The primer is flawed by not including minorities as giving in to racism. Typical LWL mindset and babble talk.
--------------
Why So Many People Believe Blacks Are America's Racists
A recent Rasmussen poll found that more Americans by a wide margin think blacks are more racist than whites. This also included a significant percent of blacks who according to Rasmussen said that they consider more blacks racist than whites or Hispanics. The poll was sloughed off, mocked, and skewered by some.
But many can and should quibble with the methodology. It was done through a telephone survey and the sample was 1,000 respondents. But the question is how did pollsters define and determine what is "racist"? Still, its conclusion may have some validity. For three decades, the steady drumbeat has been that the avalanche of civil rights and voting rights laws, state and local bars against discrimination, and affirmative action programs has permanently crumbled the nation's historic racial barriers. The parade of top black appointed and elected officials, including one president, the legions of black mega millionaire CEOs, athletes, entertainers, and the household names of blacks from Oprah to Bob Johnson is repeatedly waved as convincing proof of that.
The ferocious assault by high profile black conservatives, with a certain Supreme Court justice leading the way, have sold millions of Americans that everything from historic voting rights protections to affirmative action are relics of a long by-gone racist past and should be summarily dumped in the historic dust bin. They haven't stopped at that. They've even sold a wide body of the public that to continue to fight for these supposedly unnecessary relics is just a self-serving, greedy grab by the much rivaled "civil rights establishment" to protect its racial turf, and feather its own nest. Those hurt most by this are blacks who they supposedly mire in a semi-permanent state of dependency and entitlement trap.
It matters little that every objective study and survey for the past two decades has consistently shown the gaping racial disparities in health care, education spending, the criminal justice system, employment, the wealth gap, and poverty between blacks and whites has either stagnated or widened. Or that blacks are still largely the invisible men and women in executive management spots at the Fortune 500 corporations. It matters even less that the textbook definition of racism explicitly means not just an individual's thinking or expressing racially skewed bias and animus toward another group, but having the actual power to exert control and dominance through the mechanisms of law, public policy, and economic dominance over that group. This is the defining point between an individual's personal prejudices, and there are few individuals who don't harbor some personal prejudice toward another group, and having the actual power to exercise that prejudice against another group that is deliberately missed or distorted in the futile exercise of trying to say who is a racist and what makes them a racist.
The entrenched notion, however, is that if you're black, poor, uneducated, or locked in a prison cell, don't blame social, political or economic iniquities, in short, don't scream race -- blame yourself. This does two things: it provides social and psychic comfort to those individuals who think that they're bigotry-free, and can finger point blacks as eternal racial crybabies who love to scream racism at every slight or failure. They also pound civil rights leaders for eternally playing the race card on every supposedly imagined or trumped up racial malfeasance.
But the far more insidious thing than accusing blacks of being America's top bigots is that it makes it much easier to ignore or outright assail laws, statutes, policies and initiatives that were hard fought over to put on the books to protect rights and eliminate discrimination. This ploy was on full display in the Supreme Court debate over the key provisions of the Voting Rights Act that for decades mandated Justice Department approval to prevent registrars in targeted Southern and Southwestern states from using every tact to damp down black and Hispanic votes. It was on display and in the ancient court and public debate over affirmative action which has long been encased in public thinking, as "reverse discrimination." The real victims of this supposed discrimination are not blacks, Hispanics or women, but white males. This was amply borne out in a Rasmussen poll in May that found only 25 percent of Americans favored affirmative action as part of college admission policies.
The Supreme Court almost certainly will hear yet another affirmative action related case at a future date. And there is talk among some Democrats that Congress should pass some measures to restore the protections that the Court gutted in its decision on the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, these polls give those who oppose any more rights initiatives be it court, congressional or from the private sector further ammunition to argue that America has reached a racial nirvana and nothing more need be done to protect or further safeguard racial gains. And the only ones screaming for that to happen are blacks. But then again that's only to be expected since so many blacks are "racist" anyway.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new ebook is America on Trial: The Slaying of Trayvon Martin (Amazon). He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.
Thumper's Link
Tigereye's Link
-Matt, if you agree with that conclusion, add "self-loathing" to the evaluation because you have a very critical opinion of yourself.
