Palin's Dangerous Race Game

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
.

there is nothing that lights up this board more that race or an opportunity to slam conservatives as monsters.


you can tell when the democrats are on the ropes. In order to get blacks to vote pull out the old race card.

Some of the tea party members may be necks just like some democraps may be black panthers or whites who think less of blacks(you know the guilty whites who helped elect the messiah):lol:



so what? I don't remember hearing anything about palin being racist.


. . . You know that they always try to group rush into anything concerning race since the mcnabb thing.


.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Palin's Dangerous Race Game</font size>


<font size="4">In her new book, the former Alaska governor questions
the patriotism of African Americans who point
out the country's imperfections.</font size></center>


By: David Kaufman
November 25, 2010


As if a new reality show, Fox News commentaries and daughter Bristol's Dancing With the Stars spin weren’t enough, Sarah Palin is back with another book: America by Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag, which was released on Tuesday. In it, the half-term governor and full-time Republican enigma shares her increasingly extremist worldview on everything from the legacy of JFK to her conflicted feelings about abortion to her commitment to giving up chocolate for a year.

Her most unflinching comments, however, center on race -- specifically, the racial dynamics surrounding the Obama presidency and the increasing suspicion by many progressives that Palin, the Tea Partiers and the entire anti-Obama establishment are motivated by racism.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Palin clearly thinks</span> not. In fact, on Planet Palin, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">racism</span> essentially does not exist but <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">is merely a misanthropic by-product of African Americans' refusal to shut up, toughen up and truly become American patriots</span>.

This question of patriotism versus racism has been tackled by both white and black leaders since before the Civil War.

Back then, Frederick Douglass rightfully asked, "What to the American slave is your Fourth of July?" during his legendary Independence Day speech of 1852. More than 150 years later, Douglass' desire to rectify the triumphs of American history with the tragedies of African-American history still resonate for many descendants of his enslaved brethren.

Yet in the prose of Palin, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">any race-based frustration expressed by African Americans is proof positive of dubious patriotism and questionable allegiance</span>:

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #FFFF00">Racism is a ploy, a canard, a smoke screen by "opponents of this new American awakening" to impede intellectual debate and castigate conservatives as "evil … [and] just bad people."</span>

The real "bad people," however, are Palin's anti-patriots, such as First Lady Michelle Obama, whose now infamous 2008 quote, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country," is resurrected yet again in America by Heart. This is Palin's "Gotcha!" moment, confirmation that the Obamas "think America -- at least America as it currently exists -- is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country."​


I suspect that this thought may have crossed the minds of both Obamas -- much as it has millions of Americans of every color, every day. Indeed, at a time when increasing poverty on Main Street contrasts with stratospheric salaries on Wall Street, how could it not? And why not?

Demanding justice by refuting the status quo has been a hallmark of American politics ever since those original Tea Partiers were polluting Boston Harbor. Acknowledging fundamental injustices and inequalities has been the first step in every American civil rights movement -- from ending slavery and enshrining women's suffrage to establishing worker-protection laws, as well as current efforts to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell."

But back to those black people. Mindful of the minefield she's conspicuously crossing, Palin is clever enough to trade "liberal" for "African American" in much of America by Heart. But her message is abundantly clear, and it's an offensive one -- in every sense of the word.


Already dancing as the Republican star of the 2012 presidential campaign, Palin is using race as a first-mover advantage. And she deserves some props in the process. By framing racism in terms of patriotism, Palin is brazenly declaring race an equal-opportunity topic -- one that she's willing to exploit by any means necessary.​


The challenge for African Americans -- indeed, all rational Americans -- is to respond to Palin's posturing in kind and in time. And they should. It's the same MO employed by most minority groups to defend their constituents from bigotry.

Take the Human Rights Campaign, America's largest LGBT advocacy group. Just last week, it issued two communiqués demanding that Palin account for her daughter Willow’s homophobic Facebook rants. Yet as it rightfully rallied for justice and accountability, there were no cries against the HRC as "unpatriotic."

Nor do critics openly question the patriotism of the Anti-Defamation League, whose well-oiled machine cites and fights anti-Semitism -- even in Israel, a foreign nation. In fact, any effort to depict Zionism as unpatriotic would likely be discounted as anti-Semitic.

