Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb

The saddest factor about this story-line is that people still will feel there is truth in false accusations, like President Carter blathers. It is, I guess a game, used to make people think there is a problem where none exists, or at least exists minimal to the accusation.

Perhaps racism will fade away, but somehow I fear the lies will continue to have traction, even though the misinformation furthers the destruction of our way of life, in freedom.

Beat the drums slowly, and play the fife lowly, for those who will listen, bury country today.

We are living History, but a history no mortal would ever desire to experience. Sadly, there is little we can do, little anyone can do, for those in power, be they Liberal, or Conservative, have gone insane, and are spending all America into the Poor House, and Bankruptcy. We all lose, no one gains, not even those who hate us, for when we are gone, only God can stop the mayhem, and He will, with a great wrath. Enough Said.

Come Soon, Lord Jesus, Come Soon.

Arley

First off,

You completly misquoted Carter and took him out of context. He did not say that the senator was racist, he said the thought of him saying what he said in that situation was subconsciously racist. Which is true. There's a different between overt racism and socially influenced racism. Very few people are actually not racist in some way or the other.

While many white people may not go out and commit hate crimes, they still do not think of themselves the same as other ethnicities.

So many of these rabid tea party partakers try to mask their racism. They'll say, oh we hate Obama. Impeach him! But when you ask them which part of his policy they disagree with they have nothing to say other than they hate socialists.

The left is brainwashed no doubt about it, but so is the right.

Bipartisanship like this is going to rip our country apart. Our founding fathers did not want political parties. Ben Franklin wrote in 1780 that political parties only seperate and spread hate.

Here is a place to start Doodle. Look through (via the arrows at the bottom the picture) the very first set of photos with the man carrying a sign that says "Obama's Plan: White Slavery." These are unarguably racist tea baggers and while they might not be representative of the larger population of tea baggers, it will certainly address your concern that Mike is making up the fact that some (I would say most) tea baggers are racists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16...

Organized religions are built to blind shaarhues...and they must do so powerfully to blind two men as smart as Carter and Obama.

Husker23,

I don't think I said "all who disagree with the leftist liberal agenda are too dumb to think for themselves." This is a perfect example of someone using a straw man strategy in argument. You could not argue against what I REALLY said, so you created another argument for me and attacked it...thank you for this great example of a logical fallacy.

"It will hurt your cause more than ours and ultimately help change the political leadership in the next election."

In case you haven't paid any attention to the history of politics in this country, party majorities and leadership change in every election, and for reasons much more complex than "playing the race card."

gi,

You attacked shaarhues as being blinded by her religion when she gave you no ammunition to do so.

You also made this statement, "(I would say most) tea baggers are racists".

Your own words imply that you believe the majority of people that show opposition to this administration are racist or religious fanatics.

I am simply replying to your statements.

it was m.r. assesment, not mikes. by using that criteria then, it would be logical for me to think that all the seiu members are thugs who are out to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. sorry, i dont have a link for the video, but it was on the news a few weeks ago: seiu members beating a black man who had the temerity to disagree with obamas policies.

No doodle that would not be logical. I want to draw your attention to your statement...

"any chance you could provide any links that show the "rabid tea party partakers" demonstrated any racism."

You asked for a link that showed tea baggers that had "demonstrated any racism." That's what I did.

i do not feel "owned" by g.i. and, yes, i think the senator would have shouted "you lie" to a white senator from georgia. you take some instances from a tea party and "IMPLY" that most of the participants are racist. and you are fostering bipartisanship? thats a hoot. and my first post was probably too ambiguous. thus, my caveat about the thousands of tea party "partakers" who made no such insinuations. i'll be absolutely clear this time: there are some in any demonstration that place the majority in a bad light. yes, the same is true for conservatives; it is also true of the liberals. i disagree with many of obama's policies. do you want to call me a racist? if so, i believe you to be truly blinded by partisanship.

I believe that saying that gi "owned" doodle bug is a racist statement.

Would you say that to a black President from Chicago? Probably not.

Hopefully conservative posters on this site will hear Hank's words as well. Finding clever ways to claim that racism can't exist, and trying to blame a contemporary political party for a fear that humans have felt since civilization began, is (put lightly) counter-productive. Xenophobia, bigotry, racism, ethnocentrism, prejudice, whatever you feel like calling it, is alive and well across the breadths of America and all humanity, and the only way it will truly go away is if people confront and admit their fear, and then educate themselves through engagement with other cultures, ethnicities, and races.

Actually Husker, Sceptre has made that argument several times, sorry to say. You may not believe that racism cannot exist, but that certainly does not mean others of your ilk do.

And I am certain that plenty of legitimate concerns exist among conservatives, but just as many concerns are illegitimate because they are either fueled by racism, or some stupid notion that Obama is a socialist.

