Almalieque wrote:
You can't pick and choose which government assistance is good or bad.
Of course you can. Why would you think otherwise?
Quote:
Welcome to the point? That's furthermore why it's sad. When the belief is that only poor black people who choose to be poor are the ones that need food stamps, then that taints the discussion in a biased way against food stamps. When people realize that there are people in their own back yard who work hard who also need assistance, then their attitude will change on how people become eligible for government assistance.
The point is that this isn't what's going on. It's a contrivance, designed to paint people who take a different position as racists.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
so you just label people who do it racists and call it a day
When did this happen?
When someone characterized a person who chooses not to accept foodstamps as doing so because "that's what black people do". Try to keep up.
Quote:
That's because everyone knows that a significant number of the black votes come from the "Souls to the polls" and by eliminating Sunday voting, you are interrupting the "Souls to the polls".
Everybody knows this? That's funny, I thought Democrats were opposed to the idea of preachers getting involved in politics and using their pulpits in this manner. I distinctly recall us having several discussions over the years about this. I find it interesting that those who claim to be about protecting minority rights and freedoms condemn political preaching as a means of unfairly influencing voters, but only when those voters are white (or Republican, I guess). So it's ok to unfairly influence black votes? How very non-racist of you!
Ok. That was a bit tongue in cheek, but the larger point remains. This restriction applies equally to everyone. It's just hard for me to buy the idea that the same "side" that has complained for decades about the religious right influencing politics is now honestly claiming to want to protect the rights of religious leaders to so directly influence the votes of their constituents, that we can't allow even one day between when they preach and when their flock votes. Unless your argument is that black people are more pliable than white people, or that they're more forgetful of what they heard just yesterday, or maybe that what they're told on Sunday maybe will be re-thought and found to be wrong by Monday?
In any case, it's a silly opposition.
Quote:
Republicans have already admitted on the record that the whole purpose of the voting laws is to make it harder for people to vote for their opponent.
Only via gross paraphrasing of what has been actually said. Or, I suppose if you agree that the Democrats rely on voter fraud to win elections. That works too. Because the GOP's purpose with regard to voting laws is to reduce the possibility for voter fraud to occur. Now, if you believe that this hurts the Democrats more than the GOP, then that's because you believe that the Democrats benefit from voter fraud more than the GOP. Right?
Quote:
Actually, you're just proving the point. BOTH sides of the political spectrum play the race card, just differently. The left blames everything on "the man" while the right blames everything on the individual. The fact that you think it's wrong to discredit a racial myth only supports the right's argument that race isn't a factor unless its self destruction. Remember your claim that Treyvon ran because black people are taught to run and fear the authority? Funny how you can interject race when you feel necessary. Even funnier on how it's only interjected when it's self-destruction.
I completely disagree with you (shocker, I know). I think that the left views things within the context of identity, and the right view things within the context of actions. What's interesting is that many people are not aware of this, and so they judge the other "sides" statements as though they were made with their own "sides" methodology. So a conservative will see a liberal defend Trayvon Martin and assume they are defending his actions, when they actually care the most about who he was. Similarly, a liberal will see a conservative blame Trayvon Martin and assume that they are blaming him for being black, or a teen, or that he wears a hoodie, or eats skittles and drinks Arizona tea.
Ironically, your statement above reflects this. Both of the methodologies you describe are based on the concept of identity (ie: come from the liberal mindset). Are you "the man", or "an individual"? Conservatives don't care about that. We care about actions. What does the government do and is that good or bad. What does the individual do and is that good or bad. That's it. Thus, when we do something like choose not to accept foodstamps, it has nothing to do with other identity groups and how they orient with regard to foodstamps. It's about what foodstamps are, what they do, and whether we think that's good or bad for us. It's actually quite bewildering to a conservative to see a liberal leap to the kind of statement that Joph made. It's actually alien to us. It's something that simply never enters our minds, and it's strange to realize that for someone else, it's nearly obsessively front and center.
Edited, Oct 1st 2014 5:33pm by gbaji