Thursday, October 13, 2011

Black Voters.........what do you think?

Herman Cain "Black Americans are brainwashed"

Dr. Cornell West  "Blacks don't vote monolithically."

90% of Blacks vote Democrat. 

Do any of you think that Herman Cain means 'brainwashed' as if he's implying Black America can't think for itself or does he mean that Black America's been marching to the liberal drummer for so long it can't or won't think otherwise?

Do you think Dr. Cornell West makes any sense when he says Black America doesn't vote monolithically as he said on FOX the other night?  Doesn't 90% seem awfully monolithic to YOU?

What percentage of Black America do you think might be rethinking their vote for Obama by now, or even Democrats in general?

geeeeeZ :-)

50 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Cornell West never makes any sense. He is a buffoonish totem of Ivy League sophistry.

beamish said...

I'm not sure how meaningful the stats are.

Sure, 90% of black voters vote Democrat.

But it's something like 85% to 90% of black people that don't vote AT ALL.

Always On Watch said...

Black America's been marching to the liberal drummer for so long it can't or won't think otherwise

I think that's the truth.

Impertinent said...

There's Z's answer:

"Black America's been marching to the liberal drummer for so long it can't or won't think otherwise..."

It's a cultural thing.

Ducky's here said...

West is wrong, black voters will vote Democratic in a block just as evangelicals will vote Republican.

Thersites said...

It has become a 'moral' point with blacks to vote democratic... and we all know how herd tends to follow 'moral' dictates.

cube said...

Cornel West is a loud mouthed idiot. 90% is a monolithic voting block. Blacks need to wake up and start thinking about their own best interests and not what's best for the democrat party.

Ticker said...

In 1956 the GOP got 35% of the Black vote.That was phenomenal coming off of 20 years of Democrat rule and pandering to Black leaders and building the fence around the "plantation" by FDR and the Democrats.

The number of Black voters for GOP candidates remained fairly constant until LBJ became POTUS and offered a new pair of shoes and shirt for all who would return to the plantation. There they have remained.
It is difficult to understand since Blacks are more anti-abortion, more pro-traditional marriage and more pro-vouchers for inner-city parents than the typical non-black Democrat.
Of course LBJ's Great Society did more harm to the Black family structure than any other program yet devised.

The Democrats, aided by Black Leaders funded($$$) by the democrats have constantly bombarded the Black community with allegations and led them to believe that a) racism remains a serious threat and b) that Republicans are bad people who wish them ill. Neither of which is true but it makes for good rhetoric for those who have nothing more than the race card and victim card to play.

Brainwashed, not particularly but if you hear a lie enough you will soon believe it to be true. After a few generations it becomes a "cultural" thing as Imp said.

Ducky's here said...

Nice try tick-tock, you managed to pick the election with the lowest Democratic vote.

The black vote has always been at least 70% Democratic and who knows what it would have been in the 50's if southern blacks were allowed to vote.

Pitch till you win. Now go worship at you little shrine to Strom Thurmond.

Thersites said...

While ducky goes off to light a candle for Robert Byrd (D - Lynchburg).

Don't forget you can of gas for next week's cross burning on the corner of Wall Street and 42nd, duckmeister (H. Cain has GOT to be de-uppytied).

Impertinent said...

"the 50's if southern blacks were allowed to vote."

Stupid is as stupid does...eh duck. So who kept them out of the polls? Bobby Byrd, Al Gore, Bull Connors, Dems all And the Kennedy's wanted no part of the civil rights gig. Their plantation in Hyannis Port was already fully staffed.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

I don't think it's "brainwashing" literally. What I believe Cain meant is look what happens to anyone who wonders off the plantation. And you know if he said that it would be lights out. Actually the left has already declared lights out for any black person who doesn't tow the liberal line.
Why do blacks vote democrat? Because the democrats have done so much to empower them and improve their lives.

Actually "Brainwashing" just may be the appropriate term.

