It has much to do with where we are today. As seen in this thread and anywhere else, people equate republicans with conservatives. Democrats can be conservative and repubs like Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Nixon, Ford, the Bush's etc...can be big govt. Nixon's racial strategy smeared all conservatives and it makes it harder for blacks to consider conservatism. The dem's strategy to take and keep the black vote was no less racially divisive.
NPR Fires Juan Williams For Saying He's Nervous Muslims Might Try To Kill Him
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
It has much to do with where we are today. As seen in this thread and anywhere else, people equate republicans with conservatives. Democrats can be conservative and repubs like Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Nixon, Ford, the Bush's etc...can be big govt. Nixon's racial strategy smeared all conservatives and it makes it harder for blacks to consider conservatism. The dem's strategy to take and keep the black vote was no less racially divisive.
c-o-r-r-e-c-t-i-o-n: it makes it harder to consider the Republican Party; but not necessarily some brand of conservatism, per se.
No much more so than the Republicans strategy to keep segments of the Hispanic vote. For any party, isn't it about numbers and blocs ??? Everybody party loves to throw a Bloc-Party while claiming that its competitior parties are all run by special interests, i.e., blocs.
QueEx
1. Reagan did a lot of deficit spending while fighting the cold war (and I'm not gonna cry that he inherited the cold war). His tax cuts on the rich (70% to less than 40%) stimulated most of the growth that occurred during his presidency and in the decades after his presidency. He left an economy that was capable of paying for that deficit. Tax cuts have historically increased tax revenues. 0bama admitted to this in a debate when asked would he raise the capital gains tax even though cutting it has always produced more revenue to the govt. He said he would raise it in the interest of fairness. Imagine that. He'd hurt tax revenue just to spite the rich. Check google/youtube or whatever you want, but I saw him say it. As far as loopholes in the tax code:
Both sides are guilty. Presidents don't write tax code, but they sign/veto the bills. I'm sure Charlie Rangel did everything he could to eliminate loopholes. 1 of the biggest tax loopholes is to become super-rich where you can have no determinable income and insulate yourself from tax-increases. I'm sure the dems will do something about this even though they receive more money from Wall St than repubs. Dems are totally for the little guy.
2. Unemployment benefits have always been taxed, imagine that! So LBJ, Carter, and Clinton (1st black prez) were taking $ from the unemployed? Where's the compassion? 0's stimulus bill cuts taxes on unemployment, but doesn't eliminate it. The 1st $2400 is taxable (info courtesy of irs.gov). So at $400 a week for 52 weeks you only pay tax on 11 weeks. I guess these are some of the tax cuts they brag about. And the longer your on unemployment the more of this tax cut you receive I guess. And why do repubs get criticized on tax cuts/rebates for the rich, but never for tax cuts/rebates for everyone else? I don't remember people tearing up those checks from Bush or returning them to sender.
3. I'll leave it to you to wonder if conservatives care more about illegitimacy than abortion, but I think that they go hand-in-hand. I see the white pro-life crowd protesting abortion in the blackest reaches of Hempstead NY so evidently its a colorblind effort. Margaret Sanger, patron saint of Planned Parenthood and hero to feminists preached on both sides of the Atlantic that abortion was a good way to suppress the black population. She also spoke at a Klan rally.
I agree.
Re: Your correction
It throws doubt on both republicans and conservatism, more on the former than the latter. But if a black wants to vote for a conservative he/she is gonna have trouble finding 1 in the dem party as it exists today. Conservatives are already few & far between in the repubs.
Dig deeper! Always dig deeper!
source: Huffington Post
Juan Williams Is Right: Political Correctness About Terrorists Must End!
An Open Letter to Juan Williams
Dear Juan,
Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don't think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that's another story).
But there's more to this -- and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just "the first drop of blood." We can't let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.
I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, "You can't ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to 'this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.'"
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn't be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the "first droplet of the flood," not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it's not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you're 100% right: We shouldn't let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven't taken it far enough.
So Juan, I'm asking you to join me on a crusade -- whoops! scratch that, let's call it a "mission" -- to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here's what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands... And that's what we Muslims are trying do, because you're occupying Iraq and Afghanistan... So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.
And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there's email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:
Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World... Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there's what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. "He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein," said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words "Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You."
So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists' real motivations. We can't let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren't trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They're killing us because we're in their countries killing them.
Yours,
Michael Moore
P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It's been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.
P.P.S. Here's something else that I'd sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can't let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?
UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn't buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then -- for instance, "Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment... Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me."
