Radical Talking Racist Smack – Ben Carson Targeted

by Tina

The American people have grown tired of the same old rhetoric and political game playing with respect to race. But that isn’t stopping the divide and conquer game players. The latest salvo, issued by someone named Chauncey Devega over at Salon, is meant to destroy Ben Carson, in fact to mark all Republicans, as racist. It looks like Eric Holder was right…some of us are afraid to talk honestly about issues of race. But Mr. Holder, Republicans are not cowards, and it sure isn’t Ben Carson, who is afraid to talk honestly. I give you an excerpt from a bomb tossing mudslinger over at Salon:

“The Republican Party is the United States’ largest white identity organization, and openly uses white racial resentment — along with old fashioned racism — to win the support of white voters. – Chauncey Devega, Salon Magazine. (emphasis mine)

Man, it takes a lot of cheek to make such a blatantly stupid remark! The candidates in the Democrat Party this year are tired old white people. The Republican field includes not only variety with respect to race but candidates who possess courageous political verve on issues of race. On the Republican side we find two Hispanic Senators, an Indian American governor, an accomplished black surgeon, several white men of both service and industry, and an accomplished white woman. Clearly the Republicans are appealing to the people rather than hyphenated people or only whites.

It also takes a lot of nerve to attack a black conservative from someone who (apparently) associates with the party that’s been using blacks, in fact any minority they can cultivate for political gain since the sixties. There’s a litmus test in the Democrat Party now; no independent thinkers allowed!

The Republican field is a kaleidoscope that includes governors, medical doctors, Senators, and champions of industry who refuse to be slaves to imposed politically correct speech or the bullying tactics that have kept people of color manageable, docile, stuck in programs, hating Republicans…and voting Democrat (virtually, “on the plantation”).

When Eric Holder said we were a nation of cowards, he signaled the need to bravely tread where the PC crowd will never go. Ben Carson and others are daring to tread this path. We find ourselves in another election cycle. What are we hearing from leftists like Devega who seems to favor talking smack? He (She?) writes and article that serves no other purpose than labeling opponents and their party as racist. it follows the tired tactics used to avoid conversation, deflect from the issues, and personally attack and destroy opponents. I’m guessing this radical legacy is finally catching up to activist Democrats. Consider the language used against Ben Carson and other black conservatives in this article:

Ben Carson is not alone in his twisted fantasy land. He is joined by other black conservatives — a select group of racial mercenaries who are routinely trotted out on Fox News and elsewhere — who, to great approval from white conservatives, also repeat the same anti-black propaganda.

This utterly false and demeaning description of Ben Carson and others is followed by a list of so called lies, each of which contain fabricated interpretations from a left perspective to keep the real Democrat legacy of racism, deprivation, poverty and violence out of the conversation. Activists like Devega never fail to twist alternate points of view, to distort history or the meaning behind a metaphor and the seriousness behind absurdities. These radicals can keep on talking but they can no longer hide from the facts found in the above links.

A nation-wide poll will find this bunch snarling in their beer:

…(a) nationwide survey found that 24% of Republicans back Carson, compared with 17% who say they support Trump. Marco Rubio came in third with 11% and Carly Fiorina fourth at 9%. Jeb Bush, once considered a prohibitive favorite, ranked fifth with just 8% support, which was a point lower than those who say they are still undecided.

A black man, two Hispanics and a woman are among the top four in the Republican field. Given this astounding unprecedented reality the divisive left can’t easily label Republicans “racist” without looking like da*n fools. So tearing at the candidates becomes their only tactical offense. Is that smart? Is that what Americans want to hear? Who among us will rightly call them out as racist bullies for continuing in these cowardly, despicable acts? And what will Democrats do should Carson be elected and his policies help to inspire and uplift minorities? Will they continue to follow the same old playbook?

Minorities deserve a heads up this election cycle; they have done very poorly under Barack Obama’s leadership:

NAACP President: Blacks Worse Off Under Obama – Western Journalism

Tavis Smiley: ‘Black Americans Have Lost Ground Under Obama’ – Huffington Post

Here’s another useful fact. Minorities, in fact all Americans accept for the very wealthy, will do poorly under any Democrat candidate now running for president because all of them prefer growing the size of government to growing the size and buying power of our wallets.

Republicans are not racist any more than Democrats or minorities are racist. An honest look at any group will turn up a few racist supporters, but it’s always just a few. The question is, in which party are “the few” running the show? Since the sixties radicals on the left have worked hard and taken over leadership of the Democrat Party using tactics like the ones used in this article.

