And what "liberal government" would that be?

The one where the allegedly conservative president raises spending more on social programs than the liberal president before him.Man, you are just throwing me softballs today.

"Black Conservative" rests on fundamentalist propositions. By "fundamentalist," I mean an ideology which has been altered to become devoid of any analytical activity and rests on a single explanation for all events. Appeals to ethics and logic are jettisoned. When we speak of "fundamentalist Christianity" we are of course speaking not of a truth that sets minds free, but rather an algorithm for humans. Similarly, the power of Democratic Party thinking within the African American community is assumed [by Bob Parks] to be the result of a pervasive conspiracy by White liberals to somehow exercise power over Black institutions.[Bob Parks]:Funny how whites can belong to any political party they wish: Democrat, Republican, Green, Socialist, and Independent…. However, blacks, in the liberal world, are allowed no chance for independent thoughtAs you say, this is stupid but so common it merits attention. I could join the Revolutionary Communist Party if I wanted to (actually, so could Mr. Parks) and I could join the Republican Party too (so could Mr. Parks). But I chose the political party which matched my preferences. Joining the other two would be a profoundly perverse act, given my preferences... and perceived interests.Fundamentalism in any ideology rejects individual agency. I'm in favor of public schools so I (as a member of the set of White people) can pay taxes and control Black people. This control actually nets no payoffs--no sex, for instance, or exploitation rents--and if civil order in Oakland breaks down I already have a job in Concord. Similarly, African Americans are also credited with no individual agency; Park's own thesis makes no sense if incentives matter because African American voters actually benefit less per capita than European Americans do from social welfare programs. If White liberals are bribing Blacks to "vote liberal," we've sure conceived a marvellously stupid way of doing it.

And what "liberal government" would that be?The one where the allegedly conservative president raises spending more on social programs than the liberal president before him.The difference is, the liberal government pays for spending with taxes. The conservative government abdicates responsibility for paying to the next few generations.Man, you are just throwing me softballs today.Well, *kaff, kaff* I been sick *kaff, kaff*.

Alright, I concede what follows is indeed the stupidest remark I have ever read anywhere

I personally believe that blacks can do anything whites can do, and in some things, better. Just whom would that kind of success threaten?

The same liberal whites, like say, those in Hollywood who think Quentin Tarantino’s lust for the scripted word “nigger” is art. The same liberal whites who’ve abandoned the image in the old McDonald’s commercial of a young black male who has a job there for the new (and ugly) hip-hop “I’m lovin’ it” campaign. The same liberal whites who voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and today believe blacks are just too fucking stupid to get into UCLA without a further lowering of standards.

McDonalds is run by liberals? Liberals admire Quentin Tarantino?Of course it helps that he assumes his readers understand nothing about economics:

Bill Clinton opposed Welfare reform until his re-election depended on it. Then when the positive results Conservatives expected happened, he attempted to take credit for it.

Would those results include this?

• New Census Data Show An Increase In Poverty
• Many more people left the welfare system than have entered the labor force. These families suffer the harshest effects of poverty and are at greatest risk of homelessness and hunger

BTW, here is a deliberately misleading chart put out by the Urban Institute purporting to show that unemployment fell and wages rose for single mothers after welfare reform. Because the graph does not have a zero on the y-axis, the change is made to look very large. In fact, the increase was commensurate with systemic economic growth. Another problem with the chart is that it treats "absolute" growth rather than rate of change. The problem with this is that then, the slope depends on the time when the rate of change occurred. If something is steadily growing at 10% per year, then such a chart will make later growth look much faster than earlier growth.

James:You see why I could only go so deep into the article…the site, in fact. That "liberal whites who voted against the Civil Righst Act of 1964" is an incredibly ballsy lie.This guy just tosses around rhetorical hot words like he's auditioning for Fox News.

You wrote: "You see why I could only go so deep into the article…the site, in fact. That "liberal whites who voted against the Civil Righst Act of 1964" is an incredibly ballsy lie.This guy just tosses around rhetorical hot words like he's auditioning for Fox News."Get a copy of the Congressional Quarterly, June 1964 and read the votes cast by Democrats and those cast by Republicans. If those numbers are an "incredible ballsy lie", I'll say so and retract it from every column I've cited it in.

