No, being someone who knows how to read limits me to that, if I were to go by your own use of the word "hate". It's simply impossible for it on the one hand to apply to anything you quoted Connerly as saying, but on the other hand not to apply to your own statements about him.

I'm not going to waste 's bandwidth or my time sparring with you Blackstone. I said from the beginning that I do not hate Ward Connerly. If you bothered to read before ranting you might have picked up on that. I assume no responsibility for your faulty comprehension. Parse the words and add the spin to your heart's content.

If you actually want to debate (and since you've defined it that must be why you're here), perhaps you'd care to address the actual on-topic issue that I raised in my previous post that you did not comment on.



Got any on-topic response to that, Blackstone?

Can a black American have good reason to be a Republican?

Of course. Perhaps those African-Americans who would align themselves with the Republican party think less about race, perse. It is possible to be a person of color who does not necessarily see the world in terms of color.

Let me give you an analogy here. I'm a woman who does not subscribe to feminist ideology. I think more in terms of women as individuals rather than as "women."

Isn't it possible for blacks to view life that way? They are of color, but that is not the context in which they view life and/or politics. Condoleeza Rice is a good example. She's an African-American woman who may not be placing the crux of her life and her own set of political or social ideology on that fact. Just because she's black doesn't mean she has to champion the rights of blacks, if that's not what she feels her purpose is.

Is it ok to call Black Republicans ephitets such as "uncle Tom" or "oreo"? Are these accurate and deserved remarks?

No, it's not. Let me share a personal anecdote. I was condemned by someone who posts on this board for my views on womanhood because they didn't align with her feminist views. I do not view my life in the context of my gender. It is a mere detail of my existence and it is not necessarily what drives my position on social or political issues.

Well, I can't say that I understand exactly what Ward Connerly stands for, excepting the affirmative action notion. Are there other issues with his ideas?

I do think at times that you take some of this personally and/or let it make you upset. However, I'm interested in whether your disdain for Ward Connerly, and the reason you call him "puppet, etc" has anything to do with topics other than affirmative action. I don't think that everyone has the same notions about affirmative action, and what you'll find is that nearly the only remaining champions of the cause... happen to be black, when the idea was to encourage Native Americans, women, etc (all minorities) to enter our universities, careers, and leadership positions, etc.

My boss, a regularly very even-keeled person, is who I call a "closet Angry Democrat" (and I tell him this alot!). He came from Chicago's blue collar area, and moved to Dallas in his teens. He still holds on to old-fashioned notions that Unions are productive, etc. He surely hates guys like Rick Santorum, even though he can't really tell us why. He just hates the word Republican... great guy. Just can't talk politics w/ him. But funny enough, he's pro life, is for a flat tax, etc. Get my drift? I may be wrong... but I feel like your disdain for Ward Connerly isn't that he's really some slave to white society (Whoever that is! ), but moreover that he is against affirmative action (which happens to be a very republican stance) and you hate that.

Am I wrong? Or are there other issues? Because... umm... there are other very good Black Republicans that don't care for affirmative action. Consider that Ken Blackwell hasn't always defended affirmative action, for instance he sided with the President's stance opposing the U of Michigan's use of race as a determining factor.

Which might explain why Ken Blackwell may not get even 40 percent of the Black vote in a few weeks.

I know you think I bare my fangs at the very mention of the word, "Republican" Aevans176, but it's really not the case. I get along fine with Republicans on a local level. The further we get from the local level the more drama I have with the GOP.

I disagree with you that it's only Blacks who still champion for affirmative action. One of the biggest benefactors of affirmative action policies are White women. Racial groups of all colors, creeds and religions are beneficiaries as well and I'm fairly confident that most polls will show there is still mainstream support for affirmative action as long as quotas aren't involved.

Affirmative action is a wedge issue. It always has been and always will be. This board is full of threads (most of them locked because they went wildly off-topic) about the matter of affirmative action. For both sides of the debate it comes down to a matter of fairness. One side says you can't discriminate against people to compensate for past acts of discrimination. The other side says sometimes a few people have to be excluded to make up for the masses of people who were excluded based on their skin color.

I don't profess to have the answer that would fair and equitable for all parties concerned.

What I do find reprehensible is how Ward Connerly schleps around the country like a contemporary carpetbagger trying to overturn affirmative action programs like some kind of Pied Piper. He seems totally unconcerned that he is lessening, not expanding opportunities for Black kids trying to get into college. There has always been affirmative action programs that benefit Whites such as legacy admissions that nobody complains about. Change the skin color from White to Black and the name from George W. Bush to
Tyrone Washington and suddenly we've got drama.

I agree with Sandra Day O'Connor that affirmative action should be phased out gradually. Reasonable people should be able to come to some agreement as to how soon that phase out should happen. Just cutting it off at the ankles as Connerly does is not a solution.

I wouldn't spit on Ward Connerly if he were on fire because I think he puts his own personal enrichment and prominence over how much damage he does to the hopes of creating an educated Black middle class. My father always calls this the "crabs in a barrel" syndrome. One crab tries to crawl out and another one pulls it back in with the rest.

There is no magic bullet to solve the problems of crime, drugs, illegitimacy that Blackstone referred to earlier. But from Booker T. Washington to Cornel West, Black people have always held up education as the best chance to avoid the traps that keep them trapped in despair, poverty and no future.

I don't think Ward Connerly gives a damn about that. That makes him my enemy and I have no regard, respect or use for the man.

You can call that hate if you want to. I call it common sense.

Far be it from me to play mediator, but I think I need some clarity here because I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. If I'm understanding Nighttimer right, Aevans, I think he's saying [and I'd probably agree with him] that he doesn't have a problem with the idea of this guy being a black Republican/conservative, what Nighttimer does have a problem with is that he uses conservatism/Republican to self-promote and to harm black people in general as Nighttimer sees it. Correct me if I'm wrong NT. I can see where you're coming from if that is the case. If you see him as doing more than just being anti-affirmative action [which is perfectly fine for a black guy to be], but being purposefully anti-black then that's legit, but I think Aevan's concern is that you may just dislike Connerly just because he is anti-AA.

CP

If you had bothered to read before ranting, you would have seen that I did pick up on it, right from my first post to you, and explained why it's a disingenuous comment, given your own loose use of the word "hate" when describing Connerly's opinions. That's only been the exact point I've been making in this exchange.


