According to CNN and Fox News reports dated July 14, 2004, Attorney General Holder stated that there is opposition to him and President Obama because they are Black. Attorney General Holder maintained that no other president has been criticized in America as much as President Obama.
Attorney General Holder went on to say that the reason why there is so much opposition to President Obama's social and administrative policies is because of his race. What do YOU think? Do YOU believe that the opposition to President's Obama's policies is based upon race? Why? Why not?
Here are the links:
In a couple cases I have run across, people who have half or none of the information to judge a policy and its meaning have ended the conversation in frustration with "you know he is a f#$king N!$$er". That kind explained the lack of knowledge on the subject from them.
I am glad I don't run in circles that include those type of idiots. Too bad you do.
Once again, the 1 or 2, (or even 100), out of millions, cast the die for all of us with reasoning like that..
I don't either and when I encounter such a person I make sure I avoid them in the future. The problem arises when those who see everything through a racial lens ascend to positions of authority, people like Eric Holder and Barack Obama. The cry of racism is frequently aimed at people who would gladly support Alan West. Wait for the cries of sexism aimed at those who would gladly support Sarah Palin or Nikki Haley.
If you support Sarah Palin, being sexist is hardly the biggest problem you have. First and foremost, you'd need to get that brain damage looked at.
I am so glad for your ability to "weed out", those "idiot" people in your circle of aquaintances. Do you conduct a survey or can you just spot them from the way they dress?
I was not painting many people with that racial brush but I have come across a few. I like the ability to talk with people from many varied opinions and backgrounds. It gives me more of an understanding of the topic at hand. I even have talked with a few criminals upon occasion though I did not know it at the time. Perhaps you can advise me how to direct my contact with the "circle" you have perfected so as to not get included in their group?
"... I even have talked with a few criminals upon occasion though I did not know it at the time."
I suppose that next you will say you have friends that are black to bolster your point.
The original question was;
"Attorney General Holder went on to say that the reason why there is so much opposition to President Obama's social and administrative policies is because of his race. What do YOU think?
You responded with;
"In a couple cases I have run across, people who have half or none of the information to judge a policy ... That kind explained the lack of knowledge on the subject from them."
The OP, and Eric Holder were not talking about the extreme minority of idiots among us, so how else would you expect your comment to be taken?
If you go back aways you may see that I answered your question. Albeit do I have to spell it out for you?
"In a couple cases I have run across, people who have half or none of the information to judge a policy and its meaning have ended the conversation in frustration with "you know he is a f#$king N!$$er". That would kind of bolster Holder's statement don't you think? I think that was pretty plain. Instead you wish to insult me and my ability to discern friends? A little off topic on your part I would say.
First, it was not my intention to be insulting - disdainful, yes, because I thought your response deserved it.
I reviewed my responses to you, and found nothing that looked obviously insulting to me. So either I am insensitive and lack empathy, or you are too sensitive about criticism.
And to that point, your current response seems to reaffirm my opinion. "Holder speaks of so much opposition" was the OP's point. I noted that you seemed to post an affirmative response using the validation of personal experiences with "a couple cases."
And then.... you come back and use the same "couple cases" anecdote to say that bolsters Holder's statement.
What???? Once more you want to turn a "couple cases" into "so much?"
Yes, I guess you will have to spell it out for me. How does a couple cases equal "so much opposition?"
And no, I don't think rebutting your response as misapplied and inaccurate to the OP was off-topic. You make many valid and pertinent responses in this forum - and we have had, (for my part), enjoyable exchanges, but when you, (or any of the rest of us), make what I viewed as a chuckleheaded one - we should be ready to take the heat or prove the chuckleheaded moniker to be wrong. In my opinion, you have done neither in this case.
Wasn't Barack Obama elected to office twice and by millions of white Americans? Was Eric Holder's appointment as AG accepted by Republicans and Democrats? Wasn't Condaleeza Rice appointed Secretary of State by a Southern Republican? Wasn't Oprah Winfrey made a billionaire and the most powerful single individual in television by white viewers, subscribers and readers?
Is there racism? Yes. Is it a main stream phenomenon? Hardly. Is criticism of Barack Obama's policies rooted in a "racial animus?" Absolutely not. It is rooted in two diametrically opposed political ideas, traditions, philosophies. Eric Holder loves the race card, but that is because America is too afraid to have an honest conversation about race.
