Maybe it IS about race . . .

[Empowerer]

I've noticed that the loudest and most fervent opposition to President Obama's tax cut deal seem to be white progressives. While there has been some, I've seen very little loud expressions of frustration from black folk.

And this, I think, is why. Black folks are used to being disappointed in the political arena. We're used to having our desires compromised and being told to be content with half (or more often, a fourth) of a loaf. And we're accustomed to being expected to hold our fire and not attack Democratic leadership because they're our best hope.

SInce President Obama's election, our expectations have continued to be tempered and we're consistently told not to demand that he go out of his way for black folks since that might alienate independent white voters. So even though the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites, God forbid the President take any action targeted to black workers. Although our urban community infrastructure desperately needs revitalization, we can't talk about it in those terms and must always talk about roads and bridges whenever we mention parks and community centers. And while the President met early and often with industry leaders, he was in office for more than a year before he met with the leaders of the nation's top civil rights organizations. When some of us suggested the need for a "Black Agenda," we were shushed down before we could get both words out, even though few people seem as uncomfortable about the Administration's "Women's Agenda." But none of this caused black folk to scream or yell or call him a sellout or threaten to find a primary opponent. We just kept plugging along, offering our support, defending him against the vicious attacks he's been forced to endure, and turned out to vote in the mid-term in impressive numbers and trying to make the most out of the current political structure and opportunities.

So it's interesting to me to see some white progressives this angry - so angry they're lashing out, threatening, name-calling, attacking and generally having a full-blown temper tantrum because the President didn't do what they think he should have done and give them what they believe they deserve in this instance.

There is clearly a considerable difference in the degree of entitlement between these two groups. Black voters, based on a long history, don't have a strong sense of entitlement in the political arena. On the other hand, many white voters, probably based also on a long history, seem to have an extremely strong and ingrained sense of entitlement and feel perfectly deserving of smacking down any politician who does not give them exactly what they want when they want it.

A fascinating phenomenon.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Well, except for the entire black Caucaus...

who it was announced tonight that they hate and oppose the deal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. What Do They Think Will Happen If The Deal Fails?

African American unemployment is literally twice that of white unemployment and three times higher than unemployment of whites with a college education.

[Laelth]

7. Good question. You should ask them. I suspect they have a good reason. n/t

-Laelth

[Ozymanithrax]

15. It appears that they feel the deal is a disaster even with the unemployment.

and their own constituents, as needy as they are, may be telling them that they can not stand for it.

[sudopod]

24. I don't know.

But it kind of proves the OP is full of it, right?

[Empowerer]

31. Just the opposite - it proves my point perfectly

Unlike some of the left, CBC members have expressed their objection calmly without attacking, name-calling or complaining. Instead, they put out a very measured statement detailing what they like about the deal, what they don't like about it and promising to offer an alternative.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The CBC members aren't beating their chests, calling the President a sellout, threatening to desert him, demanding a primary challenge or engaging in other histrionics.

I didn't say that black folks never disagree with the President. I said they don't react the same way that some white voters do. The CBC statement helps to prove my point.

[jaysunb]

108. +1

Well put and a great post! :hi:

[chimpymustgo]

115. This black woman is bitterly disappointed in Obama, and can hardly stand to watch his lying *ss on

tv anymore.

Has NOTHING to do with race - and everything to do with his being a lying, condescending, corporate sell-out RepubliCON.

[Nedsdag]

117. I guess you'll be voting for Al Sharpton in 2012, right?

[chimpymustgo]

126. Maybe. But RACE won't be the deciding factor, as it clearly is with you. I want a LIBERAL.

Not a Reagan-loving corporatist.

[gateley]

5. Oh yeah, them. :-) nt

[Forkboy]

8. Yeah, but other than them?

Those blacks don't count.

[tickledropstop]

11. LOL

[Supersedeas]

50. how pure and santimonious of you

[Forkboy]

148. Thanks!

[Empowerer]

14. Hence "while there have been some" . . .

[blazerunner]

22. Is it considered bad form to find this first response funny?

Because it is, and I'm new.

[Stuckinthebush]

89. No. It is very funny

You are quite correct in calling it so.

Welcome.

[blazerunner]

91. hey, thanks!

[Empowerer]

23. That's not quite what they said . . .

CBC Chair Barbara Lee's statement:

“During the meeting, I informed Vice President Biden that the overwhelming majority of Congressional Black Caucus members are opposed to the current tax plan. We will have a specific proposal we would like to discuss with the administration. Congressman Bobby Scott and our taskforce are putting this together.

“We are opposed to the estate tax provision and extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus support extending unemployment benefits and provisions to create jobs, and we want to support something responsible.

“We understand there are tough choices that will need to be made next year and are extremely concerned that the cuts that could be made should this package pass will disproportionately hurt the poor and low-income communities, and may further erode the safety net.”

This is a very calm, measured statement expressing opposition to some parts of the deal and support for others. This is hardly an announcement that "they hate and oppose the deal."

[QC]

34. They are obviously racists,

like anyone else who disagrees with or criticizes the president.

[Supersedeas]

114. Dogwhistles floated delicately....just suggested you know...to mute criticism

For some, the mere suggestion is enough.

[golfguru]

66. If the deal fails, the LOWEST tax bracket jumps from 10% to 15%

which is 50% jump in tax rates. The highest tax bracket jumps from 35% to 39.5%
which less than 13% jump.

[frylock]

118. fucking racists

[CakeGrrl]

2. Well said. And fascinating indeed. k/r

[polichick]

3. Pissed off blacks aren't hesitating to call into lefty radio shows...

Although, they'll often say that they were very proud to see the first black president and held out as long as possible.

[Supersedeas]

57. Elijah Cummings was pretty loud and pretty defiant about the President

disrespecting the people who supported him, but forcing the Compromise onto Congress without consultation with the House Caucus.

This is a two way street...period.

Amazing what you hear when you remove the myopic blinder of race.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Thanks for a thought provoking post

White people of all political persuasions absolutely have a sense of entitlement. As a frequent critic of Pres. Obama I do try to keep that in mind and and put it in perspective when I'm criticizing. His press conference really pissed me off. Does race and my ingrained privilege enter into it? I hope not but it just might have an impact on my visceral reaction. In defense of us white progressives, it wasn't the first time progressives in general were dissed by this admin.

Seriously though, thanks for the food for thought.

[Bluerthanblue]

17. I'm impressed by your honesty-

and the fact that you took the time to respond in such a thoughtful way even if you don't agree.

good on you.

:hi:

[Empowerer]

45. Thanks

Your honesty is very moving.

[political_Dem]

9. K and R. This deserves to be discussed and researched.

[tickledropstop]

10. I'm Black and totally PISSED OFF about this Giveaway! I hope it dies in the House.

Here is hoping the REAL democrats in the House will move forward and kill the passage of this garbage.

[Supersedeas]

30. the Black Caucus and the leadership James Clyburn should cause on to reconsider the OP

but substantive engagement is not really the objective

name calling is an easier, quicker, and sometimes more effective means of silencing opposition

right? Oppps, did I say leadership in the face of a hostage crisis?

[Empowerer]

33. You and some others here seem to have completely misread or misunderstood my OP

Otherwise, you would not assume that the CBC's objection to the deal contradicts my point. In fact, their opposition and the manner in which they expressed it PROVE my point.

[Supersedeas]

37. You mean the CBC's objections are not about entitlement, but white objections ARE?

Which somehow satisfies your position that objections by white progressives are racist in nature.

<<So it's interesting to me to see some white progressives this angry - so angry they're lashing out, threatening, name-calling, attacking and generally having a full-blown temper tantrum because the President didn't do what they think he should have done and give them what they believe they deserve in this instance.>>

Following your 'logic', when the President lashed out at 'purist' and the 'sanctimonious,' he was lashing out at white folks with objections? If so, then maybe your 'racist' argument has some merit.

[Empowerer]

41. Sigh

Why don't you read my OP again, think about it and then come back for a rational discussion if you're still interested.

[Supersedeas]

46. Come back with a rational discussion -- is agreeing with you irrational??

You drop the racist card, and when that argument is confronted on its merits, your follow-up response is to sigh and call me irrational. Rich. Let's review:

What part of the above discussion was less than rational?

You seem to be suggesting that this argument over policy has racist implications.

I point out that both blacks and whites have objections to the President's policy.

You then suggest that the President isn't addressing black folks when he attacks his critics as being 'pure and sanctimonious.'

I agree with you that IF the President isn't dressing down all critics for being "pure and sanctimonious' that indeed maybe YOU are right, there might be some racist code language imbedded in the President's labeling of his 'loudest critics.'

Is agreeing with you now irrational?

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[jaxx]

12. Well said.

[firedupdem]

13. K&R

I agree with everything you've so eloquently stated. Race is a big part of this mess. If the president and his lovely family decide to head back to Hyde Park in 2012, I wouldn't blame him one bit. And if folks think they will get another Democrat in office, they are sorely mistaken. This country is ridiculous. It's amazing to me that the same people who give every other Democratic president a pass based on who they had to work with in the House or Senate, slam this president for everything. Even before the inauguration, the loud mouths were complaining. My people won't forget come the next election. You better believe that old reliable voting block will remember how people acted.

[butterfly77]

74. +1

[ProudDad]

16. I came very close to hitting my 1st alert on this bullshit OP...

"I've noticed that the loudest and most fervent opposition to President Obama's tax cut deal seem to be white progressives."

Those of us who put our lives and Liberty on the line for Civil Rights back in the day are offended by this bullshit...