Leticia said...

I honestly don't believe that Cornell is capable of rational thought. And

I know some very, very intelligent Blacks that didn't vote for Obama the first time and around and will not vote for him, in the upcoming election.

Ducky, not true. Most evangelicals vote for the person not the party. And that all depends on the issues that they support.

Z said...

There are many Evangelical Black Americans, too........probably millions.
Evangelical being Christians who want to pass the good news of the Gospel. So sue them :-)

And, yes, Leticia, there are plenty of Evangelicals who are what I call New Testament Christians and do vote liberal.

Elmers Brother said...

Hey duhkkky tell it to Republicans like Martin Luther King. Everyone knows the KKK is the Taliban wing of the Democractic Party and it was Democrats who work to keep the black man on the plantation.

Karen Howes said...

I say it's just culturally ingrained (the second option). Kind of the same reason why so many Catholics vote Democrat.

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Impertinent said...

"Kind of the same reason why so many Catholics vote Democrat."



And why would any Catholic do that? It's ( Dem party ) contrary to every belief and tenet of Catholicism. The last time I know when real Catholics voted Dem was when Kennedy was elected! And that was when the Dem party wasn't corrupted by socialism, chaos and Marxism. When the Dems then are what a RINO is today.
The Kennedy's went after the corrupt, mobbed up unions....they were never in bed with them like they are today.

The same as Blacks...the Dems are satanic when it comes down to core Christian beliefs.

Z said...

Imp, Catholics are often Democrats, I believe, because they think the Left is kinder, more giving, more charitable (not true) than Republicans...they have soft spots for the poor, and all that's admirable, except that Jesus did say that one should work if one is to eat.
Obviously, all of us give to the less fortunate from our hearts not from force, when and if we can.....but that gets lost in the leftwing media onslaught.

I know Catholics who are Republicans...MANY of them, but Catholics are traditionally Dems even though the stance on abortion is anathema to Scripture.

I hope Silverfiddle, a Catholic, comes back to this thread and weighs in on this.

Ticker said...

duckass did you not bother to look at the other elections after that . NO hell no cause you like to pick and choose your numbers. The numbers in 1960 were very similar and that was not as you call a low turnout year. The numbers AS I SAID did change in 64, but duckass you don't bother with facts now do you. You ignorant sob the demonkkkrats were and are the most racist party ever known. They voted against the civil rights act of 64 while Republican voted overwhelmingly for it.
Percentage of Democrats favoring the Civil Rights Bill: 69%
Percentage of Republicans favoring Civil Rights Bill: 82%

Keep on trying duckass. Your ignorance continues to provide us hurs of laughter.

Chuck said...

I heard the other day that Cain could get 30% of the black vote. Possible?

Ticker said...

As to Blacks switching votes to Herman Cain.
I see and talk to a large number of Black's during the course of the month at the VA, other doctor offices , in local gathering places where folks just sit and talk. I am seeing more and more Blacks moving away from Obama especially in the past couple of months with his rants and BS on jobs and such and nothing is happening in the Black community, nothing happened after his first stimulus fiasco that was suppose to help unemployment stay below 8%.
They are seeing and saying that Obama is for no one but Obama. Even some rather hard core who would not earlier even discuss anything concerning Obama cause he was da man are now listening to Herman Cain for one.
The more educated Blacks have been disgruntled with Obama for two years now and now the less affluent which I see a lot of are having a lot of second thoughts and many have said to me that they would not vote for Obama if Herman Cain was running. Damn GOP had better get off the "it's his time" BS and get behind the man who can take Obama down.
The same thing goes with Independents who say they lean toward Cain because of his clear, simple message. No BS from Cain is what more than a few have indicated that they like. They see Romney as "establishment" and not doing anything different than what Bush did and they didn't like his spending and not getting tough with the Left on domestic issues.
So Yep, Black voters are coming around in numbers the Left does not want to admit. It ain't looking good for Obozo. The folks are leaving the plantation.

