colin powell comments on the republican party

[3rdnlng]

If this is all you've got I'm through discussing it. This is just you reinforcing your prejudices. I'd think a doctor would take a more scientific approach.

 

It always comes to this, doesn't it? Earlier he challenged me to explain his conjecture.

[Meathead]

Ask yourself what Powell hopes to gain complaining about such things as an avowed repub. You must either conclude that he's lying about his allegiance or truly finds this kind of thing damaging to himself, his party and/or the country.

 

i certainly dont think hes lying, and he actually very definitely thinks its damaging to himself and the country. i just think hes wrong. and the reason hes wrong is mostly bc hes black

ive said this so often here i shouldnt have to say it anymore, but as a review i have a long and proud track record of deeply loving black folks. and i am convinced that when it comes to dysfunctional views on race in some very significant ways black folks are where white folks were twenty or thirty years ago. a great many of them if not the majority hang on to some very outdated and in fact terribly biased viewpoints

i can provide lots of details but ive already pointed out the two most crucial: a) blacks believe they rightfully own the topic of blackness and thus racism, and b) blacks believe they cant be racist bc they dont have the power

now i fully realize all blacks dont believe this way, and im only speculating that its somewhere over half that do, but even if not there is still a very much too large segment of blacks that do. and really these two beliefs are so wrong and so damaging that anything near half is way way too much anyway

interestingly, most whites have moved on to another form of racism, that which has been popularized by the far left liberal elements and accepted as gospel by many otherwise reasonable people who dont have enough depth of experience to recognize it. shelby steele calls this fuctional racism (im recalling this by memory, i might have the wrong term, ill come back if i did). its essentially over compensation, an enabling of dysfunctional thought based on guilt and the greatly delayed attempt at redemption

so we have black folks engaging in the same basic type of racism that my redneck family embraced so eagerly in the sixties and seventies, and then white people who enable that thought behavior by giving them more room than they should in a belated attempt to even the playing field

how does this lead to mr powell? bc from that biased perspective of black folks not doing any wrong its much easier to see white people as the cause. i will join mr powell when his observations of white racism are valid, but this is one i think he has erred on

in this case. white people have FINALLY turned the corner on old fashioned racism - waaytf too long but hell at least they finally made it. yes, we will always have old fashioned white racists, but beleed me typing right now from deep in the heart of redneck crackerland and im telling you standard racism is nearly extinct here, outside a few recalcitrant bastards who are proud of it. most open racists get shouted down here now

and thats sort of the point - im sad to say i certainly cant say im confident a group of blacks would stifle overly negative talk about whites. i dont feel the need to represent the white race, i love everybody, but when im around groups of blacks they often dont mind jumping right in when the subject of white badness comes up. real criticisms are fine, but more often it just feels like what i fought against growing up in whitesville usa twenty plus years ago

so colin im sure thinks hes doing the right thing. hes just wrong

 

sorry about the condensed text. i composed it in notepad and the paragraph marks apparently dont translate. i aint fixin it

[Rob's House]

It always comes to this, doesn't it? Earlier he challenged me to explain his conjecture.

It really does. It's always the peddlers of racial/ethnic/socioeconomic divide that cast these accusations of "intolerance" as though they're so above the fray when the reality is they've been exploiting that fray for decades without any concern for those that get shafted in the process. Sure they cry foul when someone accuses RG3 of not being black enough, yet in their next breath they support the very mindset that leads to that garbage. And then call us racist with nothing to back it up.

[B-Man]

The continued nostalgia for racism on the part of the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me.

 

The explanation is quite simple of course, as birddog himself said............."it wins elections"

 

So what’s the deal? Why is the Democratic Party clinging to racism like a wall full of barnacles on the hull of a rusted ship?

 

The most popular explanation is that that is their lever on political power. With 99 percent of African-Americans and 77 percent of Jewish-Americans (excuse the reactionary hyphens), not to mention a huge percentage of Hispanic-Americans, voting their way, what’s not to like?

 

Keep America divided according to race and keep getting elected.

 

The democrat party continues to be race obsessed, and the hilarious suggestion that the Republicans should publicly apologize for the handful of racists who identify with their party deserves to be laughed at, given the dems own history.

 

 

Why is it that the left is so obsessed with the spectacle of Republican racism?

 

Is it unease with a dark racial history, from the social tensions and racial violence in the North to the governmental Jim Crow activism of progressive Democrats in the Wilson administration?

Is it the compulsion to rationalize the atrophic effects of welfare and other leftist policy on black families, or that minorities are more likely to have jobs, live in better-off neighborhoods and attend better-performing schools in the Sun Belt than in the Frost Belt?

