Wall Street Journal authoritative enough?

Google is your friend: “subprime blacks discrimination”

The evidence is there for anyone who wants to find it.

Here you go.

Affirmative action used correctly, should be based upon economic factors, not race and gender.

Why? How do you reverse exclusion based on a given quality other than by inclusion based on that same quality?

I called one of your comments worthless because it didn’t contribute anything. It was meaningless and I showed you why.

When Ward Connerly helped to dismantle affirmative action, the cost for blacks was high, even though Mr. Connerly gained economically.

How? In the immediate aftermath of ending affirmative action in California for college admissions, minority enrollment plunged due largely to the notion that minorities believed their chance of getting into schools was reduced because of the new policy. However, since 2001, minority enrollment has been on the rise in California, despite Prop 209. Affirmative action used correctly, should be based upon economic factors, not race and gender.

It’s all well and good that one politician supports a certain capital gains policy or favors some Iranian engagement strategy. But what good does that do me as a black man, if I can be strip-searched for jay walking in the wrong suburb, be given a subprime loan when my credit says otherwise, or have my children sent to federal prison for the most petty of “crimes”. What good is “mundane” policy when, when my life is in immediate danger, my government won’t lift a finger to help?

And what exactly have Democrats done to remedy these problems? The “first black President” opposed changes to federal sentences for crack cocaine in 1995 even though the US Sentencing Commission recommended it. Even last year, Congress had the chance to do something about that problem and they didn’t. The Congress controlled by Democrats that is. As for given subprime loans when your credit says otherwise, I’d like to see some evidence that is taking place. Credit scores are not the only factor in determining what kind of loan somebody receives. That being said, what’s going to make things worse is Congress promising to “crack down” on lenders due to the subprime mess. All that will do is lead to tightened lending standards for obtaining loans which will hurt minorities more than help them.

This is a fairly bold assertion on your part. What data do you have to support your contention that the percentage of votes by the black electorate should be more closely apportioned between Obama and Clinton? What is this supposition based on?

There is no black racism operating here even if a significant percentage of black voters are voting for Obama because he is black. This type of voting behavior is a time honored tradition in American politics. Italians, Jews, Poles, Lithuanians, Scandinavians, Catholics, WASP, the Irish, white Southerners etc. have always voted in large numbers for candidates who reflect their specific cultural, ethnic, religious or regional heritage.

Black voters are no different save for their well documented willingness to give their votes to non-black candidates who support their interests. Non-black voters, by and large, have not demonstrated a similar attitude toward black candidates.

Again, I haven’t done that.

While you’re working the vocabulary, what’s a good phrase for someone whose maximum economic benefit is derived by denying there’s even any such thing as truth?

No race reference, please.

That makes no sense to me.

Fortunately I didn’t say that.

Not to sound too philosophical about it, but what do you mean by “truth”? What is “truth”?

You sound too philosophical about it.

If you REALLY don’t know what truth is, you’re too dangerous to walk the earth freely. And if you DO know what truth is, you’re a hypocrite.

Context, Context, context. Economic gain at what cost?

When Ward Connerly helped to dismantle affirmative action, the cost for blacks was high, even though Mr. Connerly gained economically.

Ask a white Zimbabwean, a white Bolivian, a chinese Malaysian, and an arab Isreali whether or not identity politics come before the more mundane political issues of the day. When politicians are willing to scapegoat you, and then build policy and protocol around a dark picture of you, bread and butter issues have to take a back seat.

Black americans don’t have the luxury to argue philosophical points about fairness and policy. In the 21st century it is still about survival. Even the most braindead and bought among us figured that out after Katrina, when Bush’s approval rating went to 2%.

It’s all well and good that one politician supports a certain capital gains policy or favors some Iranian engagement strategy. But what good does that do me as a black man, if I can be strip-searched for jay walking in the wrong suburb, be given a subprime loan when my credit says otherwise, or have my children sent to federal prison for the most petty of “crimes”. What good is “mundane” policy when, when my life is in immediate danger, my government won’t lift a finger to help? Or when my franchise is in danger, the Attorney General looks the other way?

Black Republicans are the equivalent of jewish nazis. I’m sure there were jews who supported the nazis to the end because they got a nice contract at some point. I’m sure there was a jew who liked the nazis’ stance on taxes or education and couldn’t let principle get in the way of “cheap identity politics”.

Not to sound too philosophical about it, but what do you mean by “truth”? What is “truth”?

Are you saying anyone who votes in their own economic self-interest is a sellout because they’ve cast their vote based on how much they get economically? To avoid being a sellout I have to vote for the person who would COST me the most?

That makes no sense to me.

It that what you’re saying?

Definition of sellout: Someone who denies truth for profit. Notice: no race reference in there, just in case you’re squeemish.

By that definition, every Black Republican and most Black Conservatives are sellouts. For that matter, most Republican politicians and party officials of any stripe are sellouts.

A black person votes for the Democrat because the Democrat as president will do things that benefit the black voter, and that’s fine.

A black person votes for the Republican because the Republican as president will do things that benefit the black voter, and that makes the black voter a sellout.

It that what you’re saying?

I’m not saying this is the same voter. One can be a welfare mom who needs Head Start and food stamps (most likely to get help from Democrats) and the other can be a wealthy CEO (most likely to get help from Republicans).

The point is, they are both voting for the person who would benefit them more personally. Would you really argue that that makes one of them a sellout and the other not?