http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_heckling_carter
QuoteATLANTA – Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president.
"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."
Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote for shouting "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress last Wednesday.
The shout came after the president commented that illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Republicans expressed their disbelief with sounds of disapproval, punctuated by Wilson's outburst.
Tuesday's rebuke was a rare resolution of disapproval pushed through by Democrats who insisted that Wilson had violated basic rules of decorum and civility. Republicans characterized the measure as a witch hunt and Wilson, who had already apologized to Obama, insisted he owed the House no apology.
Wilson's spokesman was not immediately available for comment, but his eldest son defended his father.
"There is not a racist bone in my dad's body," said Alan Wilson, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general. "He doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won't comment on former President Carter, because I don't know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it's just not in him."
"It's unfortunate people make that jump. People can disagree — and appropriately disagree — on issues of substance, but when they make the jump to race it's absolutely ludicrous. My brothers and I were raised by our parents to respect everyone regardless of background or race."
South Carolina's former Democratic Party chairman said that he doesn't believe Wilson was motivated by racism, but said the outburst encouraged racist views.
"I think Joe's conduct was asinine, but I think it would be asinine no matter what the color of the president," said Dick Harpootlian, who has known Wilson for decades. "I don't think Joe's outburst was caused by President Obama being African-American. I think it was caused by no filter being between his brain and his mouth."
Harpootlian said he received scores of racial e-mails from outside South Carolina after he talked about the vote on Fox News.
"You have a bunch of folks out there looking for some comfort in their racial issues. They have a problem with an African-American president," he said. "But was he motivated by that? I don't think so. I respectfully disagree with President Carter, though it gives validity to racism."
Carter called Wilson's comment "dastardly" and an aftershock of racist views that have permeated American politics for decades.
"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state," he said. "And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."
White folk can't respectably cry racism, so they take to declaring it for black folk. :rolleyes:
I think it would be more accurate to say it reflected racism against jaronites.
:cry:
Well, it's true. Some people will never accept a black President. So shameful.
Why would comparing Obama to Nazi leaders be racist? That's what the opposition parties do with presidents.
I thought Hitler was a liberal. :huh:
Obama should give a speech healing the wounds caused by Wilson's racism.
:frusty:
Shut up, Jimmy.
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2009, 06:42:55 AM
I thought Hitler was a liberal. :huh:
I'm told he was a communist. And thus a liberal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 06:45:27 AM
Obama should give a speech healing the wounds caused by Wilson's racism.
Have them over for a beer.
Maureen Dowd argues much the same. It's impossible to know, of course. Though I do think that it's sort of inevitable that unconscious (and conscious) racial views will influence how people see and respond to Obama. I think it more than possible that that could have been part of this, of another 60-something Southern Congressman referring to Obama as a 'boy' and of a 60 something Southern Senator saying that Obama needs to show more 'humility'.
This doesn't mean that those guys are racists. I think that's a conscious decision, but I think that on these specific occasions their behaviour, age and background suggest that race could play some part in how they view and respond to Obama. Of the three I think Wilson is the least likely, though.
Please tell me you don't take Maureen Dowd seriously Shelf.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 07:30:31 AM
Please tell me you don't take Maureen Dowd seriously Shelf.
:lol: I find her style a bit too excitable.
Well, if anyone knows about racism, it's that old anti-semite Jimmy Carter.
I'm in the "probably true that race is factoring into politicians not respecting the President as much," but how anybody can make that kind of blanket comment without any supporting details... when did Carter Jump the Shark(TM) again?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 08:58:58 AM
I'm in the "probably true that race is factoring into politicians not respecting the President as much," but how anybody can make that kind of blanket comment without any supporting details... when did Carter Jump the Shark(TM) again?
Malaise Speech.
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 09:02:38 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 08:58:58 AM
I'm in the "probably true that race is factoring into politicians not respecting the President as much," but how anybody can make that kind of blanket comment without any supporting details... when did Carter Jump the Shark(TM) again?
Malaise Speech.
Was that before or after the killer rabbit attack?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 08:58:58 AM
I'm in the "probably true that race is factoring into politicians not respecting the President as much," but how anybody can make that kind of blanket comment without any supporting details... when did Carter Jump the Shark(TM) again?
So you're saying you think Carter is right, but that he shouldn't have said anything?
He's history's biggest racist.
I guess Carter feels that he needs to periodically remind the world he's still alive.
Quote from: Kleves on September 16, 2009, 01:33:02 PM
I guess Carter feels that he needs to periodically remind the world he's still alive.
Well yeah, I think anyone who gets to the level of POTUS is going to be a giant attention whore.
It's getting quite offensive that so often racism is used to define anyone who disagrees with or questions the President. Really, it's setting back race relations a lot, I would think. To have this kind of label tossed out so often, so easily, just demeans all of us.
And you are all a bunch of racists just for creating this thread! ;)
Oh, and once again Pres Carter just shows foolishness, and dumb assed ideas.
I wonder if Obama is half a racist for calling Kanye West a jackass.
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
It's getting quite offensive that so often racism is used to define anyone who disagrees with or questions the President. Really, it's setting back race relations a lot, I would think.
Have you any other examples?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
It's getting quite offensive that so often racism is used to define anyone who disagrees with or questions the President. Really, it's setting back race relations a lot, I would think.
Have you any other examples?
Every day, too often...really.
Quote from: Kleves on September 16, 2009, 01:41:41 PM
I wonder if Obama is half a racist for calling Kanye West a jackass.
That was great. I give Pres Obama a big thumbs up for that!! :D
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 02:16:24 PM
Every day, too often...really.
Yeah but do you have any specific examples. Because I can't think of any apart from the Dowd article (which is careful), another article I read, but I've forgot where (similarly careful) and this Carter comment (not careful).
To be honest I can think of as many suggestions that Obama's racist as that disagreeing or questioning him is racist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 06:45:27 AM
Obama should give a speech healing the wounds caused by Wilson's racism.
I agree. We have suffered from Woodrow Wilson's racism for too long in this country.
He was raciss against Germans. :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 02:21:35 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 02:16:24 PM
Every day, too often...really.
Yeah but do you have any specific examples. Because I can't think of any apart from the Dowd article (which is careful), another article I read, but I've forgot where (similarly careful) and this Carter comment (not careful).
