posted
Never aware? On the one hand, I'm far from well-informed about the ins-and-outs of sexual harrassment lawsuits. But it seems really strange that he wouldn't have either asked or been told the result of lawsuits against him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I heard an interview on NPR this morning with the Politico reporter who did the story. The reporter said that Politico has been trying to get Cain's campaign to respond to their questions about this for two or three weeks, and that it was the lack of response from Cain's campaign that led him to ask Cain about it directly.
It seems to me the only question is, do we believe this reporter did in fact ask for a response on this question already, weeks long in fact? Yes or no, how can it be checked?
The news may have become widespread thanks to opposition leaking, but if the Cain campaign's policy on this was 'say nothing and hope nothing comes of it', well...that's not a very good plan, and it seems strange to me to pin this on opposition research if that's the case.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, I imagine it would, wouldn't it?
Come on BB, litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and annoying. Settlement does not equal guilt, and my kitchen can attest to the fact that where there's smoke there is not always fire.
That being said, sure, it's totally possible that Cain is lying through his teeth (what a delightfully pointless expression that is). I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm also not jumping to believe it.
PS: I wouldn't be so racist against the Assistant Vice Dean of Canadian Transfer Students Equality of Speech if those Canadian students weren't all coming here to steal my job and then talk about how they stole my job.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Not only are they not happy with Obama's reform, many of them want to get rid of student loans all together and let the private sector take over.
As someone who has both private and federal student loans, I'll tell you right now that anyone who calls for total privatization will get me off my ass and out the door to start a rally against them.
Not to mention that while private loans cannot be escaped via bankruptcy, they lack all the protections of federal loans (payment options like IBR and extended repayment; required deferment and forbearance in specific situations (some private lenders offer forbearance, but they are not legally required to); various loan forgiveness programs). They also depend on student (or co-signer) credit worthiness, which most penalizes those who need the most help.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Universities also make alot of money through research and sports, and that is how they get alot of prestige. If you began penalizing them in those areas for increases in student costs, I bet many of them could reign in costs.
Some schools -- the ones who make headlines -- get large amounts of their income from research and/or sports. But since those areas are fairly separate from tuition, how would such penalties work? Raise tuition more than x% and lose NCAA eligibility and the ability to apply for research grants in certain fields?
The mind boggles.
I guess the many many many small schools with little or no research grant income and no significant sports programs would at least get to not worry about this theoretical plan.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: They aren't ENTIRELY wrong on this. The plan Obama has will basically make it education cost meaningless after a certain threshold. If everyone will, in the end, pay the same amount for college, why would a future social worker choose a state school over an IVY League?
The maximum Stafford amounts already don't cover the difference between state schools and Ivy League. Leaving IBR and loan forgiveness completely out of the mix. Students at Ivies who are taking out huge amounts in loans are either getting PLUS loans (really, their parents are), which are not eligible for IBR, or private loans.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: And, quite frankly, Obama doing this WITHOUT going through congress is a blatant abuse of power. I think it's absolutely foolish for him to do this in his first term.
He was only able to do this because Congress already PASSED A LAW CONTAINING THESE CHANGES. He's just enacting it as of 2012 instead of 2014.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Also, I think having all the loans held by the Federal Government is unwise - and not just because it's causing my own employer some strife. The FELP program had pretty good controls in it to make sure that federally backed student loans stayed tied to market rates. Sure, sometimes the federal government paid a subsidy to the loan holders, but in the last few years, the loan holders were actually paying subsidy BACK to the federal government! Laws that surrounding interest rates protected students from anything two terrible and provided students with alot of borrower benefits. While there were some problems with it, it was a fairly solid program.
By the time the switch to all federal happened, FFELP was dead. The only lenders still handling significant volumes of new FFELP loans were turning around and selling them in batches to the Department of Education. (These are called PUT loans, and became possible because of ECASLA.)
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: The new "all direct federal loan" program isn't so great. For one thing, it allows our president to do this kind of forgiveness program WITHOUT going through congress.