I am not sure why I have to point this out to you Husker, but this specific blog does not exist in a vacuum. Meaning, what people say and write and think stays with them throughout multiple blogs/posts. So in a conversation about conservatives on this site, conservatives more generally, and how they relate to racism, Sceptre's position is completely relevant.

"...then statistically speaking, the same can be said for liberals."

No I don't think this is true. Lets say for example that out of every 100 people 25 are known to be racist. The other 75 are known to be not racist. Now out of the 75 remaining you may have nearly equal representations of liberals and conservatives, but of the 25 racist people, I would hypothesize the majority would also be conservative.

The basis for this hypothesis is that liberals tend to be less homogeneous, and more including and accepting of other cultures, races, religions, and sexual orientations when compared to conservatives, who very often very publicly comment in negative and generalized ways about Hispanics, poor African Americans, and gays.

So to answer your question, no Conservatives do not have a monopoly on racism, but I argue they do have controlling stock. And no, this existed long before Obama. But with Obama, those deep seeded racist feeling are finding new ways to manifest themselves.

That is quite simply...well...not true. Calling it a hypothesis doesn't make it anything more than your misguided opinion.

Just because conservatives have different beliefs does not make us racist. For example: voting against some form of welfare, does not make us racist...it means we believe in a hand up rather than a hand out...teach a man to fish rather than giving a fish...no matter if you are white, black, yellow, brown...get it. Voting against same sex marriage is not necessarily homophobic...we all have our reasons and my point to you is that to dismiss them based in whole or in part on a stereotype that you have of conservatives is of the same mindset, and is as ridiculous and as degrading as any racist. Shall we call your kind "Conservophobic"?

A big fat DUH on the condescending "blog not in vacuum" response. My point, (not sure why I have to point this out to you), is that the conversation that we have been having in this blog hasn't been about the denial of racism as a whole. I haven't dragged past conversations with other bloggers into this one. You are the one doing that in order to justify a far left liberal point of view.

Husker 23,

Your saying that my opinion or hypothesis is not true does not negate it. Racism, over and over again can be positively correlated with conservatism. These tea baggers are just one more example in a long sad history of examples. You speaking in platitudes about fish and hands-up is entirely meaningless when stacked against decades of overt racism and bigotry from the right, in particular the religious right.

You are beyond wrong in assuming I harbor the idea that all conservatives are stereotypically racist, rather my informed hypothesis is that the majority of people who are racists are also conservatives. There is a difference and I expect you to understand it.

And the reason I brought Sceptre's previous arguments (which most certainly emanated from the premise that racism was not possible because we are all one race) into this discussion was in response to Hank's post. And not only will I not obey your preference for not bringing up old posts, I will reiterate my previous point...Finding clever ways around the admittance of one's own racist tendencies (or in your case covering up with platitudes?) is counter-productive.

"But I wouldn't expect any less from someone who relies on "The Daily Show" for their news."

Even if this wasn't the most idiotic thing I have ever been accused of, it still would be better than getting your news from Rush Limbaugh, or Fox.

Chunky,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sceptre,

The problem with your assertion is that liberals aren't xenophobic. In fact, liberals are quite accepting of all ethnicities, races, and sexual orientations. The converse is not true for conservatives, who most often over represent the intolerant white Christian populations of the US. Meaning, for example, you would be harder pressed to find an intolerant Christian liberal, than you would to find an intolerant Christian conservative. In fact there are several of those posting on this site.

Other than that point of dispute I agree with the premise that despite differences in genetics, or cultures, or sexual orientations, or socio-economic status, all humanity should a life that frees them from intolerance based on bigotry and discrimination.

That's just what confuses me too Chunky, I am not sure the New Testament directly advocates racism anywhere (the Old Testament of course is rife with racism). So the question I have to ask is: why are so many people who are racist, also Christians?

These passages are awfully awfully confusing in that regard, especially as they were the basis for kidnapping and enslaving Africans who were forced to build our nation...and subsequently it was widely believed and oft hypothesized by anthropologists, even espoused by undeniably smart people like Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, that blacks were genetically inferior to whites.

To wit:

"Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives." (Matt. 24:45-46)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." (Eph. 6:5-6)

When you discover that the origins of Christianity, namely the Old Testament, which definitively claimed God favored certain races over others, the picture of why Christians might be susceptible to racist attitudes becomes clearer:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." (Deuteronomy 7:6, Old Testament)

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine..." -- Exodus 19:5, Old Testament

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light..." -- 1 Peter 2:9, New Testament

Although, I suppose if Christians didn't pick and choose which parts of the Bible they followed, and which parts they didn't, and which parts they simply made up, they would all be socially progressive liberals working with the poor and donating all their money to the less fortunate.