"While there has been some, I've seen very little loud expressions of frustration from black folk."

You haven't been paying attention...

Your OP is beneath contempt but I'll defend to the death your right to post it... :puke:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[niceypoo]

25. Agreed

Race baiting

[jillan]

38. +1000000

[displacedvermoter]

49. I did so yesterday on a similar post and nothing happened.

One point expressed there was that anyone saying that Obama might be "in over his head", as expressed by many people both before and since his election, was a racist. Now, I pointed out that Shrub was regularly -- and correctly -- said to be over his head, but somehow that wasn't racist.

Folks are pulling out all the stops to deflect criticism of what is potentially a failed presidency, and they are using the race card as one last play. And it is disquieting, hurtful, and uses the tactics of our opponents in a disgraceful manner.

[wndycty]

18. K&R

:kick:

[Whisp]

20. thoughtful post. makes a lot of sense. thanks.

[Kaleva]

21. K&R

[lamp_shade]

26. Fascinating indeed. Big K&R.

[jpgray]

27. Good post. I think the unrecs are going off on the "tantrum" bit

Because your main point, that whites feel more entitled in politics, is absolutely correct. Christians feel more entitled as well, by a similar process. Both groups are pandered to slavishly, and often expect to be treated better than others in this country. Shirley Sherrod is one tragic example of this.

I know there are black voices out there critical of the president, since I've read and heard them. The difference comes in like you say in part, but also I think because no one enjoys talking shit about family in public. Obama is a Democrat, and in a company of undecided or GOP voters, I'm going to give the guy his deserved praise and defense--there's no lack of it. In the company of my D family, though, I feel more free to share the gripes--with any president, there's no lack of those either.

So in that sense, it may be that white progressives talk more shit here not necessarily because they're racist, but because they've never suffered racism.

Does that make any sense?

[JVS]

39. I don't think that people feeling entitled in the political arena is a bad thing.

A precondition of Democracy is that the public feels entitled to judge the leaders.

[Empowerer]

42. I didn't say it was good or bad

I just described the scenario as I see it. My description included no value judgments, so please don't try to read any into it.

[boppers]

28. "Shuck and Jive", and "Zip Coon", and "Uncle Tom" are still around.

There are different code words now, but it's the same thing: an "unreliable" person blessed with pigment, but is more concerned with image than substance, and thus is willing to do things that unsettle the militants.

If you're bored, here are some of the race whistles to look for:
"Empty suit"
"Traitor"
"Negotiator"
"Compromise"
"Bi-partisan"
"Teleprompter"
"Corporatist"


The underlying sentiment behind a lot of angry posts traces directly back to three racist archetypes:
1. "Shuck and jive", somebody who talks, but does little.
2. "Zip Coon", somebody who looks good, but does little.
3. "Uncle Tom", somebody who does little for themselves, but empowers powerful racists.

[Supersedeas]

29. wow....militant support for tax cuts for the super rich runs deep

so deep that these euphemisms will substitute for a civil discussions of a policy disagreement.

Divide and conquer, ftw.

[boppers]

105. Racism runs deeper than most will admit.

Part of what derails the dialog is a refusal (on far too many parts) to admit it.

[Supersedeas]

110. you mean not calling passionate diagreement about a policy decision between two parties racism?

when the two parties happen to have a difference in skin pigment.

Yeah, racism runs deep in that case....we need waders to compensate for the deepness.

What do we call it when Elijah Cummings says that the President personally disrespected him?
Surely, there is some 'militant' word necessary to satisfy those with the racist knee-jerk reaction.

[kjackson227]

60. Yep, and I can decipher them in a New York minute...

[anAustralianobserver]

90. That's really interesting. I can see how those 3 types form a perceptual filter that Obama

has been dealing with in novel ways.

One thing I asked myself the other day is, are Cornell West and Michael Dyson ever invited on the MSNBC shows? I always like seeing them on the Bill Maher show.

[TheKentuckian]

107. Dumb as fuck post. Corporatist is dogwhistle? Who are you kidding?

99% of people ever referred to as such have been white.

Bi-partisan? Compromise? Really???

Only a black person can be a traitor? No whites have ever been called such? That's a term often heard in reference to blacks?

What on God's green Earth are you talking about. This is the more stretching than a month's worth of yoga classes.

[frylock]

119. bush+empty+suit..

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+empty+suit&aq=f&oq=

[AndrewP]

32. Is it possible that the answer to the OP title is yes and no?

Sometimes it is possible to disagree with the administration without being a racist.

But there is an absolute undercurrent of racism to the mainstream criticism to the President. That unfortunately has been the case since Day 1.

Is it possible that there are some Liberals who also are doing this as well? Perhaps. We all have a way that we view the world, and it would be impossible to say that it's not possible.

I'm one of those scary brown people that will be frisked at the airport for the fact I look like someone that will blow up your plane, even though I don't have as much as a traffic ticket on my record. That most definetely skewers the way I look at things.

I'm not excusing anything. It just is good to have an open discussion about it. I think the OP is worthwhile and interesting.

[JVS]

35. Strange how the worse Obama performs, the more people suggest it's about race.

[Supersedeas]

40. when the objective is silencing opposition--consider the strategy and who the criticism is

directed at --- the sanctimonious and pure.

[jillan]

36. Then how do you explain John Conyers publicly dissing this compromise? Is he a racist too?

I am so fucking fed up with people playing the race card every time someone disagrees with Obama.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Empowerer]

44. Oh, good Lord

First of all, I said nothing about anyone being racist, so don't throw that red herring into the discussion - every observation about race is not an accusation of racism, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you.

Second, if you read my post, you will see that I did not say that blacks don't object to anything the President is doing nor did I say that we don't ever criticize him. I was discussing the type, nature, tone and tenor of the criticism.

John Conyers' criticism of the compromise was completely consistent with my point. This is what he said:

"This is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and the nation. I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many if not most Democrats, progressives, and some Republicans who are concerned with the country's financial budget."

This, like other criticisms by CBC members was very measured, targeted and calm. He didn't attack the President, call him a sellout, threaten to primary him, etc. as some progressives have done. He directed his very pointed comments across the aisle at the Republicans, but even then, he didn't go off. He just stated the facts.

So your bizarre accusation about "playing the race" card is off-base and, frankly, ridiculous. Every discussion about race is not the invocation of the race card. It is knee-jerk reactions like yours to thoughtful conversation about race that make it difficult for reasonable people to find common ground. Fortunately, attitudes like yours, I believe, are in the minority - the rest of us will continue talking honestly and respectfully about an issue that we care about very deeply, notwithstanding the efforts of a few to turn this into a racial spitting match.

[Kweli4Real]

51. This is more of the ...

B.S. we saw with the "professional left" flap. He didn't say what many here said he said (at least, he wasn't talking about them), nor have you said what they are saying that you said.

I wish folks would take the denial filled rage glasses off before they read (or comment on what their rage told them they read).

[Hell-A Liberal]

56. Truly an excellent response.

I think no matter your political beliefs, it is difficult for many people to discuss serious issues without personalizing them (myself included).

However, what makes all of us progressives is the shared desire to combat those primal instincts - we are not Tea Partiers and, therefore, should be able to manage a rational conversation about this.

To be clear: Talking about race and its relevance/impact is NOT THE SAME as "playing the race" card.

In no way and at no time have you called anyone here or in government a racist in this thread.

You simply stated your observations and opinion of how progressives may differ in tone based on background, experience, etc...

You also did not make a value judgment in ANY way about who is right/wrong, good/bad, etc...as many of us agree, the some criticisms of the administration are valid.

As progressives, a frank discussion about race has to be par for course. We're all about the onward and upward of things, right?

[Number23]

86. What in the world would you expect from Knee Jerk Underground?

It is knee-jerk reactions like yours to thoughtful conversation about race that make it difficult for reasonable people to find common ground.

[Kweli4Real]

47. Great post ...

that will be lost on most because of a flexive denial rather than any measure of self-reflection.

If I read you correctly, you were drawing a distinction between how African-Americans respond versus White progressives, both of which are informed by our political experiences. With the primary difference being that African-Americans may disagree with the policy, but don't attack the Man (or the Office); whereas, our White progressive brethen are quite comfort attacking the Man because they disagree with the policy.

I would offer my sincere take on why this is the case, but I'm certain it would get me Tombstoned; so I'll just agree that this whole mess can be summed up as a measurement of entitlement.

Great OP

[Empowerer]

48. Thanks - you summed up my point perfectly

As you noted, unfortunately, some folks see "race" "black" and "white" and immediately and their immediate visceral reaction is to shout "you're playing the race card" rather than actually read and, God forbid, consider the point being made.

Thanks much.

[Supersedeas]

52. "whereas, our White progressive brethen are..." - let's hear your sincere take why?

maybe, I'm a flexive denier too.

[Rebubula]

53. THIS JUST IN!!!

Black folk and white folk sometimes see things differently - especially when dealing with issues of race.


I unrec'd because I have seen this happen (name calling, anger etc) to every President since Nixon (no memory prior to that) from all sides. Hell..Clinton was accused of rape and murder....


As for black folk reacting differently - rarely do oppressed peoples like to air their dirty laundry about their own in the presence of the oppressors (using inflammatory language on purpose) - why not ask some black people instead of posting assumptions?

[Empowerer]

54. Why do you assume that I said Pres. Obama was being treated differently than his predecessors?

I said nothing of the kind. In fact, my point had very little to do with Obama - it was about, as you noted, that blacks and whites seem to be responding differently to this issue and that is probably due to different political experiences.

