Forum Post: Are Liberals smarter than republicans?
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 11, 2012, 12:07 p.m. EST by EndTheFED
(65)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is in response to the propaganda that conservatives are dumb and racist. Original post: http://occupywallst.org/forum/study-says-racists-and-conservatives-are-dumb/
libertarians tend to defect to republican just as liberals tend to defect to democrat.
Thus libertarians (classical-liberals or a subset of republicans) are smarter than today's liberals. Furthermore, libertarians believe that rights of the minority should not be able to be voted away, from the majority. This is fair game for liberals. How then i ask is libertarians racist?
http://www.capitalismv3.com/2011/08/29/libertarians-are-smarter-than-liberals/
Are Liberals smarter than republicans?
maybe... But Independents are definitely smarter than Liberals & republicans combined .... ;)
Actually, I believe Independents are lazy opportunist when it comes to political matters. They don't even take the time to study and truly understand what separates the parties. And every two years they use that cheesy excuse,"I vote for the candidate and not the party," knowing that if they would have taken the time to study, they would have learned that the parties dictate the character of the candidate. I have more respect for a Conservative than I do for an independent, at least the Conservatives sticks to their guns, literally and figuratively.
@Jesse,
That's an ignorant assumption.
Here's something to ponder "Sometimes you have to assume your assumptions are wrong."
Garth, that was a haiku.
(not actually a haiku, I just wanted to quote Wayne's World)
lol, I'll give you that. I assume allot. The reason for so many independents, at least the reason political scientists believe, is that independents are usually in the transition from Conservative to Liberal, or vise versa. People take the leap from one party to the other in usually two to three voting cycles. Now there are some who are independents because they feel the individual candidate should not be chosen by party affiliation, but they are the minority. But as for saying my assumption is ignorant, well i'd call it obscure. There are people who I believe should not vote and they use the cheesy line, not knowing anything about the parties' differences. My assumption is not the main reason people are independents but there are some who are independent because it is seen as cool. Nothing says American like independence.
You have posted the single most retarded thing on this site. Congratulations.
Found a liberal!
You are pretty much an idiot. To blindly support either the R's or the D's without questioning their platforms is irresponsible. Can I not be for free choice and also support the 2nd amendment? Can I be for the promotion of alternative energy and be against the healthcare mandate? As long as the parties keep us divided, we will never find the common ground upon which to build our future.
Well most of the things that separate the two parties I could care less about. Social issues don't mean dick to me. I'll do what I want no matter how many laws are passed. I guess that is what separates me from the average person. Now, when we get to the crux of what political bickering is all about, economic issues, I know which side of my bread is buttered. I stick to my claim that the two parties are different. their philosophies are as polar opposite as Americans can be. Now, me personally, I am more left than most all politicians, but that don't mean I'm going to throw my vote away on a hope and a prayer. I,m going to side with the moderates in my nation. So in closing all you people wishing and praying for a third way, well, I guess your opening line works well at describing you too. I don't blindly support no one. I support those who have a chance at winning and I leave my personal feelings at the door. I suggest you do the same. There are a lot of issues that I disagree with when it comes to the Left's platform, but that don't mean I'll be so greedy as to leave them out in the rain because they don't support all of my convictions. It's called being practical, not being a spoiled rotten child who wants it all.
A liberal that leaves his feeling at the door.....yeah right. You mock Independent's like we simply do not think. Thinking is what we mostly do. Analyze the merits of a position and then act according to your core beliefs. It is that simple. To pay attention to the (D) or (R) beside the name then vote accordingly is asinine. I only pay attention the D or R so that I know the intent of the messenger. I still analyze the message and weigh it on it's own merits. Finally, as a nation, there are the extreme views. Ultimately, the nation follows a moderate direction since the extremes tend to cancel each other out. For this, I am thankful.
Yeah, I used to think that way, until I spent three years studying Political Analysis (political science) in college. I guess what it boils down to is one side believes gov't is the problem the other side believes gov't can provide solutions. Can you guess which is which?