I don't see how that is a problem Chunk. I think I see the text pretty realistically: as men writing about how God plays favorites.

The New Testament is, by comparison, less advocating of the kinds of inequality that breeds racism than the Old. But certainly inequitable human relationships are part in parcel to the doctrine of most major religions. Christianity is no different.

And I find it interesting that you think "liberal Christian thought" inspired slavery. Seeing as how liberalism didn't exactly exist back then, I wonder how that could be rationally possible without spinning and mixing the definition of liberalism. In either case, I am sure that I would have a great deal to argue that point with.

And in any case, nothing you said answers the question I posed. Why, through history, have so many racists been at the same time Christians, especially if it is as you say, and there is no basis for racism in the Bible?

On what grounds?

"First, there is no basis for racism in the Bible."

In the Old Testament there certainly is. God favors certain races over others. That is explicit.

"That being said, how can anyone who calls themselves Christian, possibly believe they have a right to own another human being."

The New Testament supports and even regulates slavery, so how could Christians NOT believe it is okay to own another human being?

"Racism goes against anything Jesus, or any of the disciples, or the apostle Paul, has said in the Bible."

I agree, which is why the Bible is so troubling. It so blatantly and obviously promotes inequitable human relationships (eg, slavery and God's chosen people) while at the same time espousing a contradictory message.

"Next, where in the Old Testament, is there an advocate of racism?"

I already pointed that out above. God favors certain races, namely the Israelites...

"But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel." 2 Chronicles 6:6

But if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that anyone in America (or anywhere else in wolrd history) who owned slaves were therefore not Christian?

a consequence leading to Gods ultimate judgement. Sorry, I hit the wrong button.

Back up toward the beginning of this session, the claim was made that Carter was "anti-semetic" and had voiced racist thinking.

Will the noted national authority behind that comment please provide DETAILED confirmation of that particular nonsense.

Jimmy Carter shared the Nobel Prize for brokering peace and formal treaties between Israel and Egypt.

Mr. and Mrs. Carter, well into their seventies, worked 12 hour days helping build houses for black families as members of Habitat for Humanity.

How many nails for anyone's house have DubYah, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condie Rice, Justice Thomas, Justice Roberts, Good ol' Newt, Joe Wilson, Sara Palin, John McCain or Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Coulter driven?

About as anti-semetic as Jimmy Carter ever got was to confront the Israeli leadership about their harsh treatment of those Arab/Muslims who were former residents of what is now Israel.

After the still-being-born nation of Israel defeated the combined armies of a half-dozen Arab nations, the newly-arrived European refugees refused to allow those Arab and Christian residents who had fled under threat of death.

The "Sabras" -- native-born Jews, carried food and supplies to their friends in Gaza for years, often forced to smuggle them in at night.

A high percentage of the Christian refugees were sponsored into the U.S. by churches, with some going to other countries. {One of those men and his extended family became good friends during the 1970s. He told me of his Sabra friends, who as children carried backpacks of food, shoes, water and medicines to his family and their Muslim friends in Gaza.)

After receiving his U.S. citizenship, this man sponsored Arab friends for immigration.

Go back and study the history of the Carter family. Miz Lillian refused to let her black friends and neighbors -- or black strangers -- follow the standard to come to the back door.

Black and white, everyone was welcome in her front door, equally.

She raised her children to abhor racism.

In Plains, Georgia -- before WWII.

I have no doubt someone out there has taken out of context, some few words from Jimmy Carter, which they claim prove he is a racist.

Sadly, that is the common tactic of extremists on both sides.

I am a proud fiscally conservative businessman.

I grew up with a father who taught me the most expensive "help" is "cheap" help. "You want people you can reward for doing a better job and more of it. Pay based on what they do, and treat them right."

"Treating everyone right" was important to him.

I fought to tear down 1930s CCC baracks being used through the 60s for farm labor families housing. Six families in each barrack, with canvas walls between. A single common shower building serving all.

The worse part was the young "princes" of the affluent families waiting in the shadows of nearby trees around midnight, when young women got off the swing shift in packing sheds, and went to the shower, to be grabbed by several of the "princes." Fear enforced silence from the victims. It was an oppressive racist world.

We sold the demolition of that decrepit "camp" with the threat of disease coming from there into the schools.

The opposition -- primarily parents of the young "princes" -- who finally, started shutting up when confronted with proof of their sons' "misconduct," if that is applicable to rape.

That was the only price any of those "princes" paid, because the victims did not want it known.

Being fiscally conservative does not include being a political reactionary conservative.

The simple reality is, the United States has the best combined system of Political, Legal, Economic and Social institutions in history.

JUST AS LONG AS THEY ALL WORK FOR EVERYONE.

There is no question that American Indians, the NATIVE AMERICANS, have been savaged by European Americans. Most reservation residents have lived in abject poverty and squalor since enslavement.