The problem, Bob, is that you imply the Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Amendment were liberal (then again, we've been calling Zell a Democrat, so anything is possible). You're equating Democrats with liberal/progressive positions. If you'd said "the Democrats that voted" etc, we might…MIGHT…be in a position to talk.Not only that, how many of those Democrats are still in office, or even in a position to influence the party platform?Denigrating the current Democratic position based on the actions of party members past is like rooting for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Or do we want to point fingers equally at the Republican party? The Republican Southern Strategy, the good ol' boys having meetings with the Kouncil of Konservative Kitizens and expecting us to believe it when they say they had NO idea of their racist positions, all that is a lot more current (i.e: only a couple months old) and therefore, to me, a lot more indicative of the party's current racial attitudes than a four-decades-old vote.

So a party (of today) that won't give parents an opportunity to opt out of government schools if they choose, even thought minority parents in almost every poll want vouchers, because to do so cuts off a significant monetary backing suggests an almost whorish behavior.And if you do your homework, and I trust you would, check and see what party was the party originally called "Negro-dominiated" vice the one dubbed the "White Man's Party".You accused me of telling "an incredibly ballsy lie" with regards to the support of the Civil Rights Act by Dems and the GOP.Let me give you the facts. The first civil rights act was passed by so-called "Radical-Republicans" in 1866, over the veto of Democrat President, Andrew Johnson. The act declared African-Americans full citizens and granted them full protection under the law. Segregation was forbidden, but southern Democrats continued to practice it. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified, granting equal protection under the law for ALL citizens. In 1871, Republicans pushed through another civil rights act, to secure voting rights for African-Americans who were STILL being denied in the right to vote. Democratic Presidents, including FDR, did little to enforce the laws on the books. In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower pushed for passage of the first modern civil rights act. Vice President Nixon played a key role. He met with then-little-known Martin Luther King Jr. Democrat Strom Thurmond filibustered the act, for over twenty-four hours. John F. Kennedy voted against it. Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson watered it down. In 1960, Eisenhower pushed another civil rights act, and Democrats successfully kept enforcement measures out of it, giving the law no teeth. Then, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Republicans voted for it in greater percentages than Democrats. Ever since, Democrats have claimed a legacy that they have not earned. That's the historical fact. You and everyone reading this forum should look it up before you or anyone calls me a liar!

And Sir,Democrats imply the "R" behind a politician's name stand for racist purely as a political tactic.You wrote: "You're equating Democrats with liberal/progressive positions. If you'd said "the Democrats that voted" etc, we might…MIGHT…be in a position to talk."I know how it feels to be falsely accused, but it would seem my skin is thicker...

You accused me of telling "an incredibly ballsy lie" with regards to the support of the Civil Rights Act by Dems and the GOP.

No, I don't.I call this statement

The same liberal whites who voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and today believe blacks are just too fucking stupid to get into UCLA without a further lowering of standards.

an incredibly ballsy lie. I haven't disputed the Democratic/Republican vote breakdown. I'm saying the people who voted against the Civil Rights Act were not liberal whites, though they may have been both white and registered Democrats. As proof I submit the fact that all those registered Democrats that voted against the bill exited the party pretty much en mass and joined the Republican party.You're impugning an outlook because of the actions of a group that did not hold the outlook at the time.

I know how it feels to be falsely accused, but it would seem my skin is thicker...

Honestly Bob, you'd need the thicker skin.Look, I can see that we're on the edge of trading old saws. I'd rather not…besides, if you can't see a difference in the outlooks of white liberals and those guys that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I don't know how I could explain it to you.You know what I would like to ask you…are you looking to convince folks, to gather people who already agree with you or what?

No, I'd really like to see those who've temporarily rewritten history to admit that they've been lying to Blacks for political advantage all this time. Only someone being genuinely dishonest would call themselves a champion of something one voted against."I'd rather not…besides, if you can't see a difference in the outlooks of white liberals and those guys that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I don't know how I could explain it to you."But of course, liberals can grow, and those who disagree with them are "evil". And even if those who voted against the Act before are gone now, again, how does that make me a liar as you called me earlier?It's not having a "thin skin" challenging someone who has falsely accused you...