Despite the backlash from July's Tea Party condemnation, the NAACP must remain unwavering in its intolerance of right-wing racism. Anything less would fuel Palin's dismissal of racism -- both within her own political base and for the entire 2012 election cycle. It would also enable Palin's patriot game-playing by setting a higher standard for black "loyalty" than for other American minority groups.

Two years after she first appeared on the national stage, Sarah Palin has gone from political curiosity to a bona fide politician. Along the way, she's created a platform that touts unity while spouting divisiveness. As her new book arrives in stores, Palin is nothing if not prescient in attacking the Obamas where it clearly hurts most. But her efforts do not merely dis the first family; they’re an affront to the very American ideals that Palin claims to uphold.


"Fighting against injustice is one of the highest forms of patriotism citizens can carve out for themselves," says George Mason University professor Roger Wilkins, author of the 2002 book Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism. "For Governor Palin to say otherwise ... suggests her ignorance and fantasy about the history of race in this country."​



David Kaufman is a New York-based writer who regularly contributes to the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Time and Monocle.


 
funny-barack-obama-2_20091119_1594728395.jpg
[/IMG]


Que the election is over, they won!!!:hmm:
 
History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)
Live Leak ^
Posted on August 6, 2009 11:59:36 AM CDT by IrishMike

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."

Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.

Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.

His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.

Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat � either in the House or the Senate � voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote. "Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans."

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void."

It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

Dems' website showing jump in history

The current version of the "History" page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments � from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women's suffrage.

A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. "You're not going to get a comment," said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.

"Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?" Barton asked. "Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about � perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website."

The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.

"Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said.

It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. "Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years."

By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn't until Harry Truman was elected that "Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender."

"That is an accurate description," wrote Barton. "Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began � that is, they made their first serious efforts � to fight against the barriers of race; yet � Truman's efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party."

Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. "And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist," Barton wrote.

The National Review noted that the Democrats' "Klan-coddling" today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."

The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was "scorned" by national GOP officials.

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.

Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

Barton's documentation said the first opponents of slavery "and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation's first abolition societies."

During the years surrounding the Civil War, "the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery," Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: "All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people."

Wallbuilders also cited John Alden's 1885 book, "A Brief History of the Republican Party" in noting that the KKK's early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.

"In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them," Alden wrote. "Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political � The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises."

Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in American now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party longterm.

But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi, who recalled his grandmother never "would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about." After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.

Citing President George Washington's farewell address, Barton told WND, "Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation."

"We shouldn't love a party [over] a candidate's principles or values," he told WND.

Washington's farewell address noted the "danger" from parties is serious.

"Let me now � warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. � The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," Washington said.
 
Malcolm X: The Democratic Party is responsible for the racism that exists in this country, along with the Republican Party. The leading racists in this country are Democrats. Goldwater isn’t the leading racist—he’s a racist but not the leading racist.2 The racists who have influence in Washington, D.C., are Democrats. If you check, whenever any kind of legislation is suggested to mitigate the injustices that Negroes suffer in this country, you will find that the people who line up against it are members of Lyndon B. Johnson’s party. The Dixiecrats are Democrats. The Dixiecrats are only a subdivision of the Democratic Party, and the same man over the Democrats is over the Dixiecrats....3
 
<font size="3">
None of the political parties (Democratic, Republican, Librarian, Tea) have proven to be above the racist fray.

The article above is NOT about political parties.

Its about one person: Sarah Palin.

I'm surprised at your attempt at defending her.


Try again.

QueEx

</font size>
 
Superior+Goals.png



For those of you who didn't guess, the cluster of icons on the left represent:
Thriving Local Economies full of Productive People
Healthy Lifestyle and Relationships
Quality Education
Safe Streets


You try again!!!

There's nothing to defend.


None of these talking heads hold any office, yet you are so afraid of them. Worry about those who cost you the election.

The republicans were tossed out because they did not govern according to their principles. The democrats were tossed out because they did govern according to their principles.
 
Last edited:
i see people like gunner on every predominately black forum...

that type of e-spionage never works on us. keep trying though. it exposes the white members more and more everyday.



peep the patterns
http://www.bgol.us/board/search.php?searchid=14514663

Aaannnnnddd you said that to say what? I see your typical groupthink on every forum. So someone thinking outside of your liberal box is white? Do you actually think white people need your vote and yet and still you never evolve in your line of thinking.

