Here's the video I posted earlier in another thread:
She has "resigned" or something.
QuoteDays after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy -- video that now has forced the official to resign.
Shirley Sherrod, the department's Georgia director of Rural Development, is shown in the clip describing "the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm." Sherrod, who is black, claimed the farmer took a long time trying to show he was "superior" to her. The audience laughed as she described how she determined his fate.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/
NAACP calls the tea parties racist last week, then is promptly shown to be the racist organization that is.
Check out this rant, she apparently is channeling her inner Helen Thomas:
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 07:39:58 PM
NAACP calls the tea parties racist last week, then is promptly shown to be the racist organization that is.
Yep. In fact, just yesterday I saw the NAACP burning crosses in people's yards and wearing white hoods!!!
And today, I also saw unicorn judges saying they were going to use sharia law in Oklahoma courtrooms!!! :D
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 09:39:01 PM
Yep. In fact, just yesterday I saw the NAACP burning crosses in people's yards and wearing white hoods!!!
Thanks for proving the title of the thread...
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 09:41:32 PM
Thanks for proving the title of the thread...
You saw them too??? Wow.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 09:42:20 PM
You saw them too??? Wow.
Nah, missed them...too busy representing the victims of discrimination and race/gender abuse. Nice to know you have the time though.
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 10:13:12 PM
Nah, missed them...too busy representing the victims of discrimination and race/gender abuse. Nice to know you have the time though.
Well, why don't you name the cases you've been involved with, then? Tell the audience of your great deeds.
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 07:39:58 PM
Here's the video I posted earlier in another thread:
She has "resigned" or something.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/
NAACP calls the tea parties racist last week, then is promptly shown to be the racist organization that is.
Except of course that the NAACP condemned her publicly for this. The Tea Party Express and Mark Williams, not so much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life/
Quote from: swake on July 20, 2010, 08:52:33 AM
Except of course that the NAACP condemned her publicly for this. The Tea Party Express and Mark Williams, not so much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life/
Great! They should condemn the Black Panthers for making statements about "killing cracker babies."
Unless, of course, it's in self defense.
(http://www.arturasserver.com/funny/lmao.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 09:07:28 AM
Great! They should condemn the Black Panthers for making statements about "killing cracker babies."
Unless, of course, it's in self defense.
(http://www.arturasserver.com/funny/lmao.jpg)
Should the Tea party condemn the Aryan Brotherhood too?
Quote from: swake on July 20, 2010, 08:52:33 AM
Except of course that the NAACP condemned her publicly for this. The Tea Party Express and Mark Williams, not so much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life/
I thought the election of our first (1/2) black President was supposed to heal old wounds of racism and show how far we've come since the days of the civil rights marches. If anything I think it's gotten worse and I think President Obama has missed another leadership opportunity to try and ease this. If anything, I believe there's a growing racial divide as anytime someone opposes his policies, or if a large-scale opposition party emerges they are labelled a bunch of racists. Was anyone calling those in opposition to the policies of President Bush racist?
What he could very easily do and what I've not heard him say is something like this: "I understand I am pushing through one of the most ambitious agendas in American history at a very difficult time in our history. I also expect there to be opposition to my goals and ideals, as that is the nature of politics and there are always multiple ideas to solve problems. I'm tired of opposition to my policies and agenda being construed as racism. It's setting back 150 years of racial progress in this country"....
It's obviously not about equality, it's about superiority. Black groups still seem concerned about what they are not getting, about how the white person has more advantages and is still holding them down. BS, a black man was recently elected President. If that's not evidence that anyone can be what they want to be in this country than nothing will ever truly illustrate that to the satisfaction of race groups.
So what would I be called if I started the NAAWP? How about a White Officer's Coalition in the Tulsa Police Department? How about a Congressional White Caucus? I'd be called "separatist" and/or "racist". That's a blatant double-standard. Can anyone tell me how it's not with a straight face?
Why are we tolerating the rhetoric, the discrimination, and blatant racially-charged comments? I'm sorry, I'm not in tune with allowing continued retribution for years of racial wrongs. I didn't participate in slavery, my ancestors didn't participate in it, and I don't hang my judgement on others based on their skin tone nor where they were born until they think it gives them rights which are superior to my own.
Obviously the benefits of a black President erasing years of social injustice has been way over-stated. This is but one more opportunity at leadership this man has squandered.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 09:40:47 AM
It's obviously not about equality, it's about superiority.
I believe you need to see what Tim Wise has to say. Don't take everything he says at face value, but he makes some good points, like how in the early 60s, most people didn't believe racism was a problem in America. Seriously. That makes me hesitant to say that racism is over and done with, even if the most overt racism is more rare than it once was.
Quote from: swake on July 20, 2010, 09:19:19 AM
Should the Tea party condemn the Aryan Brotherhood too?
Yes, if they find that the Aryan Brotherhood has infiltrated their ranks and is making comments on their behalf. Yes.
Should President Obama Condemn the American Communist Party?
More straw men please. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 10:39:21 AM
I believe you need to see what Tim Wise has to say. Don't take everything he says at face value, but he makes some good points, like how in the early 60s, most people didn't believe racism was a problem in America. Seriously. That makes me hesitant to say that racism is over and done with, even if the most overt racism is more rare than it once was.
No one is saying that racism does not still exist. In fact, I recently had an online argument with a guy that was a self proclaimed racist on the reasons that he was of the superior race (and I thought lefties were delusional). However, because there are still racists out there does not mean that any time a white person opposes someone who is not white that it is racists. I got so tired of the phrase "it's because I'm black". I'm sure they got tired of the phrases "no, it's because you broke the law", or "no, it's because your harboring a fugative" or something along those lines. Not to mention that the door of racism swings both ways, but it seems that so many of the minority don't seem to understand that. As conan said, it is a double standard that groups can be formed to give an advantage to a minority group and exclude the majority (whites) and it be claimed that it's not racist but claim racism when the majority does the same.
Quote from: custosnox on July 20, 2010, 11:22:27 AM
I got so tired of the phrase "it's because I'm black". I'm sure they got tired of the phrases "no, it's because you broke the law", or "no, it's because your harboring a fugative" or something along those lines. Not to mention that the door of racism swings both ways, but it seems that so many of the minority don't seem to understand that. As conan said, it is a double standard that groups can be formed to give an advantage to a minority group and exclude the majority (whites) and it be claimed that it's not racist but claim racism when the majority does the same.
I tired of the phrase also, until I looked at some crime statistics. Turns out, most violent crime is committed by white people (makes sense, given that we're still a majority), yet black people get arrested for it more often and are far more likely to be imprisoned for it. So yeah, sometimes it is because they're black.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 10:40:37 AM
Yes, if they find that the Aryan Brotherhood has infiltrated their ranks and is making comments on their behalf. Yes.
Should President Obama Condemn the American Communist Party?
More straw men please. ;D
It's your strawman first, not mine.
I really don't know a lot about any of these groups honestly. Has the "New" Black Panther party infiltrated the NAACP? Can you document that? It would not shock me, but then it also would not shock me if the Aryan Brotherhood has infiltrated the Tea Party movement. The white power related militias have.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 11:32:12 AM
I tired of the phrase also, until I looked at some crime statistics. Turns out, most violent crime is committed by white people (makes sense, given that we're still a majority), yet black people get arrested for it more often and are far more likely to be imprisoned for it. So yeah, sometimes it is because they're black.
statistics show whatever the person presenting them wants them to show. I'll still go with the real world answer of "if you commit the crime, then your being taken down because you commited the crime, not because of the color of your skin".
Hmm. Story's starting to become less of an outrage the more we learn:
http://www.ajc.com/news/farmers-wife-says-fired-574027.html
"And I went on to work with many more white farmers," she said. "The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."
Apparently the tape was selectively edited.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/07/everyone_take_a_deep_breath.php#more?ref=fpblg
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 20, 2010, 11:42:36 AM
Apparently the tape was selectively edited.
That should have been pretty predictable. Both sides like to do that. I had wondered about what was said after it was cut off since it didn't seem to be then end of the comments.
Quote from: custosnox on July 20, 2010, 11:40:35 AM
statistics show whatever the person presenting them wants them to show. I'll still go with the real world answer of "if you commit the crime, then your being taken down because you commited the crime, not because of the color of your skin".
Yeah, that Department of Justice, lying about the crimes being committed again. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 12:34:51 PM
Yeah, that Department of Justice, lying about the crimes being committed again. ::)
yeah, I'm sure that's what it is, and not the numbers reading how someone wants them to read instead of taking all the facts into consideration.
