Dr. Ben Carson In The House

[gatorman_07732]

This guy is really good once he gets rolling and can deliver a message. This is not the whole talk but a decent part of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_HI_fFdRBA

[Tim85]

Dr. Ben Carson is the man. That's all.

[g8orbill]

enjoyed his speech

[northgagator]

Media Matters is not a big fan of the doctor

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/02/21/ben-carsons-moment/192752

It is amazing how the refer to his race when making a critical statement concerning his political views. Since when does race determine your political beliefs?

If the doctor was white Mediate Matters would calling him a racist because of his political beliefs.

[gatorman_07732]

Media Matters is not a big fan of the doctor

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/02/21/ben-carsons-moment/192752

It is amazing how the refer to his race when making a critical statement concerning his political views. Since when does race determine your political beliefs?

If the doctor was white Mediate Matters would calling him a racist because of his political beliefs.

Depending how long and far he decides to this ride into the political arena he will have a target on his back. The left has the need apply Alinsky style attacks to discredit any minority who starts getting national visibility in the republican party. They on the left feel that they have an ownership to minorities in this country and feel this is their god given right.

[jdrgator]

Depending how long and far he decides to this ride into the political arena he will have a target on his back. The left has the need apply Alinsky style attacks to discredit any minority who starts getting national visibility in the republican party. They on the left feel that they have an ownership to minorities in this country and feel this is their god given right.

Tell that to Dick Armey and the tea partiers and religious right folk who gladly use Saul Alinsky's writings to guide their own activism.

Fact is, using the term ownership is wildly overwrought with melodrama. It also smacks of a misplaced resentment. Maybe (read: Likely) the difference in political affiliation is because most African Americans and many other minorities believe more in what the democratic platform. Yeah, I know it can't be that because the pubs and conservatives have been so terrifically welcoming to minorities, right (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/tea-party-event-on-racial-tolerance-turns-to-chaos-as-white-supremacists-arrive.php?ref=fpa)?

[gatorman_07732]

Tell that to Dick Armey and the tea partiers and religious right folk who gladly use Saul Alinsky's writings to guide their own activism.

Fact is, using the term ownership is wildly overwrought with melodrama. It also smacks of a misplaced resentment. Maybe (read: Certainly) the difference in political affiliation is because most African Americans and many other minorities believe more in what the democratic platform. Yeah, I know, it can't be that because the pubs and conservatives have been so terrifically welcoming to minorities, right (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/tea-party-event-on-racial-tolerance-turns-to-chaos-as-white-supremacists-arrive.php?ref=fpa)?

Facts are facts, any minority that starts to elevate on the right immediately gets attacked.

[jdrgator]

Facts are facts, any minority that starts to elevate on the right immediately gets attacked.

Often coming from other minorities. But you are right, facts are facts. Fact is that many on the right can't see their own resentment and general hostility towards minorities, which somehow disappears when it comes to select ones on "their side" is just as much if not more of a problem.

[gatorman_07732]

Often coming from other minorities. But you are right, facts are facts. Fact is that many on the right can't see their own resentment and general hostility towards minorities, which somehow disappears when it comes to select ones on "their side" is just as much if not more of a problem.

Nice spin, that make me dizzy jdr :laugh:

[jdrgator]

Nice spin, that make me dizzy jdr :laugh:

That was easy :laugh:

Then again, if facts make you dizzy, it might be better for you to stay away from them, haha.

[MichiGator2002]

A lot of minorities are inculcated by their "community organizers" to believe that, since the whole world is inherently stacked against them, any one of "theirs" who looks like he made it must have cheated or must be bought and paid for.

Successful, educated minorities like Carson that don't act like they owe what success they have to the "hard" "work" of full time grievance mongering... there could be no greater existential threat to the leftist social and political template.

[gatorman_07732]

That was easy :laugh:

Then again, if facts make you dizzy, it might be better for you to stay away from them, haha.

No facts in jdr's spin zone :joecool:

[jdrgator]

A lot of minorities are inculcated by their "community organizers" to believe that, since the whole world is inherently stacked against them, any one of "theirs" who looks like he made it must have cheated or must be bought and paid for.

Successful, educated minorities like Carson that don't act like they owe what success they have to the "hard" "work" of full time grievance mongering... there could be no greater existential threat to the leftist social and political template.

A lot of white republicans are inculcated by their elitist fathers to believe that since the US was founded by white Europeans (on the backs of slaves), power and privilege is their rightful inheritance. And now that such a false belief is being challenged, they cry that it's the white man who is getting screwed.

[MichiGator2002]

A lot of white republicans are inculcated by their elitist fathers to believe that since the US was founded by white Europeans (on the backs of slaves), power and privilege is their rightful inheritance. And now that such a false belief is being challenged, they cry that it's the white man who is getting screwed.

I would keep this 'inculcation' game going by way of describing folk who actually define this country's founding as being somehow organized for the purpose of benefiting only the "elitist white power structure" or whatever rabbitpoop, but I would never make the mistake of implying such people are teachable in the first place. There are few conversational words and phrases that I have come to take as triggers to all but write someone off in a conversation, and unironic use of phrases like "white power structure" vis a vis the nation's founding is right up there (down there?) with the word "Zionist" for me.

