quote:Republicans are always big on personal responsibility, when they are talking about others.
It's strange, but I think that when you put the right mix of personal responsibility with family values and small government, you can end up with a strange clannishness.
quote: The problem is that you chose to join a party which had a well earned reputation for racism and which continues to support policies that hurt racial minorities disproportionately. The fact that you chose to associate with the republican party is a good indication that those things don't bother you very much.
You are stating things as fact that are completely debatable. Obama's policies have disproportionally hurt minorities as evident in the massive unemployment numbers and his payoffs to companies that he deems worthy. Obama and the Democrats' plan to build new roads has not helped unemployment which again means that minorities are being hurt by the Democrats. They willfully and with full knowledge committed these and many other acts against minorities for no other reason than to hurt them as they enriched themselves. Now that we have established that Democrats are purposefully destroying minority communities we can label them as racist. As you can see, perception goes both ways. You choose to label Republicans as racists yet Democrat policies are disproportionately hurting minorities. EDIT:
quote: You have chosen to be part of the GOP, it is partly your responsibility to fix it.
This, like most of your post, is a strawman. I am sure your advice to 'fix it' means to allow Democrats to do whatever they want and to blindly follow the Democrat party.
quote:You are stating things as fact that are completely debatable
It's debatable that the Republican Party has capitalized on the racism of many of its members in living memory, DarkKnight? That, at least, doesn't seem very debatable to me, though I do take issue with much of the rest-not to the extent you do, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's debatable that the Republican Party has capitalized on the racism of many of its members in living memory, DarkKnight?
To clarify I meant it's debatable that Republicans support policies that hurt racial minorities disproportionately. Democrats have institued generational poverty programs to keep minorities poor. It's all in the perception of events which people use to paint Republicans as racist and not Democrats. In the newly released book "Game Change" Bill Clinton said a fairly racist comment about Obama getting them coffee but not much will come of that. Remember Clinton was the first black president.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: [QUOTE] Obama and the Democrats' plan to build new roads has not helped unemployment which again means that minorities are being hurt by the Democrats. They willfully and with full knowledge committed these and many other acts against minorities for no other reason than to hurt them as they enriched themselves. Now that we have established that Democrats are purposefully destroying minority communities we can label them as racist.
Is this hyperbole, or do you actually believe this, or expect other people to believe this? LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To clarify I meant it's debatable that Republicans support policies that hurt racial minorities disproportionately.
Yes, I thought as much-but what do you think about the idea that the GOP has capitalized on racism to score political gains?
That's actually quite different from the Democratic party endorsing policies that, according to you at least, 'keep minorities poor'. Unless you think there's an element of intent there, that Democrats are specifically targeting minorities for 'generational poverty' for political purposes.
In which case I'd challenge you to provide something resembling evidence, because that's not just a matter of perception, it's a wild-ass conspiracy theory unless you can substantiate it somehow.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Republicans are always big on personal responsibility, when they are talking about others.
It's strange, but I think that when you put the right mix of personal responsibility with family values and small government, you can end up with a strange clannishness.
I agree, except that I don't think its the least bit strange.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who looks at recent history can see that there is a definite double standard.
Maybe you could provide some examples because frankly I'm not seeing.
Harry Reid is a democrat. He made a comment which pretty much everyone on both sides agrees was accurate although impolite and he is now (for the second time) caught up in a scandal over it.
Bill Cosby is a democrat. He got taken to the cleaners over derogatory comments he made about black culture even though most people agree they were valid.
Please point out to me some republican who has made equally valid but politically incorrect statements about race who was treated more severely or some democrat who made open racist statements who was let off the hook.
Trent Lott?
You could also argue that every entitlement program that Democrats put into law affects minorities as well. Creating dependency on the government doesn't help minorities. Essentially releasing minorities of personal responsibility doesn't help minorities either.
And regarding the Civil Rights movement, I found this little quote:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
Wow, sure looks like he was looking to help people because he felt it was the right thing to do eh?
The thing is, it goes both ways. Both parties have their own problems, and depending on YOUR point of view, you can blame the other party as being racist.
Hell, here are some other quotes from Democrats:
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -Senator Joe Biden
Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton
Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him."
-- Roger Clinton, the President's brother on audiotape
Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax
"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."
-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess
I'm sure you can find many by republicans as well. I am pointing out that saying someone belongs to the racist party is completely ridiculous.
posted
I think Trent Lott has already been discussed here. Trent Lott said "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either."