The Department of Education (part of the Executive branch) had this sort of control over FFELP just as much as over DL. Just less directly (if you'll pardon the pun.)
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Plus, they really don't know what they're doing trying to administer their program. I've gotten 3 different notices from them in 1 week about my account, all with totally different information on it!
Are you sure they're all one loan? Good chance you and your son have multiple loans -- a PLUS, a FFELP/PUT, and a DL. Quite possibly all from the same lender/servicer.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: but what has changed in the last decade to send costs spiraling out of control?
Private college costs have not gone up at nearly the rate of state schools (with the exception of Ivies and their ilk). State school tuition keeps rising largely because states keep reducing the percentage of costs covered by money from the state itself.
Ivies and other highly-competitive schools raise tuition in large part because it gets them more applicants and higher rankings to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But hasn't this always been the case? Or is this building spree a recent trend?
Timing. Many of the larger schools had buildings legitimately needing replacement/repair/retrofitting about 15-25 years back. Then you gradually get the competitive spiral/trickle-down Tom is talking about (shiny new building to compete with Jones U a few miles away, etc.)
Where I work is a very small campus, and we're strongly considering a new location (in a brand-new building), primarily because it really will attract students.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Well, yeah, I imagine it would, wouldn't it?
Come on BB, litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and annoying. Settlement does not equal guilt, and my kitchen can attest to the fact that where there's smoke there is not always fire.
That being said, sure, it's totally possible that Cain is lying through his teeth (what a delightfully pointless expression that is). I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm also not jumping to believe it.
PS: I wouldn't be so racist against the Assistant Vice Dean of Canadian Transfer Students Equality of Speech if those Canadian students weren't all coming here to steal my job and then talk about how they stole my job.
I didn't say the man was guilty, or that legal costs are inexpensive. I maintained I didn't believe Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation from the moment he was first accused until his death. I don't generally jump on bandwagons.
But, it's bizarre to act like you just signed off on everything and you had no idea how the outcome panned out on something that serious. If I was accused of sexual harassment not even twice, but once, I would certainly know a lot of the basic details like how much of my money I spent in settlement.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original Politico article claims one of the suits stemmed from a woman who attended a conference with Cain. During the course of the conference she claims he invited her up to his room, which she took as an unwanted sexual advance.
A separate source claims one of the allegations, as related by Cain, arose from an office discussion with a woman in which he compared her height to that of his wife. In doing so he used a gesture which she found discomfiting.
quote:The smallness of the settlement deserves attention because sexual harassment is a tort that covers a lot of territory, everything from prolonged and brutal sexual humiliation to an untoward joke. A settlement in the $10,000-$90,000 range is likely going to arise from behavior that is on the low-end of the spectrum.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually its a scarce commodity/basket standing, it wouldn't be solely gold but a basket of scarce commodities, which I think might be more workable if it could be correlated to our current economy.
and, for the modern world, here is a company that already trades gold electronically. They hold it, you own it, its a number on your screen. The concept is still in those awkward preteen years thou http://www.e-gold.com/
so you see, Ron Paul seeks to allow the people to create and use competing currencies. This will initially act with the FED sort of like the UPS and Fedex act with the US Postal Service.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What the hell are they spending all their money on right now? I see tuition spiking as much as 10% at where I went to undergrad, yet the professors had to strike two years ago because the university wanted to freeze salaries and reduce benefits. They're charging us more and more and the money isn't going to professors, so where is it going?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A lot of it is also simply wasted spending. Universities have always had to pay utilities, and all the other random costs of being a university...but what has changed in the last decade to send costs spiraling out of control?
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And yeah, we have a civil discourse around here because we don't communicate via rosters of youtube links.
Point taken, however, I have found that upon mention of Ron Paul, you, in some circles, get
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He *is* nuts because hes a hardcore libertarian
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Ron Paul is a nut because he wants to walk away from Israel and because he wants to implement a gold standard. Other people think he's a nut for other reasons that I don't find as disastrous.
