Comments on: Liberal Racism http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/ Thu, 17 May 2012 08:38:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Joe http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-148908 Joe Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:00:49 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-148908 There is no way to argue with the relgious right on this issue. Hard core conservatives will back a republican like gonzalez no matter how tanted he is. Arguing with them is like arguing with a wall. Fuck Gonzalez There is no way to argue with the relgious right on this issue. Hard core conservatives will back a republican like gonzalez no matter how tanted he is. Arguing with them is like arguing with a wall. Fuck Gonzalez

]]> By: Joe http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-148909 Joe Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:00:46 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-148909 There is no way to argue with the relgious right on this issue. Hard core conservatives will back a republican like gonzalez no matter how tanted he is. Arguing with them is like arguing with a wall. Fuck Gonzalez There is no way to argue with the relgious right on this issue. Hard core conservatives will back a republican like gonzalez no matter how tanted he is. Arguing with them is like arguing with a wall. Fuck Gonzalez

]]> By: James D. Bilotta http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-110143 James D. Bilotta Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:11:48 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-110143 Editor, an excellent and powerful book suggestion for your readers: 3rd ed. of: Race and the Rise of the Republican Party, 1848-1865. Backed by 18 years of research this is a serious treatment of US racism/ethnocentrism and is not for the timid. Dr. James D. Bilotta/raceandrepublicans.com Editor, an excellent and powerful book suggestion for your readers: 3rd ed. of: Race and the Rise of the Republican Party, 1848-1865. Backed by 18 years of research this is a serious treatment of US racism/ethnocentrism and is not for the timid. Dr. James D. Bilotta/raceandrepublicans.com

]]> By: Laurie Rhodes http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-108431 Laurie Rhodes Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:45:00 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-108431 What I am about to say has little to do with politics in an obvious way, but has more to do with how politics reflect the perceptions of everyday people. I am a soon to be minister -- interfaith. It's my last year and it's time to start thinking about the future and in this search for the future, I happened upon "liberal" churchs. While I get what they're talking about the experience has left me feeling somewhat apprehensive. I have found myself in the company of so called liberals for one reason or another my entire life and I have found that they're perceptions on race and/or ethnicity are more detrimental than any interaction with Klansman or Neo-Nazi largely because they are so convinced of the evolution of the limits on racism or biggotry that they won't even entertain the idea that one is being harmed or being used; they frequently make biggotted comments such as the like I read above that are dismissive -- so and so would not have gotten a, b, or c had not so and so been black, hispanic, asian, native american southeast asian; "Who played the race card" as if racism is a game... It's the presumption of the dismissiveness that worries me; what, in the first place, gives them the right to make decrees on any group that is not white? This action has usually been a white behavior; does it matter that a self proclaimed liberal just because s/he is liberal has the right to decree who gets what because of race and/or ethnicity or how they get what they get? The act of making a decree actually maintains the white perspective on social matters. What has any of this everyday social interaction have to do with republicans and democrats? These groups are confronted by and/or have succumbed to the aforementioned presumptions; they also wield an enormous amount of power -- the combination is potentially problematic. What I am about to say has little to do with politics in an obvious way, but has more to do with how politics reflect the perceptions of everyday people.

I am a soon to be minister — interfaith. It’s my last year and it’s time to start thinking about the future and in this search for the future, I happened upon “liberal” churchs. While I get what they’re talking about the experience has left me feeling somewhat apprehensive. I have found myself in the company of so called liberals for one reason or another my entire life and I have found that they’re perceptions on race and/or ethnicity are more detrimental than any interaction with Klansman or Neo-Nazi largely because they are so convinced of the evolution of the limits on racism or biggotry that they won’t even entertain the idea that one is being harmed or being used; they frequently make biggotted comments such as the like I read above that are dismissive — so and so would not have gotten a, b, or c had not so and so been black, hispanic, asian, native american southeast asian; “Who played the race card” as if racism is a game…

It’s the presumption of the dismissiveness that worries me; what, in the first place, gives them the right to make decrees on any group that is not white? This action has usually been a white behavior; does it matter that a self proclaimed liberal just because s/he is liberal has the right to decree who gets what because of race and/or ethnicity or how they get what they get? The act of making a decree actually maintains the white perspective on social matters.