The statement is too vague to state whether he was "valid but politically incorrect" but Strom Thurmond ran as a staunch segregationist. Assuming the most plain interpretation of that comment - that he supported a segregationist platform and regrets it's failure - it's not only politically incorrect, but unambiguously racist. He'd have to elaborate on what he meant by "all these problems" to make judgement about whether it was valid.
Now he could have just been making an empty complement to his friend, in which case it doesn't qualify as "valid but politically incorrect about race".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Please point out to me some republican who has made equally valid but politically incorrect statements about race who was treated more severely or some democrat who made open racist statements who was let off the hook.
Trent Lott?
I think George Allen's 'macaca' comment is a significantly better example. Lott was specifically praising Thurmond's segregationist campaign, which is pretty odious (personally I think he just got carried away with his praise and didn't think of the implications of that praise, but I think it goes beyond a lapse in word-selection judgment).
In Allen's case his passing use of a pejorative probably sank not only his 2006 campaign (he had a pretty comfortable lead over Webb at the time), but his likely 2008 presidential bid as well.
<edit>Thanks Matt for the "valid, but politically incorrect" pointer. I'd missed that, and I guess 'macaca' isn't much of a 'valid statement'</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I am sure your advice to 'fix it' means to allow Democrats to do whatever they want and to blindly follow the Democrat party.
Hey, by the way, it's "the Democratic party," not "the Democrat party"
Also, if you're going to accuse people of strawmanning, don't be a huge hypocrite and do it right back.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Obama and the Democrats' plan to build new roads has not helped unemployment which again means that minorities are being hurt by the Democrats.
Wait, what? A plan to build new roads, which means employing people to do it (nothing to do with minorities by the way...) hasn't significantly helped unemployment (I take your assertion as a given for the sake of your argument) so it therefore has *hurt* minorities?
So like, if a new medicine comes out to treat diabetes, and it doesn't show the results that the Rx companies had hoped for, minorities have actually been *hurt* by GSK? The failure in any case to improve any situation, not for lack of trying, is actively hurting people? And why, specifically, minorities?
I feel DK, like you are asking this forum to bend over backwards to see things in a way that favors your side, but you're doing an exceedingly weak job of building any kind of case for that. If this one is an indication of your arsenal of examples, if this is the *first* one that springs to mind for you, I can't see as how you can expect it to be taken seriously. Now I vaguely feel that you will cry foul at my misinterpretation of your statement, but I want to preempt that by saying that if it doesn't mean what I think it means, which appears to be quite clear, then you have also done a doubly poor job of presenting it to us as an example.
Geraine- an orgy of embarrassing quotes doesn't cut much ice on this forum, or in any mature discussion of politics. There's a reason those lists appear on t-shirts and spam emails or blog posts (where you doubtless collected them). It's because hack wannabe politicos with nothing substantial to say about much of anything collect them like souvenir tokens to show that they are "keeping up" with "what's being said," and because they find constructing unhinged lists of embarrassing context-free material easier than actual analysis, investigation, or creative production. You'll find a gazillion Bushisms online that are just as dumb, and just as pointless. Anybody and everybody can find and assemble these quotes to any purpose. It's easy, and like anything, it's easy because it's not really worth doing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I am sure your advice to 'fix it' means to allow Democrats to do whatever they want and to blindly follow the Democrat party.
Hey, by the way, it's "the Democratic party," not "the Democrat party"
Also, if you're going to accuse people of strawmanning, don't be a huge hypocrite and do it right back.
You didn't see the memo? Republicans aren't allowed to use "Democratic" anymore when describing Democrats, as that sounds far too nice.
"What, they're Democratic? Why, they must love Democracy and freedom then!"
We can't have that. It's hard to call them America hating commies when their name implies they might actually appreciate or represent democracy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
“I’m happy to learn that after I speak you’re going to hear from Ann Coulter. That’s a good thing. I think it’s important to get the views of moderates.” — right before Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot.”
-Mitt Romney
“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
-Rush Limbaugh
Hereis a link to audio of Vernon Robinson's comments about Latino's.
McCain had a long history of racist comments about Asians, and several other ethnic groups. I can look it up, but not right now.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reid's statement wasn't racist. America was ready to elect a person of color who sounded intelligent. Especially after the verbally handicapped Bush. The double standard is this.....you come into my shop with your sagging pants, dread locks and ebonics, I'm not going to hire you to represent my company. Is that racist?