Z said...

Wow, TIcker, THAT is good news.......thanks for this information. REALLY good.

Bob said...

I hate to say this, but I actually agree with Ducky in that blacks and evangelicals do vote pretty much in blocks. Evangelicals might consider otherwise if the Demo's would get realistic on abortion. So, Leticia is right, too.

I don't know of a single black person who will go against Obama. If Cain were the Republican nominee, there will probably be some shift of black votes, but I have nothing upon which to base that opinion except gut feel.

The best I can say is that we have a black President, and in general black people will vote for him. Yes, it is a racial thing.

The really interesting thing about Cain's candidacy is he actually has a plan, although it is reveiving severe criticism. What people don't realize is that you don't need an economist to arrive at a decent tax regime. After all, the White House is loaded with Harvard economists who cannot grab their posteriors with both hands. They don't have a clue.

Yet, here comes a trained mathematics person who does some simple math and comes up with a competitive plan that simplifies our world, and will encourage unbelievable economic activity, yet gets the revenue need for government operations. What a concept.

Like it or not, Herman is a problem solver and a good one.

net observer said...

"Enculturated" is probably a more palatable and more accurate term. "Brainwashed" sounds like "Jim Jones".

But ultimately, fair is fair, even though I think Cain's probably using that term to appeal to conservatives. Regardless, if Cain ultiately gets the GOP nod -- or not -- his opponents will be forever accusing him and his black supporters of far worse than brainwashing. So we should all prepare for a flood of ugly, bigoted rhetoric from the left. It could get REALLY nasty.

Twitter is full of Herman "Uncle Ruckus" Cain jokes these days and we're just getting started.

Back to the topic at hand, Nixon's Southern Strategy is what cemented the black vote to the Dems. I don't think it was ever 90% before that. Purposely appealing to white racists, for whatever reason, has left a lasting memory, and several generations will have to die off before we see a significant change.

Another point, people seem to forget that other groups are loyal to Dems, too, although admittedly, not as much. When's the last time a GOP president received the majority of the Jewish vote? Or Latinos? Or gays? Is that cultural or something else?

I even read somewhere that Obama received about 3/4 of the Asian vote. What's that about?

Having said all that, I think someone like Cain could turn that around a little bit; maybe cut it down to 80%.

As far as "frustration" with Obama, I'm not sure how many African-Americans are going through life with such feelings. I've heard some black Dems "respect" Cain, which is progress of some sort.

It has never occured to me to blame or credit the government for the state of the economy, good or bad. I think we're mostly living in a post-bubble economy and we as a society haven't figured about how to grow the economy without initiating another bubble.

But my feelings about virtually all politicians is the same: Neutral. They're never totally honest, they're calculating when they speak, they all make deals that they said they wouldn't make, etc. Unless Ron Paul or Dennic Kucinich became president, I'm not sure if anybody would remain pure and principled in the Oval office.

Christie is about the only politician I've personally gotten excited about since, dare I say, Ross Perot.

Okay, that's the end of my rant =)

Elmers Brother said...

100+ years of Democratic cross burnings and it all turned on Nixon? Is that how the uber racist Jimmy Carter get elected?

beamish said...

Net Observer,

Read this.

Bookmark it. Pass it around.

Z said...

net, you said "But ultimately, fair is fair, even though I think Cain's probably using that term to appeal to conservatives."

I think he's used it less to appeal to conservatives (because it's a little unnerving a term toward Black Americans, at least to me) and more precisely TO Black Americans.
NOBODY likes to have the mirror shone on them and feel "hey, that guy might just be correct" And I believe that Blacks are twittering/talking a mean streak of indignation, but deep inside, they're thinking "Ya, and who the HELL brainwashed us...we don't LIKE THAT and we don't want to feel that way or be perceived that way"
I think this was an excellent move on Cain's part!

