Why is it a BIG deal to be a "black conservative"?
Options
Davis eyebrow
Members Posts: 518 ✭✭✭✭
Is it cuz the liberals took the welfare tactics and ran away with it or there's something behind it?
Comments
-
This is just my understanding: at face value, it's a big deal because conservatives are associated with Republicans, and Republicans are partially associated with the upper-class white elite, and upperclass white elite are NOT generally associated with blacks. Different cultures, ideals, values, etc.
Beyond face value, it really shouldn't matter much. I think that everyone, regardless of race, has or should have some conservative (and liberal) values. Calling yourself conservative doesnt really amount to much, at least to me. Labels like "conservative" just help us simplify things. They're not always accurate.
If I have to, I'd call myself a moderate, but I have some conservative values just the same.
Edit: Also, people like to think that black people are this singular, monolithic group who are all lower class and live in the projects, partially because of the effects of slavery. People also like to think that conservatives, namely the Republicans, are rich white people who think that all Americans have an equal opportunity of achieving the "American Dream", so in their minds, the idea that there are people who are disadvantaged and marginalized (say, because of slavery) and need help from the government is a misguided notion. To them, these people are just lazy and despondent. So people like to think that conservatives think that "poor black folk" are lazy. So no self-respecting black person would call himself a conservative. Now this is mostly ? , but I would think that a lot of people believe this. -
@Plutarch is probably one of the only intelligent posters in the social forum and is one of the only reasons I can tolerate this section sometimes.
It’s a big deal to be a black conservative because conservatives have historically opposed black progress. Slavery, social reform, De-segregation, civil rights etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily-White_Movement blacks used to be a significant demographic in the conservative party until they pretty much told us to get the hell out.
As far as ideology goes blacks have historically believed that the government can be used as an instrument to bring about social equality through responsible legislation. Conservatives typically want a smaller less intrusive government. This is why a lot of black side with democrats. However a lot of blacks are socially conservative they are usually against ? rights, abortion etc
-
blacks are conservative people but American conservatives don't care about blakc people so black people don't vote for them. theirs a difference between conservative and republican
-
Black Jerry Maguire wrote: »blacks are conservative people but American conservatives don't care about blakc people so black people don't vote for them. theirs a difference between conservative and republican
This.
Blacks are VERY conservative socially. We are a highly religious people (as are Latinos) but black don't traditionally vote Republican because white social conservatism and black social conservatism don't often co-exist.
So many blacks agree with white conservatives on the issue of abortion, ? marriage and faith based social questions that its surprising that they don't vote more towards Republicans...then the suspension of belief begins and ruins it all. What I mean by that is they ask you (not literally ask) to ignore what you know to be true for the benefit of not causing a scene or a ruckus.
For instance, racial profiling, and racism are a figment of your imagination, they simply don't exist to many conservatives. Many conservatives claim to be "color-blind", they don't see race but if you let them talk long enough you get blurbs like what ? said about not giving black people other people's money. Racism is a figment of your imagination your told, simply doesn't exist. Pat Robertson "we gave you welfare, what more do want?" But its a figment of your imagination man. It doesn't exist.
Granted there are a ton of overly sensitive white liberals who care more about black issues than many blacks do. A lot of them blow stuff outta proportion but I'd rather have that than some ? telling me that these issues don't exist.
Not to mention the typical conservative deification of the "founders/fathers/framers" of this country as the closest to saints this world ever had, and complete whitewashing over their slave-holding and their ideas that Blacks were subhuman.
I could continue but there's no point you get my drift. In and of itself there's nothing wrong with black conservatism especially considering that most blacks are conservatives, but when you cross over into that realm of denial of history & suspending reality your an idiot, period. -
Black Jerry Maguire wrote: »blacks are conservative people but American conservatives don't care about blakc people so black people don't vote for them.