[jdrgator]

I would keep this 'inculcation' game going by way of describing folk who actually define this country's founding as being somehow organized for the purpose of benefiting only the "elitist white power structure" or whatever rabbitpoop, but I would never make the mistake of implying such people are teachable in the first place. There are few conversational words and phrases that I have come to take as triggers to all but write someone off in a conversation, and unironic use of phrases like "white power structure" vis a vis the nation's founding is right up there (down there?) with the word "Zionist" for me.

But then you throw around the same old tired stereotypes that have been used against minorities throughout history. I won't make the same mistake of implying some people are teachable either.

[MichiGator2002]

But then you throw around the same old tired stereotypes that have been used against minorities throughout history. I won't make the same mistake of implying some people are teachable either.

What stereotype? What is the character limit for GC? It would easily be capped documenting just how invariably and deeply the contemptible "leaders" of the nominally minority promoting institutions of the left will demonize any minority who doesn't make their obedience. I didn't implicate every man, woman, or child of minority descent. I explicitly spoke of those taking instruction from the "community organizing" arm of the political movement. And of these, it is no stereotype.

Whereas describing the declaration of independence and the process that ultimately lead to our Constitution, the decade and a half that we think of as our founding, as an exercise purposed to make sure rich white people stayed rich and white forever is just... pitiful. It isn't supported by history, by writing, nor even by its documented effects over two centuries. If nothing else, if their goal was to make it impossible or at least improbable for anyone who isn't rich and white to succeed, it was a fantastic failure.Good Lord, this isn't what you, personally, actually believe, is it? The only people out to keep minorities and/or the poor in "their place" are those who depend on them having no upward mobility -- the grievance mongerers in and around the political class. I can't think of any of the traditional grievance targets on the right that actually benefit from capping upward mobility. It isn't social conservatives. It isn't profit seeking corporate devils, who would happily sell more stuff to people with more disposoable income? Qui bono? Only the guy whose livelihood is made up of shaking down businesses under threat of protest or boycott, for example.

[jdrgator]

What stereotype? What is the character limit for GC? It would easily be capped documenting just how invariably and deeply the contemptible "leaders" of the nominally minority promoting institutions of the left will demonize any minority who doesn't make their obedience. I didn't implicate every man, woman, or child of minority descent. I explicitly spoke of those taking instruction from the "community organizing" arm of the political movement. And of these, it is no stereotype.

Whereas describing the declaration of independence and the process that ultimately lead to our Constitution, the decade and a half that we think of as our founding, as an exercise purposed to make sure rich white people stayed rich and white forever is just... pitiful. It isn't supported by history, by writing, nor even by its documented effects over two centuries. If nothing else, if their goal was to make it impossible or at least improbable for anyone who isn't rich and white to succeed, it was a fantastic failure.Good Lord, this isn't what you, personally, actually believe, is it? The only people out to keep minorities and/or the poor in "their place" are those who depend on them having no upward mobility -- the grievance mongerers in and around the political class. I can't think of any of the traditional grievance targets on the right that actually benefit from capping upward mobility. It isn't social conservatives. It isn't profit seeking corporate devils, who would happily sell more stuff to people with more disposoable income? Qui bono? Only the guy whose livelihood is made up of shaking down businesses under threat of protest or boycott, for example.

Nonsense claims about their being inculcated to be aggrieved by the presence of conservative African Americanssuggests that minorities are to blame for their lot in life because they have a (alleged) bad attitude is the stereotype, and as such they resent black conservatives. Clearly you don't realize that there are many more conservative African Americans, but most of them still vote democrat, but not because of some inculcation or whatever other false and superficial claims you want to make.

(F)actually, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not apply to everyone, and certainly not African Americans, so historically you are wrong. But to continue to defend the power structure that has absolutely privileged whites which as it were, unequaled by any historical comparison within our borders is sad. You reject out of hand that which you refuse to consider, which I suspect is because you are afraid it just might might have some real truth to it. Better to dismiss the privilege as being some made up fancy of those agitating on behalf of minorities or the poor than to have to confront it, I suppose. Just don't wonder why pubs lost the election.

[MastaG8r]

Often coming from other minorities. But you are right, facts are facts. Fact is that many on the right can't see their own resentment and general hostility towards minorities, which somehow disappears when it comes to select ones on "their side" is just as much if not more of a problem.What you wrote demonstrates your own implicit acknowledgment of the Left's exaggeration of the prevalence of racism among people on the Right.

Racism means judging people by the color of the skin rather than the content of their character. The fact that Conservatives embrace minorities who are "on our side" ideologically doesn't perpetuate the Leftists' stereotype of Conservatives as racists, does it? No. To the mother&#@%ing contrary, in fact.

[jdrgator]

What you wrote demonstrates your own implicit acknowledgment of the Left's exaggeration of the prevalence of racism among people on the Right.

Racism means judging people by the color of the skin rather than the content of their character. The fact that Conservatives embrace minorities who are "on our side" ideologically doesn't perpetuate the Leftists' stereotype of Conservatives as racists, does it? No. To the mother&#@%ing contrary, in fact.

