Reasons for Conservatives to Vote for Obama - The American ConservativeMagazine

H

Hothead McCain

Guest
The American Conservative

The Right Choice?

The conservative case for Barack Obama

by Andrew J. Bacevich

Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives=3Fand the state of the conservative movement=3Fthey could do worse.

Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following:



a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;


a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;


veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;


a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;


respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market's corrosive impact on humane values;


a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.

Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives=3Fespecially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire=3Fhave prospered. But conservatism as such has not.

The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush's two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has
allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans "safe," he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.

As with every Republican leader since Reagan, President Bush has routinely expressed his support for traditional values. He portrays himself as pro-life and pro-family. He offers testimonials to old-fashioned civic virtues. Yet apart from sporting an American flag lapel-pin, he has done little to promote these values. If anything, the reverse is true. In the defining moment of his presidency, rather than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated
conspicuous consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship.

Should conservatives hold President Bush accountable for the nation's cultural crisis? Of course not. The pursuit of instant gratification, the compulsion to accumulate, and the exaltation of celebrity that have become central to the American way of life predate this administration and derive from forces that lie far beyond the control of any president. Yet conservatives should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously committed to curbing
or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame themselves for failing to see the GOP's cultural agenda as contrived and cynical.

Finally, there is President Bush's misguided approach to foreign policy, based on expectations of deploying American military might to eliminate tyranny, transform the Greater Middle East, and expunge evil from the face of the earth. The result has been the very inverse of conservatism. For Bush, in the wake of 9/11, ideology supplanted statecraft. As a result, his administration has squandered American lives and treasure in the pursuit of objectives that make little
strategic sense.

For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.

Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a na
 
On Mar 31, 8:33 pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> The American Conservative
>
> The Right Choice?
>
> The conservative case for Barack Obama
>
> by Andrew J. Bacevich
>
> Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives=3Fand the state of the conservative movement=3Fthey could do worse.
>
> Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following:
>
>
>
> a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;
>
>
> a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
>
>
> veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;
>
>
> a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
>
>
> respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market's corrosive impact on humane values;
>
>
> a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
>
> Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives=3Fespecially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire=3Fhave prospered. But conservatism as such has not.
>
> The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush's two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has
> allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans "safe," he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.
>
> As with every Republican leader since Reagan, President Bush has routinely expressed his support for traditional values. He portrays himself as pro-life and pro-family. He offers testimonials to old-fashioned civic virtues. Yet apart from sporting an American flag lapel-pin, he has done little to promote these values. If anything, the reverse is true. In the defining moment of his presidency, rather than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated
> conspicuous consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship.
>
> Should conservatives hold President Bush accountable for the nation's cultural crisis? Of course not. The pursuit of instant gratification, the compulsion to accumulate, and the exaltation of celebrity that have become central to the American way of life predate this administration and derive from forces that lie far beyond the control of any president. Yet conservatives should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously committed to curbing
> or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame themselves for failing to see the GOP's cultural agenda as contrived and cynical.
>
> Finally, there is President Bush's misguided approach to foreign policy, based on expectations of deploying American military might to eliminate tyranny, transform the Greater Middle East, and expunge evil from the face of the earth. The result has been the very inverse of conservatism. For Bush, in the wake of 9/11, ideology supplanted statecraft. As a result, his administration has squandered American lives and treasure in the pursuit of objectives that make little
> strategic sense.
>
> For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.
>
> Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a na
 
