If this country dropped all racism, who would the conservatives blame

[zbdent]

their failures and inadequacies on when they crash and burn with all their "ideas"?

(Actually, as I went to post this, my answer came to me ... duh ... LIBERALS ...)

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. There's always Bill Clinton, the cause du jour

[C_U_L8R]

2. liberals

[tridim]

6. Leftist wackos, socialists, greens, Democrats

Deaniacs, Lamont voters, sensitive women, sensitive men, gays, tolerant people, environmentalists, people who recycle, conservationists, cyclists, people who hate Walmart, Prius drivers, vegetarians, anti-stupid-war protesters, people who still have their Gore and Kerry stickers on their car.

[etherealtruth]

3. The poor

Plus the suggestions from #'s 1&2

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

9. Ding DIng Ding!

We have a winner the poor, but it works to plame minorities, then they can confuse the poor whites to go after them. Divide and conquer

[JackintheGreen]

4. homosexuals

[jdlh8894]

5. As far as racism

I think you would have to ask each person. You're being very collective when you include the whole country.IMHO

[skids]

7. There's an endless supply of categorizations to feed hate n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Self Delete

My comment on this area are not politically correct in any circle

[mascale]

10. You Really Should Consider An Anarchy

There is actually a viable alternative in the concept of an anarchy, in my view predicated on the mathematical certainty of Widespread Wealth Worldwide.

That aside, you need only follow the money. If incomes are increased a fixed percentage across-the-board--the Social Security COLA affecting over 50 bil. people, (and indirectly the rest of the civilization), is just one example--then people with more get more, and people with less get less and even less of any increase of income. Supporters of a civilization arranged mathemtically like that have a built-in argument for any group or any individual at the low-end user part of the food-chain: "What do they need with the money anyway? They're Poor!" And no one has to listen very hard to hear that. Post-Katrina there were "refugees," as in, "After all, they were poor to begin with," (and many were colored).

Consider the system called "education" with grammar school, middle school and high school diplomas, AA, Bachelor's, Masters and Doctoral degrees. When it comes to teaching: Who do the little kids get? "They're stupid little kids, why do they need the most qualified of teachers with the doctorates?" And so instead of the most highly qualified staff, the little kids get the lesser qualified statters instead: None of whom took the time to become the most qualified level staff. Big Message: "What makes you think you're worth the more qualified staffers at any rate!?! You're a bunch of stupid little kids!" "Go ask your HMO Managers!" There are seven million adults so-engaged in America every day of every school calendar. Even Conservatives can learn about other people in schools.

And then there is corporate organization. "What do my investors need with the money anyway? Clearly they put all their faith and money in (Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or any of another of clergy that anyone can think of)!" There are all kinds of organizations wherein Conservatives can learn about other people.

So the Conservatives have a built-in blame-game they can conjure without a second-thought: Anyone or any group a victim of the laws, especially the law-abiding among them, (like post-Katrina).

And it's just math, just like the alternative. And try to bring that up in school. Even better, try the PTA.

[mascale]

11. Actually, On The Race Thing, The Republicans Botched Abolition Too

And so, in our perilous time of phony wars, it is useful to remind anyone that School is often wrong, and not only in what it does but in what it teaches.

In the Emancipation Proclamation, the admonition to the newly freed was to work, when allowed, for a wage.

And that was actually before Welfare and Social Insurance: Which was not contemplated by the High-Minded Emancipators even then, just like now. So now anyone can contemplate the nowhere famous camp song for little kids, "Why did they put Fourteen so near to Thirteen, to Thirteen?"

Because there were white people on the planet even then, and clearly Thirteenth Amendment abolished nothing, really nothing. The Equal Protection under laws of Amendment XIV has basis certain, even in trying to spread democracy throughout the region, Even Then, (called "Reconstruction," just like now). The law in Iraq likely appears as Republican as Amendment 13.

Berfore, the other sect was the one doing the replacing, though non-sectarian, which the Baathists could credibly persuade the religious leadership to accept. Then the Republicans showed up and starting spreading Democracy as Lincoln likely envisioned it: Substituting one group where once there had only been the other group, substituting Sunni where once there were Shia. The United States had a Civil War Certain--With no doubts at all among the military of either side. Republican Amendment XIII allows for a ruling group and slave-chained group, even in America. Equal Protection Under Law is post-Amendment XIV, to prevent the substitution of white people where once there had only been black people, and even to prevent the mixing of the races, in a grim manner of speaking, in the slave-labor camps.

That is the Law. Amendment XIII was straight GOP: Except for Amendment XIV. And the outcome is that the Republicans solved nothing, even then. And anyone could venture that the Republicans are strictly Conservative even now, with no celebration of Amendment XIV even contemplated any time soon. They had no concept of spreading democracy region-wide even then. They clearly have no such concept region-wide, even now.

Likely Moslem little kids at least: Are now literate on the subject.

[mascale]

12. So Actually The Law Itself Is Of Conservative Mantra At Any Time

So following from the simple analyses easily presented, the Conservative can easily--and usually witlessly--blame any group or individual for anything since the upper class--clearly conservative--even "liberal," actually lives, works, and plays within a legal structure designed to flatter, enrich, pander and otherwise support the beliefs and behavior in which they engage. That includes the denigration of the poor.

And then any increasingly prosperous Middle Class can share the "values" or chimera, (aka fantasies), of the civilization: Even to the matter of being law-abiding and supportive. And then even Jesus knew the outcome at the lowest levels. On the one hand imprisonment, in the more denigrated cases, the cross.

And so one outcome of the Bush Administration is the substitution of the Concept of Democratic Partisan, anti-Government, (anti-Yankees), conservative limited government: With the pro-government expansion, pro-intervention (Schiavo), pro-giant federal deficit, pro-government spying, and pro-government control, "America is Really Jesus" kind of Conservative.

And They Believe! No others need apply. Falwell puts it succinctly: "America is a Christian nation, even from the start:" Even though his version wasn't even around at the start. Washington, Jefferson, and others in fact: Are better said Deists and Masons and groups not entirely Evangelical like Falwell, Graham and others.

On the one hand, Scalia and Clarence Thomas might contend that "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse." That is because they already know that most people have no concept of the law: And on the matter of the math, not even they likley have the concept of what is actually on the books in the law.

You know that because the law is on the books and is therefore all around you, and the more supportive of you personally, the better off you are.

To wit: Millions used to have pensions. Corporations now have 401k investment cash aplenty, and pensions are glaringly underfunded in the alternative. Outcome: The corporations have access to even more cash, and millions have even less of a pension than before. That is the law. Millions think Social Security is a problem. Even the Clintons balanced the budget the last two terms. Ph.d. economists have no concept of the law. The law actually makes that a mistake, (and everyone knows that the Clintons are lawyers--clearly without the concept, which goes without saying).

And it's just math.