What has any of this everyday social interaction have to do with republicans and democrats? These groups are confronted by and/or have succumbed to the aforementioned presumptions; they also wield an enormous amount of power — the combination is potentially problematic.

]]> By: Julio G http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-5428 Julio G Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:43:31 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-5428 Forget RepubliKKKans and forget Democrats. Blacks and Latinos need to form an Independent political party that is a challenge to the two party system. RepubliKKKans only care about people of color that serve as yes men. Look at the case of Powell and Rice. Powell is critical of war with Iraq, and gets put on the backburner. Rice cheerleads the war, and replaces Powell. The right wing has given us: English-Only, cut bilingual education, anti-immigrant rhetoric, anti-affirmative action, more jails instead of schools, tax cuts for the rich, and opposes organized labor which protects wages and benefits for workers of color. Ironically, the icon of black conservatism, Jesse Lee Peterson, raises hell about black people blaming white people for their problems...yet Peterson has made a career out of blaming legal and illegal aliens for social problems. Hey Peterson...how about trying a little personal responsbility for once (your exact words too, buddy)? Democrats only care about minorities come election time. They are not much better than their opponents. People of color need to unite and challenge this two party system. It is time to stop letting rich, elitist white people who have absolutely no contact with Blacks and Latinos telling us what our problems are. F*ck the system! Forget RepubliKKKans and forget Democrats. Blacks and Latinos need to form an Independent political party that is a challenge to the two party system. RepubliKKKans only care about people of color that serve as yes men. Look at the case of Powell and Rice. Powell is critical of war with Iraq, and gets put on the backburner. Rice cheerleads the war, and replaces Powell. The right wing has given us: English-Only, cut bilingual education, anti-immigrant rhetoric, anti-affirmative action, more jails instead of schools, tax cuts for the rich, and opposes organized labor which protects wages and benefits for workers of color. Ironically, the icon of black conservatism, Jesse Lee Peterson, raises hell about black people blaming white people for their problems…yet Peterson has made a career out of blaming legal and illegal aliens for social problems. Hey Peterson…how about trying a little personal responsbility for once (your exact words too, buddy)?
Democrats only care about minorities come election time. They are not much better than their opponents. People of color need to unite and challenge this two party system. It is time to stop letting rich, elitist white people who have absolutely no contact with Blacks and Latinos telling us what our problems are. F*ck the system!

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-4753 HispanicPundit Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:15:09 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-4753 I didn't call him a racist because of the mix up, I called him a racist because he made a generalization that <b>all</b> 'minority race republicans' got to where they are because of their <i>race</i>. The confusion of names was just an FYI at the end of a post. I didn’t call him a racist because of the mix up, I called him a racist because he made a generalization that all ‘minority race republicans’ got to where they are because of their race. The confusion of names was just an FYI at the end of a post.

]]> By: Leonora http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-4752 Leonora Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:03:31 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-4752 Alberto and Roberto are names very similar to one another. That's a real big stretch to call a mixup in names RACISM.. Give me a friggin' break and quit whining. Alberto and Roberto are names very similar to one another. That’s a real big stretch to call a mixup in names RACISM.. Give me a friggin’ break and quit whining.

]]> By: DarkStar http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-588 DarkStar Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:07:16 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-588 <em>And yes, Given the social climate of the 70s and 80s when Powell and Rice were in junior positions, it would be asinine to deny that they were beneficiaries of AA.</em> Powell doesn't deny it. My point is, Powell, while qualified, was able to get those qualifications by expanding the talent pool. That's not mentioned about them. Now, anyone want to address why conservatives don't point out Earl Graves or Cathy Hughes? And yes, Given the social climate of the 70s and 80s when Powell and Rice were in junior positions, it would be asinine to deny that they were beneficiaries of AA.