In article <d554bf9f-f75c-4d83-b34a-933d3771ff1d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, TypicalWhitePerson@mailcity.com says...
> On Mar 31, 8:33 pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > The American Conservative
> >
> > The Right Choice?
> >
> > The conservative case for Barack Obama
> >
> > by Andrew J. Bacevich
> >
> > Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives=3Fand the state of the conservative movement=3Fthey could do worse.
> >
> > Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following:
> >
> >
> >
> > a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;
> >
> >
> > a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
> >
> >
> > veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;
> >
> >
> > a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
> >
> >
> > respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market's corrosive impact on humane values;
> >
> >
> > a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
> >
> > Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives=3Fespecially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire=3Fhave prospered.. But conservatism as such has not.
> >
> > The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad.. Over the course of Bush's two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has
> > allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans "safe," he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.
> >
> > As with every Republican leader since Reagan, President Bush has routinely expressed his support for traditional values. He portrays himself as pro-life and pro-family. He offers testimonials to old-fashioned civic virtues. Yet apart from sporting an American flag lapel-pin, he has done little to promote these values. If anything, the reverse is true. In the defining moment of his presidency, rather than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated
> > conspicuous consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship.
> >
> > Should conservatives hold President Bush accountable for the nation's cultural crisis? Of course not. The pursuit of instant gratification, the compulsion to accumulate, and the exaltation of celebrity that have become central to the American way of life predate this administration and derive from forces that lie far beyond the control of any president. Yet conservatives should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously committed to

curbing
> > or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame themselves for failing to see the GOP's cultural agenda as contrived and cynical.
> >
> > Finally, there is President Bush's misguided approach to foreign policy, based on expectations of deploying American military might to eliminate tyranny, transform the Greater Middle East, and expunge evil from the face of the earth. The result has been the very inverse of conservatism. For Bush, in the wake of 9/11, ideology supplanted statecraft. As a result, his administration has squandered American lives and treasure in the pursuit of objectives that make little
> > strategic sense.
> >
> > For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.
> >
> > Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a na
 
kwag7693@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:36�pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
>
> > > More liberal fiction.

> >
> > Yeah, from the American Conservative magazine

>
> For people who aren't concerned with the arguer over the argument, so
> what?
>
> > McCain is not a real conservative.
> >
> > "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain
> > represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."

>
> Yup, that's what the article said. Since Obama is a racist, a
> populist and hopped right on the pork barrel bandwagon, I am thinking
> the article might be wrong.


You people don't have a ****ing clue what your own party represents
let alone understand what the other party does. duhhhh
 
On Apr 1, 1:40 am, monkey_cart...@yahoo.com wrote:
> kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 11:36�pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:

>
> > > > More liberal fiction.

>
> > > Yeah, from the American Conservative magazine

>
> > For people who aren't concerned with the arguer over the argument, so
> > what?

>
> > > McCain is not a real conservative.

>
> > > "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain
> > > represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."

>
> > Yup, that's what the article said.  Since Obama is a racist, a
> > populist and hopped right on the pork barrel bandwagon, I am thinking
> > the article might be wrong.

>
> You people don't have a ****ing clue what your own party represents
> let alone understand what the other party does.


That's right jackass, you've got it all down and no one else
understands. You're the lone sane voice out there. Good job.
 
On Apr 1, 8:04 pm, "kwag7...@hotmail.com" <kwag7...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 1, 1:40 am, monkey_cart...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 11:36�pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > More liberal fiction.

>
> > > > Yeah, from the American Conservative magazine

>
> > > For people who aren't concerned with the arguer over the argument, so
> > > what?

>
> > > > McCain is not a real conservative.

>
> > > > "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain
> > > > represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."

>
> > > Yup, that's what the article said. Since Obama is a racist, a
> > > populist and hopped right on the pork barrel bandwagon, I am thinking
> > > the article might be wrong.

>
> > You people don't have a ****ing clue what your own party represents
> > let alone understand what the other party does.

>
> That's right jackass, you've got it all down and no one else
> understands. You're the lone sane voice out there. Good job.


Well, let's see...

We can vote for a tired old man who's admitted that he knows little
about the economy and is so out of touch with reality that he's
successfully deluded himself into thinking the surge in Iraq is a
success...

Or...

We can vote for ANYONE else.

I pick ANYONE else.

If that person happens to be named Obama, that's fine by me.
 