White does not equal right!!! Weez been free for a couple of years now. Typical dumbass liberal resorting to race when you can't formulate a complete thought.:confused:
 
Typical dumbass liberal resorting to race when you can't formulate a complete thought.:confused:

Annnnnnnd, that makes you what -- when you resort to name calling when your defense of the un-defensible, fails ? ? ?

QueEx
 
But back to those black people. Mindful of the minefield she's conspicuously crossing, Palin is clever enough to trade "liberal" for "African American" in much of America by Heart. But her message is abundantly clear, and it's an offensive one -- in every sense of the word.

Not only do you defend her, but you seem to be guilty of using the same buzz word-substitution as the author points out about Sarah Palin, i.e., use of the word "liberal" when speaking of "African Americans":


Aaannnnnddd you said that to say what? I see your typical groupthink on every forum. So someone thinking outside of <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">your liberal box is white?</span> Do you actually think white people need your vote and yet and still you never evolve in your line of thinking.

White does not equal right!!! Weez been free for a couple of years now. Typical <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">dumbass liberal </span>resorting to race when you can't formulate a complete thought.:confused:
 
Not only do you defend her, but you seem to be guilty of using the same buzz word-substitution as the author points out about Sarah Palin, i.e., use of the word "liberal" when speaking of "African Americans":



Most blacks are liberal. Am I wrong?
You defend Nancy Pelosi policies!!! Why don't you bookmark that!



So you're back to posting someone's OPINION as fact!!!! Ok when someone else does it don't belly ache.
Palin is clever enough to trade "liberal" for "African American" in much of America by Heart.
 
If you want to use an article to sum up the right.

This op-ed describes your groupthink



Does Black Allegiance Reflect Collective Wisdom?
By Lorin Crenshaw

In James Surowiecki’s captivating, bestselling book The Wisdom of Crowds, he explores a very simple idea: that large groups of people are smarter than a handful of experts or any one individual – no matter how intelligent they are – better at solving problems, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future. Whether observing the collective wisdom of market participants in assigning values to stocks or an individual deciding whether to take an umbrella to work by taking a cue from what the rest of the neighborhood is doing, Surowiecki presents a persuasive case that following the crowd, rather than one’s personal judgment, very often results in the right answer. †

The strength of Surowiecki’s thesis presents an intriguing question when applied to the conundrum that is black American’s seemingly unshakable allegiance to the Democratic Party. Specifically, if following the crowd is often the wisest choice, does black American’s decision to award nearly 90 percent of their collective voting equity to one party reflect collective wisdom?

Fortunately, Surowiecki thoroughly details the conditions that give rise to optimal group decision-making – providing a framework for evaluating such a difficult question. His research suggests that four conditions must be satisfied for a group’s decision to be highly likely to reflect the “smartest choice”: 1) diversity of opinion; 2) independence (people’s opinions are not determined by the people around them); 3) decentralization (people are able to specialize and draw from local knowledge); and 4) a method exists to summarize the group’s opinions into a single representative view – such as polling data. A breakdown in any of these conditions and the likelihood that a group’s collective decision reflects the best choice declines very sharply.

The first two conditions in the framework – diversity and independence – are important because, ironically, the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus. Oddly enough, the best way for a group to be “smart” is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible. The essence of the third condition – decentralization – reflects the fact that the closer a person is to a problem the more likely he or she is to have a good solution to it. Therefore, it is crucial that the group’s decision be made by individuals acting on their own local and specific knowledge rather than on the basis of one particularly influential person or group of opinion leaders.†† Applying this framework to blacks’ political allegiance offers insights into whether this choice reflects the wisest distribution of their political leverage to achieve their ultimate aim – black empowerment.

Diversity of Opinion

Assessing whether a group’s opinion reflects sufficient diversity is admittedly an imprecise exercise. Nevertheless, certain proxies offer adequate guideposts. An excellent quantitative proxy, for example, is polling results. On this basis, exit poll data from the 2004 Presidential election show that while voting patterns of whites (Bush, 58 percent / Kerry, 41 percent), Latinos (Bush, 46 percent / Kerry, 53 percent) and Asians (Bush, 44 percent / Kerry, 56 percent) imply balanced dispersion across the entire political ideological spectrum, blacks’ highly concentrated pattern (Bush, 11 percent / Kerry, 88 percent) reflects the opposite – a nearly unanimous consensus.

