How Clarence Thomas Gave Blacks the Finger - Again

Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009
By: Tonyaa Weathersbee, BlackAmericaWeb.com




This week, Clarence Thomas delivered a shocker in the high court’s decision against draining the lifeblood pumping through the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

He actually outdid his arch-conservative overseer, Antonin Scalia, in giving black folks the middle finger.

By an 8 to 1 vote, the high court decided that the time wasn’t quite right to discard a provision of the act that requires most Deep South states and more than 12,000 municipalities to seek permission from the Justice Department before changing polling places or times or reshaping electoral districts or any number of other things that could make it tough for blacks or other minorities to cast votes.

Of course, the court narrowed the act a bit by lifting the pre-clearance provision for the Texas water district that brought the lawsuit and by allowing municipalities that have a clean record to ask for a bailout.

Still, the court’s eight white justices – even Scalia – decided not to gut the act that made it possible for blacks across the South to vote without having to recite the Constitution or to guess how many bubbles were in a bar of soap.

The only black one, Thomas, didn’t.

In a dissent, Thomas wrote that the South had changed enough so that the act was no longer needed. Said that “the violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains.”

C’mon, Clarence. Things haven’t changed that damn much. At least not in the direction that the Old South holdouts who run the show would prefer.

Sure, black voters won’t encounter epithet-spewing Ku Klux Klansmen or racists armed with ridiculous requests as they did during the Jim Crow days. They’ll run up against more subtle stuff.

Stuff like finding that their usual polling place has been moved to a neighborhood that is five miles away – and impossible for them to get to before the polls close. Stuff like cumbersome voter identification laws and other obstacles that can hinder them from exercising their right to vote.

A look at the electoral map shows that the above scenarios aren’t born of paranoia, but of reality.

Right now the Republican party – a party that built its ranks by playing to the fears of Southern whites – has largely been isolated to that region of the country. John McCain, the vanquished GOP presidential contender, carried pre-clearance states such as Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas.

Those states have every reason to fear huge turnouts of black and minority voters – something that could possibly upset the outcome in certain contests and further loosen their grip on power.

And here’s another bit of news bound to strike fear in the hearts of worried Southerners: In Texas, the number-one name for male newborns is Jose - meaning that one day, Latinos will overwhelm whites at the polls. Meaning that one day, black and Latino voters could possibly swing Southern states in directions that many whites don’t want to go.

I doubt that many whites in the South – people who already feel besieged and isolated by President Barack Obama’s victory – will take those changes lightly.

In fact, they’ve already come out swinging.

I mean, there’s the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, reviving talk of secession rather than follow the policies of the nation’s first black president. Then there’s South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who preferred to see his impoverished state suffer even more than accept money from Obama.

There’s Rusty DePass, South Carolina’s former state election director, who made a Facebook comment likening Michelle Obama’s ancestors to an escaped gorilla, and Mike Green, another South Carolina GOP operative, who made on online joke saying Obama planned to tax aspirin because “it’s white, and it works.”

And this is a state that Thomas believes would behave itself if it didn’t have to clear its voting changes with the Justice Department?

Please!

Thomas is right when he says that the South has changed. But what he forgets is that it took laws like the Voting Rights Act to force those changes. Gutting the act would give those pre-clearance states, which are GOP-controlled and fighting ideological extinction, a license to steal.

It’s too bad that Thomas didn’t see all that; that he cares more about the burden placed on states that have a history of discriminating than on the blacks and minorities who will invariably be their victims.

But at least this time, he didn’t vote with Scalia. And in his dissent, Thomas showed that he possesses some empathy.

Just none for his own people.
 
 BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Original Post
Besides that Thomas recently wrote the majority opinion in a case that will make it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in discrimination cases. Essential the law of the land is that it is not enough to show evidence of discriminatory conduct related to a harm to prevail, now the plaintiff must show that discrimination was the only reason for the harm. For example, a Black person is told during an interview that the company has never hired a Black person for an Account Executive position because their customers might not like it. The Interviewee is also told that they have a concern about how the candidate might fit into the corporation's culture since the staff has an affinity for Bluegrass music and they know Black people don't like Bluegrass music. The candidate is not hired. Instead, the company hires a white person with significantly less education, less technical knowledge and less experience, but who is a member of the same all white country club as the CEO of a company that buys a lot of what the corporation produces.