I agree somewhat, but when you say "American conservatives," do you mean white conservatives?Black Jerry Maguire wrote: »theirs a difference between conservative and republican
True, very true. I think that this is one of the major points I want to make when I "respond" to lil loca. -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Conservatives typically want a smaller less intrusive government. This is why a lot of black side with democrats. However a lot of blacks are socially conservative they are usually against ? rights, abortion etc
This is what I find comical and ridiculous about conservatives. They say they hate big government and say they want less intrusion, but basically throw away that argument when it comes to abortion, ? marriage, and protecting the environment. They want all the government bills they can get when it comes to telling women what to do with their bodies, stopping ? from making things official, and want to be free to milk the earth bone dry.
I agree with everything said here, but I think that I would switch "conservatives" with "mainstream conservatives" or "social conservatives." Not all conservatives think this way, even if most believe that they do. Conservatives can be very diverse. I always refer to Ron Paul when I make this point, so I'll do so once again. Paul is one of many conservatives/Republicans who is not concerned with having the government dictate society:
5:00-7:00 (especially around the 5:55 and 6:35 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAl9V9I5dOk&feature=player_detailpage#t=303s
Republicans/conservatives aren't as homogenous as most people would like to think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QTAZWkHAx-8#t=224sPffft. Most of these people sure as hell don't hate big government when it comes to getting their own way and implementing oppressive policies that fit their own agenda. They just hate it when big government gets in the way of them making money or imposing their own moral/social biases on other people.
Agreed.
However (just to play devil's advocate) is it also fair to say that most liberals/Democrats are inconsistent as well? They want big government to intefere when it comes to the economy, but don't want the government anywhere near society?Also, there was a study that said that more young Blacks support ? marriage than ever before as well as supporting abortion rights. I think it has less to do with the younger generation being less religious than their older counterparts.
If this is true, I'm willing to guess that an easy majority of young blacks still either do not support ? marriage or simply don't care. I'm also willing to guess that more young female blacks are the ones who are supporting ? marriage, not young male blacks. I don't have much of an idea when it comes to abortion though.
Religion is definitely a factor in opposing homosexuality, but I honestly think that it's much deeper than rap. I'm sure there are plenty of nonreligious people who oppose homosexuality just the same. Homosexuality has its way of disturbing people regardless of anything. I honestly think that religion doesn't really play a major role in this. People, black and white, just hate/fear homosexuality imo.I don't get Black conservatives. Basically, you are leaning towards a party whose ideas about economics and social equality are outdated and repressive for people of color, women, and people of alternate sexualities.
Again, I don't think that this is entirely true. There are unprejudiced conservatives out there even if it's true that most conservatives are oppressive or ignorant (and I'm not necessarily saying that this is true).
This may just be yet another semantics beef, but the meaning of "conservative" isn't universally agreed upon. Even more so, it's not entirely equivalent to "Republican" (which is an even more complicated word imo). So I think that when we're talking about conservatives, we might be talking about many different types of politics.Why go against your own interests and others around you who are soon to become a majority in the coming years?
Who exactly is soon to become a majority? -
i think the mistake you're making is thinking they exist to liberals eitherFor instance, racial profiling, and racism are a figment of your imagination, they simply don't exist to many conservatives.
-
Because you lazy hoes are ? up the economy.
-
4. The reason I said I don't get Black conservatives is that generally, conservatives have been in favor of slashing programs that benefit poor people of color, the working class, and single mothers--welfare, Affirmative Action, bilingual education, contraception, and strong labor unions. Since Black folks make up the majority of those who are oppressed, I don't understand how you can embrace an ideology that wants to do away with what has helped people of color/women/working class poor along in a racist/sexist market economy. And yes, there might be a semantics problem with using conservative and Republican interchangeably, but the dominant Republican ideology is conservative, no?
The irony of the welfare state is that white conservatives will often cite this as corrupting blacks work ethic when in fact whites actually use these services more than blacks if you consider medicare and SS benefits. Fundamentally we all pay into these systems but whites obtain more benefits from teh welfare state and i don't see how that system is not a racist institution when one ethnic group accrues additional benefits from it.