You can't argue that President Obama hasn't been put through situations that other former presidents didn't have to deal with like asking for his birth certificate, vicious attacks calling him a terrorist, false claims of him being Muslim. I have never seen before all the racial jokes and comments made about him with any other President.
A closer examination of American History, rather than a repetition of White House talking points, will reveal that Presidents are treated harshly, as routine. Obama has a thin skin and it is frequently on display. So what if people talk bad about him, he is an adult man, whose opinion matters? A mature man with a spine knows who he is and the opinions of others do not matter.
The point was that no other president had to deal with racial attacks. Yes, everyone in the public eye will be talked about, but racial attacks are below the belt. Why doesn't anyone want to admit that truth?
What major political figure in elected office has said racial things about Obama? If there is racial animus it is among those whose opinions shouldn't count to an adult man. Name a Senator, Governor or Representative that has attacked Obama's race?
Racist commentary isn't only by conservatives...
http://nation.foxnews.com/joe-biden/201 … den-gaffes
http://mediatrackers.org/national/2013/ … -officials
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-new … 23951.aspx
... he has a problem with white liberals and their racist attitudes.
No. I don't give a damn what color a person's skin is. Their character is what counts. As for Holder: I remember when he first started asserting that his critics were racists. Heck, I already found his actions questionable and didn't even know he was black until he pulled out that race card. And to be totally frank, I think Holder knows these charges are totally bogus. While there will unfortunately always be bigots among us, Obama won his elections with the support of many a white person and if he has disappointed those voters or turned them against him, he (and Holder) should be man enough to own the why's of it.
Bethhperry, I respect you more each day, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! Obama and Holder WILL NEVER admit to their wrongdoing. Obama is either going to blame Bush or the Republicans. Holder is going to blame the Republicans or again "racial animus."
It would be ludicrous to suggest none of the opposition is racially motivated. Just as it would be ludicrous to suggest all of it is.
None is an absolute. All is an absolute. Nothing human is absolute, except all humans are born and all humans dies. All else is in the margins. What opposition to Obama, that actually matters, is motivated by racial animus? What racial attitudes matter to an adult man, unless those racial attitudes determine the outcome for one's self or someone else? An impotent, racist, big mouth is an annoyance, but merely one among many. If an an adult man in a mundane job permits such annoyances to unsettle him, he is a fool. What is an adult man in the world's most significant position who permits such annoyances to unsettle him? Apparently he is Barack Obama.
Yes "none" and "all" are absolutes which is why I think it's unhelpful to use them in relation to a lot of human behaviour.
What opposition to Obama, that actually matters, is motivated by racial animus? Hard to say. The GOP positioned itself during the civil rights era in such a way as to win the votes of Southern segregationists. Thanks to the so-called Southern strategy (also employed by Ronald Reagan incidentally) the GOP became a party in which people that hold such views could feel comfortable. So what? Well if a party goes out of it's way to attract supporters that hold certain views, it's no surprise that those views will influence the position taken by the people who represent those supporters. The result is that you have lawmakers trying to appeal to some supporters that are, because of the way the GOP has positioned itself, shall we say, not entirely inclusive in their attitudes. If a politician's support/criticism of a policy is based in any way on appeasing those supporters with racist views, then that matters. After all, these people are lawmakers.
Racism is not as overt as it used to be because social mores have changed, but if the level of dog-whistle messages about Obama are anything to go by, then race is an important aspect of that opposition. When a GOP Vice Presidential candidate describes Obama's policies as "shuck and jive", as Sarah Palin did in 2008 (more of a klaxxon than a dog whistle to be honest) that's a clear indication that race is an aspect of the opposition at a high level. This was not from the fringe of the party. It was from someone who could have been the Vice President of the United States. That matters. So is race a factor in the opposition to Obama? Yes. Is it the only factor? No. Is the opposition based on race significant enough to matter? I think it is.
See this newspaper column from 1963 by Robert Novak for contemporary account of the Republican party positioning itself as the "white man's" party, and the assumptions that were made by Republican leaders in a bid to appeal to segregationists. I think these attitudes are still prevalent, and influence current policy positions of the Republican party and it's Representatives. From this article alone you can also see how coded racial messages intended to appeal to racists were part of an overall GOP strategy. You can draw a direct line from that strategy in 1963 to modern examples like Obama being described as the "food stamp" President etc.
Thank you for revealing your actual position, finally.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/201 … -obamacare
My position? Finally? What are you talking about?
