Forum Post: Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Racism in American Politics
Posted 11 years ago on Dec. 31, 2011, 10:06 a.m. EST by jaktober
from Sonoma, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This was a tough subject to address. I decided, in part after seeing how hateful many reactions on this forum were to the Ron Paul Newsletters stories, and after reading and listening to many views from both the Gay and Black communities on Ron Paul, that it was important to address the issue of Racism and Superficiality in America. It wasn't hard to find actual racist quotes from many "progressive" leaders such as Lyndon Johnson (who passed the Civil Rights Act), Bill Clinton, and even Barack Obama. I've also come to terms recently with how to deal with racist people, that is; to attack the idea, not the person.
I was hesitant writing this article as I like to keep the content of my website positive and productive. However; I feel that in order to overcome racism, we must be able to address it. We must see it as it is, as words, and instead, focus on the deeds, and actions, of people. To make this point to racist people actually helps attack their racist ideas. As I've responded to racism I've witnessed in the South, "I don't care what you look like, I care how you act." It's amazing the effect this has on people. It actually makes them think about what they just said.
This is who wrote those articles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W28Ni042dhw
I've asked this question several times and still have not gotten an answer. Why does Ron Paul stand against Civil Rights? He says he is for personal liberties, this seems to be against personal liberties.
If he was for personal liberties then he would support gay marriage and abortion, no? He doesn't support either. And, why won't he just tell us who wrote that racist crap?
It is probably going to come out soon who wrote it actually. Someone actually did some research and was able to find who was writing. We know who the editors were that worked for Paul at the time, and they had about 7 or 8 writers.
He supports churches being able to determine who can get married there, and for all "marriages" to be viewed equally by government. If you are on the left you say that means he isn't for gay marriage, if you are on the right you say that means he is. Just can't win. He just wants the government out of it.
He supports states determining abortion laws. He has no problem with abortion when the woman's life is on the line. But his personal view is that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over that. Again, if you are on the left he is against the woman's right to choose, if you are on the right he is pro-Abortion. He gets attacked from both sides who want to make everything into a fight.
If something sounds to good to be true, it probably is. I think that logic applies to his inability to come up with a full disclosure response to questions about his newsletters. It sounds to convenient to be true.
Yup. There's a lot there we don't know. But, happily, boy wonder lost Iowa, so maybe his fan will go away.
Your tone contradicts your screen name. Thought you should know.
What does racism mean and what is good and what is bad racism?
My definition of racism is the judging of people based on their "race."
Race actually doesn't exist from an anthropological perspective. There is more genetic diversity within isolated groups of people than between them.
But, with that aside, racism is when a judgment is made, typically a superior to inferior, or even an attribute that isn't true. So, "All such-and-such are this." Is racist. Some people only say that is a stereotype, but I think that is a cop-out.
I try not to use Good and Bad, too subjective. My opinion is racism is wrong. If I had to make a distinction though, there is no "Good" racism, it is all "Bad". As in, a don't agree with it. However, that doesn't mean all people with racist ideas are Bad, nor are all people devoid of racist ideas Good. People are wrong, but bad and good is dehumanizing.
So, I look at ideas and how people act. How someone acts tells me a lot about how they will act in the future. If they have an idea that is "bad" I'd rather attack the idea than the person, sometimes it is hard to detach the two, that is what non-violent communication is about.
You mean, I shouldn't be a "White Nego" but that is what I want to be.
Be what you want to be...
Made sure to add this CNN Poll link to the Article, showing that Ron Paul favors best with "non-whites" against Obama than all the other GOP candidates.
So...tell me, where in the spectrum of racism, or even simple human dignity, does the continuing persuasion of an entire class, made up of a large numbers of minorities, that they have no chance but to vote a certain way....for those who will provide them with benefits that keep them enslaved barely above misery, destroy the family unit, and encourage corrupt and bestial behavior?
Do you see any Racism in that action? It comes from the same party structure that encouraged slavery, established Jim Crow and largely debated and voted against Civil Rights legislation......Just another tool to keep the inferior races in line......at least that is the effect, and any proponents of a change in that structure, whether they be from similar, or dissimilar races, is vilified and criticized....... We cannot allow the motivation or incentivizing of minorities....they must be controlled and their votes harvested to maintain control by the collectivists.....who would NEVER live under the conditions they advocate for those minorities.....