Or does this obsession spring from simple, unbridled contempt for the dissidents who give the lie to the left’s hallowed illusions?

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/21/the-republican-party-isnt-racist/#ixzz2I0YQzKIC

[Rob's House]

The continued nostalgia for racism on the part of the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me.

 

The explanation is quite simple of course, as birddog himself said............."it wins elections"

 

So what’s the deal? Why is the Democratic Party clinging to racism like a wall full of barnacles on the hull of a rusted ship?

 

The most popular explanation is that that is their lever on political power. With 99 percent of African-Americans and 77 percent of Jewish-Americans (excuse the reactionary hyphens), not to mention a huge percentage of Hispanic-Americans, voting their way, what’s not to like?

 

Keep America divided according to race and keep getting elected.

 

The democrat party continues to be race obsessed, and the hilarious suggestion that the Republicans should publicly apologize for the handful of racists who identify with their party deserves to be laughed at, given the dems own history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2I0YQzKIC

 

 

Because when Democrats exploit racism to get elected it's virtuous. When Republicans do it it's shameful.

[3rdnlng]

It really does. It's always the peddlers of racial/ethnic/socioeconomic divide that cast these accusations of "intolerance" as though they're so above the fray when the reality is they've been exploiting that fray for decades without any concern for those that get shafted in the process. Sure they cry foul when someone accuses RG3 of not being black enough, yet in their next breath they support the very mindset that leads to that garbage. And then call us racist with nothing to back it up.

 

 

The "funny" thing here at PPP is that the libs who who try to pigeon hole conservatives with the racist crap are the ones who run and hide from an honest discussion about race. By-and-large all they ever do is a drive-by racial hit and run. On numerous occasions I have deliberately posted stuff that could lead to an honest discussion and libs (and regretfully blacks who post here) refuse to engage. Somehow discussion about race is frowned upon here unless it's about Zimmerman hunting down poor Trayvon.

[dayman]

None of this changes the fact that you're basing your argument that the conservative movement in America is overwhelmingly intolerant of poor, minorities, etc. on a comment made over 30 years ago. That's weak.

 

From what I gathered from his comments, he was explaining political strategy on how to win pockets of states and how the racial aspect of that strategy evolved over time. I don't quite see how this solidifies your stance. In fact, in light of the way he explains that overt racism fell out of favor between the 50s and 60s I'd say this runs counter to your conclusion.

 

His point was you just adapt but can still pull it off in a way that's politically successful.

[3rdnlng]

His point was you just adapt but can still pull it off in a way that's politically successful.

 

And still, the weazly libs just let it go. Now that's a party, crying out for courage among it's membership.

[Nanker]

Colin Powell is remorseful that he didn't run for President because his wife was afraid he'd be assassinated because he is black. Now he wants to be Hillary's running mate. End of story.

[birdog1960]

Colin Powell is remorseful that he didn't run for President because his wife was afraid he'd be assassinated because he is black. Now he wants to be Hillary's running mate. End of story.

And that fact doesn't convince you of the very real amount of rabid racism he's faced? Hillary? Doubtful but we'll see. They'd very likely win going away. Btw, how do you think the racist vote breaks down? Yes, they're a minority and can't directly influence the vote but they may have changed history in the 90's with Powell.

[B-Man]

And that fact doesn't convince you of the very real amount of rabid racism he's faced? Hillary? Doubtful but we'll see. They'd very likely win going away. Btw, how do you think the racist vote breaks down? Yes, they're a minority and can't directly influence the vote but they may have changed history in the 90's with Powell.

 

You continue to be all over the place in your arguments.

 

His wife was worried that he might be assasinated by a nutcase if he was elected President, but that certainly doesn't reference in ANY way a fear of Republicans killing him. He would have been running on their ticket.

 

Your own language certainly tells me more about your prejudice than your argument.

 

Tell me was this "rabid" racism he faces from the GOP, before or after he was named President Reagan's National Security Advisor?

Was this "rabid" Republican racism before or after he was made the First African-American Secretary of State ?......before Condoleeza Rice..............

 

There are racists everywhere, your selective outrage is both funny and phony.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 15, 2013 by B-Man

[birdog1960]

You continue to be all over the place in your arguments.

 

His wife was worried that he might be assasinated by a nutcase if he was elected President, but that certainly doesn't reference in ANY way a fear of Republicans killing him. He would have been running on their ticket.

 

Your own language certainly tells me more about your prejudice than your argument.