It’s time to end divisive rhetoric and demeaning remarks in our political discourse so we can have that honest conversation Eric Holder said he wanted. But somehow I doubt that people like Devega will get on board. So as long as they continue to smear ur candidates and party I will be here to rebut their onerous statements.

I leave you with the wisdom of Dr. Ben Carson, a man that has lived his message:

“Success is determined not by whether or not you face obstacles, but by your reaction to them. And if you look at these obstacles as a containing fence, they become your excuse for failure. If you look at them as a hurdle, each one strengthens you for the next.” – Ben Carson, Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story.

That’s good advice for all people…and why not? Shouldn’t his message be the same for all groups?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Radical Talking Racist Smack – Ben Carson Targeted

  1. Chris says:

    How exactly is saying that black Democrats are “on the plantation” NOT racist smack talk? Democrats who call people like Ben Carson “Uncle Toms” and so on are certainly hypocrites, but then so are you–you’re both saying that block people who vote differently from you are selling out their blackness, a judgment neither of you have the right to make.

  2. J. Soden says:

    The targets change almost daily for the Leftie Media presstitutes. It’s Salon. So just consider the source.
    At the same time NBC – which used to be the National Barack Channel – is attempting a total whitewash on $hrilLIARy stating with her Saturday Night Live performance where her questions were approved in advance, and continues today on Today with more fawning talking heads. Now, NBC stands for Nothing But **** (rhymes with flap).

    • Tina says:

      J you are right, of course, when you say, “…consider the source.” The “source” are not where I direct my comments. They are part of the far left radical cabal, carrying their water in any way they can. I speak to those who buy the garbage they spew hoping to break through the lies and bring some light to the situation.

      I don’t know how many times I’ve pointed out the predictions of Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynahan when the Great Society was launched and I am always met with resistance even though the evidence is all around us that he was right!

      Recently Greg Weiner, at the Library of Law and Liberty, reconsidered Moynihan’s criticisms:

      suggests conservatives who frequently cite his work on the subject miss Moynihan’s broader point: It was not that too much money was being misspent on the poor, but rather that those resources which were directed at the poor were all too often funneled through the middle class professional classes:

      Moynihan, a New Deal liberal, believed in alleviating poverty by channeling public money directly to the poor. The Great Society became obsessed with eliminating poverty instead. The result was a “services” strategy rather than an “income” strategy. The problem with the former, Moynihan argued, was that it actually redistributed income upward, taxing the poor to pay the salaries of middle-class social workers, teachers and other professionals who ministered to them. Once, accosted by Harvard students over cuts in education spending pushed by the Nixon Administration in which he was then serving, Moynihan replied that they, future teachers doubtless among them, were “defending a class interest.”

      Instead of alleviating the material deprivation of the poor, a new class of professions was created to provide services to the poor. This approach would lead to the entrenchment of an entire class of bureaucrats acting as middle men between the poor and the resources the state was distributing, the course of which was to further inflate the power of the state and creating a lobby for the preservation of those interests, making any reform difficult. Where proper resources were directly distributed, Weiner suggests elderly poverty as an example, there was greater success in alleviating poverty.

      Just found the original article here.

      As it turns out LBJ and Ted Kennedy were also responsible for changing our immigration law laying the groundwork for what’s happening today on our borders and in our society as immigrants, legal and illegal, fail to assimilate.

      • Chris says:

        Tina, I must say that essay on Moynihan is one of the most fascinating articles I’ve seen you link to, and I found myself nodding in agreement to most of it.

        As the article points out, the Great Society was not the failure conservatives make it out to be, and Moynihan never said it was. But it was flawed in that it focused more on creating services for the poor rather than simply doing direct cash transfers. I’ve long thought Moynihan’s basic guaranteed income idea–which was also supported by MLK Jr. as well as scholars on both the left and right–should be at least attempted.

        Some excerpts:

        The now largely accepted narrative of the War on Poverty, especially among conservatives, holds that the generosity of Great Society programs induced dependence and other social pathologies among the poor. Moynihan, a critic of the Great Society’s approach to poverty who first alerted the nation to the crisis of welfare dependency in his radioactive yet prophetic The Negro Family: The Case for National Action—and who crusaded for welfare reform throughout his Senate career—has often been linked with that conclusion. In fact, he rejected it.