Nixon's Southern Strategy reminds me of Biden's ridiculous statement this week threatening people by saying "crime will be up even more if we have no jobs bill and can't hire more cops" I think this was about Michigan, but can't remember..was it Detroit? (as if Detroit NEEDS a reason to have more crime!)...
except his numbers were down and rape is down since they had less cops on the beat because of budget cuts.
Nobody remembers Nixon's S. Strategy, anyway.

Ticker, above, had some fabulous things to say about the Blacks he meets frequently at the VA and doctor's offices.....very reassuring. "It won't be suggested that I'M "Brainwashed"..screw that! I'm ME and I'm going to be looking into all candidates this time" Wait for it!! xxx

Z said...

Bob, surprisingly, Paul Ryan supports 999 and that says VOLUMES for me. 999 would have to be plenty of VERY tough restrictions on it, but if Ryan likes it, I like it.

Did you all hear that AWFUL AWFUL STUPID comment by MIchele Bachmann at the Bloomberg debate? The media didn't get it, or they just didn't understand what she said (which should have sunk her with no chance ever again)
She said "If 999 is written upside down, the DEVIL is in the details"...inferring 666, of course...some devil stupidity most Christians know: I'm not sure where it comes from.
That was a REAL brave and stupid thing for her to do.

Dave Miller said...

Z, you are very regular in bringing up the verse in Thess.

The exegetical question people who desire to proof text this verse must, and yes I say must, answer is by what measure they have decided this particular verse was meant by the author to be a "forever" value.

Possibly, it was meant to be just for the people of that time that lived in Thessolaniki.

Now if we take the easy route and say I just believe what it says "literally" that is fine.

And then I would ask whether or not one would use that same exegetical method of "the bible said it so I believe it and that settles it" on this verse from Leviticus...

The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Mark said...

Lyndon B Johnson once famously said, "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

(Hey! He said it, I didn't!)

I've been saying ever since Herman Cain announced his intention to run for President in 2008 96% of blacks voted for Obama. Two years after he became President, after it became clear that his "hope and change" was a big lie, about the same percentage of blacks would still vote for him, which would seem to indicate they only voted for Obama because he's black.

If Herman Cain attains the GOP nomination, black voters would be forced to either vote for a black man who makes empty promises or a black man who offers real common sense solutions to problems cause by this "hope and Change" President.

Or, they might not vote at all.

That tells me Herman Cain has a very real chance to become the next American President, except -- The Republican party will not nominate him. They prefer a RINO candidate like McClain or Romney.

Bob said...

Dave quoted, "The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. "

Good one, Dave. I suppose that means that the alien should obey all the laws of the host nation, too. I don't have a problem with Mexicans or people of other heritage being in the USA, except that the illegal aliens take jobs away from citizens.

In Georgia thousands of construction and food processing factory jobs are being filled by illegal aliens, and citizens are out of work because of that.

I don't believe Paul (or whoever wrote that verse) advocated aliens taking jobs away from citizens of the host country.

Dave Miller said...

Bob, you missed the point completely...

The question is how do we decide which biblical verses we are going to interpret literally.

Do we, when we use verses to support our view, as Z has repeatedly done with the Thessalonians passage, have a hermeneutic that can be consistently applied, or are we only using select verses that support our viewpoint.

As to your question, yes the alien should obey all the laws of the country once he gets there. It was a biblical imperative of the Torah. Once they got in, however that was done, they were expected to be good citizens.

But, the writer of Leviticus, seems to have left us with some pretty clear instructions if we adopt a literal method of scripture interpretation, as Z does on her passage.

Z said...

"they were expected to be good citizens."

exactly....and that's not what we're getting. Thanks for proving the point, Dave.

Z said...

Dave, by the way, I'm not a typical Scripture citer; what Thess. verse?

net observer said...

Mark, I honestly appreciate the facts you put forth about the Dixiecrats and the GOP. It's enlightening for sure. And, as in so many cases, the truth is so often far more complicated than conventional wisdom.