To be honest I can think of as many suggestions that Obama's racist as that disagreeing or questioning him is racist.
Van Jones coming under fire, some labeled racism, to name one. Other disagreements with Obama policies, some will label racisism. I've seen cries of racisim because some disagreed with Obama's health care bill ideas. We've poked fun at some of the calls of racisim over issues and such.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Have you any other examples?
"The other campaign will use racist tactics to convince you to vote for McCain."
Plus the response to the dead chimp cartoon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 03:19:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Have you any other examples?
"The other campaign will use racist tactics to convince you to vote for McCain."
Plus the response to the dead chimp cartoon.
I agree with you on most of those, but the chimp cartoon was certainly racist.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 03:25:54 PM
I agree with you on most of those, but the chimp cartoon was certainly racist.
I of 2 is most?
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 02:36:35 PM
He was raciss against Germans. :mad:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33906.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 03:28:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 03:25:54 PM
I agree with you on most of those, but the chimp cartoon was certainly racist.
I of 2 is most?
I assumed you were just adding on to Kron's list which would make it 4 out of 5.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 07:28:13 AM
Of the three I think Wilson is the least likely, though.
Maybe if he came from Minnesota, perhaps. But he represents South Carolina, the belly of the Southern beast, where they still fly the Confederate flag in front of the state house. Even in this day and age, they're still pissed about 1964.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
It's getting quite offensive that so often racism is used to define anyone who disagrees with or questions the President. Really, it's setting back race relations a lot, I would think.
Have you any other examples?
It's only racism if the president's black. If he's white, it's just being un-American. Or do you not remember the previous 8 years?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 02:21:35 PM
and this Carter comment (not careful).
Everybody's giving Carter shit and discounting his comments because he's a left-wingnut. But he's also a Southerner, from the old school South, so maybe he knows of which he speaks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
It's getting quite offensive that so often racism is used to define anyone who disagrees with or questions the President. Really, it's setting back race relations a lot, I would think.
Have you any other examples?
It's only racism if the president's black. If he's white, it's just being un-American. Or do you not remember the previous 8 years?
The only ones who threw around the unamerican moniker, and still do, were the Democrats. Kerry and Edwards used it all the time in '04.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:26:06 PM
The only ones who threw around the unamerican moniker, and still do, were the Democrats. Kerry and Edwards used it all the time in '04.
I don't recall that; I was too distracted by so many credible, non-specific homeland security threats that year.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:21:14 PM
Everybody's giving Carter shit and discounting his comments because he's a left-wingnut. But he's also a Southerner, from the old school South, so maybe he knows of which he speaks.
Even when he goes on to say that the overwhelming majority of anger directed at the president's health care proposal, north and south, is based on racism?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:21:14 PM
Everybody's giving Carter shit and discounting his comments because he's a left-wingnut. But he's also a Southerner, from the old school South, so maybe he knows of which he speaks.
Even when he goes on to say that the overwhelming majority of anger directed at the president's health care proposal, north and south, is based on racism?
EVEN THEN.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:21:14 PM
Everybody's giving Carter shit and discounting his comments because he's a left-wingnut. But he's also a Southerner, from the old school South, so maybe he knows of which he speaks.
Even when he goes on to say that the overwhelming majority of anger directed at the president's health care proposal, north and south, is based on racism?
Anger? I think that pretty specifically targets the nutty "GO BACK TO KENYA" crowd, which is, well, racist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:30:15 PM
EVEN THEN.
OK, AS LONG AS HE'S A SOUTHERNER.
Though he's been hanging out in Gaza and Syria so much maybe he doesn't qualify any more.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2009, 05:31:24 PM
Anger? I think that pretty specifically targets the nutty "GO BACK TO KENYA" crowd, which is, well, racist.
Sort of like the senior citizens who chased Rostenkowski around the parking lot with their canes and strollers. Hated Poles something fierce.
Quote from: ulmont on September 16, 2009, 09:05:36 AM
So you're saying you think Carter is right, but that he shouldn't have said anything?
Not really; it looks to me like Obama's race has been encouraging some casual disgust for the office of the President that's a little frightening at times, but one should also consider that 1) Americans have been noted to be losing decorum by the day, and 2) some of this is probably a "taste of one's own medicine" in terms of how a lot of liberals and moderates behaved during the Bush administration; there were quite a few who weren't that far removed from Michael Moore's caricatures.
Short answer: Carter's only partially right. The country's polarizing, and Obama's race is playing a role in it, but it's at best a bit part in a B-movie.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 05:35:23 PM
2) some of this is probably a "taste of one's own medicine" in terms of how a lot of liberals and moderates conservatives behaved during the Bush Clinton administration;
Edited for clarity.
The phrase "a taste of one's own medicine" implies some sort of turnabout. Simply repeating behaviors you've done in the past doesn't qualify. :contract:
Things were worse in the 1790s. And you can quote me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:32:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:30:15 PM
EVEN THEN.
OK, AS LONG AS HE'S A SOUTHERNER.
Though he's been hanging out in Gaza and Syria so much maybe he doesn't qualify any more.
Why- that's South. Hot, poor, full of well-armed religious fundamentalists.
Quote from: Scipio on September 16, 2009, 05:47:49 PM
Things were worse in the 1790s. And you can quote me.
Honestly, I think they were worse in the 1850s.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:28:22 PM
Even when he goes on to say that the overwhelming majority of anger directed at the president's health care proposal, north and south, is based on racism?
The anger is certainly over the top and ridiculous bordering on irrational so that would make about as much sense as anything else.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:48:34 PM
Quote from: Scipio on September 16, 2009, 05:47:49 PM
Things were worse in the 1790s. And you can quote me.
Honestly, I think they were worse in the 1850s.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.venturacountystar.com%2Ffoothill%2Fmedia%2Fbig-john-brown.jpg&hash=6e85632b064d7c6fc93e77addd2ed3625db2410d)
Speaking against Rev Wright's views, racist. Charlie Rangel and a multitude of tax issues being looked into, some call it racist. Condi "White" Rice, Colin Powell are Uncle Toms. As I recall, even talking about the Ayers and Obama relationship was called racist. And on, and on.