Communities are supposed to take care of their members but a nation state of the size and diversity we live in can never be considered a community. There are to many disparate motivations and no unifying principles. We are not an ant hill and ants are all sisters and brothers anyway. Aid based systems should be handled locally and not nationally which is how humans evolved. Offloading aid to non-local distant institutions devalues the community and makes us parasites on each other.
The welfare state just creates tremendous division and hatred amongst the donors and the recipients.
-
4. The reason I said I don't get Black conservatives is that generally, conservatives have been in favor of slashing programs that benefit poor people of color, the working class, and single mothers--welfare, Affirmative Action, bilingual education, contraception, and strong labor unions. Since Black folks make up the majority of those who are oppressed, I don't understand how you can embrace an ideology that wants to do away with what has helped people of color/women/working class poor along in a racist/sexist market economy. And yes, there might be a semantics problem with using conservative and Republican interchangeably, but the dominant Republican ideology is conservative, no?
The irony of the welfare state is that white conservatives will often cite this as corrupting blacks work ethic when in fact whites actually use these services more than blacks if you consider medicare and SS benefits. Fundamentally we all pay into these systems but whites obtain more benefits from teh welfare state and i don't see how that system is not a racist institution when one ethnic group accrues additional benefits from it.
Communities are supposed to take care of their members but a nation state of the size and diversity we live in can never be considered a community. There are to many disparate motivations and no unifying principles. We are not an ant hill and ants are all sisters and brothers anyway. Aid based systems should be handled locally and not nationally which is how humans evolved. Offloading aid to non-local distant institutions devalues the community and makes us parasites on each other.
The welfare state just creates tremendous division and hatred amongst the donors and the recipients.
Everyone is a donor and everyone is a recipient. You can't talk about welfare without mentioning massive amounts of corporate welfare lavished up the top earners every year.
The bolded is a truism as well. -
this is probably the most fruitful discussion ive ever scene on this forum
-
You can't talk about welfare without mentioning massive amounts of corporate welfare lavished up the top earners every year.
If your speaking specifically about bailouts, subsidies, rent-seeking activity i couldn't agree more. A free market is a system that incorporates profits as well as LOSSES. If companies or creditors are bailed out then their entire incentive structure will change and this is exactly one of the contributed factors to 08' sub-prime. The US has been bailing out creditors for ages. Creditors duties are to verify if particular recipients are good candidates for loans, that is can the pay back the loan with interest. If your a creditor and your lending capital is ALWAYS going to be refunded at the expense of American taxpayers what is your incentive to take carefull consideration of lending candidates. None, because you will always be made whole at somebody else s expense.
I couldn't agree more with you if your suggesting welfare or capital/cash aid with no expectation of remuneration is corrupting to individual incentive regardless of your position in the economic stratum. Economists call this moral hazard but this phenomenon is not limited to one segment of the population. It occurs even in the animal kingdom, it's called risk homeostasis.Everyone is a donor and everyone is a recipient.
This isn't the relevant point. The main point is that some individuals receive a surplus while others take very little. The fact remains that under these sort of welfare systems, be they for poor or rich, somebody is getting the better of somebody else. There is no accounting structure that results in a reconcilable and referential point to determine if a persons contributions balance with their benefits. As such EVERYBODY, particularly conservatives ( who are irritated by the welfare state), is denied information about the balance of these accounts. It should be obvious to anybody that not everybody is going to donate the same amount and not everybody is going to contribute the same so there is an internal discomfort with the welfare state from a large volume of people who not only realize because of lack of market based itemization there will be no balance in contributions vs benefits. That discomfort is bolstered by teh fact that many under the alleged umbrella of protection are adversarial or have no interest in the other individuals welfare and so any claims from teh benefit structure aren't met with shame or some other behavioral regulator because the claimant either doesn't know of the donors existence or is hostile to teh donors existence.