        Far from objecting to its generosity, Moynihan actually argued that the War on Poverty was doomed from the beginning because it did not spend enough on the poor. At a Cabinet meeting in March 1964, the team of which he was a member presented its anti-poverty proposal, a jobs program financed by a tobacco tax. “The President heard us this far,” he later recalled, “pronounced that the administration was cutting taxes not raising them, and reaching for the telephone attached to the underside of the cabinet table, turned sideways and got through to some hapless committee chairman or whomever, leaving the cabinet to understand that the discussion of poverty had concluded.” [1]

        …Yet for all his criticism, Moynihan never accepted President Reagan’s folksy witticism that “in the war on poverty, poverty won.” On the contrary, to the extent the government had actually spent money on the problem—as it had on the elderly poor—poverty had been vanquished. The claim that the Great Society somehow caused welfare dependency or family dissolution beggared common sense: the Moynihan Report had documented these trends in 1965 based on data ending in 1964, before the War on Poverty began. Families were dissolving and single motherhood was rising in all nations of the Atlantic world, regardless of their welfare policies. (This is not to say Moynihan was closed to the idea that welfare programs contributed to these problems. “We owe it to one another,” he said, to be honest and open on this point.”[5] But he was not willing to accept a correlation as proof of causation.)

        Indeed, Moynihan, who understood poverty at root to be a problem of material deprivation, believed spending more on welfare might help stabilize families. He thus waged a career-long fight to “get more money directly into the hands of the poor.” He sought a guaranteed income—an approach some libertarians have recently taken up as a simple alternative to a micromanagerial approach to poverty. The advantage of the guaranteed income as Moynihan proposed it in the Nixon Administration was threefold. One was that it went to families based on the number of children. As opposed to AFDC, which Moynihan characterized as a family allowance but only for “broken families,” it was designed to encourage family cohesion. Second, because the benefit was reduced but not eliminated based on income, it encouraged work.[6] Third, it was a simple transfer of income. Moynihan once invoked statistics indicating that if one-third of the money spent on the War on Poverty had been “given directly to the poor, there would no longer be any poverty in the United States. . . .”[7]

        Moynihan, a deep believer in the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, according to which a social problem should be addressed by the closest competent social institution to it, argued that families and not individuals should be the relevant unit of analysis in social policy. He was thus concerned that the Great Society seemed to be transferring resources to middle-class professionals to minister to the poor when those funds might have gone directly to strengthen the families of the poor instead.

        …Today, it is widely assumed that the 1996 welfare reform that Moynihan opposed has succeeded. It is true that welfare rolls are smaller; eliminating benefits will do that. The question is what terms of analysis are to be used in evaluating the law. For Moynihan, a child of Hell’s Kitchen, poverty was, again, in its essence an experience of deprivation. In this sense, it persists. The child poverty rate continues to be stuck above 20 percent. Meanwhile, the fact that rates of single motherhood have continued to climb despite the withdrawal of economic incentives for them belies the simple assumption that the poor, apparently not understanding arithmetic, have children for the sole purpose of marginally augmenting welfare benefits.

        What lessons emerge from Moynihan’s experience with the War on Poverty? One is to beware the dogma that the Great Society caused social pathologies. Another, as Moynihan emphasized, is that ministering to the poor is a middle-class occupation; transferring resources to them is not. It is unsurprising that interests accrete around the former but not the latter, but it is the latter that might hold more promise. Finally is the primacy of family rather than individuals.

        Moynihan—who wrote the 1988 bill that cleared the way for the wave of state-level experimentation with welfare policy that led to the 1996 reform he opposed—believed in federalism. But he also believed in a national commitment to the poor. Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, in a searching essay in National Affairs, recently quoted Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute: The “government social safety net for the truly indigent is one of the greatest achievements of our society…. We have to declare peace on the safety net.” Conservatives, coming to terms with—indeed, embracing—a role for government in caring for the indigent, could do worse than to learn from Moynihan’s particular strain of liberalism.

        • Tina says:

          Chris conservatives have never advocated for eliminating a safety net for those who truly need it so your argument (from the article) is moot.

          The article did support another of my ideas which is the government program created a huge wealth transfer in terms of the bureaucracy necessary to administer it.

          But the issue up for discussion was whether the Great Society encouraged a break up of the family, unreasonable dependency, and poor or worsening social conditions:

          Huffington Post reports that although overall drop out rates have improved, rates remain high for blacks:

          While the trend appears promising, the report’s more disturbing discovery is that there were about 3 million 16- to 24-year-olds in October 2009 who were neither enrolled in high school nor had earned a high school diploma or alternative degree. These dropouts accounted for 8.1 percent of the 38 million U.S. noninstitutionalized and civilians in that age group not in high school and without a high school credential.

          Minority students dropped out at disproportionately higher rates than their White counterparts — In 2009, 4.8 percent of of blacks and 5.8 percent of Hispanics between 15 and 24 dropped out of grades 10-12, compared with 2.4 percent for white students.