Just think, they're out there and they breed and vote!!! Heaven help us!
Below is excerpted from todays WSJ article by Richard Ravitch who is helping solve the many years of poor liberal policy in Chicago- which is about to collapse from its own weight of these policies;
In Chicago, Detroit and across the U.S., local and state governments have made promises in good faith to their 19 million employees to provide retirement benefits and, in many cases, health-care benefits as well. Many government officials didn’t realize that the cost of these promises would rise faster than the tax revenues that were being generated to cover their operations.
As a result, the shortsighted strategy of using borrowed money or the proceeds from the sale of public assets to balance operating budgets has grown at a rapid rate. But such unwise and unsustainable practices are insufficient to avoid bankruptcy in some cases, and cuts to education and infrastructure in others......
What a clown!
Matt Finney thinks you're a racist!
Tigereye's Link
The key words in this article are REINTRODUCED LEGISLATION.
Today, liberals care ONLY about the color of a man's skin and that's where they start in every evaluation they make.
Conservatives. OTOH, don't give a hoot about a man's skin color. We judge men by the content of their character.
MLK, of course, was a REPUBLICAN!
Then there's this:
There is one black US Senator, Tim Scott from South Carolina. Scott is not only a Republican, he's also a Tea Partier. In last November's election, both he and Lindsey Graham were up for election in SC.
When all the votes were counted, Graham won his re-election bid by a 54.5% - 38.9% margin, garnering 665,605 votes.
Scott, however, won his election by a 61.2% - 37.1% margin, garnering 749,266 votes, 83,661 votes more than Graham received.
In addition, SC Governor Nikki Haley, another ethnic minority (not to mention a woman), won re-election by a 56.0%- 41.4% margin, garnering 689,319 votes, 23,714 more than Graham received.
So, Matt, in a very conservative state in the DEEP SOUTH, a black man got more votes than did his fellow WHITE SC Senator and a WOMAN of INDIAN descent did as well.
So much for conservatives being racists, prejudiced and anti-woman.
Of course, just to top things off here, there are two Hispanic governors in the US, Susana Martinez (NM), and Brian Sandoval (NV). Both, of course, are Republicans.
Have you got any more uninformed, ignorant charges to bring against us here, Matt? Because I can do this all day and it's REALLY easy!
must have missed that meeting....
A racist is a racist. They come in all ideologies. Just ask, Sharpton, Spike Lee, Holder, etc. Simply someone who sees race before all else and separates the races to determine how they are treated.
Actually.... I know very few racist conservatives. Those who show such character faults are usually cast aside in all the conservative groups I'm aware of. Liberal groups OTOH....
BTW I don't see neo-nazi skinheads as conservative any more than I consider the Black Panthers liberals. They are both just racists. And I would have to agree, neither have enough brain cells to rub together to make a fire....
If taxpayers paid for that study..... we deserve a refund....
If a liberal group paid for it.... they certainly didn't get what they paid for, but got what they deserved....
Scott, however, won his election by 61.2% - 37.1% margin, garnering 749,266 votes, 83,661 votes more than Graham received."
-That is about a direct comparative on ideology and race as can garnered. Intra-party comparison so no other branding need apply.
I have to give it to you. You knew the title of this thread would be enough to rile the CF.
So I am going to ask my college to give all of us an IQ test. I guess we can expect I will have the lowest score being a conservative?
If so, that would cause a quandary for many here. While some would conclude that would explain my participation on certain threads, others would be worried it would prove the premise of your thread.
Thanks for the smile!
You've been here long enough I don't think anyone's too worried about your IQ.
But ya' know what would be fun? Let's test Matt's IQ and see just how bright he is! LOL!
The oft-repeated tactic of the left is to force you to accept a false premise and then try to defend it. It is, by design, an attempt to put you in a lose-lose scenario; the answer is to simply reject the false premise and argue your point on merit. For example, any mention of poor job performance by our current President is foisted upon you as "racism"; the answer is to refuse to address the racial component and to focus on the number of areas of poor performance; actual (U6) unemployment, % Labor force participation, foreign policy gaffes, etc.