A good qualitative proxy of whether diversity exists is the degree to which a group’s members are pressured to conform. This indicator works well because where considerable pressure exists, a group’s members are more likely to adopt a view not because he or she firmly believes it, but because it is easier to adopt that view than to challenge the group.

Perhaps the most pedestrian example of pressure to conform is the reflexive presumption among most blacks that any group member who votes Republican is, to some degree, at best, an Uncle Tom or inauthentic individual somehow disconnected from the community’s needs and, at worst, afflicted with some form of a self-hatred complex. Although many blacks may dispute this assertion, particularly among mixed company, this instinct is an unflattering, yet irrefutable facet of black culture.

A recent example of this form of pressure occurred in August 2006 when hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons incited great criticism and was accused of being a “traitor” upon endorsing Maryland Lieutenant Governor and U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele, who is a black Republican. The resulting backlash prompted Simmons to issue a public statement a few weeks later providing a detailed explanation of his decision. Another comes from an unlikely source – the usually authoritative monthly black magazine Ebony. The magazine puts out an annual list of the “100+ Most Influential Black Americans” and in its May 2001 edition did not include Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – who, as a sitting Supreme Court member, is by definition one of the most influential persons in America – let alone the black community. Clearly, Thomas’ exclusion was the sole result of Ebony’s liberal editors’ disagreement with his views. Other black Republicans who are regularly excluded, yet have influenced the lives of many, include Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Armstrong Williams and Walter Williams.

A second form of pressure to conform is the well-established pattern of the black establishment (i.e., NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus members, black opinion leaders, etc.) allowing blatantly racist depictions of prominent black Republicans to go entirely unchecked. By contrast, the same images – often reminiscent of the Sambo imagery used by American animators in the 1930s and 1940s – would almost certainly generate public statements of rebuke if they depicted prominent black Democratic leaders. This familiar pattern, in effect, serves to publicly reprimand and ostracize black Republicans for adopting views at odds with the dominant ideology. It also forces blacks that might consider actively supporting a Republican candidate to literally “think twice”. On the one hand, they must weigh their view of what is in the community’s best interest, while, on the other hand, weighing negative repercussions from the group.

Recent examples of this sort of pressure include a cartoon issued in 2005 by black journalist and popular blogger Steve Gilliard soon after Steele announced his intention to run for Senate. Specifically, the cartoon depicted Steele as a minstrel with a caption underneath saying, “I’s Simple Sambo and I’s running for the Big House.” Another was the offensive 2004 drawing by left-wing cartoonist Jeff Danziger, who happens to be white, depicting Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice as Prissy, the dim-witted slave girl caricature from the movie Gone With the Wind. Finally, the now defunct Emerge magazine, an issues-oriented magazine that targeted upscale blacks, twice parodied Justice Thomas on its cover. In the first cartoon, Thomas was wearing an Aunt Jemina-style headscarf. In the second cartoon, Thomas was pictured as a lawn jockey standing in front of the Supreme Court. Inside the pages of the magazine, there was a drawing of Thomas shining the shoes of Justice Scalia. That neither of these instances drew the black establishment’s scorn evidences that clear penalties exist for embracing divergent views within the black community. In cases such as these, that penalty has been relinquishing any expectation of establishment support – even when subjected to very public, outright racism.

This small sampling of unflattering depictions and reflexive characterizations of blacks who actively support Republican candidates and ideology represents the tip of the iceberg of documented examples of this aspect of black culture. The goal here is not to provide an exhaustive list of such incidents. Instead, it is to show that pressure to conform to one political ideology is a bonafide aspect of black culture. Therefore, blacks’ collective voting decisions are formed within a cultural atmosphere that penalizes divergent views and rewards adhering to the consensus – precisely the opposite of the conditions necessary for optimal group decision-making.

Independence

Given the two forms of pressure already described, it follows that the voting decisions of blacks do not occur within a cultural atmosphere conducive to independent thinking – the second condition for optimal decision-making, according to Surowiecki. Notably, his research shows that a potential result of environments where independence does not reign is a psychological phenomenon known as ‘social proof’ – or the tendency to assume that if lots of people are doing something or believe something, there must be a good reason why. Specifically, rather than challenge the group, pressured voters are especially susceptible to resorting to social proof as a basis for their decisions and substituting it for dispassionate, critical analysis of the issues – exactly what is required to develop a unique point of view.