By writing "often coming from minorities" it was meant that they are some of the most vociferous critics of other minorities. No implicit acknowledgment of any exaggeration, though I'll grant that there has been. Criticizing minority republicans is certainly fraught with a racial dynamic, but it is possible to be critical and fair at the same time.

Actually, did I call anyone a racist? Perhaps you should learn to read better. I spoke of both a racial resentment and use of stereotypes. I said nothing about those conservative folks being racist. That is a different argument and one in which I do not make. But if you need me to provide you with the definition of resentment and stereotype, I can.

[gatorman_07732]

By writing "often coming from minorities" it was meant that they are some of the most vociferous critics of other minorities. No implicit acknowledgment of any exaggeration, though I'll grant that there has been. Criticizing minority republicans is certainly fraught with a racial dynamic, but it is possible to be critical and fair at the same time.

Actually, did I call anyone a racist? Perhaps you should learn to read better. I spoke of both a racial resentment and use of stereotypes. I said nothing about those conservative folks being racist. That is a different argument and one in which I do not make. But if you need me to provide you with the definition of resentment and stereotype, I can.

jdr lets just cut through all the smoke and mirrors and you know darn well that my initial statement about minorities in the republican party become fodder for the left. They seek to make them inconsequential (once they become players) by tearing them down with the medias culpability.

[Swampmaster]

This guy is really good once he gets rolling and can deliver a message. This is not the whole talk but a decent part of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_HI_fFdRBA

He has no chance against Hilary or Biden

[jdrgator]

jdr lets just cut through all the smoke and mirrors and you know darn well that my initial statement about minorities in the republican party become fodder for the left. They seek to make them inconsequential (once they become players) by tearing them down with the medias culpability.

I know,I believe there's some credence to your claim. But I offered up some context by pointing out the disconnect between highlighting an individual while ignoring the general resentment.

[gatorman_07732]

I know,I believe there's some credence to your claim. But I offered up some context by pointing out the disconnect between highlighting an individual while ignoring the general resentment.

That was strictly intent to spin

[jdrgator]

That was strictly intent to spin

First time's a joke. Second time, not so much.

No, it was not an intent to spin, not in the least. But what you are doing is deflecton. Twice I recognized to both you and mastergator that there is credence to your original argument about the criticisms and exaggerations of conservative African Americans.

But I then pointed the racial resentment present amongst the right (and actually provided a link as an example). However, I can and have distinguished this point from the notion that conservatives are racist. So to be clear, I sincerely do not believe it to be the case.

[gatorman_07732]

First time's a joke. Second time, not so much.

No, it was not an intent to spin, not in the least. But what you are doing is deflecton. Twice I recognized to both you and mastergator that there is credence to your original argument about the criticisms and exaggerations of conservative African Americans.

But I then pointed the racial resentment present amongst the right (and actually provided a link as an example). However, I can and have distinguished this point from the notion that conservatives are racist. So to be clear, I sincerely do not believe it to be the case.

Then you tend to know what is one's heart. And take it for what it is worth, I can only speak for myself that I don't possess any racism and judge each individual by their actions. What I despise is people casting blanket aspersions.

[gatorman_07732]

He has no chance against Hilary or Biden

You're probably correct that this is too decent of a human being to get involved in politics.

[jdrgator]

Then you tend to know what is one's heart. And take it for what it is worth, I can only speak for myself that I don't possess any racism and judge each individual by their actions. What I despise is people casting blanket aspersions.

I don't know who is racist or not on the right...or left, i.e. what's in anyone's "heart". But it is easier to recognize racial resentment as an expressed feeling and the use of racial stereotypes when they occur and I believe I've made clear now that there is a considerable difference between the latter two and being racist.

Let me ask you this though, is the below a blanket aspersion or a claim to know what's in people's hearts?

"They on the left feel that they have an ownership to minorities in this country and feel this is their god given right"

[gatorman_07732]

I don't know who is racist or not on the right...or left, i.e. what's in anyone's "heart". But it is easier to recognize racial resentment as an expressed feeling and the use of racial stereotypes when they occur and I believe I've made clear now that there is a considerable difference between the latter two and being racist.

Let me ask you this though, is the below a blanket aspersion or a claim to know what's in people's hearts?

I appreciate that come back as it is no doubt savvy on your part. It is my belief that the left feels entitled to the minority vote and hardly stretch. On the other hand, claiming that the right are racists is an out right aspersion. I believe this is a clear delineation.

[jdrgator]

I appreciate that come back as it is no doubt savvy on your part. It is my belief that the left feels entitled to the minority vote and hardly stretch. On the other hand, claiming that the right are racists is an out right aspersion. I believe this is a clear delineation.

Then why the talk on the right about dems just giving them stuff? If one felt entitled to something, it's doubtful he would feel the need to pander. I think you mistake entitlement with what might actually be overconfidence on the part of some dems/libs.

But again, I said nothing about anyone on the right being racist. Read my comments. I've provided a distinction multiple times for what I was writing to.

[dynogator]

You're probably correct that this is too decent of a human being to get involved in politics.

I think it's clear that the good Dr. is seriously contemplating a run at political office. You don't speak at the national prayer breakfast and make the rounds at FOX unless you are floating some serious trial balloons.