          Also in 2009, the dropout rate for low-income students was five times greater than their high-income counterparts — 7.4 percent compared with 1.4 percent.

          Discover the Networks:

          While the overall black poverty rate remains about two-and-a-half times higher than the white poverty rate (24 percent vs. 10 percent), the “face” of black poverty has changed dramatically in recent decades. At one time, almost all black families were poor, regardless of whether one or both parents were present. Today, however, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Among black families where both the husband and wife work full-time, the current poverty rate is a mere 2 percent. Moreover, the relatively small (13 percent) income disparity between black and white two-parent families completely disappears when we take into account such factors as occupational choices, educational attainment, age, geographic location, and comparative skills.

          Children in single-parent households are raised not only with economic, but also social and psychological, disadvantages. For instance, they are four times as likely as children from intact families to be abused or neglected; much likelier to have trouble academically; twice as prone to drop out of school; three times more likely to have behavioral problems; much more apt to experience emotional disorders; far likelier to have a weak sense right and wrong; significantly less able to delay gratification and to control their violent or sexual impulses; two-and-a-half times likelier to be sexually active as teens; approximately twice as likely to conceive children out-of-wedlock when they are teens or young adults; and three times likelier to be on welfare when they reach adulthood.

          In addition, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty. Regardless of race, 70 percent of all young people in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 60 percent of rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. As Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector has noted, “Illegitimacy is a major factor in America’s crime problem. Lack of married parents, rather than race or poverty, is the principal factor in the crime rate.”

          Since the black illegitimacy rate is so high, these pathologies plague blacks more than they affect any other demographic.

          These are problems that are acknowledged inadvertently all the time by liberals who decry the number of blacks serving time in prison and refuse to consider that it correlates with the break up of the family and a system that encourages single motherhood and generational dependence on government. It’s much easier to claim it’s because republicans are racist…a cowardly and underhanded LIE!

      • J. Soden says:

        Thanx, Tina.
        When I was a Taxifornia resident and had to decide which way to vote on propositions, I always scrutinized who was either for or against the proposition in question. You can tell a lot about a proposal/idea by looking at who is supporting vs who is against it.
        And that goes for the media as well.

        • Tina says:

          I do the same thing, J.

          And if they have done a good job of obscuring the issue I vote no. if they can’t make the language clear/clean then we shouldn’t risk it and probably don’t need it.

  3. Tina says:

    Chris: “How exactly is saying that black Democrats are “on the plantation” NOT racist…”

    Easy Chris. Black Democrats aren’t “on the plantation”. The remark isn’t directed at blacks who vote Democrat. Blacks are making voting decisions based on what they believe to be true based on the rhetoric and spin spewed by Democrats:

    1. Republicans hate blacks…would like to see them “back in chains,” thank you Joe Biden!

    2. After saying Republicans have “driven the economy into a ditch” Obama pandered with the following: “we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.

    3. Democrats insinuate in every election cycle that Republicans are responsible for all of the wrongs suffered by blacks such as, Jim Crow laws, the confederate flag flying in South Carolina at the capitol, and discrimination and poverty…all lies and liberal spin

    4. Republicans want to deny blacks the vote…lie!

    Democrats have been doing this since the sixties when LBJ launched his Great Society and is reported to have said, “I’ll have them n****rs voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

    The plantation remark is directed at the sinister leadership of your party, a party that is willing to economically enslave, pander and lie to blacks to keep them hating Republicans and voting Democrat.

    You can hear whatever you like in that remark but I challenge you to consider the possibility that I am right…that Republicans have been trying to have a conversation about the very real problems in the black community for decades and we are always met with the racist label. Pick an issue, any issue, and in the right circumstances the message will be twisted to push the racist label. A good recent example is the rise of the Tea Party which was primarily about high taxation and government waste. Democrats saw the large numbers that gathered in DC and immediately looked for a way to smear the entire movement with the racist label. It worked too. Some Republicans in leadership (cowards) believed that cr*p even though it is an absolute fabrication.

    Your impression about me is false. I speak out because I care about people in the black community that are stuck in poverty and have been cheated in terms of K-12 education, opportunity, the family, and safety in their homes and neighborhoods. They have been harmed by the insidious lie that almost half of the population hates them…a disgusting lie!

    Look at you! Look at how easily you have bought into these lies and how that colors everything you think we are saying.

    Somehow, some way, we have to find a way to break up and remove forever this horrendous injustice so we can address the problems that exist, particularly in poor black communities.

    • Chris says:

      Tina:

      “Black Democrats aren’t “on the plantation”. The remark isn’t directed at blacks who vote Democrat.”