So in order to talk about what he has said and did, and to not talk about what talking heads have said about him on the television, videos are required but rest assured, I engage, i inform. I'll let you draw your own conclusions
posted
Part of the problem of inflation isn`t so much of inflation in of itself, small amount of inflation is good for the poor as it devalues their debts and forces rich people with massive savings to spend their money or lose it.
2009ish, national savings average was -10%+, meaning that the average american had debts, so inflation would actually helped Americans in that respect, and usually most peoples savings arent all that high since then, so a 5% increase in inflation wouldnt hurt.
The problem is that inflation so far being calculated has been increasingly being fudged and is completely ficticious, the US neither accurately calculates its gdp growth or its inflation, choosing instead to fiddle with the numbers to make them *better* to the point that the tools the government has to calculate inflation and gdp growth no longer reflect reality.
IP: Logged |
quote:But, it's bizarre to act like you just signed off on everything and you had no idea how the outcome panned out on something that serious. If I was accused of sexual harassment not even twice, but once, I would certainly know a lot of the basic details like how much of my money I spent in settlement.
This is exactly what made me start thinking, "OK, he's lying about something," regarding Cain. It just rang really false to me, and after thinking about it for a few moments the possibilities where it might be true weren't very nice either. Suppose he didn't, in fact, ask or care what the settlement was at all. What does that indicate, that you're apathetic to the outcome of sexual harrassment lawsuits against you? I don't know what it would indicate, but many of the possibilities are unpleasant.
Now I say all of that having no experience with sexual harrassment lawsuits, much less being sued for it or representing someone who has been sued for it. So I can't say with any kind of authority that it smacks of deception-but it looks pretty bad to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Colbert wants to "coopt"/back OWS I think.
IP: Logged |
quote:But, it's bizarre to act like you just signed off on everything and you had no idea how the outcome panned out on something that serious. If I was accused of sexual harassment not even twice, but once, I would certainly know a lot of the basic details like how much of my money I spent in settlement.
This is exactly what made me start thinking, "OK, he's lying about something," regarding Cain. It just rang really false to me, and after thinking about it for a few moments the possibilities where it might be true weren't very nice either. Suppose he didn't, in fact, ask or care what the settlement was at all. What does that indicate, that you're apathetic to the outcome of sexual harrassment lawsuits against you? I don't know what it would indicate, but many of the possibilities are unpleasant.
Now I say all of that having no experience with sexual harrassment lawsuits, much less being sued for it or representing someone who has been sued for it. So I can't say with any kind of authority that it smacks of deception-but it looks pretty bad to me.
If these are the very minor incidents that they have been made out to be, I can very much see Cain giving his version of events and then letting the legal people handle it without taking any more interest.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If these are the very minor incidents that they have been made out to be, I can very much see Cain giving his version of events and then letting the legal people handle it without taking any more interest.
Really? I guess we have very different 'that don't make sense' angles of perspective, then, at least on this. Which isn't a criticism, btw-it just feels off to me, but given how badly informed I am on the topic (and short of delving many hours into the legalities and practices of sexual harrassment lawsuits, I don't see how to rectify that), it's really just a gut feeling.
It just doesn't jive with what little I know that a high power executive would consider multiple sexual harrassment lawsuits as 'very minor', even if they were based on incidents that were in fact very minor. It just has such huge potential to be nasty, media-wise, I think such a man would be at least somewhat interested.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The piece is almost a mash note to Mitt Romney; one of the commenters said it seemed like a PR piece from the Romney campaign. However, the author made very obvious that, if anything, the campaign was antagonistic to her while she was prepping the piece.