Decentralization

Decentralization is a condition that the cultural atmosphere in which blacks vote appears to pass. Although certain black opinion leaders may be very influential, ultimately, most blacks voting decisions are most likely determined by the direction of the trends within their respective communities and their interpretation of which party’s policies are most likely to improve those trends (i.e., black empowerment). However, while the data influencing each voter (e.g., economic growth, job creation, quality of schools, unemployment rates, crime trends, poverty rates, income growth, etc.) satisfies the decentralization condition by reflecting local knowledge, failure of the black cultural atmosphere along the other conditions – diversity of opinion and independence – increases the odds that group members fail to objectively consider alternative views on the causes of and solutions to the trends reflected in the data. Such differences lie at the very core of what distinguishes so-called “conservative” versus “liberal” ideology.

Polling data from national elections easily satisfies Suroweicki’s fourth condition – that a mechanism exist to consolidate the group’s opinions into a single view.

In summary, applying Surowiecki’s framework to blacks’ staunch political allegiance is quite telling. It reveals that rather than reflecting collective wisdom, the political allegiance of black America is more likely the result of a cultural atmosphere in which 1) divergent views invite scorn and penalties rather than encouragement, 2) consensus is more likely than constructive disagreement and 3) allegiance is rewarded over independent thinking. This set of conditions could hardly be at greater odds with those proven to foster optimal group decision-making.

Ironically, indiscriminate allegiance is at odds with the very reason blacks vote at all – their desire to achieve black empowerment. Rather than hastening this goal, allegiance results in suboptimal political leverage due to Democrats, understandably, taking blacks’ votes for granted and Republicans, understandably, being pessimistic they may persuade blacks to objectively consider alternate views on thecauses of and solutions to their community’s concerns.

Correcting the cultural atmosphere that has given rise to suboptimal decision-making will not occur quickly. However, the upside – raising the value of blacks’ collective voting equity by putting it in play – is compelling. That process begins by raising awareness of the detrimental nature of the mental errors caused by the current atmosphere and inspiring blacks to address this reality in the only sustainable manner – one new critical thinker at a time.
 
Last edited:
Most blacks are liberal. Am I wrong?
You defend Nancy Pelosi policies!!! Why don't you bookmark that!

Cite the article or publish your research which demonstrates your conclusion that "most" black people are . . . whatever. Your over-use of pigeon-hole meaningless labels is interesting.


You defend Nancy Pelosi policies!!! Why don't you bookmark that!

AND, while you're at it, post where I have defended Nancy Pelosi. Is lying another thing you do when your defense of that indefensible chick fails ? ? ?

QueEx
 
If you want to use an article to sum up the right.

This op-ed describes your groupthink



Does Black Allegiance Reflect Collective Wisdom?
By Lorin Crenshaw

I'm not reading all that shit. LOL. Answer the questions without resort to long articles in which you fail to point out which exact passage that you're relying upon.

Don't be afraid, use your own words -- show us that you don't need "Someone else-think".


QueEx
 
Cite the article or publish your research which demonstrates your conclusion that "most" black people are . . . whatever. Your over-use of pigeon-hole meaningless labels is interesting.


This is a fact and you know it!! You post any election result and my point will be proven. 13% of the population. 90% vote democrap including you!!!:lol:




AND, while you're at it, post where I have defended Nancy Pelosi. Is lying another thing you do when your defense of that indefensible chick fails ? ? ?
Pick any Obama policy it was rubber stamped by Nancy and You.
You defend healthcare, cap and trade against tea party et al.


QueEx



Find the bookmark!!
 
I'm not reading all that shit. LOL. Answer the questions without resort to long articles in which you fail to point out which exact passage that you're relying upon.

Don't be afraid, use your own words -- show us that you don't need "Someone else-think".


QueEx

Pot calling the kettle black!!!
That's your problem Mr. Liberal you refuse to read anything that takes you away from the safety net.
 
Like I thought. Another gotdamn Cheerleader, waving conservtive pom poms knowing only the damn chant/cheer -- but no facts. :lol:

Because a person votes for a candidate from a particular party DOES NOT MEAN whether that person is liberal, conservative, independent, etc.

