Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors.

---

Because the racist in your post is black, doesn't make YOU any less a racist for posting it. Like Joe the Plumber, you seem surprised at that accusation... I dunno why.

That's like me posting a picture of a Klansman in his sheets, and saying I'm NOT the racist here. HE'S the racist.

Nahhh.. You don't get off that easy. In fact, you don't get off at all.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Because the racist in your post is black, doesn't make YOU any less a racist for posting it. And, you, like Joe the Plumber, seem surprised at that accusation... I dunno why.

That's like me posting a picture of a Klansman in his sheets, and saying I'm NOT the racist here. HE'S the racist.

Nahhh.. You don't get off that easy. In fact, you don't get off at all.

excon

---

Now that's exactly what I expected. So if a black guy concerned about the plight of blacks can't criticize Obama, who can? Why do you want to be at war with your friends and neighbors? And why is it ok for the media to spread a lie like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors. Are we ever going to be able to discuss such things honestly or are we going to keep up the mythical wars, such as the one on women this has turned out to be?

I doubt it, I already see more manufactured charges of extremism.

---

Yes, and one of the unfortunate aspects of the article is that reinforces old racist aspects of the past. That is also a point as well.

I outlined this aspect in my previous post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Yes, and one of the unfortunate aspects of the article is that reinforces old racist aspects of the past. That is also a point as well.

I outlined this aspect in my previous post.

---

You'll have to be more specific about which of those aspects are "past."

Yes we would all like to know that for future reference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You'll have to be more specific about which of those aspects are "past."

---

The view that white people have an obligation to rule and encourage economic development of peoples from different racial and/or ethnic backgrounds so as these people can take their place economically and socially in white society. The racism manifests itself with the prevailing orthodoxy that in fact they, well never achieve this goal.

This prevailing orthodoxy manifests itself yet again with the view that African Americans need is a white president because under a white president they traditionally done better.under Obama they have slipped economically and socially.

THANK YOU tuttyd!

How is any of that past?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

How is any of that past?

---

Well, I guess that it is historically documented as a stage of colonialism. So I am saying that it is not past, it exists to this present day. Example being the article submitted by the OP

Quote:

---

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point,

---

Hello again, Steve

Last night, a right winger told me that every conservative he ever met was a closet homo, and wanted to smooch on Bill O'Reilley. He ALSO told me they're Nazi's, and have very little wieners..

Now, I didn't say that. Don't look at me.. I'm just reporting...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

hello again, steve

last night, a right winger told me that every conservative he ever met was a closet homo, and wanted to smooch on bill o'reilley. He also told me they're nazi's, and have very little wieners..

Now, i didn't say that. Don't look at me.. I'm just reporting...

Excon

---

lol, ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Well, I guess that it is historically documented as a stage of colonialism. So I am saying that it is not past, it exists to this present day. Example being the article submitted by the OP

---

And the point of the column is it does exist today under the banner of the Democratic Party, that Democrats are cheating them of their pride, respect and opportunities and keeping them enslaved to government. He isn't arguing for Republicans to rescue them, that's the failed, fraudulent policy of the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And the point of the column is it does exist today under the banner of the Democratic Party, that Democrats are cheating them of their pride, respect and opportunities and keeping them enslaved to government. He isn't arguing for Republicans to rescue them, that's the failed, fraudulent policy of the left.

---

He is arguing for the point I mentioned indirectly.. One does not have to argue a point directly to convey meaning. It is that columnist's solution is to once again to call on the Republicans to shoulder the white man's burden. It is implicit racism.

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons . Their assumption seems to be that the unwashes commoner is just too stupid to make choices for themselves. We need these public guardians of the common good to choose FOR us... for our own good.And how do they justify this? Why, for the common good, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons . Their assumption seems to be that the unwashes commoner is just too stupid to make choices for themselves. We need these public guardians of the common good to choose FOR us... for our own good.And how do they justify this? Why, for the common good, of course.

---

Tom once again I have to tell you, you haven't got it. The very fact that the commoner is unwashed is the reason for benevolence. Since we have begun washing commoners the standard of public health has improved to the point where commoners have begun washing themselves. In order to facilitate this we have provided them with water. Having seen the impact of this small gain in public education, we have provided the commoner with light so they can study at night, and schools where their children can be educated in the benefits of hygene. I see that what you are objecting to is providing commoners in need with food and medical assistance when they are unable to provide for themselves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons .

---

If you were to say this then I would say you are probably correct. As you have pointed out on a number of occasions, a problem with the Republicans is that they think they can manage the nanny state better than the Democrats.

Going on the figures presented by author of the OP article I would agree especially when it comes to managing the affairs of African Americans. That is to say they are better at in than the Democrats.

If you agree with the above premises then this is by no means a rebuttal of my position, if in fact this is what you are trying to do. Conversely, it strengthens my position. Perhaps you could point this out to the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom once again I have to tell you, you haven't got it. The very fact that the commoner is unwashed is the reason for benevolence. Since we have begun washing commoners the standard of public health has improved to the point where commoners have begun washing themselves. In order to facilitate this we have provided them with water. Having seen the impact of this small gain in public education, we have provided the commoner with light so they can study at night, and schools where their children can be educated in the benefits of hygene. I see that what you are objecting to is providing commoners in need with food and medical assistance when they are unable to provide for themselves

---

oh yeah ...the government did all that for them
The price they pay for that 'benevolence' is permanent residency in the underclass . You know that saying about the difference between giving someone a fish opposed to teaching that person how to fish .I'd expand it and say free that person from the jackboot holding them down and preventing them from fishing and becoming a part of the market place.
Joseph Perkins gets it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

oh yeah ...the government did all that for them
The price they pay for that 'benevolence' is permanent residency in the underclass . You know that saying about the difference between giving someone a fish opposed to teaching that person how to fish .I'd expand it and say free that person from the jackboot holding them down and preventing them from fishing and becoming a part of the market place.
Joseph Perkins gets it anyway.

---

Tom I obviously didn't have the right font envoked however let me say that these days you need a fishing licence to go fishing, keeping the poor from feeding themselves and whose idea is that? Not only that if you caught the fish you couldn't sell them in that market place. All of that may demonstrate that jackboot you claim but it is more likely that the fish would be contaminated by those captains of industry you love so well

You're asking me who's fault is it that there are licenses that keep people from competitng in the market place? I've addressed that many times. Those 'captains of industry ' you claim I "love" may be complicit in keeping the competition restrained . But they are bit players compared to the Leviathan behemoth who decides who can ,and who can't compete in the market .

(lol I intentionally misspelled 2 words in this (later corrected ) ,and the spell checker let it slide .. but it corrected my capitalization error at the beginning of the sentence )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Perhaps you could point this out to the OP.

---

What, I can't read?