Would you think less of him if he did, implying, as you did, that "decent," people don't run?

He's 62, getting on for a neurosurgeon, I imagine. Time to put down the literal scalpel and pick up the figurative one.

[gatorman_07732]

I think it's clear that the good Dr. is seriously contemplating a run at political office. You don't speak at the national prayer breakfast and make the rounds at FOX unless you are floating some serious trial balloons.

Would you think less of him if he did, implying, as you did, that "decent," people don't run?

He's 62, getting on for a neurosurgeon, I imagine. Time to put down the literal scalpel and pick up the figurative one.

Your opinion which you're not privy to the facts for sure

[dynogator]

Your opinion of which you're not privy to the facts for sure

If I'm interpreting your mangled sentence correctly, you think I'm speaking from ignorance. Why would you assume that, and cast aspersions upon my ability to Google? I'm not the only one who thinks he's going to running soon for office, your own party has tingles running up and down their legs at the mere possibility.

He's talking and walking like a duck. He has said that if God "grabs him by the front of his shirt," and tells him to run, he will.

[gatorman_07732]

Then why the talk on the right about dems just giving them stuff? If one felt entitled to something, it's doubtful he would feel the need to pander to them. I think you mistake entitlement with what might actually be overconfidence on the part of some dems/libs.

But again, I said nothing about anyone on the right being racist. Read my comments. I've provided a distinction multiple times for what I was writing to.

You're confusing people that pay no federal taxes and receiving federal assistance and trying to divert that strictly to minorities. I get the game, it just doesn't add up.

[dynogator]

I've read through some of his speeches and quotes, and so far it's boilerplate political rhetoric. "This, this, and that is what's wrong with the country, and it's all due to the socialist president/liberal leeches."

The same posters who bemoan Obama and his divisiveness will eat up everything this guy says with a giant spoon and beg for seconds.

[gatorman_07732]

I've read through some of his speeches and quotes, and so far it's boilerplate political rhetoric. "This, this, and that is what's wrong with the country, and it's all due to the socialist president/liberal leeches."

The same posters who bemoan Obama and his divisiveness will eat up everything this guy says with a giant spoon and beg for seconds.

And I would expect no more from your post even if you did "listen"

[jdrgator]

You're confusing people that pay no federal taxes and receiving federal assistance and trying to divert that strictly to minorities. I get the game, it just doesn't add up.

So do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Are these not explicit in their claims about minorities?

"The (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/15/nation/la-na-romney-donors-20121115) Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people," “The (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-white-establishment-is-now-the-minority-people-support-obama-because-they-want-things/) white establishment is now the minority"... “The voters, many of them, feel this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You’re gonna see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things — and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”

[gatorman_07732]

So do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Are these not explicit in their claims about minorities?

Question, direct and to the point: Do you believe that Bill O'Reilly is a racist?

[jdrgator]

Question, direct and to the point: Do you believe that Bill O'Reilly is a racist?

Didn't I just openly state that I don't know what's in peoples hearts about such things? But to answer directly, no.

I do suspect though that he's been deliberately oblique in his treatment of race issues in his public comments.

[northgagator]

What is expected from the Dem/Lib faction is that all African American are to march in lockstep together on all opinions, preferences, morals, and political choices. Any African American who deviates from the norm is deemed a heretic, a blasphemer, an Uncle Tom, and a traitor to his race. Any white person who does not follow the leftist doctrine is deemed a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a religious fanatic, a gun nut, an ageist, a warmonger, and a right winger.

[gatorman_07732]

Didn't I just openly state that I don't know what's in peoples hearts about such things? But to answer directly, no.

I do suspect though that he's been deliberately oblique in his treatment of race issues in his public comments.

Well color me confused with your links. I prefer to call a something for what it is and not do the Cha Cha. I really hate this game confronting some prominent leftist posters on here about it. I am so tired of this high and almighty "we are the people of the minority" horse crap. Bull crap on that, because I have people that are my own blood including my wife and children that fall into the minority category, and I will not stand down from anybody claiming that know whats best for them or other people who some want to separate out and use as a pawn. Anyone that uses the racist horse sh!t on me I'll stick up their a$$. I don't like it and have no tolerance for it. You and I are friends jdr and I swear I have taken a liking to you, I'm just letting you know how I feel.

[HALLGATOR]

Well color me confused with your links. I prefer to call a something for what it is and not do the Cha Cha. I really hate this game confronting some prominent leftist posters on here about it. I am so tired of this high and almighty "we are the people of the minority" horse crap. Bull crap on that, because I have people that are my own blood including my wife and children that fall into the minority category, and I will not stand down from anybody claiming that know whats best for them or other people who some want to separate out and use as a pawn. Anyone that uses the racist horse sh!t on me I'll stick up their a$$. I don't like it and have no tolerance for it. You and I are friends jdr and I swear I have taken a liking to you, I'm just letting you know how I feel.

No one has called you a racist so let's not start this up. If it starts getting out of hand on either side I will close the thread and delete it.

[gatorman_07732]

No one has called you a racist so let's not start this up. If it starts getting out of hand on either side I will close the thread and delete it.