Before he was killed Tupac was talking about forming a political party for minorities. I've argued that the Green Party is a great place for those who feel discontent with the Two-Party system to have representation.
What are you talking about though? A complete over hall of the election process or government?
no, I am saying welfare and semi-permanant and permanent support are equivalent to slavery
Oh, for sure. I agree. Dependency is a form of soft-slavery. I think there is a place for programs that help people in need (say, a single Mom get food stamps during rough times, but not a program that keeps that Mom on food stamps for life).
As Bradley Nowell (of Sublime) said, "In school they never taught bout hamburgers or steaks, Elijah, Muhammad or the Welfare State. But I know, and I know because of KRS-One."
Focusing on deeds, I find Mr. P to be a career republican, with STRONG Christian Reconstructionist leanings.
I see no reason to vote for such person, despite the things I might agree with.
He desires chaos.
Please elaborate how his "Strong Christian Reconstructionists leanings" will materialize in his actions as President.
I see President Paul being able to do a limited amount from the White House without Congress, which will most likely fall back towards Democratic Control, or even, get a spice of Third-Party in it;
1) Withdrawal troops from overseas 2) Submit his proposed budget to Congress, and veto any version of it that does not cut at least a majority percentage of what he asks for. Congress can always override his veto. 3) Overturn previous Executive Orders 4) Veto Unconstitutional Bills which Congress can override.
If Ron Paul is so outside of the mainstream on most issues, Congress will have no problem overriding his veto. So, what will President Paul accomplish?
Withdrawing Troops overseas. Cleaning up executive orders. Bringing attention to the budget and slowing down the process of destroying civil liberties and increasing the debt.
In order to accomplish any more of his platform he will need the consent of Congress, or the People to vote in supportive Representatives.
I propose electing Greens, or "Progressives" to Congress, so that they will work on the moderate parts of Ron Paul's platform: Ending the War on Drugs, at least bringing the Federal Reserve under the Treasury Department, Repealing the PATRIOT Act, Repealing the Public Health Insurance Mandate, Abolishing the Death Penalty, etc.
I've gone over this, at times, point by point.
Many times, over these last few months.
In the end, there's that , pesky , nasty, little (R) after his name.
Plus, there's so much more in his agenda than you have quoted.
Nasty stuff, his fellow (R)s and teabaggers have backed wholeheartedly.
So who lacks an open mind when the only thing you look at is the party affiliation. Admit it, you would vote for Obama even he was caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.
Another painfully lame attempt at misdirection?
Yes. Of course.
It's the way of the (R)s.
Teabaggers raised my taxes to off set a cut to corporations.
That's a FACT, Jack.
Do your homework.
How much did your taxes go up? I would bet my healthcare costs have increased significantly more due to Obama are than your tax increase.
Are you teabaggers really this lazy?
Do your homework.
Teabaggers raised my taxes to fund a corporate tax beak.
That's the way it went.
It was 100%!!!
So, your state taxes went up 100%, now you know that is a lie, unless you had 0 liabilities and it went up 100% to 0. Show me the numbers, liar.
You teabaggers, really are this lazy.
Too lazy to see reality.
Too lazy to look up the truths I've stated.
Too lazy to look up the realities of your teabaggery.
I've given all the info you need to seek the truths I've posted.
Yet, you just return to petty insults.
Had you done so, you would have at least found out which State I live in.
But, you didn't.
I know the state, Wisconsinm but the only state that saw a significant increase is Illinois, 66%. That is a far dry from 1000% you claim.
All I will tell you, is that you are wrong an all counts, that apply to my post.
So much for the investigative skills of a teabagger.
No wonder these jerks got into office.
He is not his "fellow (R)s and teabaggers." Obama is not his fellow Democrats, what does that even mean? Robert Byrd and Dennis Kucinich are complete opposites within the same Party.
I don't limit myself to judging people based on a letter by their name, or which of the two major political parties they feel the need to work within. I admit, I'd like a lot more (G)s in office, and am working at that, but I try to look past such associations, or labeling.
Lincoln had an (R) and Robert Byrd had a (D), how can you look at the letter and not the person, or his policies?