I don't think Reid should be drummed out but I lost all respect for him when he apologized. I don't think Trent Lott should've been removed for his toast to a man on his 100th birthday. Lott was a Dixicrat and Robert Byrd was a grand poobah of the KKK. Byrd and Reid get a pass, Lott or any other R that might've said the same thing as Reid would be crucified. Donovan McNabb is and was overrated and the NFL would like to have a black quarterback succeed....was Rush wrong? He was fired. If Al Sharpton said that McNabb was overrated, it would be accepted.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've been looking over all of this and came to a startling idea. It seems, while not all Republicans, or even a sizable minority are racist, most (again, not all, but most) fervent racists do seem to be Republican. Ask most Nazi's, Klansmen, or skin-head if they would vote for McCain or Obama--and you'll see my obviously valid point.
So next time there is a race crime I think we should do that profiling thing, and just round up all the Republicans and question them about their actions when the crime took place.
After all, most conservative Republicans can't understand why we don't use profiling on terrorists, or Hispanics driving north, or African Americans dressed in a certain way driving in upscale parts of town.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Reid's statement wasn't racist. America was ready to elect a person of color who sounded intelligent. Especially after the verbally handicapped Bush. The double standard is this.....you come into my shop with your sagging pants, dread locks and ebonics, I'm not going to hire you to represent my company. Is that racist?
I don't think Reid should be drummed out but I lost all respect for him when he apologized. I don't think Trent Lott should've been removed for his toast to a man on his 100th birthday. Lott was a Dixicrat and Robert Byrd was a grand poobah of the KKK. Byrd and Reid get a pass, Lott or any other R that might've said the same thing as Reid would be crucified. Donovan McNabb is and was overrated and the NFL would like to have a black quarterback succeed....was Rush wrong? He was fired. If Al Sharpton said that McNabb was overrated, it would be accepted.
And that is the whole point. Was what reid said racist? Maybe not . Should he step down? I can't say. But I do believe that if a Republican had said the exact same thing, in the exact same way, he would not have been able to just apologize and move on. McCain had to apologize during the election for calling Obama a boy. Did anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, he was speaking about Obamas age, and not the color of his skin?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
BTW, it doesn't matter if McCain WAS talking about his age, it was still not appropriate, and a stupid thing to say.
Rush didn't just say he was overrated, and claiming that is why he was fired is a load of crap. Claiming that the NFL hyped him only because he was black is a completely different horse. Hell, it's a completely different horse race.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Reid's statement wasn't racist. America was ready to elect a person of color who sounded intelligent. Especially after the verbally handicapped Bush. The double standard is this.....you come into my shop with your sagging pants, dread locks and ebonics, I'm not going to hire you to represent my company. Is that racist?
... Well what you just said was racist, yes, or rather it speaks to a rather troubling prejudice you hold. Not hiring someone who wouldn't appeal to your customer base is not so racist, no. I sense a basic problem for you is differentiating between those two things.
Now Mal, keep in mind a few things. Saying that baggy pants and ebonics and dread locks exist is fine. Saying that certain people have all those attributes is also fine. Approaching this discussion with that as your presented baseline image of a black person... not so fine. So while you are justified in not hiring someone who is not appropriately dressed or groomed for work or doesn't speak in a dialect you find appropriate for dealing with customers (not to mention one's potential employer), you are not justified in approaching these characteristics as strictly racial attributes. It tells me and everyone else here that even if a clean cut black man or woman with a clear speaking voice and slacks on came into your office looking for a job, you would hire that person not for being an appropriate candidate, but for being a confirmation by exception of your prejudices. That's why you talk about black people you know who don't conform to the stereotypes you believe in- because they seem to confirm, to you, the superiority of your ethnic and cultural background. Your actions don't really matter that much, because what you believe- the way you approach people, is marred with this prejudice. That's why nobody buys your nickle stories about black friends- it's because you say crap like *this* that tells us all what you're really all about. Whether that be sinister: the elimination by social and political pressure of the "impure" or "un-American" black culture, or the rather more mundanely racist: "I don't want anything to do with those people." Again Mal, this can have *nothing* to do with your actions, and everything to do with your reasons for acting as you do. Since you've demonstrated zero understanding of the distinction, I'm not optimistic at all that this will even reach you- nothing else has.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: McCain had to apologize during the election for calling Obama a boy. Did anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, he was speaking about Obamas age, and not the color of his skin?
Obama was at the time a 47 year old man. It was insulting, and because of the highly racially charged nature of that term, particularly to middle aged black people who can remember it being used, the connection leapt out- it was not insinuated by cynical ears looking for mistakes.