      But that’s exactly what you said:

      “The Republican field is a kaleidoscope that includes governors, medical doctors, Senators, and champions of industry who refuse to be slaves to imposed politically correct speech or the bullying tactics that have kept people of color manageable, docile, stuck in programs, hating Republicans…and voting Democrat (virtually, “on the plantation”).”

      I understand that your primary target is the Democrat leadership. They would be the “plantation owners” in your metaphor. But your metaphor only makes sense if black Democratic voters are standing in for slaves. That’s just as offensive as the Uncle Tom slur–you’re still saying that you know better than any individual black person what’s in their best interest, just like the liberals you’re criticizing.

      It would be one thing to abandon the metaphor, but you’re trying to have it both ways here.

      • Tina says:

        Chris can you read for comprehension?

        I wrote: “…the bullying tactics that have kept people of color manageable, docile, stuck in programs, hating Republicans…and voting Democrat (virtually, “on the plantation”).”

        The tactics used by Democrats…get it?

        “But your metaphor only makes sense if black Democratic voters are standing in for slaves. ”

        Nonsense!

        You keep forgetting (how could you know) that for thirty some years Republicans virtually had no voice in public discourse. The alphabet channels and major newspapers were consistently in the bag for Democrats. Representatives of the party could say whatever they wanted and the talking heads would validate and promote it. I don’t blame black people for the evil perpetrated on them and on us by these tactics…that would be ridiculous. Thirty years plus of propaganda can, and did, have a profound and lasting effect.

        “…you’re still saying that you know better than any individual black person what’s in their best interest”

        Absurd. I have no program to sell them. What I have is an experience that every human is capable of rising above his fate and expectations based on circumstance. Most of us settle for something below greatness but we still achieve. Too many minorities don’t even get to have such dreams because of conditions that include our broken welfare (and education) system that is no longer a safety net but has become a devistating trap.

        Chris I lived during times when discrimination was blatant in some areas and black families then were still doing better overall than too many of them are today. Their families were intact. There were gangs but nothing like we have today. Blacks were not murdering each other and committing crimes in such high numbers. Fewer girls became single mothers. Drug use was practically nil.

        My purpose in bringing this up is twofold:

        A. It’s long passed time that we got serious about education and the welfare system…neither is working.

        B. It’s long passed time for Democrats to be exposed for their underhanded despicable tactics. They hurt the black community and they smear the good names of 99.% of people in the Republican Party.

        Enough already!

        • Chris says:

          Tina, regardless of whether or not you “blame” blacks for their conditions, your metaphor clearly states that blacks are “virtually ‘on a plantation.'” I have explained why that is offensive and demeaning in the clearest terms possible.

          The problem is not my reading comprehension.
          The problem is that you can’t face the clear meanings of your own words.

          I hear what you’re saying just fine. Too often, you don’t seem to hear what you’re saying.

  4. Tina says:

    The Great Society created conditions that discourage striving and self-reliance and encourage dependency on both government and the party that keeps the programs in place. Many blacks ARE virtually on a plantation! Poor whites and other minorities are too.

    Instead of striving to better their lot in life, generational welfare recipients are wooed into reliance on government for everything and in doing so experience a greatly diminished sense of being free. They feel stuck or trapped in their circumstances. Welfare regulations (rather than a slave owner or “cracka”) make them jump through hoops to get and keep the survival handouts. Since their kids are often denied a good education they are forced to watch as their children follow in their footsteps, or worse, end up dead from an over dose or jailed.

    Do you honestly think the system is not in need of transformation?

    To defend a welfare program that creates this kind of generational dependency is to participate in the grand scheme to keep blacks “in their place, and walking through a lifetime of entrapment akin to being enslaved. That the Dem Party resists changes to programs, loves adding new ones for votes, and talks smack against those who would change it is sick!

    It’s astounding to me that you don’t/wonlt see the similarities. But then you are wrapped in that PC thinking, unable to think outside the narrative. You DON”T hear what I’m saying or you would be talking about solutions to the problems and considering ways to define a successful welfare program by the numbers of people that gain independence…FREEDOM!

  5. Chris says:

    Tina, in the article posted this morning:

    “…the bullying tactics that have kept people of color manageable, docile, stuck in programs, hating Republicans…and voting Democrat (virtually, “on the plantation”).”

    Tina, 11AM:

    “Easy Chris. Black Democrats aren’t “on the plantation”.”

    Tina, 7PM:

    “The Great Society created conditions that discourage striving and self-reliance and encourage dependency on both government and the party that keeps the programs in place. Many blacks ARE virtually on a plantation!”

    Are they virtually on a plantation or aren’t they? Which do you believe in this particular minute?