That's what I've been trying to get you to do, when I said:


All you did was throw it back in my face by saying:


Are these the words of someone who's interested in a serious debate on the things he said?

In case you are, I would still take issue with your characterization of him, when you said, "I don't think Ward Connerly gives a damn about that [i.e., education of black youth]." It's just as likely that he simply doesn't favor affirmative action as a method of pursuing that goal. Now if he came out against giving a leg up to poor, uneducated youth, regardless of skin color, then you may begin to have a point. I think it's specifically the focus on skin color that he disagrees with, and if so, I completely agree with him.

You hit the nail on the head, ConservPat. :thumbsup:

My issue isn't with Connerly being a Black Republican/conservative. My issue isn't that he is opposed to affirmative action and I'm a supporter of affirmative action.

My issue is that I think Connerly willfully does harm to Black people. I'm sure he would see it quite differently.



Apparently so. They represent my honest and sincere feelings on the issue and if you find them too strong that's too bad but there's nothing I can do about it.



That's great. But I don't. Giving a "leg up" to poor, uneducated youth shouldn't require cutting off their ankles.

Leder and Blackstone, ignoring Connerly’s position on Affirmative Action for a moment, there is no reasonable explanation for Connerly’s defense of segregation today. He tried rounding the edges of Lott’s praise of Thurmond by drawing attention to the biological condition driving most people to make endogamous decisions when it comes to selecting a mate and other social preferences, but there is no way around the fact that Lott was praising an avowed, unrepentant racist and hypocrite who not only supported segregation in his private life, but codified it against the financial and social interests of minorities for his entire political career. Connerly can’t change the evils surrounding segregation and apologize for Jim Crow. Of course, I’m responding under the assumption that backlash against political correctness hasn’t reached a state that it provides cover for segregationists, so my take on Connerly, Lott and company could be outdated.

It seems whenever Nighttimger makes a “sassy” post those who disagree with his politics assume his take on things is racially guided and not politically guided. Affirmative Action and segregation do deal with racial issues, but I have a feeling that had Senator Byrd given the speech Leder so helpfully provided, Nighttimer’s “hatred” could be overlooked by those taking issue with his comments. He might even be congratulated for seeing the light.

Harms them how? By being opposed to AA, according to your posts. It's the only thing of substance that you've mentioned about him. It certainly can't be because of what he said about segregation, since whatever you may think of that, it didn't harm anyone.


Don't flatter youself. The "strength" of your opinions is irrelevant. It's the fact that you can't debate them without the use of schoolyard insults. There's nothing "strong" about that, just immature.


A person's "ankles" don't depend on the color of their covering. Connerly is one of a growing number of black public figures who understand that.



I'd congratulate him for being consistent, but that's about it. As to Connerly's comments on segregation, tangential as they are to this discussion, lederuvdapac was quite right when he pointed out that he was not advocating segregation in any way.

vsrenard:

Maybe the fog of SF has clouded your mind, but sorry, your party was the party of slavery, and the KKK was your party's armed terrorist wing. And when Governor Wallace decided to run his own party and on his own platform, he left your party, and not mine, to do it. So please spare me the nonsense about my party's purportedly racist or slave-holding mentality, as it is your party and not mine that has much to answer for.

Now to answer both you and some others, please speak with the late Jackie Robinson, who resigned from the NAACP because he considered the organization to be not militant enough, why he campaigned in support of Republican candidates? Could it be that Jackie understood that the real issue is a people's sense of self-worth and that government isn't going to build that up, but some self-help will [the resulting sense of pride following achieved ends], and so he supported Republican candidates who preached self-help for blacks? What otherwise was it that Malcolm X said, something about how if you tell them that they haven't done anything then they won't do anything? As both Malcolm and Jackie knew, self-help and the noted resulting pride in the finished product solve the problem of a lack of a sense of self-worth rather well.

All that I will otherwise say is, well, I work in the area of family law now, before that it was plaintiff's personal injury and the employee on the worker's comp side [I got tired of having to look at autopsy photos and day in the life videos]. On changing practice areas, good lawyer that I try to be, I continued to read up on all there was to read in the area. One of the more interesting items concerns the notion of "bonding." What does "bonding" mean, at least when it comes to two or more humans? Bonding doesn't mean as much as you might think. You see, our children are "bonded" to their parents, or usually so, if the parents are around, but why are they "bonded"? Is it some deep emotional connection? Or is it because our children are dependent on their parents? And what do we make of the fact that very nearly every child who is physically abused by her or his parents wants to remain with the parents nevertheless? So is it some deep emotional connection, some shared ideology if you like, or is it the child's understanding that while mom may shake me and dad may beat me, at least they feed me and keep me clothed with a roof over my head?

So when you and some others speak of this loyalty to your party, be careful. Every study ever done has shown that on the issues as a whole, black Americans identify with Republican values more than they identify with Democratic values. My gut feeling otherwise is that our black American brothers and sisters show the same loyalty to your party as the abused child shows to his abusive parents. If only they and our children could understand that there is another and better way...

Does this mean African-Americans who vote Democratic are displaying the characteristics of abused children who love their abusers so much they put their loyalty and dependency to their abuser above their own self-interest?

Wow. What a fascinating theory. And here all along, I thought Black people voted as they do based upon soberly and seriously comparing and contrasting the policies and positions of the Republican and Democratic parties and then siding with the one that best represents their political interests.

Just like everybody else does.

Amateur psychology aside, what you fail to grasp, KivrotHaTaavah is African Americans are sentient, fully mature and intelligent human beings capable of utilizing analytical skills and applying critical thinking in order to make well-reasoned, informed and thoughtful political decisions.

Just like everybody else does.

"Every study ever done" (but not actually quoted) may indicate Black Americans identify with Republican values more than Democratic values, but "every study ever done" also indicates that does not translate into actually voting Republican.