But sometimes, for simplicity's sake, we also have to recognize some basic and, in my view, fairly obvious realites. And I think that's a matter of some candid Q&A.

Do I think the average white Dem in 2011 is a racist or racially bigoted? No, I don't. Do I think the average white GOP-er in 2011 is a racist or racially bigoted? No, I don't.

In fact, I don't think the vast majority of whites in this country, political or apolitical, are racial bigots at all.

But if you then ask me, of the two major political parties, where am I most likely to find views that better resonate with, say, readers of American Renaissance or Stormfront? Or, if you asked me, "Where are we more likely to find white commenters suggesting that blacks are genetically inferior?"

I just can't imagine anybody seriously declaring that we would find more genuinely white racist views, in 2011, on a white liberal Democrat website, as opposed to a white conservative GOP-er website.

(And for what it's worth, I'm talking about the actual definition of "racist"; someone who believes in the inherent inferiority of another race; someone who thinks, for example, that lower SAT scores among blacks is a sign of genetics and not cultural issues)

Personally, I don't see the problem with saying "Yes, white racialist types are more likely to support a hardcore conservative over a hardcore liberal." And if we can acknowledge that, while at the same time acknowledging that the vast majority of conservative whites are NOT bigots, well, what's the problem?

Of course I understand the discomfort with the association. Believe me, as a self-described libertarian, the last thing I want to do is share common ground with self-described white racialists. But the fact is, I do.

But anyway, I said all that to say this: African-Americans, fairly or unfairly, view the GOP and conservatism as a place that is too comfortable with white bigotry. I expect one day that will change. Maybe a Cain/West ticket would be the catalyst? I don't know. But as for now, that's the way it is.

(One last point: For whatever it's worth, it doesn't help when Rick Perry fails to discard a controversial rock found on his property or when Obama is caricatured as a monkey)

Is the truth here far different from what I am saying? If you think so, I'd love to hear from you. That's why I like having these conversations =)

net observer said...

"after it became clear that his "hope and change" was a big lie, about the same percentage of blacks would still vote for him, which would seem to indicate they only voted for Obama because he's black."

Mark, I've this charge so many times it makes my head spin. For the most part, I think it is an inaccurate charge at best.

If Obama were a GOP-er he wouldn't have gotten even half the black vote. Agree or disgree?

If you agree, then how is 96% of the black vote proof that blacks generally voted for Obama because he was black, if we both recognize that, as a GOP-er, the results would have been starkly different?

It seems to me that a "vote for Obama because he's black" wouldn't be affected by philosophy or party affiliation or anything else for that matter.

I relish the thought of a Cain versus Obama contest. Simply because then, one can hardly claim that blacks voted for either candidate "because he was black" =)

Last point: So what if it WERE true? It's not strange to see groups with historical reasons for bonding together display varying levels of solidarity. I am sure Romney would get a disporportionate number of Mormon votes simply because he was a Mormon. I'm sure an Italian candidate would get more Italians. And I'm sure a Jewish candidate could count on Jews more than those of us who are not Jews.

Some of this is normal and understandable behavior.

Z said...

net, you say "But if you then ask me, of the two major political parties, where am I most likely to find views that better resonate with, say, readers of American Renaissance or Stormfront? Or, if you asked me, "Where are we more likely to find white commenters suggesting that blacks are genetically inferior?""

I have never even heard of Renaissance or Stormfront but can only surmise what I think STormfront is because of its name.

Are you suggesting any commenter HERE is that type of Republican?
If so, you might need to go there instead of here because that makes my stomach turn, frankly.
what are you suggesting?

If you think ANY of that white supremacist crap resonates HERE, I need to rethink my blog and go on moderation again because that is not going to happen here..EVER.