I personally know, from my time in the Boston LDS community, several of the people quoted in the article. So perhaps my finding the article interesting is more a facet of seeing some friends quoted in a CNN article. But personally I thought it was an excellent depiction of what impact his LDS church commitments, including voluntary leadership and missionary service, have had on Romney.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it was settled out of court, and if he didn't pay it out of pocket himself, it wouldn't at all surprise me if he didn't know all the details like that. When I was sued a few years ago as part of a car accident, I only got random letters from Allstate telling me what was happening, and then one at the end telling me how much they settled for.
It really doesn't sound like this was that big a deal, but then without details it's hard to say. He could have been creepy and intrusive, or they could have overreacted, or both. Impossible to say, but it's not a full on sex scandal.
I don't think it's quite as out there as some people are making it out to be, but it IS pretty whacky at parts. His delivery is less polished and more folksy than we're conditioned to believe presidents should be, and that doesn't bother me really. But some of the material is like a parody of every drunk scene you've ever seen in a sitcom.
He's actually pretty funny at points. It's honestly a win/lose. People vote for presidents who they most feel resemble themselves, their values, people they want to have a beer with. It's why Bush did so well despite policy disasters. It's why Obama did so well despite a lack of experience. It's why Cain is rising, because people like his sometimes whacky straight talk. Perry comes off as much more of a "normal" guy than Romney ever has. On the other hand...it's still kind of out there for a presidential candidate.
Remember when Clinton broke down and cried in New Hampshire. Sometimes people throw an emotional Hail Mary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's funny. I have to say, Huntsman has always been my favorite of the GOP candidates, mostly because he's the most moderate, and I think also the least slick. I only rarely feel like he's trying to shove an ideological agenda down my throat, and I only rarely see him shamelessly digging Democrats just because. It always comes across as more of an after thought to him.
But over the last month or so, I'm also leaning towards just plain liking him the most. He seems nice and smart, like attacking people isn't his first duty, but rather an unfortunate necessity (which is why I think an Obama/Huntsman race would be so great, since neither really relish combative politics). His family appears tight knit and loving, and all of them have such great senses of humor.
I'm thinking about voting for him in Michigan's primary. I just wish the Tea Party wasn't dragging the GOP so far to the right that Huntsman isn't radical enough to be taken seriously, or hasn't come up with the right gimmick to fascinate the masses.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
This is pretty problematic, I don't think Cain has said anything problematic regarding to two women, but he is going to continue to be probed about this and if he does say too much, it might be fair to let them be released from their agreement.
What's worse is if he doesn't let them say anything, then it's fairly easy to see how people will raise eyebrows and say, "Why not let them speak?". But that's the point of a confidentiality agreement, you take your money, and agree not to go public about these things. Don't take the money if you can't keep your mouth shut.
But again, if Cain talks more and more frankly, I can't see why they should be barred from talking anymore.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I listened to a radio interview with Herman Cain, and they asked him if one of the women had ever travelled with him, and how well he knew her.
He said that he never travelled with her, barely even knew her, but that he did work on the same floor, as well as met with her boss on a regular basis.
I don't know, there are people out there that will accuse people in his position on purpose to get money. If I were filthy rich and someone falsely accused me of sexual harrassment, what can I do to prove my innocence? It becomes a he said / she said situation. Rather than spend a massive amount of money fighting the lawsuit, it would be cheaper to pay $10,000 and forget about the whole situation. I may not even show up during the negotiations. I'd send my lawyer to take care of everything.
Even showing up those types of negotiations could be taken as an admission of guilt.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's also said he doesn't even know one of the two women's name.
quote:But when pressed on the contractual agreement, Cain denied that he had violated the confidentiality terms himself, when he talked about the claims to the media.
"I never used their name," Cain said on Fox News Tuesday. "For one of them I didn't even know the name."
Now I can grant the possibility that he never knew or asked or was informed what the settlement result was. It just seems really unlikely to me, but I admit my ignorance on the subject. But he didn't even know the name of someone suing him for sexual harrassment?