There are "conservatives within in the democratic party just as there are persons of liberal leaning in the republican party. There are a myriad of reasons why people vote for a particular candidates.

Not understanding that demonstrates that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about -- just repeating the things you've heard other know-nohtings say without any research to back it up.

QueEx
 
Gotta go; time to go jogging (I've exercised my fingers enough; time to exercise my body). Take your time while I'm gone and try to come up with some dialog, instead of cheerleading (maybe then, I get put in some good exercise of my mind).

:lol:

QueEx
 
Gotta go; time to go jogging (I've exercised my fingers enough; time to exercise my body). Take your time while I'm gone and try to come up with some dialog, instead of cheerleading (maybe then, I get put in some good exercise of my mind).

:lol:

QueEx

Call it what you want. Everything you have championed for has been refutiated by America.
The crap democrats want to impose on you, they didn't even run on. Your messiah didn't give a rats ass about you the first go round, but when you guys support started to fall off he came kissing your ass; and like always you fell for it.

What has Obama did for education que?
What about jobs for black America!!!! 16% oh yeah it's Bush's fault.
Like I aforementioned , the only thing that get you and your ilk going is race!!!
Which is what is fed to you by your fellow community organizers.

How's that hopey changey working out for ya!
 
Like I thought. Another gotdamn Cheerleader, waving conservtive pom poms knowing only the damn chant/cheer -- but no facts. :lol:

Because a person votes for a candidate from a particular party DOES NOT MEAN whether that person is liberal, conservative, independent, etc.

There are "conservatives within in the democratic party just as there are persons of liberal leaning in the republican party. There are a myriad of reasons why people vote for a particular candidates.

Not understanding that demonstrates that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about -- just repeating the things you've heard other know-nohtings say without any research to back it up.

QueEx

Dude dont take yourself as a serious arbiter of all. You are not published. You're simply a moderator ---- on a porn board.
 
Dude dont take yourself as a serious arbiter of all. You are not published. You're simply a moderator ---- on a porn board.

When you can't respond, reduce the whole thing to merely: a porn board.

QueEx
 
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqGeukU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqGeukU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>


Que on the left with glasses!!
 
When you can't respond, reduce the whole thing to merely: a porn board.

QueEx

If you are expecting self awareness from a conservative, you will be waiting till the end of time. They can't admit any fault in fact they believe every wrong in America or committed by America is the fault of liberals. Any progress that this country has made they want to link it to some twisted idea that it is actually a conservative principle. They feel that as long as the never accept responsibility for anything wrong that it is same as never doing wrong.

So why not take the point of view that racism doesn't exist...
 
The black guy in the video cosigned whats been said about Palin being the new voice and face of conservatism. The white guy tried to paint a big tent picture of the rep party but recent facts don't support him. It seems that the honeymoon is over between the Palin Tea Party and old school neocons. When Mrs Bush says Palin should stay in Alaska she means it open season on you little girl. The next 2 years in D.C. are going to be rough.
 
Gunner;9150641The republicans were tossed out because they did not govern according to their principles. [B said:
The democrats were tossed out because they did govern according to their principles[/B].

That's not true. Like most elections, this was decided by turnout. The people that voted against Democrats in 2008 were energized and turned out in 2010 while the people that voted for them did not because they didn't feel the Democrats stood by their principles and worked too hard to find "common ground" with the party the majority of voters just threw out.
 
That's not true. Like most elections, this was decided by turnout. The people that voted against Democrats in 2008 were energized and turned out in 2010 while the people that voted for them did not because they didn't feel the Democrats stood by their principles and worked too hard to find "common ground" with the party the majority of voters just threw out.

This is what scared the American people. How did they work hard???? Dems had the majority in both houses. Anything they wanted to ram through without even reading the bill they did. Obama was looking for common ground so that the right would cosign their mess. Thus, lead to the party of NO. How did the dems not stand by their principles? Almost everything the dems ran on in 08 was passed.(Major legislation)

As I mentioned before, the same principles you say they embraced many dems didn't champion during the election.

Has the economy turned around? Have businesses started hiring again? What principles?????:hmm:



Energized/More like Duped
I'm sure you've seen this. He grins while she conveys her concerns.