    It would be nice if you could go more than a few hours without completely contradicting yourself. Or at the very least, you could acknowledge when you have done so and admit that you can’t decide on what specific position you hold. Instead you pretend the contradictions don’t exist, you misrepresent what you have said, then you accuse others of misrepresenting you, then you go on to misrepresent them (see below)! Your continual flights from one argument to the next, even when they are mutually exclusive from one another, are very frustrating.

    Again, I hear you just fine. You don’t hear yourself.

    “Do you honestly think the system is not in need of transformation…You DON”T hear what I’m saying or you would be talking about solutions to the problems”

    I literally just suggested a solution and transformation, when I recommended Moynihan’s idea of a basic guaranteed income. I know you saw that comment, because you replied to it. See? This is what I mean when I say you misrepresent others while claiming to be misrepresented yourself. You can’t keep track of the discussion at all. A faulty memory is one thing but you could easily go back and re-read your own comments and those of others before responding in this way.

    • Tina says:

      Tell ya what, if you can’t get what I’m saying after three earnest attempts you aren’t interested…but then we already knew that.

      Most of our readers already know that, of course, blacks are not on a literal plantation BUT they also know that my opinion is we have unfairly,, possibly cruelly put them on a virtual plantation.

      You really are a slimy piece of work, Chris.

      • Chris says:

        Tina:

        “Most of our readers already know that, of course, blacks are not on a literal plantation BUT they also know that my opinion is we have unfairly,, possibly cruelly put them on a virtual plantation.”

        Oh dear God. Is it really possible that you thought I was ever under the impression you were speaking literally with your plantation talk? *checks* No, that can’t be possible, because I clearly explained that it was the METAPHOR that I found offensive. If I thought you were being literal, I wouldn’t have said that.

        Once again, the communication problem is on your end. It’s called cognitive dissonance.

        I notice you didn’t respond to my pointing out your latest misrepresentation of my argument.

        “You really are a slimy piece of work, Chris.”

        And you’re intellectually dishonest.

        • Tina says:

          Quoting Chris at the very first comment: “How exactly is saying that black Democrats are “on the plantation” NOT racist…”

          Clearly it was you who wrote, “on the plantation

          My responses have been consistent (virtual plantation), placing the onus on tactics of the Democrat Party. Example:

          “Easy Chris. Black Democrats aren’t “on the plantation”. The remark isn’t directed at blacks who vote Democrat. Blacks are making voting decisions based on what they believe to be true based on the rhetoric and spin spewed by Democrats (such as) 1. Republicans hate blacks…would like to see them “back in chains,” thank you Joe Biden!

          It’s pretty clear who it is that wants to create the impression that Republicans would actually round up blacks and put them in chains. (literally, on the plantation)

          So Chris, you tell me, which is it? Did you mean it when you said it or not? Is it a literal comparison, your own, that yu object to or do you object because it’s figurative…it can’t be both.

          The metaphor paints a very similar real world picture to the original conditions. What is it that offends Chris? Is there discomfort for you that lies about Republicans create a manageable voting block? Is it that dependency programs have the effect of trapping people as slavery once entrapped people? Is it that your party is just that despicable? Or is it that some words just aren’t allowed in your PC lexicon?

          Someone is being intellectually dishonest but it isn’t me.

          Deflect attention away from the despicable way Democrats treat Republican blacks, twist my words to try to discredit me, fail to address important issues affecting blacks, and pretend you are my intellectual superior. No Chris, you do not communicate…YOU PLAY GAMES!

          • Chris says:

            Tina: “Clearly it was you who wrote, “on the plantation””

            No, you wrote it first, in the article and on dozens of other occasions. I understand that you used the modifier “virtually,” which makes it a metaphor. I left that modifier out, not to misrepresent you, but because I felt like it was so obvious that neither of us were using the phrase “on the plantation” literally that the modifier was unnecessary.

            “So Chris, you tell me, which is it? Did you mean it when you said it or not? Is it a literal comparison, your own, that yu object to or do you object because it’s figurative…it can’t be both.”

            I objected to the metaphor. I have always objected to the metaphor. At no point have I ever said or implied that I believed your comparison was literal.

            What Joe Biden said was wrong. I think it’s possible he meant what he said metaphorically, and that he doesn’t literally believe Republicans want to put blacks back in chains; but if so, he did not make that clear, and his statements could easily be read as literal. What he said was racially inflammatory, bigoted against Republicans, racist toward black Republicans, and unethical.

            So is your metaphor about black Democrats and welfare recipients being on a virtual plantation.

            “Is there discomfort for you that lies about Republicans create a manageable voting block?”