Powell doesn’t deny it. My point is, Powell, while qualified, was able to get those qualifications by expanding the talent pool. That’s not mentioned about them.

Now, anyone want to address why conservatives don’t point out Earl Graves or Cathy Hughes?

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-442 HispanicPundit Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:59:09 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-442 <i>A dwindling 5 million vote margin is not an ass kicking, and all the votes have not been counted yet. Bush got the most votes cast against any sitting incumbent President in our nation’s history. He has single-handedly turned most of the world against us, and has swollen the ranks of terrorists.</i> I see I touched a nerve with my latest response, didn't I, ThatColoredFella? I could tell, since you gave me a free assesment of my psychological make up (others would say you got personal) ;) But here's a piece of trivia for you, it was Bush, something Clinton <strong>never</strong> could do, that cracked the 50% voter point. That hasn't been done since the 80's. Oh and one more thing, Bush got more votes than any President ever got, <em>in history</em>. Just a small piece of trivia, nothing personal, but please feel free to tell me my motivations behind posting this if it will make you feel better. :D A dwindling 5 million vote margin is not an ass kicking, and all the votes have not been counted yet. Bush got the most votes cast against any sitting incumbent President in our nation’s history. He has single-handedly turned most of the world against us, and has swollen the ranks of terrorists.

I see I touched a nerve with my latest response, didn’t I, ThatColoredFella? I could tell, since you gave me a free assesment of my psychological make up (others would say you got personal) ;)

But here’s a piece of trivia for you, it was Bush, something Clinton never could do, that cracked the 50% voter point. That hasn’t been done since the 80’s.

Oh and one more thing, Bush got more votes than any President ever got, in history.

Just a small piece of trivia, nothing personal, but please feel free to tell me my motivations behind posting this if it will make you feel better. :D

]]> By: True_Liberal http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-439 True_Liberal Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:53:20 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2004/11/19/liberal-racism/#comment-439 "...Why is a member of the Republican Party under assault by the Right, for merely suggesting an anti-choice nominee would probably not be confirmed by the Senate?..." Because - if he were to exercise this stance in his domestic leadership position, it would conflict with the prevailing sentiment of his party. "... Powell states that he wouldn’t have gotten to where he is, or at least gotten to be in the position to be selected, if it weren’t for affirmative action. Condi Rice supports affirmative action..." While these positions are probably not in the mainstream of the Republican party, they have virtually no impact on the conduct of our foreign policy (which, after all, is the province of the Secretary of State). And yes, Given the social climate of the 70s and 80s when Powell and Rice were in junior positions, it would be asinine to deny that they were beneficiaries of AA. They are clearly beyond that today. (Even though Clinton pledged to appoint a cabinet "looking more like America", he never can close to fulfilling that in the way W has.) “…Why is a member of the Republican Party under assault by the Right, for merely suggesting an anti-choice nominee would probably not be confirmed by the Senate?…”

Because - if he were to exercise this stance in his domestic leadership position, it would conflict with the prevailing sentiment of his party.

“… Powell states that he wouldn’t have gotten to where he is, or at least gotten to be in the position to be selected, if it weren’t for affirmative action.

Condi Rice supports affirmative action…”

While these positions are probably not in the mainstream of the Republican party, they have virtually no impact on the conduct of our foreign policy (which, after all, is the province of the Secretary of State).

And yes, Given the social climate of the 70s and 80s when Powell and Rice were in junior positions, it would be asinine to deny that they were beneficiaries of AA.

They are clearly beyond that today. (Even though Clinton pledged to appoint a cabinet “looking more like America”, he never can close to fulfilling that in the way W has.)

]]>