If, last month, the Black candidate had sued, it is likely that he/she would have prevailed. But now, thanks to Thomas [in a 5-4 decision], all the company would have to do is state that the rookie's relationship with the CEO made the rookie a valuable prospect [legitmate reason] and the Black candidate loses, despite all the comments evidencing discriminatory animous, unless he/she can show that this reason is false.

Way to go Thomas.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Besides that Thomas recently wrote the majority opinion in a case that will make it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in discrimination cases. Essential the law of the land is that it is not enough to show evidence of discriminatory conduct related to a harm to prevail, now the plaintiff must show that discrimination was the only reason for the harm. For example, a Black person is told during an interview that the company has never hired a Black person for an Account Executive position because their customers might not like it. The Interviewee is also told that they have a concern about how the candidate might fit into the corporation's culture since the staff has an affinity for Bluegrass music and they know Black people don't like Bluegrass music. The candidate is not hired. Instead, the company hires a white person with significantly less education, less technical knowledge and less experience, but who is a member of the same all white country club as the CEO of a company that buys a lot of what the corporation produces.

If, last month, the Black candidate had sued, it is likely that he/she would have prevailed. But now, thanks to Thomas [in a 5-4 decision], all the company would have to do is state that the rookie's relationship with the CEO made the rookie a valuable prospect [legitmate reason] and the Black candidate loses, despite all the comments evidencing discriminatory animous, unless he/she can show that this reason is false.

Way to go Thomas.


What the problem is? He is BLACK! If you aint supporting a black man....you a self hating ignorant Negro living in a Fantasy world.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

Way to go Thomas.




Kweli is there any history of Justices being forced off the supreme court?

Or do we gotta take his fingernail clippings and $99 to Sista Boudreaux? laugh
quote:
What the problem is? He is BLACK! If you aint supporting a black man....you a self hating ignorant Negro living in a Fantasy world.


Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny........
And as far as Thomas is concerned, you should never, ever expect anything from this unfortunate depressing Negro. But he is loved and revered by Sean Hannity, Carl Rove, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. They love him! Go figure........
Last edited {1}
I swear that Thomas could make Stepin Fetchit roll over in his grave. He makes Larry Elder look like Marcus Garvey. Makes Uncle Ruckus look like John Shaft. dance
He also struck down the right for prisoners to be cleared of charges by DNA testing. 120 of every 200 people cleared of charges by DNA are black. It was letting too many Negroes go.
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
I swear that Thomas could make Stepin Fetchit roll over in his grave. He makes Larry Elder look like Marcus Garvey. Makes Uncle Ruckus look like John Shaft. dance


20 20 20
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

Way to go Thomas.


Kweli is there any history of Justices being forced off the supreme court?

Or do we gotta take his fingernail clippings and $99 to Sista Boudreaux? laugh
I hope she can do something with his saliva. It would be so much easier to scrape up some of his excess slobber dripping off his mouth from all that bootlicking he does. Just bring a cup.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

Way to go Thomas.


Kweli is there any history of Justices being forced off the supreme court?

Or do we gotta take his fingernail clippings and $99 to Sista Boudreaux? laugh
I hope she can do something with his saliva. It would be so much easier to scrape up some of his excess slobber dripping off his mouth from all that bootlicking he does. Just bring a cup.

I heard about a grassroots movement to impeach Scalia a couple of years ago. That would be the only legal way to get rid of Thomas. Unfortunately, there has only been on SCOTUS justice in history to be impeached, and he was acquitted by the Senate. So, I think that hoodoo or voodoo is our best option, although I had recommended in another thread that if Obama appointed Anita Hill to SCOTUS, Clarence might keel over from a heart attack. Cool
If Obama tried to increase the size of the Supreme Court, I wonder if he'd have better luck than FDR did when he tried it back in the 1930s. That's about the only way he'll be able to swing the vote balance the other way. None of these justices, Scalia and Thomas included, has done anything impeachable, at least not through their decisions.
In a dissent, Thomas wrote that the South had changed enough so that the act was no longer needed. Said that “the violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains.”---article

I don't whether the small knot in the bottom of my stomach is anger, shame, or disappointment.

This man has made himself the 'posture child' for the repression of African America...in one sweeping gesture'.

Clarence Thomas is the personification of 'self-hatred'....of every description, but...