A couple of battles are going on. While there indeed *are* cynical ears and opportunist pundits spinning things out of control, there remain subtle yet very real verbal cues and subliminal rhetorical devices being used to appeal to prejudice. I don't even suppose that McCain was perfectly conscious of the nature of his statement at the time. However, his intent was to diminish Obama through his choice of words, and the word that came out was "boy." There is no way, mark me, that McCain is not familiar with the racial history of that word. Though I don't believe that every statement should be guarded, or every intent shrouded in opaque and neutral language, if you're going to commit to using words in order to undermine someone else, you are going to have to accept responsibility for the hurt that those words can cause. That was a big mistake, and though it may not have gone over as McCain had expected or hoped, it was also not an accident. Liken it, if you will, to speeding or rolling through a stop sign. McCain thought, or maybe just "felt" in a more subconscious sense, that he could slip it by without having it pop back up at him. It didn't slip by, and I'm glad of that.
That said, we're only talking about an apology. When you say something like that, and it is taken very poorly by the person you're talking about, you apologize. Even if McCain didn't mean that or wasn't thinking about that on any level, an apology was still in order. The fact that I think he *was* thinking that and appealing to others who also have that thought isn't so important, except to show that there are people who remain sensitive to such language. I know, for myself, that I would never, ever say something like that about a black man. I probably wouldn't ever say it about anyone who wasn't an actual boy, but I know damn well what it means and why it is hurtful, and McCain should know that too. Ignorance is a weak defense for a man in his position.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank goodness I don't think of boy as a racially charged term (in that, in my generation there's a good chance it won't be racially charged).
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:...there remain subtle yet very real verbal cues and subliminal rhetorical devices being used to appeal to prejudice.
Actually, I would put the words 'Negro' and 'speaks so well' as words and phrases that appeal to prejudice, too. In Reid's case being used to say, "He's a black man, but he is not like these things."
I can say that with about as much certainty as you're reading McCain's mind, Orincoro, please keep that in mind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's already in mind, Rakeesh. I see a difference in that Reid is actually talking directly about race, so while he's calling to mind to these stereotypes, he's doing it to a purpose that is different from McCain's. He's doing it so that he can talk about it- talking about it is not wrong, although some people still do object to the word in any context, even if someone is using it particularly because it has a conflicted history. Subtle rhetoric is not disallowed from politics- it's only really wrong to do it, and then to deny doing it, or of course to do it with a more nefarious purpose, like imprint the notion of Obama being a "boy" in the way that the word can be used.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's doing it so that he can talk about it- talking about it is not wrong...
Whether it's wrong or not seems to me to depend entirely on intent.
If the intent is to offer up 100% analysis on the situation and nothing else, then no, I don't think it's wrong. If the intent is to offer up, say, 50% analysis and 50% persuasion, though...well, that makes things different.
Because I'm trying to think of what, exactly, he could have been attempting to persuade people of with those remarks, and coming up with only a few guesses. Some of them are dubious at best.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Reid's statement wasn't racist. America was ready to elect a person of color who sounded intelligent. Especially after the verbally handicapped Bush. The double standard is this.....you come into my shop with your sagging pants, dread locks and ebonics, I'm not going to hire you to represent my company. Is that racist?
... Well what you just said was racist, yes, or rather it speaks to a rather troubling prejudice you hold. Not hiring someone who wouldn't appeal to your customer base is not so racist, no. I sense a basic problem for you is differentiating between those two things.
Now Mal, keep in mind a few things. Saying that baggy pants and ebonics and dread locks exist is fine. Saying that certain people have all those attributes is also fine. Approaching this discussion with that as your presented baseline image of a black person... not so fine. So while you are justified in not hiring someone who is not appropriately dressed or groomed for work or doesn't speak in a dialect you find appropriate for dealing with customers (not to mention one's potential employer), you are not justified in approaching these characteristics as strictly racial attributes. It tells me and everyone else here that even if a clean cut black man or woman with a clear speaking voice and slacks on came into your office looking for a job, you would hire that person not for being an appropriate candidate, but for being a confirmation by exception of your prejudices. That's why you talk about black people you know who don't conform to the stereotypes you believe in- because they seem to confirm, to you, the superiority of your ethnic and cultural background. Your actions don't really matter that much, because what you believe- the way you approach people, is marred with this prejudice. That's why nobody buys your nickle stories about black friends- it's because you say crap like *this* that tells us all what you're really all about. Whether that be sinister: the elimination by social and political pressure of the "impure" or "un-American" black culture, or the rather more mundanely racist: "I don't want anything to do with those people." Again Mal, this can have *nothing* to do with your actions, and everything to do with your reasons for acting as you do. Since you've demonstrated zero understanding of the distinction, I'm not optimistic at all that this will even reach you- nothing else has.