Besides even if you were to elect a liberal republican congress person, and he/she did not toe the party line, not only would the left go after them during the elections season, but the candidate's party will most likely not support the nominee financially, at least that has been the reality of past elections.
It is funny you called me an idiot. You should google the etymology of the word"idiot". and then ask yourself if someone who minored in political science could ever live up to the meaning of that word. A political junkie cannot be an idiot. But an independent, well, that is more likely.
Also, i'd say that the fickleness of the independent makes our body politic look like a bipolar person going from one extreme to another every two years and is why we go nowhere politically, socially and economically.
I think many times politics is significantly fueled by anger and hate. It's a big motivator but can burn-out quickly as that anger starts eating the recipient from the inside out. I complain sometimes, yes, I know, I do, but, I would dread hanging around complainers 24/7. Maybe it's then that wonder how you got stuck in such a wacked out world. Well, I diverge there, it is still beautiful and we can always see that if we want. It's a matter of focus.
Personally, I try to check as much baggage at the door as possible before politicking, I'm listening for the truth, or an new idea to follow up on. But mostly I strive to be on the side of truth which is highly evident, like Global Warming. Many times, the truth is more subjective, and it is here where we need to understand why.
Anyway, good discussion, a little deeper than most. Refreshing.
Come Together NOW
yes you are so right. it is sometimes hard to check the baggage at the door. Pride before the fall, and all that. Thanks for the kudos and have a nice day.
Still feeling it over the idiot comment. You need to feel better by playing semantics then go right ahead. My skin is thick.
You are right about either party eating there own if they stray from the reservation. Look what happened to Mayor Cory Booker.
You state, "I guess what it boils down to is one side believes gov't is the problem the other side believes gov't can provide solutions. Can you guess which is which?" The answer is neither. There is a role for government in our society, but it is not always the answer. If we still wish to have certain amounts of freedom, government will have to allow us to fall on our faces from time to time. Unfortunate that when we do fall on our faces, many of us cry and whine, wondering why government did not help. I personally can accept my decisions and the consequences that may happen because of them.
Good luck with that Political Analysis venture.
Great post Jesse, never heard it said just like that, and I tend to agree.
sorry... I didn't mean to offend u with truth... ;)
ok... seriously... the BIG majority of Independents were aligned with a party before they were Independent... it's just that we at some point realized that the party system was willing to hurt themselves and the country in the effort to hurt the opposition ... quite fucked up ....
But I guess I could see how independents are a moderating force in our body politic and a reason for both parties to hone their message.
;) yeah and we can switch sides easily ... when someone offers us bribes w/o alerting attention ... hehe
I am not easily offended; I just have a point of view that is different than yours, no worries. Although I came to this conclusion many years ago, I can be easily persuaded that I am wrong. It just seems to me that the values that the candidates hold, are what dictate which party they get picked up by. So the argument that Independents use seems silly to me.
Interesting post. I as a Conservative find myself agreeing with you. You said that very well.
Dumb post. And I like a lot of libertarian and liberal ideals.
2 ideas true liberals and true libertarians share 1. End wars of aggression, 2. End the Fed
It's the process of how they go about the 2 that differ.
I prefer Dennis Kucinich's ideas over Ron Paul's. HR 2990 is way better than anything Ron Paul has ever come up with and it would "End the Fed."
"Could the threat to our national sovereignty be any clearer? Let's take our freedom back from the Fed." - Dennis Kucinch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1dkZShYP78
Dennis is a true liberal. Obama and his supporters are phonies.
Why doesn't he just run in 2016? going up against your own party is retarded.
The only parties I have are birthday parties. I refuse to vote for frauds just because of party affiliation. Obama is a war mongering fraud that loves Monsanto and Goldman Sachs. Obama has done more to help out Wall Street than he ever has for Main Street.