<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A6smXinWzos?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A6smXinWzos?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Last edited:
Has the economy turned around? Have businesses started hiring again? What principles?????:hmm:

In the face of "NO"; in the face of "we wish him to fail"; in the face of "we must limit him to one term"; in the face of the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression - - YES, its slowly turning around, despite or, shall I say, in spite, of everything, including the kitchen sink, that many republicans and conservative pundits have thrown out there to block, hinder, stall, interfere with, and forestall a recovery "under this President."

QueEx
 
`

FYI: I'm not a fan of posting videos to express my thoughts. But I
am posting this one in response to the one posted by Gunner, above.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nV5YrRS4y04?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nV5YrRS4y04?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
<param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=us/2010/11/23/jkusa.velma.hart.obama.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=us/2010/11/23/jkusa.velma.hart.obama.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>
 
In the face of "NO"; in the face of "we wish him to fail"; in the face of "we must limit him to one term"; in the face of the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression - - YES, its slowly turning around, despite or, shall I say, in spite, of everything, including the kitchen sink, that many republicans and conservative pundits have thrown out there to block, hinder, stall, interfere with, and forestall a recovery "under this President."

QueEx

Where is it turning around
Jan 2010

U.S. unemployment rate for blacks projected to hit 25-year high


By V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 15, 2010
Unemployment for African Americans is projected to reach a 25-year high this year, according to a study released Thursday by an economic think tank, with the national rate soaring to 17.2 percent and the rates in five states exceeding 20 percent.

Blacks as well as Latinos were far behind whites in employment levels even when the economy was booming. But throughout the recession, the unemployment rate has grown much faster for African Americans and Latinos than for whites, according to the study by the Economic Policy Institute. Moreover, the unemployment gap between men and women has reached a record high -- with men far outpacing women in joblessness.

The national trend is playing out in the Washington area, even though jobless levels are lower here.

In the District, researchers say, the unemployment rate during the third quarter of this year is expected to reach 6.1 percent for whites and 18.9 percent for blacks. Unemployment in Maryland is forecast to reach 6.1 percent for whites and 11.3 percent for blacks. And in Virginia, 6.3 percent of whites are projected to be out of work, compared with 13 percent of blacks.

The rate for Latinos in Maryland is expected to reach 7.6 percent. Researchers did not include data on Hispanics in the District and Virginia because the samples were too small.



Blacks, Hispanics and men have suffered the most mainly because they have been disproportionately employed in sectors hardest hit in the recession -- manufacturing and construction. For instance, the unemployment rate for blacks is expected to reach 27 percent in Michigan, which has been shedding auto industry jobs. Other states with jobless rates above 20 percent for blacks are Alabama, Illinois, Ohio and South Carolina.

The rate for Hispanics is projected to reach 22.2 percent in Nevada, which has experienced a dramatic slowdown in construction.

The results demonstrate that the Obama administration needs to do more to target groups with high unemployment rates, experts say. The Congressional Black Caucus wants the government to create training programs and jobs in low-income communities with the highest unemployment rates.

"It's like triage in an emergency room -- you take care of people who need the most help first and you help the others later," said Kai Filion, research analyst at the Economic Policy Institute. He said that the economic losses could result in a 50 percent poverty rate for black children, up from 34 percent in 2008.

The economic devastation for blacks and Hispanics is underscored in another study issued this week by a Boston-based nonprofit research organization called United for a Fair Economy. "State of the Dream," its annual report issued in connection with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, asserted that blacks and Hispanics are three times as likely to be poor as whites; that blacks earn 62 cents for every dollar whites earn; and that the family median net worth of whites in 2007 was $170,400, compared with $27,800 for blacks and Hispanics.

"We have a long history of discriminatory policies and practices, including outright segregation, redlining, misguided urban renewal plans and predatory lending, that have prevented people of color from building up personal wealth," said Brian Miller, executive director of United for a Fair Economy and co-author of the report.

According to the Economic Policy Institute report, the unemployment rate for blacks is projected to reach a not-seasonally adjusted rate of 17.2 percent in the third quarter of this year, up from 15.5 percent during the same period last year. And the rate for Hispanics is forecast to jump to 13.9 percent from 12.4 percent. The study is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data and projections from Moody's Economy.com.

Researchers say the unemployment rate for whites will rise 5 percentage points from the beginning of the recession in December 2007 to the third quarter of 2010. But during that same period, they say, it will climb 8.6 points for blacks and 7.9 points for Hispanics.
 
Back
Top