And speaking of assumptions, considering I AM black and I talk to numerous black folk about this all the time, I don't need to go "ask some black people" about this before posting my observation.

[Supersedeas]

55. Or is "about race" too narrow a description of the nature of the disagreement?

Who is being unreflective here....really?

Here's another consideration:

Is it proper to say of our white progressive brother who conscientiously limits the object of his criticism to the policy itself (albeit in very passional progessive terms):

"Well said, brother, how black of you?"

How does one describe the CBC's criticism of the policy? Or James Clyborn's criticism?

Is 'black' the right word? If progessive opposition is to the policy is really what gives birth to the policy disagreement, however passionately it is professed, and by whomever, whether a CBC member or not, in what sense does tacking on the racial moniker make sense when the substance of the disagreement is about what it means to be 'progressive'....or more precisely, whether this policy decision is a progressive solution or just more Right Wing sausage.

Isn't forwarding 'race' just a means to deflect criticism on non-substantive grounds?

Wouldn't it just be realistic to say some attacks on the 'man' are unjustified and criticism of the policy are defective for reason x, y, or z, instead of casting the overbroad foolish notion that white progessives disagree the way that they do because they are white?

Food for thought if you're into thinking.

[ieoeja]

58. As a citizen of the United States ... I *am* entitled to have a responsible government.

And a responsible government does not tell investors, "we extended lower taxes for two years, so keep pulling out profits, rather than reinvesting, while taxes are still lower."

[Supersedeas]

59. and argument using 'entitlement' laden language is likely then to come with a label

"about race"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Many Folks Here Hated Bill Clinton

I thought he was an effective president.

However, I was watching the Ed Show with my friend who is like a father to me. He happens to be black. I was embarrassed to see his obvious discomfort as Ed was verbally reaming President Obama.

[Fearless]

62. So your entire premise is that it "seems" to be all white people...

Get back to us with actual statistical data then we'll talk. Otherwise this is just race-baiting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I Think The Point He Is Trying To Make Is That African American Folks Are Sensitive To Criticism

I think the point he is trying to make is that black foklks are sensitive to criticism of the president. Of course I don't think the criticism from the left is race based but it must sting nonethless...

[Fearless]

65. If that's the case it's just a fact of life.

If the OP is sensitive to the criticism it is because the OP knows it to be true.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Truth Like Beauty Lies In The Eye Of The Beholder

What they see is a black man being trashed.

[Fearless]

69. Is it wrong to disagree with someone simply based on the color of their skin?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. I Am Not Countenancing Or Condemning A Behavior. I'm Explaining It

You can see it among some African American DU members here.

[Fearless]

71. I agree insofar as in some DU members here, skin color aside.

I have no means of determining that nor do I want any.

[Supersedeas]

72. the exceptions made for those in the CBC make clear that it is the skin color of the critic

not the criticized that makes this "about race"

[Fearless]

76. I see this article as a very poor observational report

generated by people who want this to be about race. With no statistical evidence to back it up. They see only white people who are frustrated.

[Supersedeas]

113. To be fair, the OP notes frustation from many sides, but notices a tone

found in white progressives not expressed by others.

Race may be one way to draw that distinction, but the level of political engagement, irrespective of race, may be another way to draw the distinction.

Elijah Cummings very personal and passionate criticism of the President's take it or leave it ultimatum being a salient example for consideraton.

[Empowerer]

78. That's true, but that wasn't the main point of my OP

My point was that black folks are less likely to get angry when we don't get what they want politically since we rarely get everything we want.

[digidigido]

63. This is such total horseshit. Progressives were thrilled at

having an educated articulate black champion. We are pissed
that he's not championing the things he said he stood for,
It's that F ing simple, don't overthink it.

[Supersedeas]

68. Race baiting is simple too -- white political temper tantrums vs. black political pragmatism

Combined with the President lashing out at the 'sanctimonious and pure'

It's not that complicated really.

[Empowerer]

81. How does this contradict my point?

You're arguing about something I didn't say.

[butterfly77]

73. Kicked&Recommended..

[Hell Hath No Fury]

75. You could very easily flip that --

and say that the black community is largely supporting Obama because of race. :shrug:

I'm opposing him because he's wrong.

[Supersedeas]

79. A flip really isn't necessary -- the OP is claiming that Black reaction is muted because of history

And white tantrums are less muted because of a history of activism.

[Empowerer]

80. That's not a flip at all - it's a complete nonsequitur since I did not claim that white people

oppose Obama because he's black. I didn't say anything that could be rationally interpreted as such, yet several people here have read that into my comments.

I wrote: "Black folks are used to being disappointed in the political arena. We're used to having our desires compromised and being told to be content with half (or more often, a fourth) of a loaf. And we're accustomed to being expected to hold our fire and not attack Democratic leadership because they're our best hope . . . Black voters, based on a long history, don't have a strong sense of entitlement in the political arena. On the other hand, many white voters, probably based also on a long history, seem to have an extremely strong and ingrained sense of entitlement and feel perfectly deserving of smacking down any politician who does not give them exactly what they want when they want it."

How anyone gleaned from this that I was calling white people racist, claiming that NO black person objects to the tax cut deal or accusing whites of opposing the deal because Obama's black is beyond me.

I write very distinctly in plain English that everyone should be able to understand, yet, for some reason, folks have decided to argue about what I clearly did not say. I'm not sure if you just read it wrong or whether you just didn't read it at all but decided to comment anyway, but the distortion and misinterpretation of my OP is very interesting.

[Supersedeas]

83. Well your follow-ups to date have been less than clarifying--especially with respect

to the very public and personal criticisms originating from the likes of the CBC, Elijah Cummings, and James Clyborn. Mr. Cummings made it clear that he felt personally disrespected by the man, not by the policy.

The real question is how we distinguish these criticism from those coming from white progressives which you so blythely label as temper tantrums.

Accepting your original premise, one might same of Mr. Cummings and Mr. Clyborn, how white of you to be so vocal. I'm sure that you would not go so far with the distinction.

In the context of the President's response to critics of the compromise, one has to wonder whether the President agrees with you and so his "pure and santimonious" response would be directed not at everyone critical of the proposed compromise with Republican obstructionists but directed narrowly at angry white progressives. Thereby making the President's response "about race" as well.

Again, that probably stretches the original historical distinction that you drew between the muted Black responses and loud white reactions. Exceptions can sometimes consume the rule.

[mtnsnake]

77. Well thought-out relevant post. Enjoyed it thoroughly & it deserves lots of recommendaions.

[whatchamacallit]

82. Uh huh... white republicans seem to be loving him right now

go figure.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

84. I agree with you 100%!!!!! K&R!!! n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. I may get banned for writing this, but I've witnessed this attitude

much more so in white liberals and white gays/lesbians than even white conservatives or Independents.

What is baffling to me is that the ones who supported the Clintons don't express the same degree of outrage at Bill Clinton for his policies, nor do they understand that HIllary Clinton is to the right of Obama. Bill Clinton was responsible for DADT, DOMA, ENDA, NAFTA, and a host of other policies that were detrimental to this economy and this country. Many of these same policies have had a lasting negative impact on this economy. And yet, they want to take their ball and go home because Obama hasn't undone these Clinton policies in less than two years. It's quite amazing when you witness this. They praise Bill Clinton, having little or no memory of how the Clintons were accused of being "weak," and "having no balls." Bill Clinton was accused of being a waffler and a "triangulator."

Bill Clinton gets a complete pass because he found himself in the lucky position of presiding over a prosperous economy. He wasn't handed two wars and an economy on the brink of a depression.

Obama, on the other hand, is not only charged with cleaning up the economy as a direct result of Clinton-Bush II policies, he gets bashed day in and day out from every side.

Many folks here are asking why it is that Obama is angry at liberals and lashing out at "his base."

Did they ever stop to think that perhaps it is because many of us have conveniently forgotten history?

[Supersedeas]

92. "white liberals and white gays/lesbians than even white conservatives" - what!!?!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. Yes, that's what I said. Sometimes when it comes to calling Obama names and crap

there is no difference between white liberals and white conservatives.

[Supersedeas]

101. No difference bt birthers, tea baggers, Glenn Beck rallists and whites who voted for Obama

who happen to disagree with this policy -- wow!

Tax cuts for the wealthy really do have passionate supporters -- .

You said it alright.

[ruggerson]

99. Bill Clinton was President a generation ago

Gays and lesbians (both black and white) were living in a much different America. Their primary concern was fighting to keep their friends alive, as we were in the middle of the worst of the AIDS epidemic. (and as a sidenote, every community, including minority ones, owes a bunch of angry gay men and women who called themselves Act Up a HUGE thank you, because they ended up saving MILLIONS of lives.)

Many LGBT citizens became very disillusioned with Bill Clinton (read up on David Mixner) and abandoned him after he abandoned us. The LGBT community here at DU is also split on Bill Clinton - many despise him and many supported Obama in the primary.

Obama is not being held to any special standard. A white President would be getting the same treatment, probably worse.

The world for LGBT Americans is a different place now. Now straight people understand that we are in every family, every church and every community. We are you. And as such, the political awakening that has occurred in the last fifteen to twenty years has become a tidal wave. We DEMAND our full equality now. We EXPECT our leaders to support our gaining full representation in American life. Twenty years ago, we were all holding our ninety pound, ragaved best friends as they breathed their last breath. Today, if you don't support our movement for equality, get out of the way, because history will crush you.