And Dennis might run in 2016. I'll vote for him then. For this year, I will not vote for anyone that is pro-war. I will not vote for anyone running on a platform that violates the constitution.
And that's how Bush got elected. Glad you support a war with Iran, Retard.
Your argument is invalid and ignorant. Bush won because of the electoral college. Also I couldn't vote back then because I was 13 so you're argument is even more invalid. Glad you support invalid arguments.
I agree its a dumb post. But it is only a dumb post cause it is in response to a dumb post.
Liberalism is a long dead political philosophy. The current characterization of what were formerly called liberals as progressives is not a mere linguistic distinction and is really a much more accurate description of contemporary activists. The Republican and Democratic Parties are political parties, not political philosophies and they are both essentially conservative, though the Republican Party is slightly more conservative than are the Democrats. However, because they are both essentially conservative party explains why the Democratic Party is much more inhospitable to progressives (much less radical democrats of various types) than either party is to conservatives of varying degrees.
Liberalism isn't dead, Everyone knows Rep and Dem are parties. Dem are far from conservative, how in the world do you draw these conclusions.
Liberalism died at the beginning of the Progressive Era when it was displaced by Progressivism. Up until the early 1970s Libertarianism was a left wing doctrine somewhere between revolutionary democratic socialism and anarcho-syndicalism when it was consciously and openly stolen by the Chicago School who apprehended it for reactionary purposes, but in Great Britain to this day the Libertarian Book Club produces anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist and council communist books.
The considered historically and one the world stage the dominant American political choices are extremely narrow. Only in the United States, for example, would someone like Nancy Pelosi be considered a person of the Left. Even most American political commentators apparently outside a very narrow Republican and Democratic binary.
Conservatives tend to conflate liberalism and socialism, doctrines which are, in fact, quite hostile to each other. Historically liberalism is a centerist, not a leftist, doctrine, which would put the Democratic Party to the right of it or on the conservative side of the political spectrum. To its left, pretty much going from right to left would be independent progressivism, social democracy, utopian socialism, Christian socialism, independent labor politics, radical democracy, democratic socialism, revolutionary democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, council communism and anarcho-syndicalism. I've undoubtedly left out a lot. This was just off the top of my head, but my main point was to point out just how narrow American politics is. There are also several distinct political doctrines that fall between classical liberalism and the dominant doctrines of the Democratic Party as well as several distinct doctrine to the right of the Republican Party but short of fascism and other autoritarian doctrines. The scale I'm using is essentially based on doctrines that accept democratic decision making norms.
I could describe the distinction between the various political tendencies named about but the point is they are quite distinct and often in conflict with each other, but, outside of a handful of sects, essentially absent from the American political scene, which in my view is one factor in fundamentally undermining the rich variety of genuinely democratic political choices. To the degree that American political choices are so narrow, it also make us less democratic.
Libertarians are NOT smart. They are selfish. This is the correct word to characterize libertarian.
Yes, liberals, better known now as progressives are smarter. It's proven.
It isn't proven by a bias study. Also i linked a study showing the contrary. I will admit that it doesn't prove anything cause it too is bias. You can't prove what you clam to be proven.
Yes I can and will. The truth may hurt but it is the TRUTH
This question misses the point. While there might be a small difference in intelligence, one way or the other and I won't speculate which way, the relevant studies find that the difference that matters is that self identified conservatives, in general, are more fearful or less trusting of others.
I think you can validate this by reading the posts on Occupy Wall Street.
Pay particular attention to the ones that involve several posts in a row between two parties and notice as the dialog goes downhill to a stalemate. Then notice which party becomes abusive and insulting. Then analyze the political positions and match them to the more hostile party and the less hostile party. Count the numbers for both positions and I believe you will have larger numbers of hostile parties taking conservative political positions.
If you find a different result, let me know. This would be unusual. Try it in other forums. If your mind is closed. If you are not interested in facts, your intelligence really doesn't matter, does it?
so when you and I were going at it about semantics and i said " There is more than one way to skin a cat." do you count that as a "ding" for republicans?