Why do you jump over the remark Mark cited here by Lyndon Johnson? Why do Blacks ignore that Robt Byrd, "UPSTANDING" senator was not only in the K K k but was a RECRUITER for them? Why do people still STILL think that it's the Dems who wanted the Civil Rights Act passed? WHY?

WHy the HECK do Republicans have this ridiculous anti-minority reputation when it's quite the opposite?
Republicans don't believe in entitlements not because they hate blacks or feel they're so stupid they need them! Republicans are against them because they rob people of their self reliance...a job is ALWAYS better than a hand out..unless people of ANY COLOR really NEED help.
It was Bush who so aptly said that we can't buy into the 'soft bigotry of low expectations'..
entitlements are usually just THAT.

By the way, I'm not as sure as you are that a black GOP Obama would have got the few votes from the black community that you think. I DO think a lot of Blacks and whites, even Dems, might have voted for him because it was about time we had a black president. Sad that nothing in his whole and entire LIFE prepared him to be someone who loves this country and puts US FIRST and abhors socialism , etc., but there you are.....

I was looking today at high school student standardization tests and the cover sheet asked: WHITE< BLACK, ASIAN, PACIFIC RING...suddenly, I thought "How the heck does this MATTER? They took A TEST, who CARES what color they are?"

Until they stop this kind of nonsense, we're doomed. And it's getting FAR worse than it was. We didn't fill things out like that when I was a kid, I can assure you. we were all KIDS.

Z said...

and, while I have to admit I AM MAD after writing that last email, why is it that equivalent very extreme groups like whatever that STORMFRONT is and COMMUNISTS or other extremist Anti-American groups exist but it's the Right that gets blamed for somehow being connected to some horrid extreme groups and the Left, not so much...?
The Tea Party in all of its polite demonstrations of which most ugly rumors (so widely talked about in the media) have been PROVEN WRONG is compared unfavorably to showerless slobs protesting CAPITALISM in AMERICA?!

I'm getting video after video via email of the leftwingers in these protests around the country threatening VIOLENCE, insulting civil rights fighter John Lewis while he's standing RIGHT THERE, etc etc. WHY ISN'T THAT ON THE NEWS? It sure as HELL would be were these Republicans.

I"M SICK of the demeaning CRAP the media emphasizes for the least POSSIBLE faux pas of the Right ...but let leftwingers lie, misinform, obfuscate and wreck the country, and the media skips the stories.

Hilarious..and the right gets the insults???

I just deleted a lot of personal stuff that actually happened to me TODAY...stuff that dealt with race; I deleted the details because they're too personal, but suffice it to say that I got one of THE biggest gifts in my life today from a 17 yr old Black high school student who said how much she TRUSTS ME from only 1 conversation I had with her 3 weeks ago; I'd posted it and then deleted it....it's a great story. But I don't have to prove my heart to ANYBODY.

Dave Miller said...

Z, the aliens of which I speak, who immigrated across borders in biblical times without governmental permission or papers did indeed become good citizens.

To bring that verse into the current times, we would exegete it literally, if we are taking the passage in its simplest forms as this...

Once someone gets into a country, in any way possible, God wants them to receive equal treatment as those citizens already there.

The Thess. passage is the no work, no food passage...

Z said...

Dave, I thought that's the Thess you meant but didn't see how it tied in here.

I don't know where you get your information from God, but I see nowhere that He says He wants the people here to suffer for what many illegal aliens have brought upon them; I'll bet he'd not approve of another country's flag flying here, or people getting paid under the counter or threatening Americans like I've seen, or La Raza type groups or Mexican gangs.

No, God wants us to GIVE too, but not to the point where we are in need.

Who do you know who'd mind if illegals came here, learned the language and paid taxes on their earnings...not flying their flag, not threatening, not usurping and demanding? Sure, it's still illegal and there's apparently a divide between Christians who believe in no laws and those who believe in law-abiding living......but it pains people to see those come here and take advantage. As a matter of fact, my own Pastor's wife is Mexican and she and her family are more Conservative Republican than almost anybody I know because they worked hard and came here legally and they feel that's what God wants of all of us; to follow the rules, to treat others fairly (not only that we have to treat those coming IN fairly but those coming in must treat US fairly).