He is the shame of African America.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
If Obama tried to increase the size of the Supreme Court, I wonder if he'd have better luck than FDR did when he tried it back in the 1930s. "


That would never happen. No president will ever have the power to do what FDR did. Those days died when he died. Besides, the president has no legal precedence nor authority to increase the size of the Supreme Court.

quote:
That's about the only way he'll be able to swing the vote balance the other way.


Nope. He can't openly be seen as attempting to shift the balance of the court (which he can't do anyway since the Senate has the final say so and he can only so when a justice retires or dies) . Now, we all know Bush just did it, but Obama must appear to be impartial and non-political with his selections for the Court. His choices must appear to be centrists -not too conservative or too liberal. Obama must walk a tight rope of political decision and policy making if his presidency is to survive.

quote:
None of these justices, Scalia and Thomas included, has done anything impeachable, at least not through their decisions.


End of subject...........
quote:
Originally posted by Xeon:
quote:
What the problem is? He is BLACK! If you aint supporting a black man....you a self hating ignorant Negro living in a Fantasy world.


Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny........


It’s more than funny....it’s hilarious in its hypocritical ludicrousness. I thought the theme was “support black people”. I am a self hating Negro because I am not a supporter of Obama. People tell me that I pick the white folks over the black folks……which means I am a self hating Negro….LOL. Of course, it’s ok for these same Negroes bash a black man on the Supreme Court and I know for damn sure that they would rather have a liberal white person in his seat than his black azz….LOL. Yet, a Negro like me is a self hating Negro because I am not supporting the black guy…..LOL. Now these Negroes don’t want to communicate with me any longer…..because I point shi1t like this out and expose their fake black azzes. Here is something even more enigmatic about these Negros. Clarence Thomas is likely a big supporter of Obamas “post racial” agenda and Obama not speaking out on behalf of black causes and socioeconomic racial inequality. He would echo the words of Obama that we need to stop feeding our children fried Chicken for Breakfast, put down the video games, recognize the complicity in our socioeconomic predicament, the chastising of black fathers, denouncing the words of Rev Wright, Throwing Farrakhan under the bus, Not attending the World Conference on Racism, Not attending events that are of special significance to black people, the argument that black anger is unproductive and misguided and that white anger is more understandable, that a question asked concerning the impact of illegal immigration on black unemployment should be seen as “scapegoating”……etc….etc. yet, despite all the things that Obama and Clarence likely agrees with Obama on…….and despite the fact that Obama has stated he will not be addressing our needs of racial equality, because he is post racial, these Negroes have the nerve to condemn Clarence Thomas while exalting Obama……..ROTFLMBAO. Now……the pattern seems to be that you can be a “do nothing for us Negro” if you are in the Democratic Party but you can’t be a “do nothing for us Negro” if you are with the Republican Party ideologically. What kind of crazy sh1t is that? Anybody who dissents to this wisdom is to be ignored and should be banned from this forum…..LOL. These Negros are accepting the COMMON DENOMINATOR of “do nothing for us Negro”. So what is really being supported here is political ideology, by these Negroes, and not black needs. Hence, anyone who up in here supporting BLACK NEEDS and supporting “Do SOMETHING Negroes”…..are self hating Negroes who need to be ignored……LOL. You can’t make this sh1t up. Talk about dysfunctional Negroes……..
NO-ah, if you can't tell the difference in effect of Obama's actions [or inaction] will have on the Black community and Thomas' actions; then yes, we do need to talk about dysfunctional, non-thinking negroes. [Actually, not we ... but I can search our EAP system and refer you to a good psycho-therapist.]
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
I swear that Thomas could make Stepin Fetchit roll over in his grave. He makes Larry Elder look like Marcus Garvey. Makes Uncle Ruckus look like John Shaft. dance


20 20 20

yeah laugh
quote:
Originally posted by Xeon:
quote:
What the problem is? He is BLACK! If you aint supporting a black man....you a self hating ignorant Negro living in a Fantasy world.


Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny........


Actually Noah ... that's not true for everybody ... Smile
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
NO-ah, if you can't tell the difference in effect of Obama's actions [or inaction] will have on the Black community and Thomas' actions; then yes, we do need to talk about dysfunctional, non-thinking negroes. [Actually, not we ... but I can search our EAP system and refer you to a good psycho-therapist.]