There is this concept in American's minds I guess is that all blacks basically are the same? or something? I see some pretty big differences of opinion personally- I do know that it seems that blacks in the US pretty much vote Dem down the line- so I surmise it has more to do with ANTI-black stances than the obvious similiarities that they have- I point to the Rovian push-poll against McCain in SC, the Willie Horton adds, the Jesse Helms campaigns etc- and this is recent stuff now- Trent Lott's defense by many right wingers, and the rabidly anit-clinton movement by the right in the 80s. More than affirmative action or any other ISSUE- it is these profoundly anti- black statements and campaigns and such that are pretty profound in the black community IMHO-

like others I have seen post here, the rare black republican I have talked to is more of NT's age than the younger crowd, and certainly identifies with many of the GOP conservative issues- but they say things like "I would never vote republican though"- and when you ask someone after that statement- it goes back to those issues and campaigns I mentioned- though I do sense and have heard many, many comments about Ward Connelly being an "Uncle Tom" and the "Uncle Clarence" I have heard many times, and am just now starting to hear stuff like that about Condi, but never about General Powell- though I do hear some "he was tricked by THE MAN"

But NT represents a very different, IMHO group of black proffessionals like himself ( and yes NT, you are a demograph unto yourself ) - but I think of NT as a minority within a minority these days. My history proffesor, an older black gentlmen from England at one point, very well educated, well, heck, he has a PHD and is the head of the department, so I guess I understated that- sometimes, in NT's posts, I am reminded of proffessor Liburd- his sense of outrage at many of the same things, - and, I think the younger generation has lost some of that edge, and see more resignation to "things can't be changed" and apathy today in maybe the (slightly) younger generation. I see 40 year old males I work with blaring fitty at the top of the dial- but Mr. Liburd has banned all rap music from his house, due to it's "misogyny"- but, when I asked him privately about his political orientation (he would never say such a thing in class, unethical and all that) - he said "well, I am pretty much a liberal democrat"- though, when asked about many issues, he definately had old paleo-conservative values!

Nightimer:

Please do not think for a moment that I was trying to dehumanize anyone, as that was certainly not my intent. And if it helps, simply consider battered women. Some battered women stay with their abusive significant others for precisely the same reason that abused children wish to stay with their parents. So the same phenomonen that is observable in children is also observable in adults. I used children because the obvious matter of dependance is just that in their case.

And let me share something else with you. I don't know what I think. I only think that I know what I think. There's three of me inside my head. There's the autonomic me, which regulates also those essential bodily functions and never mind what the emotional and cerebral me's think. Then there's the emotional me, who sometimes jumps the gun, and then a nanosecond later, after receiving input from the cerebral me, says to itself, ooops, I ought not to have said that. Then there's the cerebral me. Ever have that experience wherein you were thinking about something but couldn't reach resolution and because you had to attend to other matters, you thought you were letting the current thinking go [or end for now]? Then two days later the resolution just popped into your brain out of nowhere? How does that happen? Especially when the thought just popped into your head and while you had been thinking of such matter two days ago, you hadn't since, at least that you were aware of? So I don't know what I think, I only think that I know what I think, and every now and again, my brain, for reasons that I cannot understand and so cannot explain, draws this thought from seemingly nowhere. As Sir John Maddox otherwise reported in the Dec. '99 edition of Scientific American...nobody understands how decisions are made. So, yes, you and I are sentient, reasoning, adults. But please don't think for a moment that we know more about how me make decisions than Sir John, since we don't. And so nobody, repeat, nobody, understands how decisions are made.

Which brings us to the matter of self-interest. Let me first say that you must be a better man than me, since looking back under the harsh light of presumably objective, critical analysis, it appears that I have made more than a few decisions in my life that were patently against my self-interest. Some were made by me on erroneous or incomplete information, but some others were made based on what now appears to be an irrational emotional response [the cerebral me curses the day that he had to take up occupancy inside my head along with the emotional me]. So maybe you don't ever go against your self interest, but this sentient, reasoning, adult human has done so any number of times, and as you can see, I am not so proud that I cannot admit to the same. All that I will otherwise add in this regard is, well, take racists. Poor white racists. Tell me, friend, were and are they acting in accord with their own self-interest? Or are some irrational thought process[es] preventing them from seeing that their oppressor is the same person or persons that are also persecuting you and yours? I mean, take the Civil War. What was that despised act of the Confederacy? The so-called 20 n law? So the rich slaveholders who stood the most to lose didn't even have to fight in defense of self and "property", but meanwhile, the poor soul got his marching orders and was sent off to die. What was the poor white Southerner fighting for? Even today, some still speak of defending the Southern way of life, but as near as I can tell, the only aspect of Southern life that Lincoln and the soon to be "radical" Repubs wanted to change, or end, was the practice of slavery. There was no other dispute. So what was the poor white Southerner who didn't own slaves, and who was never going to own slaves, fighting for? So please don't think that I'm saying that it's just more than a few "black" Americans that might be making some irrational decisions against their own self-interest, since I have made my fair share of such decisions, and so did those poor white Southerners who fought and died for something that they didn't and were never going to have and who oatherwise did so at the behest of the same souls who were oppressing both them and those made slaves.

And, lastly, maybe your debate isn't otherwise just with me. I mean, what was it that the one man said, something about how democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance?

Sorry, one more. Black Muslims. Is that phenomenon an example of self-interest, or is it against self-interest? You only need one fact to answer that question. The Arabic word used to describe "blacks" is abed, which is the same word used to describe slaves, i.e., abed means "slave" and if he or she is "black", then he or she is abed. So as I told the one black fellow who was telling me just how color blind Islam was in relation to Christianity, yes, friend, you are correct, Islam is color-blind and does not see you as "black", since Islam instead sees you as a slave, and so you are called abed.

Sorry, even one more. Some report that Clinton was the first black President, including the Black Caucus. Was he? He wasn't with respect to black Africans in Africa, since during his 8 years in office, more black Africans died in "wars" in Africa than died as a result of the American slave trade and slavery. As I am certain that you yourself are aware, Clinton now regrets that he did not do more to stop the slaughter in Africa. My purpose here is not to bash Clinton, but simply to ask, is it self-interest or not, to call the man who presided over the apathetic US while millions upon millions were slaughered in Africa, the first black President?

Let me leave you with a link re Islam and "blacks":

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/BlackandProud.htm

Now note the last paragraph. Do you know how many times NOI "Muslims" and your more truly Mohammedan, "black" Muslims, have told me that my faith is the white man's religion? Yeah, maybe so, but as the website reports, that doesn't make Islam the "black" man's religion. And there is still slave-trading and slaves in the Muslim world. So tell me, is it self-interest, or not, for a "black" African or a descendant of the same, to be Muslim? But yet millions of "blacks" claim to be Muslim. And they are sentient, reasoning, adults. What does that say about the merit of your reply to my prior post?

