Easy, PP. Don't fall into the trap of generalizing.

 

LN is not a supporter of the President. He has pointed out the good and the bad of his presidency. He's fair.

 

True, but his whole post is generalizing. Who is he even talking about? You are the only person who named. The rest comes off as thinly veiled shots at those he doesn't agree with. LN knows I like and respect him. He also knows I will say what I feel also. I think this thread is a great talking point and moving in a positive direction. Is it not? Despite the banter he loathes I learn a lot about the political process as well as about the minds of conservatives, independents, libertarians, liberals, atheists, etc. It works for me.

Replace "people and policies" with "coaches and teams" and you could be talking about the football forum. It's a definite drawback of this type of board/forum/blog (or whatever is the correct term), and I can't think of anything to move it in another direction. I suggested a couple years ago on the football forum that people using their real names would help, and I was quickly warned by the BGP regulars to thicken my skin or get off the board - which I threaten myself with every other week, but so far keep coming back.

 

And I hope you keep coming back. I have nothing but love for those who have a differing view from mine and can make me see things in a different light. I also like if we can share a laugh about it as well. I also like it when those I disagree with from time to time actually agree on something. Common ground is an excellent cure for indifference and I find common ground quite often with everyone at some point in these forums.

Bill Cosby is a democrat if I am not mistaken but he is another I don't see eye to eye with. He seems to hate my generation for some reason.

Sorry Clyde, but this thread is just another example of why the P&R forum continues to disgust me and why I rarely come to it and even more rarely, post in it.

 

This forum has evolved into nothing but people starting threads to take low blow pot shots at people and policies they disagree with, and Clyde, while I like you a lot, you are just as guilty as the folks on the right doing the same in reverse.

 

I am going to challenge your assertion.

 

Threads started by me and reason for thread:

 

This one because of race.

Hermain Cain Serious Candidate: Seems obvious - he doesn't seem qualified and more importantly doesn't seem fully invested

Herman Cain Blames Race: We hear about the race card being played all the time. Is this one of those times?

Mitt Romeny being rich: I like Mitt and think he's the best candidate. I don't see why he's trying to act like he's not rich.

President Obama comment: He said we took out bad leaders without force. How can that be when we killed OBL?

Hank Jr considering run for Senate: Come on. We need better candidates.

Stewart taking on Bachmann: I guess you can get me for this one because of my distaste for her.

Ailes saying Fox News will change: Seemed to be a big departure from norm. Offered without comment.

Why not John Hunstman: Seems like a guy I could support

Tea Party Zombies Must Die Game: I said it was disgusting.

Marty Brennaman reading a great poem

Rev Fred Shuttlesworth died

God Must be Upset with Spending: ridiculous comment by either Mrs. Bachmann or Mrs. Palin (two lightweights)

Eric Cantor saying the party has been more about cuts than creating jobs. Seemed topical since jobs are the #1 priority these days.

If you see those as "low blow pot shots" then we'll have to disagree on the definition of that term.

This would hold more weight with me if it was posted on one of the many threads bashing Obama. But then again, you'd be in that thread bashing Obama. Everybody isn't a Highlands fan or a conservative and they actually have different views from you and we pay our money to express those views within the rules. Period. We've had this discussion before about football and the tone of the board and whatnot. I'd like to see you stick around but the board appears to have evolved to this tone. It's not for everyone and definitely not for those who don't have thick skin or can't handle their emotions. To each his own.

 

That's a bunch of crap. I guarantee you I've been fairer to this President than 90% of Obama's supporters on here were to Bush. You find a post where I've been unfairly and harshly critical of President Obama and I'll kiss your patooey at Ft. Harrodsburg on a Saturday at noon. As for me being a conservative, I am on certain things; on others I'm not.

 

I'm not opposed to gay relationships. I couldn't care less about what individuals do amongst themselves. It's none of my business. On abortion, I vascillate back and forth between the right of a woman to do what she wants to do to her body and the right to protect the child. If I lean towards anti abortion, its because of legal not moral reasons. I don't support far right candidates. I have voted and will vote for moderate Dems over far right Republicans. I support Romney, not Perry or any of the other far right Republican candidates. I supported McCain when he ran against Bush in the primary years ago because I thought McCain was a more moderate candidate. I am pro national defense, but I hope that doesn't make me a conservative because that means liberals are anti national defense. I am against a welfare system filled with fraud, but I hope that doesn't make me a conservative because that means liberals support a welfare system filled with fraud. I believe in personal responsibility, but I hope that doesn't make me a conservative because that means liberals don't believe in personal responsibility. If anything, I'm closer to a libertarian than I am a conservative.