Quote from: custosnox on July 20, 2010, 01:16:05 PM
yeah, I'm sure that's what it is, and not the numbers reading how someone wants them to read instead of taking all the facts into consideration.
What other facts should I be taking into consideration, pray tell?
Quote from: custosnox on July 20, 2010, 11:40:35 AM
statistics show whatever the person presenting them wants them to show. I'll still go with the real world answer of "if you commit the crime, then your being taken down because you commited the crime, not because of the color of your skin".
+1
Or we could just have Affirmative Action for crime too. Set some quotas. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 11:32:12 AM
I tired of the phrase also, until I looked at some crime statistics. Turns out, most violent crime is committed by white people (makes sense, given that we're still a majority), yet black people get arrested for it more often and are far more likely to be imprisoned for it. So yeah, sometimes it is because they're black.
You mind saving us some time and citing those stats with a linky? "Most" violent crime sounds suspect to me.
Nevermind, here's FBI stats for 2008
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.html
265K whites arrested vs. 179K blacks for violent crime.
7.3mil total whites arrested vs. 3mm for blacks.
No indication on incarceration rates but it seems like whites are proportionately being arrested just as much.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 01:45:04 PM
You mind saving us some time and citing those stats with a linky? "Most" violent crime sounds suspect to me.
Why does that sound suspect? There are almost 224 million white people in the US, but only a little over 37 million black people.
As I said, go to the BJS' website. Their reports contain information regarding the reported race of the offender. I don't have the specific link, although I do have the PDF for '06 (the most recent that was available when I downloaded it)
Quote
Number of Not known
Type of crime single-offender and not
and race of victim victimizations Total White Black Other available
Crimes of violence
White only 3,699,360 100.0 % 69.3 % 13.0 % 9.7 % 8.0 %
Black only 719,880 100.0 % 11.5 74.8 7.1 6.6
Sorry for the crappy formatting, but as you can see, crimes perpetrated upon white people make up the vast majority of all violent crime, and almost 70% of those crimes are committed by white people.
I find it funny now that this thread is crickets now that Breitbart has been exposed for the video editor he is. Seems many of his right-wing buddies are throwing him under the bus now.
I guess the gang has run out of things to say.
Quote from: joiei on July 21, 2010, 10:32:06 AM
I guess the gang has run out of things to say.
Here's my offering:
If Rather had to retire from CBS, maybe Breitbart should retire, too.
Quote from: we vs us on July 21, 2010, 10:40:32 AM
Here's my offering:
If Rather had to retire from CBS, maybe Breitbart should retire, too.
It's pretty careless and callous journalism. If the account I read is true, this woman deserves her job back.
Of course she deserves her job back.
It's just yet another example of media manipulation, which happens all the time, on both sides. What is sad and pathetic is that it was posted and used on this forum (and on many others) as as 'example' of bigotry from a supposed lefty source. Like it somehow justifies the well documented hateful and bigoted actions coming from the conservative groups lately.
Ridiculous.
And honestly I do believe some posters on here doth protest too much in the bigotry department.
Quote from: we vs us on July 21, 2010, 10:40:32 AM
Here's my offering:
If Rather had to retire from CBS, maybe Breitbart should retire, too.
Why, because he posted a video showing the NAACP yucking it up over whitey not getting the help he needed?
Quote from: guido911 on July 21, 2010, 03:49:16 PM
Why, because he posted a video showing the NAACP yucking it up over whitey not getting the help he needed?
Oh dear. You haven't heard the news, have you?
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2010, 04:04:20 PM
Oh dear. You haven't heard the news, have you?
Are you really THAT surprised, Nate?
Quote from: Hoss on July 21, 2010, 04:10:43 PM
Are you really THAT surprised, Nate?
What do you mean? Don't tell me Fox isn't balancing fairly.
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2010, 04:04:20 PM
Oh dear. You haven't heard the news, have you?
What news, that the NAACP members laughing at her story was an added laugh track? Oh, the news that her story was taken out of context meme which is being pushed by the left to excuse the laughing by the NAACP. If it's the latter, nice try at pushing that load on me. The NAACP ripped the tea party as being racist just last week and get caught on tape laughing at a story that occurred 24 years ago when whitey did not get the "full force" of help from this woman. Here is video/audio of Breitbart tipping his hand about this video before it was released:
http://www.breitbart.tv/breitbart-to-naacp-chief-go-to-hell/
Right now, I am laughing at the likes of you who simply cannot see that this race baiting organization got busted. What's worse? The NAACP condemned her and the Obama administration fired her.
Quote from: guido911 on July 21, 2010, 04:23:47 PM
What news, that the NAACP members laughing at her story was an added laugh track? Oh, the news that her story was taken out of context meme which is being pushed by the left to excuse the laughing by the NAACP. If it's the latter, nice try at pushing that load on me. The NAACP ripped the tea party as being racist just last week and get caught on tape laughing at a story that occurred 24 years ago when whitey did not get the "full force" of help from this woman. Here is video/audio of Breitbart tipping his hand about this video before it was released:
http://www.breitbart.tv/breitbart-to-naacp-chief-go-to-hell/
Right now, I am laughing at the likes of you who simply cannot see that this race baiting organization got busted. What's worse? The NAACP condemned her and the Obama administration fired her.
Something about forest and trees applies here I think. Or denial..not sure which yet.
Maybe reading more than just Freep might be helpful...
Here, I'll help some. Even his 'good friend' thinks he was out of bounds here.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNmYTk4ZmVjYzU0Zjk3OTU5ODNhODhjOTE4NmM1NmU=
I think the funniest part was when she decided the biggest disservice she could offer the poor white folks who were losing their farm would be to refer them to a white lawyer.... lol.
The real story is one of murder, tragedy, racism, injustice, human dignity, forgiveness, reconciliation and struggle..... truly inspiring.
Entire video:
Breitbart has proved himself once again to be an agenda driven partisan fraud.
Quote from: JeffM on July 21, 2010, 05:30:44 PM
I think the funniest part was when she decided the biggest disservice she could offer the poor white folks who were losing their farm would be to refer them to a white lawyer.... lol.
The real story is one of tragedy, racism, human dignity, forgiveness, reconciliation and struggle..... truly inspiring.
Entire video:
Breitbart has proved himself once again to be an agenda driven partisan fraud.
You also inspired by Senator Byrd? After all, he was a bigoted racist at one point in his life but supposedly turned his life around.
You've been exposed, Guido.
Care to apologize?
http://notmytribe.com/2008/gop-campaign-worker-says-she-was-branded-by-black-male-obama-supporter-85221.html
(http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ashley-todd-mccain-republican-pittsburgh-false-report.jpg)
Gee, I think that letter "B" might have stood for Breitbart, come to think of it...
Quote from: JeffM on July 21, 2010, 05:43:18 PM
You've been exposed, Guido.
Care to apologize?
http://notmytribe.com/2008/gop-campaign-worker-says-she-was-branded-by-black-male-obama-supporter-85221.html
(http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ashley-todd-mccain-republican-pittsburgh-false-report.jpg)
Gee, I think that letter "B" might have stood for Breitbart, come to think of it...
Might be "Buffoon"...of course Breitbart and Buffoon = synonym.
Quote from: Hoss on July 21, 2010, 04:29:38 PM
Here, I'll help some. Even his 'good friend' thinks he was out of bounds here.
Even the farmer she supposedly discriminated against supports her.
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2010, 06:27:15 PM
Even the farmer she supposedly discriminated against supports her.
So what? What does that have to do with the NAACP folks' laughter reaction.
I think that poor Gweed hasn't watched the entirety of the clip...for if he doesn't, then what he has seen remains true to him.
Reminds me of a child poking fingers in ears going 'nyah, nyah, nyah I can't hear you' over and over. Just because you can't hear or see it doesn't make any less true.
John Stewart is gonna have a field day with this... so will Stephen Colbert... equating the NAACP as a racist organization is about as lame as trying to tar the AARP as advocating reverse age discrimination... geez.
Quote from: JeffM on July 21, 2010, 09:41:19 PM
John Stewart is gonna have a field day with this... so will Stephen Colbert... equating the NAACP as a racist organization is about as lame as trying to tar the AARP as advocating reverse age discrimination... geez.
You
might be right. I do not know if those two are "typical white person
".
Perhaps if these two take it to someone of their "kind" they will get the go ahead.