The settlement in and of itself is not enough to point to guilt (or innocence) for me personally. For some of the reasons Geraine just described. The explanations about the settlement, about what was known when or what and who was informed, just strike me as...strange. I'm trying to put my head in the space where I'm a powerful, ambitious executive and someone is suing me for sexual harrassment. I didn't do it, I know I didn't do it, so I don't feel morally bound to fight it out to the end. But...I never ask, "Who is suing me for sexual harrassment?" The lawyers who are working on my behalf never tell me her name-I never ask? I'm never interested in what the outcome was, and they never inform me? That's where my imagination starts to falter.
On a semi-related subject, I love how some Cain supporters are calling this a 'hi-tech lynching'. Man do they want that race card back in their deck in the worst way!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "high-tech lynching" language is lifted directly from Clarence Thomas' denial of Anita Hill's allegations. There's been an immediate push, helped along obliquely by Cain himself, to draw a comparison to the Hill/Thomas fiasco. The comparison fails on many points, but it's probably advantageous for Cain to have people make it (especially since Hill survived the allegations).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait wait wait, Cain supporters want the race card in their deck? Right, Cain supporters are TOTALLY trying to throw out racist claims for no reason.
Hold on, what did Karen Finney say on MSNBC?
quote:
FINNEY: One of the things about Herman Cain is I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racists because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass.
BASHIR: Wow.
FINNEY: And I think they like him because they think he is a black man who knows his place and I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me.
Yep, Cain supporters are TOTALLY drumming this all up. I mean, what conservative would ever support a black man for president? It must because he knows his place!
Weren't there Democrats out there prior to the 2008 election that said if you didn't vote for Barack Obama it proved you were a racist?
Come on Rakeesh, racism is bad no matter what. The "card" you refer to doesn't belong to anyone, nor should it. To suggest it belongs to a particular group or that a group "wants it back" is just.... tacky.
I do disagree with the hi-tech lynching comment, I do not think this story was motivated by race at all. Digging up dirt on candidates is something that happens every election cycle.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was it Cain said about racism impacting minorities in this country?
"I don’t believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way,” said, Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, during an interview on CNN. “Are there some elements of racism? Yes, it gets back to if we don’t grow this economy, that is a ripple effect for every economic level, and because blacks are more disproportionately unemployed, they get hit the worst when economic policies don’t work. That’s where it starts."
Racism...doesn't hold blacks back in this country in a big way. This in a country where sometimes you'll get shot a whole lot for picking up a wallet, or where having a name that 'sounds black' will harm your chances of getting a job.
Are you really going to insist, Geraine, that conservatives in this country are likely not to feel better about a black politician who says race isn't a problem in this country anymore?
Anyway, my point was not morally that Democrats have the race card and should get to keep it. It was that, politically, Democrats and liberals have the race card, and Republicans and conservatives would like to have it-hence calling this a racial thing. As for Democrats in 2008, sure, some claimed that, not unlike some Republicans suggested a vote against McCain (or earlier, against Bush) was a vote for hating America and honest working Americans.
As for whether the 'race card' should belong to anyone...well. I think if it's going to belong to anyone, it ought to belong to the group which either supports more, or opposes less, actions which will improve the lot of minorities in this country.
As for 'digging up dirt'...the Cain campaign was asked about this for quite some time before it became widespread news. Their policy on the matter seems to have been 'say nothing'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't use Finney's wording, but I've said almost the exact same thing somewhere in this thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So have I. It seems strange to me that someone would deny that conservative Republicans wouldn't be reassured by a prominent black primary contender suggesting that racism ain't no thing anymore.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think there is a difference between liking a candidate who says racism isn't a big problem anymore... and liking a candidate because liking him proves you aren't racist so you can continue in your otherwise racist views?
Lyr and Rakeesh, you guys are essentially using one fact to try and prove the other, but they're fundamentally different assertions.
I don't think anyone disagrees that one thing that conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he agrees that racism is not a major problem today, and not one that needs to be solved through more legislation.
But I think many people would disagree that one thing conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he gives them a pass on their racism and stays in his place.