If a black person will have difficulty finding a conservative to vote for today in the Democratic Party; and conservatives are few and far between in the Republican Party, then Conservatives, as you define the term, are as scarce as hen's teeth - no ???
How do you define "conservatism" ? ? ?
QueEx
I loosely defined it on the 1st page. I'm saying that conservatives are more likely to run as repubs than dems. They are few in the repubs and even less in the dems. The healthcare debate proved that there is no such thing as a blue dog dem. The blue dogs rolled over on their backs while Pelosi & Reid rubbed them on the belly. If a pro-life dem like Stupak will sign off on govt funded abortions then he wasn't pro-life to begin with. There are conservative dems but will they stay in the party and if so, will they be believable?
As far as not-so-conservative repubs or CINO's, they couldve done a lot more tricks to delay the bill. Too many of them would be happy to tweak the healthcare bill, put a repub stamp on it, and go on with biz as usual.
Few conservatives are perfect conservatives. Everyone is a hypocrite. I'd say MLK was generally conservative, but more of a social conservative.
The civil rights movement had 2 fronts. There was the W.E.B. DuBois camp which along with the naacp sought racial parity through activism and the Booker T Washington camp that sought racial parity through primarily non-govt means.
Booker T had an extensive network of black entrepreneurs, professionals, and intellectuals known as the Tuskegee Machine. He was very politically connected, but his much of what he did was outside of the federal govt. He did however give money to people who were more activist oriented and even people who called him an Uncle Tom in public.
What MLK did was petition the govt for legislation which protected the rights of blacks. All of this legislation was well-intentioned, but not always conservative. Asking the federal govt to direct a state what to do is fine as long as the fed is enforcing the constitution. But directing private businesses to serve people who they don't want to serve is NOT conservative. A Booker T solution to the problem wouldve been to open more black businesses. This is where Rand Paul stuck his foot in his mouth when asked about civil rights legislation. He doesn't believe the fed should tell people who they should do business with although he doesn't think that whites should discriminate against blacks. The case can be made that all black organizations and colleges are illegal, especially when funded by tax dollars. No one has tried yet.
Well-intentioned things were accomplished during the Progressive era, the New Deal era,the civil rights era, & the Great Society era but the way that they were done left a bad taste in the mouths of conservatives and libertarians. Much of the time the people behind these well-intentioned ideas had the sole intention of expanding and consolidating the powers of the fed govt.
Without the IRS & fed FDR couldn't accomplish the New Deal, without the New Deal a lot of civil rights legislation wouldn't have happened, and so on up to the point where a president has the power to take over GM & order people to buy healthcare. All of these things were done with good intentions. We should remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody here wants a future President Bush taking over companies or telling people what to buy.
There are always non-govt solutions to a problem. In the 1800's people looked at the poor and said "Hey! Capitalism has recessions! What can we do to help poor people during recessions/panics?" The free market invented the savings account. Poor people wanted to be self-reliant so they were given a low-risk opportunity to invest money for rainy days.
Amen.
Nowadays we say that the govt is responsible.
Krauthhammer "Where did he go over the line?? He's a friend of mine!!
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUuzuzVr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUuzuzVr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUuzuzVr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUuzuzVr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
Juan Williams and Wife
I still don't know why Williams is considerer a liberal.
Responding to a 1986 racial profiling incident of a young Black man. Has he learned to be a hypocrite since working for Faux?
Source: Michigan State University Archives
THE LAZY MAN'S SUBSTITUTE
Neither black nor white store owners are in business to display the virtues of admitting people of all colors, creeds, and fashions to their stores. They are in business to make money. I would want to take precautions to prevent robbery; I would look closely at people entering the store. The race of a potential customer would be one factor among many to be considered as I girded myself against thieves.
But in Washington and almost all other major cities, blacks do patronize jewelry stores. A jeweler in Beverly Hills who closed his door to heavily bejeweled Mr. T would be foolishly closing his cash register. Unless I am a racist, race and age cannot be the sole deciding factors in calculating whom I will and will not let into my store. And I certainly would not close my door to, say, all young black men - not even to those who are casually dressed and behaving nervously. I would act cautiously in dealing with them, as I would with an antic, strangely dressed white man.
As a cabdriver I would apply the same considerations. Discrimination can be used judiciously. I would certainly exclude one class of people: those who struck me as dangerous. Nervous-looking people with bulges under their jackets would not be picked up; nor would those who looked obviously drunk or stoned. It all comes down to a subjective judgment of what dangerous people look like. This does not necessarily entail a racial judgment. Cabdrivers who don't pick up young black men as a rule are making a poorly informed decision. Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment.