The Racist card is being tossed about by too many trying to browbeat, embarrass those who dissent. That's been the mode of some for a long while and it worked, to some extent. But now that same label being tossed about so freely over so many just dissenting points of view is just ruinous for racism issues, and the cry of wolf is quite despicable and ridiculous now.
There is racism but not so much of what is being labeled racist at every turn now.
Racism aside...wasn't this past weekend like a really bad episode of "Blacks Behaving Badly"?
Serena Williams ghettos out on a line judge at the Open.
Kanye West scares the shit out a little white girl and her award at the MVAs.
Michael Jordan lost his mind during his HoF acceptance speech, and called out everyone since high school.
All we needed was Tiger Woods and Oprah to go on a 3 state killing spree.
If there is racism on display it is subtle enough that I think Obama can take it. I mean George Bushitler came before him so he is not stepping into the Presidency in an era of respectful dialog and public debate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:59:11 PM
All we needed was Tiger Woods and Oprah to go on a 3 state killing spree.
That would make for a great goofy buddy movie.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2009, 05:31:24 PM
Anger? I think that pretty specifically targets the nutty "GO BACK TO KENYA" crowd, which is, well, racist.
Except that a member of his immediate family is from Kenya. That's different from a generic statement telling black people to go back to Africa.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 05:59:11 PM
Racism aside...wasn't this past weekend like a really bad episode of "Blacks Behaving Badly"?
Serena Williams ghettos out on a line judge at the Open.
Kanye West scares the shit out a little white girl and her award at the MVAs.
Michael Jordan lost his mind during his HoF acceptance speech, and called out everyone since high school.
All we needed was Tiger Woods and Oprah to go on a 3 state killing spree.
Lol, Kanye West was a putz, or as Pres Obama said, "he's a jackass", as caught on a microphone. Serena was fine, she got caught up in the moment. She talked about it on an interview, and did well in talking about it. She seems very cool, well spoken, mature. As for Jordan, didn't see that. Sounds funny given who he is, and maybe he was calling out those who bullied him as a kid, unless he was just being nasty.
Of course, because it doesn't fit his narrative, Money left out that Beyonce brought Taylor Swift back out.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
Of course, because it doesn't fit his narrative, Money left out that Beyonce brought Taylor Swift back out.
:P
I'd ride Beyonce like the Kentucky Derby.
Shame that nasty ass Jay-Z has despoiled that.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
Of course, because it doesn't fit his narrative, Money left out that Beyonce brought Taylor Swift back out.
The Black Avengers made her.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdunkonyourface.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Ftracy-morgan.jpg&hash=bb2ef79cc88e8edd666300214a2be8aeab991579)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 06:57:45 PM
:P
I'd ride Beyonce like the Kentucky Derby.
Shame that nasty ass Jay-Z has despoiled that.
Tale as old as time
Song as old as rhyme
Beauty and the beast
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 07:01:35 PM
Tale as old as time
Song as old as rhyme
Beauty and the beast
Is that our problem, g? We're just too damned pretty?
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
Of course, because it doesn't fit his narrative, Money left out that Beyonce brought Taylor Swift back out.
Yeah, very classy move.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 06:47:57 PM
She seems very cool, well spoken, mature.
Racist.
Lol... No, you are a racist for even thinking that! Nyah, nyah....
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 16, 2009, 01:33:02 PM
I guess Carter feels that he needs to periodically remind the world he's still alive.
Well yeah, I think anyone who gets to the level of POTUS is going to be a giant attention whore.
Especially poor Carter, an irrelevancy of a man trapped between the twin giants of Nixon and Reagan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2009, 07:02:12 PM
Is that our problem, g? We're just too damned pretty?
Too pretty for our own good. :( :hug:
Just heard on CNN that both B. Hussein and Hairplug Joe have made statements that they disagree with Jimmy Earl. Good for them.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 07:44:49 PM
Especially poor Carter, an irrelevancy of a man trapped between the twin giants of Nixon and Reagan.
Carter has been a nuisance and essentially a rogue agent who thinks he represents America in some semi-official capacity ever since he left office. It's why Clinton hates him so much.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 05:04:44 PM
Just heard on CNN that both B. Hussein and Hairplug Joe have made statements that they disagree with Jimmy Earl. Good for them.
They're not from the Deep South.
For those of you who don't seem to understand the concept of "Suthun' Thinkin", and why this is such a big deal, an article explaining it.
QuoteJimmy Carter, True Son of the South, Hits Nail on Head
By: Kai Wright
Posted: September 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM
The White House's fear of challenging the tea-bag madness is typical of its cautious politics. The rest of us accept it at our peril.
Jimmy Carter is a son of the South. Not the New South of relocated corporate headquarters and (foreclosed) McMansions, but Jim Crow's South. So we'll all have to excuse his refusal to act like he doesn't hear Glenn Beck's vicious dog whistle. He knows too well the coded language of political racism because he witnessed its writing.
America abhors history. No wonder, given how many national crimes are lurking back there. But we've arrived at a time when a politician's refusal to consider the past is a perverse testament to prudent leadership. And as a result, a statement as obvious as Carter's—that the tea-baggers hate President Barack Obama because he's black—can be passed off as controversy in 2009.
It's self-evident that a movement that calls the president a lying, socialist, Nazi eugenicist with a fake birth certificate is about something more than deficit spending. People don't brandish automatic weapons and pray for the president's death because they want to keep their employer-sponsored health plans. But to name the stalking beast is more than we can bear.
Not, thankfully, for Carter. He knows the tea-baggers aren't new, that their fear of "big government" is but the latest version of states' rights, which was itself a pseudonym for white supremacy. And he wants us to recall this history: In the months following the 1954 Brown ruling, a Mississippi college football star and plantation manager named Robert Patterson launched a crusade to protect school children from "being taught the Communist theme of all races and mongrelization." Patterson was angry, and proud of it. "You say this is not the time for hotheads and flag-waving," he wrote in a public letter quoted in Gene Roberts' and Hank Klibanoff's must-read history of civil rights journalism. "We need those hotheads, just as we always have when our liberty has been threatened."
Patterson channeled his anger into a lasting innovation for the white supremacy movement—give it a respectable face, strip it of explicitly racist rhetoric and use it as an invisible hand to guide mob violence. He created the Citizens' Council, which would spawn a regional network by year's end. Each council's membership boasted the area's finest white leaders in business, government and, yes, media. They directed their public anger less at integration itself than at federal incursions on local rule, but the resulting violence was no less extreme.