Yawn. Typical partisan hack soundbite politics.... yeah, that Barack Obama sure is a raaaaaaaacist..... which I guess means he hates his own mother..... freudian?
/sarcasm.
Gee, I was unaware that white people and black people had identical average incomes, crime rates, arrest rates, and everything else. Nothing to differentiate them but the color of their skin, dontchaknow.
From all the coverage and interviews I've seen since yesterday I believe we've witnessed the birth of a political career.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2010, 09:19:37 AM
Gee, I was unaware that white people and black people had identical average incomes, crime rates, arrest rates, and everything else. Nothing to differentiate them but the color of their skin, dontchaknow.
That's because of your typical black person, who is more likely to be a criminal which is why they make such good athletes.... poor people are lazy, which also describes your typical black person.... we are in a post-racial America, which is actually a reverse-racist America in which black people and minorities get special treatment... you didn't get the memo?
The NAACP unfairly called some tea partiers racists when the proper, politically correct word should be: NEGROPHOBE.
Ne·gro·pho·bi·a (ngr-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for Black people and their culture.
2. Behavior based on such an attitude or feeling
/snark.
Quote from: JeffM on July 22, 2010, 09:30:30 AM
That's because of your typical black person, who is more likely to be a criminal which is why they make such good athletes.... poor people are lazy, which also describes your typical black person.... we are in a post-racial America, which is actually a reverse-racist America in which black people and minorities get special treatment... you didn't get the memo?
The NAACP unfairly called some tea partiers racists when the proper, politically correct word should be: NEGROPHOBE.
Ne·gro·pho·bi·a (ngr-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for Black people and their culture.
2. Behavior based on such an attitude or feeling
/snark.
That must be the new buzzword on the libtard blogs, I got an email from FOTD via Facebook last night commenting on this thread and calling Guido, Gaspar, and myself negrophobes.
Do you not think though that President Obama could exhibit better leadership on the race issue? How about straight out saying "enough of the race baiting and pulling the race card". Or "Opposition to my policies is in no way racist, we all have different points of view." I honestly think it would go a long way. As it sits now, I think race relations have suffered a 20 year set-back.
Um, Obama has done that. Remember the speech he gave after people got upset about Reverend Wright?
The problem is morons like Beck, Limbaugh, and now Breitbart who are intent on race-baiting.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2010, 09:56:52 AM
Um, Obama has done that. Remember the speech he gave after people got upset about Reverend Wright?
The problem is morons like Beck, Limbaugh, and now Breitbart who are intent on race-baiting.
Glenn Beck's been smited...
http://healthyliving.ocregister.com/2010/07/21/the-disease-taking-glenn-becks-eyesight/22065/ (http://healthyliving.ocregister.com/2010/07/21/the-disease-taking-glenn-becks-eyesight/22065/)
Now we just have to wait on swift conservative old God punishment for the others.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2010, 09:45:24 AM
Do you not think though that President Obama could exhibit better leadership on the race issue?
But this isn't Obama's fault. This is entirely the product of scumbags like Breitbart (and Hannity, and Rush, and Beck, etc etc) trying to get the right's racism Q score up. That's where the core rot lies. Yes, the rest of the media is craven and willing to gobble up the smile Fox serves, and yes the Administration (not necessarily the White House) reacted in a moronic fashion. But all of that is on the periphery of a central truth, and that is that swiftboating is alive and well as the political tool of choice of the right wing.
Actually, Maddow got it right a couple of nights ago.... so, I went ahead and watched her show last night.... she was spot on.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/22/eugene_robinson_on_the_right-wings_negrophobia.html
NEGROPHOBIA LIVES!!! ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2010, 09:45:24 AM
That must be the new buzzword on the libtard blogs, I got an email from FOTD via Facebook last night commenting on this thread and calling Guido, Gaspar, and myself negrophobes.
Huh? Coming from the guy who's been banned numerous times for inflammatory commentary? LOL!
I don't think I have ever made a comment about President Obama's race. Don't think it has any bearing on his or anyone else's ability to do a job. I am actually very impressed at his ability not to bend to the wills of the race baters like Sharpton, Jackson, et. al. This thread is not really about the President, it's about the prejudice and bigotry present in the NAACP.
We have several people on this forum, and in society in general that do not know the difference between racism, bigotry, and prejudice. FOTD used racism to define everything.
I do think that the NAACP is discriminatory and prejudice. I do not think that they are racist. Racism is defined by the belief that your "race" is superior to others. The NAACP by it's mission and initiatives does not hold this belief.
By their very NAME they are however prejudice. They seek to aid people based soley on their color, not on individual merit or the "content of their character." They are an organization devoted to the delivery of aid and services to a specific race of people.
Now, are they bigoted (do they hate other races). I cannot answer that. They did finally issue a statement last week saying that they do not support statements made by the Black Panther movement about "killing cracker babies." I think it needs to be a renewed effort within the organization to admonish bigoted remarks and actions swiftly.
The struggle for them is, where there is strong prejudice, it is very difficult to avoid bigotry. I am hopeful that the day will come when organizations like this are not necessary.
So, do you feel the same away about the Tribes? Are they prejudiced and erego likely bigoted?
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2010, 09:56:52 AM
Um, Obama has done that. Remember the speech he gave after people got upset about Reverend Wright?
Actually I don't to be perfectly honest. I do remember him setting down the white cop and black professor for a beer at the White House.
I'm not speaking specifically of the Shirley Sherrod incident, but this would be an opportune time for the President to make a serious attempt at curbing a lot of the rhetoric being thrown around. The right wing commentators are fishing for anything they can right now like the Sherrod speech and Malik Shabazz's inflammitory remarks to counter the constant charges that Tea Partiers are a bunch of racists and that anyone who opposes President Obama's agenda or disapproves of his job performance only does so because they are obviously racist.
Terms like "negrophobia" are nothing more than a crude attempt at intimidation. The race issue is obviously on-going and the President, being the best example we have of how far opportunities have come for black people in just his lifetime has the best ability to stanch it, but he won't do it. Knowing who his chief advisor is, I believe the administration is convinced that allowing racial tension to increase only helps their cause.
The President needs to be making on-going attempts with his eloquent speaking skills at getting Americans to drop the racial accusations. His job is far from done on that front. He's our leader, he needs to lead and he's got a unique position to do so on this issue since he's bi-racial but has clearly identified himself as black.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2010, 11:45:52 AM
Actually I don't to be perfectly honest. I do remember him setting down the white cop and black professor for a beer at the White House.
I'm not speaking specifically of the Shirley Sherrod incident, but this would be an opportune time for the President to make a serious attempt at curbing a lot of the rhetoric being thrown around. The right wing commentators are fishing for anything they can right now like the Sherrod speech and Malik Shabazz's inflammitory remarks to counter the constant charges that Tea Partiers are a bunch of racists and that anyone who opposes President Obama's agenda or disapproves of his job performance only does so because they are obviously racist.
Terms like "negrophobia" are nothing more than a crude attempt at intimidation. The race issue is obviously on-going and the President, being the best example we have of how far opportunities have come for black people in just his lifetime has the best ability to stanch it, but he won't do it. Knowing who his chief advisor is, I believe the administration is convinced that allowing racial tension to increase only helps their cause.
The President needs to be making on-going attempts with his eloquent speaking skills at getting Americans to drop the racial accusations. His job is far from done on that front. He's our leader, he needs to lead and he's got a unique position to do so on this issue since he's bi-racial but has clearly identified himself as black.
Why should it be the president's responsibility to curb the racial tension? Many tea-partiers have proven themselves to be very racist, as have nearly all of the outspoken talking heads for the conservative side. Why isn't anyone from the GOP, Fox news, or any conservative group for that matter, denouncing these racist actions and clearly racist hate speech? I'll tell you why- it clearly plays to a large percentage of their constituents, that's why.
Nobody will ever admit to being a racist. But allowing these types of passive-aggressive, covertly (or not so covertly) racist actions and hate speeches to take place within you own organizations, or at you rallies, or on your TV or radio stations, and not speak out against them, is in itself condoning racism.
Quote from: waterboy on July 22, 2010, 11:32:04 AM
So, do you feel the same away about the Tribes? Are they prejudiced and erego likely bigoted?
Has nothing to do with "feelings." Any organization who's mission is based solely on a person's race is prejudiced. That is the fact of the matter. I am not passing judgement on that.
The tribes are structured as a government body existing within a government. Their mission promotes the advancement and support of a single race. By definition that is considered prejudice, because it establishes a racial preference.
