Liberal Negatives--from an Independent viewpoint

= how to bring America down...

being a "real" conservative and putting your ideals ahead of the survival of this nation...THIS is what has brought us to this. Liberals are SUPPOSED to bash the Right; what's Conservatives excuse?

What is the racial makeup of Independents, and what derogatory words do they wish to speak to Blacks? Do Independents object to white women and Hispanics benefiting from affirmative action? What derogatory words, if any, do Independents want to speak to Hispanic, Native, and Asian Americans, as well as American white women? Are younger minorities truly committed to the idea of affirmative action? I remember the media talking about a difference between Barack Obama's generation and Jesse Jackson's generation on issues of race. Is it true that white women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action?

Playing the race card is a losing strategy for conservatives.

Independents are mostly White because most Americans are White (which is why other races are called "minority") and Independents make up 60% of the voting population.

Independents don't necessarily want to say anything negative to Blacks, they just want the right to say to Blacks what they can say to Whites, Asians, Orientals and everybody and anybody. At the very least they want to think it; something this political correctness has got people so cowed they can't even have it in their private thoughts.

This is the first generation that has grown up with the idea of equality between races and gender being an expected reality, so no, minorities as well as the majority Whites, are not committed to the racism and sexism of affirmative action. There may be a difference between the generation of Obama's and Jesse's time but it isn't a lack of racism for both of these men has used the race card for their advantage. Many Blacks who HAS earned their position are learning that affirmative action is actually hurting their careers because people assume that the color of their skin is the sole reason for their success.

I don't believe White women benefit from affirmative action...as one woman told a talk show host, her job was given to another woman who was Black...and then that woman was replaced by another woman who was Moslem. They are learning, like Blacks, that affirmative action tells the world that they cannot make it without help from the government.

About playing the race card, you obviously didn't understand my post. I said...The "race card" is coming to the end of it's usefulness.

It is the Dems who use it and it is THEIR negative not the GOP.

What is the racial makeup of Independents with regards to racial percentages?

If voicing one's opinions on race constitutes playing the race card, it seems Independents and conservatives are still playing the "race card", along with liberals. Whatever one's thoughts on the issue of racial politics I think there is room for intelligent and civil debate.

Do a majority of the citizens, of our country, truly care if people think "that they cannot make it without help from the government"? It would be great if Wall Street bankers and automobile manufacturers would stop going to the government for help. Truly there is something to be said for less government help/intervention.

Considering our country's changing racial demographics, I am not so sure that the "race card" is seeing its demise.

Patrick, most American voters ARE Independent and extremely busy with business, church, sports, kids; they also tend to hold very little interest in politics. Unlike Republicans that tend to be mostly White, with a small percentage of minorities or Democrats which rely heavily on the Black vote, most Independents reflect the racial makeup of America, 60% White, 15% Hispanic, 12% Black, and the rest Oriental/Asian.

Just talking about race isn't "playing the race card"...expecting special treatment because of the color of your skin IS. It is something Blacks do all of the time and it is my belief that little card is getting old.

"Intelligent and civil debate about race with a Black person?" Come on Patrick, how many people feel comfortable in actually NOT giving a Black person a pass? How many times in a conversation will the Black person bring up racism and how many times will a non-Black insist that he/she is NOT racist?

Yes, I do think the majority of the people who gets pushed aside because he isn't the right color DOES care. The young especially, still believe in fairness...and many of them are asking "what happened to MY equality?

The race card has been played by Alaskans and Hawaiians and to a lesser degree by Orientals/Asians, HOWEVER, no one has more of a vested interest in keeping that card than the Blacks.

But again, as each race continues to grow and/or Whites see their majority threatened, the card will eventually become a liability to Blacks and ultimately to the Democrats.

But unfortunately it always works, and scares people away from discussing the real issues that affect all Americans.

My observation about black youth today, comes from students in my classes, who still hold on to the past and insist that America is today a racist country. This attitude has not changed in the 30 years that I have been teaching.

Oprah Winfrey and the very rich black athletes and stars are only possible in America. I don't know of any other country that has the same opportunity for all races.

I used to get into huge "discussions" with a Liberal colleage in Britain (obviously not my business partner)after 9/11 when I no longer would tolerate America bashing.

