packrat44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
samclem - good observation. IMO you are right on target.
I don't think so. During my working years I never supported the Reagan and later Bush tax cuts which were very good for my pocketbook. By the time the Bush cuts expire (if the dems win and if they do expire) DW will have pulled the plug and we will be well below the income thresholds cited in any proposals I have heard of. I would expect that virtually all of the retired people here would be in the same boat. Now capital gains going back up would be another story -- but I will bet that doesn't happen principally because it does effect a lot of retirees nowadays.Better be careful for what you wish - as early retirees, many of us on this forum would be considered "rich".
In addition to the difference in tolerance between older and younger folks, I think there's also difference according to economic status. Poorer people (black and white) are (again, in my expereince) more likely to hold intolerant views. This is also good news--these people have less ability to have a negative influence on larger events.
Not that all old or poor people are intolerant--far from it. But a disproportionate number are.
There are black bigots and white bigots--intolerance and prejudice is not restricted to one side or the other along racial lines. The biggest difference in attitudes is not between blacks and whites, but between older folks and younger ones. In general, race just is not that big of an issue with younger people. When you hear someone speaking in ways that "make you cringe", it is far more likely (in my experience) to be an older person. Because I'm white, most of the people who would say things like this in my presence are also white, and they are almost without exception older than 50. If Obama is right, the situation is much the same in the "black community."
Not that all old or poor people are intolerant--far from it. But a disproportionate number are.
I think that might be a reason--that poor people are more likely to hold racial prejudices. But, given that Hillary and Obama are virtually indistinguishable on economic issues, and that the vote among blacks is far more skewed toward Obama than the white vote is skewed toward Clinton, I think it is very interesting that you ask if it is the poor white voters who are intolerant. The effect is clearly stronger among poor black voters, but this seems to escape your notice.Is that why the working class "down scale" whites are not voting for Obama?
Who are the "they" and "them" in your statements? I don't think anybody "started" the issue of race in this campaign, there is no master conspiracy. Obama is the first serious black candidate for president, it was inevitable that this subject would come up. I think the debate to this point has been terrifically productive, in large part due to the way Obama has handled it.Can I conclude that they started the issue of race in this campaign long before Rev. Wright's video surfaced? Is it legitimate to say that they were waiting for an incident to remind them that he is black?
....... I think Obama has tremendous potential to bring the nation together on this issue of race. ......
...... a good speaker who can help us bridge a racial divide that we are bridging anyway (albeit at too slow a rate).
.............
Gov. Huckabee raises a good point, a measure of understanding is in order for bigoted older people who've been horribly mistreated by another group.
......
How has Rev Jeremiah Wright been "horribly" mistreated?
I still don't understand how it seems to have become a given that Obama can "bring this nation together" or "bridge a racial divide"?
Is it because he's bi-racial & culturally affiliated with the black community? Does that give him some sort of special magic? That's a racist idea in and of itself.
It's nobody's fault but Obama's that race has suddenly become an issue in this campaign due to his 20 year close association with a racist preacher. Are we supposed to give him a "pass" on that because he's black (bi-racial)?
Wright may or may not have been personally subjected to the worst features of segregation but he certainly lived surrounded by their effects and the whole violent reaction to the civil rights movement. I don't believe that warrants screaming "G** D*** the US" today, but there were no privileged by-standers back then - the situation was too global for that.ClifP - So you are assuming these "horrible" things happened to Rev Wright -
While I would agree some of the things you mentioned were "wrong" I would have to say the use of the word "horrible" is a bit of an exaggeration.
I noticed that Obama is making himself available to interviews to try to address the situation. Network commentators and far right radio and cable TV commentators (mainly) have been parsing his words looking for any hint of inconsistency and doing micro-analysis looking for any small thing that is controversial.
They are beginning to take it to a level that is darn near a witch hunt.
Enough already... he has explained it the best he can.
Some people in the black community feel that they were treated unfairly and sometimes the resentment is expressed. In this case a preacher expressed it. And as far as I can tell, it was more of an isolate incident for the preacher... he is not an Al Sharpton clone.
The event took a little of the glow off of Obama's image. It is probably time for the media to move on.
Put it like this... if that is all that they have, it isn't much.
I may not support the man or vote for him... but I have not interest in seeing him destroyed for someone else's comments.