Truly lastly, since I'm fairly certain that you've read the Autobiography of Malcom X, please note his explanation for leaving Elijah Mohammed and the NOI and becoming your more Mohammedan Muslim. He reports that he did so because when he made Hajj, he saw that it was people of all colors who went to Mecca and made Hajj. What Malcolm didn't say in his book, and what didn't come out until after he died, was that while making the Hajj, he had occasion to observe Arab Muslims auctioning off African slaves in Saudi. You'll have to forgive me, friend, but I've never pictured Malcom X as stupid. So maybe you can explain why he remained a Muslim at all, if he were a sentient, reasoning, adult. And he had one less excuse than some others, since as stated, he SAW the slave-trading. Didn't that make Islam the Arab's religion, just as it purportedly made Christianity the white man's religion? I intend and mean no insult, but what was it that you saying again about sentient, reasoning, adults, just like everybody else? Maybe so, friend, but that may not be anything to brag about.

Good Lord, this topic is out of control!

Questions for Debate:

1. Can a black American have good reason to be a Republican?

Yes, although this is an odd question from the start. It seems to imply that in order to be Republican, one must have a good reason. While I rarely see eye-to-eye with Republicans, I think this is inherently racist to assume that black Americans need to have an excuse for being Republican. I applaud Barrack Obama and criticize Condoleeza Rice because of their political ideologies. Does their race have anything to do with it? Other than pointing out to minorities in politics, no.

2. Is it ok to call Black Republicans ephitets such as "uncle Tom" or "oreo"? Are these accurate and deserved remarks?

No, I don't think they are deserved. As a gay man, I have had to listen to countless euphemisms thrown about without nary a thought as to why they could possibly be considered offensive. I can't even count the number of times I've heard "That's gay" used derogatorily, not to describe something actually gay, but simply to call something they don't like "gay". Same goes for fag, faggot, and any of the other slurs. I've asked people why they say, "That's gay" and the response is always, "Well, I don't mean gay as in fag. I mean gay as in stupid."

Name-calling when referring to someone's inherent trait (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) should always be off limits. Name-calling when referring to someone's actions (voting for Military Commissions Act of 2006, stealing, murder, etc.) is entirely justified. That said, I wish nobody would. Resorting to gutter tricks is demeaning.

*edited to add Smileys*

If you detected an undercurrent of irritation, KivrotHaTaavah in my comment it is only because I have too much familiarity with Blacks being marginalized by comparisons to children. I have always said that it is not politically astute for Blacks to give over such a high percentage of their votes over to one party, but that is in part the fault of the Republians due to their failure to market themselves and triumph their policy initiatives and success that would attract the middle class voter.



There's quite of few of the autonomic, emotional and cerebral "me's" on with most of us firmly stuck in the "emotional me" phase. Of coure, the idea is to be more cerebral than emotional, but posts of bloodless pure logic drained of all passion don't make for the most compelling reading.



In a few weeks, thousands of African Americans will vote for J. Keneth Blackwell, Lynn Swann, Michael Steele and many other Black Republican candidates for no better reason than they are Black. Conversely, there is a hardcore percentage of Whites that will not vote for any Black candidate, no matter how conservative, experienced or qualified they may be simply because they are Black.

Voting to put a "Black face in a White place" is a irrational way to choose a politician. Professor Manning Marable used that phrase to suggest that merely changing the race of a politician does not change the way they conduct themselves once they are in office. Urban areas with troubled relations between Black citizens and White police officers who often live outside of the cities they protect often have Black mayors in charge. The thought is a "brother" in charge will be more sensitive to allegations of police mistreatment. It doesn't always work out that way because while the Black mayor may run a tighter ship in monitoring law enforcement for abusive treatment, they may also feel compelled to back the agency charged with maintaining a sense of order and safety for the benefit of the business community and the city's national image.

All human beings are motivated by self-interest. All humans make irrational decisions to vote for one candidate over the other based on something as trivial as this guy wears the wrong color of tie or that one needs to correct a overbite or they share the same color of skin.



Well, the only thing that makes democracy superior to any other form of government is it's the only one most Americans are familar with. We probably place too much faith in the power of poliitcs to do the things we think it should do. Professional curmudgeon H.L. Mencken explained it this way.

The theory behind representative government is that superior men--or at all events, men not inferior to the average in ability and integrity--are chosen to manage the public business, and that they carry on this work with reasonable intelligence and honesty. There is little support for that theory in the known facts...



I can't explain the appeal of the Black Muslims. I've interviewed some and have attended meetings where Louis Farrakhan has spoken. I believe the Muslims message of depending upon oneself instead of White charity appeals to a lot of Black folks and the way they demand people clean up their lives and dress and comport themselves in a respectful manner works for some. I'm too much a hedonist to be a fan of the ascetic lifestyle myself.



I have never called Bill Clinton "the first Black President." Toni Morrison, God bless her, did and that was a groaningly bad bit of hyperbole. Clinton seems very comfortable among Black people and perhaps that is something peculiar to Southern White males. John Edwards came off far more relaxed when speaking to predominantly Black audiences than poor stiff-as-a-board John Kerry ever did. No American President has distinguished himself overly much regards to Africa. That is in part due to the fact that African-Americans have failed to make Africa itself a primary political concern. From Africa to Haiti, American Blacks have little desire to place the interests of other countries ahead of their own. If Blacks exerted half as much interest in the fate of Africa as Jews are concerned about the fate of Israel, that troubled continent would be much better off.



When Malcolm made his Hajj he was struck by how Muslims from all walks of life and in every color were united by their pilgramage. He transitoned again from Malcolm Little to Detroit Red to Malcolm X to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. He learned that it was possible to break bread with a blue-eyed White man and find a common purpose. I don't draw any great moral superiority between Christianity and Islam because both religions have supported the enslavement of Black men and women. Christianity was utilized by slave masters to subjugate and turn angry Africans into submissive Christians bowing their heads to a blonde Jesus that would never come to set them free and return them home.

But this is not a religious debate, and we're veering dangerously close to one so let's not pursue this line of thought.

To steer us back to the topic at hand, I was reading a column by Newsweek columinst Ellis Cose where he muses about "The Bradley Effect" where a highly qualified Black candidate finds White voters will say in polls they're willing to support them, but not actually vote for them.

I wonder to what extent "The Bradley Effect" may play in the success or failure of many Black candidates this election year.