Nope.
"Defer"? Submit humbly to (a person or a person's wishes or qualities): "he deferred to Tim's superior knowledge".
Defect, Abandon one's country or cause in favor of an opposing one: "he defected to the Soviet Union after the war".
I don't think so.
What you talking about Willis?
"2. To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group: defected from the party over the issue of free trade."
de·fect (dfkt, d-fkt) n.
I have only lived in the US for 72 Years and I admit that English is my second language (Kansan being my first (joke)) and I had never heard "defect" used in that way. So I was having a really hard time understanding what you meant. Is English your first language?
Since there is no liberal entity (party) to defect from to go to the Democrat(ic) party. It didn't seem to make sense. I acknowledge that there are both Libertarian and Republican parties but switching wouldn't, in most people's minds, constitute a "defection."
Russian officials defect from the Russian government to the UK government and vice versa. It usually connotes an adversarial position between the two and that is not the case in either instance you mentioned.
Never mind. I have read your other posts and I won't waste my time. So you can put me in the category of those who are more intelligent than those who took the bait.
yes english if first language.
first you can defect from a : government, your friends, a political party, or anything from that matter. It only USUALLY "often to join an opposing group" it doesn't mean if you defect from group A and join group B that A and B are at odds.
this is the context that i used it in. i was saying that libertarians tend to defect to republican. There may be a libertarian party but America has a two party system. So if you are a libertarian you usally go vote for the republican party, even if a libertarian party is running you might not vote for him/her cause they will not win and you only have one vote. so you defect to the republican cause he more closely represents your ideology. its not an exact science that is why i said "tend" meaning usually.
secondly, many Americans at least " can't really speak for other English speaking nations" sometimes stretch the meaning of words, such as in poetry, but this happens in casual conversation all the time, but most people still understand what the other is saying. I would think this happens in every language and nation. pretty sure it is the nature of language.
I get it.
But 99% of the Americans I know would have said. " Libertarians tend to vote Republican just as liberals tend to vote Democratic (Democratic is the name of the party.)
You don't write as if English is your first language. You write with an accent. More like eastern European, I would guess.
I don't write the way i talk sometimes, but most people don't.
yeah i guess i could of said that, or a number of things. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study
Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study. Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people. The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe. The survey, which compared childhood intelligence with political views, is bad news for David Cameron, the Conservative Party Prime Minister but should give a lift to Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, pictured in Question Time Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.
Social status also appears to play no part.
The study, published in Psychological Science, found that right-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.
Left-wingers tend to be more open-minded says the survey - Democrats voted in first black U.S. president Barack Obama. But right-wing ideology forms a pathway for prejudice - Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, was glitter-bombed yesterday by gay-rights activists because of his views.
'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of other people and in being open minded,' say the researchers.
'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. 'It provides a sense of order.'
The study, by academics at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, used information from two UK studies from 1958 and 1970 , where several thousand children were assessed for intelligence at age 10 and 11, and then asked political questions aged 33. The 1958 National Child Development involved 4,267 men and 4,537 women born in 1958.
'Individuals with lower abilities may gravitate towards right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. It provides a sense of order,' say the academics
The British Cohort Study involved 3,412 men and 3,658 women born in 1970.
In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'
They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'
The researchers also compared their results against a 1986 American study which included tests of cognitive ability and questions assessing prejudice against homosexuals.
The authors found that there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics. The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudiced.
'Conservative ideology represents a critical pathway through which childhood intelligence predicts racism in adulthood,' says the paper.
'In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order.'
'Clearly, however, all socially conservative people are not prejudiced, and all prejudiced persons are not conservative.'
ORIGINAL SOURCE:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
And in an uncharacteristically even presentation of both sides of the coin (despite the fact it was at the bottom of the article) for Huffington Post's version of the story:
"Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.
"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."