On Apr 4, 2:44 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> In article <330896e0-432d-4a31-83c6-f059beb94...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 1:27 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > In article <d3efcb84-d69a-432d-9d5b-6b25d3181...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > > On Apr 2, 10:21 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <8e30af20-a231-4a1f-8ba3-b818346bd...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > > > > On Apr 2, 12:26 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <971448c6-53db-436b-b4a6-b6265f4a8...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 1:17 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article <c29266a7-a632-41e5-ad60-31a149e49...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 11:36 pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > > > > More liberal fiction.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, from the American Conservative magazine

>
> > > > > > > > > > For people who aren't concerned with the arguer over the argument, so
> > > > > > > > > > what?

>
> > > > > > > > > > > McCain is not a real conservative.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain
> > > > > > > > > > > represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."

>
> > > > > > > > > > Yup, that's what the article said. Since Obama is a racist, a
> > > > > > > > > > populist and hopped right on the pork barrel bandwagon, I am thinking
> > > > > > > > > > the article might be wrong.

>
> > > > > > > > > Really, how come? Don't just resort to name calling like rightards
> > > > > > > > > usually do. You'll have to show how McCain is better. Let's hear it:

>
> > > > > > > > I think I just mentioned the points that I found relevant. McCain is
> > > > > > > > consistently anti-pork, his economics are anti-populist and I have no
> > > > > > > > evidence he is a racist but Obama has made explicitly racist
> > > > > > > > statements.

>
> > > > > > > Like what?

>
> > > > > > Like that crack about his grandmother, whom he was busy throwing under
> > > > > > the bus to avoid having to ditch his pastor completely, being a racist
> > > > > > and typifying white people. I mean holy crap look how Ferraro got
> > > > > > lambasted for pointing out an obvious fact in a racially unflattering
> > > > > > manner. I can only imagine the firestorm if some white politician
> > > > > > said of darker skinned people, "the typical black just has reaction X
> > > > > > to white people, it's just inbred." For far less, Ferraro got thrown
> > > > > > off the Hillary bandwagon as unfit even to be near her campaign.

>
> > > > > That wasn't racist. C'mon man, try to come back to the real world and get
> > > > > a grip. I hope you're kidding.

>
> > > > LMAO! It was just a joke? Are some of his best friends white?
> > > > Unbelievable.

>
> > > You're starting to sound like an idiot. What difference does it make
> > > whether some of his best friends are white?

>
> > Goodness! You're pretty thick yourself. My vernacular point was you
> > were stretching my credulity with your "I hope you're kidding". I'll
> > try and keep it simpler for you. Of course that's racist. He said
> > all whites are inherently racist as typified by his own granny as he
> > tossed her under the bus. I find that 1) obvious overgeneralizing and

>
> No, he never said that. Give us the URL


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340289,00.html

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial
animosity -- she doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who if she
sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there is a reaction
that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that
sometimes come out in the wrong way."

I.e., she's not particularly motivated by racial animus, she just has
an inbred negative reaction to "blacks" typical of being "white".
 
On Apr 4, 5:26 am, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:04 pm, "kwag7...@hotmail.com" <kwag7...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 1:40 am, monkey_cart...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> > > kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Mar 31, 11:36�pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > More liberal fiction.

>
> > > > > Yeah, from the American Conservative magazine

>
> > > > For people who aren't concerned with the arguer over the argument, so
> > > > what?

>
> > > > > McCain is not a real conservative.

>
> > > > > "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain
> > > > > represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."

>
> > > > Yup, that's what the article said.  Since Obama is a racist, a
> > > > populist and hopped right on the pork barrel bandwagon, I am thinking
> > > > the article might be wrong.

>
> > > You people don't have a ****ing clue what your own party represents
> > > let alone understand what the other party does.

>
> > That's right jackass, you've got it all down and no one else
> > understands.  You're the lone sane voice out there.  Good job.

>
> Well, let's see...
>
> We can vote for a tired old man who's admitted that he knows little
> about the economy and is so out of touch with reality that he's
> successfully deluded himself into thinking the surge in Iraq is a
> success...


