I agree - and the same for religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Printable View
I agree - and the same for religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Selection based on any criteria that is predisposed at birth (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.) is nonsensical unless the selector is attempting to "purify" the results. Selection based on conscious decisions made by the candidates, such as religious preference, makes more sense because those choices reveal something about the character of the individual. Character, or at least perceived character, is a very valid reason to prefer one candidate over another. If you refuse to vote for Mr. Romney because he is white you are a racist. If you refuse to vote for him simply because he is Morman you are apparently afflicted with a prejudice stronger than your ability to reason past it. If you refuse to vote for Mr. Romney because he is a Morman, and your decision is based on the fact that you have researched the LDS faith and learned you have a fundamental conflict with their doctrine that prevents you from voting for a leader with those beliefs, you are empowered. I think we could use more empowered voters right now (as in voters willing to research a little for themselves rather than rely on party lines or talking heads).
I'm a bit offended by your inference that liberals will make a political decision based on skin color - and I have a pretty thick skin. That is hogwash. I am a liberal, and have quite a few liberal, politically active friends (a few are even - *gasp* - LDS). We are looking hard at Romney and will continue to do so during the Repub primaries. He seems quite middle-of-the-road on many issues. His stance on abortion will probably have a big impact on our decision as to who to vote for - but honestly, Obama is NOT a liberal, and is not the "darling" of all liberals, as many seem to think. Overall, I have to say at this point I will probably go with Obama again, and hope that he listens to his base a bit better. But Romney is deserving of a lot of consideration, and many of us are giving him just that. I particularly agree with his statement during one of the debates:Quote:
The problem is, you're describing liberals and they won't vote for Romney no matter what. Independants and Conservatives, being individualistic, tend not to allow race to color their decisions.
Quote:
If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most.
It's been my experience that the further left of the political center an individual is, the more they make of racial differences. As you move further right of center, you may notice that race becomes secondary to individual characteristics such as the content of their character. Of course, those on the extreme left might argue that the failure to group individuals racially is the ultimate proof of racism, in much the same manner that many felt it necessary to apply the racist label to anyone who disagreed with our current president.Quote:
Originally Posted by early morning
This community would make an interesting case study on the subject.
This would be saying anyone racist is liberal - and the more racist, the more liberal. Which would make KKK and John Birch types radically liberal. It just doesn't wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
I agree people across the spectrum play the racist card too broadly - but the fault of it is lumping people in groups as apposed to individually evaluating the content of their character.
Well the KKK was founded as the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
From my perspective, racism will always exist because so many people use race as a means of segregating groups. Plus, I'm a little annoyed with those who constantly bring up race as a factor in their politics. Unfortunately for the liberals, it's always them.
From my experience, people who bring up race usually do so as a factor in other people's politics, not their own. And you're doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Except that I didn't bring it up. I just commented on someone else's thoughts and then found myself under scrutiny for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
That's OK though. I do enjoy the feedback.
Not you - just some of the comments. Some of it didn't quite add up for me, so I was poking for more.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
On race and politics, I will say that I was pleased to see that race was not an insurmountable factor in the last election. Beyond that I don't have enough information to say much else about it.
I think perhaps it's not the candidates who need better characters (scumbags though most of them are :)) but the citizens. How are our characters in holding our politicians feet to the fire for all that they do that we oppose?Quote:
Selection based on conscious decisions made by the candidates, such as religious preference, makes more sense because those choices reveal something about the character of the individual. Character, or at least perceived character, is a very valid reason to prefer one candidate over another.