Your over stepping here, jdr and myself have a mutual respect for each other. The guy is like a brother to me

[jdrgator]

Well color me confused with your links. I prefer to call a something for what it is and not do the Cha Cha. I really hate this game confronting some prominent leftist posters on here about it. I am so tired of this high and almighty "we are the people of the minority" horse crap. Bull crap on that, because I have people that are my own blood including my wife and children that fall into the minority category, and I will not stand down from anybody claiming that know whats best for them or other people who some want to separate out and use as a pawn.

I am not trying to play games with ya, brotha. Just carrying on discussion. I have agreed with you that too many times, folks on the left claim racism way too easily. It's been used as a bludgeon and is wrong. And I too prefer calling things for what they are and I've made what I believe are clear distinctions in my argument, but if you can't acknowledge that there is a difference from what I've written and calling someone/an entire political party racist, then I don't know what to say.

btw, Don't forget, I too am married to a minority.

[MastaG8r]

By writing "often coming from minorities" it was meant that they are some of the most vociferous critics of other minorities. No implicit acknowledgment of any exaggeration, though I'll grant that there has been. Criticizing minority republicans is certainly fraught with a racial dynamic, but it is possible to be critical and fair at the same time.

Actually, did I call anyone a racist? Perhaps you should learn to read better. I spoke of both a racial resentment and use of stereotypes. I said nothing about those conservative folks being racist. That is a different argument and one in which I do not make. But if you need me to provide you with the definition of resentment and stereotype, I can.Perhaps I should learn to read better? Me? Au contraire. Where did I say you did call anyone a racist?

[gatorman_07732]

I am not trying to play games with ya, brotha. Just carrying on discussion. I have agreed with you that too many times, folks on the left claim racism way too easily. It's been used as a bludgeon and is wrong. And I too prefer calling things for what they are and I've made what I believe are clear distinctions in my argument, but if you can't acknowledge that there is a difference from what I've written and calling someone/an entire political party racist, then I don't know what to say.

btw, Don't forget, I too am married to a minority.

But it seems to me from your posts that you want to label the republicans as ....what?

[jdrgator]

No one has called you a racist so let's not start this up. If it starts getting out of hand on either side I will close the thread and delete it.

I understand your concern Hall, and I know he rules regarding discussions of race, but gman is just making an honest point. I think it's a good discussion.

[dynogator]

What is expected from the Dem/Lib faction is that all African American are to march in lockstep together on all opinions, preferences, morals, and political choices. Any African American who deviates from the norm is deemed a heretic, a blasphemer, an Uncle Tom, and a traitor to his race. Any white person who does not follow the leftist doctrine is deemed a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a religious fanatic, a gun nut, an ageist, a warmonger, and a right winger.

You fit right in with this mindset, as indicated by your first eight words.

[HALLGATOR]

Your over stepping here, jdr and myself have a mutual respect for each other

I'm not doing anything but bringing it out. I've seen too many of these kind of thread devolve. And my post was not a knock on anyone in the thread.

[gatorman_07732]

I'm not doing anything but bringing it out. I've seen too many of these kind of thread devolve. And my post was not a knock on anyone in the thread.

Understood, just want you to know the relationship here and I would never want to accuse or insult him. By the way did you ever consider yourself for a career as a ref in hockey? I mean it might be easier and you would get paid :laugh:

[jdrgator]

Perhaps I should learn to read better? Me? Au contraire. Where did I say you did call anyone a racist?

That you felt the need to provide a definition about racism when I was talking about racial stereotyping and resentment as distinct from and not necessarily indicative of racism, was what I was referring to.

[jdrgator]

But it seems to me from your posts that you want to label the republicans as ....what?

Fair question.

Short answer, pubs as having more trouble in dealing with race issues as a result of the aforementioned points I made earlier. In other words, the problem is more profound within pub/conservative ranks than within dem/lib ranks. This has been acknowledged by pub political leaders in the aftermath of the election. Heck even Jeb Bush made a point about it yesterday (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/jeb-bush-cpac-speech-2013_n_2857496.html?utm_hp_ref=politics), well kinda sorta...

I will add here, albeit late, this isn't to let the left off the hook. I've seen enough folks on the left play in the same stereotyping as well, disturbingly so, but not as much with resentment.

[MastaG8r]

That you felt the need to provide a definition about racism when I was talking about racial stereotyping and resentment as distinct (and not necessarily indicative of racism) was what I was referring to.Why paraphrase when you can quote posts directly? Like this, watch:

Actually, did I call anyone a racist? Perhaps you should learn to read better.

Now your turn. Quote my post where I said you called anyone a racist. Or failing that, admit that you're the one who should learn to read better.

[HALLGATOR]

Understood, just want you to know the relationship here and I would never want to accuse or insult him. By the way did you ever consider yourself for a career as a ref in hockey? I mean it might be easier and you would get paid :laugh:

Oh I make big bucks doing this. I just can't recall what I did with them.

[jdrgator]

Why paraphrase when you can quote posts directly? Like this, watch:



Now your turn. Quote my post where I said you called anyone a racist. Or failing that, admit that you're the one who should learn to read better.

When you find where I said you said I called someone a racist, then maybe. I asked a question based on your feeling the need to make it about racism when I was making a different point. IOW, you were heading into straw man territory.