Now again, are they bigots? No. When that preference turns into hatred, or action against other racial groups you have bigotry. Are they racists? No. Their mission is to advance their race, and is not based on a perception of superiority over others.
It's not that hard.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on July 22, 2010, 12:14:19 PM
Why should it be the president's responsibility to curb the racial tension? Many tea-partiers have proven themselves to be very racist, as have nearly all of the outspoken talking heads for the conservative side. Why isn't anyone from the GOP, Fox news, or any conservative group for that matter, denouncing these racist actions and clearly racist hate speech? I'll tell you why- it clearly plays to a large percentage of their constituents, that's why.
Nobody will ever admit to being a racist. But allowing these types of passive-aggressive, covertly (or not so covertly) racist actions and hate speeches to take place within you own organizations, or at you rallies, or on your TV or radio stations, and not speak out against them, is in itself condoning racism.
You are correct, it's not a defined responsibility of being President but leadership is. Why shouldn't it be a leader's role to lead on issues? This is a huge issue which is really stunting the growth of our country. He has a unique position to
improve things that a white President could not. I think he's ignoring a smoldering tinder box that could really flash at some point. Other than saying it's not a responsibility of a President- if you were in his position, why would you
not want to do everything in your power to try and ease the racial tension?
As far as the comment of
many Tea Partiers being racist, I believe that's incorrect. I think there are
some but they are the only ones that more liberal media outlets care to cover in an effort to discredit the whole movement via racial intimidation by trying to paint the whole movement as racist. There have been incredibly stupid and clumsy attempts to deal with these accusations like Williams' stupid blog post and Breitbart's sloppy edit of a speech which apparently was meant to illustrate how far Shirley Sherrod had come in her thinking on racism. Don't think for a minute though that people like this are representative of an entire movement (unless we are talking about the KKK, that is ;) )
Here's excerpts from a great article in Time magazine this week:
"Since its inception, the Tea Party movement has struggled to shed the perception that its members' dislike of Obama is fueled by racism. Unveiling a new report on the movement's makeup on July 19, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg noted the survey found that 39% of people outside the movement suspect its contempt for the President "may be motivated by racial feelings."
Many Tea Party leaders have disavowed the incendiary rhetoric and imagery that have surfaced at the movement's rallies, dismissing the incidents — as Webb did — as the work of the movement's "fringe." But Williams' invective, which came just days after the North Iowa Tea Party erected a billboard likening Obama to Hitler and Stalin, underscores a real organizational dilemma. The movement is bent on retaining the decentralized structure that fostered its growth, but its lack of formal leadership — and its confounding array of overlapping groups — means that when rogue members spout off, they can seem to be speaking for the movement as a whole.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2005371,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0uQxU3bhO
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2010, 12:38:14 PM
You are correct, it's not a defined responsibility of being President but leadership is. Why shouldn't it be a leader's role to lead on issues? This is a huge issue which is really stunting the growth of our country. He has a unique position to improve things that a white President could not. I think he's ignoring a smoldering tinder box that could really flash at some point. Other than saying it's not a responsibility of a President- if you were in his position, why would you not want to do everything in your power to try and ease the racial tension?
As far as the comment of many Tea Partiers being racist, I believe that's incorrect. I think there are some but they are the only ones that more liberal media outlets care to cover in an effort to discredit the whole movement via racial intimidation by trying to paint the whole movement as racist. There have been incredibly stupid and clumsy attempts to deal with these accusations like Williams' stupid blog post and Breitbart's sloppy edit of a speech which apparently was meant to illustrate how far Shirley Sherrod had come in her thinking on racism. Don't think for a minute though that people like this are representative of an entire movement (unless we are talking about the KKK, that is ;) )
Here's excerpts from a great article in Time magazine this week:
"Since its inception, the Tea Party movement has struggled to shed the perception that its members' dislike of Obama is fueled by racism. Unveiling a new report on the movement's makeup on July 19, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg noted the survey found that 39% of people outside the movement suspect its contempt for the President "may be motivated by racial feelings."
Many Tea Party leaders have disavowed the incendiary rhetoric and imagery that have surfaced at the movement's rallies, dismissing the incidents — as Webb did — as the work of the movement's "fringe." But Williams' invective, which came just days after the North Iowa Tea Party erected a billboard likening Obama to Hitler and Stalin, underscores a real organizational dilemma. The movement is bent on retaining the decentralized structure that fostered its growth, but its lack of formal leadership — and its confounding array of overlapping groups — means that when rogue members spout off, they can seem to be speaking for the movement as a whole.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2005371,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0uQxU3bhO
Only very recently, under intense scrutiny and criticism, has anyone from the TP's denounced these hateful and racist actions. It was allowed to continue and fester, unchecked for a long time. Remember when members of Congress were spit on and called horrible racist names by self avowed tea party members? Leaders of the TP's tried to shrug it off, claiming they were 'plants' in the crowd and not actual members which was ultimately proven false. No apologies given there.
I think you also have to look at the motivations of such a group that attracts that many so called 'fringe' members. When do the 'fringes' become the mainstream? I think if you look at the past several decades in the Republican party, what would have been thought of as more 'fringe' element 30 years ago is now pretty much the mainstream, represenative element of the GOP.
Fringe nuts exist in any political, religious, or some sort of activist circle. The GOP and Tea Party don't have a monopoly on it.
Probably less than 1% of all Muslims engage in terrorism, yet that's largely how a religion of reputedly 1.5 bln people is defined in the minds of many. There's also nutcase far left liberals inhabiting the Democrat party, but do you characterize them as defining the Democrat Party? Do the most radical in gay rights movements speak well for the rest?
I've heard racist behavior denounced prior to now, but if my mind was entirely made up that all Tea Partiers are racist, I probably would not have heard them.
All that said, wouldn't you like to see the President take a better lead on the race issue? I don't understand why it is more left leaning people don't seem to act like he should.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2010, 01:25:03 PM
All that said, wouldn't you like to see the President take a better lead on the race issue? I don't understand why it is more left leaning people don't seem to act like he should.
I guess I'm not sure what he should do. Racism is very alive and well in this country, and it is even more evident after Obama took office.
I personally think many, many people in this country are racist, and we haven't really progressed that much from the 60's. Most white people still think differently about minority groups, and minorities still do not have total equality in this country. The recent battle cry from the fear mongers regarding the 'illegals' (brown people) 'invading' the country and taking over is deeply rooted in racism. The record numbers of (mostly white) citizens rushing out to buy guns in the wake of the black man taking over the country is deeply rooted in racism. The fact that many white people in Tulsa STILL won't drive north of Admiral (unless going to the zoo or airport) is deeply rooted in racism. Racism and fear. They go hand in hand.
Should Obama stand before us and try to say this isn't happening, and that everyone should just calm down and get along? I don't think so.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on July 22, 2010, 02:28:19 PM
I guess I'm not sure what he should do. Racism is very alive and well in this country, and it is even more evident after Obama took office.
He needs to come out and say that Breitbart "acted stupidly".
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2010, 12:30:33 PM
Has nothing to do with "feelings." Any organization who's mission is based solely on a person's race is prejudiced. That is the fact of the matter. I am not passing judgement on that.
The tribes are structured as a government body existing within a government. Their mission promotes the advancement and support of a single race. By definition that is considered prejudice, because it establishes a racial preference.
Now again, are they bigots? No. When that preference turns into hatred, or action against other racial groups you have bigotry. Are they racists? No. Their mission is to advance their race, and is not based on a perception of superiority over others.
It's not that hard.
As I've noted before, nothing is that hard for you. Drop the word feeling then. Apparently what you say is factual only. Since you say the tribes are not bigoted, that is apparently more than your feeling, it is fact. Problem is I know many tribal members who absolutely hate the white man and enjoy sticking it to him with casinoes and lawsuits.
The whole world is full of haters based on race, appearance, sex, etc ad infinitum. By your definition they are also bigots. I think your cutting extemely thin sections of cake that won't stand up.
Everyone wants their special interests to be addressed by the first black president. But if he makes decisions defending other blacks interests, even though a white president would make the same decision, it will be used as yet another example of him disliking whitey and being prejudiced. That is a no win. It is designed to be no win.
Truth is there was yet another striking successful legislative effort accomplished under his leadership this week, financial reform as great as the depression era saw. It may not be approved by the Okie intellectuals but it targets the real culprits of the financial debacle and must be dealt with. Yet American media, prodded by the Fox network and nutjob wingers has managed to shift the discussion back to something they can understand.....race.