At the time, Carter was a Plains, Ga., peanut farmer and board of education member. He recalls in his campaign memoir, Turning Point (Random House, 1993), how the Plains Council pressured him to join. When he refused, the council sent 20 of his best customers to demand compliance. Carter again refused, this time adding, "and besides, there are a few politicians in Atlanta who are taking the dues from all over the state and putting the money in their pockets, just because folks are worried about the race issue."
Tea-bagging elites like Fox News, Sarah Palin and Joe Wilson are the political descendants of Patterson's councils. They're still using coded language to orchestrate rowdy, racist mobs and they're still pocketing the money the frenzy generates.
In the tea-bagging universe, "big government"—or, really, the social programs both Beck and Rush Limbaugh conspicuously dub "reparations"—is a stand-in villain for integration. Not the literal act of blacks and whites going to school together. Rather, bashing big government swats at the same anxiety Patterson had: a concern over who gets to make the rules. That question has haunted Dixie ever since black slaves outnumbered the South's white residents. And it still haunts the GOP's Southern, white base today.
Nor is it new for the movement's media mavens to cry foul when someone dares break the code. It started, as Roberts and Klibanoff detail, as the national media covered Little Rock's brutalities, and it intensified throughout the era. Southern newspaper editors, themselves affiliated with Citizens' Councils, led a concerted effort to bully national outlets into what pioneering Atlanta Constitution editor Ralph McGill called "the cult of objectivity."
The fruits are seen in the temerity of today's mainstream news. Demonstrable liars like Joe Wilson and Sarah Palin are given point-counterpoint coverage. A rally dominated by ugliness such as that on display in Washington on Sept. 12 is reported as legitimate political dispute. And Jimmy Carter's willingness to speak the clear truth is debated as controversy. Decades ago, CBS correspondent Howard K. Smith predicted this outcome as he watched his network reel from complaints about his Freedom Ride coverage. Applying balance to a discussion in which there is none, he warned, was "equivalent to saying that truth is to be found somewhere between right and wrong, equidistant between good and evil."
The White House's fear of challenging the tea-bag madness is typical of its cautious politics. But the rest of us accept it at our peril. The absurd, plainly racist ideas that found air at Palin's campaign rallies have dug in as meaningful parts of our daily public conversation. Carter is the most significant public figure to say that's not OK. Rather than allow the right to shout him down, many more purported leaders must stand up with him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2009, 06:38:34 PM
They're not from the Deep South.
Neither are you.
The fuck I ain't. I'm all down here in the Masie-Dixie Line. Gotta burn mah boots, they touched Yankee soil!
:yes: I get hives and start to wheeze every time I cross the Ohio into Hoosierworld. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2009, 06:41:14 PM
For those of you who don't seem to understand the concept of "Suthun' Thinkin", and why this is such a big deal, an article explaining it.
Quote[snip Carter wankfest
Ya know, it's kinda hard to prove a point when we can't see it through all the Carter-jizz covering that article.
Why does CdM wank all over Carter, when Carter hates Jews?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 17, 2009, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2009, 06:41:14 PM
For those of you who don't seem to understand the concept of "Suthun' Thinkin", and why this is such a big deal, an article explaining it.
Quote[snip Carter wankfest
Ya know, it's kinda hard to prove a point when we can't see it through all the Carter-jizz covering that article.
Some of you people will always choose to ignore the political realities of the past 150 years. That's a real shame.
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 06:55:23 PM
Why does CdM wank all over Carter, when Carter hates Jews?
He doesn't hate Jews, he simply doesn't like Jews as Bullies. They're much more loveable as Underdogs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2009, 06:57:40 PM
Some of you people will always choose to ignore the political realities of the past 150 years. That's a real shame.
Apparently, you missed the part where I acknowledged Carter's point about racism affecting respect for the office, but fail to see how an idiot redneck yelling "you lie," who would have done that to non-black politicians as well, is an example of it.
The problem is there's racism AND plain ol' idiocy in Congress.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 17, 2009, 07:00:17 PM
but fail to see how an idiot redneck yelling "you lie," who would have done that to non-black politicians as well, is an example of it.
It's merely a symptom of the disease that still pervades our Republic.
And no, he wouldn't have done that to a white President.
It would have been funny if he said "LYIN' WINDCHIME!" or something. :cool:
But then that would have made Carter: correct :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2009, 06:57:40 PM
Some of you people will always choose to ignore the political realities of the past 150 years. That's a real shame.
That's the great thing about playing the race card: you don't have to substantiate it, and whenever anyone disagrees you can just tell them they don't get it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2009, 06:57:40 PM
Some of you people will always choose to ignore the political realities of the past 150 years. That's a real shame.
That's the great thing about playing the race card: you don't have to substantiate it, and whenever anyone disagrees you can just tell them they don't get it.
And I had hoped the Jesuits taught you better than that, Kimchi-on-the-Cob.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2009, 07:17:16 PM
And I had hoped the Jesuits taught you better than that, Kimchi-on-the-Cob.
It works with gender too, Elaine.
Wow, that is the biggest load of horseshit you have ever blessed Languish with, Seedy.
Quote from: Berkut on September 17, 2009, 07:58:50 PM
Wow, that is the biggest load of horseshit you have ever blessed Languish with, Seedy.
Yankee.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2009, 06:37:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 07:44:49 PM
Especially poor Carter, an irrelevancy of a man trapped between the twin giants of Nixon and Reagan.
Carter has been a nuisance and essentially a rogue agent who thinks he represents America in some semi-official capacity ever since he left office.
This isn't true. When I first started posting on EUOT all the Americans thought Carter was the model former President. It's only in the last 5 years or so that that's changed.
QuoteIt's why Clinton hates him so much.
Their beef went way back. It dates back to when Clinton was Governor and Carter President.
QuoteThat's the great thing about playing the race card: you don't have to substantiate it, and whenever anyone disagrees you can just tell them they don't get it.
It's frustrating. Michael Tomasky writes about this. No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways. Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:31:57 AM
It's frustrating. Michael Tomasky writes about this. No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways. Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.
Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?