Your post is fundamentally wrong and does not represent reality.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

111. Let me tell you why you're wrong. Despite all the harm perpetuated by

Bill Clinton's economic policies--not to mention his anti-gay/lesbian and social agenda--didn't lead to a revolt in the Democratic Party. The party essentially stood by him. Both black and white. Even after dismantling welfare. After all his mistakes. The Blue Dogs were more of an impediment than the liberals. Even through his impeachment, blacks were the most loyal of all Democrats who stood by Bill Clinton. It was the Blue Dogs (Lieberman, et al.) calling for him to step down or censure.

Not even after Clinton passed NAFTA, went around the country bragging about the Defense of Marriage Act in the southern states (that's how he won Georgia), and repealing Glass-Steagall, I didn't hear major liberal donors calling him "weak." I didn't read in the papers at how liberals were pushing for a primary challenge. I didn't hear gays/lesbians--after his ridiculous, evil legislation--revolt from the party or proclaim that they will not vote. I didn't read about George Soros withdrawing monetary support from the party.

You say that we now live in a different environment and I agree, which makes it critically important for this party to try and unite behind a president who-while he isn't perfect-is faced with addressing major problems that if allowed to go unsolved could result in the total destruction of this economy and lead us down a path towards another depression.

Instead we hear name-calling and vicious attacks, and threats to withhold support.

I lived through the Clinton era. I don't ever remember white progressives treating a president as they treat Obama. And in my mind, Bill Clinton was worse! Much more conservative than Obama with his policies. The main reason for this may be because the economy was doing well. Other than that, there's no remaining rationale for the treatment other than a subtle undercurrent of racism and entitlement. That's how I interpreted the OP. I'm not speaking for him/her. I'm giving my opinion on this. And I think the OP is absolutely right!!

[ruggerson]

138. I think the OP has very valid points

but I disagree with your argument, which is very different than what the OP is expressing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

147. Admittedly it's my interpretation that you don't agree with

and that's fine, too.

[Number23]

87. This OP makes me sad.

And this, I think, is why. Black folks are used to being disappointed in the political arena. We're used to having our desires compromised and being told to be content with half (or more often, a fourth) of a loaf. And we're accustomed to being expected to hold our fire and not attack Democratic leadership because they're our best hope.

It saddens me that black people are so used to being shit upon, and told that no matter how smart, hardworking, beautiful, ambitious etc. we are, that we will ALWAYS be thought of as "less than" and that so many have simply accepted that. Yes, we are used to being disappointed. Yes, we are used to having our talents and contributions dismissed or ignored altogether. But, I hope that this changes and that we begin to take advantage of the beauty and strength of our people which is recognized the ENTIRE world over. There is no culture, no group more emulated and revered than black Americans. I wish that we could truly understand our power.

For this reason, I am an independent and I swear it seems that there are more of us by the day. Between the "we're the best you're going to get" attitude from the Democrats that you mentioned in your OP, combined with the shrill, repulsive attitudes of many "liberals" screaming at every move this president has made in some cases before he even took office, it's no surprise that more blacks are telling the party to kiss our behinds.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

88. That's how Obama is being treated, and that's why no matter what and no

matter who leaves Obama, black people won't abandon him.

He and his wife did everything that white folk tells black folk to do: work hard, lift yourselves up, overcome, succeed. They achieved that and what is the reward? Being called a socialist, communist Nazi and so forth. From his own "base," being called weak and a sellout.

Black people supported Bill Clinton and didn't abandoned him, either, even when most of the country was disgusted with him and Monica.

Obama, on the other hand, is the symbol for "the black tax." I hope that everyone does some research on what the "black tax" is. Then perhaps people will understand why many of us feel the way we do.

[Supersedeas]

93. why would we need to do research on the "black tax" if the President is so obviously the symbol for

it -- in your wise and unquestionable opinion?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. Don't read very well do you? I suggested that those who do not know what the black tax is,

and for some reason, don't understand what this thread is about, the concept of "the black tax" will help you understand.

[Supersedeas]

102. Oh, I simply took you at your word when I read what you wrote.

Obama, on the other hand, is the symbol for "the black tax."

Where does the suggestion that this absolutely clarifies this thread come into play--so clearly for those who read English.

KEY WORD FOR THE LITERATE -- s-u-g-g-e-s-t-e-d.

And I wonder if the OP agrees that the BLACK TAX clarifies his message contained in his thread.

Seems to me you are assuming a lot more than just a simple suggestion.

But, I get it -- insulting someone's reading skills really assimilates your point of view. We got it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I Agree With Much Of What You Write But I Don't Think Clinton Is A Good Example.

Many here feel Clinton is guilty of the same crime as Obama, the crime of pragmatism...


Look at how Nancy Pelosi was pilloried for not trying to impeach Bush*.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. I agree to a certain extent. However, I've witnessed people, not only here at DU,

but in my discussions and yes, even amongst friends, who think that the Clintons walk on water. Many of them, but not all of them, were Hillary supporters and lament the fact that Obama "isn't like Bill." They are likely to be very serious about not voting for Obama in 2012 because he didn't "repeal" DADT quick enough for them; and/or charge that he's a "corporatist hack" and whatnot. Many times these claims leave me speechless because I went through the Clinton years when liberals were calling Clinton every Republican name in the book because of all of his pro-Corporatist, and often very conservative policies. They've seem to have forgiven Clinton for those policies, expecting Obama to undo those mistakes in an unreasonably short amount of time.

So when I refer to "the black tax," that's exactly what I mean. Clinton gets a pass. He and Bush II were given 8 years to make a mess with their pro-corporate policies. And no matter how conservative Clinton's policies were, he wasn't abandoned by the base. Compare that with how Obama is being treated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. The Black Tax , I Believe Means A Black Doesn't Have To Be As Good As What He Does But Better

Back to the criticism. I just believe a lot of it is a function of outsized expectations and a misunderstanding, perhaps deliberately,of what can be realitically achieved.

[Empowerer]

100. Yes - another aspect of the Black Tax is the expectations that blacks must not only do the job they

were hired/elected to do, but also must make an extra effort to speak for and represent other blacks - and do so in a way that neither offends nor discomforts white people.

For example, President Obama is often expected to speak up on issues of race, treating them as "teachable moments" whenever the issue comes up - and is criticized when he refrains from doing so. Yet when he has done it, he's been attacked for "making race an issue." This has occurred many times prior to and during his Administration. The Gates case was a perfect example.

However, white politicians and certainly white Presidents have never been expected to teach America about race. But why shouldn't they? They belong to a race, too - yet they have never been burdened with the responsibility of educating all Americans about race.

This responsibility is not only on politicians. I and most blacks that I know have also had this burden put on us in professional settings.

[TheKentuckian]

106. By too many of his ardent supporters, Obama's job is to wake up breathing.

Anything after that can be spun by message control.

[Supersedeas]

112. when half-loafs and low expectations will suffice

that's why the Black Tax argument misses its mark on this thread -- the Black Tax is about elevated expectations. (The President certainly exceeded expectations for White Republicans who had not previously demanded the level of tax relief for Estates crammed into the Compromise Proposal with the House's knowledge. Those elevated Tax expectations were met and then some.)

Heck, maybe the attacks on Senator Kerry following his public support of the Compromise Plan are "about race" too...or maybe, just maybe, it is simply a disagreement about policy.

[political_Dem]

140. Number 23 and Liberal_Stalwart71, exactly.

I would also add that that the "black tax" and the astronomical rise of expectations by the dominant culture deals with white privilege.

If Mr. Obama and the the rest of us in the community succeeded in "earning our merits", the gravy train of entitlement, opportunity and privileges for those in the dominant culture would be over. There is an investment in keeping people of color striving to break the glass ceiling while the dominant culture systematically removes any assistance to make an equal playing field.

While such things as the "Black Tax" and "white privilege" remain in tact, complete racial equality will always be hard to achieve--especially when there are some folks who deny racism is happening in our country from the POTUS on down. That goes double for some who will not treat other skin colors and cultures with the respect they deserve.

Let's put it this way: if you belonged to a race that was always validated as being the most beautiful, intelligent and fair in the media, would you give that up? If you belonged to a race in which you didn't have to put much effort and still was able to climb the social ladder due to your race, would you deny that type of power for true equality? If you've been socialized to believe that your race deserved to have its opportunities due to skin color based on the simple fact of supremacy and conquest while other races were meant to serve your race due to their laziness, stupidity and infantile behavior, would you work to thwart that belief and the opportunities associated with it? If your race received less harsher criminal penalties for the worst crimes due to the beliefs in the superiority of your skin color, would you beg for a true application of the law in order for the system to be fair?

That's why denial is such a big factor whenever there is a discussion about race, privilege, social inequality and power. No one wants to give those perks up especially after centuries of social indoctrination This also helps explain why one's blatant name calling and subjugating of the President is treated like pearls of wisdom instead of what it truly is.

[Catherina]

103. You can tell people's race over the net? What a fascinating phenomenon

and what arrogant, racist bullshit.

[Empowerer]

104. What is racist about my OP?

Please be specific.

[quakerboy]

109. If that is true

which is better?

Is it better to have low expectations and accept it when even those they are not always met? Or is it better to have high expections and be continually frustrated when they are not met?

[johnlucas]

116. Here's a Black man who's sick & tired of all these phony politicians including Obama

Yeah, I'm Black & Obama's half-hearted half-stepping is pissing me the hell off.