Quote from: waterboy on July 22, 2010, 02:45:39 PM
As I've noted before, nothing is that hard for you. Drop the word feeling then. Apparently what you say is factual only. Since you say the tribes are not bigoted, that is apparently more than your feeling, it is fact. Problem is I know many tribal members who absolutely hate the white man and enjoy sticking it to him with casinoes and lawsuits.
The whole world is full of haters based on race, appearance, sex, etc ad infinitum. By your definition they are also bigots. I think your cutting extemely thin sections of cake that won't stand up.
Everyone wants their special interests to be addressed by the first black president. But if he makes decisions defending other blacks interests, even though a white president would make the same decision, it will be used as yet another example of him disliking whitey and being prejudiced. That is a no win. It is designed to be no win.
Truth is there was yet another striking successful legislative effort accomplished under his leadership this week, financial reform as great as the depression era saw. It may not be approved by the Okie intellectuals but it targets the real culprits of the financial debacle and must be dealt with. Yet American media, prodded by the Fox network and nutjob wingers has managed to shift the discussion back to something they can understand.....race.
Good post, and very true.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on July 22, 2010, 02:28:19 PM
I guess I'm not sure what he should do. Racism is very alive and well in this country, and it is even more evident after Obama took office.
I personally think many, many people in this country are racist, and we haven't really progressed that much from the 60's. Most white people still think differently about minority groups, and minorities still do not have total equality in this country. The recent battle cry from the fear mongers regarding the 'illegals' (brown people) 'invading' the country and taking over is deeply rooted in racism. The record numbers of (mostly white) citizens rushing out to buy guns in the wake of the black man taking over the country is deeply rooted in racism. The fact that many white people in Tulsa STILL won't drive north of Admiral (unless going to the zoo or airport) is deeply rooted in racism. Racism and fear. They go hand in hand.
Should Obama stand before us and try to say this isn't happening, and that everyone should just calm down and get along? I don't think so.
No, the President shouldn't say it's not happening when it is. But that's akin to what I see as him just flat ignoring the issue. Why couldn't he have a "fireside chat" about racism? Why would he want play into the idea that opposition to his policies are racist in nature by not saying something to the contrary unless he sees benefit to playing the race game?
I mean is it really a correct assumption that people who oppose healthcare reform, finance reform, or the stimulus only are against it because they are on the agenda of a black President? Oddly enough, opposition to healthcare reform during the Clinton Admin was not referred to as racism. If these were all items under the agenda of a white Democrat, I'm quite certain the percentages against them would be roughly the same. If Hillary had become President, I'm guessing it would have been misogyny? I'm not glib enough to not think there are hard-core racists out there who are appalled we have a black President, but they are a real minority when it comes to policy issues that people oppose based on conservative ideology.
I apparently must not be racist since I don't automatically think of Mexicans when I think of illegal aliens. I'm quite well aware that we have people here from many different countries who entered our country illegally or over-stayed their visas. For me immigration is a common sense issue. You simply cannot allow other people to openly enter a country and tax the infrastructure and social services without there being consequences. In a time where the economy is tight and jobs are scarce, we don't need more people coming here competing for jobs. That's where citizens (of all colors, sex, and national origin) should be protected.
I drive north of Admiral quite frequently, I even bike through north Tulsa on the Midland Trail occasion, though I can honestly say that broken glass, loitering teenagers, and the occasional burned car adjacent to the bike path makes me think twice about cycling up to Skiatook or riding up Cincinnatti alone. I definitely don't go on those rides alone. That has nothing to do with me being a racist it's simple common sense that it's probably not a good idea to hang out alone in high crime areas.
The reason I own firearms has nothing to do with a black man being President. It's got to do with my enjoying target shooting, it's a safe place to park money in just about any economic times, and self protection in case someone decides they want to attempt to make me a victim of crime.
You have your opinion and I have mine. I simply think the race card is being way over-played as a form of political intimidation because no one wants to be labeled a racist.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2010, 12:30:33 PM
Has nothing to do with "feelings." Any organization who's mission is based solely on a person's race is prejudiced. That is the fact of the matter. I am not passing judgement on that.
Next you're going to tell me women's shelters are sexist. Pull the other one.
Personally, I think that even most of the tea partiers and others who are pulling this crap aren't actually racist. Or at least I like to believe that. I think they are race-baiting..attempting to cause racial tension by accusing others of racism (especially making white people think the black people are coming to get 'em), but I doubt that most of them truly believe black people are inferior or anything else.
It's like the swift-boating of Kerry. It's not actually about what they say it's about, it's just about stirring smile up in a terribly cynical way for political gain.
Quote from: waterboy on July 22, 2010, 02:45:39 PM
As I've noted before, nothing is that hard for you. Drop the word feeling then. Apparently what you say is factual only. Since you say the tribes are not bigoted, that is apparently more than your feeling, it is fact. Problem is I know many tribal members who absolutely hate the white man and enjoy sticking it to him with casinoes and lawsuits.
The whole world is full of haters based on race, appearance, sex, etc ad infinitum. By your definition they are also bigots. I think your cutting extemely thin sections of cake that won't stand up.
Everyone wants their special interests to be addressed by the first black president. But if he makes decisions defending other blacks interests, even though a white president would make the same decision, it will be used as yet another example of him disliking whitey and being prejudiced. That is a no win. It is designed to be no win.
Truth is there was yet another striking successful legislative effort accomplished under his leadership this week, financial reform as great as the depression era saw. It may not be approved by the Okie intellectuals but it targets the real culprits of the financial debacle and must be dealt with. Yet American media, prodded by the Fox network and nutjob wingers has managed to shift the discussion back to something they can understand.....race.
But you see, you just painted with a very broad stroke. To call a whole tribe bigoted because there are people in it's ranks who are bigots isn't right. There are also people in tribes who don't hate white people, who have married into white families, and who associate with white people daily. Tribes do practice prejudice in their hiring practices to try and benefit their citizens. That's something I wish we'd take a lesson from instead of calling it racism when we demand the Federal government to enforce immigration laws.
Quote from: waterboy on July 22, 2010, 02:45:39 PM
The whole world is full of haters based on race, appearance, sex, etc ad infinitum. By your definition they are also bigots. I think your cutting extemely thin sections of cake that won't stand up.
Waterboy,
I am not making up my own definitions. These are THE definitions. FOTD never like the actual definitions of things, so he lived in his own world.
I am not offering any judgement. I am simply pointing out the definition of 3 terms that people confuse and bend to their own meanings.
You asked a question. I offered an answer. I do not own the terminology used.
You are correct though. The world I live in is simple. It's easy to understand. I enjoy the language and the math. When people tell me that I make things too simple I take that as a complement. I think that people make things too hard.
Complexity is the mother of insanity. . .for me at least.
Here is Mrs Sherrod's speech in full. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk&feature=player_embedded#!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2010, 02:56:56 PM
No, the President shouldn't say it's not happening when it is. But that's akin to what I see as him just flat ignoring the issue. Why couldn't he have a "fireside chat" about racism? Why would he want play into the idea that opposition to his policies are racist in nature by not saying something to the contrary unless he sees benefit to playing the race game?
I mean is it really a correct assumption that people who oppose healthcare reform, finance reform, or the stimulus only are against it because they are on the agenda of a black President? Oddly enough, opposition to healthcare reform during the Clinton Admin was not referred to as racism. If these were all items under the agenda of a white Democrat, I'm quite certain the percentages against them would be roughly the same. If Hillary had become President, I'm guessing it would have been misogyny? I'm not glib enough to not think there are hard-core racists out there who are appalled we have a black President, but they are a real minority when it comes to policy issues that people oppose based on conservative ideology.
I apparently must not be racist since I don't automatically think of Mexicans when I think of illegal aliens. I'm quite well aware that we have people here from many different countries who entered our country illegally or over-stayed their visas. For me immigration is a common sense issue. You simply cannot allow other people to openly enter a country and tax the infrastructure and social services without there being consequences. In a time where the economy is tight and jobs are scarce, we don't need more people coming here competing for jobs. That's where citizens (of all colors, sex, and national origin) should be protected.
I drive north of Admiral quite frequently, I even bike through north Tulsa on the Midland Trail occasion, though I can honestly say that broken glass, loitering teenagers, and the occasional burned car adjacent to the bike path makes me think twice about cycling up to Skiatook or riding up Cincinnatti alone. I definitely don't go on those rides alone. That has nothing to do with me being a racist it's simple common sense that it's probably not a good idea to hang out alone in high crime areas.