Further more many poor people don't want welfare, they want to be self sufficient however they directly compete with other poor people and as such their competition can obtain advantageous position over them. When you consider that some % of welfare benefits are financed via sales or income tax that poor people even pay you have a situation where a poor person with dignity is financing his own economic destruction because he simply refuses to become a dependent.
The society we live in today is a kleptocratic clusterf*&k. It is not based on cooperation but on theft between individuals mediated by governmental stimulus, regulatory efforts and welfare.
-
Well, more whites obtain benefits because there are more of them in the population. Blacks make up a smaller percentage than whites.
So if we look at percentages and then consider SS and Medicare whites consume more than blacks. Obviously whites are a larger group so looking at the aggregate claims to beneficiaries wont’ tell you anything. % Wise whites consume more welfare dollars so as an institution it’s inherently a racist one favoring whites.In a market economy, you'll never have enough jobs or income for everyone. A social safety net created by the national government is necessary to prevent chaos.
I suppose if you have a Keynesian outlook that might be true as you need a group of elite to manage and stimulate demand. I simply don’t’ accept this. Demand is fundamentally infinite. As long as individuals have the power to demand stuff they will. New things are created like plastic surgery, space tourism, plastics and smartphones and demand emerges, not as a phenomenon that a bunch of elected lawyers or their appointed experts decree. We decide and demand expands.
Regulatory compliance costs limit the growth of business and the ability for entrepreneurs to engage in risk in addition to giving large existing firms advantage over new entrants into the market.I disagree about welfare devaluing the community. Welfare dollars trickled down to the hood in the past. The welfare dollars kept local businesses afloat. Merchants were able to hire people in the community, keep streets safer, and helped to keep communities viable.
The purpose of a community is to supply these things. The donor and the beneficiary are supposed to form a relationship and move toward mutualistic existence. The welfare state alienates the donor from the recipient resulting in a relationship where the recipient feels no obligation to the donor.
The left seem to recognize this with corporations getting benefits or rich kids getting a trust fund but when it they have to apply the same logic to the poor they simply don’t do it. The poor are somehow exempt from the same behavioral principles as the rich.
And welfare does erode the value of your community. We have many people rioting and destroying their own communities, particularly whites in Europe during the early stages of austerity implementation. Why would somebody destroy their own community, because it offers them nothing. The state has tried to play the role of community leader and as such it’s destroyed families by making the father unnecessary, because the pregnant woman can just make a claim on the state and doesn’t need a father. These two forces have created endless desolation in the inner cities and the rural sht holes of America.
Safety nets are and where always handled locally and the Fabians and FDR era progressivism distended the social structure so much that there is simply no need for social commerce between individuals as all interaction can simply be mediated by the powerful state as if it was a ? .
We didn’t evolve with a state, how is it we were able to survive without one? I’ts simple, the safety net was handled locally and this is simply a better system as it forces the donor and the recipient to be in contact with other. It humanizes the plight of the recipient to the donor and it demonstrates to the donor where the funds and aid are coming from and puts a face on them.
The welfare state obfuscates this exchange.
-
If you consider a population of 100 whites, they consume welfare at a higher rate than a population of 100 blacks. Whites, as a percentage, are MORE dependent on welfare. Or to phrase it another way the average white is more likely to obtain a surplus of benefits from welfare then the average black. The welfare state as a institution simply benefits the average white person more.Can't comprehend how it's a racist institution when whites are the majority by default, so they will get the benefits. Also, people of color are still immensely benefited from health care, social security, Medicare and food stamps, so I'm not seeing how all the help is only going to whites.