One day, we were watching Colin Powell discuss America's plans in the war...and Simon (the Labor colleage) got real quiet.

"You know," he said finally, "that would never happen in England".

I was about to go off on him and his "Britain always does it better" tirade, when he continued. "We pay lip service to Blacks, but we'd never let a Black man get that high up in the government."

I am not so cynical as you are about Blacks or any other group who is the beneficiary of affirmative action e.g. white women, Hispanics, Asians etc... with regard to the "room for intelligent and civil debate". If those who are against affirmative action and those who are supportive of affirmative action continually malign the motive for the opposition, ill formed opinion born of ignorance/contempt must triumph. As you may have guessed, I support man's right to have principled opinions even though they may not be politically expedient. In the case of affirmative action/"playing the race card", it is my belief that both sides may hold inflexible opinions without being disdainful. Moreover, to my understanding, prejudice is more easily nurtured and maintained when it is not engaged both civilly and intellectually. The fact that approximately two thirds of all Black children are born out of wedlock is something that may be explored between races without acrimony. Of course, there will always be a certain segment within any group that will be unnecessarily temperamental, but that should not stop men and women of good conscience, from engaging pivotal issues.

I encourage you to discuss the "race card" with any minority open to the conversation. Perhaps, you may find that they believe that other races shut down conversation through the playing of it. Whatever one's belief it is an instructive dialogue to engage.

has never quite taken a hold in my state as most people are so mixed racially that it's rather difficult to play victim.

Yes there are the "native" Hawaiians that demand reparation from the "illegal" overthrow of the kingdom but most people just roll their eyes as in "old already".

In fact, most locals don't buy the idea that Obama who was born and raised in this state shared the same experience of racism that his Black inner city "brothers" claim to experience.

To continue to "talk" about race is to give the card a significance it no longer has.

America has already given Blacks privileges denied to other minorities such as college entrance to the ivy league schools. We've given them promotions they weren't qualified for and homes they couldn't afford to buy. We've even elected a man president who had zero experience simply because of the color of his skin.

America has been there, done that. They are ready to move on. Only I don't think the Blacks are ready to give up their race card...which makes it hard on Dems...which is why this was in my post of Liberal Negatives.

There is a basic dishonesty in affirmative action. As such it cannot be debated under the civility and intellectual position you propose.

Moreover affirmative action has lead to stunningly poor choices, for example Colin Powell. These do nothing but reinforce the racists argument.

Finally Thatcher is on record as being opposed to affirmative action. If you can answer why she was, then you may find the response you seek.

"There is a basic dishonesty in affirmative action. As such it cannot be debated under the civility and intellectual position you propose."

Blacks tend to use the card (who can blame them, as Sandra says, it works). And Whites tend to feel the need to assure everyone that they are not racist.

I believe that Maggie Thatcher had already figured out that affirmative action only hurt the people they were intended to benefit for it says, you can't make it on your own. The ex-prime minister of Great Britain could never be accused of being second rate--and Great Britain for all their "lip service" could not be accused of putting someone in the highest office because of her sex (or race).

Sir, are there many liberal policies that do not suffer from "a basic dishonesty"? Are we to reduce ourselves to barbarism, because our opposition's reasoning is morally and intellectually unsound? Why should men and women of good conscience put down the virtuous use of civility and cerebral engagement, when dealing with divergent views? We may hold to our positions without supporting meanness of temperament and understanding.

As to the estimable Baroness Thatcher, perhaps it would be imprudent to think a jealous or envious soul never questioned her manner of advancement. Unless we want the issue of affirmative action or "playing the race card" to be demagoged, we most certainly should engage the opposition with civility and scientific reasoning. Why should anyone give those who have an questionable quality of mind the privilege to determine the course of political discourse I do not know.

If the affirmative action is based in dishonesty, then does the manner in which we approach the issue negate the dishonesty?

What exactly do you hope to accomplish from discussing an issue where civility demands that you be less than honest in accepting the idea that Blacks and women need help to succeed?

And would not "good conscience" demand that we simply refuse to engage in such an effort?

Through civility and intellectual engagement, of those opposed to equal rights for women, women received the right to vote, in this country. Certainly those who fought for a woman's right to vote, through civility and intellectual engagement, did so without acquiescing to "a basic dishonesty" in the opposition's reasoning. Moreover the success of the women's suffrage movement was not won through avoiding the opposition, for the purpose of keeping good conscience.