 

Get over the Highlands crap also and don't attempt to portray me as someone who thinks Highlands is the only good football program in the state and everyone has to be a Highlands fan. I've never made one post disrespectful of another football program in this state and have a reputation within the Highlands posters of busting the chops of the overzealous Highlands posters on here. You got bent out of shape with me years ago because I posted that I'd like Lamar to have gone to UK. Through PMs, you explained why it was good for him to go to USC and I never brought it up again once you explained why. You are wrong PP92 about me not being able to accept people with views differing from me. I quite enjoy good intellectual discussions about issues confronting our country and society. Unfortunately, at least for me, I rarely see it on here. You paid your money to express your views and I paid money to express my views, one of which is that a lot of the posters in this forum that criticize Congress as being full of partisan hacks unwilling to see the merits of the other side's position and looking to find fault in the statements of others for political points are huge hypocrits, and I'm directing that at a lot of both Rs and Ds on here.

 

Clyde, you want to talk about racism, start a thread titled "racism", instead of the shot at Coulter (whom I dislike by the way). Look at the title of this thread again, and ask yourself if it fairly addressed the issues you wanted to discuss. I think it was cheap. "Our blacks". I frankly cannot see how it could have been taken in any context other than meaning blacks in the R party. You obviously did too as you yourself acknowledge in your opening sentence when you stated "In trying to point out that black Republicans often have to against many of their "own"". You obviously interpreted "our blacks" to mean blacks in the R party, yet later in your OP, you ask "What world does she live in that:

 

A. It's acceptable to refer to blacks as "our blacks?""

 

 

Why wouldn't it be acceptable to use "our blacks" if she meant "black Republicans"? If she meant blacks in the R party as you obviously interpreted her use of the phrase, why would you ask what world she lives in because she used the phrase "our blacks"? That was unfair as Hades and you know it. You obviously knew she didn't mean "our blacks" in an ownership or possessery context. It's as if we enjoy pointing out the flaws and failures of people every blooming chance we can for political points. And if we can do so while directing it at someone of the opposite party, all the more better. Let's race to the keyboard to point out the flaw or try to twist things to make them flaws and start another stupid tirade of partisanship. And I throw that criticism at both Ds and Rs on here.

 

Clyde, I want to accept that your intent in starting the thread was to discuss racism as opposed to trying to brush the R party with the comments of Coulter, but your challenge of 75 on blacks in the R party being more impressive before challenging PP92's prior post claiming the blacks in the D party are more impressive, makes it difficult to accept. I will admit Clyde, that you are fairer than many, in re the threads you start in this forum. But I'd be a liar if I didn't state that I feel you enjoy starting threads critical of Rs whenever you can. Perhaps that's because we have several Rs that seemingly enjoy starting threads critical of Ds whenever they can. Perhaps that's just part of the political process in this country, but if it is, it's quite understandable how we've ended up with the messed up, totally partisan mess we have in DC.

You find a post where I've been unfairly and harshly critical of President Obama and I'll kiss your patooey at Ft. Harrodsburg on a Saturday at noon. A.

 

Rack him!

 

BGP HOF post right there.

Edited November 3, 201114 yr by Clyde

Clyde, I want to accept that your intent in starting the thread was to discuss racism as opposed to trying to brush the R party with the comments of Coulter, but your challenge of 75 on blacks in the R party being more impressive before challenging PP92's prior post claiming the blacks in the D party are more impressive, makes it difficult to accept. I will admit Clyde, that you are fairer than many, in re the threads you start in this forum. But I'd be a liar if I didn't state that I feel you enjoy starting threads critical of Rs whenever you can. Perhaps that's because we have several Rs that seemingly enjoy starting threads critical of Ds whenever they can. Perhaps that's just part of the political process in this country, but if it is, it's quite understandable how we've ended up with the messed up, totally partisan mess we have in DC.

 

1. "Racism" is a terrible generic title for a thread. Secondly, even if I had titled it that way I would posted the same thing. The title was an exact quote not taken out of context and I clearly stated over and over again that I'm not accusing anyone of being racist.

 

2. I certainly understand how one would surmise that it was an anti-R thing when I overlooked PP92's post. As I said previously 75's caught me off guard and I responded. My history on here regarding race is crystal clear. Heck, more than a few think I'm black.

 

3. Do I post things to get conversation going? Absolutely.

 

4. Do I seem far left because of the far right on here? Yes. I get the incorrect label of "left" simply because I can't put up with the weak arguments put forth by the loudest (notice I didn't say most) RWers on here. I could care less where one stands. It has no influence on me. I simply want good, logical, fact-based discussion. When it's not (often with a few posters) I respond which gets me labeled. I'm a big boy. I can live with that.

 

5. I still challenge you on your pot shot assertion.

Clyde, you want to talk about racism, start a thread titled "racism", instead of the shot at Coulter (whom I dislike by the way). Look at the title of this thread again, and ask yourself if it fairly addressed the issues you wanted to discuss. I think it was cheap. "Our blacks". I frankly cannot see how it could have been taken in any context other than meaning blacks in the R party. You obviously did too as you yourself acknowledge in your opening sentence when you stated "In trying to point out that black Republicans often have to against many of their "own"". You obviously interpreted "our blacks" to mean blacks in the R party, yet later in your OP, you ask "What world does she live in that:

 

 

As you point out I never questioned her intent or motives. I never claimed she was racist. The ENTIRE POINT OF THE THREAD was to point out that innocent comments have consequences and intelligent people should be smarter than that. If I were a black man those comments would have certainly caught my attention and given me pause. Ignorant use of words. She should be smarter than that.