 

Tell me was this "rabid" racism he faces from the GOP, before or after he was named President Reagan's National Security Advisor?

Was this "rabid" Republican racism before or after he was made the First African-American Secretary of State ?......before Condoleeza Rice..............

 

There are racists everywhere, your selective outrage is both funny and phony.

 

 

 

 

 

.

i never said the entirety of the party is racist. i agree with powell however that there is a dark vein of intolerance within the party. that dark vein includes some racists. and yes there are black racists. the nation of islam is listed as a hate group on the southern poverty law center website...and rightfully so. but i ask again, which party's candidates do you think garner more racist votes? why is that?

[3rdnlng]

i never said the entirety of the party is racist. i agree with powell however that there is a dark vein of intolerance within the party. that dark vein includes some racists. and yes there are black racists. the nation of islam is listed as a hate group on the southern poverty law center website...and rightfully so. but i ask again, which party's candidates do you think garner more racist votes? why is that?

 

Are you completely nuts? What party had 98% of the black vote voting for the black candidate? Is that coincidence or flat out racism?

[B-Man]

From the Wall Street Journal:http://online.wsj.co...pinion_newsreel

 

 

 

Colin Powell's Double Standard

 

Colin Powell thinks Chuck Hagel's use of the term "Jewish lobby" was an innocent mistake, for which he should atone by writing "Israel lobby" 100 times on a blackboard.

 

"That term slips out from time to time," the former secretary of state told David Gregory on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Mr. Powell also thinks that when Mr. Hagel's critics "go over the edge and say because Chuck said 'Jewish lobby,' he is anti-Semitic, that's disgraceful. We shouldn't have that kind of language in our dialogue."

 

OK, I get it. An errant slip of the tongue isn't proof of prejudice. We have all said things the offensiveness of which we perhaps didn't fully appreciate when we opened our mouth.

 

Like the time when, according to Bob Woodward, Mr. Powell accused Douglas Feith, one of the highest-ranking Jewish officials in the Bush administration and the son of a Holocaust survivor, of running a "Gestapo office" out of the Pentagon. Mr. Powell later apologized personally to Mr. Feith for what he acknowledged was a "despicable characterization."

 

{snip}

 

Anyway, on this business of hypersensitivity to prejudicial remarks, real or perceived, here is Mr. Powell in the same interview talking about what ails the Republican Party:

 

"There's also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor [Alaska's <a class=topicLink" href="http://topics.wsj.co...lin/4347">Sarah Palin] say that the president is shuckin' and jivin,' that's a racial-era slave term. When I see another former governor [New Hampshire's John Sununu] say after the president's first debate when he didn't do well, he said he was lazy. Now it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there's a third word that goes along with it."

 

So let's get this straight. Mr. Powell holds it "disgraceful" to allege anti-Semitism of politicians who invidiously use the phrase "the Jewish lobby." But he has no qualms about accusing Mr. Sununu—along whose side he worked during the George H.W. Bush administration—of all-but whispering the infamous N-word when he called Mr. Obama's first debate performance "lazy."

 

It's hard to decide whether Mr. Powell is using a double standard hypocritically or inadvertently. I'll assume the latter, since he seems to have missed the reason why Mr. Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense has run into so much opposition.

 

Consider the following hypothetical sentence: "The African-American lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." Would this pass Mr. Powell's smell test?

 

Or this: "I'm a United States senator, not a Kenyan senator." Such a statement would be considered as so weird and unwonted that no amount of spinning (let's say it was uttered in the context of a discussion of U.S. policy toward Africa) would have saved the person making it from immediate disqualification.

 

Now maybe someone can explain how that's materially different from Mr. Hagel's suggestion that "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here" and "I'm a United States senator, not an Israeli senator."

 

{snip}

 

In the meantime, maybe Mr. Powell could show that he's as sensitive to the whiff of anti-Semitism as he is to the whiff of racism. If George Packer's description of Mr. Powell's last meeting with President Bush is inaccurate, he should publicly disavow it. If it's accurate, he should publicly apologize for it. Nobody questions where Mr. Powell's loyalties lie. If he has called the loyalties of other patriotic American public servants into question, that would be, to use his word, disgraceful.

 

.

Edited January 15, 2013 by B-Man

[Rob's House]

And that fact doesn't convince you of the very real amount of rabid racism he's faced? Hillary? Doubtful but we'll see. They'd very likely win going away. Btw,how do you think the racist vote breaks down? Yes, they're a minority and can't directly influence the vote but they may have changed history in the 90's with Powell.

it favors the left. By a wide margin.