Just because Black folks had to put up with half-measures, quarter-measures, trace-measures before doesn't mean we have to KEEP putting up with it.
Black folks by & large vote with the Democrats because of the Republicans adopting that Southern Strategy in the aftermath of Black Equality gains (AKA Civil Rights) in the 1960s. We KNOW our enemy is over there in the modern day Republican Party. But somehow we seem to think we don't have enemies within the Democratic Party.

Blacks are a populational minority in the U.S.A. & usually have to team up with other groups to get our agenda on the table. This explains the bizarre loyalty to the Democratic Party which only pays lip service to our concerns (if that) in order to secure that loyal vote for the political theater.

The truth of it is just as in the days of Antebellum there is NO ONE on our side but US, the Blacks.
There is no party for us. And really never has been.
We are the Outsiders Within. And that is our strength.
It's how we function as the conscious of this country when it does evil.
Wanna see how this country really is? See how it treats the citizens it values The Least.

When I used to vote, I do so only to honor those who sacrificed in order to gain that equality.
It's out of respect for them but I know voting doesn't really work especially now. I wanted to believe one last time for Obama.

Obama becoming President should have been a time of reinvention for this political process.
He could have been a leader who shifted the national political climate & laid the foundation for America to TRULY become more just in not only its domestic affairs but also its international affairs.
If he succeeded, the Black Agenda (an agenda that solves ALL American agendas) would have been at the forefront.
And by proxy he would have dealt a crushing blow to the enduring strategy of racism as a dividing tool.
That would have finally united the poor working classes.

The Progressive Movement which is tied into the Black Agenda would have become the norm in this country.
It's a movement dedicated to social & economic justice for ALL citizens of a nation.
And on a macro scale dedicated to social & economic justice for ALL citizens of the world.

When Obama fails, the Black Agenda loses all of any power it had left inside the system. It ends with him, Empowerer.
The word will be, "Well, you had your Black President & look what he did. He screwed everything up. Sorry we're not listening to that anymore."
He had a small window of opportunity but he blew it...for all of us!

The Blacks should be THE ANGRIEST at him.
He's jeopardizing The Struggle with his surrenders & thrown fights.

But you know maybe I should be happy.
Maybe the Black Agenda is not supposed to work inside the system.
Maybe it needs to exist outside of that system to change the way things work in this land.
Maybe we should always be the Outsiders Within & speak truth to power.
Hip-Hop came from this reality that we Blacks live in.

You didn't get F*ck Tha Police from the suburbs. You couldn't.
You didn't get 911 Is A Joke or The Message from the safe part of town.

But it's time for more than talk. This time as outsiders once again we need to take action. The physical kind.
Plan Obama failed. What's next for the Black Agenda?
John Lucas

[frylock]

120. excellent rebuttal

:applause:

[johnlucas]

122. Thank you

Thank you for your compliment.
I appreciate it very much.

I had to say that. Tired of some Black folks labeling all of this anger towards Obama as a White Privilege thing.
The Angriest should be The Blacks themselves.
He holds our entire future in his hands the way he operates in this office. And he's squandering everything.

We were so desperate to have someone representing The Struggle inside that office that we give him endless passes when he's not performing up to par.
Having a J.C. Watts or Alan Keyes wouldn't have helped us because they're Black Republicans. They're out for self like all Black Republicans & have no regard for the larger Black community.
But we thought Obama was connected to those Chicago streets & would always have an ear to our side of the story in the highest office in the land.
It means a lot to us that he married a Black wife from Southside & that image of the together Black family was so crucial that we didn't want to tamper with it.
It still is psychologically needed & is probably one of the few positive effects of his Presidency.

But that's not enough just to have the image. We need the substance & Barack ain't providing that.
Because of this reality, we're gonna lose in the long run.
The older Blacks went through so much in the past & because his status in that office is so psychologically crucial, they're protective of him.
Always saying "They won't let him do such & such" "They're ganging up on him" "They're just trying to mess him up"

HE'S the President. HE'S the Boss.
He has the power to override a lot of that obstruction.
Us younger Blacks are less apt to write him that blank check.
It ain't crab mentality, it's making sure he's true to self.

He knows he can't do just a standard job. He's a Black man. He knows he has to go above & beyond.
That's how we got our greats. Martin didn't just punch the clock in at the office. Malcolm didn't just check the inbox.
It's our legacy in this land. He knows this.

Step up Barack or step aside.
John Lucas

[Supersedeas]

121. Ahhh...the Progressive Movement which is tied to the Black Agenda...ahhhh

If the combined MovemAgenda fails, we all lose any power that we attempted to express from within the system. There is much truth in this.

What is next?

[johnlucas]

123. Revolution is next

But without focus that could end up worse than what we have now.
I'd rather not have it turn violent & destructive.

Oftentimes a Revolution brings in a worse overlord than before.
Revolutions feed on anger but they don't focus it well.
They WILL change things but what will be the outcome?

Before it gets to the violent revolution stage, I'd rather get an organized revolution first.
A mass protest that forces the government to shut down its ways.
A protest that goes beyond a silly march & slogan parade.

It has to be something useful that halts the machine itself.
Sort of like how strikes can shut down an industry.
But not just one industry, this protest has to halt MULTIPLE industries.
In other words, it has to hit their pocketbooks.

And it has to be so large that even a military is intimidated to stop it.
How would it look for a nation's military to turn on, say, 3/4 of its populace?
A soldier might be firing upon his entire family. Can he go through with it & look himself in the mirror?
In the meantime there must be a way to provide for basic needs for those who participate in this protest.
Food/drink, clothing, shelter, etc.
Hard to abandon the machine when you can't take care of the bare necessities.

The ultimate Check & Balance. The Force of the People.
The SUPERUNION. Can we achieve this even outside of our nation?
Can we make it transnational?

They have no choice but to listen then.
The violent way also makes them listen but it destroys everything in the process.
One way or another, it's gonna take some sort of revolution.
John Lucas

[BeyondGeography]

124. There is a lot to recommend in your post

I will focus on this part:

Obama becoming President should have been a time of reinvention for this political process.
He could have been a leader who shifted the national political climate & laid the foundation for America to TRULY become more just in not only its domestic affairs but also its international affairs.
If he succeeded, the Black Agenda (an agenda that solves ALL American agendas) would have been at the forefront.
And by proxy he would have dealt a crushing blow to the enduring strategy of racism as a dividing tool.
That would have finally united the poor working classes.

Completely spot on.

"Change you can believe in" was a powerful line. A lot of people got fired up because they believed it was more than just a line.

White, black, brown, purple, green, whatever, Democrats are only going to change the country for the better when they defeat Republican ideology in explicit terms, doing to this mutant strain of capital-owned conservatism what Reagan did to liberalism. Ridiculing it, making it unacceptable, confronting it non-stop, defeating it and jumping up and down on the corpse. Making people feel embarrassed to admit they are one. Democrats are scared after 30 years because that is how the other side plays. It works.

A tall order for any politician, but, for me, this tax battle signalled the end of any serious, overt attempt by Obama to fight that fight. A lot of us got excited because, as a communicator, he is qualified for the job, and because conservative ideology has demonstrably failed to deliver economically for the vast majority of Americans so the time is right to play offense. Obama said all the right things in the campaign, but the follow-through has fallen short. He has too often chosen the muddy middle, and he has played nice, which is a win for any opponent whose style is uncompromising and who has a vast, loyal audience.

I will invoke race in the form of James Baldwin, who wondered how blacks were going to communicate to the "vast, heedless, unthinking, cruel, white majority" that you are here. This is, in a sense, the Democratic Party's problem. They are not getting through to that same group in a way that advances their values (or what they say are their values), because they tippy-toe around every issue under the sun. These are the people sucking up hate radio, Fox and Republican propaganda non-stop. You don't get through to that majority with the insider-oriented, gather-up-the-wise-men game that Obama is playing. And if you can't through to that group, in the process of fighting them you mobilize other groups and thus defeat them. We needed, and need, much more.

[johnlucas]

128. Exactly! I didn't vote for Obama for pretty covers on Ebony magazine

It's like this. The Native Americans were virtually genocided out. The Blacks were destroyed by the sick institution of slavery.
America CANNOT go forward until it TRULY atones for these actions.

All Whites do not subscribe to the notion of White Supremacy even if they unknowingly benefit from it. But the mechanism of White Supremacy must be destroyed in order for this country to become truly great like it purports itself to be.
The wealth of this land was built upon the backs of slaves: African slaves, Chinese/Irish/German/Slavic/Mexican/you name it "indentured servants" (AKA Slaves First Class). It continues to be built upon slavery: outright slavery or wage slavery.

It is immoral for this to happen & atonement must take place. Not just empty words but actions to even out this injustice.
The reservations suffer from many social/economic ills. That's where the casino plan came from. To address this. But that in turn makes new problems.

The Labor Movement comes directly out of the Abolition Movement (so does Women's Suffrage). They are connected.
Who do you think were the workers of the 1800s?
But it has always been divided because of this stupid White Supremacy bullshit. Those who should be on our side hang on to that brainwashing & clip themselves off at the knees. The United States of America was supposed to get away from aristocracy but it recreated it again & all citizens under that suffer.

The White Presidents may not have been able or willing to significantly address these longstanding injustices.
It took a President directly connected to The Struggle to understand. One who had been on food stamps. One who interacted & worked with diverse cultures & communities (not culturally isolated). One who has lived in the ghettos of America. One who understands & still values the struggles of The Poor.

Barack Obama was supposed to be that President.
We could have had that game-changer. That Revolution from the inside out.
But all we got in return was pretty pictures on the covers of Ebony magazine.
It was supposed to be so much more. Not just symbolic which it was but also substantive.