Uhn uhn Negro....don't start talking about the impact on the black community now. With Obama, that is not an issue. The issue or goal with Obama is promoting his "SUCCESS" by you Negroes and not the promotion of our needs as a community. When I try to mention the black collective and what he aint doing for us....you Negroes cry foul. Furthermore, Clarence would have never got promoted to his position, by the white REPUBLICANS, if he was not a sell-out azz Negro. Thus, you should be applauding CLarence for his "Pragmatism"...LOL. That is what he needed to be and say to ADVANCE. That is the same damn excuse you use for Obama and what he needs to do to be ADVANCED by white folks. So what da problem iz? Clarence had to sell out to white conservatives and Obama has to sell out to the other white folks. What....would you rather not there be a black man on the supreme court? You a self hating Negro living in a fantasy world bro.....LOL.
Why do I try?

I am reminded of some sage advice I once received: "Never argue with a fool" and "you can't use reason with someone who is unreasonable."
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Why do I try?

I am reminded of some sage advice I once received: "Never argue with a fool" and "you can't use reason with someone who is unreasonable."

The question is NOT why you try; the question is why you stop trying. You try because you think you have a valid argument. You stop trying when it becomes apparent and exposed that you don’t.

Do you have any more rhetorical questions that serve as an exit strategy for not being able to put forth a tenable argument? Why do you try……LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

Way to go Thomas.


Kweli is there any history of Justices being forced off the supreme court?

Or do we gotta take his fingernail clippings and $99 to Sista Boudreaux? laugh
I hope she can do something with his saliva. It would be so much easier to scrape up some of his excess slobber dripping off his mouth from all that bootlicking he does. Just bring a cup.


No need to go to Sista Boudreaux, I'll do it for free... And yes, Saliva, or anything of his person will do just fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Why do I try?

I am reminded of some sage advice I once received: "Never argue with a fool" and "you can't use reason with someone who is unreasonable."

The question is NOT why you try; the question is why you stop trying. You try because you think you have a valid argument. You stop trying when it becomes apparent and exposed that you don’t.

Do you have any more rhetorical questions that serve as an exit strategy for not being able to put forth a tenable argument? Why do you try……LOL


ek ek .................................... 20

It's pretty hysterical that you place such high value to your own opinion! lol

You think folks are tired of talking to you because your arguments have merit ... when actually, it's because we believe we'd get a better intellectual experience from talking to a billboard .. or a piece of fruit ... or that little Chihuahua you've been posting lately! Eek Big Grin
quote:
In a dissent, Thomas wrote that the South had changed enough so that the act was no longer needed. Said that “the violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains.”

OMG!!! 20

Delusional...
quote:
Main Entry: de·lu·sion
Pronunciation: \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
Date: 15th century

1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded

2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs


For more information, also see...
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Why do I try?

I am reminded of some sage advice I once received: "Never argue with a fool" and "you can't use reason with someone who is unreasonable."

The question is NOT why you try; the question is why you stop trying. You try because you think you have a valid argument. You stop trying when it becomes apparent and exposed that you don’t.

Do you have any more rhetorical questions that serve as an exit strategy for not being able to put forth a tenable argument? Why do you try……LOL


ek ek .................................... 20

It's pretty hysterical that you place such high value to your own opinion! lol

You think folks are tired of talking to you because your arguments have merit ... when actually, it's because we believe we'd get a better intellectual experience from talking to a billboard .. or a piece of fruit ... or that little Chihuahua you've been posting lately! Eek Big Grin


And you feel as strongly as you do because...uhhhh...you don't place a HIGH value in your opinion? lol The fact that you don't place a strong value on your own opinion makes a lot of sense to me. I don't place much value in it either as it is simply biased hypocrisy in degree and or kind.

You dang skippy that I place a strong value in my opinion. Yes...a fruit cake will find equal intellectual stimulation with a fruit. Makes sense to me
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Why do I try?

I am reminded of some sage advice I once received: "Never argue with a fool" and "you can't use reason with someone who is unreasonable."

The question is NOT why you try; the question is why you stop trying. You try because you think you have a valid argument. You stop trying when it becomes apparent and exposed that you don’t.