The reason I own firearms has nothing to do with a black man being President. It's got to do with my enjoying target shooting, it's a safe place to park money in just about any economic times, and self protection in case someone decides they want to attempt to make me a victim of crime.
You have your opinion and I have mine. I simply think the race card is being way over-played as a form of political intimidation because no one wants to be labeled a racist.
First of all, I was never accusing
you of being racist. I am just stating that obviously there are many, many racist people out there. Also I dont think it is correct to assume that if someone is opposed to Obama's policies then they must be a racist. That has nothing to do with it. I think his being continually disrespected, his birthplace questioned, the Muslim accusations, being constantly compared to Hitler, the antichrist, whatever, speaks far more loudly on the issue of racism. He is completely disrespected by many people, simply because he is thought of as being inferior. Seriously, I have never heard such disrespect for the president of the US (no, not even with George W). The jokes, the websites, the media, the blatant racist propaganda. Its disgusting really. Not agreeing with his policies has nothing to do with this. Honestly it wouldn't even matter what his policies were he would still be hated and would never be taken seriously. To me it is shocking the amount of hatred that is out there. Hatred and fear.
I visit Tulsa frequently and still hear, just like I did 30 years ago, how evil and crime ridden the north side is. People gasp when I say I'm interested in buying a piece of property on the north side. "Ooh no, you don't want to do that! Don't you know, thats the
black part of town." Everyone who lives in Tulsa knows this is true.
I don't think all these white people in Arizona are referring to Canadians or the Irish when they talk about the "Damn illegals" ruining this country, or how we should "ship em back over the border where they belong."
Feeling the need to run out and buy a gun, right after the first black man was elected president, speaks of the fear and paranioa many in this country possess, some of which is definitely racially motivated.
Its a touchy subject, and we obviously have our own opinions, but it is what it is. I do not think it has anything to do with playing a 'race card' since that implies bluffing. The racist mentality in this country is unfortunately very real.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on July 22, 2010, 08:04:39 PM
Seriously, I have never heard such disrespect for the president of the US (no, not even with George W). The jokes, the websites, the media, the blatant racist propaganda.
Except for the racial card, I have to disagree. It could be that what I consider disrespect for W, you consider justified criticism.
So wait. Who's saying that disagreeing with Obama's policies is racist? Please cite instances of places or times that that's happened. Has Obama said that? Has his administration? Has someone in the media? Has it been the occasional poster on dKos? The occasional poster on Tulsa Now?
I ask this because we're treating it like's it's actually happened and I'm almost positive no one anywhere has said opposing Obama is racist. No one, that is, but Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc. I think it's a meme pushed exclusively by the Pretty Right Wing Hate Machine, and has no basis in fact.
Can you prove me wrong?
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2010, 09:56:23 PM
So wait. Who's saying that disagreeing with Obama's policies is racist? Please cite instances of places or times that that's happened. Has Obama said that? Has his administration? Has someone in the media? Has it been the occasional poster on dKos? The occasional poster on Tulsa Now?
I ask this because we're treating it like's it's actually happened and I'm almost positive no one anywhere has said opposing Obama is racist. No one, that is, but Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc. I think it's a meme pushed exclusively by the Pretty Right Wing Hate Machine, and has no basis in fact.
Can you prove me wrong?
I excluded the race card from the hatred for W as I don't remember it being an issue. The Petty Left Wing Hate Machine hated W because they could. I personally don't think opposing Obama is being racist but it is somewhat of an issue that comes up. I was quoting Az.
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2010, 09:56:23 PM
So wait. Who's saying that disagreeing with Obama's policies is racist? Please cite instances of places or times that that's happened. Has Obama said that? Has his administration? Has someone in the media? Has it been the occasional poster on dKos? The occasional poster on Tulsa Now?
I ask this because we're treating it like's it's actually happened and I'm almost positive no one anywhere has said opposing Obama is racist. No one, that is, but Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc. I think it's a meme pushed exclusively by the Pretty Right Wing Hate Machine, and has no basis in fact.
Can you prove me wrong?
Great NIN reference...
Quote from: Hoss on July 22, 2010, 10:31:35 PM
Great NIN reference...
I was hoping someone would catch it. Of course, to be honest, the Right Wing Hate Machine ain't particularly pretty . . .
No, I was really talking to Conan, who's repeated that several times. That it's racist to oppose Obama. And I just don't know where that idea would've started if not on the right wing.
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2010, 11:08:37 PM
I was hoping someone would catch it. Of course, to be honest, the Right Wing Hate Machine ain't particularly pretty . . .
No, I was really talking to Conan, who's repeated that several times. That it's racist to oppose Obama. And I just don't know where that idea would've started if not on the right wing.
Being assumed a racist just becase you may disagree with Obama's policies is a common accusation lately by the conservative groups. It has no basis in fact. Actually, I believe it comes from trying to deflect from the real racist issues.
Archie Bunker was a bigot. Actually he was an "Equal Opportunity Racist", he hated everyone. ;)
Unless you were a WASP.
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2010, 11:08:37 PM
And I just don't know where that idea would've started if not on the right wing.
How typical, don't know the answer to something undesirable so blame it on the right wing.
The following is plausible (borrowed from Myth Busters) but not necessarily true:
The right opposes Obama on the basis of his vision for America.
The left doesn't believe it is possible to oppose that view. (Typical that either side fringes cannot understand the other.)
Since the opposition cannot possibly be based on ideas, it must be because Obama is (half) black.
Therefore, opposing Obama is racist.
A few vocal rabble rousers get some media attention and everything goes down hill from there and no one can prove where it originated.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 22, 2010, 11:20:50 PM
Archie Bunker was a bigot. Actually he was an "Equal Opportunity Racist", he hated everyone. ;)
Unless you were a WASP.
I thought Archie hated Catholics and Jews too. That would make him an "Equal Opportunity Bigot" as well as an "Equal Opportunity Racist".
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2010, 11:24:31 PM
How typical, don't know the answer to something undesirable so blame it on the right wing.
Well, no. I blame it on the right wing because 1) I can't come up with an instance where it was genuinely stated or insinuated outside of internet chat rooms and 2) it fits the right wing MO these days, which is plant as many (ACORN) believable (Jeremiah Wright) or unbelievable (New Black Panthers) racist memes (Shirley Sherrod) into the national conversation as possible so as to keep those predisposed to that sort of message permanently incensed.
QuoteThe following is plausible (borrowed from Myth Busters) but not necessarily true:
The right opposes Obama on the basis of his vision for America.
The left doesn't believe it is possible to oppose that view. (Typical that either side fringes cannot understand the other.)
Since the opposition cannot possibly be based on ideas, it must be because Obama is (half) black.
Therefore, opposing Obama is racist.
A few vocal rabble rousers get some media attention and everything goes down hill from there and no one can prove where it originated.
Your plausible progression is plausible . . . but still no one can point me to where it's been said that opposing Obama is racist. No Democrat, no media figure (outside of the usual rightie suspects), and no one of any national or even statewide prominence has said anything of the sort. We are only talking about it because the right media has opined that that's what's happening. But it's not.
And I'm literally begging you and everybody else: prove me wrong. Prove to me that someone of consequence is pushing this as a governing strategy and I'll believe it. Until then . . . well, it's just your exceptionally well-tuned antennae picking up the daily talking points from the typical approved sources.
I think what happened is that when some of the tea party protesters were called out for the racist things they were putting on their signs and saying to media at the rallies, they claimed that the left said that opposition to Obama is racist.
Edited to add: Actually, no. They latched on to Carter saying that some of the opposition to Obama was about his race (in response to the racism displayed by some at the tea party rallies in 2009) and claimed that the left said that all opposition to Obama was racist. Another example of exactly what is on display with Breitbart and Sherrod, actually.
Quote
"When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds," the Democrat who served from 1977-1981 told students at Emory University.
"I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.
"It's a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States," Carter said.
-- http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
That's when I remember it getting started, anyway.
Edited again to add: Browsing the Google seems to show a bunch of right wingers saying that lefties say "all opposition to Obama is racist" and a few left wingers saying that nobody said that. Not proof, but an indication of where the truth probably lies.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2010, 11:28:59 PM
I thought Archie hated Catholics and Jews too. That would make him an "Equal Opportunity Bigot" as well as an "Equal Opportunity Racist".