And finally, Mr. P, I really do admire your passion and I encourage it, but simply because I disagree with you on these particular issue doesn’t make me a "black supremacist", although I find that better than being a "black inferiorist".When I write about certain white liberals, I speak of those like Bill Clinton, who when first elected, had a majority in both houses and could have delivered all the "stuff" they promise Blacks every other November 2nd.Yet, two years went by and all blacks got was Midnight Basketball, as if that’s all Blacks can do. I’m personally tired of all the talk about what we as Blacks "can’t" do. At least the GOP has simply told all people what can be done with commitment and hard work. If one was to come down from another plant and turn on the television, he/she/it would think that all Black men did was rap and play basketball, and Black women shook their gigglies to atonal "beats".If a Conservative used the word "nigger" in any spoken form, he’d be destroyed publically, but when a Democrat Lieutenant Governor in California uses the word to Black trade unionists, the press and other Dems look the other way. And this happened within the last couple of years, not centuries.

Okay, Bob.

Only someone being genuinely dishonest would call themselves a champion of something one voted against.

And who among those who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have you heard deny that vote?

But of course, liberals can grow, and those who disagree with them are "evil".

I'm still not seeing analysis here. I'm seeing rhetorical hot-words.

And even if those who voted against the Act before are gone now, again, how does that make me a liar as you called me earlier?

I'm tempted to take a page from the Bushista's playbook and parse this to within an inch of its life. Look, if I assume you to be knowledgable and intelligent then I have to assume you know the difference between white liberal attitudes and the Dixiecratic platform. Therefore I judge your confounding the two to be disingenuous at best and intentionally misleading at worst. The alternative would be to assume you are unknowlegeable, unintelligent or both. Between you and me, I like liar better than stupid.That's the justification for my statement…which, incidentally, was that the statement is a lie not that you lie habitually to the degree that the label "liar" is appropriate. I don't know enough about you to judge you the way I do your articles.

"Look, if I assume you to be knowledgable and intelligent then I have to assume you know the difference between white liberal attitudes and the Dixiecratic platform. Therefore I judge your confounding the two to be disingenuous at best and intentionally misleading at worst. The alternative would be to assume you are unknowlegeable, unintelligent or both. Between you and me, I like liar better than stupid."Liberals, and I mean "today's" liberals are always calling Republicans racist as a political tactic, which is as disingenous as what you say I do to liberals.I do use "rhetorical hot-words", I admit that; but no one has to "parse" what I say. There are no hidden meaning behind my words.

Mr. P, I really do admire your passion and I encourage it, but simply because I disagree with you on these particular issue doesn’t make me a "black supremacist", although I find that better than being a "black inferiorist".

Heh. Actually, that particular piece of rhetoric applies to me as well.

When I write about certain white liberals, I speak of those like Bill Clinton, who when first elected, had a majority in both houses and could have delivered all the "stuff" they promise Blacks every other November 2nd.

So can we put away the "white liberals that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964" stuff, right?And Clinton's a Democrat, not a progressive. Just as Bush is a Republican, not a conservative.

Liberals, and I mean "today's" liberals are always calling Republicans racist as a political tactic, which is as disingenous as what you say I do to liberals.

Assume that to be true.So now we have one more disingenuous person. Because your argument comes down to "Democratic policies are racist TOO."

I do use "rhetorical hot-words", I admit that; but no one has to "parse" what I say. There are no hidden meaning behind my words.

But who are you trying to reach?If you're honestly trying to get to Black folks, don't you think you could get your point across with a little more respect? It's not even that you have to think the positions opposing yours are worthy of respect, but that the people you're speaking to are.

When I write about certain white liberals, I speak of those like Bill Clinton, who when first elected, had a majority in both houses and could have delivered all the "stuff" they promise Blacks every other November 2nd.

I like Eddie Griffin's take on that one: "When he showed up in Washinton, They sat him down and said, 'this is how it going to be, and if you don't like it, we'll take you on a trip to Dallas.'"

You are all a bunch of stupid niggers and crackers! Argue amongst yourselves! You will all fall to my people. ASIAN POWER!!!!!!!!!!

Will never happen. Y'all have no rhythm.

Heh. Good answer, Bob. That was like applying half an asperin to my headache.