If he succeeded, he would have done SEVERE DAMAGE to the mechanism of White Supremacy.
If his plans worked not only for the Black community but all communities by extension, no one could ever challenge him.
How can a White man be racist or hold latent racist feelings towards a Black when a Black man obviously made his life better?
It would have killed hate talk radio overnight. Ratings would drop & sponsors would drop correspondingly.
It would be passé to be a Rush Limbaugh in this climate.

He could have overseen a political shift that would echo his accomplishments. The Obama Democrat.
Other politicians would try to match him in order to be politically successful. And the citizens get the rewards at long last.
It was important that he met with Native American groups during his campaign. He was given honorary tribe member status for a reason.
His Presidency was supposed to the Atonement of past injustice in live action. The actions of his Presidency were supposed to erase the way things had been done for so long.
He WAS supposed to be Transformative.

We didn't get that & now this Movement must try a new way to gain effectiveness in how the country operates.
John Lucas

[Empowerer]

131. self-delete

[ruggerson]

133. Aw c'mon Empowerer

don't censor yourself. I, for one, would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. I will add the great verbotten subject of US History

White Slavery.

We have pretty names for it... and I mean it didn't last a lifetime... (Unless you died while indentured)

This is one of the reasons we are where we are. We really have not dealt with much of our history. It is time to work together again. Not that most modern Americans know this but the first revolt, Bacon's Revolt, the First American Revolution, was a cause of the working classes, white, black, and Indian... and the brits brought in troops to control it.

It came this close to succeeding.

But the US needs to learn how it was built and the myth needs to give way to actual history.

[johnlucas]

139. Yes, Indentured Servitude. Talk about it

Because of one slight distinction, lifetime slavery vs. slavery with a time limit, this country doomed itself to be ruled by the aristocrats who replaced the old aristocrats.

It's at the very heart of this country & is the cause of the stalling of the inevitable Progressive Movement.
Because these people with pale skins, straight hair, & narrow facial features were set apart from those people with dark skins, curly hair, & broad facial features, they allowed themselves to believe that they were special to the rulers.

They didn't have their families purposely broken up, they weren't purposely kept illiterate.
And they bought into the notion that if I work hard & do all the right things, I can earn my freedom & join my fellow White brothers in the aristocracy.
That's EXACTLY where that comes from.

You've heard that before. If you work hard, you too can earn the American Dream.
That myth that means buy a bigger house with all the luxurious entrapments.
It's the folly of the so-called Middle Class. What "luxury" they have doesn't BEGIN to compare with real wealth.
But even the "Upper Middle Class" are fools. Those who may have crossed over into the realm of rich being a doctor or something with a 6 figure/7 figure income.
They are the Ultimate House Negroes because they work to preserve this system that allowed them to become rich while others struggle.

But see by me saying House Negroes, many Whites tune out. They don't wanna think they're the same as us.
They hold on to this phony distinction in order to escape THEIR slavery. All in hopes of getting into that wealthy circle of influence of the aristocracy. Shiny things blind a man to the things that matter most.

When the Whites start bonding & becoming a collective with the Blacks, Latinos, Asians, & all others. That is the day of fear for this system.
There's a reason why Michael Jackson is a big deal. White kids were awed by Michael (this kid borne from The Struggle arriving in the aftermath of MLK's death with his brothers) & he had the ability to cross over all boundaries. Beyond nations. Both critical AND commercial impact to reach millions in a powerful way.
And his message was about unity, love, & justice. All of the Black luminaries you can think of especially in sports & entertainment were actually on the level of world leaders in impact because they could change hearts & minds.
They either force the luminaries to submit to the rulers' way or they disparage & silence the ones who don't.
Don't think Michael's negative media image is all because of his skin condition & unfortunate self-image issues that led to his plastic surgery.

Why is Hip-Hop being co-opted & watered down? Why was it demonized before this? Why does most modern commercial Hip-Hop have no substantive message?
That's because it was powerful & got into those White kids' hearts. White kids from the safe suburbs were amazed by breakdancing in the 1980s & started listening to rap stars. At first it was Run DMC, the Fat Boys, & maybe LL Cool J. Soon it was Public Enemy, N.W.A., & Tupac. And the raw messages from this music would influence the world view of those kids who could never normally be exposed to it.
Hell, it might make them want to change the system themselves. Of course it had to be demonized.
On top of that it had to be co-opted. Allowed to exist but with the influence of the corporate masters.
Now EVERYBODY'S selling me a shoe or a perfume or some trinket or other.

White people, the descendants of Europe, are still the majority in population in this country. If all the other populations combined together Blacks, Latinos, Asians both East & West, Native Americans got together it would STILL end up about 50/50.
So long as many of the White people subscribe to that belief that their ethnicity makes them protected & special to the rulers, then the Movement will stall. Look at who mostly comprises the Tea Party. White working class people scared of "The Other".
Their whole belief system is based off of punishing "The Other" in some way even at cost to themselves (though they don't realize that part).

The same as a House Negro who protected the Plantation way of life so he can stay out of the harsh elements outside.
He thinks he has it better because he's in the house but he's still a slave like the rest!

What we were taught in history class is usually a a whitewash, a mythology, or an outright lie.
I'm glad nadinbrzezinski identified the American Revolution with Bacon's Revolt, that working class revolt, instead of this taxes crap from aristocrats who wanted to become their own kings.
John Lucas

[ProSense]

125. Oh please.

Blacks are a populational minority in the U.S.A. & usually have to team up with other groups to get our agenda on the table. This explains the bizarre loyalty to the Democratic Party which only pays lip service to our concerns (if that) in order to secure that loyal vote for the political theater.

<...>

Obama becoming President should have been a time of reinvention for this political process.
He could have been a leader who shifted the national political climate & laid the foundation for America to TRULY become more just in not only its domestic affairs but also its international affairs.
If he succeeded, the Black Agenda (an agenda that solves ALL American agendas) would have been at the forefront.
And by proxy he would have dealt a crushing blow to the enduring strategy of racism as a dividing tool.
That would have finally united the poor working classes.

The Progressive Movement which is tied into the Black Agenda would have become the norm in this country.
It's a movement dedicated to social & economic justice for ALL citizens of a nation.
And on a macro scale dedicated to social & economic justice for ALL citizens of the world.

When Obama fails, the Black Agenda loses all of any power it had left inside the system. It ends with him, Empowerer.
The word will be, "Well, you had your Black President & look what he did. He screwed everything up. Sorry we're not listening to that anymore."
He had a small window of opportunity but he blew it...for all of us!

The Blacks should be THE ANGRIEST at him.
He's jeopardizing The Struggle with his surrenders & thrown fights.

But you know maybe I should be happy.
Maybe the Black Agenda is not supposed to work inside the system.
Maybe it needs to exist outside of that system to change the way things work in this land.
Maybe we should always be the Outsiders Within & speak truth to power.
Hip-Hop came from this reality that we Blacks live in.

You didn't get F*ck Tha Police from the suburbs. You couldn't.
You didn't get 911 Is A Joke or The Message from the safe part of town.

But it's time for more than talk. This time as outsiders once again we need to take action. The physical kind.
Plan Obama failed. What's next for the Black Agenda?
John Lucas

This is not the "Black Agenda." It may be yours, but it has nothing to do with any agreed upon agenda by black Americans, and
definitely not those who are against advocating violence.

Which party should blacks be "loyal" to: Republicans? Greens? They're both disingenuous and sellout others for their own self-seving ideology.

You claim the President should have delivered a "crushing blow" to racism, and you are using it as a tool to advance your own interests while putting down other blacks. You don't say how the President should have done this, but here you are advocating "action. The physical kind."

[johnlucas]

127. You don't have much imagination, do you?

"Which party should blacks be 'loyal' to: Republicans? Greens?"

How about none of the above?
Why is it that when someone criticizes the Democratic Party & its inaction, someone plays that boogeyman game: "Well where ELSE are you gonna go?"

All Americans not just Blacks need to detox from this political party drug in the first place.
NONE of 'em deserve your loyalty.

You wanna know what the Black Agenda is? Here's a sample.
Solving the economic blight that plagues many Black communities AKA the ghettos.

Because reasonable employment opportunities are slim to none in many neighborhoods where Blacks are a majority, the young ones resort to drug-dealing & gang warfare to gain money & feel more powerful. They're so powerless that they want to rule a ruin rather than rebuild it into something of value.
They see the fruitlessness of working for others for pittance, they know the infrastructure works against them so they want the fast easy money. "I may not live to see 67 to get Social Security anyhow so why not live the fast life & get all I want today?" But because they are so powerless, they end up hurting their own in this mad quest for power (they're just emulating the rulers after all). The violence it takes to play this power game ruins a neighborhood turning it into a crime zone, a war zone.

New generations grow up with this & it becomes the norm. The young ones who are without see who has the big money & emulate the ones with it. The crook with the big money becomes the role model while the working stiff becomes the joke. It becomes tradition & a self-repeating cycle. The other Blacks in the neighborhood who DON'T buy into this insanity get caught up in the crossfire destroying the potential of the community. A brilliant kid who may make a positive difference in the world gets shot & killed from a shot intended to kill the gang member he was standing close to. There is hardly no hope & many give in to self-medication through various drugs. Some of those drugs turn the newfound junkies into criminals who steal & kill to get their fix.

