his actions or inaction as the leader of this country.The economy that just keeps getting worse and he keeps doing the same thing among other issues.

That's what really bothers me about the attitudes of American rights is the partisan hackery stemming from "us and them" mentality.

When the economy was crumpling under Bush, the conservatives were blaming Clinton. Now that after 8 years of Bush, and 1 a a half years of Obama in office it's the new scape goat.

I'm sure that the left have their fair share of partisan hackery issues, but it really shows the ignorance on both sides as far as what function the president of the United States serves.

Let me remind you:

Presidents do not make laws. They can't do anything without the congress. They can't create or pass laws. They have very limited power to change anything. They can only influence the congress to change things through legislation.

So, please, let's grow up and stop blaming one man for the problems of the entire society. I would not blame bush for starting Iraq war, just as I would not blame Obama for "destroying this country". When you are looking for a savior in one man to change things, then you'll get a perpetual shift of power that will change nothing. You'll close your eyes and ears on pitfalls of people that you like and approve, and you'll scapegoat people who you don't like and approve.

You are not going to change anything at this point by voting Obama out of the office. The debt still will be climbing, be it republicans or democrats... the spending will merely shift in different directions.

Learn to be independent of the Government. Pay their dues, and they will soon choke on it and disappear into pages of history... just like Rome did, and Babylon before them.

[phkrause]

That's what really bothers me about the attitudes of American rights is the partisan hackery stemming from "us and them" mentality.

When the economy was crumpling under Bush, the conservatives were blaming Clinton. Now that after 8 years of Bush, and 1 a a half years of Obama in office it's the new scape goat.

I'm sure that the left have their fair share of partisan hackery issues, but it really shows the ignorance on both sides as far as what function the president of the United States serves.

Let me remind you:

Presidents do not make laws. They can't do anything without the congress. They can't create or pass laws. They have very limited power to change anything. They can only influence the congress to change things through legislation.

So, please, let's grow up and stop blaming one man for the problems of the entire society. I would not blame bush for starting Iraq war, just as I would not blame Obama for "destroying this country". When you are looking for a savior in one man to change things, then you'll get a perpetual shift of power that will change nothing. You'll close your eyes and ears on pitfalls of people that you like and approve, and you'll scapegoat people who you don't like and approve.

You are not going to change anything at this point by voting Obama out of the office. The debt still will be climbing, be it republicans or democrats... the spending will merely shift in different directions.

Learn to be independent of the Government. Pay their dues, and they will soon choke on it and disappear into pages of history... just like Rome did, and Babylon before them.

Excellent post Fccool

[Woody]

What has Obama done for black causes?

What has Obama done for white causes?

Are there black causes?

Are there white causes?

Is Obama black?

Is obama white?

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Obama a Christian?

Is Obama an American citizen?

Is Obama not an American citizen?