Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Great Black Colms
I have no idea what MSNBC is paying Michael Steele (the interesting albeit hapless former RNC chair) as an analyst. But, I'm telling you here, whatever it is, it ain't even remotely sufficient. I mean, have you seen him over there lately? That poor bastard is taking it squarely/up the poopshoot. The combination of the Republicans being in disarray and MSNBC's liberal hosts dictating the story line over there, I swear, is almost enough to make you feel sorry for the guy...............................................................................................Let me give you one example here. On Rachel Maddow's show, he actually had to defend the Republicans' handling of the David Vitter controversy - four frigging years after it happened! Talk about the need for some frigging battle pay, huh?...............................................................................................Actually, I DO have to give him some credit. Even beyond his ability to take a body-blow, the guy is nothing if he hasn't been honest (perhaps a little TOO honest, if in fact you're a Republican watching). If the Republicans are being hypocritical or stupid about something, he'll admit it. It would just be kind of nice if he could get a shot of his own in every once in a while.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Good for him. Now no doubt, though, the liberals will once again bash him for his skin color.
He's MSNBC's Uncle Tom.
I am sure we will hear that, "uncle tom" being a racist term used by the Left for blacks that don't meet the definition of uncle tom ("A black man considered to be excessively obedient or servile") but do happen to disagree with their ideology. Among other things, it is bashing African-Americans for not fitting the expected stereotype of "black" political thought.
Even the most ardent,Kool Aide drinking Obama supporter has to be questioning this guys competence at this point.
Unemployment jumps to 9.2%,debt continues to soar,the housing market remains in the crapper and Obama remains clueless.The biggest idea he has is to close loopholes on private jets.
Its becoming quite clear this guy is just a community organizer after all.
The average liberal cant wrap their mind around the idea of a black conservative.
Yes, Rusty. The "average liberal" you are referring to seems to be more chained by stereotypes.
Rusty uses a racist term to describe Michael Steele and dmarks bashes the Left for it?! Rusty is NOT a Leftist dmarks!
I disagree with Rusty. But I think if Fox had offered him a job he'd certainly would have taken it over working at MSNBC. I think the Republicans chose him because the Democrats elected a black president... then they regretted their decision.
Michael Steele accepted the job because it's the only high paying gig he could get... Republicans don't want to have anything to do with him.
dmarks: Yes, Rusty. The "average liberal" you are referring to seems to be more chained by stereotypes.
Bullshit. A majority of African Americans vote Democratic. This is for a reason, stereotyping has nothing to do with it.
WD: I assumed that Rusty was using the "uncle tom" term referring to how liberals like to refer to him. Perhaps I was very mistaken, and Rusty was using it to present his own view.
Which is it?
-----------
And WD thanks for strengthening my point about stereotypes. That to some, being leftist is the only acceptible behavior of Blacks. It is them behaving "properly".
Assuming every black is a Democrat or liberal IS stereotyping.
dmarks: thanks for strengthening my point about stereotypes.
I did no such thing. I was referring to a statistical fact. This "behaving properly" bit is your contribution to the discussion. I made no such suggestion. But, yet again, I imagine you know better than me what I meant.
Factcheck.org says, "[LBJ] pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964... [and his] Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, opposed it. Johnson got 94% of the black vote...
The following year Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. No Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15% of the black vote since".
Are you disputing this? Or maybe you just don't care what the actual facts are... the only thing that interests you is (falsely) painting Liberals as racist.
That would explain you mistaking Rusty's comment as being what he thought a Liberal would say (even though he added no such qualifier).
I would never assert that every African American is a Liberal or a Democrat... because it wouldn't be true. As for "acceptible behavior"... I believe that every individual has the right to make their own decisions regarding what politial party they want to support... whatever their skin color.
WD is now a spokesperson for the black community.Perhaps WD could tell us all the wonderful things the dems have done for said community? Whats the unemployment rates vs. whites? Whats the number of single parent households compared to whites? Whats the number of fatherless homes vs. whites?
Whats the average income vs. whites.Whats the high school drop out rate compared to whites.
Yep,you dems sure have done well by the black community...why that community continues their support for you policies is beyond me.
So, what you're saying Rusty is that Whites are better than Blacks?
I'm not the spokesperson for anyone but myself, btw.