But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones. "
yeah so the media is liberal. what is your point.
you trying to say people on well fare are smarter then middle class?
you may be right there it just depends on how you define smart
Independent of ANYTHING they say, you can find an Rs three ways
1
Rs can't state the name of JFK's political party
2
Rs twist your words into something you did not say because that is the only way to prove their point
3
Rs blame the media for the truth - because the thay don't know it
I did not use the words well fare or welfare or middle class
This has nothing to do with "media"
it has to do with the 15,000 people
Archie Bunker is dumb because Archie Bunker is dumb
And you prove the study of 15,000 is racist how?
And you prove the study of 15,000 is non scientific?
Do you also believe the earth is 6000 years old? And what party did JFK belong to?
He probably thinks the world is 3,000 years old. He probably thinks global warming isn't happening. He's one of them. He probably thinks the country is in "debt". He probably thinks Solyndra went bankrupt. He probably thinks the war in Libya is wrong. He probably thinks people should be able to homeschool their children. He probably thinks people have "rights" to things. He probably thinks people should have the "choice" to join a union.
I stopped arguing with ridiculous people long ago. Please save your sanity.
The dumbest person on welfare is smarter than the smartest CEO in the world. They truly are despicable and unintelligent people.
As someone who believes the state needs to be checked by the Federal Government, I believe the libertarians are miss guided in their attempt at hindering the prerogatives of the Federal Gov't. In some cases the states are the laboratories of democracy, but when factions become strong enough to manipulate states, play them off of each other, I believe the Federal route is better at getting shit done. Libertarians forget that most of their rights are hindered by the states. I have never had a fed arrest me for being me. If libertarians want their brand of justice, they should effect their state's legislators and not the Fed. I have respect for the working class libertarian as an individual, but their party seems to only want to enrich and empower the moneyed interests.
I agree. Haven't you seen the corporate money flowing into the Paul campaign? It is despicable, these libertarians, want to take our money and rights and give them to the corporations.
I take it you are being facetious. It is hard to tell cause it is just a post.
I read an article that says that those who watch Fox News tend to have less IQ points than others who don't.
[Removed]
I once read a quote that has stuck in my mind for years regarding conservatives and liberals.
"A liberal will become a conservative in the span of twenty years without changing a single thought."
So, this quote seems to bear out more than not over the years. It seems to me that those who are conservatives have stagnated in their world views and continue to try and advance by looking backward while liberals are trying to look ahead and doing their best to keep their thoughts alive.
Not a matter of intelligence just a matter of which way you choose to look as you move through spacetime.
Here's another old saying
If your 20 and a conservative, you have no heart
If your 40 and a liberal, you have no brains
I'd go further to say that both conservatives and liberals care about others, it's just that liberals tend to be gullible, and conservatives tend to be results oriented.
When your young, it's nice to think your the smartest thing in creation and believe that you can change things with 'happy' thoughts.
But even peter pan has to grow up and be a conservative at some point.
That is why they killed some guy around 2 thousand years ago, because he wouldn't grow up.
By the way, don't assume I am young if that is what you have done.
I wasn't making that assumption, as far as your age.
Just taking out frustrations with OWS a few days a go, had to detox for a bit.
That frustration was with some self professed liberals that had touted a study that purported that conservatives as being racist and dumb to boot.
I was playing the game back in reverse, which was counter productive.
And who likes generalizing more, C o n s e r v a t i v e s !
Why? It's simplier and requires less intelligence.
Wow. A study in motion, as the conservs chime in here.
I always thought it was a money thing that made a thirty year old decide to become a Conservative, the ol' I got mine so go fuck yourself theory. but your reasoning probably has some validity too.
hehehe, well some do ascribe to that feeling as well, but most people tend to become more conservative with age because of experiance, and wanting results
That's not to be confused with the neocons that call themselves conservatives though..... that's a whole different matter
i have a quote for ya. "The only constant is change" so i guess even conservatives change to. They just don't want to change for the worst. liberals make up progressives too, as i recall progressives looked to Europe and wanted to adopt what Europe as doing. kinda like free health care for all, well hey look so one else is doing it. That doesn't mean we should do it. Besides, if the whole world followed one country and the whole world was homogenized, there will be no diversity and that will stop this progress.