Yet on top of all this Blacks because of history as well as the present don't trust the "authorities" outside of the community. The police are just as detestable so here comes the rule of "No snitching". Blacks feel isolated & try to deal with the problem themselves. They know the laws are set up to punish poor Black people & put them in prison for an inordinately long time in return for that official slave labor. Paris Hilton gets a DUI & does a few days in jail maybe. A Black person in the ghetto gets a DUI & gets 5 years. There is nowhere to turn. Some of their fellow Blacks attack them out of a feeling of powerlessness. The outside "authorities" are there to punish rather than reform.
Michael Jackson said it best: "Too high to get over (yeah yeah). Too low to get under (yeah yeah). You're stuck in the middle (yeah yeah). And the pain is thunder (yeah yeah)."

The strategies used to solve the economic & social issues that plague Black communities can be used to solve those issues of the American community.
It's called scale. Working the micro angle aids the macro angle. Solve the ghettos, solve the trailer parks, solve the suburbs, solve the apartments.

Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about economic justice before he got assassinated. Social justice was just the beginning.

The only thing we need to be loyal to is this movement. This Progressive Movement that seeks to advance Civilization by remedying its social & economic ills. A proper civilization makes sure ALL of its citizens can prosper. This is not The Wild. This is Civilization. The chief must make sure EVERYONE eats not just a few.
And this movement is beyond political parties. It is beyond even the United States of America. It has been in the works since the beginning of Civilization thousands of years ago.
It is worldwide & it is inevitable.
A pyramid needs to respect its numerous base because that is the part that holds the entire pyramid together.

Political parties including the 'D' one don't matter. The results are the only thing that matters.
That should be this site's focus. Not this pandering to some questionable political body.
John Lucas

[ProSense]

132. Am I supposed to be impressed?

"You wanna know what the Black Agenda is? Here's a sample.
Solving the economic blight that plagues many Black communities AKA the ghettos."

You rattle of cliches about decades old problems and that's suppose to constitute "imagination"?

"Why is it that when someone criticizes the Democratic Party & its inaction, someone plays that boogeyman game: 'Well where ELSE are you gonna go?'"

What's your solution? It's cute to grandstand about party loyalty, but here you are criticizing a party and I'm not seeing where you're offering a solution. You previously claimed that the President should have done this or that, but the President is a Democrat, so what were you thinking?

"A Black person in the ghetto gets a DUI & gets 5 years. There is nowhere to turn. Some of their fellow Blacks attack them out of a feeling of powerlessness. The outside "authorities" are there to punish rather than reform.
Michael Jackson said it best: 'Too high to get over (yeah yeah). Too low to get under (yeah yeah). You're stuck in the middle (yeah yeah). And the pain is thunder (yeah yeah).'"

Um, what?

Again, the only solution you've offered is this from your previous comment: "But it's time for more than talk. This time as outsiders once again we need to take action. The physical kind."

And again, that doesn't take much "imagination."

[johnlucas]

135. You have no idea what I have planned

I only come to this site to orient people in the right frame of thinking.
I see many thought mistakes when people express themselves. Your language tells on the way you think.

I see people talk about "The Left" "The Right" "The Center" & I say this is hogwash.
These terms are not accurate & mean nothing. Left, Right, & Center are directional positions not political philosophies.
What the hell is a "Red State"? What the hell is a "Blue Dog Democrat"?

If a label is not clear from its literal meaning it usually becomes meaningless.
And people waste time arguing over these arbitrary illusory distinctions instead of see the issue clearly.
When they fight over that nonsense, that takes away from energy that could be used in the REAL fight.

I don't even like the word "Liberal". It's rooted in a word that means "free". Free from what? Free of what? Free to do what?
"Conservative" is similarly useless. It means saving or preserving something.
But isn't what many people call "Democratic values" trying to preserve the dignity of the common man?
Isn't what the Plutocrats of the Republican Party trying to do is to free themselves from the responsibility to reciprocate into the national infrastructure?

Those labels are useless. And when I thought about it the only one I could accept is "Progressive". Progress by definition means to improve upon.
Even if someone tries to confuse the label, you can't escape the word looking at you right in the face—"progress".

The labels Democratic & Republican are similarly obscure.
The "Demo" of Democratic (Demos) means "People". The "Crat" of Democratic (Kratos) means "Rule".
The "Re" of Republican means (Res) "Things", "Matters". The "Public" of Republican (Publicus) means "People".

In the early days of this country the divide was about the Federalists who wanted to follow Alex Hamilton & Co.'s belief in centralized power and those opposed to them—simply the Anti-Federalists—wanting the power to be diffused between the states. That's Tommy Jefferson's team.
Naturally, because Feder comes from Latin's Fœder meaning "League".

The Antis wanted a cooler label to glom onto (it sucks to have your name be defined by your opposition) so they came up with this "Democratic-Republican" label.
And when you break that down it reads "People Rule the Matters of the People" "Demos Kratos Res Publicus"
The individuals over the league. Makes sense from its label right?

Over the years that dichotomy lost meaning...especially after the Civil War. People were now trying to echo old traditions when they named their political affiliations & it had nothing to do with their platform. They didn't update the labels with the times.
How did Democrat come to stand for environmental protection, support for the labor movement, civil rights, abortion rights, social safety net?
"People Rule??"
Well it certainly makes more sense than Republican standing for tax reductions for the business class, hawks for war, return to theocracy, marginalization of the "wrong" ethnicities, profit over people at all costs.
"Matters of the People??"

But both of those labels are way outmoded, way outdated. And that's why the political traction is weak.
Nobody really knows what Democrat stands for & people who wouldn't normally be on the same team operate under this label.
That's why nothing for the Progressive Movement goes anywhere. That's why we supported this jabroni & he extended Bush's tax breaks for the well-off while everybody else is suffering.

I am going to break the system from the inside of this Matrix once I get my power.
I know that without media you don't get your message across & without logistics you can't practically operate your mission.
I know I have to come up with a plan to guard against the violence the power class will use to remain in power.
But I want to do it in a Forward Defensive mode. Shield technology. They shoot, bullets & bombs don't pierce, & the people march forward unfazed toward the gun barrels. We don't HAVE to kill to accomplish this. If they can't kill us & intimidate us with their weapons, they lose.
If they can't economically cut us off & make us starve, they lose. This can be used for oppressed peoples around the world.
Industry with a moral purpose.

What I'm doing now is practicing how to break the mind games the power class uses to stay in wealth.
That is done by learning how to use this inefficient communication method called language to its best end.
Clear open language that is observable from the face word itself. No reading between the lines & no interpretations.

It's the long plan & I'm hoping I can achieve some of this in my lifetime before the inevitable violent Revolution takes place.
There are 3 ways for the Progressive Movement to go forward.

#1: By playing the game in this established political system.

#2: By beginning the Defensive Revolution I detailed earlier to arrest the system into reform.

#3: By the Violent Revolution to tear the system (& probably everything else) apart wholesale.

Number 1 ain't working anymore. So I opt for Number 2. I don't wanna see Number 3 but if things keep going like this, we're gonna see Number 3 whether we like it or not.

All I know is I'm way beyond these silly political labels & useless loyalty games. Reframing thoughts in the proper perspective I say it's time to think about results not promises. No more carrots on a stick. Our time is NOW not Tomorrow.
John Lucas

[ProSense]

141. A lot of words an still no plan

From your first comment: "This explains the bizarre loyalty to the Democratic Party which only pays lip service to our concerns (if that) in order to secure that loyal vote for the political theater."

That comment ended in advocating violence, claiming it's time for "action. The physical kind."

Now, you respond with a post about political labels

I only come to this site to orient people in the right frame of thinking.
I see many thought mistakes when people express themselves. Your language tells on the way you think.

I see people talk about "The Left" "The Right" "The Center" & I say this is hogwash.
These terms are not accurate & mean nothing. Left, Right, & Center are directional positions not political philosophies.
What the hell is a "Red State"? What the hell is a "Blue Dog Democrat"?

If a label is not clear from its literal meaning it usually becomes meaningless.
And people waste time arguing over these arbitrary illusory distinctions instead of see the issue clearly.
When they fight over that nonsense, that takes away from energy that could be used in the REAL fight.

I don't even like the word "Liberal". It's rooted in a word that means "free". Free from what? Free of what? Free to do what?
"Conservative" is similarly useless. It means saving or preserving something.
But isn't what many people call "Democratic values" trying to preserve the dignity of the common man?
Isn't what the Plutocrats of the Republican Party trying to do is to free themselves from the responsibility to reciprocate into the national infrastructure?

Those labels are useless. And when I thought about it the only one I could accept is "Progressive". Progress by definition means to improve upon.
Even if someone tries to confuse the label, you can't escape the word looking at you right in the face—"progress".

<...>

There are discussions about labels, but most people are not talking about labels and the debate isn't about labels, it's about issues and what needs to get done. The problem is all the diversionary tactics used to focus on abstract concepts instead of how to get things done. Talk about what needs to be done and how to get it done.

[johnlucas]

142. So you miss my whole comments on the Forward Defensive strategy?

I am NOT talking about filibusters & primaries & none of that tired crap.
I'm done with the political game. It doesn't work.
I'm not talking about a candidate or a new campaign, a new fundraiser or a political action committee.
That's useless shit.

I'm talking about a Revolution, son.
Laws are words inked on paper. It ain't the words people abide by, it's the guns behind those words that people fear.
The question is how do you get past those guns?

When The People challenge the Status Quo, the Status Quo brings out the Enforcers.
Tienanmen Square with the one man bravely standing in front of the tank.
The rulers will sic their weapons on you if you break up their machine.
In the softest sense, they will try to starve you literally & economically.
They are antagonistic against The People.