[gatorman_07732]

Fair question.

Short answer, pubs as having more trouble in dealing with race issues as a result of the aforementioned points I made earlier. In other words, the problem is more profound within pub/conservative ranks than within dem/lib ranks. This has been acknowledged by pub political leaders in the aftermath of the election. Heck even Jeb Bush made a point about it yesterday.

I will add here, albeit late, this isn't to let the left off the hook. I've seen enough folks on the left play in the same stereotyping as well, disturbingly so, but not as much with resentment.

Certainly there has been a connection issue but this will be overcome once their are more folks like Dr Carson, Armstrong Williams, Condoleezza Rice, Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, Herman Cain, etc. come to the forefront and dispel this liberal fallacy.

[HALLGATOR]

In my opinion the difference between Rice and Cain is the difference in day and night.

[gatorman_07732]

In my opinion the difference between Rice and Cain is the difference in day and night.

Certainly that is an astute opinion, but on the other hand they are both accomplished and respectable people and Herman Cain's accomplishments as a business person should not be diminished. To not hold him as an example to what those in the black community can accomplished would be foolish.

[MastaG8r]

When you find where I said you said I called someone a racist, then maybe. I asked a question based on your feeling the need to make it about racism when I was making a different point. IOW, you were heading into straw man territory.Round and round we go. I commented that Conservatives' embrace of minority Conservatives is contrary to the stereotype pushed by the Left that for the most part we're all a bunch of racists. If that was true then we'd be dismissive or disrespectful toward minorities regardless of their character, ideology or beliefs. I don't know what part of that observation indicates that I "should learn to read better."

[jdrgator]

Certainly there has been a connection issue but this will be overcome once their are more folks like Dr Carson, Armstrong Williams, Condoleezza Rice, Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, Herman Cain, etc. come to the forefront and dispel this liberal fallacy.

The goal is reach out to ordinary minorities by showing how the platform would benefit them. Of course having prominent minorities helps but it's about reaching the masses and pubs made little to no effort in their outreach for African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities over the past twelve years. Romney all but ensured that wouldn't change this last time around. Plus, I believe an objective view has to recognize the hostility that gets projected by at least some quarters or some prominent folk within the party. Even Jeb Bush made a similar point yesterday.

[gatorman_07732]

The goal is reach out to ordinary minorities by showing how the platform would benefit them. Of course having prominent minorities helps but it's about reaching the masses and pubs made little to no effort in their outreach for African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities over the past twelve years. Romney all but ensured that wouldn't change this last time around. Plus, I believe an objective view has to recognize the hostility that gets projected by at least some quarters or some prominent folk within the party. Even Jeb Bush made a similar point yesterday.

jdr, you know you're wading into murky territory here with illegals

[jdrgator]

jdr, you know you're wading into murky territory here with illegals

Murky yes, necessary, also yes. I really believe the pubs need to also learn how to talk about immigration better. The hard and sometimes ugly rhetoric of the Steve King types absolutely drives people away and only adds to the racial and ethnic imbalance between parties, which should be the loudest freaking wake-up call to pubs ever, especially considering current demographic trends.

[gatorman_07732]

Murky yes, necessary, also yes. I really believe the pubs need to also learn how to talk about immigration better. The hard and sometimes ugly rhetoric of the Steve King types absolutely drives people away and only adds to the racial and ethnic imbalance between parties, which should be the loudest freaking wake-up call to pubs ever, especially considering current demographic trends.

I certainly agree they need to polish their message yes, but need to stay with conservative principles.

[jdrgator]

I certainly agree they need to polish their message yes, but need to stay with conservative principles.

Therein lies the rub. Holding true to principle is an admirable value, but dealing with the world as it is, is an imperative. In the political arena, to stay relevant, pols/parties must appeal to voters; as demographics and conditions change so to must we all in some way.

[108]

Conservatives do get a real hard on for minorities that speak the same language as they do, regardless of the underbelly of resentment towards minorities within the party

If you think it's not about the color of their skin that causes conservatives to put them on a pedestal, then you're lying to yourself

[gatorman_07732]

Conservatives do get a real hard on for minorities that speak the same language as they do, regardless of the underbelly of resentment towards minorities within the party

If you think it's not about the color of their skin that causes conservatives to put them on a pedestal, then you're lying to yourself

Damn if you do, damn if you don't

[MastaG8r]

Therein lies the rub. Holding true to principle is an admirable value, but dealing with the world as it is, is an imperative. In the political arena, to stay relevant, pols/parties must appeal to voters; as demographics and conditions change so too must we all in some way.See now, on this point we agree. Just read a thoughtful piece in The Atlantic the other day (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-the-establishment-press-got-rand-paul-wrong/273880/) to that effect, specifically regarding Rand Paul and his ill-advised statement during his senatorial primary campaign regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Which after further reflection he wisely later backed away from, by the way.

The whole column is well worth the read but part of the main thrust of it is this:

When Paul sat down in April 2010 with the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board during his Senate primary, an interviewer, knowing his libertarian affinity for property rights, reached for the most extreme possible consequence of that position. "Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?" he asked. It's actually a legitimate question. As Ross Douthat would later write (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24douthat.html?ref=randpaul&_r=0), "No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency." Regardless of a candidate's ideology, it's appropriate to ask probing questions like that precisely to test his or her limits.
...