Do you have any more rhetorical questions that serve as an exit strategy for not being able to put forth a tenable argument? Why do you try……LOL


ek ek .................................... 20

It's pretty hysterical that you place such high value to your own opinion! lol

You think folks are tired of talking to you because your arguments have merit ... when actually, it's because we believe we'd get a better intellectual experience from talking to a billboard .. or a piece of fruit ... or that little Chihuahua you've been posting lately! Eek Big Grin


And you feel as strongly as you do because...uhhhh...you don't place a HIGH value in your opinion? lol The fact that you don't place a strong value on your own opinion makes a lot of sense to me. I don't place much value in it either as it is simply biased hypocrisy in degree and or kind.

You dang skippy that I place a strong value in my opinion. Yes...a fruit cake will find equal intellectual stimulation with a fruit. Makes sense to me


Well that's GREAT, Noah!! tfro

Now, imagine how impressive it would be if you actually knew what you were talking about even most of the time!! ek
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Why do I try?

I am reminded of some sage advice I once received: "Never argue with a fool" and "you can't use reason with someone who is unreasonable."

The question is NOT why you try; the question is why you stop trying. You try because you think you have a valid argument. You stop trying when it becomes apparent and exposed that you don’t.

Do you have any more rhetorical questions that serve as an exit strategy for not being able to put forth a tenable argument? Why do you try……LOL


ek ek .................................... 20

It's pretty hysterical that you place such high value to your own opinion! lol

You think folks are tired of talking to you because your arguments have merit ... when actually, it's because we believe we'd get a better intellectual experience from talking to a billboard .. or a piece of fruit ... or that little Chihuahua you've been posting lately! Eek Big Grin


And you feel as strongly as you do because...uhhhh...you don't place a HIGH value in your opinion? lol The fact that you don't place a strong value on your own opinion makes a lot of sense to me. I don't place much value in it either as it is simply biased hypocrisy in degree and or kind.

You dang skippy that I place a strong value in my opinion. Yes...a fruit cake will find equal intellectual stimulation with a fruit. Makes sense to me


Well that's GREAT, Noah!! tfro

Now, imagine how impressive it would be if you actually knew what you were talking about even most of the time!! ek


There is no need for me to imagine....so stop projecting. I actually DO know what I am talking about....but if you don't know what the right answer is......you are not qualified to dissent that I am not presenting it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
NO-ah, if you can't tell the difference in effect of Obama's actions [or inaction] will have on the Black community and Thomas' actions; then yes, we do need to talk about dysfunctional, non-thinking negroes. [Actually, not we ... but I can search our EAP system and refer you to a good psycho-therapist.]


Man what the f-k has happened since I have been gone? Noah has seemed to lose his focus....if he can compare a guy who organized black communities to a guy that supports initiatives that reduce black college enrollment and professional inclusion....then there is something wrong.....
I'm convinced that NO-ah's invectives are merely attention getting contrarian stunts. How else can one explain how someone can be so reason and thoughtful on the subject of economics [though, I frequently disagree with his conclusions] coming completely unglued at the mere mention of the name O-B-A-M-A? It's akin to your typical FauxNews talking head's reaction. 19
In all actuality though....I think Obama will do good by black folks by default.....as a result of hispolicies long-term..he's trying to appear race-neutral in order to not be a polarizing figure in the process....
Kweli, I respect your posts as I do NTA's however I think that your obvious personal affinity for Obama is clouding your ability to see that the net result of the philosophies Obama has as it relates to the Black community are quite conservative. His stances if implemented through public policy would yield the same effect as those of CT... for example Obama does not support targeted and specific policies to address issues that effect Blacks opting instead to talk about "lifting all boats in the rising tide" This is something that comes right out of the conservative handbook the net result being maintaining the status quo...which is whites still controlling 99% of this country's wealth... a "rising tide" won't make a dime worth of difference if whites are on a yacht and Blacks are in a dingy.

Another thing that both Thomas and Obama would agree upon would be the issue of reparations...Obama has made it abundantly clear that he is not in favor of reparations opting once again to take a populist "rising tide" approach to help the black folk. Even though his Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree (someone who no doubt would have helped influence Obama) supports reparations and gives a good rationale as to why. The fact that Obama takes the positions that he does on certain issues is quite curious...It can't be because he's opposed to targeting the needs of other special interest groups such as Hispanic's and even Unions for example. Some say that the reason Obama is so reluctant to come out in favor of anything that will specifically help Blacks is because he doesn't want to appear biased to Blacks in the eyes of whites...O.k. that might be part of it however there may be something else that Blacks have not even taken the time to consider and that is maybe...just maybe Obama in his heart of hearts is quite bitter at the Black community. After all in spite of all this Obamamania that has griped the Black community since late in his campaign MOST blacks didn't support Obama until a good time AFTER he won Iowa...then all of a sudden Blacks started jumping on the Obama bandwagon...as a man how does that make him feel? Probably something like that Mike Jones song "Back then you didn't want me now I'm hot you're all on me".