Rusty: It's a fact the dems have done close to zero for the black community.
Actually, it's a fact that the Repubs have done less than zero for the black community. Democrats try to fund programs to help the working poor (programs that would help poor blacks and whites) and Republicans object. Republicans think the solution is "tough love" and a suggestion the poor pull themselves up by their own bootstraps... while Democratic solutions have actually been shown to work.
The majority of the black community knows the party which seeks to preserve tax breaks for the wealthy while cutting programs that benefit the poor and the working class isn't the party they should be voting for.
According to that graph, the sharp downward trend started significantly prior to the Great Society. And besides, strict causation cannot be inferred from correlational data. My suspicion here is that, just like with anything else, the Great Society had a mixed effect on the populace.
Yes WD,the dems continue to keep the black community in servitude...gotta keep them votes.I do admitt its been a good plan.
"by promoting fiscal policies that make them wage slaves."
There are zero policies from Republicans to make blacks ANY sort of slave. That's an outrageous and false accusation.
"Take, for example, dmarks' belief that people already making low wages are overpaid"
Some are, some are not. If there is no union involved, and the real value of low wage is above the minimum wage, then of course no one is being overpaid. Because they are getting paid for the fair value of the work.
"I'm sure he'd like to do away with the minimum wage... that would be just one example."
Of course. It is very destructive. and forces businesses to fire thousands of people every time it is increased. It is VERY harmful to poor people: it is arrogant know-nothings intervening in decisions and telling people they are better off earning $0 than the silly amount that know-nothings make up in their heads.
Why are you so opposed to paying people fair real-value wages?
Increasing the minimum wage decreases unemployment. Because when workers have more to spend the effect is to stimulate economic activity.
Increased economic activity equals more sales which means employers have to hire more workers to meet the demand.
The "fair real-value wages" you continually refer to is conservative doublespeak for underpaying workers.
"Increasing the minimum wage decreases unemployment."
It increases unemployment, because in situations where the value of the work is lower than the new minimum age, the company is forced to do without the workers, or automate. Find some way to eliminate the job rather than pay welfare.
"The "fair real-value wages" you continually refer to is conservative doublespeak for underpaying workers."
I oppose underpaying AND overpaying. There's no doublespeak here: pay people for the value of the work.
The situation of forcing businesses to hand out unearned money is insnne. One big reason is that it is not means tested. Many/most of those who get these handouts are not the working poor.
Why not instead pay the honest value, and if it is not enough to live on, make up for it with a means-tested government welfare program? I fully support that.
Honest value = underpay workers so CEOs and management can be overpaid.
When you increase the minimum wage, prices eventually follow......The minimum wage is something that makes us feel good and, yeah, maybe for that alone, we should keep it (and like wd said, maybe tie it to inflation), but what it actually accomplishes.....
The minimum wage wasn't raised for 10 years, yet we still had inflation. How do you explain that?
We had lower inflation than otherwise.
WD, the minimum wage forces businesses (most of them small) to be welfare agencies, in which they handout unearned money to ALL employees. This includes a mother with 6 children (for whom the money is not enough) and teenager children of rich parents (who aren't needy at all)
Wouldn't it be a lot better to scrap this entirely, and let employers pay the fair value of the work... .then make up for any poverty/etc through means tested government programs?
Why bankrupt businesses and increase unemployment by forcing them to handout earned money quite often to rich people?
Again, I favor welfare for the poor. Again, the supposed liberal here favors welfare for the rich and quite well off.
Welfare for the poor is the best worst option. A better option would be to reduce poverty. In part we can do that by forcing businesses to pay more than slave wages. Businesses seek to pay the absolute minimum, even if that often is BELOW the "fair value".
I categorically (not ignorantly) reject your use of the term "fair value". You use the word to mean "absolute minimum" and usually less than the REAL fair value. What you want is make the poor (or keep the poor) in wage slavery.
Also, you say you favor "welfare for the poor", but what you really mean is welfare for the corporations. Because you want the government to make up the difference -- the difference between what the corporations should be paying their employees and the lowest amount they could get away with paying if there was no minimum wage.
w-dervish asking a question of Will: The minimum wage wasn't raised for 10 years, yet we still had inflation. How do you explain that?
I guess he can't explain it.
Post a Comment