The elevator question is disingenuous. I suspect you are suggesting that i am a white woman getting into an apartment building elevator with a strange black man. Of course, black women have just as much to fear as white women. Nevertheless, black women living in black neighborhoods ride elevators with black men frequently, and do so without being raped. In this situation and all others, common sense in my constant guard. Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.
Juan Williams Juan Williams is a reporter for the Washington Post
This situation remains me of some bs from college. I had two roommates that had a class with this white girl. One of my roommates was white, Kevin, and the other was black, Paul. The girl hung out with both and one day she told Paul that she didn't like black people but he was one of the good ones. Paul flipped out on her and he was telling Kevin and me why he doesn't deal with her anymore. Paul and I were going back and forth about how messed up that was. Kevin then told us that she was raped by a black guy like that legitimized her racism. Paul and I both explained to that idiot Kevin that it makes no difference cause if the rapist was white she wouldn't react the same way like "I cool with black men but I can't mess with whites". Either way categorizing someone based on an experience you had with someone who looked the same is bigotry plain and simple.
Juan Williams is an idiot and any black person justifying this crap... is the same. Brothers are acting very sheep like cosigning bigotry. White people keep creeping with covert bigotry, code words and slick justifications for outright bigotry and some blacks will be right there with them until they realize that the bigotry is for us all to share.
Juan Williams is an idiot and any black person justifying this crap... is the same. Brothers are acting very sheep like cosigning bigotry. White people keep creeping with covert bigotry, code words and slick justifications for outright bigotry and some blacks will be right there with them until they realize that the bigotry is for us all to share.
The problem is that racism is a staple of conservatism that's why the racial strategy took hold in a lot of conservative areas of the country. Conservatives could not wait to leave the Democrats because of liberals stance on race.
While liberals are racist also, but in reality most of their racism stems from them thinking that the have to help you or that they know how to help you better than you know how to help yourselves. While this is bad, I prefer this over the "I hate minorities" stance of conservatism.
I know their are conservatives who don't have racist views but they are more willing to take a blind eye to that stuff when it benefits them then try to combat it.
In reality Blacks have a lot of conservative point of views but to ignore or accept racism isn't one of them.
The GOP started as a abolitionist party. They were about rights for everyone. MLK was the last political figure to take that message to the streets. A racist republican is a oxymoron at best, a sad joke at worst.
People really need to study history. The abolition movement wasn't purely based of the idea that slavery was inhuman. A bulk of the supporters of that movement were white workers who were upset because they could not compete with slave labor based on cost and skill. White business owners in the North watched their white counter parts get rich beyond belief. For a large part abolition wasn't a moral issue but an economics issue. Lincoln wrote extensive letters about the slavery issue from the stand point of it dividing whites not the well being of blacks.
After years of Republicans taken a backseat to Democrates, Nixon pulled the only move he had to save the party which was to open its door to the racism of the south. Racism has never been single out to one party and as always blacks vote with the lesser of two evils which has switched through history. It is usually the party that holds on to more conservative points of view that becomes a rest haven for the harden racist.
You obviously have limited knowledge of history. The Republican Party was an off shoot of the so called Free Soil Democrats and Conscience Whigs. True, the Republican Party's original platform was abolition of slavery in all parts of the then United States and it's territories. But they also wanted the government to aid in the completion of the proposed transcontinental railroad, build and improve roadways, harbors and canals for the security and propriety of commerce. Sounds like they kind of strayed from their original tenets.
We have no permanent membership in any political parties, just permanent interests!
Not true. The abolishion moment led to the republican party. Republicans, at the time were not concerned about rural whites. They wanted to abolish slavery and the Radical Republicans, a faction within the early republican party that were disliked by moderate and liberal republicans, were interested in bringing emancipated slaves up to a level that would make them independent. That sentiment ended around 1880. The abolitionist movement encompassed antislavery and womens suffrage. The issue of the latter did not become serious until the early 20th century, much to the dismay of Susan B. Anthony and other suffragettes.
Voting power was also in the mix but if you read about fights over the expansion of slavery into newly formed states like Kansas and so on. White workers were highly against slavery moving into their territories/states because it would destroy their livelihoods. Compromise after compromise was made between the North and South to end the debate on slavery but with each newly formed territory/state slavery was bought back up, because of the voting power issue on political level but for average white person who voted, it was mainly economics.
I'm sure you have a point in here somewhere. I mean no one would take the time to type this just to reiterate whats already been said.
I'm sure you have a point in here somewhere. I mean no one would take the time to type this just to reiterate whats already been said.
I'm sure you have a point in here somewhere. I mean no one would take the time to type this just to reiterate whats already been said.
Similar threads