Well i will explain nighttimer. First, the context is certainly clarified in this instance. He was in no way holding segregationist views. Thats not at all what he said. He said that he believes it is possible to be a segregationist while at the same time NOT being racist. His example was as another AD member pointed out, when people self-segregate in their own communities out of comfort (or other factors). He goes on to say how he rejects both racism and segregationism but understands that there is a distinction between the two terms. In regards to the source, it is the only place that I found the full transcript of the exchange along with a letter by Connerly defending his statements. If you want to assist me in finding the full transcipt, than I would appreciate the help because its the only way to understand what it is you are criticizing him for. Ill freely admit that my statements on WEB Dubois may have been premature, but i did preface my remarks with "if history serves me correct", implying i wasnt sure. But there was certainly debate in the African American community following slavery about a segregationist v integrationist approach to surviving in America. Some people wanted to be left alone while others had a different idea. This point does not apply to Ward Connerly however because he made NO segregationist remarks.



And i made no connection between the great black leaders and conservative viewpoints.



Well you are free to that belief nighttimer but from what I have read of the man, he just has a different idea of what freedom and equality are. His views appear to be libertarian for the most part and I suppose I just dont understand whats wrong with having that type of ideology. He appears to be against affirmative action because he sees it as discrimination. Which i tend to agree with. Whether or not its good or bad is hardly the issue aside from the fact that it is clearly government mandated discrimination.



And that may be the case. But that doesnt make him an Uncle Tom imo. Democracy is about the free flow of differnet ideas and the acceptance of different schools of thought. His politics may not fall lock in step with the majority of black voters but i dont know how that translates into him being a self-hating racist.



Well that's one way to put it. But if Connerly adheres to libertarian philosophy, then he may believe that it is those who wish to rely on government who still have a plantation mentality.

NT, statements like this enumerate how you feel about race relations and possibly even an anger towards anyone that might share an association to oppressors of long past.

Do you really believe that Jesus stood for enslavement? Did Jesus condone oppression? Of course not. Funny enough, you mention Malcom X's muslim association as if it had a higher moral standing. Absurd if you ask me. I'll leave that there. Christianity stands apart as a religion, not characterized by actions of MEN, by one obvious distinction- Grace. Blonde haired, blue eyed, or black haired and brown eyed Jesus... it doesn't matter... of course unless you can't see past it.

However, this train of thought does have a point. There's no realistic reason to associate someone to evil people of years past based upon similar cultural backgrounds, skin colors, or other absurd association. Ward Connerly, for instance, according to your posts is a puppet but you haven't given more than a sentence of objectivity. If black people don't share your ideas, or anyone for that matter, you often see them as boorish, ignorant, or some other inferior mental state. Frankly, I see that as your personal problem.

If a black man wants to be a republican, a democrat, or a anarchist... who cares? This is America. If someone believes strongly that affirmative action is a bane on the black community as a whole (which I agree), it's not because they are puppets to the conservative mantra, but moreover because they believe it to be a crutch... enabling years of apathy and mediocrity. I haven't done bad for myself, nor has my wife. If someone were to tell me that something was "handed to me", I'd be offended and even demoralized. How can a black man with an inferior record getting a promotion in the USMC not at least partially feel like a martyr? How can a black college student at the University of Michgan walk with his/her head held high upon admission without wondering what would've happend had he/she been white? This is the whole idea. While I can understand your stance, I just don't agree with it. Neither does Ward Connerly. That doesn't make him a puppet... but maybe just a man of strong character who happens to be conservative and black.

Aevens- at no place in the bible does it condemn slavery, and condones it everywhere. Jesus at no time said owning another human being was wrong, or command freedom in anyway from slavery. However, there are passages telling the slave to return to his master when he runs away, and how Isreal dominated groups around them, and made them slaves. Solomon, when he couldn't pay his bills to the Phoenecians, sold Isrealites into slavery to pay for the temple debt.

Yes, absolutely, I have always wondered why any black person would ever consider mormonism or christianity, since the bible was a major tool in forcing the slaves to accept thier state of living- as if it was Gods will.

So, NT has it dead on. As usual when it comes ot racial debates.

Ward Connerly, for the reasons NT has already laid out, has come to represent the Uncle Tom character as the archetype really. Before you can really even understand the definition and usage of this word, you have to understand why the term was invented and why it is still used in essentially the same form, even though different poeple may argue and apply it to different individuals.

I think a few here don't even really understand the connotation all that much. If you can't understand that Ward Connerly is an Uncle Tom, you really don't understand the term "Uncle Tom" at all.

As usual in racial debate, the left often finds their posts embedded in opinion rather than fact.
Jesus never had a recorded opinion on slavery or enslavement in the bible. Read Matthew 10:24-25, as this is as close as it gets. It also never records prejudiced or racist remarks by Jesus. Read Galatians 3:28.

Secondly, this debate only addresses Ward Connerly for his stance on affirmative action and ONE SENTENCE in reference to segregation from a whole conversation.

CR, I'd happily listen to your argument if you had some objectivity infused. Please tell me why you think these things, rather than that you just do.

Jesus never had a recorded opinion on slavery or enslavement in the bible.

Who said he did? Ram was refering to passages regarding slavery in the old testement. I don't know all of what he speaks of, but I do remember reading a passage where god tells the Israelites to be nice to hebrew slaves (god seems to be very exclusive in the OT. He promotes disregard and outright genocide for non-hebrew peoples in it.).

Honestly, if god considers slavery wrong, he would have said so somewhere in the bible. His opinion is thereby either neutrel (or if Rams citations bear entirely true) pro.

If only Jesuses words matter BTW, then how do you derive a stance (albeit i'm making assumptions of you) that gay marraige or gay relations at all, are unholy?

1. Can a black American have good reason to be a Republican?

Certainly. Most of what causes whites to be Republican, can cause blacks to be so as well.

2. Is it ok to call Black Republicans ephitets such as "uncle Tom" or "oreo"? Are these accurate and deserved remarks?

I don't think Republicans in general are racist. They are however, for a legal meritocracy, whereas democrats support subsidation to combat that which is caused by culture, circumstance, and the lack of a complete meritocracy outside of the law (that is to say, to combat ethnic income dispairty).

Why are most blacks democrats?

We'll obviously they want to be subsidized, and beyond things like affirmitive action, they are also subsidized (disproportionally due to their low slaries) by social services, which the Republicans are generally seen as opposing.

Irrationally, they also instinctally assume that Republicans are both corrupt and racist. Maybe this is a result of history but...Faubus? Fullbright? I can think of some Republican names to, but honestly, I don't think an arguement can be made that either party was comprehensively one or the other on racial issues.