Is this parsing? These are his comments.
http://www.early-retirement.org/for...he-typical-white-person-34206.html#post631710
Yes. How many people do you know that can make a politically correct defense when trying to respond to people that are on the attack. Almost any set of words can be construed in a negative way.
The man was merely trying to describe his life experience. the word "typical" in this case is synonymous with "average" or "common". His generalization should not be construed as a racist remark, he was trying to describe a very complicated set of feelings in the black community.
The RNC and their mouth pieces need to understand that their hyperbole will whip up the ultra-right... by turn off the middle ground voters (swing vote). The negative sentiment Obama is experiencing will swing the other direction to sympathy.
I dont think many people will buy into the sympathy bandwagon. I have friends that contributed financially to the Obama campaign who are now either not voting for him or are second guessing his REAL ideas and intentions.
Yes. How many people do you know that can make a politically correct defense when trying to respond to people that are on the attack. Almost any set of words can be construed in a negative way.
The man was merely trying to describe his life experience. the word "typical" in this case is synonymous with "average" or "common". His generalization should not be construed as a racist remark, he was trying to describe a very complicated set of feelings in the black community.
The RNC and their mouth pieces need to understand that their hyperbole will whip up the ultra-right... by turn off the middle ground voters (swing vote). The negative sentiment Obama is experiencing will swing the other direction to sympathy.
Sympathy and support swing back and forth.
Obama is a little tarnished... but not out of it.
He must be a real threat to the RNC.
When it comes down to Republican vs Democrat. The Republican candidate has an uphill battle.
The senator was an editor of the Havard Law Review; a lawyer and running for president of the USA.
He knows words; how to use them and how to speak clearly - that is one of his acknowledged strenghts. As such he does not require after the fact explanations.
His "typical white" comments are a result of his decision to follow; associate with and hire for his campaign the Pastor Wright. They are indictative of his beliefs and thought process.
I follow the logic.
I have considered his comment. But boiling the man down to two words in the middle of a statement is a little overboard.
I would not give him a pass on the overall event. But it is a stretch to chalk him up as not being able to be trusted.
I am not worried about his feelings towards whites. I am a little concerned about social engineering and more taxes to support the new programs.
But. I am less worried about those programs than maintaining the political status quo.
The question is: which president do you want Hillary or Obama?
It isn't about two words; ...
The senator was an editor of the Havard Law Review; a lawyer and running for president of the USA.
He knows words; how to use them and how to speak clearly - that is one of his acknowledged strenghts. As such he does not require after the fact explanations.
His "typical white" comments are a result of his decision to follow; associate with and hire for his campaign the Pastor Wright. They are indictative of his beliefs and thought process.
The Senator is also trying to add realism and empathy to a common experience: how to deal with a family member, friend or mentor who harbors views that are decidely different from, and in some cases quite offensive to, your own personal views. While some read the Senator's statement as throwing his grandmother under the bus, I actually thought he was trying to deflate the negativity surrounded by people who might harbor racist views by indicating that you take the whole person's worth, not just how one measures up on the racial divide. It's been my experience that when it comes to family, friends or mentors, we don't take a one-track view of their worth based on some racial sensitivity litmus test. How many of us cut-off our ties to our family or friends based on intolerant racist, sexist or homophobic views that they might share?
So, I think you are parsing one sliver of the experience and blowing it way out of proportion based on the "typical" comment. Typically, I do notice when I get in the elevator some people do clutch their purses -- does that make my observation that typically it happens with older white women, racist? Maybe my observation is obscured by my own race -- and I'm just selectively looking at older white women, though I've done this experiment with others and they've seen the same thing!
If you want to argue Obama is racist because of his association with his Church, which is associated with the parsed-out version of Black Liberation Theology you quote from Wiki, you're on better footing than arguing that his "typical" comment suggests Obama's racially tone deaf or biased! But on balance, there is a lot of information out there that suggests his Church is more nuanced in its dealings on racial issues and that the entire body of worshippers includes a segment of white congregants -- this is hardly suggestive of a racist theology.
"It isn't about two words; nor is it about race; nor is it about religion; nor is it about outside supports; it is about decisions; a 20 year association and a guiding philosophy. The two words are just indicative of it."
You might have missed my words above. It specifically addresses the points you raise about my comments.