Douthat suggested an answer he could've given: "As a principled critic of federal power," he could've said, "I oppose efforts to impose Washington's will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act." Julian Sanchez explains why that is the correct position in a piece that I fully endorse (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/21/why-rand-paul-is-right-and-wrong.html).

Even Paul ultimately agreed, saying that, upon consideration, he would've voted for the Civil Rights Act, becoming the millionth politician to figure out that an ideological position he'd taken couldn't ultimately be defended and complicating his position for political and substantive reasons. Given that I concur with his "after" position, that's the happiest part of the story for me.

[MastaG8r]

Conservatives do get a real hard on for minorities that speak the same language as they do, regardless of the underbelly of resentment towards minorities within the party

If you think it's not about the color of their skin that causes conservatives to put them on a pedestal, then you're lying to yourself"Wow. Just.....wow."* :no:








*©DaveFla

[Wormwood56]

Conservatives do get a real hard on for minorities that speak the same language as they do, regardless of the underbelly of resentment towards minorities within the party

If you think it's not about the color of their skin that causes conservatives to put them on a pedestal, then you're lying to yourself

The amazing thing is that you actually believe this nonsense...:whoa:

[jdrgator]

See now, on this point we agree. Just read a thoughtful piece in The Atlantic the other day (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-the-establishment-press-got-rand-paul-wrong/273880/) to that effect, specifically regarding Rand Paul and his ill-advised statement during his senatorial primary campaign regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Which after further reflection he wisely later backed away from, by the way.

The whole column is well worth the read but part of the main thrust of it is this:

Who woulda thunk it masta? I think it is twice in one week that we agree on something. :)

Good find. Connor Friedersdorf is one of my favorite conservative writers. And yes, I agree in large part with the gist of his article. In the spirit of taking things for what they are, he exposes a sloppy media that seized on one narrative forsaking all else (in the case of Rand Paul). It is bias, but I am pretty sure that this is the case not just for Paul but many if not most politicians.

[MichiGator2002]

See, I don't think his comments were somehow vile, they are just wonkishly esoteric for the general stupidity level of people. I remember the lecture on that case in con law, seeing how the commerce clause rationale operated, and I was genuinely surprised to realize... they cheated. Unlike Wickard v. Fillburn, which just seemed like a stilted power grab, it sort of blew my mind to realize that if there was a desirable enough result, the rules could bend. I don't think the commerce clause itself means what the court there said it means; it was a consequentialist holding. It was a holding that said "the country is rightly tired of segregation of this sort, and we are tired of waiting for it to filter itself out by attrition, so... because the commerce clause says so!"

It actually was a good lesson in remembering that it is when you want the result the most you have to scrutinize the process most. Every day people don't know or care about the process, they will take the consequentialist attitude without any conscious thought. Since they wanted the practice done with and the Supreme Court gave it to them, they don't care why and get really ornery when anyone scrutinizes it.

[PSGator66]

.

[gatorman_07732]

.

[108]

Damn if you do, damn if you don't

don't get me wrong, i think the Dr is a solid individual who makes some good points, but its the color of his skin that is getting him airtime with conservatives

the guy is a doctor at this point, what makes him worthy of the type of coverage he has received?

just calling it as it is

[g8orbill]

Often coming from other minorities. But you are right, facts are facts. Fact is that many on the right can't see their own resentment and general hostility towards minorities, which somehow disappears when it comes to select ones on "their side" is just as much if not more of a problem.

What a racist statement

[MastaG8r]

See, I don't think his comments were somehow vile, they are just wonkishly esoteric for the general stupidity level of people. I remember the lecture on that case in con law, seeing how the commerce clause rationale operated, and I was genuinely surprised to realize... they cheated. Unlike Wickard v. Fillburn, which just seemed like a stilted power grab, it sort of blew my mind to realize that if there was a desirable enough result, the rules could bend. I don't think the commerce clause itself means what the court there said it means; it was a consequentialist holding. It was a holding that said "the country is rightly tired of segregation of this sort, and we are tired of waiting for it to filter itself out by attrition, so... because the commerce clause says so!"

It actually was a good lesson in remembering that it is when you want the result the most you have to scrutinize the process most. Every day people don't know or care about the process, they will take the consequentialist attitude without any conscious thought. Since they wanted the practice done with and the Supreme Court gave it to them, they don't care why and get really ornery when anyone scrutinizes it.Are you talking about the Heart of Atlanta Motel case? If so then I disagree with you on that one. I can see how discrimination can negatively affect interstate commerce. It was a unanimous vote. Which isn't to say that the underlying motivation of the Justices wasn't, "discrimination just isn't right," but the Commerce Clause rationalization for it does seem to make sense in my opinion.

[MastaG8r]

don't get me wrong, i think the Dr is a solid individual who makes some good points, but its the color of his skin that is getting him airtime with conservatives

the guy is a doctor at this point, what makes him worthy of the type of coverage he has received?

just calling it as it isIf we assume just for the sake of argument that you're right, do you think there's something wrong with that?