As for that link. Republicans do not have a monopoly on using racially insensitive language. In other news, the sun is expected to set tomorrow.
If you're not aware, the phrase "shuck and jive" originated in the South and referred to the behaviour slaves took in order to avoid their owner's wrath, e.g. singing happily and moving eagerly while corn-shucking (removing the husk from corn) to give the impression they were enjoying the task and working hard. It was a tactic used as a form of resistance and survival by people who's lives and safety were in the hands of an owner. Shuck and jive subsequently developed into a slang term used to denote behaviour that was intended to dissemble, or give a false impression. Given it's origin, the use of such language is at best insensitive, at worst deliberate dog whistle politics. I believe Palin's use was an example of the latter, as I think was the use by Andrew Cuomo (current Democratic Governor, New York) when Obama was running against Hillary Clinton (whom Cuomo supported) in 2008. Cuomo was criticised for his use of the term at the time, and rightly so in my opinion.
But none of that changes the fact that it has been a central strategy of the Republican party to appeal to racists since the early 60s. There is a big difference between having individuals with foot-in-mouth syndrome, and a main party adopting and developing a strategy to appeal to racist voters. That strategy has been very successful. Like any political party, Republican party policy positions are influenced by its supporters. If the party has spent years trying to appeal to racists, inevitably its policy positions will be influenced by that. Unfortunately that means that sensible Republicans are labelled racists also. That's the consequence of the short sighted strategy the Republican leadership decided to follow decades ago in an attempt to siphon Southern votes away from the Democrats. That's why I think it's reasonable to conclude that race plays a significant role in the opposition to Obama from some quarters. It doesn't mean all Republicans are racist, and it doesn't mean race is the only factor, but given recent historical context, I think the opposition based on race definitely matters.
Alive yes, but I would debate the "thriving" part.
If it wasn't thriving, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And people wouldn't still be so passionate about the topic. It's still all around us from the jokes out comedians mouths, to Paula Deen to Donald Sterling, and many others who are just quiet about their true feelings.....
You could be right, but I think it might be just the opposite - if it was thriving, the broad spectrum of "us" wouldn't be talking about it.
Consider... do you think it was such a hot topic of national conversation across such a wide range of ethnic identities in the 1930s - 1950s?
Of course this topic is purely an opinion topic - no "facts" (maybe some debatable polls or studies), to prove either of us right or wrong. But still, I think you are wrong.
ps. don't you think past-generation examples like Paula Deen, (67), and Donald sterling, (80) might be weak validations for your point?
pss. I know, I know, you can surely come up with younger examples - but I still think they would be representative of a minority, not a majority.
Well, yes I am a white man. Does that mean I can not possibly have a valid opinion on issues concerning race?
Would it help if I mentioned that some of my best friends are....................................................(idiots too?)
This is just so funny to me....I just want to say and I'm done, that Obama didn't win the election based off the white votes. If you really do the research the minority population came out in record numbers to vote him into office we accounted for more then 60% of his votes. I will leave with saying....no matter how much money I make, where I live, what kind of car I drive, I will always be black and every so often there is an idiot around who will remind me of that fact! Alive and thriving! God Bless Everyone......
Without White voters Barack Obama could not have been elected. What is telling is your discomfort at that fact. Perhaps you are correct, racism is thriving, just not the way you or Eric Holder mean.
And without the minority vote Romney wasn't elected.
I wonder why the work force participation rate is the lowest it has been in over 30 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … cated.html
Republicans haven't had minority support since the 1920's, you know, when Democrats had to decide whether to nominate a bigot or a Klansman as their Presidential candidate. Minority support cannot be counted on for Republicans because those votes go where the money is. It is conservatives that cost Romney a victory, they refused to back Obamacarelite and wimpy politics for the Presidency. It is the same problem McCain, Dole, GHW Bush all had, they weren't firm in their convictions.
That sounds like exists, but hardly thriving, just as nasty and idiotic as it ever was.
Here's a short syllabus on the 2008 election.
131,000,000 million voters participated (approx.)
74% were white voters, (96,940,000). 43% voted for Pres. Obama = 39,984,200 white votes
13% were black voters, (17,060,000). 95% voted for Pres. Obama = 16,178,150 black votes
14% (I know, It's a rounding error) Hispanic, Asian, Other voters, (18,340,000) avg. 65% v0ted for Pres. Obama = 11,921,000
Total Obama votes: 69,783,350
% white votes = 60%
%black vote = 23%
% other ethnic votes = 17%
So... white voters gave Pres. Obama 8 million more votes than minorities did.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi … ed_08.html
And here is a follow-up for the 2012 election.