WASP
White
Anglo
Saxton
Protestant
WASP
No association with the Irish Cathlolics, unless you had a death wish in the 70's to travel to the Catholic region of Belfast and claim you are a Protestant.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 23, 2010, 12:26:49 AM
WASP
White
Anglo
Saxton
Protestant
WASP
No association with the Irish Cathlolics, unless you had a death wish in the 70's to travel to the Catholic region of Belfast and claim you are a Protestant.
I know what WASP stands for. That's why I found it difficult to include Archie's hate for Catholics and Jews as part of being racist. There are a lot of caucasian Catholics. They are not all Hispanic.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 23, 2010, 08:06:30 AM
I know what WASP stands for. That's why I found it difficult to include Archie's hate for Catholics and Jews as part of being racist. There are a lot of caucasian Catholics. They are not all Hispanic.
Protestant and Catholic are polar opposites, hence the IRA (racist) and the Catholics (racist) in Northern Ireland since before the US was even thought of. Where did I relate bigotry to racism? My comment about Archie Bunker was the fact that he was a bigot not a racist. He hated everyone that was not of his kind. Racist singles out a particular race. Bigotry is a disdain for all types. Archie hated all types and races, that's why I made the reference as an equal opportunity racist. IT WAS TOUNGE IN CHEEK!
So should the racist thing about opposing Obama be changed to the way it was in the W administration and just say "If you oppose the president you're un-mur-i-can."?
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2010, 09:56:23 PM
So wait. Who's saying that disagreeing with Obama's policies is racist? Please cite instances of places or times that that's happened. Has Obama said that? Has his administration? Has someone in the media? Has it been the occasional poster on dKos? The occasional poster on Tulsa Now?
I ask this because we're treating it like's it's actually happened and I'm almost positive no one anywhere has said opposing Obama is racist. No one, that is, but Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc. I think it's a meme pushed exclusively by the Pretty Right Wing Hate Machine, and has no basis in fact.
Can you prove me wrong?
The most blatant example was former President Carter with his supposition that race was an issue in conservative white people opposing health care reform. Polls showing nearly 40% of people outside the movement believe the Tea Party(ies) are racist movements is another (an article I quoted and cited in an earlier post). And did you really not see what Rachel Maddow did in the Rand Paul interview as trying to paint him as a racist and connect that to all Tea Partiers?
No less than Keith Olbermann has fanned those flames after the 2010 SOTU speech, here's his reaction to conservative pundits response to the speech:
""...But our winners, these guys, assessing not the speech but the president himself. Eric Erickson, "cocky"; John Stossel said he hoped the president would admit he was, quote, arrogant. Jay Nordlinger, "looks arrogant whether he is arrogant or not"; Mark Thiessen, "defensive, arrogant"; John Hood, "flippant" and "arrogant." Glenn Beck, "like a punk."
Here's a little secret: gathering sadly from witnessing it my whole life even from some in my own family,
when racist white guys get together and they don't want to be caught using any of the popular epithets that are in use every day in this country about black people, there's a chance one of them or worse still a white guy who doesn't get it, might wander in and hear the conversation. When there's a risk even in saying uppity or forgetting his place, the racist white guys revert to euphemisms and code words and among the code word that they think they're getting away with are ""cocky, flippant, punk, and especially arrogant." http://www.mediaite.com/tv/olbermann-assail-obamas-critics-as-racist/
Here's an interesting story about the seedy underbelly of the American media establishment:
"To conservatives, it is a pulling back of the curtain to expose the media's mendacity.
To liberals, it is a selective sliming based on e-mails that were supposed to remain private.
But there is no getting around the fact that some of these messages, culled from the members-only discussion group Journolist, are embarrassing. They show liberal commentators appearing to cooperate in an effort to hammer out the shrewdest talking points against the Republicans -- including, in one case, a suggestion for accusing random conservatives of being racist."
"Spencer Ackerman, then with the Washington Independent and now at Wired.com, wrote: "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us.
Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?"' It goes on:
"When Suzanne Nossel of Human Rights Watch said McCain's selection "can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick" because McCain valued gender over experience, Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones wrote: "That's excellent! If enough people -- people on this list? -- write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072301786.html
"We now know, from their own words, that liberal media types have been working in concert to publicly label opposition to Obama as race-driven.
According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists."
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6830/pub_detail.asp
From the left wing blogosphere:
"Since the election of Barack Obama, the Republican organizing principle has been to obstruct every political initiative of the president. In doing so, they hope to divide and frustrate the loose coalition that elected the president, turn off the average voter to electoral politics, rally their right-wing constituency with anti-government and racist rhetoric - and thus put themselves on a fast track back to political power. Don't let anyone tell you that elections don't matter!
As outrageous as this is, it isn't out of character. The GOP was always an amalgam of the most conservative sections of corporate capital and other like-minded elements in the body politic. Its modern variant, however, is dominated by the most reactionary and racist sections of that amalgam. And as we know only too well from experience, this grouping commands the loyalty of an organized grassroots constituency, controls a far-flung media apparatus that manufactures its worldview and mobilizes millions, and prefers authoritarian rule when in power.
In the unemployment extension standoff, this right-wing juggernaut went into action, evoking the specter of rising federal deficits, attacking the "tax and spend" Democrats, appealing to racist susceptibilities of white people, insisting on spending cuts, urging its constituents to raise hell, and employing the filibuster to trump majority rule."
http://peoplesworld.org/the-barbarians-are-at-the-gates/
"A University of Washington survey this spring found race, alongside politics and the size of government, to be key issues energizing the tea-party movement. One highlight: Respondents who believe the U.S. government has done too much to support blacks are 36 percent more likely to support the tea-party movement than those who are not.
The tea-party movement tries to hide behind limited government and restrained spending, classic — and in my view, unassailable — conservative tenets. But what separates this movement from the traditional Republican Party is the former's virulent anger directed at anyone who is not white, straight and Protestant.
Examples abound but most disturbing is Kentucky GOP Senate hopeful Rand Paul's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he didn't think government ought to tell private restaurant owners who they can and cannot serve. That's an old argument used not just by opponents of integration efforts in the 1950s and '60s, but further back by slave owners who argued the federal government had no right to tell them what to do with their "property."
Perhaps the NAACP is looking for relevancy amid changing political dynamics. The tea-party movement ought to be looking for credibility among its many not-so-credible members. If this movement wants to move closer to the rational political milieu, it must get rid of the bigots. The GOP can recite chapter and verse about the danger of trying to hold onto all elements of a party while trying to keep the tent from crashing down.
Tea-party leaders argue that any racism is the responsibility of a few bad actors, not the larger movement.
One leader, Jenny Beth Martin, told CNN: "There certainly are people who have been involved in tea-party events or call themselves tea-party leaders who have done these things. And we've said we're not going to put up with it."
Say it again Jenny. And again. And mean it.
Racist elements
Rather than trying to sell mutton as lamb, the tea-party crowd has to acknowledge its racist elements and excise them. Absent the bigotry and opposition to Obama because of his skin color, real and legitimate concerns about the president, from his embrace of a stimulus spigot that doesn't seem to have an off switch to his fluctuations on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would rise to the level of serious debate.
Lynne K. Varner is a columnist for The Seattle Times. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services."
http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/jul/21/tea-party-bigotry-disturbing/?newswatch
"It's all about Obama. The racists are tortured by the idea that no matter what they do (even if they impeach him), the list of Presidents will always include a black man. This drives them insane. If you could give Andrew Breitbart and his ilk one gift, it would be to eradicate from history the fact that America elected Barack Obama."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/22/call_the_white_racists_what_they_are/?ref=c2
And not a single one of these was a quote by Hannity, Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, etc.
Need I go on?
Actually, Carter didn't say the opposition to health care was racist, he said:
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man"
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/09/15/4431383-carter-race-plays-role-in-obama-dislike
I for one admire Carter and his willingness to stand up for what he believes is right, and speak his mind. He was completely villified by southern conservatives after that statement. Anyone who has spent any time in the south knows that what Carter said is absolutely true. Exposure to the truth does hurt sometimes.
Of course, those who dislike Obama because of his race will obviously also oppose his policies, but that is mainly due to the fact that those racist types don't believe a black man has any business running the country and is somehow inferior. He could institue world peace, single-handedly find a cure for cancer, and prove the existence of God, and those people would still, in their hearts, think of him as inferior.
Conservatives will always oppose more liberal leaning policies and vice-versa. Nothing to do with racism. Its the racist words and actions that have been displayed by so many during the campaign and even more so after he was elected that are alarming.