[jdrgator]

What a racist statement

Bill, I know your game.

But to inform you, making a comment about race does not make it a racist statement. I made a thoughtful argument about racial resentment that I have observed on the right side of the aisle. I did not call anyone on the right racist, nor did I say everyone on the right holds these resentment. But I did point out that it is an issue on the right and until it is overcome, the pubs will continue to have trouble recruiting racial and ethnic minorities into the party.

That you so easily just label my comment as racist, besides being disingenuous, it's ignorant.

[g8orbill]

you insinuated in a lump statement and you know it

I am 61 years old and I have seen more racism from the liberal northeast than I have ever seen in the State of Florida

[Tim85]

If we assume just for the sake of argument that you're right, do you think there's something wrong with that?

The conservatives are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they try to reach out to a minority group, that everyone agrees that they need to, then they're just pandering - and if they don't, then they need to.

[jdrgator]

you insinuated in a lump statement and you know it

I am 61 years old and I have seen more racism from the liberal northeast than I have ever seen in the State of Florida

It seems to me you need to look up the definition of racism since you clearly don't know what it means.

[gatorman_07732]

don't get me wrong, i think the Dr is a solid individual who makes some good points, but its the color of his skin that is getting him airtime with conservatives

the guy is a doctor at this point, what makes him worthy of the type of coverage he has received?

just calling it as it is

He's not just a doctor he is a neurological surgeon. In other words he operates on brains. Maybe you don't see that as impressive but I do. You're right he is black, and came from humble beginnings and happens to be a man of tremendous character, so whats your point on the black thing? Is that something you strictly choose to focus instead of the whole package?

[reformedgator]

Conservatives do get a real hard on for minorities that speak the same language as they do, regardless of the underbelly of resentment towards minorities within the party

If you think it's not about the color of their skin that causes conservatives to put them on a pedestal, then you're lying to yourself

As does liberals treat conservative minorities as Uncle Toms & sell outs.

[brainstorm]

He's not just a doctor he is a neurological surgeon. In other words he operates on brains. Maybe you don't see that as impressive but I do. You're right he is black, and came from humble beginnings and happens to be a man of tremendous character, so whats your point on the black thing? Is that something you strictly choose to focus instead of the whole package?

He is an impressive neurosurgeon regardless of his color (and his political leanings). I have had four surgeries and if I had not been close to some of the best in the world (NY) then I would have sought him out for an opinion.

[gatorman_07732]

He is an impressive neurosurgeon regardless of his color (and his political leanings). I have had four surgeries and if I had not been close to some of the best in the world (NY) then I would have sought him out for an opinion.

I hope I did not come across that way, my intent was to answer 108's post with regard to his race

[108]

He's not just a doctor he is a neurological surgeon. In other words he operates on brains. Maybe you don't see that as impressive but I do. You're right he is black, and came from humble beginnings and happens to be a man of tremendous character, so whats your point on the black thing? Is that something you strictly choose to focus instead of the whole package?

I'm asking, what distinguishes him from other neurosurgeons that is worthy of us valuing his opinion on a nation level?

[gatorman_07732]

I'm asking, what distinguishes him from other neurosurgeons that is worthy of us valuing his opinion on a nation level?

He is speaking out for one, if their are others I've not heard them.

[MastaG8r]

I'm asking, what distinguishes him from other neurosurgeons that is worthy of us valuing his opinion on a nation level?You're asking but not answering. I asked, if - IF - you are right that Dr. Carson is benefiting from a kind of voluntary affirmative action for minority Conservatives like you say, do you think there's anything wrong with that?

[northgagator]

don't get me wrong, i think the Dr is a solid individual who makes some good points, but its the color of his skin that is getting him airtime with conservatives

the guy is a doctor at this point, what makes him worthy of the type of coverage he has received?

just calling it as it is

The Dr's skin color probably for him into the Prayer Breakfast but it was his speech that got him the airtime with conservatives, by the way the good doctor has made the rounds on a lot of shows.

[northgagator]

the guy is a doctor at this point, what makes him worthy of the type of coverage he has received?
just calling it as it is


You are correct in saying that he is a doctor.

He is rock star in his profession.

He is the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, by President George W. Bush in 2008.

Carson is a Professor of Neurosurgery, Oncology, Plastic Surgery and Pediatrics at John Hopkins University

At age 33, he became the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins history, as Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery. He is also a Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center. Carson used to perform 450–500 surgeries per year, but has reduced his surgery load to approximately 350 per year as his scheduled speaking engagements have increased.[citation needed]

In 1987, Carson made medical history by being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins (the Binder twins) who had been joined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). The 70-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. At the end, the twins were successfully separated and can now survive independently

Carson is a member of the American Academy of Achievement, and the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. In 2008, the White House awarded Benjamin Carson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.[5] As an internationally renowned physician, Carson has authored over 100 neurosurgical publications, along with three best-selling books, and has been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson#section_3

[brainstorm]

I hope I did not come across that way, my intent was to answer 108's post with regard to his race

No, not at all. I was just adding my 2 cents worth. I have been aware of Dr. Carson for years and have a lot of respect for him.