129,000,000 million voters participated (approx.)
72% were white voters, (92,880,000). 39% voted for Pres. Obama = 36,223,200 white votes
13% were black voters, (16,770,000). 93% voted for Pres. Obama = 15,596,100 black votes
*ps. Pres. Obama lost almost 600.000 black votes
15% were Hispanic, Asian, Other voters, (19,350,000) avg. 67% v0ted for Pres. Obama = 12,964,100
pss. Pres. Obama gained over a million Hispanic, Asian, and other votes - hmm.. could this be an executive pen effect?
Total Obama votes: 64,783,400
% white votes = 56%
%black vote = 24%
% other ethnic votes = 20%
So... white voters gave Pres. Obama 7.66 million more votes than minorities did.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi … ed_12.html
*Caveat: These are seat of the pants calculations - not precise, but suitable for the point
Doesn't look like the minority vote was the 60% you claim - maybe one of us got our numbers backwards? Maybe it was the white vote that helped Pres. Obama win? Hmm...
Finally, you are right; "... I will always be black and every so often there is an idiot around who will remind me of that fact!" and I can understand, (even if I can't empathize), why you think there are still a lot of racists, and still vestiges of racism - because there are and there is.
But I won't apologize for their actions - they are just as much a disgrace to me as they are to the rest of the human race. They are white by birth, not choice - so to hell with them.
But I still refute the point that it is thriving. I think the huge majority of us white folks really are trying to do better. And I think that we can honestly say that it is the few Neanderthals still with us that are so overt as to be the type of troublemakers spoiling the perception of the rest of us.
psss. I hope this wasn't your last contribution to the thread, conversations like this are necessary to continue the progress we all, (OK. maybe not some of the worst chuckleheads), are striving for. Even if this audience can be counted on our digits.
pssss. I live on Maryland's Eastern Shore, if you are ever in my neck of the woods I hope you will drop me a note so I can show you one white person that doesn't care what kind of car you drive
GA Anderson you have validated Holders point by admitting that there are some people in society that judge based on color. Holder did not say that everyone is racist, the assumption you make in your argument. He states that color plays a role in the challenges faced by both him and Obama, a problem that can be caused by a minority of the population. The conservative and liberal defense to this is that most of us are not racist therefore the racist liberals and conservatives should be negated. This argument is equivalent in theory to arguing that because most people in this country are not murderers, murder does not exist.
Glad you popped in SOBF, this forum needs more participants.
But to your point, one of us is misunderstanding the intention of the OP.
Holder was quoted, (OK, the OP text read as if it were a quote), as saying "... the reason why there is so much opposition to President Obama's social and administrative policies is because of his race. " (I added the bolding)
It appears that you are saying any racism-driven opposition qualifies as "so much..." opposition.
If the racism-driven criticisms could be somehow validated to be only 10% of the total of those in opposition, (which was my point with rHamson's "couple of cases" affirmation), and the remaining 90% of the opposition was ideological - would you consider Holder's "so much opposition is because of race" to be true?
Remember, he did not say there was "some" race-driven opposition - which I think would be a true statement, he said "so much," which to me infers a large portion. Which I do not believe is true.
I completely disagree with Holder's statement because I believe, proportionally speaking, almost all of the opposition is either political, in the case of Republican politicians, and ideological, in the case of the rest of us. (the opposers)
ps. I did not say there was no race-driven opposition, and I did not say racism did not still exist - so you murderer analogy seems off-base.
pss. no he did not say everyone - but his "so much" certainly seems to imply a lot more than just "some" - as you response seems to say.
I firmly believe that government (Senate & House) opposition to President Obama's policies is based upon race. No matter what the policy, good or bad, if the President initiates it, they will oppose it. And this opposition is simply because he is a black man. To truly understand politics, one must first know that it is akin to a game of marbles...I'll trade you this one for that one. This trading starts with you and me, the local voters. Put me into office and i'll give you this, is what we are promised by our elected officials such as our village trustees, councilmen, district attorneys, state senators, etc. Usually these trades or promises if you will, are for the betterment of our villages,towns,communities, and of our states. In the case of President Obama, his promises or trades (policies) are proposed for the betterment of our country. Many of his policies have been opposed by Senate and House members simply because of his race, and not because they would be effective or ineffective. Case in point, Universal Healthcare. Why would the GOP spend millions of dollars trying to undermine a policy that the majority of Americans voted for?