Or the alternative theory is that the government itself creates the crises by accident by distorting the money supply or bailing out industry rather than letting the assets or capital get liquidated for more socially beneficial uses. I mean people often look at market systems and point out inherent instability and cyclical phenomenon but why ignore the existence of political cycles as if politics is somehow a stable system. Greece doesn’t seem stable, the soviet union wasn’t stable in 89’. Politics promises people stuff other people have earned and now when those who underwrite their debt want to pull the eject lever your left with civil war in the streets your once placid country. All complex systems are cyclical, from an ecosystem to a woman’s body to an economy and even a socialist economy.Well, for all the theories on demand, there still are not enough jobs or income for everyone, which is why we experience economic crises now and then, with the government rushing in to fix it. Capitalism in itself is a system that is designed to fail IMO, but that is another convo.The Great Depression showed that we do indeed need a safety net backed up by the state in a market economy. The government had avoided this for a long time before they finally conceded to this being a reality, whereas European nations already enacted social safety net measure. Also, how can a community provide a safety net and resources by itself without help from a larger institution, especially one that is poor and suffers from neglect from local officials? As much as communities thrive, they still need help from the state. With welfare reform, there have been less circulation of income and dollars to keep businesses afloat.
The GD was an example of overzealous regulation that worsened the economic stagnation.
How did communities do it prior to the emergence of a state? People are fundamentally altruistic. They will donate time and resources. They do this already. The state alienates us from each other in this type of altruistic exchange.
In addition state interference prevents people from creating the institutions that do this.
As far as being ignored by local officials ? Well why wouldn’t they be? There’s no reason for local officials to consider them because they now pass the buck to the federal government under Medicaid. We are adapting to the institutions we are given. Slaves adapt to their cages and will become grateful for their masters beneficence, that doesn’t mean slavery is an optimal social structure. Are you to have me believe that only federal officials have the capacity of care for others? In fact they would be less likely as they are further removed.
Denmark is a tiny country with low diversity. In addition all Scandinavian countries that practiced socialism have a very slow growth rate as a result. Your also claiming it works without being able to consider the counterfactuals, that is to say what would have been. I’m not claiming welfare states will collapse your country overnight but they will certainly ? it.Also, Denmark is a country that is backed up by a strong welfare state with low crime, little poverty, and a quality education system. If their system can work, I don't see why we can't make ours work, while we still have capitalism.
Insofar as why I would reject this? Because I want the benefits I get from society to be proportional to what I contribute. I don’t’ want to be unable to see who is getting surpluses.
-
Huh ? i thought i explained this mathematically. There is a larger proportion of whites that obtain benefits from the system then blacks as a percentage of the population. A white person is more likely to obtain benefits then a black person as a % NOT as an aggregate of the population.Sure, more whites depend on the system. Racism isn't implicit in the welfare state because there is a higher percentage of white people in the US. That would be if the numbers of whites and minorities were comparable. However, if people of color were excluded from getting the same type of benefits, then we could call racism. Not in this case.
If you take a sample of 10 whites and 10 blacks the ratio of claimants of whites will be higher, thus whites are obtaining disproportionate benefits from the system. As the left clamors for equality they ignore this fact.
The rest i'll have to address later.
-
Huh ? i thought i explained this mathematically. There is a larger proportion of whites that obtain benefits from the system then blacks as a percentage of the population. A white person is more likely to obtain benefits then a black person as a % NOT as an aggregate of the population.Sure, more whites depend on the system. Racism isn't implicit in the welfare state because there is a higher percentage of white people in the US. That would be if the numbers of whites and minorities were comparable. However, if people of color were excluded from getting the same type of benefits, then we could call racism. Not in this case.
If you take a sample of 10 whites and 10 blacks the ratio of claimants of whites will be higher, thus whites are obtaining disproportionate benefits from the system. As the left clamors for equality they ignore this fact.
The rest i'll have to address later.
I just cannot comprehend your inability to be factual about those numbers - Per capita wise changes everything.
-
FYI (below) --- feel free to explain why this isn't relevant - I just can't understand why this is ALWAYS avoided? so does this mean they will get more welfare benefits and not be held responsible ? because whites are the bigger recipients volume/population wise? BTW many Hispanics claim white when they should be considered Hispanics in those consensus reports.