His knowing little about the economy is a relative thing. He is a
Senator after all which means he is probably a drop better acquainted
than most with economics. Very few presidents have been economists.
None that I can think of at the moment since the founders.

As for the surge failing, well you're just wrong. The Sunnis are a
lot quiter now.

> Or...
>
> We can vote for ANYONE else.
>
> I pick ANYONE else.


Then you're a dumbass. I don't like McCain. I think he's a crook. I
think he's probably not well committed to principles I enjoy, like
freedom of speech. OTOH, my other likely choices are two borderline
Marxist fools.
 
In article <07824d85-ffb9-4e57-a057-04410aab0ea4@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kwag7693@hotmail.com says...
> On Apr 4, 2:44 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > In article <330896e0-432d-4a31-83c6-f059beb94...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 1:27 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <d3efcb84-d69a-432d-9d5b-6b25d3181...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

> >
> > > > > On Apr 2, 10:21 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <8e30af20-a231-4a1f-8ba3-b818346bd...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

> >
> > > > > > > On Apr 2, 12:26 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <971448c6-53db-436b-b4a6-b6265f4a8...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

> >
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 1:17 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article <c29266a7-a632-41e5-ad60-31a149e49...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, kwag7...@hotmail.com says...

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 11:36 pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > More liberal fiction.

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, from the American Conservative magazine

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > For people who aren't concerned with the arguer over the argument, so
> > > > > > > > > > > what?

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > McCain is not a real conservative.

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain
> > > > > > > > > > > > represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yup, that's what the article said. Since Obama is a racist, a
> > > > > > > > > > > populist and hopped right on the pork barrel bandwagon, I am thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > the article might be wrong.

> >
> > > > > > > > > > Really, how come? Don't just resort to name calling like rightards
> > > > > > > > > > usually do. You'll have to show how McCain is better. Let's hear it:

> >
> > > > > > > > > I think I just mentioned the points that I found relevant. McCain is
> > > > > > > > > consistently anti-pork, his economics are anti-populist and I have no
> > > > > > > > > evidence he is a racist but Obama has made explicitly racist
> > > > > > > > > statements.

> >
> > > > > > > > Like what?

> >
> > > > > > > Like that crack about his grandmother, whom he was busy throwing under
> > > > > > > the bus to avoid having to ditch his pastor completely, being a racist
> > > > > > > and typifying white people. I mean holy crap look how Ferraro got
> > > > > > > lambasted for pointing out an obvious fact in a racially unflattering
> > > > > > > manner. I can only imagine the firestorm if some white politician
> > > > > > > said of darker skinned people, "the typical black just has reaction X
> > > > > > > to white people, it's just inbred." For far less, Ferraro got thrown
> > > > > > > off the Hillary bandwagon as unfit even to be near her campaign.

> >
> > > > > > That wasn't racist. C'mon man, try to come back to the real world and get
> > > > > > a grip. I hope you're kidding.

> >
> > > > > LMAO! It was just a joke? Are some of his best friends white?
> > > > > Unbelievable.

> >
> > > > You're starting to sound like an idiot. What difference does it make
> > > > whether some of his best friends are white?

> >
> > > Goodness! You're pretty thick yourself. My vernacular point was you
> > > were stretching my credulity with your "I hope you're kidding". I'll
> > > try and keep it simpler for you. Of course that's racist. He said
> > > all whites are inherently racist as typified by his own granny as he
> > > tossed her under the bus. I find that 1) obvious overgeneralizing and

> >
> > No, he never said that. Give us the URL

>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340289,00.html
>
> "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial
> animosity -- she doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who if she
> sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there is a reaction
> that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that
> sometimes come out in the wrong way."
>
> I.e., she's not particularly motivated by racial animus, she just has
> an inbred negative reaction to "blacks" typical of being "white".
>

No, you wrote that he said "all whites are inherently racist." Give us
the URL showing he said that or admit you're making stuff up. Your
attempt to paraphrase his words are disingenuous.
 
On Mar 31, 11:17 pm, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> Don't just resort to name calling like rightards


;?)

Baggi
 
Back
Top