If you hate Obama, you must be racist. He's done absolutely nothing to alienate anyone since taking office. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:31:57 AM
It's frustrating. Michael Tomasky writes about this. No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways. Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.
How can you tell they are using racist sentiments in "less explicit ways"?
Can you define this for me, in a manner that one can be certain someone is being racist?
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 07:23:27 AM
If you hate Obama, you must be racist. He's done absolutely nothing to alienate anyone since taking office. :)
Yup. Obama is to racism what Israel is to antisemitism. :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 07:53:11 AM
How can you tell they are using racist sentiments in "less explicit ways"?
Can you define this for me, in a manner that one can be certain someone is being racist?
If the person isn't making racial slurs, you can't really say with 100% certainty, but you can make an educated guess if the guy fawns all over whites and then is a total dick to everybody else or just blacks or whatever. In Wilson's case, there's no pattern of connected behavior to fall back on; we just have Carter and Seedy's sixth sense for when someone's keepin' a brother down to rely on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:31:57 AM
This isn't true. When I first started posting on EUOT all the Americans thought Carter was the model former President. It's only in the last 5 years or so that that's changed.
Carter was easier to like when he was wasting his time on useless projects like eradicating diseases in Africa. When he starts going on about dismantling Israel, the encouragement of communism in Latin America and when he talks shit about the UK (Larouche-style) he becomes less likable.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 08:09:49 AM
Carter was easier to like when he was wasting his time on useless projects like eradicating diseases in Africa. When he starts going on about dismantling Israel, the encouragement of communism in Latin America and when he talks shit about the UK (Larouche-style) he becomes less likable.
I actually don't especially dislike Carter, and I think he means well, but I was posting from the perspective of a President, or at least how I think successive POTUSes have prolly viewed him. When you're the Head of State, the last thing you want or need is someone else acting like Head of State emeritus. OTOH Nixon did that some after he left office and IIRC Reagan actually appreciated it.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 18, 2009, 08:04:06 AM
If the person isn't making racial slurs, you can't really say with 100% certainty, but you can make an educated guess if the guy fawns all over whites and then is a total dick to everybody else or just blacks or whatever. In Wilson's case, there's no pattern of connected behavior to fall back on; we just have Carter and Seedy's sixth sense for when someone's keepin' a brother down to rely on.
Exactly. You *can* construct a racism argument based on a pattern of previous behavior and speech, or on the use of loaded (though less explicit) terms. But there's nothing racially loaded about calling someone a liar.
The moment I thought Jimmy C. jumped said shark was when he was on TV saying the overwhelming majority of Americans were in favor of rebuilding New Orleans. Then came his free-fall into explaining Hamas was just joking when they said mean things and only meant the nice things.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 18, 2009, 08:04:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 07:53:11 AM
How can you tell they are using racist sentiments in "less explicit ways"?
Can you define this for me, in a manner that one can be certain someone is being racist?
If the person isn't making racial slurs, you can't really say with 100% certainty, but you can make an educated guess if the guy fawns all over whites and then is a total dick to everybody else or just blacks or whatever. In Wilson's case, there's no pattern of connected behavior to fall back on; we just have Carter and Seedy's sixth sense for when someone's keepin' a brother down to rely on.
Use an educated guess: Am I a racist?
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 08:12:40 AM
OTOH Nixon did that some after he left office and IIRC Reagan actually appreciated it.
Difference is Nixon was trying to help his country and as we all know, Carter is a traitor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 07:20:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:31:57 AM
It's frustrating. Michael Tomasky writes about this. No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways. Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.
Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?
That is shelf's point I think. Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 09:07:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 07:20:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:31:57 AM
It's frustrating. Michael Tomasky writes about this. No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways. Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.
Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?
That is shelf's point I think. Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.
Except that is BS - a full blown racist saying "Obama is a liar" and a completely non-racist saying "Obama is a liar" are the same thing, insofar as the words are concerned. Accusing either of them of racism is an obvious ad hom - whether they are racist or not has nothing to do with whether or not Obama is actually a liar or not.
"Obama is a liar" is not a racist comment, even when it comes from a racist. "You only say that because he is black!" is however a clearly racist comment, when it is clear that the comment in question has nothing to do with race.
The problem here is not with the people attacking Obama, it is with the people defending Obama by accusing those who attack him of racism without grounds to do so, and then defending themselves by saying "Oh, well we all know what they REALLY mean!"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_1xQeOPE9ePU%2FSrJ58LT8RqI%2FAAAAAAAAD4g%2Fe6mM1XfMAKE%2Fs400%2F6a00d834520b4b69e20115713d7682970c.jpg&hash=213700302542007652347905488871fecc899c58)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 09:07:27 AM
That is shelf's point I think. Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.
The second half of his point is that someone can notice them doing it. Which leads back to my question: how does one notice it? Either Carter and Seedy have a technique, rules of evidence, that they use, and which can be explained and elaborated, or we are expected to trust their intuition. Or I suppose in Seedy's case accept his premise that all white southerners are racist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 09:07:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 07:20:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:31:57 AM
It's frustrating. Michael Tomasky writes about this. No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways. Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.
Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?
That is shelf's point I think. Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.
This is true. You can never tell what motivates a person. Could very well be racism.
Does it really matter? Unless someone provides obvious clues, you can never tell what motivates anyone. Opposition to healthcare could be based on racism, blind partisanship, philosophic opposition to creeping socialism, or even dislike of the proposal's merits; if the opponent is a "clever" person, you will never know whether the opposition was based on credible motives or not. Same of course goes for
proponents.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 09:12:50 AM
The problem here is not with the people attacking Obama, it is with the people defending Obama by accusing those who attack him of racism without grounds to do so, and then defending themselves by saying "Oh, well we all know what they REALLY mean!"
I expect this will become more common going forward. In this case the issue at hand, health care, is incredibly complex. There are dozens of different ways to approach the bill and no one knows exactly how they'll pan out in the real world. Approaching the issue logically is difficult and it's also difficult to keep voters awake as the pundits debate that.