The per-capita welfare spending figures are higher for black recipients because the percentage of the total black population that receives welfare is greater than the percentage of the white population that receives welfare. The same is true for Hispanic recipients.
-
FYI (below) --- feel free to explain why this isn't relevant - I just can't understand why this is ALWAYS avoided? so does this mean they will get more welfare benefits and not be held responsible ? because whites are the bigger recipients volume/population wise? BTW many Hispanics claim white when they should be considered Hispanics in those consensus reports.
The per-capita welfare spending figures are higher for black recipients because the percentage of the total black population that receives welfare is greater than the percentage of the white population that receives welfare. The same is true for Hispanic recipients.
Blacks are historically underprivileged and there hasn't been a time in this country's history that we weren't put in a position where we had to take whatever assistance to survive in an uneven society perpetrated by institutional racism. Btw, Hispanic isn't a race. -
There used to be far more black conservatives but white conservatives decided to pander to the southern racist for votes when the Democrats moved away from them. The parties have always been unique in their goals with Republicans favoring big business and small regulation. Democrats in the North and South were different only on their stance on slavery but were always about workers rights. The democrats moved away from overt racism and the Republicans saw a chance I think black folks were conservative mainly because they were about building their communities. Jim Crow laws, institutional racism, and assassinations of our leaders and communities through drugs and under served schools put a stop to that. Even King was a Republican of the old Lincoln party until it was usurped by racist and plutocrats.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FYI (below) --- feel free to explain why this isn't relevant - I just can't understand why this is ALWAYS avoided? so does this mean they will get more welfare benefits and not be held responsible ? because whites are the bigger recipients volume/population wise? BTW many Hispanics claim white when they should be considered Hispanics in those consensus reports.
The per-capita welfare spending figures are higher for black recipients because the percentage of the total black population that receives welfare is greater than the percentage of the white population that receives welfare. The same is true for Hispanic recipients.
Blacks are historically underprivileged and there hasn't been a time in this country's history that we weren't put in a position where we had to take whatever assistance to survive in an uneven society perpetrated by institutional racism. Btw, Hispanic isn't a race.
As long as you continue to live in the past,Y would any CURRENT issues/statics matter to you? IMO black folks maybe UNDERPRIVILEGED? but in 2012 btw ARE current times the media PROTECTS black people by ANY MEANS NECESSARY - in this day and time the truth IS NEVER told & we can blame many of our so-called leaders for that.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FYI (below) --- feel free to explain why this isn't relevant - I just can't understand why this is ALWAYS avoided? so does this mean they will get more welfare benefits and not be held responsible ? because whites are the bigger recipients volume/population wise? BTW many Hispanics claim white when they should be considered Hispanics in those consensus reports.
The per-capita welfare spending figures are higher for black recipients because the percentage of the total black population that receives welfare is greater than the percentage of the white population that receives welfare. The same is true for Hispanic recipients.
Blacks are historically underprivileged and there hasn't been a time in this country's history that we weren't put in a position where we had to take whatever assistance to survive in an uneven society perpetrated by institutional racism. Btw, Hispanic isn't a race.
As long as you continue to live in the past,Y would any CURRENT issues/statics matter to you? IMO black folks maybe UNDERPRIVILEGED? but in 2012 btw ARE current times the media PROTECTS black people by ANY MEANS NECESSARY - in this day and time the truth IS NEVER told & we can blame many of our so-called leaders for that.