I can see how, if you reject any validity to the first premise, you might interpret someone's appreciation for it as implicit proof of the second premise... but I'd at least like you to acknowledge that you're doing it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think there is a difference between liking a candidate who says racism isn't a big problem anymore... and liking a candidate because liking him proves you aren't racist so you can continue in your otherwise racist views?
I think they can be the same thing, but aren't necessarily the same thing. I also don't think Republican primary voters in general like Cain because he says racism isn't a big problem anymore, for the record. But I sure think it helps. (To an extent that I think people who suggest it doesn't are kidding themselves.)
quote:But I think many people would disagree that one thing conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he gives them a pass on their racism and stays in his place.
I'm not sure either of us have said that. 'Feeling like I'm not a racist' is not the same thing as 'getting a pass for my racism and stays in his place'. The accusation of racism isn't uncommon from the left towards the right, but obviously the right doesn't secretly think themselves racist-who thinks that way? What I feel is a part of Cain's appeal, however (and I acknowledge lots of guessing here) is that a successful black Presidential candidate who says, "Racism isn't a big problem for minorities anymore," serves as a pretty pointed rebuttal to those not uncommon accusations.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The news today should be "A sexual harassment disaster has overshadowed the rest of the disaster which is Cain's campaign"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am still willing to vote for Cain so long as he goes on camera stating "I want to the very best, like no one ever was."
It is somewhat jarring to see how quickly the masses reacted and forgot about his pokemon quote, I expect persons of influence to have some skeletons in the closest but pikachu toys? that raises some serious questions.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The news today should be "A sexual harassment disaster has overshadowed the rest of the disaster which is Cain's campaign"
It's like a flu epidemic in chernobyl.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think there is a difference between liking a candidate who says racism isn't a big problem anymore... and liking a candidate because liking him proves you aren't racist so you can continue in your otherwise racist views?
I think they can be the same thing, but aren't necessarily the same thing. I also don't think Republican primary voters in general like Cain because he says racism isn't a big problem anymore, for the record. But I sure think it helps. (To an extent that I think people who suggest it doesn't are kidding themselves.)
quote:But I think many people would disagree that one thing conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he gives them a pass on their racism and stays in his place.
I'm not sure either of us have said that. 'Feeling like I'm not a racist' is not the same thing as 'getting a pass for my racism and stays in his place'. The accusation of racism isn't uncommon from the left towards the right, but obviously the right doesn't secretly think themselves racist-who thinks that way? What I feel is a part of Cain's appeal, however (and I acknowledge lots of guessing here) is that a successful black Presidential candidate who says, "Racism isn't a big problem for minorities anymore," serves as a pretty pointed rebuttal to those not uncommon accusations.
I think you're basically right. I'm positive many conservatives feel a visceral satisfaction in being able to fully support a black guy who seems to share their values, because it demonstrates that their aversion to Obama is similarly based on his values, not based on his race. You put it extremely well, I think, with your last sentence: it "serves as a pretty pointed rebuttal to those not uncommon accusations."
I still think this is a far cry from what, for example, Finney was saying. Do you agree?
PS:
quote: The accusation of racism isn't uncommon from the left towards the right, but obviously the right doesn't secretly think themselves racist-who thinks that way?
PPS: Don't follow my links. At most, maybe hover over them to see the URLs. On reflection, even posting those links might be against the TOS. If it is, I will happily remove them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Those are fringe groups. I mean, I imagine they must be in this day and age, it's not like when Klan memberships was measured in the tens of millions. It gets down to the "everyone's a little bit racist" thing. Some people have it way worse than others, and a lot of people think their views are perfectly true and justified rather than being racially prejudiced, so no, I don't think the majority of racists are out and proud racists.
Like I said before, Finney's wording wasn't as good as it could be, but her basic sentiment is right.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Like I said before, Finney's wording wasn't as good as it could be, but her basic sentiment is right.
Really? So, I am reading her basic sentiment to include this implicit statement: The Republican base is, by and large, racist.