Could the reasons be racially based? I know that the republican party would never be that petty right? Well they (republicans) said they opposed the Affordable care Act because it would destroy the economy, and destroy the country. Well that hasn't occurred yet, In fact it's improving the lives of tens of millions of Americans (many of them poor red-state republicans, who otherwise couldn't have afforded quality health care).
So if race is not the reason for opposing a policy that the majority of the citizens voted for and wanted, what else could it be? According to a poll conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation ( health-reform/poll-finding/March-2013-tracking-poll)..."even some of the laws most fervent opponents like many of the things the A.C.A (a.k.a.Obama care) has done or will do. A majority of republicans feel favorable towards seven of the eleven provisions asked about in the March poll..."
So again I ask, if race isn't the reason for opposing a policy that most Americans wanted, what else could it possibly be? Most lawmakers know that despite its many flaws, the Affordable Care Act is legislation that many of their constituents need and want, and something that all citizens deserve. I truly believe that the opposition to the Act is largely due to President Obama's race, rather than the Act's measure. And not only are the republicans guilty of this repugnant deep-rooted racism, it extends to many citizens as well.
On October 11, 2013, Michael Hiltzak reported in the L.A. Times that..."when Americans are asked whether they like "Obamacare," a majority say no. But when Americans are asked whether they support what Obamacare actually does, they love it." So i guess that as long as President Obama is not credited with proposing the Act or linked to it in any way, then it's good legislation.
The fact of the matter is that racism has thrived in recent years, and I firmly believe that the opposition to President Obama's policies is based upon his race, and upon closer examination that belief should be obvious to an duck. Mankind still has a long way to go, because more and more as a society we are regressing instead of evolving. In case you're wondering did I vote for President Obama? I sure did, twice in fact. But i don't support all of his policies, and my opposition to the ones that I do dislike, are based upon valid reasons, and not because I either like or dislike the color of his skin. Heck, some days I wish that I could get back my marble (lol, my vote), but it's too late, because I already traded it in.
"...my opposition to the ones that I do dislike, are based upon valid reasons, and not because I either like or dislike the color of his skin."
As is mine and every conservative I know and my elected representatives.
The reason for the opposition is entirely accountable by the same differences in ideas about human nature as it has always been. Some want us to be a nation of laws, living by "the rule of law." Others desire a nation ruled by elites and the "rule of men."
You think there is opposition to Obama before now, wait until dictator like actions result in every school district in America dealing with illiterate, Spanish speaking students spreading infestations and disease through the population of working class kids who can't afford to retreat to private or parochial schools.
Obama is opposed because he is a terrible president.
I think you really should have picked something other than Obamacare to use as an example. If there is one "policy" decision/act that I think is least likely to be an example of racism-motivated opposition - that is the one.
"...Many of his policies have been opposed by Senate and House members simply because of his race..." Holy Cow! Really! You don't think Republican/Democrat party politics has anything to do with it?
"...policy that the majority of the citizens voted for and wanted,..." Opps! The citizens did not vote for this. It was strictly a partisan political vote. Us citizens never got to vote on it, (OK, maybe you can say 2012 was a citizen referendum on it - but I would disagree).
And if it was so good, why did Democrat Senators have to be bribed with multi-hundred millions of dollars in state pork to get them to change their vote?
From the Washington Post:
" On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."
Obamacare passed with 60 votes: 0 Republicans, 58 Democrats, 2 independents - hardly a majority of "citizen's approval.
GA, GA, I picked the right example, you just picked the wrong response! The Affordable Care Act was a perfect example of racist motivated opposition. You can act amazed (Holy Cow!) but we all know that ALL OPPOSITION to President Obama's policies stem from his race. You speak of republican/democrat party politics, spare me!!!! Both parties have always differed on policies and agenda's, but they never willfully hurt the nation. This all was done to distort and taint the legacy of the first African-American President (see debt-ceiling debacle). Then you offer me feeble argument about one democrat from Louisiana being bribed! Spare us!
The actual facts on the A.C.A. are as follows: The A.C.A. was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 29, 2009 and referred to several Committees for consideration. On Nov. 6, 2009 the House Resolution outlined the process to be followed for Parts A through D (provisions of A.C.A.) and set the rules for debating the proposed bill.