Deep. #sarcasm
Yes
I think you mean "than" rather than "then." And there is no "e" in "racist."
well how are libertarians racist? or you just an English major, grading peoples post to correct their grammar.. LOL Did i at least get a B- RALMFAO
All libertarians believe the same things, subscribe to the same tired and racist ideology. They are all the same, no matter what Cato babble you read. Any one describing themselves as a libertarian is speaking for the entire philosophy, from legalizing murder to eliminating free things for the poor.
[Removed]
I am amazed that people that think they are so superior are keeping this thread alive. now to give it a minute.......
what are you talking about?
Conservatives are about as dumb as door knobs.
That's been my experience.
This is the fact which has been proven through many reputable studies:
Less intelligent people seek out only those answers which they can understand. By this I mean the simple answers. (No one here likes them though, I hope)
And, for the libbies, they are selfish and want out of social contract. If we follow them into the pit, then society likely will break down and the rich will live behind fortresses in armed encampments. And full revolution will be blazing from everywhere.
Just a thought........jeez
Who are you, what are you, what side are you on? lol........!
I am ..... I am Batman!!!
It's all so crazy... but all of these polemics are about polarization - every one is vying for our minds in the hope of gaining our vote; we're not permitted to think or analyze... It's just ridiculous.
"polarization"? what have you homogenization, VERY scary thought. Two is better than one, i would rather have more than two.
We don't need to draw lines in the sand; we need America to move forward as one.
We need more like you my friend..
I hate to point of the obvious but the essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
There are good Republicans like Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. Then there are idiotic Republicans like Rick Santorum and Lamar Smith.
There are good Democrats like JFK and Harry Truman. Then there are idiotic Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer.
In the end, each person is legitimized and earns respect through his individual character. George Bush and Richard Nixon were both Republicans. I respect Bush, and am ashamed of Nixon. Again, party lines don't define the honor of a politician, nor are they a way of easily defining logic from insanity.
I have to say, we should hand bush over for war crimes. Starting a war with trumped up data and stifling the investigation about 9/11 aside, I agree that there have been good and bad people on both sides of the isle.
Minorities shouldn't even HAVE any "independent rights". They are HUMAN BEINGS just like everyone else. Having a different set of rights, priveleges, standards, etc for "minorities" is as pure a form of racism as one could be. TRUE Libertarians believe no "affirmative action", no "special protections". Humans are Humans. To actually make law or policy differentiating people based on skin color is government sanctioned racism, attempted to be hidden under the guise of "comapssion" or "equal opportunity", and an insult to any intelligent "minority" in the world.
Wrong. Protected classes are necessary. Have you ever had to live with the consequences of your ancestors being discriminated against? No, you haven't. Until you can understand any of that, you need to stop firing off about things you don't understand, like civil rights and hate crime laws.
I should ask, how long are you going to allow Liberal White Elitists and Minority Community Leaders to tell you that you NEED them, that you have a dependency on them because you are not capable enough of making your own way in the world. I don't care WHAT my ancestors were. If I was EVER given special privileges or lower expectations or standards, and someone told me I "needed" them because of my ethnicity, I would basically just punch him in the mouth. How humiliating and degrading that must be to the psyche
Oh, so it is best to beat racism and discrimination with MORE racism and discrimination. Question for you, HOW LONG will you be "victims", incapable of living with the same standards and expectaions of everyone else. When will your people- it is you and the elitisit white Liberals who always seperate yourselves as, not me- be every bit as 'capable' of being "equal"?
It will take however long it takes, for those that are practicing racism to admit they are practicing racism.