Keeping in mind that there are many whites who dress, look, and talk the exact same way, is it still racist? Because I personally as an employer would not hire ANYONE who I deem is not appropriate for my business, regardless of race.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't Reid's comment made in private as well? Doesn't that change something? I have also given a pass to Republicans on somethings (which if you search on hatrack, you can see). I believe the tar baby comment was made by a republican and I said that was ridiculous to get upset over, and I also defended McCain's racist comments about Vietnamese (not that the comments were ok, just that with his history, I can understand).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give McCain a pass on any comments he has made against Vietnamese in the past. I don't agree with the statements, but if you were held as a POW for as long as he was and went through that experience you may make the same kind of comments.
Orinoco, I agree with you on the intent of Reid's statements, but how can you possibly know what McCain's intent was? Yes, he was speaking about his political opponent and it was meant to put him down.
McCain is old! Old enough to be Obama's father. To say that McCain was referring to race and not age is stretching it. Obama called his grandmother a "typical white woman" but not a lot of people took that as a racist comment. I didn't at least.
The point Orinoco is that there are unfortunate statements made on both sides of the isle. Many things politicians say can be interpreted and spun any way you want. They may not have meant it in a racist way, but then the next day people are up in arms about it saying that it was racist.
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that racism only exists to the extent that it does in the US because people want it to. Hell, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make a living of it. I lived in Brazil, and I will say that I never caught any hint of racism. White people were called "Branca" or "Branco" and black people were called "Negra" or "Negro". I knew two guys that went by the names "Negao" (Big Black, "Brancao" (Big White) That is just how people are described down there.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the significant thing to look for here is whether any particular comment is part of a pattern of behaviour.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I give McCain a pass on any comments he has made against Vietnamese in the past. I don't agree with the statements, but if you were held as a POW for as long as he was and went through that experience you may make the same kind of comments.
McCain doesn't get a pass. He gets a mitigating-factors qualifier. I can certainly understand some of the sources his remarks might come from, but you don't get to be President if you're certain things-even if it's perfectlyunderstandable if you're those things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You didn't see the memo? Republicans aren't allowed to use "Democratic" anymore when describing Democrats, as that sounds far too nice.
"What, they're Democratic? Why, they must love Democracy and freedom then!"
We can't have that. It's hard to call them America hating commies when their name implies they might actually appreciate or represent democracy.
Wow. I mean really? Really? Lyyrhawn, are you seriously suggesting that because I said Democrat party instead of Democratic party that I was implying all the nonsense you posted about Democrats being America hating commies? Please be assured I do not believe that Democrats or the Democratic party are America hating commies. I do agree that there are people here, like Malanthrop that may say that, and probably has (I skip most of Malanthrops posts and typically roll my eyes if I make a mistake and read them) but I do not think that. I simply go with Republicans and Republican party....Democrats and Democrat party....I will make sure to use Democratic party in the future. I tried to take as much snark out this as I could...I know there is some left in it though.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
But, regardless of my tongue-in-cheek portrayal there, there HAS been a concerted effort in the last few years by major Republican nation figures to refer to the Democratic party as the Democrat party. You can check editorials if you want to see what the pundits think of it, but that's my personal opinion as to why. It's a rhetorical trick, and nothing more.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't hire a white kid who inserted "dude" into every sentence. I wouldn't hire a white kid who speaks ebonics or otherwise sounds like an idiot. I might hire him to work a menial job away from the customer. Reid was right, America is beyond color. Reid wouldn't throw his support at Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Those are token black guys for the Democrat party. Republicans actually have minorities in real positions of power...even dark skinned ones. It's a sign of progress that the Democratic Majority leader believes his party is at least ready for a well-spoken, light-skinned negro. Republicans are color blind but called racist since they care about actual qualifications ahead of skin color. Democrats made a political calculation that both white and black folks would vote for a well spoken light skinned negro. We'll make real progress in this country when Democrats decide to support a dark skinned negro with actual qualifications.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, you just rode that logic train right off the rails there, malanthrop.
Republicans are color-blind now because they have actual minorities in positions of power (strangely, even though they're so prominent, you're not naming them). Democrats, though, are hypocrites, because their minorities in position of power are light-skinned.