Do you agree with my reading? Hell, I don't even think it's all that implicit, but maybe I'm just hyper sensitive.
PS: Rivka, I think people hate on the music of the 80s because the music of the 80s is a terrible, irredeemable abomination which is best left forgotten.
That or they're just a bunch of prejudiced jerks.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Like I said before, Finney's wording wasn't as good as it could be, but her basic sentiment is right.
Really? So, I am reading her basic sentiment to include this implicit statement: The Republican base is, by and large, racist.
Do you agree with my reading? Hell, I don't even think it's all that implicit, but maybe I'm just hyper sensitive.
PS: Rivka, I think people hate on the music of the 80s because the music of the 80s is a terrible, irredeemable abomination which is best left forgotten.
That or they're just a bunch of prejudiced jerks.
Yeah, I guess she does say that. I'm not sure if I agree or not. It's too many people to paint with such a broad brush, but I think it's a demon that is prevalent in the Republican base whether they want to admit it or not, and by and large they DON'T want to admit it. She might have qualified her statement a bit when she said "that base" as if to imply that only a subsection is racist, but I'll admit that's splitting hairs.
I think part of the problem also isn't so much overt "I hate black people" racism so much as it is a general denial of the need to give them special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression. A candidate that says "you don't need to treat them differently" justifies their desire to destroy the infrastructure of help that we've created in this country to help minorities, and they're sick of being called racist whenever they try to do so.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Secret confession: I owned two Backstreet Boys cds in high school, and I actually think "Never Gonna Give You Up" is catchy and delightful at times.
I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy both Rick Astley and the Backstreet Boys.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Edit to add: "Those are fringe groups" was to Dan about the Klan.
I like my read better.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rivka, I think people hate on the music of the 80s because the music of the 80s is a terrible, irredeemable abomination which is best left forgotten.
Like I care about the musical opinions of someone who talks to dead people. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think part of the problem also isn't so much overt "I hate black people" racism so much as it is a general denial of the need to give them special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression. A candidate that says "you don't need to treat them differently" justifies their desire to destroy the infrastructure of help that we've created in this country to help minorities, and they're sick of being called racist whenever they try to do so.
Once again, I think this is precisely right. If you asked most conservatives "Do you deny the need to give [minorities] special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression" you would get a pretty consistent answer. So then the crux is whether or not such a stance is racist. Which is ground we've tread before, I think.
But fundamentally, if someone's ideology is such that they don't think anyone should get special treatment, I think it's really, really slimy to paint them as racist for their answer to that question. Saying they are racist implies they are trying to hurt minorities because they are minorities, out of malice (or subconscious malice). See the difference?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think part of the problem also isn't so much overt "I hate black people" racism so much as it is a general denial of the need to give them special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression. A candidate that says "you don't need to treat them differently" justifies their desire to destroy the infrastructure of help that we've created in this country to help minorities, and they're sick of being called racist whenever they try to do so.
Once again, I think this is precisely right. If you asked most conservatives "Do you deny the need to give [minorities] special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression" you would get a pretty consistent answer. So then the crux is whether or not such a stance is racist. Which is ground we've tread before, I think.
But fundamentally, if someone's ideology is such that they don't think anyone should get special treatment, I think it's really, really slimy to paint them as racist for their answer to that question. Saying they are racist implies they are trying to hurt minorities because they are minorities, out of malice (or subconscious malice). See the difference?
It's hard to separate the two. When you constantly rail against a group that just happens to be black or latino, it's really easy to assign motivations that may or may not be fair. However, the denial to recognize the hand that government had in putting a lot of them in that position to begin with is problematic for me. Are we not responsible for our actions, no matter how long ago they were?
On the other hand, a recent poll in Mississippi, not exactly a liberal bastion, reported that 48% of people there think mixed race marriages should be illegal.
Obviously there's still racism out there, and it does tend to congregate in one particular party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
