I reread post 122 and I don’t understand your confusion with my position. It is wrong to promote purchases based on racial ownership. It’s not about the nature of the business, it’s about asking people to shop based on who OWNS the business. That is discrimination and there’s no gray area in that respect.
Reverend Wright speaks to his congregation in terms of victimization and his bigoted isloationist business philosophy reflects that. His statements are inflammatory, and Obama cut him loose because of it.
Do you have a problem with encouraging people to buy American?
It would only be discrimination if anyone was being asked to never patronize white owned businesses, which they aren’t.
It also needs to be said (as with the blacks voting overwhelmingly for Obama thing) that there is a difference between trying to get a a demographic into a tent and the people alreay inside it trying to keep that demographic out. That’s why white people whining about alleged “reverse discrimination” almost always rings so hollow.
“American” is not a race. I’m asking if you have a problem with encouraging people to buy American made products as oppsed to non-American-made products. Race has nothing to do with it, and it’s still a kind of “discrimination” based on ownership.
Trying to get into the tent is not discrimination.
Encouraging people to support a historically disenfranchised group is just fine.
Voting to keep a demographic out of power is discrimination. Voting to get that demographic represented is not. There is not, and never has been any symmetry with this stuff.
I think he’s saying that sometimes things are grey.
If you have a neighbourhood that is predominately black and needs the tax base, then it makes sense to say support your local merchants…which happen to be black. As opposed to going to another community that may be white. Many neighbourhoods do this; ask that you buy local.
That is a difference than saying Buy Black in a neighbour that’s mixed; because then as DTC has noted, you’re keeping people out of the tent.
The reason for this as DTC has been trying to say, is because historically, non-whites were forced to segregate and still live in segregated communities to a certain extent. Because they often shop outside the community, the community dies a slow death ( as any community would), in order to prevent that, some organizers believe that if you support your neighbourhood, then the neighbourhood becomes viable and therefor attracts more businesses.
You have to remember it’s only been around 40 years since blacks were forced by law to segregate in certain parts of the country. That isn’t ancient history to most Americans. It’s getting there, but not yet and to ignore the lingering effects of that, does nothing to reduce it’s effect…neither does making every instance racial.
Even today we have entire Jewish business communities, created out of segregation; where the merchants are Jewish. New York’s Diamond District is one of them or certain parts of Brooklyn. So what?
I understand the desire to treat all instances of racism/sexism/religiousism as equal, but sometimes in order to do so, you have to ignore or hand-wave away the context in which it is presented and that doesn’t bring anyone closer to understanding what the underlying reasoning is.
Well there’s some disagreement. what color is that? I don’t think I have confusion about your postion. I think you’re wrong. I asked you specifc questions that you could answer to defend your position. So has 5-4-Fighting You haven’t defended it with any rational argument. Round these heah parts suh, that usually means you can’t defend it. Simply repeating your sure it’s racism and wrong is not a defense. You’re expected to address the specific points raised. Will you?
I asked you to provide the specific Wright quote you are refering to and you ignored it. Can you do that?
Beyond the indefensibility of his position, I’m still struck by his needless use of the word “Negro” and his comparison of the imprecation of the uplifting message(s) in the tenets of TUCC to a Klan rally, with no direct response to the question about whether he would consider Jews or whites practicing the same cohesion and uplift to be Klansmen or Grand Wizards.
The problem is Obama doesn’t seem to have a clue what his church is about. This leads one to think he is only going for show or he really believes that and lying about it to get elected.
One of them has to be true.
Obama is lucky that Hillary stayed in the race, cause once she’s out he comes off as another liberal in the lines of Mondale, McGovern and Dukakis and this will cost him the election, not race.
So your false choice about his churchgoing would have made no difference in the face of his standing as the most liberal Senator (Man, just like Kerry before him, and Gore before him- what a coincidence that we manage to always nominate our biggest liberal, statistically speaking).
The difference this time is that in the last 8 years, “liberal” has lost whatever pejorative status it once had. The baggage now lies with “Republican”, and that’s the reason why McCain has any shot at all- he’s not been a very good Republican. The center has moved.
Let me explain- the epithet will not drag him down. I don’t particularly think that it is true that Obama is “far-left” or “ultra-liberal” or any of the other tags that will be applied to him like ducks in a row, so I see no reason for him to go 'round saying that he is a liberal. But if he turns out to be associated with the term, it will not hurt him.
Obama has explained pretty clearly what drew him to the church and why he became a member so I believe he does have a clue about what his church is about. The problem is people taking select sound bites and trying to make it look like his former pastor and his church are about something else. They succeed with part of the population and then they think* they * know what Obama’s former congregation is about becaiuse some blowhard dishonest talking head spouted the opinion he’s paid to have and talk about amd they believed it.
Yes those clips of Wright were surprising, shocking and alarming to many Americans. That’s not the whole man or the whole church. It was allowing ourselves to be swayed by dishonest propoganda that brought us the horrible admin we have now. Let’s try harder not to do that again.
as someone already pointed out. This is false.
If American citizens are actually foolish enough to elect McCain over Obama I shudder to think what will happen in the next four years.
I can understand people saying they don’t really like Obama or some of his policies. The choice isn’t Obama or someone obviously better. The choice is Obama or someone to repeat the tragic and damaging policies we’ve had for 8 years. I truly can’t understand how Obama could legitimately loose to McCain.
Bit from a George Carlin record – George is doing a guy who is running for public office:
INTERVIEWER: Do you think your religion will be a major obstacle?
GC: Yes, I do, Bob. I think bigotry is going to be really important in the coming years, bigotry and fear.
INTERVIEWER: And what are you going to do about it?
GC: Well, the only thing I can do, Bob. I’ve renounced my religion.
INTERVIEWER: You have?
GC: Yeah. Let’s face it, the Rosicrucians ain’t gonna miss me! I never went to the meetings, I never bought the candles . . . I answered the ad out of a dirty magazine!