Basically, the way I see it is certain talking heads on the conservative side are trying to use the race card to justify bad behavior for themselves and other certain self-proclaimed conservative groups, i.e. Tea Partiers, by crying "all opposition to Obama is racist".
That's not it at all. It is the actions of so many that have spoken the loudest, in racist billboards, speeches, signs, news stories, rallies, etc. That is where it is exposed.
And then when they get called out on it, you have Beck, Limbaugh, et al, there to cry foul and claim "Just because we oppose Obama's policies we are labeled racist". Ridiculous.
Even presented with multiple instances of liberals fanning racist flames, it's still the conservatives doing it to themselves. Got it.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 23, 2010, 11:47:57 AM
Even presented with multiple instances of liberals fanning racist flames, it's still the conservatives doing it to themselves. Got it.
If, by attempting to expose racial bias and behavior by some people is considered 'fanning the flames' then yes. I don't think anyone has tried to say all conservatives are racist.
My biggest concern, and I think many would agree, is that there hasn't yet been an across the board denouncement from the Republican party (or its talking heads) condemning the obviously racist behavior. And the Tea Party, for too long, let it go unchecked. Only recently has anyone from the TP condemned the outrageous behavior, and even then it only happened after coming under fire, and unfortunately for them, the stigma of angry racist white people has stuck.
Racist behavior should be exposed. It should be talked about. It's ugly but it happens. To pretend it doesn't, or to try and make excuses for it is even worse.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 23, 2010, 11:47:57 AM
Even presented with multiple instances of liberals fanning racist flames, it's still the conservatives doing it to themselves. Got it.
So did the conservative pundits say what Olbermann claimed they did? If so, at least some of them were making those remarks based on race. I can believe that some of them are just idiots and aren't aware of the dog whistle they're using, but all of them?
Either way, it
started with "You Lie!" and Carter's remark. It's unfortunate that you can't see the blatant racism that some of the tea partiers exhibit. We're never going to get anywhere if people ignore it.
And I still haven't seen you come up with any support for the claim that Obama or the Democrats ever said that all opposition to Obama is racist, which was the original claim. I mean, if you're interested in comparing pundits, there's plenty of outright racist smile coming out of Limbaugh and Beck's mouths on a nearly daily basis.
Quote from: nathanm on July 23, 2010, 12:14:37 PM
I mean, if you're interested in comparing pundits, there's plenty of outright racist smile coming out of Limbaugh and Beck's mouths on a nearly daily basis.
I'm not a fan in any way of Limbaugh or Beck. So far I have been able to avoid Limbaugh for the better part of Obama's administration. Beck, on the other hand, i have not been so lucky and have had to here his blowhard comments droning on in the background almost nonstop. He is opposed to POTUS in so many ways right now it doesn't even make sense. However, I have never heard him make a racist comment. Granted, I have only had to put up with hearing him for the past several months, but if he made such remarks on a daily basis, than it stands to reason that I would have heard these remarks several times. Or is this a case of he must be racist because he opposes everything the President does?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on July 23, 2010, 12:05:26 PM
Racist behavior should be exposed. It should be talked about. It's ugly but it happens. To pretend it doesn't, or to try and make excuses for it is even worse.
We don't have a problem pretending it doesn't exist around here.
This is really what I'm trying to get across about how the President could have a seriously important legacy moment by having a frank talk about racism and laying it all out there. He's got an advantage that previous Presidents did not. Other than the beer summit, he's not really taken advantage of his unique position to tackle the issue. Perhaps the Sherrod incident will jolt him a little.
Quote from: custosnox on July 23, 2010, 12:32:19 PM
Or is this a case of he must be racist because he opposes everything the President does?
Dude, he's lost like 200 sponsors in the last year because of his racist comments.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 23, 2010, 09:04:54 AM
Protestant and Catholic are polar opposites, hence the IRA (racist) and the Catholics (racist) in Northern Ireland since before the US was even thought of. Where did I relate bigotry to racism? My comment about Archie Bunker was the fact that he was a bigot not a racist. He hated everyone that was not of his kind. Racist singles out a particular race. Bigotry is a disdain for all types. Archie hated all types and races, that's why I made the reference as an equal opportunity racist. IT WAS TOUNGE IN CHEEK!
It sounded to me like you were trying to include religious differences within the same race as part of racism.
"Protestant and Catholic are polar opposites, hence the IRA (racist) and the Catholics (racist) in Northern Ireland since before the US was even thought of." The IRA and Catholics may be racist but their hate for the British is hardly based on race.
Quote from: nathanm on July 23, 2010, 12:38:24 PM
Dude, he's lost like 200 sponsors in the last year because of his racist comments.
As I said, in the past several months of having him drone on in the background I have not heard racist comments. You say he makes them almost on a daily basis. Something does not match up here. I'm not saying he hasn't in the past, I'm also not saying he doesn't still (since you haven't referanced any, I'll look it up), I'm just saying that if he made them on a daily, or almost daily, basis, it stands to reason that I would have heard some of them. So it has to be questioned if your exaggerating things out of perspective, or if you are pushing non racial comments into the racial catagory. Keep in mind I do not like Beck, I want to shoot the T.V. everytime he is on and I can't avoid it. He annoys the hell out of me and it is obvious he is on a vendetta. I'm just pointing out what I am seeing here.
Quote from: nathanm on July 23, 2010, 12:38:24 PM
Dude, he's lost like 200 sponsors in the last year because of his racist comments.
Okay, did some digging, and the comment he made that lost a lot of sponsers was that he believes that Obama is Racist. So calling someone else racist is being racist in one case, but not in another? Explain how that works.
Beyond that, I only found two other comments that are being touted as the blowhard saying racist comments, and they were more of general perceptoins of black and white (one was comment was his own perceptions and the other was the public perceptions, two differanct shows). While I could see one being skewed as being a racist remark (which is ironic because he was saying that he thinks Obama is very white), it is still a bit of a stretch.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2010, 03:17:46 PM
Waterboy,
I am not making up my own definitions. These are THE definitions. FOTD never like the actual definitions of things, so he lived in his own world.
I am not offering any judgement. I am simply pointing out the definition of 3 terms that people confuse and bend to their own meanings.
You asked a question. I offered an answer. I do not own the terminology used.
You are correct though. The world I live in is simple. It's easy to understand. I enjoy the language and the math. When people tell me that I make things too simple I take that as a complement. I think that people make things too hard.
Complexity is the mother of insanity. . .for me at least.
Sorry for the late reply. Have to work more than I want to.
You choose words from my posts that are least meaningful, then blast me for them! I don't question the definitions or that people blur them, I question where, why and how people come up with their conclusions. Most people seem to use simple observation and make simple conclusions. Ah, were life so simple....
And that is the difference between you, maybe even your generation, and me and mine. I was taught and firmly believe, that our problems are complicated and usually require complex solutions. Or at least solutions that used more than simple observation. You have espoused pretty much the opposite. Life used to be simple when the Catholic church wouldn't allow the general population to read or to own bibles. You just did what you were told by those who could read, write and intrepret life for you.
Race is a stupid distraction as its currently being used.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 23, 2010, 12:34:09 PM
We don't have a problem pretending it doesn't exist around here.
LOL- that is for sure.
I just don't know if it is the right time or in the best interest of the first black president to address racial bias right now- especially since so many people still won't admit there is a racial bias issue at hand. I think he would be crucified by the right.
Hate to revive this months-old thread, but for my more left-leaning friends with HBO on the forum. Breitbart is scheduled to appear on "Real Time with Bill Maher" tonight. Not sure if he'll be a panel member, but Seth MacFarlane and Pat Tillman's brother are scheduled on as well.
If he's a panel member he'll be eviscerated. If he doesn't cancel that is. Seems the right has a propensity for that. If he cancels, maybe 'don't spank the monkey' O'donnell can replace him.
Oh wait, she has a propensity for canceling too? Even canceled on Fox News Sunday....LOL.
Quote from: Hoss on September 24, 2010, 10:34:21 AM
Oh wait, she has a propensity for canceling too? Even canceled on Fox News Sunday....LOL.
She was probably feeling a bit randy that Sunday and rolled over to stir the pot instead of wanting to get up and go to the Fox studio.
Oh wait, I forgot...
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 10:53:02 AM
She was probably feeling a bit randy that Sunday and rolled over to stir the pot instead of wanting to get up and go to the Fox studio.
Oh wait, I forgot...
LOL +1.
Question is, WHAT did she use to buy her pot....
These comments are really far away from the thread. Why don't you start a new thread?