In many High Plains communities to this day, Indians are denied basic rights and their humanity is denied as well.

The biggest problems with today's conservative thinking:

Conservatives want to interject BIG GOVERNMENT into every day lives, bedrooms and bathrooms of other people.

Conservatives, all too often, favor Draconian methods for anything they consider a crime. This has included the "War on Drugs."

Now people, how well has that gone for 50 years?

Remember when a little weak "ditch weed" was a huge Saturday night thrill?

Even more so than some home brew in a "duggie" down by the creek.

Young rural people once had the freedom to do things which would put them into confinement until age 25 in today's world.

Sure it was illegal, positively sinful, but everyone survived without becoming drunks or addicts.

There weren't as many "Shotgun Weddings."

But by doggies, we all attended elaborate weddings where the couple moved out of state immediately and word of a premature birth filtered out.

Today, under one guise or another, there are serious efforts to control every facet of private conduct - to preserve someone's family values.

Every visible conservative spokesman I've known has had at least one homosexual family member, while advocating denial of basic human rights.

If I'm dumb enough to smoke pot, let me pay a hefty tax, which will bring retail prices equal to today's illicit street prices.

HEAVY drugs; Heroin, Crack Cocaine, Meth, et al --Get caught using ONCE -- Six months, 12/7 on the chain gang.

Get caught selling or using the second time --

Five years on the chain gang.

Get caught with major amounts of any heavy drug --

Ten years on the chain gang.

Get caught the second time with heavy dealing -- LIFE ON THE CHAIN GANG -- 12/7.

Before some neo-con starts screaming -- I don't smoke or use any form of tobacco, drink rarely and have never considered drugs of any sort - even ditch weed.

But this country has been losing the War on Drugs for my entire lifetime and the result is destroying the nation.

Gay marriage and women's right to choice are not destroying us.

Divorce on demand and drugs are.

I know a lifelong conservative, two years younger than me, who has been married five times, divorced four. He has eleven children, three of whom are substance abusing addicts.

He wants laws preventing me from doing anything he disapproves of.

Guillermo Inglaterra,

I guess we'll have to ask Him when we get there.

Guillermo, like most programed leftists, you say the same old thing, full of so many distortions, and falsehoods.

Paul taught, that we should be happy in any situation we find ourselves, whether it be free or slave. The point he was making, which you miss on purpose I suspect, is that our life here on Earth is almost nothing compared to eternity with God. So if you find yourself a slave, then be the very best slave you can be. Paul never said for us NOT to seek freedom, or NOT to help other be free, he was trying to comfort people who found themselves slaves.

And back again with the same old proposition that white men from America, holding up the Cross of Christ before them as they marched, went and stole blacks to bring them to America.

Guillermo, please, try and spend as much time finding and discussing truth, as you do trying to spread leftist hate. It is hard to take you seriously, unless the mouthy, know-it-all college punk, is the image you enjoy.

Then there is your obvious hypocrisy. You care so much for the loss of freedoms for black Africans, as you should. Then you support an Administration that is, right now, trying to steal freedom and liberty.

Try spending some time with a college professor that is not a Marxist...if you can find one.

Was sorta raised in the Southwestern Methodist/Baptist/Pentcostal world.

Was the official Baptist Student Center photographer in college for three years.

There is no way I could enumerate the different Baptist Churches and Sects in the world today.

There must be thousands of different and differing Protestant Christian groups, sects, Churches or organizations in this country.

They all agree to disagree with all the others regarding some point of scripture or practice.

So someone tell me just what a CHRISTIAN is.

Which of the several texts of the Christian Bible is the TRUE Bible?

Roman Catholics have their Bible.

Greek Orthodox Catholics have theirs.

Russian Orthodoz Catholics have theirs.

Coptic Christians have their Bible.

The Unitarians profess to be Christians, will the conservative Christians expressing themselves here embrace the Unitarian faith? Don't think so?

The various Jewish groups, and there are several, have their Torah -- The Old Testament.

None of those are Christian, but their Scripture was the foundation or Christianity for nearly 400 years until assembled early Christian leaders met and selected a handful of books from among several hundred books being considered.

In recent years, the previously unknown Book of Sarah was discovered in the carved-from-stone cathedral in Ethiopia, where some believe the Ark of the Convenant is kept.

Now, of all these thousands of differing groups, which is the true Christin faith?

Yes, Chunk, that was very admirable...then right after that began 100 years of Jim Crow laws and governmental segregation.

Under great duress from the pressures of the civil rights movement. As I recall the million man march and Martin Luther King Jr, were not white (though I'll give you Godly).

Very good Hank,

What about the "right here and right now". Are we any further ahead than we were 40 years ago? How about 30? 20? 10? What are the solutions?