That's ? because it's going on in the present and found it's origins in the past. Historical events affect the present positively and negatively. Institutions exist today based on past events. The media portrays all of our negative points and even when we try to control our own thing, corporations take advantage of these negative points for capital gain. Show me where black folks aren't overrepresented in prisons for similar crimes, and I'll agree that white folks get all the blame. You can have your talking points that has a habit of pointing the finger at black folks for voting in their own best interest against people who would tell us that blacks folks were lucky to be slaves. You white people are so proud of your history celebrating Columbus but want to escape the past when anything that doesn't suit your pretty picture is bought up. -
FuriousOne
Thanks for avoiding the negative & proving my point. If any said white person does another minority wrong the media jumps ALL OVER that issue - BUT if any minority does wrong the media avoids said issue for fear of being labeled - or if they do bring the truth about said issue - out comes the racist rhetoric/bigotry and so on and on and on - SO the powers that be just avoid the topic entirely & THE REAL truth never gets told. IMO the media protects minorities across the board & in particular AA people. Kind of ironic and hypocritical of you to claim otherwise, when in fact it happens within said site and it does happen within society as well.
-
FuriousOne
Thanks for avoiding the negative & proving my point. If any said white person does another minority wrong the media jumps ALL OVER that issue - BUT if any minority does wrong the media avoids said issue for fear of being labeled - or if they do bring the truth about said issue - out comes the racist rhetoric/bigotry and so on and on and on - SO the powers that be just avoid the topic entirely & THE REAL truth never gets told. IMO the media protects minorities across the board & in particular AA people. Kind of ironic and hypocritical of you to claim otherwise, when in fact it happens within said site and it does happen within society as well.
Don't try to act like our perceptions of what is negative are the same. I'm talking the negative events that were perpetrated on a people and the residual effects and your quickness as a people to avoid that topic but point fingers at us regardless. This site deals with all sorts of topics, but you focus exclusively on the negative and you interject a constant stream of racism in most subjects. That's irony. The media loves to point out all the stuff that minorities do and your idea that the media is protecting minorities has nothing to do with the justice system being completely biased. Black folks are always used as examples of why to eliminate a system. We are the go to scapegoats. It's ironic for you to call me hypocritical when you just said it was in your honest OPINION. I didn't know that your opinions pass as facts that everybody should cherish.
-
Because people in politics and media are lazy and putting a label on you makes it easier to place you in either the "with us" or "against us"camp. I am a conservative, and while I have voted for a Republican before, I am definitely not a Republican. Most Republicans aren't true conservatives either. If you believe in smaller government, you shouldn't be subsidizing business, spying on citizens under the guise of looking for terrorists, etc.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne
Thanks for avoiding the negative & proving my point. If any said white person does another minority wrong the media jumps ALL OVER that issue - BUT if any minority does wrong the media avoids said issue for fear of being labeled - or if they do bring the truth about said issue - out comes the racist rhetoric/bigotry and so on and on and on - SO the powers that be just avoid the topic entirely & THE REAL truth never gets told. IMO the media protects minorities across the board & in particular AA people. Kind of ironic and hypocritical of you to claim otherwise, when in fact it happens within said site and it does happen within society as well.
Don't try to act like our perceptions of what is negative are the same. I'm talking the negative events that were perpetrated on a people and the residual effects and your quickness as a people to avoid that topic but point fingers at us regardless. This site deals with all sorts of topics, but you focus exclusively on the negative and you interject a constant stream of racism in all most subjects. That's irony. It is in your opinion because the media loves to point out all the stuff that minorities do and your idea that the media is protecting minorities has nothing to do with the justice system being completely biased. Black folks are always used as examples of why to eliminate a system. We are the go to scapegoats. It's ironic for you to give call my hypocritical when you just said it was in your honest OPINION. I didn't know your opinions past as facts that everybody should cherish.
UN-like you, most people would rather eliminate the negative and accentuate the positive. Don't try in spin this to fit YOUR narrative. FYI I have compassion for folks who are down on there luck for whatever reason - but if they refuse to GET UP, seriously how can said person ever better themselves in the long run? now if they pass that mindset onto to their children and they develop the same kind of mentality...SERIOUSLY just how long can society be expected to take care of them?
NOW IMO the current administration is trying to make people feel like bigger government will help them live that kind of life/existence. Is that the direction you want? personally I don't feel America can survive for much longer if we go in that direction.