            I’ve expressed discomfort before about Democrats calling all Republicans racist, but that’s not the issue I have with your comparison.

            “Is it that dependency programs have the effect of trapping people as slavery once entrapped people?”

            I don’t agree with you that the programs are the problem, so no.

            “Is it that your party is just that despicable?”

            Sure, yeah, it’s that, if that makes you feel better.

            “Or is it that some words just aren’t allowed in your PC lexicon?”

            Close! Although substitute “PC lexicon” for “basic civil discourse.” The “n” word, for example, is not “allowed” in intelligent discussions over race; at least, it’s not tolerated by intelligent people.

            You yourself have expressed certain words that you find offensive, such as “Uncle Tom.” I find “welfare plantation” and “democrat plantation” just as offensive, for reasons I have already explained. Each of those phrases–especially when used by whites–presume that the speaker knows more about black people’s self interest than they do. There is no way to say that black Democrats or black welfare recipients are on a “virtual plantation” without implying that those blacks have in a sense volunteered for a form of slavery. That is racist, just as it is racist for Democrats to call blacks who disagree traitors to their race.

            It is inconsistent to find one of those phrases valid and useful, and to object to the others. You should either stop complaining about Democrats using the phrase “Uncle Tom,” or give up your tactic of using equally racially charged language to describe black Democrats. Continuing to complain about one while using the others is hypocritical.

  6. dewey says:

    And yet another long winded post on race. That says it all. Tina there is a race problem. Maybe you should go down to Tar babies Pancake House in South Carolina and have a chat with them. I did. maybe you should look at the faction of the Republican party calling themselves Fascists. (They are Using term wrongly)

    I am traveling around this east coast when I can. It is a far different place than CA. I do not like it so far. In fact in MD you pay more state tax than Fed tax! You do not know how good you have it in CA.

    regarding “Chris conservatives have never advocated for eliminating a safety net for those who truly need it so your argument (from the article) is moot.

    That has been on the conservative agenda since the new deal Tina. They hated the new deal. Conservative agenda is written and very clear. Heck even Jeb just said time to Phase out Social Security! GW wanted to use his “Political Capital” to Privatize Social Security which would have crashed in 2008. We would have bailed out the banks but not SSI. That is the agenda.

    http://www.cato.org/events/privatizing-social-security-beyond-theory

    David Koch exposed
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY

    Bottom Line Conservative Platform is for corporate control of everything for profit. The Kochs are after Yosemite right now.

    No public assets. No social safety net. Dumb down and build a compliant workforce like they have in China.

    Waving an American Flag and saying one is a patriot does not solve problems. We have to get real and serious before all is gone.

    look at this nut job of a growing party trying to take republican seats
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/05/florida-senate-candidate-sacrificed-goat-drank-blood/

    United we stand divided we fall.

  7. Tina says:

    Dewey please look at my most recent post on the amount of money our government handed out improperly. And that’s just payouts…we also paid the salaries and benefits of those that administer with such incompetence and carelessness!

    Imagine what the Salvation Army and other charities that actually work personally with people could accomplish with that amount of money. Conservatives are not in favor of big expensive and wasteful government solutions when there are better ways to address problems and lift people up.

    Who shouldn’t want to reform and eliminate these broken, unsustainable programs that encourage fraud and abuse and keep people that are able bodied scamming the system?

    Oh yeah, it’s people like you Dewey.

    “which would have crashed in 2008”

    Yes, and recovered grandly by now. Privatized accounts would not be high risk accounts.

    But what makes you think SS is in such great shape with our nation sitting at $18.4 trillion (and more) of debt and $219 billion in debt service (at artificially low rates of interest)…wait till those rates go up. If a Republican is elected I calculate the fed will raise them after seven years just in time to blame the new president for the misery it causes.

    How many Republicans are calling themselves fascists, Dewey…a couple of guys who meet in a barn once a month? You are such a bloviator!

    How many socialists (fascist light) are in the Democrat leadership? You will know them by their works…government control in every aspect of our lives, including energy, healthcare, food supply, and cradle to grave dependency. And then you have the communists…yes there are those too but they hide it.

    The official Conservative Party platform (not a member) includes nothing you’ve described.

    There is nothing “united” about your stance…in fact it is the epitome of divisiveness and ignorance. You preach to us about problem solving but offer no solutions, only criticism and paranoia.

    Bottom line Democrats SAY they are for the little guy when in fact they are in favor of big government and big business running everything. Obamacare created huge monopolies in healthcare. Dodd/Frank put small banks out of business, forced acquisitions, and created monopoly banks. The EPA is trying to kill fossil fuel energy and promote wind and solar, neither of which would meet our needs for decades, if ever. On and on it goes, government control IS fascist, Dewey. get a clue!