Man, you are such a hack. Isn't there some Rush Limbaugh forum that would be a better fit or something?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wow, you just rode that logic train right off the rails there, malanthrop.
Republicans are color-blind now because they have actual minorities in positions of power (strangely, even though they're so prominent, you're not naming them). Democrats, though, are hypocrites, because their minorities in position of power are light-skinned.
Man, you are such a hack. Isn't there some Rush Limbaugh forum that would be a better fit or something?
I think the site your thinking of is Stormfront.
IP: Logged |
posted
I was always irritated by the term "house nigger" as it was usually applied to "well spoken" (non-negro dialect) educated conservative blacks. I now realize it's a perfectly appropriate term and is more fitting to Al Sharpton defending Harry Reid.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
So that's one blatant count of being a total hack.
General Powell serves as a much better example than the really crappy example of Gov. Pinchback, as does Secretary Rice. Though of course, Powell is not at all popular with your sort of far-right Republican these days.
Senator Brooke is a good example, though Hiram Revels is not-you don't get to claim the Republican party of Reconstruction as the modern GOP, at least not outside of your dittohead sycophants.
I notice with some surprise you don't include the first black President on your list, nor in fact the first black leader of the Democratic party-also the President, when it's a democrat.
Don't you have hundreds of hours a week to be working, to make your large sums of entirely self-earned money, or something malanthrop? Couldn't you, y'know, go do that instead?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was always irritated by the term "house nigger" as it was usually applied to "well spoken" educated conservative blacks.
Heh. No it wasn't, malanthrop. It was also, by some, applied to 'well-spoken', educated, conservative blacks. But don't let accuracy get in the way of your conservative political talking points.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow mal. I think that is a bit much. I may not agree with a lot of people here politically, but let me be one of the first to say, I think that was a little too far.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correction....the first half-black president. He was a political calculation, tolerable to whites and blacks due to his light skin and non-negro speech...unless he wants to talk black. Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Codoleeza Rice, JC Watts, etc are real blacks but not really since they are conservative. You want to see racism, watch the left's attacks on a minority who holds conservative beliefs. A black conservative is a traitor.
As far as my work schedule, I work nights and have Thur/Fri off. Strange, I know. If you're lucky, I'll be absent for a while...my Reserve Unit is gearing up to send me to Haiti. If you don't hear from me next Thur, you'll know where I'm at. Strange how the most evil country on the face of the Earth is always the one other nations come to in a time of need.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Wow mal. I think that is a bit much. I may not agree with a lot of people here politically, but let me be one of the first to say, I think that was a little too far.
I always viewed that term as a slander against educated conservative blacks. The slander "Uncle Tom" or "House Nigger" was always applied to my educated conservative friends. I had an epiphany. A house nigger is still a slave to his master. That phrase is more appropriate to Al Sharpton defending Reid. Sharpton was never given any real power but Michael Steele is the head of the RNC. To fit that bill, you have to have a master. Steele came right out and told the party, “If you don't want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up.”.....house niggers don't say things like that. He's a man who believes in what he says and stands on principle.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's an interesting and thoughtful point. Lots of people - especially around here - regard America as the most evil country on Earth, sort of like an anti-Disney, but with countries. Your pithy remarks will put them in their place!
Also, as for your 'correction'...why do you bother? Who are you persuading? You're annoying people and making yourself look like quite a fool by asserting Obama isn't actually the first black President.
If I want to see racism, maybe I'll look for prominent, powerful Republicans looking back with regret on not electing one of the most famous segregationists ever to the office of the President.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's a man who believes in what he says and stands on principle.
Unless he's talking about your man Rush Limbaugh, in which case standing up firmly for himself becomes something of a slippery concept...and not something to be admired among Republicans, for that matter, because after all, Steele didn't puss out because people in the Republican party weren't upset.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes a man who is 50% black and 50% white....black? Didn't mean to be "pithy". Would he still be black if he was 1/4 black? 1/8th? Only a racist would call him black for having a heavy tan. I'm the racist here despite the fact that in this very thread, I've shared my admiration for a dark skinned black. When I look at Michael Steele I don't see a black man, I see a man and he's darker than Obama. I'm not a racist for opposing Obama.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, what you expressed was admiration for a dark-skinned black Republican.
When a black man toes your political line, then he stops being a racial cut-out. Before that, though, at best he's one of millions of easily-duped and/or bought-off minority nimwits.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