The false premise is intended to prevent the left from having to defend the indefensible; there is no intent to enter into an honest back-and-forth, fact/rebuttal type of discussion. The tactic is 100%, pure-distilled hypocrisy.
Don't engage the myth, explode it with facts.
ZZZZzzzzzzZZZz.
Tigereye's Link
Add racist
Don't make me stop this car!!! ;^)
Thanks!
Saw your comment this morning and saved it for easy pasting on future drivel from the likes of Matty/Sybil.
Says everything needed to make a comment. I suggest that everyone who shares these thoughts do the same. Save it and keep it where it is easily posted.
Later, when I have a little more time, I will start a thread with an article I found today that shows just how malfunctioning the reputed higher IQ of a liberal actually functions.
Which begs the thought...since the progs seem to be one of those special privileged classes who have assumed (ass-u-me)the right to define good correct morals and beliefs, have their scores been adjusted up just to make them feel superior. You know, some sort of participation award for which they are so readily associated with? Matty couldn't go home without a trophy or ribbon...
"Nva, this is for you....I'm gonna need you to respond."
I did. I did indeed.
Only now that I have, you seem unable to respond yourself.
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Especially when the truth is backed with detailed and easily documented data which totally destroys your false premise.
BINGO!
When the author of a false premise resorts to using words such as "maybe," "could," "might," "possibly," etc., it's a guarantee the author can neither prove nor offer factual data to back up his false premise.
LOL!
Yessiree!
Matty not only doesn't know anything, but as you suggested, he doesn't even suspect anything.
That will be Chuck Schumer's IQ.
Then double or triple that and you probably still won't have a number that equals Ted Cruz' IQ.
Are you just as ignorant and as uniformed when you talk with Alicia?
Take for example, the 2A. Conservatives are all in for expanding gun rights, which, by definition gives his/ her neighbors the means of taking life. Liberals want to take those rights. Who is fearful? Who is more trustful?
Actual election results that PROVE everything Matt Finny posted was FALSE!
You're either stupid beyond belief or you didn't bother to read the rebuttals.
My bet is "both."
BTW, Trayvon was not shot by a cop. He was shot by a guy defending his life. Not surprised you get that wrong.
I don't know about any Cleveland shooting and the Eric Garner death is a prime example of how liberal policies violently kill people. After all, the cops were there to enforce NY's tobacco taxes. Specifically, because DeBlasio wanted to crack down on lower income folks trying to make a dime. In Mr. Garner's case, he was a 31 time loser to "progressive liberal" policies before he died. Thanks for making my point.
Lastly, how perverse is it to put cops in harm's way and then scapegoat them because they are diligently executing their duties? That's sick.
You, too, could be on the front page of the Briarcliff Manor, 'Daily Voice!'
Imagine an investigative story about a taxpayer funded 'educator' who's spent countless hours of time at work trolling on the school district's server on the taxpayer's dime and posting anti-Semite and other hate speech over the past year-and-a-half, to include f-bomb laced jpegs of which we have copies.
Coming to a hometown newspaper near you soon!
Have a nice day, Paul!
Whenever someone expresses a conservative idea on Bowsite, someone with a low IQ shows up to argue against it. Generally, the same one or two fools.
What is discussed is the attack on conservatism. (Of course being a liberal with high IQ you knew that and were just trolling )
The original study (if you UNDERSTAND IT) linked social conservitivism with low IQ's and racism.
The whole premise starts with the questions:
"Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and
"Schools should teach children to obey authority."
Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as:
"I wouldn't mind working with people from other races."
Based on a child's answer to these questions he is labeled a "Conservative with a Low IQ with a propensity for racism"
Do you not find it odd that the liberals defense to all arguements are "your too dumb" or "your a racist" and that this study just happens to try legitimaize these claims.
Furthermore, the authors make the statement
"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, ....... "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."
Is it also correct to assume that without order and structure one has CHAOS? Order and structure are the basics of civilization dating back to the Code of Hamurabi. Can I therefore make the claim that liberal thinking and multiculturalism will end in chaos ultimately destroying civilization as we know it???