By your statement, I would have to say we aren't there yet.
How am I being the "racist" one? By fighting and saying that "minorities" are born as Human Beings, who are every bit as intelligent and as capable of being responsible for themselves as any other Human Being? I am "racist" for believing in and respecting the abilities of people and you AREN'T racist because you dedicate your life to makinfg sure you are seen as a "victim", only capable of what white people will allow you? That is warped. I respect minorities and their abilities. You claim they are poor victims. Who is the RACIST one?
You're reaction says it all.
Your intimation that anti racism policy is somehow racist itself is why I made my closing statement.
Your refusal to believe that those upon who racism is practiced couldn't possibly be victims, is also telling.
How else could it be eradicated, if not by policy?
Well, cultural changes just won't happen without law, I can tell you that much. There haven't been any major anti-racism laws since the civil rights act, and virtually nothing has improved in race relations since then. We can wait all we want, but until we demand legal change, I won't hold my breath.
Some 'racism" will NEVER be totally eradicated. it is the right of an individual to pick and choose who he/she likes and how he/she wants to treat them. Trying to "legislate people into liking others" just causes MORE hostility and resentment. It doesn't do a whole lot of good for the psyche of a minority person to grow up being told he/she is a second rate human being either. In the private world, in a FREE society, people like who they want to like, and dislike who they want to dislike. They hire, promote, pick, choose, whoever they want to. When a "minority" baby is born, tell me what "disadvantages" he/she has? Are they not just as intelligent and capable as White Males to live their lives the way they choose.? And if someone doesn't like him/her because of skin color or whatever, that is the loss of the bigot. You can't change that. Do you realize how many "racist" white people voted for a BLACK HUMAN BEING to be their President. How racist are they? A Black man is President, and Narcissistic Elitist White Liberals are still attempting to keep black people as "lower class", "victims'. it is their way of maintaining their (in their own minds) "superiority". I got news for most of them. They best start looking up at some of these "poor oppressed people", because their are a great many black individuals far more intelligent and successful than they are no matter how much they tell themselves they are the "superior class". Get it in your head. Black People, along with many other minorities, are thriving everywhere, everyday, in this world with no need for Superior White Guilt Sympathy.
Well, considering 50% of the white population voted for Obama, that will give you a rough estimate of how many racist whites voted for Obama. Don't get me started on the ones who voted against him.
Look how badly you have been told to believe in "racism". You are saying that those who voted for Obama are racist, and those who didn't are even more racist. Stop playing the damn victim your entire life and start to believe in yourself a little bit. Then you might have no need to envy the "haves", many of which are BLACK.
If any of the "haves" are dark skinned, it is only on the outside.
You have a good deal of nerve calling anyone a narcissist.
You've just convinced me of the need for more affirmative action legislation, although if our current President enacted it, I fear what you'd be calling him.
BTW I actually did help some of those people get around racism and sexism. While folks like you seem to think it's "natural" way of things.
Define racism :
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
the government acts racist "civil rights" cause of definition #1:"inherent differences "
some people are racist (both black white and other) cause 1,2 and 3. But the answer to racism isn't more racism. And believing in this doesnt make you racist
Thanks. Some will just NEVER get it. Listen to the "logic" of this shooz person. He/she is convinced that we "need more affirmative action" because I believe Black people to be every bit as intelligent and capable as white people. I have respect for the abilities of Black people. Shooz does not, yet I am the "racist"? For some people I guess they have been indoctrinated so badly, they just can't live without being "victims of racism". it is what they have been told for so long, especially by Elitist White Liberals. How ironic.
yeah that cause there liberals who can't see the forest through the trees. Historically the republican party cares about liberty while the democrats care about means to an end.
Republicans tying to end slavery: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=975
at the same time Democrats trying to keep slavery: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
i don't think the Democrats ever gave up on slavery, they just changed stance. Why enslave only blacks when we can make all people slaves.