Approachign the issue emotionally, however, is easy. People who oppose Obama's health care plan are racist and racism is bad. Anyone can understand that.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2009, 09:15:09 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_1xQeOPE9ePU%2FSrJ58LT8RqI%2FAAAAAAAAD4g%2Fe6mM1XfMAKE%2Fs400%2F6a00d834520b4b69e20115713d7682970c.jpg&hash=213700302542007652347905488871fecc899c58)
See, THIS is a good example of rather clear racism.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 08:18:55 AM
Use an educated guess: Am I a racist?
Not really. Homophobe, certainly, but you seem to be pretty equal-opportunity in your contempt for all others. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 09:36:08 AM
See, THIS is a good example of rather clear racism.
Sure.
But there's plenty of racism today that isn't overt, no? How do you tell what's what? It's pretty clear to me that a lot of the anger at Obama is that he's a black man, and he represents a real and fundamental change in the world for a lot of whites.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
Sure.
But there's plenty of racism today that isn't overt, no? How do you tell what's what? It's pretty clear to me that a lot of the anger at Obama is that he's a black man, and he represents a real and fundamental change in the world for a lot of whites.
Great. Tell us how you tell what's what.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 09:36:08 AM
See, THIS is a good example of rather clear racism.
Sure.
But there's plenty of racism today that isn't overt, no? How do you tell what's what? It's pretty clear to me that a lot of the anger at Obama is that he's a black man, and he represents a real and fundamental change in the world for a lot of whites.
See, that is not remotely clear to me at all, and I wonder how it is "pretty clear" to anyone else. If it is "pretty clear" then you pretty clearly have pretty clear evidence that "a lot" of the anger is racist in nature.
I don't buy it. I think if another Dem who was identical to Obama in every way except he was white, would be seeing the same response.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 18, 2009, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 08:18:55 AM
Use an educated guess: Am I a racist?
Not really. Homophobe, certainly, but you seem to be pretty equal-opportunity in your contempt for all others. ;)
Wrong.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 18, 2009, 09:28:23 AM
I expect this will become more common going forward. In this case the issue at hand, health care, is incredibly complex. There are dozens of different ways to approach the bill and no one knows exactly how they'll pan out in the real world. Approaching the issue logically is difficult and it's also difficult to keep voters awake as the pundits debate that.
Approachign the issue emotionally, however, is easy
:D
It's a good thing the opponents of the plan have been addressing the issue so logically then - with insane rants about death panels and socialism.
This is really a bit rich - there are elected GOP officials and party leaders who have gone on record repeatedly saying outrageous and misleading things about the health care proposals, and flooded the airwaves with nonsense precisely with the aim of evoking an emotional response and avoiding any rational discussions. These tea party demonstrations are all about appealing to emotions, nothing about having a rational debate.
And disrupting the town meetings by shouting down anyone who tries to speak in favor is all about destroying the possibility of rational discourse.
But oh no - god forbid someone question the motivations of some of these people - then it is playing the "race card" and being "emotional" instead of approaching the issue logically.
People in glass skyscrapers . . .
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 09:56:20 AM
See, that is not remotely clear to me at all, and I wonder how it is "pretty clear" to anyone else. If it is "pretty clear" then you pretty clearly have pretty clear evidence that "a lot" of the anger is racist in nature.
I don't buy it. I think if another Dem who was identical to Obama in every way except he was white, would be seeing the same response.
You think Rush Limbaugh would be warning the Republican base about the racial warfare the president's brought on?
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2009, 10:04:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 09:56:20 AM
See, that is not remotely clear to me at all, and I wonder how it is "pretty clear" to anyone else. If it is "pretty clear" then you pretty clearly have pretty clear evidence that "a lot" of the anger is racist in nature.
I don't buy it. I think if another Dem who was identical to Obama in every way except he was white, would be seeing the same response.
You think Rush Limbaugh would be warning the Republican base about the racial warfare the president's brought on?
I don't, haven't really listened to much Rush, so how can I say?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 09:58:46 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 18, 2009, 09:28:23 AM
I expect this will become more common going forward. In this case the issue at hand, health care, is incredibly complex. There are dozens of different ways to approach the bill and no one knows exactly how they'll pan out in the real world. Approaching the issue logically is difficult and it's also difficult to keep voters awake as the pundits debate that.
Approachign the issue emotionally, however, is easy
:D
It's a good thing the opponents of the plan have been addressing the issue so logically then - with insane rants about death panels and socialism.
This is really a bit rich - there are elected GOP officials and party leaders who have gone on record repeatedly saying outrageous and misleading things about the health care proposals, and flooded the airwaves with nonsense precisely with the aim of evoking an emotional response and avoiding any rational discussions. These tea party demonstrations are all about appealing to emotions, nothing about having a rational debate.
And disrupting the town meetings by shouting down anyone who tries to speak in favor is all about destroying the possibility of rational discourse.
But oh no - god forbid someone question the motivations of some of these people - then it is playing the "race card" and being "emotional" instead of approaching the issue logically.
People in glass skyscrapers . . .
So as long as some people somewhere engage in irrational debate tactics (and yeah, I am sure the Dems have not done any of THAT!), then it is ok to accuse anyone engaging in ANY kind of debate, rational or otherwise, of being a racist?
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 10:09:01 AM
So as long as some people somewhere engage in irrational debate tactics (and yeah, I am sure the Dems have not done any of THAT!), then it is ok to accuse anyone engaging in ANY kind of debate, rational or otherwise, of being a racist?
An interesting rhetorical question, but an irrelevant one, because no one here has made that claim.
All I am saying is that the GOP and the tea party crowd don't have a leg to stand on if they want to accuse the Dems of trying to avoid discussing the issue rationally.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 09:58:46 AM
:D
It's a good thing the opponents of the plan have been addressing the issue so logically then - with insane rants about death panels and socialism.
This is really a bit rich - there are elected GOP officials and party leaders who have gone on record repeatedly saying outrageous and misleading things about the health care proposals, and flooded the airwaves with nonsense precisely with the aim of evoking an emotional response and avoiding any rational discussions. These tea party demonstrations are all about appealing to emotions, nothing about having a rational debate.
And disrupting the town meetings by shouting down anyone who tries to speak in favor is all about destroying the possibility of rational discourse.
But oh no - god forbid someone question the motivations of some of these people - then it is playing the "race card" and being "emotional" instead of approaching the issue logically.
People in glass skyscrapers . . .