    Mussolini’s three principles of a fascist philosophy.

    1.”Everything in the state.” The Government is supreme and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator, but in our case the lockstep party elite

    2.”Nothing outside the state.” The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government. (UN control is already accepted and becoming a reality)

    3.”Nothing against the state.” Any type of questioning of the government is not tolerated.

    That describes the left today to a tee…tell me how it doesn’t!

  8. Tina says:

    I’m not willing to go back through thousands of posts and comments to try and find my words and put them in context to satisfy this sick need to play games with words.
    I know what I mean when I say either plantation or virtual plantation and I have spent my valuable time and a great deal of effort making it clear. At times I feel like I’m conversing with a two year old, but then I remember I’m attempting to communicate with a closed minded game player.

    “At no point have I ever said or implied that I believed your comparison was literal.”

    How about in your first comment when you left out the word “virtually?” Was the omission on purpose, as an attempt to skew my meaning and “win” in a game called prove “Tina’s a racist?” At this point Chris it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    We’re done.

    • Chris says:

      Tina: “How about in your first comment when you left out the word “virtually?” Was the omission on purpose, as an attempt to skew my meaning and “win” in a game called prove “Tina’s a racist?””

      I explained this already. Again, I thought it was so obvious you were speaking metaphorically that I didn’t think the word “virtually” was necessary. There would have been no point in intentionally misrepresenting you–who would believe you meant a literal plantation?

      Again, I think the metaphor itself is racist. It relies on the premise that the majority of African-Americans (those who vote Democrat) are gullible and easily fooled, and have sold themselves into a type of (virtual) slavery. You’ve said you believe even MLK Jr. was hoodwinked when he made his statements about racism in the Republican party so it’s hard to read your statements as respectful to the African-American community.

      I’ve no doubt your intentions are good. But just as you say well-intentioned Democrats have tried and failed to help African-Americans, I believe the same of you.

  9. Peggy says:

    Dr. Carson gets attacked again.

    Ivy League professor: Award Carson ‘coon of the year’:

    “In a tweet sent out last Tuesday, University of Pennsylvania religious studies professor Anthea Butler, wrote “If only there was a ‘coon of the year’ award …” when responding to Daily Beast editor-at-large Goldie Taylor’s tweet containing a link to a Sports Illustrated article on the issue.

    “Swastikas are a symbol of hate for some people too … and yet they still exist in our museums and places like that,” Carson said during an event with Richard Petty in North Carolina last Monday. “If it’s a majority of people in that area who want it to fly, I certainly wouldn’t take it down.”

    Obviously, Butler disagreed with the famed neurosurgeon, who currently sits second in the Washington Examiner’s latest power ranking, behind only Donald Trump.

    Butler deleted the tweet after she was contacted by Campus Reform for comment. In addition, Butler has a protected account on the social network, meaning she would have to accept a request from a user to follow her account.

    Prof. Justin McDaniel, who chairs of the religious studies program at UPenn, called Butler a “valued colleague and faculty member,” but did not offer any direct comment on the tweet itself.

    “Professor Butler is on sabbatical and not regularly on campus as she is writing a book on African-American religious history,” McDaniel told the Examiner via email Tuesday. “She will be back on campus teaching regularly in the spring. She is a valued colleague and faculty member, but I have no comment on the tweet, because I have not seen it nor know the context of the comment.”

    When presented with the tweet, McDaniel simply said “no comment.”

    Carson spokeswoman Deana Bass told Examiner said that Butler’s tweet “does not merit a response.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ivy-league-professor-award-carson-coon-of-the-year/article/2573507

  10. Peggy says:

    More on Anthea Butler.

    Anthea Butler, Ivy League Professor, On George Zimmerman Verdict: ‘American God’ Is A ‘White Racist’:

    “An Ivy League professor made headlines after penning a blog post saying the George Zimmerman verdict helps support the notion that the “American god” is a “white racist god.”

    From her post on Religion Dispatches:

    God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us. As a black woman in a nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god. As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/anthea-butler-god-white-racist_n_3610342.html

    • Tina says:

      Peggy this woman is a disgrace to her profession. I can only imagine the tripe she’s feeding her students. Activist professors have no place in our colleges. Her superior, Prof. Justin McDaniel, in calling her “a valued colleague and faculty member” validates the opinion that colleges have become propaganda mills.

      Dr. Carson is right. her comment doesn’t merit a response from him. Out here in the trenches it’s a different story, we are fighting for the survival of our nation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.