How can you counter this force with people who are not militaristically trained or strategically knowledgeable?
A massive violent revolution can work but so many people will die in the process.
So how can you preserve the people while simultaneously going outside of the system to be faced with the rulers' weapons?

The way is to use The Matrix we live in against that Matrix.
We must build our strategy using the tools available in this system & only when the strategy is complete must we make our Revolutionary move.
We must use the individual talents of The People to their maximum & it has to be a joint effort.

You will need a mass media uncontrolled by the powers. It must be agile but widespread to deliver the message.
It can have a brick & mortar storefront but it has to be less centralized to be effective.
You will need a method of delivering the bare necessities to those who make that leap of faith & disengage from the system.
How can you expect people to go for broke if they can't eat & keep shelter? People will be reluctant to leave their jobs because they pay their bills. We must have something in place for those brave enough to make the leap.
Money is phony but everybody believes in it so you will need some kind of master economic philosophy to gain resources.
These resources are to build the industries designed to counter the old system.

It may be a pie-in-the-sky dream right now but I'm thinking of some high-tech form of shield technology. How do you deflect incoming bombs, missiles, & bullets? Science is controlled by the powers for their interests but nobody owns knowledge. Science can be used to aid The People. With a master economic plan to fund R&D, there can be a way to counter the weaponry that will be used by The Rulers.
There's a reason why scientific advancement took place so fast in the past 200 years. Those Revolutions of the past came too close for comfort for the rulers of yesteryear. They needed better protections. The weapons of today are MUCH more formidable than the ones of the past. MUCH MUCH MUCH more formidable & that's why people are gonna be more reluctant to make a stand without having their backs up against the wall.

It all begins with the master economic plan. How do you play this money thing like a videogame & amass the resources you need?
After that it's about realizing the truth of human nature. People naturally divide amongst themselves. Unity is temporary with people & always has been. How do you best understand human habits to make the most effective use for the good of the Revolution?
Activism often fails because activists are always trying to speak to people's better natures. That works for a few but most people don't break habit. They don't stop what they're used to on choice alone.

Human beings are lazy at heart & are creatures of habit. They will take the path of least resistance & do the familiar.
We must meet them where they are, not where we wish they would be. People complain about corporate corruption yet everything in their house is a product of that corporate corruption. It's sort of like the futility of buying Made In The U.S.A. products. That simply doesn't exist anymore. It's virtually ALL Made In China so the protest is fruitless.
We all contribute to this machine simply by working a job whether it be office, store, warehouse, or whatever.
What kind of media can we use to get this message across effectively & how do we keep it from being shutdown forcibly by the rulers.

For this to work you will need a millions upon millions strike. Tens & hundreds of millions of Americans simply walking out on the machine & leaving it unable to run. There will always be those loyal to the oppressor but if you get enough numbers, you are on your way.
Make no mistake. This WILL be an Outlaw Movement. We are going outside of the system to stop it.
It's gonna take more 200,000 or 1,000,000 to do this successfully.
At LEAST 2/3 of the nation if not 3/4 of it will be needed.

Once it is in place we will operate in a Forward Defensive mode. That means we won't have to attack the Enforcers. We will just deflect their efforts the entire way while marching ever forward. 200,000,000 people walking as one towards the Rulers & simply telling them what will be changed & when.
Numbers rule & when you have enough numbers, you will win.

The Rulers on rule because we let them. WE have the power. That's why they have to use weapons to enforce their orders. That's why they have to put on these political theaters & sideshows. If we weren't so silly to fight ourselves all the time over nonsense, they could never conquer. They're just men & women. Human beings. Flesh & bone. They're not anymore special than any of us. They can be taken down.

In the meantime, I am seeking autonomy of the job market in order to get this ball rolling. Once I am able to achieve this & my master economic strategy is ready, I will then gather other similarly-aimed movements together & begin the master plan. From there it will be a matter of effectively getting the message across to the everyday people needed to make the movement a foolproof success. Then it will be about chipping away at the machine as more & more people abandon it to join this ever-growing movement. All the while protection & sustenance for those who joined. Once it's big enough, we simply use the Forward Defense walking on to the seat of power & telling them what they will change. A new method of governing will then be put in place that punishes lawmakers when they make mistakes. They pay out of pocket for every error until the debt has been paid off. TRUE accountability. A new government dedicated to problem solving rather than sideshows with absurd political gangs will emerge. Merciless enforcement of the new rulers' personal accountability will make the system self-sustaining & eliminate corruption.

That's not a plan?
Of course, the other way is the Violent Revolution which tears up everything & may cause a worse warlord to rise up in place of the old ones.
Hopefully my plan can beat the other one to the punch.
John Lucas

[ProSense]

143. "I'm talking about a Revolution, son."

First, I'm not your son.

Second:

For this to work you will need a millions upon millions strike. Tens & hundreds of millions of Americans simply walking out on the machine & leaving it unable to run. There will always be those loyal to the oppressor but if you get enough numbers, you are on your way.
Make no mistake. This WILL be an Outlaw Movement. We are going outside of the system to stop it.
It's gonna take more 200,000 or 1,000,000 to do this successfully.
At LEAST 2/3 of the nation if not 3/4 of it will be needed.

Once it is in place we will operate in a Forward Defensive mode. That means we won't have to attack the Enforcers. We will just deflect their efforts the entire way while marching ever forward. 200,000,000 people walking as one towards the Rulers & simply telling them what will be changed & when.
Numbers rule & when you have enough numbers, you will win.

Once it is in place we will operate in a Forward Defensive mode. That means we won't have to attack the Enforcers. We will just deflect their efforts the entire way while marching ever forward. 200,000,000 people walking as one towards the Rulers & simply telling them what will be changed & when.
Numbers rule & when you have enough numbers, you will win.

<...>

In the meantime, I am seeking autonomy of the job market in order to get this ball rolling. Once I am able to achieve this & my master economic strategy is ready, I will then gather other similarly-aimed movements together & begin the master plan. From there it will be a matter of effectively getting the message across to the everyday people needed to make the movement a foolproof success. Then it will be about chipping away at the machine as more & more people abandon it to join this ever-growing movement. All the while protection & sustenance for those who joined. Once it's big enough, we simply use the Forward Defense walking on to the seat of power & telling them what they will change. A new method of governing will then be put in place that punishes lawmakers when they make mistakes. They pay out of pocket for every error until the debt has been paid off. TRUE accountability. A new government dedicated to problem solving rather than sideshows with absurd political gangs will emerge. Merciless enforcement of the new rulers' personal accountability will make the system self-sustaining & eliminate corruption.

That's not a plan?

<...>

"Tens & hundreds of millions of Americans simply walking out on the machine & leaving it unable to run."

No, that's not a plan, that's a hyperbolic fantasy.

[johnlucas]

145. Men being able to land on the Moon was a fantasy once too

I guess everything's a fantasy until somebody makes it a reality.

I love hyperbole. :) It's just so hyper! So super! :)
And I'm going for the hyper, the super, the über, the over!
The overkill strategy! Yes, that's what I want.

It has to be psychologically intense to shock the shit out of the rulers.
It may be so big that they surrender outright.
Go to a Michael Jackson concert & understand a sea of people all gathered for the same cause.
They were just watching a phenomenon on stage performing in excellent fashion.
Imagine the force of a Michael Jackson audience times 10,000.

Most people haven't experienced a sea of people in person.
200,000 is overwhelming but that ain't nothing compared to 200,000,000.
The protests I saw on C-Span when they were protesting the Bush War were a taste.
But it was a peaceful assembly standing still.
Imagine a gathering 100 times that walking ever forward in the midst of tanks & bombs & bullets.
Imagine the military becoming unglued with the sight of this many people willing to go forward at all costs.
Imagine the shock they will feel when their weapons have no effect being neutralized as the people continue to walk.

It's the stuff movies are made of but I'm gonna make it happen in real life.
They put that movie out called '300' right?
A simple 300 holding down the Persian army without losing position once.
Just by blocking a road this united force held down an entire army with the right strategy & the right equipment.
Now try 300 × 300 × 300. 300³ then multiply that by 10.
A force like that protected by a technological shield that renders all weapons formed against it useless.
The psychological damage it does to the oppressors when their go-to efforts prove to be futile.

Fantasy? Sure it is. ;) But much more of a reality that can be made than participating in this crooked system expecting meaningful change.
That 'D' signature you got, you know, "(D) Democrats: Change That Matters"...
...THAT is a fantasy.

Betcha mine will come true before yours does. I'll see to it.
John Lucas

[ProudDad]

144. "If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal..."

It's ridiculous to expect blind acceptance of and playing of the "game" according to the rules of the mechanism of the status-quo that got us here and keep us here -- basically enslaved to change anything substantive...

It's a good definition of insanity and some here (the previous poster a pristine example) haven't gotten that yet...

Thanks for posting... :hi:

[johnlucas]

146. Thank you Proud Dad!

The game is rigged, baby.
Can't expect big payouts with rigged games.
When it's rigged the House always wins.

THIS time the Players are gonna win.
And it's gonna be a new night in the Casino.
Thank you for your support, ProudDad, once again.
John Lucas

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. May I add a bravo from the corner?

You are more than just right.

For reasons the OP is missing by the way.

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. No, not really

the loudest and angriest people I have heard and talked to are black...

And get it right, some of us are immigrants too, and we are not happy. It has little to do with skin color.

[akbacchus_BC]

136. It is all about race, we are not that stupid! Some says they hate his

white part too!

America! God bless America, home of Jim Jones and Phelps!