X-Cop Fly Company

9 Responses to Interesting statement on racism and political activism

1. 
   Allen Lawrence
   April 30th, 2010 at 5:50 PM

   I just read her article. I found it interesting. I’m an unapologetic socialist and like what Obama is doing. America needs to be a part of the world government, but I failed to see how it was misleading. She clearly explained that her article is about why they are coming back. I also didn’t see the ideology change. I noted they mentioned the change in their base, but the Republicans are the same as they have always been when you look at their platform. I think that both parties suck and we need the Socialist party!

2. 
   xcopfly
   April 30th, 2010 at 9:57 PM

   Allen, you can argue that racism as a general attitude was more common back then. They say Lincoln supposedly was racist, and like our last president used slavery as an excuse to take back the South.

   I was talking about how the (Lincoln’s) Republican Party at its founding was always pro-big government in a pro-business sense, with the Democrats being free-market and states’ rights, but they also attracted people using the ideology for segregation. Then later on progressivism and Keynesianism (and socialism at times) resulted in the parties switching ideologies.

   Thanks for your comment, occasionally I get one or two here, and as for socialism, to me it just gets rid of half the problem. When it comes to utopias I’d have to go with anarcho-capitalism – the right-wing will be happy paying for defense of their life, liberty, and property, while the left-wing can refuse to buy these services and form a self-sufficient commune instead.

3. 
   xcopfly
   April 30th, 2010 at 10:03 PM

   Although with anarcho-capitalism you are required to respect certain beliefs held by other people. For example, is copyright property or a grant, is abortion a woman’s body or a living body inside, etc…

4. 
   Allen Lawrence
   May 1st, 2010 at 1:05 AM

   There’s a direct quote from Lincoln that totally flies in the face of him being a racist. I will try to find it. Pro-big business and big government are two different things. There’s a difference between capitalism and corporatism. I was only recently convinced. . Who knows why Lincoln did what he did. I just know it was done. I’ve been encouraged to read some history on wallbuilders. Interesting, but I shall remain an unapologetic socialist until someone convinces me other wise. I shall ponder your remarks on anarcho-capitalism. Interesting, to say the least. Look forward to chatting more often. Where can I find out more about this view.

   Question. Why did you find that statement Angle made so interesting.

5. 
   Allen Lawrence
   May 1st, 2010 at 1:11 AM

   You seem well educated. I have a few more questions for you, but I am rather tired my friend. I shall think on what you have written. You have my attention. Are you a hiphop Republican or a monitor like myself.

6. 
   xcopfly
   May 1st, 2010 at 1:44 AM

   Sorry Allen, you might have seen the me working “live” on getting the blockquotes to look better. I’m never completely happy with them but I think I am right now.

   Definitely with you about pro-business vs. free-market, the more-ideological libertarians frequently point out the differences. I remember seeing a political cartoon in a newspaper ages ago incorrectly referring to banks looking for a bailout as “free marketeers”.

   There’s a real issue with that right now in the Supreme Court, as since Bush II the Supreme Court is very pro-business – not the free market courts FDR scared off, since those courts believed in freedom of contract and thus the businesses were held to the same standards (on paper). Every case that has been taken to the Bush II court has wound up with highly frightening rulings (Kelo, Grokster, etc.)

   I have to warn you about researching anarcho-capitalism on the Internet. Usually the first places you look at are Lew Rockwell or the Ludwig von Mises Institute he helps run. There seem to be a lot of contradictions in libertarianism I don’t understand.

   For example, unless there is an agreement forbidding doing so signed upon employment, how is organized refusal to work anti-free-market?

   Another thing, they seem to assume a lot, like a gold/silver standard automatically being natural. (Wasn’t the case in all cultures, and anyone can legally carry around and use American Eagles at face value.)

   Another thing weird is how they can support limited/no government and keep complaining about Monsatan poisoning our food & water at the same time. Sure there are some things protectionist – all the people proposing “fatty food taxes” seem to conveniently “not know” that high fructose corn syrup is only “cheaper” than sugar because of a pro-corn-farmer Depression tariff now inherited by major corporations. But claiming everything Monsatan does is the result of protectionism is silly.

   Or arguing against *voluntary* charitable donations. I assume it’s because they were influenced by Ayn Rand.

   What I found interesting about Angel’s statement was how the Black Caucus was too busy pointing fingers rather than actively promoting civil rights.

   I really don’t know what a “hip hop Republican” is, I heard of a site for conservative punk rock fans and assume this was similar. Don’t know what a “monitor” is though. I often call myself a “libertarian-leaning Republican”

7. 
   angel roberson
   May 1st, 2010 at 4:31 PM

   I decided to come check this out. Sounds interesting. However, you are wrong about my statement. I guess you didn’t have enough information. I joined the Little Rock Black Caucus about 6 years ago. I was the youngest in a group of about 40. I proposed NEW ideas and they didn’t want to hear any of my suggestions..kept telling me they wouldn’t work and harping on how they had done things in the past and the problems they encountered. Kept telling me MY ideas wouldn’t work. That’s what that was about. They did things, but were so traditional that they didn’t welcome my ideas. So, I went ahead and did them solo. They saw how effective they were and only THEN were they convinced. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks. They are a great bunch of people, just had no respect for the young one in the bunch. They were not pointng fingers…where did that come from. They had good ideas, but I had what I considered more effective ones. I also wanted to work on recruitment. They were only focused on education.

   BTW, they spell out very clearly on the site what a “hip hop Republican” is. You should read it to get a clear understanding. Off to church I go. You gentlemen take care!

8. 
   xcopfly
   May 1st, 2010 at 5:49 PM

   OK Angel, thanks for clearing that up, I thought you were referring to people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

   I looked at the site’s “Why We Are Republican” page (http://hiphoprepublican.com/join-the-movement/) and from what I understand it promotes the idea that due to the history of the Republican Party, African American interests are better off with them than with the Democratic. As a Republican I agree with you, but still believe that there was an ideological switch between FDR and Reagan.

9. 
   angel roberson
   May 2nd, 2010 at 8:16 PM

   I’m open to your thoughts – especially any facts you may have. Like I said, I didn’t broach why they left, though, I am quite shocked at the response I’ve gotten for an article I wrote in my small town. Never imagined it would EVER be posted on hiphoprepublicans.com. Oh, well. My folks loved JFK. That’s why they say they made the switch. Dime mas. Tell me more.

   Jesse and Al are victocrats, in my opinion. They are just like ambulance chasers.

   Keep in touch. You seem not only intelligent, but open to civil discourse.

Leave a Reply