 

You are conflating my clear point with those that turned the thread into something else.

 

If you disagree that certain words have different meanings to blacks than whites we'll disagree.

In trying to point out that black Republicans often have to against many of their "own" Ann Coulter said:

 

“That’s why our blacks are so much better than their blacks,” Coulter said. “To become a black Republican you don’t just roll into it. You’re not going with the flow. You have fought against probably your family members, probably your neighbors, you have thought everything out and that’s why we have very impressive blacks in our party.”

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/156040/ann-coulter-defends-our-blacks-are-better-than-their-blacks-statement/

 

She then trumped that with:

 

“The only racism you hear in America is against conservative blacks.”

 

 

 

What world does she live in that:

 

A. It's acceptable to refer to blacks as "our blacks?"

B. Where she thinks only black conservatives experience racist talk and attitudes?

 

I'm not arguing the point she was trying to make initially that it's not easy being a black conservative. Numbers support that.

 

Her rhetoric gets her the attention she so desperately craves and sells her books.

 

For those that have forgotten what post #1 was here it is.

 

What will you notice:

 

No label of her being a racist.

No debate as to which party had more "impressive blacks."

No arguing her TRUE point - just the use of "our blacks."

Her crazy assertion that "you only hear racism...against conservative blacks."

The “our blacks” comment is out of touch. It’s the sort of thing that was part of the vernacular in the era of segregation. You don’t hear people say “our blacks in Kentucky are so much better than the ones in Ohio.” She may not have meant it maliciously (then again, it is Ann Coulter we are talking about), but it is obtuse.

 

However, her saying that racism does not exist unless you are a conservative isn’t simply out of touch, it’s ignorant, depraved, and purposefully antagonizing. To say that race no longer plays a role in society, all the ills of the past have been cured, and the lingering effects have been stamped out requires you to live, as Clyde said, in a different world than the one I inhabit. I imagine there are some who would use sharper language than that. And why does she say this? Because she wants to score some political points. To Coulter and her ilk, race and racism don’t exist in reality; they are just another issue for partisans to divvy up sides. I shudder to think there are people who not only believe that, but want to be on her side.

 

I’m also all for giving people the benefit of the doubt. People misspeak or don’t mean to come across as they do. Mistakes happen. But, Coulter (and Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc.) have been saying these things on race for years. This wasn’t an aberration.

 

I agree with you. Too add a thought to the issue of race, I think both sides are guilty of hindering progress in this area. As you noted, many of the conservatives live in an alternate reality that denies the existence of racism, apparently with the exception of black conservatives. .On the flipside, many of the liberals cry racism at any and every turn calling to mind the boy who cried wolf. Eventually, people start to tune it out and ignore it, meaning instances that are worthy of discussion get lost in the fray.

 

This is a little off the path, but perhaps relevant. I read something recently about a neurological study conducted on liberals and conservatives regarding their responses to issues. Basically, the study found that for each side when they were given a statement that they agreed with, the area of the brain responsible for pleasure was most active, while the area responsible for logic and reason showed little activity. Likewise, on something they disagreed with, the area of the brain that triggers the fight or flight response was active, while logic and reason weren't. One conclusion is the possibility that we are wired to be narrow minded.

 

The point being, we (all of us) have to move past this tit for tat mindset and apply reason to the issues that face our country. We have to work together and move forward. It may be considered cheesy, but slogan "United we stand, divided we fall" is applicable in my opinion. I think the divide between left and right, liberal and conservative is a bigger threat and problem to our nation than any racism that exists.

 

Listening to people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh isn't the answer. They thrive on this division. Trying to bring people together from their viewpoint would essentially be killing the golden goose.

 

Sorry, I've gotten off topic a bit, but one more thing I read. In the mid '60's the congress and senate voted along party lines 64% of the time, while sometime in the 2000's that number had risen to 89%. It also noted how these people stated that they faced a lot of resistance and backlash from their own base when they worked with the other side. We have to find a way to move past this.

Sorry Clyde, no way can you expect anyone to believe your "shock" at 75's post and "overlooking" of PP92's (which were the exact same thing, only reversed) was anything but intentional.

Sorry Clyde, no way can you expect anyone to believe your "shock" at 75's post and "overlooking" of PP92's (which were the exact same thing, only reversed) was anything but intentional.

 

I expected nothing less.

 

Believe what you will.

 

History says otherwise.

^How else could that be taken? Why would 75's post shock you, but not PP92's, when they're the same exact thing?

To be clear have we now set the precedent than any post that is not responded to implies acceptance of that quote?

 

I just want to know what the rules are.

^How else could that be taken? Why would 75's post shock you, but not PP92's, when they're the same exact thing?

 

What would I say here to make you believe me? Right. So I'll pass.

 

You want to debate the real issue at hand?