Pris said...

Well folks, I remember the days when the vote was not broken into demographics of who voted for whom. Yes, there was the North and South, but that was about it.

Now, we're all in our little boxes. Each race, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, religion, level of education, you name it, the list is endless.
I hate it.

We're all Americans aren't we? Is it any wonder we have difficulty in finding unity about anything?

I can't think of anything more polarizing, than breaking us all down into separate groups. Pitting groups against one another, keeping all of us off balance.

How about we all take or leave an individual based on his/her actions, and leave it at that? Isn't that what most of us do anyway? I hope so.

MK said...

"What percentage of Black America do you think might be rethinking their vote for Obama by now...."

An awful lot i hope, given how incompetent, pathetic and full of smelly gas obama turned out to be. Anyone with two brain cells could see what a useless waste of space he is. So why would they vote for him, or even let him represent them.

Herman Cain is a much better black leader than the idiot from Chicago. Someone black can vote for and be proud of.

beamish said...

Mark,

That tells me Herman Cain has a very real chance to become the next American President, except -- The Republican party will not nominate him. They prefer a RINO candidate like McClain or Romney.

ROFLMAO!

Nobody is campaigning for Mitt Romney harder than the average Teabagger!!!

Even Sarah Palin is dissing Herman Cain... instead of Romney.

Perhaps things would be different, if only the Teabaggers would align themselves at least to the right of Donald Trump.

Dave Miller said...

Z said... "God wants us to GIVE too, but not to the point where we are in need."

Actually, God calls all of us to give our lives 100% and die to self...

Are we able? Not usually? Willing? Most are not. Should we try everyday? Yes we should...

Z said...

Dave, I completely disagree with you.. and "dying to self" is not about giving all you've got to others, you know that.
Dying to Self is brokenness in oneself; complete humility; the loss of human pride...

And giving is a beautiful thing but not when you give to the point that YOU yourself are then needy. God never says that, believe me.

Dave Miller said...

Z, I think Jesus, who gave his life, and the early Christian martyrs might have had a little different idea.

These were the people who decided to sell everything they had and give the proceeds to the poor...

You'll find that in Acts 2.

We are called to be like Jesus, who being in very nature God... made himself a servant and went to the cross...

Does that sound like language that is not calling us to give it all up?

Those who lived closest to Jesus clearly had a different understanding of His call on our lives that what you are presenting.

I respectfully contend that you are seeing the heart of the Gospel through the lens of someone who has.

net observer said...

PART 1

"frankly, what are you suggesting?"

Z, with all due respect, I'm not "suggesting" anything. I said exactly what I meant. Namely, "Where am I MORE likely to find whites with views sympathetic to those who patronize publications like 'American Renaissance'?" The choices were a liberal Democrat opinion site or a conservative Republican opinion site.

I maintain, after a decade-and-a-half of commenting on and reading conservative opinion sites in particular, that the most logical answer would be the conservative opinion site. If you disagree, fine. That just means we disagree.

But I can't imagine anybody seriously placing a bet that they would find MORE white racist commentary in the comments sections of a liberal Democrat opinion site -- not in 2011.

Why is that so offensive to you? Particularly when I also state, unequivocally, that the vast majority of white conservatives aren't bigots.

Also, while I don't claim to be an expert on American Renaissance, if you went to their site and saw for yourself, you would realize that they occasionally link to some of conservatism's favorite voices. In fact, not long ago, I saw a link to Walter Williams. Before that, they did a tribute/memorial to the black conservative blogger for "Issues & Views".

American Renaissance is an expressly white racialist publication founded and led by a white racialist -- that's a fact. And I have never seen them pay homage to or link to anything liberal, and I don't expect that to change. But they DO link to conservatives on occasion. Why is that?