The following day all parts of the bill passed, except for Part D (Speaker of the House, Boehner Substitute Amendment). At 11:19 PM EST The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 220-215. Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill, They did so because of the controversy surrounding parts of the bill, mainly the Stupak-Pitts Amendment (added to the bill to prohibit coverage of abortions) and concerns about the public option provisions. Many people feel very passionately about abortion, and legislators walk a fine line trying to appease them to stay in office. In regards to the House Democrats the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was their main concern for withholding their vote, so you're offbeat when you say that they had to be bribed.
You then go on to give me the tally of the votes "Obamacare" passed with in the Senate; 60 votes: 0 Republicans, 58 Democrats, 2 Independents, and you add ..."hardly a majority of citizens approval." Well here's a little civics lesson for you; As we know there are two chambers in Congress, the House and the Senate. There are currently 435 members in the House ( a number which can vary, depending on census reports) and there are 100 Senators (a number which only changes if a new State is admitted into the Union). The Founding Fathers intended that the House be seen as more closely representing the the will of the people more than the Senate. When they vote, House members base their votes primarily on how the bill might impact the people of the local district (you and me) and Senators votes tend to consider how a bill might impact the nation as a whole. With that being said, House members votes are symbolically "the will of the people'' hence it is the majority of "citizens approval." Taken a step further, the A.C.A. Act was the highlight of the Presidential elections, so THEY the PEOPLE (majority) knew that if Obama was elected and/or re-elected, the Act would be passed. As we all know THEY elected and re-elected Obama, so the majority did indeed vote.
And finally, returning to the end of your comment, in regards to the Senate vote as you noted, 0 Republicans voted for the bill. Well that's not surprising, rather it further bolsters my argument. The Republican Party has disrespected and opposed President Obama's policies from day one of his election, simply because they hated losing the election to a African-American, and they are racist. So why would they vote for the Act? They follow the rhetoric of John Boehner, who we all know has vetoed any policy attached to the President, regardless of it's merit.
Thanks for the civics lesson. I don't think I needed it, but it looked like you felt it bolstered your opinion. So thanks anyway.
I just don't see things as you do regarding the ACA. And I don't think it's because I am white and you are black. I just think it is outrageously wrong to proclaim that all the Republican opposition to it, and Pres. Obama is because he is a black man.
But I can also see that you feel so strongly that you are right - any further discussion of this particular topic would be like butting our heads against a brick wall. Because I think I am as right as I think you are wrong.
I am too much of a wuss to enjoy self-inflicted pain - so maybe we will have other exchanges on other topics.
This sounds an awful lot like racial animus.
I have a close friend who happens to be black (I know I will get flamed for that statement as the old some of my best friends are black as a qualifier stereotype will be applied) who told me his take on the division of race in this country. He said as a black man he felt that 95% of the time racism is a factor in issues between the races. He also said he felt whites held a 10% understanding of racism in the same application.
We have come a long way but life experience and social interaction still capture our feelings and values on the subject.
by leeberttea 8 years ago
Holder has to be the worst AG EVER!! He is the poster child for the corruption in this administration!http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … QD9GMHAS82
by wetbaknproud 6 years ago
Will the battle against the attorney general holder benefit democrats or republicans?It seems the attempt to hold Holder in contempt of congress will be a long and dragged out process. will it politically hurt democrats or republicans most?
by Nathan Bernardo 6 years ago
Is it not a little telling that it comes up at all? Questioning his nation of origin, and in other ways making reference to his race. It seems entirely irrelevant, though a person can definitely question many other things about his policies, and there's plenty of it to question. It seems his...
by Cassie Smith 6 years ago
Attorney General Holder is being asked to resign. Is that racist?The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on WH leaks is putting Eric Holder's ass to the fire for appointing two US attorneys to investigate the leaks instead of an outside counsel and for misleading and being uncooperative regarding...
by fishskinfreak2008 8 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_ … pvaW5zYXI-OK this bill MIGHT have SOME supporters, but Sarah Palin is a lunatic with NO credibility and NO political future. Palin wants to prove that she is American by keeping foreigners out and that's it.
by Ed Fisher 8 days ago
Because of Garland's senate refusal and Kavanaugh's confirmation , apparently Eric Holder now questions the actual legitimacy of the SCOTUS and this guy was Obama's attorney General , Is this new Eric Holder for real ?Just one more minor player 2020 candidate ?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|