I've never said that opponents of health care presented only logical arguments; in fact I wrote out similarly against them in a town hall thread. The issue that concerns me most isn't the merits of the health care reform; but that the issue is so complex that voters are incapable of understanding the full ramifications of it. It is necessary for elected officials to appeal to hatred of racism or fear of death panels in order to win support. Many issues are like this; and I think that is a threat to democracy as a system of government.
It isn't necessary; it is failure of leadership. The GOP is a leaderless party and the McCains of the party have completely lost control to the radio and TV talk show crowd. When the de facto leadership of a major political party is more concerned about Nielsen ratings than public policy, that is going to have a corrosive effect on public life.
In theory the Democrats should be more organized since they have an obvious charasmatic leader, but for some reason Obama has adopted this cool detached approach, and so the moveons slip into the vacuum and clowns like Carter come out of the woodwork.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
It's pretty clear to me that a lot of the anger at Obama is that he's a black man, and he represents a real and fundamental change in the world for a lot of whites.
That's why I'm angry. :weep:
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
It's pretty clear to me that a lot of the anger at Obama is that he's a black man, and he represents a real and fundamental change in the world for a lot of whites.
Hmm, so if Obama happened to be a conservative, do you think we rabid racist rightwingers would have the same reaction to him?
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 11:25:13 AM
Hmm, so if Obama happened to be a conservative, do you think we rabid racist rightwingers would have the same reaction to him?
I freely acknowledge a conservative black man doesn't stoke the same fears as a liberal black man.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 10:09:01 AM
(and yeah, I am sure the Dems have not done any of THAT!)
Well they were forced into it by the vast right wing conspiracy to destroy America.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 11:25:13 AM
Hmm, so if Obama happened to be a conservative, do you think we rabid racist rightwingers would have the same reaction to him?
Of course not, black conservatives are all Uncle Toms.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32899516/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 18, 2009, 11:36:04 AM
Of course not, black conservatives are all Uncle Toms.
Hmm...that sounds...racist!
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 07:53:11 AM
How can you tell they are using racist sentiments in "less explicit ways"?
Can you define this for me, in a manner that one can be certain someone is being racist?
No. It's I think subjective to some extent and difficult to identify.
I think it's the same as the French study in which the same candidate with the same CV for the same sort of jobs was called back significantly more often when he gave 'French' names than when he gave Arabic names. Now it's wrong and impossible to say that all of those companies are racist. For example in some cases there could have been a higher quality of application than in others, but I think it's fair to say that racism played some parts.
Similarly in the case I gave earlier I think that a 60-something white congressman from the south refering to Obama as 'that boy' (this was in 2008) suggests an element of race. Equally I think a Senator of a similar background saying that Obama needs to show some 'humility' suggests an element of race. I don't think either of those people are necessarily racist, nor do I think what they said were explicitly racist but I think that they can have a racist construction put upon them.
It is that language, which isn't explicitly racist, but that can have racist aspects that racist groups often use when they're aiming for credibility. The BNP has moved from 'white is right' to attacking 'PC' culture as discriminating against the British population. But it's sufficiently ambiguous to make it difficult to pin down as racist, while allowing the BNP supporter to recognise what's meant. It's dog-whistle politics, when it's political that is.
We've banished explicit racism from the public forum, for the most part, which is a great thing. So I can't give a list of things that are and aren't racist - even if I did we're now sufficiently distant from them to allow some ironic use. But that means that out-and-out racists are just using more ambiguous language. Of course none of those Republicans I mentioned earlier are anywhere near as odious as the BNP and I don't know if they're racist but their use of language is careless.
QuoteTell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?
Well in the Republican examples I said it's just words. 'That boy' has a specific connotation, as does an old white Southern gent asking for an African-American President to show some 'humility'.
It's the same difficulty I think we face in distinguishing anti-Israel sentiment from anti-semitic sentiment. For example I think a rational criticism of the Israel lobby can (and should) be made. However when it suggests at an overweening Jewish control, some element of conspiracy then I start to worry because that language and thought is informed by anti-semitic discourse.
QuoteThat is shelf's point I think. Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.
Exactly.
The reaction of some American posters to suggestions that race is involved in criticism of Obama reminds me of the occasional Euro reaction when it's suggested that some Western criticism of Israel stems from anti-semitism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:59:30 PM
Well in the Republican examples I said it's just words. 'That boy' has a specific connotation, as does an old white Southern gent asking for an African-American President to show some 'humility'.
Old gent's comment is not racially loaded. Now if he had said Obama "doesn't know his place" then you'd definitely have something. Republican #1's comment can go either way, but I do agree that (a southernor) using "boy" to describe a black man pushes the burden of proof onto him.
Neither of which have any bearing on Wilson or "the great majority of health care protestors."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 01:10:13 PM
Neither of which have any bearing on Wilson or "the great majority of health care protestors."
I said Wilson could have a racist connotation going on, though I think it's far less clear than 'boy' or 'humility'. I don't think I've ever said anything about the health care protestors :mellow:
Edit: And I disagree about the old gent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 01:11:58 PM
I said Wilson could have a racist connotation going on, though I think it's far less clear than 'boy' or 'humility'. I don't think I've ever said anything about the health care protestors :mellow:
Edit: And I disagree about the old gent.
I was going off this:
QuoteIt's frustrating. Michael Tomasky writes about this. No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways. Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.
I took that to mean that Carter noticed and picked up on it. But I see now that's not specified.
No, if he had been conservative hew ouldn't be Obama.
He'd be a GOP house nigger like Uncle Michael Steel.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2009, 12:33:40 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32899516/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Don't be silly, it has been explained that only the left plays the race card.
The right wing in America is a paradise of racial tolerance and understanding. If they ask "who is barack obama?" and tell him to go back to Kenya, it is because they are both geniuinely curious to find out more about Barack's life story and because they want to encourage American tourism to Kenya and boost US diplomacy in Africa.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 01:11:58 PM
Edit: And I disagree about the old gent.
If you are at a dinner party at that house of an African-American, and you ask your hostess for a drink, is that racially loaded?
Tomasky said this (and more). I don't wholly agree, but I think the thrust of his argument is correct:
QuoteBut right or not, Carter wasn't being strategic, and it's a classic kind of no-win statement. I've seen a thousand of these kinds of situations over the years, especially when I covered politics in New York City. Whenever a liberal tosses out a charge of racism, the other side demands "proof". And since everyone has learned by now how to code and calibrate their language so as to stop just at racism's water's edge, there almost never quite is proof, even in extreme cases.