In my view, a "black" American who desires a successful life is crazy if they DON'T become republicans. Republicans, in spite of their flaws, are superior to the democrat party on multiple fronts. The core of the republicans are individualists, they are small business owners, they are patriotic Americans who believe that that strong families, a strong moral orientation, and the rule of law are essential pillars of our civilization. And they are correct!

The democrats, in their zeal for tolerance, end up undermining these pillars at every turn and enabling bad behavior, bad choices, and self-destructive patterns out of political selfishness or downright wrong-headedness. They also strongly back institutionalized racism and sexism in the form of "affirmative action" which ends up hurting "blacks" and "women" more than it helps them.

Is it ok to call a "black" republican an "uncle Tom"? Of course not. It's RACIST to do such a thing. But racism is a powerful weapon, especially in the hands of collectivist "blacks" who want to punish anyone who strays off their left-wing reservation. Political power, after all, is what those people understand and achieving that power, "by any means necessary" is what motivates them. To the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus (not to mention people like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and Dean), every year is 1968.

True progress won't be possible until those relics are gone and buried and a new generation of color-blind individuals take their place. And that can't happen quickly enough.

After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The pathological loyalty by "black" Americans to the democrats is insanity.

I would really argue this one. Black America has a vested interest in ONE nearly specifically democratic notion, affirmative action. It's slowly dwindling in the US as an idea, but many black Americans are still holding on to the notion for very obvious reasons. Some would also argue that welfare reform, the current tax structure, etc all benefit black America (while I don't really agree). The DNC in the past two-three decades also has made an effort to pander or accomodate black institutions such as the NAACP. While I see a need for the NAACP, it surely would be nice if it was more apolitical.

HOWEVER- I DO agree that the black community has much to gain by moving more towards the right. The entrepreneurial spirit runs deep among conservatives, not to mention from a networking perspective conservatives often hold positions of high esteem in the business world. This doesn't even approach the religious coorelations, etc. There might be some differing opinions on social issues, but hell... some conservatives don't agree, so that's to be expected.

[quote name='vsrenard' date='Oct 18 2006, 06:16 PM' post='198899']

Questions for Debate:

1. Can a black American have good reason to be a Republican?

2. Is it ok to call Black Republicans ephitets such as "uncle Tom" or "oreo"? Are these accurate and deserved remarks?

[/quote]

I think the more appropriate question is--what reason would a black American have to be Republican. Given this idea that the Democrats have the persona of trying to help the 'common man,' that they are the progressive, integrate-everyone party, is it ok for a black American to side with the party that has the slave-master persona (or had it in its past) even if the person has conservative values on most other issues.

And while I'm not a fan of name-calling, there is somoething to be said about the truth behind terms such as Oreo. As an Indian American, I feel more "oreo-esque" than some of the other people in my ethnic community. It's an apt phrase that doesn't have a polite counterpart.
[/quote]


You are aware the Democrats were the Party of Slavery right? There's a Democratic Senator in the party right now who was a member of the KKK; you know this, right? As for "integrate-everyone" party I assume you're just excluding the religious among everyone on spec...

Your posting is actually depressing. I am really sad for you and your odd view of yourself.

Which may explain why you can count the number of Black libertarians on both hands and not use all your fingers

Ward Connerly is not a Uncle Tom in your opinion, lederuvdapac and you are welcome to hold that opinion. I am sure Connerly sees himself as a hero in his own eyes. But at the least, he is the worst kind of hypocrite. A man who has benefited from affirmative action (he was appointed to the University of California Board of Regents by Governor Pete Wilson after a deal was cut between the governor and the state senate to provide diversity to the board. To then turn around and deny access to Black and Latinos through Proposition 209 was a punk move.

Connerly is of course, far more complex than can be explained simply by calling him a Uncle Tom. He is a successful businessman, a millionaire and someone who moves easily through the corridors of wealth and power. He should be an inspiration to Black people. Researching his background provides some insight as to why he is not.

If you were trying to figure out which African Americans are most hated and despised by other African Americans, the 63-year-old Sacramento businessman and University of California Regent would probably be somewhere near the top of the list. He is the quarters-folks' worst fear: the house servant sitting down eating cheese at the master's table, betraying all the secrets.

At the same time, Ward Connerly is the white conservative's dream: a black businessman who unequivocally, and quite effectively, opposes a current core strategy of the civil rights establishment-affirmative action. Connerly's family and personal background do not give him the appearance of authenticity, they are authenticity. Born in segregation-era Louisiana, he has the same core hatred of Jim Crow segregation and church-bombing, hood-wearing segregationists (and their political enablers, like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace) that you would expect from a black man of his generation. He is a millionaire whose life is a stereotype of the fabled American Dream: he worked his own way through college, he never knew his father until he was an adult, and his family members were small business owners and laborers. At the same time, because he is not a politician with the need to seek black or liberal-progressive votes, nor a black businessman subject to the pressure of black boycotts (he operates a management and land development consulting firm with mostly white, affluent clients), Connerly is free to take positions independent of popular black opinion. And though we could give him the benefit of the doubt that it is not his intention, many of Connerly's positions give political cover to those who are unequivocally and undeniably enemies of black progress.

Some family members say that Connerly's grandmother was "color-struck," a condition common in the black community wherein lighter-skinned blacks are judged to be preferable to darker-skinned blacks. The family members describe Mary Soniea, who raised Connerly, as a "high-yellow" woman who referred to other blacks as "jigaboos" and "baboons" and who tried to keep dark-skinned blacks from marrying into the family. Connerly adamantly denies this in his book. His grandmother's house was "always filled with dark-skinned black people," he writes, and she "never in her life graded anybody by her melanin content." But he goes on to reveal other details that are more telling. In the same book, he describes Soniea as a woman with a "bronze complexion and freckled skin," called an "Indian Princess" as a young woman, and adds that her mother was a mixed Irish and Choctaw Indian woman, who "didn't like dark-skinned people and treated her darker children differently from her lighter-skinned children." He also describes trouble between his grandmother and darker-skinned blacks back in Louisiana as "racial animosity." It seems an odd term for a black person to use, unless he did not consider himself the same race as other blacks.

link

The issue of being "colorstruck" is one Blacks don't like to talk about. Rarely with each other and certainly not around non-Blacks. Lighter-skinned Blacks are thought to have it easier and to be able to navigate it through White society without the same drama as darker-skinned Blacks.