"Why do you jump over the remark Mark cited here by Lyndon Johnson?"

Probably because I am a lot more interested in what's going today among the general population as opposed to what a group of congressmen did 50 years ago.

"Why do Blacks ignore that Robt Byrd, "UPSTANDING" senator was not only in the K K k but was a RECRUITER for them? Why do people still STILL think that it's the Dems who wanted the Civil Rights Act passed? WHY?"

I think, similarly, they are more focused on what's going today as opposed to what happened 50 years ago.

More importantly, Z, what was isn't necessarily what is. The Democratic Party of Lester Maddox is not the same as Barack Obama's -- obviously. And today's "Tea Party"-influenced GOP is not the same as Reagan's.

"WHy the HECK do Republicans have this ridiculous anti-minority reputation when it's quite the opposite?"

Z, this is an excellent question that deserves an honest, in-depth answer, which, frankly, I have tried my best to provide (and ascertain) over a number of years. But unfortunately, my sincere, civil attempts to achieve this answer often spurs a rather unnecessary defensiveness from many white conservatives like you. It often reminds me of my days in the black left when we would reflexively react to legitimate criticism black social behaviors. It was very counterproductive.

net observer said...

PART 2

And it's a shame, too. I am convinced that these blog-based forums represent an excellent way to flesh out some of our thorniest, most challenging social issues. It's a real chance to understand the next person's perspective, on an actual, substantive level.

But that can't happen if we take umbrage to fair and honest questions.

Z, I don't posit any of my opinions to start fights or take shots at anyone. I'm not even trying to win an argument. I'm just trying to UNDERSTAND, and I wish MORE people would try harder to listen and understand, but that's seeming more and more like a pipe dream these days.

Case in point, I will never forget, some weeks back, when I pointed out the problems I saw with an editorial cartoon that you posted. I remember going through great lengths to avoid calling anybody a bigot. What a waste of time and effort.

I asked a fair and simple question: "Do you understand why someone living outside of your conservative circles might view that cartoon as sympathetic to white racialism?" I later explained why I felt that it did. But apparently, nobody bothered to read anything I actually wrote. Instead, there was just a lot of defensive reaction, all focused on the tee-shirt, which was hardly one of my main points.

In the end, nobody answered my original question, which was fair and legitimate. I guess the responders were just too offended at what they THOUGHT I was trying to say, to the point that it didn't matter what I actually said. Unfortunately I can't control someone else's thoughts. I can only say what I mean.

"By the way, I'm not as sure as you are that a black GOP Obama would have got the few votes from the black community that you think. I DO think a lot of Blacks and whites, even Dems, might have voted for him because it was about time we had a black president."

We disagree about that. I can't imagine a black GOP-er getting half the black vote in a presidential election, particularly after GW Bush. Maybe Colin Powell could have back in the 90s, but I honestly can't see that either.

Regardless, my point was that this often-repeated claim of some white conservatives, that "blacks voted for Obama because he was black" is ridiculous on its face. If Obama were white, he still would have gotten at least 85% -- if not 90% or better -- because blacks have been voting for Dems in such numbers for decades now.

If you wanna argue that Obama received an extra 10% because he was black, fair enough. But don't put out some easily debunkable b.s. like "blacks voted for Obama because he was black".

"And it's getting FAR worse than it was."

Well, I agree about the 'color conscious' testing and all. But honestly, Z, that's a very different topic to me.

"the Right that gets blamed for somehow being connected to some horrid extreme groups and the Left, not so much...?"

Well, if you listen to Fox & Friends and Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh and WorldNetDaily, it's quite the opposite. How many times have I heard these people talk incessantly about the evil connections of the Left? I would guess somewhere between a million and two-million.

"But I don't have to prove my heart to ANYBODY."

I don't think you do either, Z. Nor have I ever questioned that.