As any man who at one point had little resources but who was later blessed to gain much more knows...If you see a woman who rejected you at one point but now she's all over you because of your success you cannot help but feel a bit of resentment towards her....some guys may chose to just bed her and dump her right away afterward without any pretense... CT could be this type as it relates to his dealings with the Black community ...while some may chose to string her along making her think that she will at some point partake in his success only to find out later that she had been taken for a ride...Obama could be this type...just a thought.
LD, I beg to differ.

While I, unapolegetically, support Obama as president and agree that his "rising boats" strategy is quite conservative and is not a tactic that exclusively targets the Black community, the fact remains that BECAUSE Black folks are disproportionately impoverished, any strategy focused on addressing poverty, e.g., urban-focused job training, tax reduction for the working and middleclasses, and the creation/expansion of urban enterprise zone, will positively impact the Black community. Yes, it'll positively affect other impoverished communities too, be so what?

But I fear you misunderstand my political support of Obama. My primary reason for supporting Obama politically is almost completely unrelated to what he can/will do for the Black community. It is borne in what he will NOT do to the working and middleclasses, i.e., the Black community, relative to the political alternatives.

This is my point of difference between Obama and Thomas. Obama's policies, largely, support the public good and expands opportunities for the working and middleclasses, i.e., the Black community; whereas, Thomas' rulings support the private/corporate interests and translate into a reduction of personal freedoms, and therefore opportunity.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
LD, I beg to differ.

While I, unapolegetically, support Obama as president and agree that his "rising boats" strategy is quite conservative and is not a tactic that exclusively targets the Black community, the fact remains that BECAUSE Black folks are disproportionately impoverished, any strategy focused on addressing poverty, e.g., urban-focused job training, tax reduction for the working and middleclasses, and the creation/expansion of urban enterprise zone, will positively impact the Black community. Yes, it'll positively affect other impoverished communities too, be so what?

But I fear you misunderstand my political support of Obama. My primary reason for supporting Obama politically is almost completely unrelated to what he can/will do for the Black community. It is borne in what he will NOT do to the working and middleclasses, i.e., the Black community, relative to the political alternatives.

This is my point of difference between Obama and Thomas. Obama's policies, largely, support the public good and expands opportunities for the working and middleclasses, i.e., the Black community; whereas, Thomas' rulings support the private/corporate interests and translate into a reduction of personal freedoms, and therefore opportunity.


Kweli, it seems that you are juxtaposing Obama against Republicans and McCain, but that was not the original choice. The original choice was for the Democratic Nomination. Can you make the argument you are making in the context of the Democratic Primaries?

In regards to LD's point....it is on point. OBama's policies tilts conservative, in regards to race. Conservatives make the same argument that figthing poverty through JOBS will help black poverty and unemployment.
quote:
Kweli, it seems that you are juxtaposing Obama against Republicans and McCain, but that was not the original choice. The original choice was for the Democratic Nomination. Can you make the argument you are making in the context of the Democratic Primaries?


First, I think if you do a Archive Search you will find that I orginially supported Dennis Kucinch. In fact, I was the first person [on this site] to come down on his side.

Which leads to a second, and more imporetant point, I see the world as it is, not as I wish it might have maybe been if only ...

My support for Obama began after my considered judgment that a vote for Kucinch [in the general election] translated into a vote for McCain.

quote:
Conservatives make the same argument that figthing poverty through JOBS


And that conservative strategy works ... providing JOBS will help black poverty and unemployment. However, this distinguishes Obama's action from conservative practices ... conservative strategies never produce living wage jobs; whereas, Obama's strategy is designed to do just that.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Kweli, it seems that you are juxtaposing Obama against Republicans and McCain, but that was not the original choice. The original choice was for the Democratic Nomination. Can you make the argument you are making in the context of the Democratic Primaries?


First, I think if you do a Archive Search you will find that I orginially supported Dennis Kucinch. In fact, I was the first person [on this site] to come down on his side.

Which leads to a second, and more imporetant point, I see the world as it is, not as I wish it might have maybe been if only ...