If you truly believe that you cannot engage "basic dishonesty" with civility and intellectual engagement without compromising "good conscience", why do you practice civility and intellectual engagement concerning ideas that suffer from "basic dishonesty" by writing this blog?

"What exactly do you hope to accomplish from discussing an issue where civility demands that you be less than honest in accepting the idea that Blacks and women need help to succeed?" I would like for you to answer this question, since our conversation has its origin in what you posted on your blog.

If I may Patrick, I would like to tell you a very short story about a fellow poster on Townhall. I would surmise he might be one of these barbarians as you call it.

One day a hypothetical was posed to him, I was asked what will he do? To which my response naturally, nothing except point out that a hypothetical is a point of manipulation and debating 101 to avoid answering. Nonetheless he answered and lost the argument.

To engage in discourse over a subject is to validate that argument. As affirmative action is intellectually and ethically flawed is does not do to dwell on the subject and thereby imbuing it with some semblance of credence.

Finally you would do well to cite some examples yourself, rather that limiting yourself to insinuating Thatcher's rise to prominence was as a result of something less palatable than merit, luck and judgement.

I present logic and evidence, so far you have done little but procrastinate.

My post was about issues that hurt Liberals--from an Independent viewpoint.

You challenged the idea that the race card is hurting those that wish to continue using the card and for whom affirmative action was supposed to help.

My belief is that we don't have to engage in an effort to change their minds because they are learning that to get government to "level the playing field" means that a Black person or a female cannot do it on their own.

Your insistance upon engaging in a conversation that will in time sort its ownself out leads me to believe that you've never actually had this conversation with anyone.

I have.

And because I refuse to accept the idea that a certain race (in my case Hawaiians) needed special treatment to compete with Japanese and Chinese who scored extremely high on their STATS, I was deemed as not quite civil or polite. To be either, I would have to lie and say..."I understand where you coming from...or...I want to understand".

No, I did not understand. I highly resented the idea that MY children, part Hawaiian, could not make it on their own or that special programs would make them government victims.

I spoke calmly and did not resort to name calling (I rarely do anyway) but my refusal to accept her point of view was considered "confrontational" at best.

Now I simply refuse to engage in that type of conversation. They will learn--as I suspect you will also.

Patrick, have you READ my post??

It starts out telling you what I hope to accomplish:

"A few posts ago, I promised to write about the vulnerabilities of the Democratic party; positions that are their weakest point--and should, be pressed at every opportunity."

I have also mentioned that my blog is mainly the place where I vent. None of the national talk shows are live in Hawaii so on the days when I wish I could call, I come here instead.

This is what I wrote in February:

"Some things you should know if you do leave a comment. Blogging is my primary b*tch area, my call into Medved, Hewitt, Pragger. It contains the things I would have said if those shows were live, instead of hours ahead or behind Hawaii time. I don't need to have comments to my posts. But if you should leave your thoughts and your opinions, I want you to know that I will never allow anyone to come to this blog and attack you."

I also comment on Sandra's and Sheila's blog...mainly because we were one of the few bloggers who have been trying to warn "principled" conservatives what would happen if loyalty was considered an option.

And in the end, I guess we are the eternal optimists...we hope each day for intelligent people to say..."Oh, I get it...you can't sell a product that you are constantly complaining about."

Ok Sanity I will not post on your blog anymore; but, I do applaud your exercise of free speech. Thank you for a thoughtful discussion. BTW I have been known to vent.

"To engage in discourse over a subject is to validate that argument." Try again.

"Finally you would do well to cite some examples yourself, rather that limiting yourself to insinuating Thatcher's rise to prominence was as a result of something less palatable than merit, luck and judgement."
Did not.

I merely said that I blog to vent and if you decided to leave a comment, I would not allow anyone to attack you...did you want someone to attack you?

And you don't believe in answering questions do you? You have spent a very long time trying to get me to get involved in what I consider to be a useless effort to convince someone who benefits from affirmative action to not support it.

Was that your entire intent? Again, how strange. I don't normally waste my time but since you have refused to answer my questions while I have made every effort to answer yours, I can only surmise that your purpose was to indeed waste my time.