Are you familiar with this phrase, leder?

"If you're light, you're alright, if you're brown stay around, if you're black stay back...."

Not to get into a whole separate discussion about color-consciousness, but there is a difference between how light and how dark a Black person is and how they are treated both within and outside their race. I'm not going to put Ward Connerly on the couch, but if the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, is it any wonder that a man who doesn't consider himself Black might not want to eliminate Blackness from his reality?

At the very least, Connerly is a willing front man for powerful White men whom are opposed to the progress of Black people and see him as a the Judas goat that advances their interests. Some White people are opposed to affirmative action because they see it as discriminatory. Others are opposed to it because they would prefer to see African-Americans remain in a second-class citizen status.

Ward Connerly is entitled to oppose affirmative action and fight to end it if that is his choice. However, I'm leery of "self-made man" success stories because it suggests someone made it to the top all by themselves and nobody does. Everybody needs some advice, a loan, a helping hand, a door held open. That is a form of affirmative action without the stigma of it being codified by legal force.



Aevans176, once again you are attempting to patronize me by suggesting "anger" is the motivation behind a belief I stated. Perhaps you aren't capable of grasping how an African-American can arrive at a conclusion based upon reasoning, critical analysis and logic, but I assure you sir, I do it every day just like millions of other Black people.

is not a board where we debate religion so I willl not be drawn into a discussion of what Jesus Christ stood for.

What I will say is religion----including Christianity---has been used and exploited as a tool of subjugation and this was the case for Africans brought in chains to America. This is a fact. Accept that or don't, but it does not change the fact.

"Blonde-haired, blue-eyed or black-haired and brown-eyed Jesus?" But what if Jesus was Black? Would that matter? Could you see past it?



I'm not about to waste my time trying to convince you of anything. Believe whatever you choose. My personal problem is with sell-outs, house Negroes and Black people who love White people more than they love themselves.

I wouldn't expect you to understand or agree with me Aevans176 because there is no way for you to even begin grasp the concept.



But what about subsidies for White people, A left Handed person? What about White affirmative action. Do White people "want to be subsidized?"

How do White people benefit from government subsidies and programs? Let us count the ways.

1. World War II-era veterans were able to attend school on the GI Bill and receive a subsidized mortgage from the Veterans Administration, benefits from which most veterans of color were excluded. As
homeowners, they got the mortgage interest deduction, a tax break unavailable to the majority of people of color who were renters. The G.I. Bill went a long way in building the post WWII White middle class.

2. The Homestead Acts of 1862 gave away millions of acres of land to White settlers and excluded Negroes. If affirmative action benefits Blacks, possessing free land certainly benefited Whites.

3. Legacy admissions benefit the children of White alumni, such as the current President. The San Francisco Examiner observed in 1995, [i]"Far more whites have entered the gates of the 10 most elite institutions through 'alumni preference' than the combined numbers of all the Blacks and Chicanos entering through affirmative action."

4. The Glass Ceiling Commission, headed by Republican Elizabeth Dole, reported in 1995 that even though many minority (particularly Asian) workers had higher levels of education and better work credentials than their white counterparts, lesser qualified white males were still being promoted over them. 97% of the sr.
managers of the Fortune 1000 Industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white, and 95%+ are male while 57% of the work force are people of color, women, or both.

5. White men whom head Fortune 500 corporations receive tax breaks, abatements and other forms of corporate welfare. White farmers receive federal subsidies not to grow crops. White men like Michael "You're doing a heckuva job" Brown receive plum federal posts like heading FEMA despite lacking the qualifications, experience or training for the job.

Characterizing "affirmative action" as programs that only benefit people of color discounts the myriad of programs, policies and practices where Whites received preferential treatment based upon being White.

No surprise there. Too often White people ignore the privilege that comes with being born White. Perhaps they are unaware of how they too are beneficiaries of special treatment. Perhaps they see themselves as entitled to enjoy the unspoken benefits of membership in the majority race.

This is racism pure and simple. Please explain EXACTLY what you mean by the "myriad of programs practices , policies, and practices" that give "white" people preferential treatment. Please be SPECIFIC.

Furthermore, what is your definition of "white" in the first place? And what exactly are the "privileges" that come with such a designation? Would this designation hold Kodak hue charts up to people to judge their skin tones? How about calipers to measure noses? Where have we ever seen such descriptions before? Hmmmmm.

You are describing the attitudes of a small fringe group of white supremacists who buy into that eugenic nonsense. Why are you aligning yourself with THEIR fringe views?

Unspoken benefits, my foot. This baloney would overstock Oscar Meyer. The fact of affirmative action is that lesser qualified humans are picked over MORE qualified humans because of their "racial" designation.

Such a thing is sick and should be abolished immediately.

So faced with a choice of either eliminating all policies (such as actually remain) that discriminate in favor of whites, or continuing to pursue a policy (affirmative action) that legitimizes race-based treatment and classification of people, which one truly seems more appropriate? And either way, it can never be emphasized enough that lack of affirmative action in no way means that government is restricted from helping people who have been disadvantaged for whatever reason (be it racism or whatever else). There is no need at all to classify people according to race in order to help them out.

[quote name='lordhelmet' date='Oct 27 2006, 07:39 AM' post='199679']
[quote name='nighttimer' post='199677' date='Oct 27 2006, 11:31 AM']

Characterizing "affirmative action" as programs that only benefit people of color discounts the myriad of programs, policies and practices where Whites received preferential treatment based upon being White.

No surprise there. Too often White people ignore the privilege that comes with being born White. Perhaps they are unaware of how they too are beneficiaries of special treatment. Perhaps they see themselves as entitled to enjoy the unspoken benefits of membership in the majority race.
[/quote]

This is racism pure and simple. Please explain EXACTLY what you mean by the "myriad of programs practices , policies, and practices" that give "white" people preferential treatment. Please be SPECIFIC.




I will name one right off the top of my head that was GW's affirmative action- the legacy program. GW was admitted to his Ivy league school on no basis of excellence, rather, he got it based on his daddy having gone there and his daddy being rich. His grades were in no way good enough to get him admitted without special consideration. In fact, there was an entire thread on GW's affirmative action for rich white guys.

We need to remember something here. Afirmative action was not just some plan dreamed up by the Black Panthers the 'screw Whitey'. It was a policy put into place to deal with an obvious and serious social ill, namely (to quote LordHelmet), that universally in US society, "lesser qualified humans were picked over MORE qualified humans because of their "racial" designation."