My support for Obama began after my considered judgment that a vote for Kucinch [in the general election] translated into a vote for McCain.

quote:
Conservatives make the same argument that figthing poverty through JOBS


And that conservative strategy works ... providing JOBS will help black poverty and unemployment. However, this distinguishes Obama's action from conservative practices ... conservative strategies never produce living wage jobs; whereas, Obama's strategy is designed to do just that.


The question is not HOW YOU SEE IT, but rather, HOW WILL YOU TRY TO SHAPE OR RESHAPE IT. What you are saying is that to a large degree....you ACCEPT the world as it is, as apposed to taking a stand to try to shape it in the way you want it to be. That is fine, but the way the world is is problematic.
quote:
And that conservative strategy works ... providing JOBS will help black poverty and unemployment. However, this distinguishes Obama's action from conservative practices ... conservative strategies never produce living wage jobs; whereas, Obama's strategy is designed to do just that.


But do Democratic/Obama strategies create the type of environment where companies can maximize their profit in the USA? In a global economy where capital is free flowing, the more friction you place on American companies the more the path of least resistance to profit is a foreign country. If Democrats make the pie shrink as a consquence of promoting a living wage, then a larger percentage of diminishing returns does not represent a NET GAIN, necessarily.
quote:
The question is not HOW YOU SEE IT, but rather, HOW WILL YOU TRY TO SHAPE OR RESHAPE IT. What you are saying is that to a large degree....you ACCEPT the world as it is, as apposed to taking a stand to try to shape it in the way you want it to be. That is fine, but the way the world is is problematic.


NO-ah ... Again you wish to engage in fantasy discussions. My point was that the final choice, i.e., the general election, came down to Obama/McCain [which BTW was a response to your completely off topic attempt to make this a partisan discussion ... Yeah, I recognize the dance]. I choose to participate and select amongst the real-world options that are calculated to first benefit me and mine the most and absent a real-world positive option, I select the option that is likely to cause me and mine the least harm.

And please don't lecture me on shaping or reshaping the world relative to supporting a political candidate until you opt to engage in the franchise. Your armchair theorizing about the relative value of conservative/less conservative strategies amounts to peanut gallery sniping; but in actuality is abdicating any say in the shaping of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
The question is not HOW YOU SEE IT, but rather, HOW WILL YOU TRY TO SHAPE OR RESHAPE IT. What you are saying is that to a large degree....you ACCEPT the world as it is, as apposed to taking a stand to try to shape it in the way you want it to be. That is fine, but the way the world is is problematic.


NO-ah ... Again you wish to engage in fantasy discussions. My point was that the final choice, i.e., the general election, came down to Obama/McCain [which BTW was a response to your completely off topic attempt to make this a partisan discussion ... Yeah, I recognize the dance]. I choose to participate and select amongst the real-world options that are calculated to first benefit me and mine the most and absent a real-world positive option, I select the option that is likely to cause me and mine the least harm.

And please don't lecture me on shaping or reshaping the world relative to supporting a political candidate until you opt to engage in the franchise. Your armchair theorizing about the relative value of conservative/less conservative strategies amounts to peanut gallery sniping; but in actuality is abdicating any say in the shaping of the world.


Yes....I understand that you were talking about the FINAL Choice. I don't understand the fantasy concerning the fact that the final choice was determined by previous choices. Its simply not true that Obama and McCain were the only options all along.

I just don't get it. Say you own a store in the community and there are other competing stores. What will happen if all of a sudden a large percentage of your customers started going to shop at another store? As a good business man seeking to maintain profit margins, you will likely visit or have someone visit the store to see what it is that the other store is doing that you are not. If you find out that the store is stocking some goods that your store is not and that is what is driving your former customers to the other store, then what would you do? The answer is that if you want those customers back that you will have to start stocking the specialty items they are looking for too....if you want to stay in business. That is the REAL world and not some fantasy. Actions trigger reactions. The fantasy is the expectation that performing the same action will manifest a different reaction.
quote:
Its simply not true that Obama and McCain were the only options all along.


That is YOUR strawman. No one has EVER suggested otherwise. And how is that remotely related to an Obama/Thomas comparison?

quote:
Say you own a store in the community and there are other competing stores.


Ahhh, back the the boycott nonsense. I'm not gonna go through that again ... I'll just reference you to HERE and you can continue to entertain yourself.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×