I will grant that liberals tend to look at abstract ideals more than conservatives. The fact that they do does not mean that they are more intellegent. They are usually disconnected from the real world and lack problem solving skills needed to be successful. Most work in academia, the arts, or law where facts (order and structure) matter little.
Those that rely on order and structure are usually employed in the sciences ie Doctor, Chemist, Engineering
WASS
JVT, that's a good one. MF, the above quote is a perfect example of a person thinking for himself. Won't hear that on TV.
The earth is dying now? Where is that coming from. Please tell me its that "Settled Science" of AGW.
I will be more than happy to debate that with anyone. Even its champion Al Gore.
In full disclosure I am a Professional Environmental Compliance Specialist.
Carry on!
Screamed by one who claims conservatives have a low IQ...sheesh...
the only fact from OP, but it certainly didn't take this whole waste of interweb tubes to prove it
itshot's Link
High chance it was hidden for good reason, although this notion is likely outside your comfort zone, consider it as fact
BowSniper's Link
So YES Pz, more guns were sold during Obama's reign than under any other president. Over 100 MILLION new guns are on the street since Obama took office, much to his chagrin. That's a funny side effect of trying to limit their availability.
Oh... but wait... the rate of gun crimes did not go up proportionately. Hmmmmm, the FBI actually reports the violent crime rate went DOWN during this same period. And that includes scary looking military guns and hand guns, being sold to the point of shortages. Imagine that! More guns in the hands of honest citizens correlates to LOWER crime rates!
Even less surprising is that he did so after posting that he wanted me to respond.
The only thing I think heshit hasn't lied about is that heshit's not on break this week because heshit's posting here and stiffing the taxpayers like all good government parasites do.
Something is seriously wrong with people like MF and PZ that allows them to knowingly lie simply to be able to say they're right.
Harry Reid is a prime example of this. In an interview on CNN yesterday with Dana Bash, he was asked why he lied on the floor of the Senate about Mitt Romney not having paid taxes for ten years:
"Bash: 'So no regrets about Mitt Romney, about the Koch Brothers. Some people have even called it McCarthyite.'
REID: Well… [shrug] … they can call it whatever they want. Um … Romney didn’t win, did he?"
In other words, he lied, he admitted he lied, he smeared an honorable man, and that's all just hunky-dory, because it worked.
These people are beyond despicable!
Their Obama Health Tax is s prime example of this. Designed, planned, promoted, sold and passed on pure LIES, with the affirmative action Nobel prize for being black President lying his pathetic a** off on TV over and over and over again.
And they wonder why no one believes them.
Having established their superiority, they then demonstrate just how better they are than others in their ability to distinguish the hierarchy of importance:
Example:(H/T Weasel Zippers)
Network Newscasts Devote 300% More Time to Indiana Religious Freedom Law Than Hillary E-Mail Server Wipe…
Remember: this law has in the past been supported by Democrats, voted for by Obama and even defended by the Holder DOJ. This is just another one of those opportunistic moments to take the light away from the Clinton email scandal and Obama's support of nuclear Islam via extra-Constitutional means.
How can anyone think these policies successful?
One only has to look at a city like Detroit to see how liberalism helps the poor....
she will carry 40% or more as long as she's breathing
IQ? what does that mean, I Quit? are you twisted libs that addled over losing a turn....kripes
WHAT?
I responded, but you totally avoided dealing with the facts, as I knew would be the case.
I destroyed your despicable claims and assertions about conservatives being racists and prejudiced with the data I noted about the 2014 South Carolina elections.
Of course, after seeing the data, you could not deal with the actual FACTS, so you ran and hid from the data, pretending it didn't exist, as we all knew you would.
If you're a liberal, FACTS ARE HARD!
If you're a liberal, you know that facts do matter and so must be ignored because they blow up your false premises. But if you're a liberal, you don't care about facts or the truth. Only your agenda matters. "By any means necessary."
Which is why you tried to claim our responses somehow proved your original false premise.
But I'll give you this: You were correct in that I did not read your first post. I did read the first sentence and saw it had nothing to do with conservative thinking or values, but it certainly meant you believed conservatives are racists and prejudiced. That's a lie and a despicable lie.
Given the false premise you started with, whatever you followed it with was therefore irrelevant and not worthy of reading.