Equally, one cannot argue the effect AA has had on US society, the numbers of blacks in higher education, blacks in white collar jobs and so on just in the decade after AA speak for themselves. So objecting to AA on a purely moral and 'racial' ground is absurd.

What one CAN object to AA for it its specific effectiveness as a program and its continuing need. Now firstly I should say I always feel a bit iffy speaking to the benefit of this kind of program, because frankly I am an educated, healthy, 6'5", agnostic, white male: Society essentialy caters to me in so many ways.

None the less, for those that would 'abolish' AA in the US, you simply have to answer the following basic questions.

-Is the underlying massive problem that AA was created to fix still a problem?

The answer is obviously: "far less than it was in 1960, but yes it is still a problem". Any givernment statistical analysis can tell you that. So given that it IS still a problem:

-If you intend to abolish AA, then what will you put in its place to deal with this problem?


And (dodging back to the topic at hand) perhaps this is why Blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. The Democrats see the problem that blacks still have today in manys egments of US society, and are trying to help. Many (but not all) republicans on the other hand seem to want to ignore the problem: banish AA and replace it with... nothing? So either they don't see the problem, or they just don't care to do anything about it. Either way looks bad.


Also, one other point. One can safely say that neither mainstream Republicans nor mainstream Democrats are racist, both parties go out of their way to make this clear. However, for whatever reason, the racist fringes of society, the Klan and the Aryan nation and those other nut-jobs: they always vote Republican over Democrat.

Now its not fair to judge the main by the extreme, otherwise one could call the Democrats Communists. That is not what I am doing in this case. However, it might be a small part of the reason why so many Blacks feel uncomfortable at voting for the Republicans...

Not at all, unless you can say definitively that there can be no alternatives, such as a colorblind system that merely helps people who are having trouble, without concerning itself with their race. For some reason, something as commonsensical as that doesn't even seem to register on the radar screen with many AA advocates.


Do you have any source for this at all? I would think that most of the time, they'll vote for some fringe third party, or not vote at all.

By the way, I raised this point to another poster who brought up the same point as you, but he never replied: Which party do black racists vote for?

I will continue to use the statements that I believe you speak out of Anger, as I sincerely believe it to be true. As soon as race is brought up, your tone changes.

However, I'd like to address all of the points you're making, as it mildly addresses the debate, as affirmative action is a republican/democrat topic.
1. The only reason that black WWII veterans often couldn't use education benefits was because they often weren't accepted to colleges (as they were white only). This isn't true anymore, and hasn't been for 40+ years. Frankly, it's quite the contrary. Veterans of color have received basically "free promotions" and benefits for being "of color" (or being a woman) since the mid-80's. When do we say, "hey- this isn't effective, let's do something different?"

2. The Homestead act of 1862 gave away only 10% of the land in America. Furthermore, the Homesteader had to pay $10-18 total for the land. Most importantly, nearly no white Americans are still benefiting from free land. What you're suggesting, again, is that because someone who happens to share a similar skin tone 100+ years later they should be punished? What if white families didn't benefit from this? Should they then be a part of affirmative action's plan? What about the descendants of share croppers? Should we get something? Seriously.

3. Alumni preference is necessary for all colleges, including institutions such as Howard or Southern. It helps create a long term relationship with families and ensures a certain amount of revenue and alumni donation. These kids still often have to meet certain requirements (to be admitted), where as affirmative action applicants don't necessarily. Easy enough to understand, isn't it? If my children want to go to LSU (I know... not Harvard, but the point is the same), my child MIGHT get admitted over a similarly qualified applicant, but he/she still has to meet the basic requirements. Not true for a black child going on scholarship at the University of Michigan, even today.

4. You use a study over a decade old that predominantly discusses the "glass ceiling of women" as a source? Seriously. The problems with that study are numerous, but most importantly they DON'T address cultural differences, societal norms, the role of women in our nation, etc. I personally think that most times women that are in CEO level positions (etc) just possess the personalities and ambition it took. I'd agree that 20+ years ago, it would've been tough for advancement. In 2006? The only person you're kidding is yourself. Black Americans for the past 4+ decades haven't put the same stock in education that a caucasian demographic, such as maybe... the southern farmer or Northeastern Irish might have. If I told you that my grandparents, both of them, were raised on share cropping farms and that all of their kids graduated college, I'm sure you'd have an excuse for that too. Guess those share croppers have no "glass ceiling"! HA!

5. Black people receive grants for being black, black kids get scholarships for being black.. blah, blah, blah. Ridiculous. Seriously, NT, that argument is beneath you. White Farmers? ? ? GOOD LORD. You've gone too far. FARMERS GET SUBSIDIES, and for good reason. I won't give you an economics lesson today, but it's not necessarily a bad idea. It surely isn't racist. Farming in the US often doesn't pay. Ever heard of Farm Aid? Ever even been to a farm? That beef/chicken/pork that you might've eaten today most likely WASN'T delivered by an uber-rich white farmer. I'd be surprised if they are even above middle class. If you'd like for me to give you some real debate on this one, please start a new thread. This surely isn't a way that white people have benefited...

The fact of the matter is that the FACTS dispute the effectiveness of affirmative action every day. The notion that doing the same thing for 30+ years the same way, with no real net gain is absurd. Some Black people, ones like Ward Connerly anyway, realize that handouts don't create generations of ambition. I agree that maybe actions can be taken, but they most likely need to be done prior to minorities hitting the workforce. Possibly in the more formative years? Public schools? At home? Culturally?

Why does this all tie into the debate? Most importantly because if black (or any underprivledged children) for that matter are taught that they CAN go to college, have great careers, etc... it's gonna happen. However, if democrats keep telling them that they need special programs and give aways to do it, we'll still only have a small percentage of success stories and hundreds of thousands of kids that really believe they can't.

Hey, I've been called a racist by White conservatives twice in one week! Woo-hoo!

Lemme tell ya, lordhelmet why I'm not going to answer your insipid questions. It's because you sing the same old tired songs from the same old tired hymnbook. With you it's either "Democrats drool and Republican rule" or "Race doesn't matter" yet you spend an inordinate amount of time and effort pounding on Black folks you don't like. This week it's Barack Obama and Colin Powell. Next week you'll be back to bashing on Bill and Hillary.

A great example of your playbook can be found in a thread you created back in January 2005. It was quite insightful as to what's really rattling around under your helmet.