Let's talk policy. The candidates policy, not the policy of people you associate with them. We are all Americans (A), are we then all associated with each other so pessimistically?
What's Lincoln have to do with todays (R)s?
Not a thing.
Teabaggers, raised my taxes.
Teabaggers, once associated with Mr, P. Then it was Bachmann, then it was Cantor.
(R)s have continually done things I completely disagree with.
Some of these things have resulted in sickness and death, for innocent Americans.
I've spoken with many other libe(R)tarians on this site, and they refuse all realistic levels of compromise.
Just like teabaggers. The political monster whose creation was once attributed to Mr. P.
If he can't control them? How will he control anything?
You arguments aren't logical. Does Adbusters control Occupy Wall Street? The term "TEA Party" came from a Ron Paul Money Bomb. It is just a name. The original TEA Party protests were to protest TARP. Anyone can take the term "Tea Party" and do what they want with it. How could anyone control that?
How did the Tea Party, as a non-centralized, non-organized group (there are a number of associations that use that term) raise your taxes? What tax increase are you talking about?
Both Parties have continually done things I disagree with too. Yet, if McCain was President I'd be supporting Kucinich right now for President. That doesn't mean I support everything every Democrat has done, or even a majority of what they've done, actually I support Kucinich because he is so different from the other Democrats, same as Paul is to Republicans.
And that is my point exactly, Lincoln was a Republican, yet, what the word means has changed. Why has it changed? Because it's membership and contributors has changed. Different people have been elected under the Party. Same with Democrats. Democrats use to support Slavery, 100 years later the supported the Civil Rights Act.
I'd like to see both Parties change, this year I'm working on the Republicans. Every year I work to put Greens in office. There are no absolutes, this is an ever evolving process, as is life and society.
You start off, calling me illogical.
Then use lots of your own illogical conclusions. All the while avoiding anything I said.
Misdirection has become the calling card of the libe(R)tarians. As well as their teabagge(R), cohorts.
I love how you try and use Kuchinich, but only the stuff Mr. P backs too.
If you don't know that teabagge(R)s raised my taxes, than you just haven't been paying attention.
How are you working on republicans to put Greens in office?
How is that logical?
I didn't call you illogical. If that is how you read that I must not have worded it properly. Your argument, that since A is a B, B is an A. That just isn't true. Let's look it at like this.
Some Ls are Rs, but not all Rs are Ls. Right? And L does not always equal R.
I like Kucinich for thing Paul doesn't back; Single-Payer Health Care I am a huge supporter of for instance. I was making a point that Paul is to R what Kucinich is to D, an "insurgent" so saying Kucinich is like all Ds (or must answer for every Democrat) is the same as saying the same for Paul and Republicans. He doesn't need to answer for every action by every person that has ever been a Republican.
Seriously, I pay attention, but what are you referring to when you say that the "Tea Party" raised your taxes? In fact, please just tell me how your taxes were raised and what legislation led to that.
I promote Greens, Ron Paul, and progressive-Democrats, as well as other Independents and third-party candidates and causes through my website and activism.
It is logical because it is true.
Paul has a lot more to answer to in his back story than Dennis.
And that's a fact Jak.
So let me guess, this whole post was formed by a Ron Paul supporter just so Ron Paul can get the gay and black vote? Anyone who falls for this must be pretty fucking stupid.
Yes, it was written by a Ron Paul supporter (notice the beginning where it talks about canvasing for Ron Paul?), No, it wasn't written so he can get the gay and black vote, he is already getting the gay and black vote, as mentioned in the article. Did you read it?
I don't read Ron Paul garbage propaganda
Do you think it is proper to respond about something you haven't read and make assumptions, or predetermined judgments (prejudices), about its content based on its title?
You don't read Ron Paul articles, but you help promote them by commenting on their threads?
I did notice that I hadn't included this poll statistic that shows Ron Paul would fair best with "minorities" than any other GOP candidate against Obama; getting 25%. Obama still does best with "minorities/non-whites" overall, but out of all the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is seen has being the best to those in those groups.
This is a CNN poll, is it Ron Paul "garbage propaganda"?
You realize that for the same reason commercials have lost their advertising mojo, your attempt to peddle your product will fail too. either people hate what you are selling or they love and are already informed about what you are advertising. Either way your job is a waste of talent and time.