My dear mother still says "if you don't have something nice to say about someone,come sit next to me"..................
It is not hearsay to you, but it is hearsay to them- the info is based on someone else's observation, not their own.
My point is that I am not requiring people to post theories or information that they themselves have gleaned from personal observation or research(empirical) - I am asking for reliable social science work based on the observations of (ideally) unbiased professionals. I would very much like to read an unbiased account fundamentally linking liberalism with racism. If such research exists, I would like to read it and formulate my own opinion. If it doesn't, then spouting off that liberalism is linked with racism should be identified as the pure BS it is.
I'm not "proud" of anything. We were comparing the respective managerial skills of Obama and Palin. I stated that his campaign staff was bigger than the town of Wasilla in order to illustrate the logistical difficulty of her job vs. his.
If your answer is insufficient, sure I will.
Also, as I have stated probably a dozen times already, I voted for Ron Paul. The hostility toward independent thinkers on this forum is interesting. All one has to do in order to be labeled "good little liberal obama zealot" is ask people to support their outrageous opinions with actual information- I can tell you that your political philosophy will never gain ground using such tactics.
Never.
Understood. However, if you consider Affirmative Action as a tenet of liberalism, could it not be feasible to ascertain that Affirmative Action clearly states that ethnic minorities will never be able to compete?
Now, keep in mind, I am not putting much thought into this as I really dont care. But I can see how someone could link liberalism and the fostering of racism. Because of this "possible" link, I cant really label it as BS.
Just my $.02.
You just admitted that your mind is already made up on the subject, so why should anyone bother to provide you with something you've already deemed insufficient?
Please define "unbiased professionals".
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36650.html
There's a good start. If I really had a strong desire to find more information for you, I'm sure I could find you tons about the left and racial politics from the 60's forward, but I really find the identity politics of the "progressive era" to be more interesting. You're a big boy though, and I'm sure you know how to use google just as well as I do. I'm sorry if you don't want to accept what I am now writing because it's my personal observation, but historically, progressivism and neo-liberalism have had a nasty problem when it comes to race; they do not approach racial politics with a goal of a colorblind society, and instead push a victim mentality on minorities by treating them as special interest groups. They are not interested in true civil "liberties", but more accurately, civil "privileges". But then again, what else would you really expect from any form of a collectivism, which at it's core, whether in preaching or in practice, holds a philosophy that rights are derived from the State and are kindly granted to the people from it, as opposed to all sovereignty initially and naturally extending from the individual citizen?
Obama didn't run a thing but his mouth.He hired Axelrod to do it for him.
But again,I'll wait for you to redefine your question.
This is a solid, well constructed statement. It affords discussion and you have obviously given some thought to your choice of words. I respect that, even if I don't agree. I won't sink to the levels of other people here who would entreat disagreement with immature name calling.
I disagree with you that liberalism doesn't share the goal of a colorblind society- it's merely their tactics that differ, not their end goal. Affirmative Action seeks to minimize a real, historical and cultural disadvantage that certain segments of the population do endure.
Of course their are zealots on the fringe that take this goal and go way, way too far with their methods. This is true of any political philosophy, including gun rights activists. If someone decided to say that all gun rights advocates are xenophobic militants, I'm sure you would have a problem with that (as would I). A corollary can be drawn between these groups, but correlation is not causation. In the same way, far radical left crazies don't represent the huge segment of the American population that agree with Affirmative Action and its goals, if not always its methods.
I do however very much agree with your summation of the origin of rights and liberalism's faulty assumption that rights are granted by the state. Rights extend from the natural state of liberty and it is the government's job to protect those rights.
The original question pertained to Obama and "the Democrats" causing high ammo/gun prices, for which I still never received any real information. You are the one talking about Obama hiring David Axelrod. It's not me changing the subject, it's you.
Similar threads