Now they just keep Black People below them by reinforcing feeling of victimization and making themselves out to be tthe "saviors". If they can maintain those feeling is the majority of minorities, then they can always believe to be superior and most powerful.
If you need to copy and paste a dictionary definition, you still have NO idea what it is.
None whatsoever.
Yes, thank you. Only idiots need to look up the definitions of words in the dictionary. These people are clearly being racist, don't they want to take special protections away from certain races? It's gross, is what it is. These people wanting the government to treat all races the same are the ones who want institutionalized racism, or else the whole idea of some races being more equal than others would lose its grounding in reality.
Keep up the good work, Shooz. These types fight dirty when they're angry.
do you not know the definition either? those laws are raciest. Its like talking to a wall. you don't need to fight racism with racism. How is that idiotic or racist. You my friend are obviously thick headed, and the idiot.
The definition of a racist law is one that treats one race differently than another. Laws that treat minorities different from non-minorities are not racist because they treat minoriteis BETTER, not different, from non-minorities. Don't you think the law should treat some people better and give them special protections because of the color of their skin? Martin Luther King said that was his ultimate dream, don't tell me you disagree with that!!!!
"The definition of a racist law is one that treats one race differently than another." ----- Then civil rights laws are racist laws.
"Laws that treat minorities different from non-minorities are not racist because they treat minoriteis BETTER, not different, from non-minorities." --- How is treating someone better then someone else isn't treating them different based only on color of skin? So the under segregation when blacks had to sit at the back of the bus and whites got to sit in the front, it wasn't discrimination or racism cause the government was only treating someone BETTER, based on color of skin? "Don't you think the law should treat some people better and give them special protections because of the color of their skin? ----- No of course not. "Martin Luther King said that was his ultimate dream, don't tell me you disagree with that!!!!" ----- if MLK wanted a racist government then he is wrong too. don't quote me but i had watched a movie about Gandhi sometime ago and their was civil unrest i forget of what groups but it really doesn't madder. Here is a transcript.
Nahari: I'm going to Hell! I killed a child! I smashed his head against a wall. Gandhi: Why? Nahari: Because they killed my son! The Muslims killed my son! [indicates boy's height] Gandhi: I know a way out of Hell. Find a child, a child whose mother and father have been killed and raise him as your own. [indicates same height] Gandhi: Only be sure that he is a Muslim and that you raise him as one.
So i guess gandhi would solve the problem (if there even is one) about racism is have a black family that hates whites cause they think they are being discriminated against raise a white child and raise him white Then have a racist white family raise a black child, and raise him black.
before you jump down my thought and say that i am prejudice cause how could i define how a black and white people act or is suppose to act. I have no clue, but since you are racist you might now what it means.
What do you mean Civil rights laws are racist???
HA HA busted! i know the definition apparently you didn't
Please be constructive. Do you seriously not think some races are created more equal than others? Don't tell me you subscribe to the antiquated theory that all men are created equal. Yes, some regulations are necessary to ensure that nobody is ever treated unfairly.
i think each race should get the same treatment. that makes the most sense and is fair for all.
is " all men are created equal " guess it depends what you mean by equal. If it means everyone is a clone: NO, If it means that all should get equal rights then yes.
what regulations do you think are required to so nobody is ever treated unfairly. Most laws are made to protect the innocent, but race doesn't need to be included in any laws, to make anything fair
well said but i wouldn't punch him in the mouth. I would reach in my pocket and give them a dollar. Look at them sincerely and ask them really smugly (like i was talking to a child) and ask them if there is anything i can do for them. LOL
i would have to agree with you, your post makes allot of sense.. unless you are white of course... then you are just a racist. HAHA
[Removed]
[Removed]
one two three.. what are we fighting for?
don't give a damn ... next stop is Iran - ian
Oh yea...you sure "outsmarted us" ...especially in the 2010 election. Who knew your plan all along was to get your asses kicked in historical numbers. Well done smarty pants