...
But conservatives get to claim the high ground when a liberal charges racism without stone-cold proof. Early on in the campaign, Obama said something about some people being against him because of the colour of his skin. He said it in a kind of offhand way, and it was obviously a true thing to say, as the later appearance of the Obama monkey dolls one sometimes saw at the McCain-Palin rallies would prove. But because Obama had no hard evidence at the time, conservatives were able to say that it was Obama who'd injected race into the campaign. And in the narrow sense, they were, however infuriatingly, correct.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 01:11:58 PM
Edit: And I disagree about the old gent.
If you are at a dinner party at that house of an African-American, and you ask your hostess for a drink, is that racially loaded?
If you're at a dinner party and you have to ask for a drink you should leave.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2009, 12:33:40 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32899516/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Don't be silly, it has been explained that only the left plays the race card.
The right wing in America is a paradise of racial tolerance and understanding. If they ask "who is barack obama?" and tell him to go back to Kenya, it is because they are both geniuinely curious to find out more about Barack's life story and because they want to encourage American tourism to Kenya and boost US diplomacy in Africa.
Let's not get crazy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 01:22:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 01:11:58 PM
Edit: And I disagree about the old gent.
If you are at a dinner party at that house of an African-American, and you ask your hostess for a drink, is that racially loaded?
If you're at a dinner party and you have to ask for a drink you should leave.
You're far too uptight. A party should be judged by the quality of the company, not the quality of the service.
If you're not careful, you'll end up like Martinus.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 01:38:10 PM
You're far too uptight. A party should be judged by the quality of the company, not the quality of the service.
I agree with that. But the most important job a host and hostess have is to check on people's glasses :o
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 11:25:13 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
It's pretty clear to me that a lot of the anger at Obama is that he's a black man, and he represents a real and fundamental change in the world for a lot of whites.
Hmm, so if Obama happened to be a conservative, do you think we rabid racist rightwingers would have the same reaction to him?
Don't know. Alot of conservatives were fairly unhappy with Colon Powell.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 01:39:35 PM
Alot of conservatives were fairly unhappy with Colon Powell.
It was a question of intestinal fortitude, but in the end, it was only the most firm, rear-guard elements of the movement that got gassed about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:55:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 01:39:35 PM
Alot of conservatives were fairly unhappy with Colon Powell.
It was a question of intestinal fortitude, but in the end, it was only the most firm, rear-guard elements of the movement that got gassed about it.
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2009, 12:33:40 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32899516/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Don't be silly, it has been explained that only the left plays the race card.
Don't be silly, nobody has claimed that only the left plays the race card, only that it is the left playing it right now.
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2009, 12:33:40 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32899516/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Don't be silly, it has been explained that only the left plays the race card.
Don't be silly, nobody has claimed that only the left plays the race card, only that it is the left playing it right now.
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
BS. Take a look at Hans.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:24:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2009, 12:33:40 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32899516/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Don't be silly, it has been explained that only the left plays the race card.
Don't be silly, nobody has claimed that only the left plays the race card, only that it is the left playing it right now.
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
BS. Take a look at Hans.
Why would I want to do that?
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
Bullshit.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2009, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
Bullshit.
You are only saying that because I am white.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 03:00:38 PM
You are only saying that because I am white.
Yeah that's not as reprehensible as the hypothetical me that acts that way.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2009, 03:02:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 03:00:38 PM
You are only saying that because I am white.
Yeah that's not as reprehensible as the hypothetical me that acts that way.
Only because you know I am not serious about it.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 03:03:53 PM
Only because you know I am not serious about it.
If you were serious, I'd think it was a low move but I still won't concede that it is on par with actually being racist. I'd pick a liar over a hater, any day.
Actually being racist and calling someone racist when indifferent to whether they are or not are only just as reprehensible in the argument, because both indicate that the person is dismissing the other side's points for irrelevant reasons.
Actually being racist is more reprehensible because presumably a real racist is racist all the time, and so will behave in a racist manner towards people in other contexts.
Agreed.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
If you are at a dinner party at that house of an African-American, and you ask your hostess for a drink, is that racially loaded?
A martini? Probably not. A mint julep? Probably so...
QuoteSen. Sherrod Brown booed in Dayton
Remarks dealt with race, Pres. Obama
DAYTON, Ohio (WDTN - A talk by Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown is interrupted by boos in Dayton when the subject of race and the President comes up.
It happened during the Senator's appearance at the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce Friday morning, Sept. 18.
The reaction was triggered when Brown answered a question from the crowd about his thoughts on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement that she was concerned about some of the language in the current political debates.
"I think some of the animosity toward Barack Obama is race-based," said Sen. Brown, a statement the crowd met with boos.
"That just again proves to me that Pelosi was right because you booed that."
Brown said many of the problems in the country like the financial crisis and the budget were inherited by President Obama.
Afterwards the chamber president apologized to Brown for the emotional response from the crowd. Brown said he's used to much worse.
During the event, protesters stood outside on Fifth Street with signs and shirts reading "fair tax" and "stop the mob."
Brown did exit the stage to applause, and the majority of the crowd responded politely while Brown talked about other controversial issues.
I'd boo Sherrod just for being a dork.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
What if there is no argument?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 05:34:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
What if there is no argument?
Then there isn't any need to slander them as racists, now is there?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 01:21:13 PM
Tomasky said this (and more). I don't wholly agree, but I think the thrust of his argument is correct:
QuoteBut right or not, Carter wasn't being strategic, and it's a classic kind of no-win statement. I've seen a thousand of these kinds of situations over the years, especially when I covered politics in New York City. Whenever a liberal tosses out a charge of racism, the other side demands "proof". And since everyone has learned by now how to code and calibrate their language so as to stop just at racism's water's edge, there almost never quite is proof, even in extreme cases.
...
But conservatives get to claim the high ground when a liberal charges racism without stone-cold proof. Early on in the campaign, Obama said something about some people being against him because of the colour of his skin. He said it in a kind of offhand way, and it was obviously a true thing to say, as the later appearance of the Obama monkey dolls one sometimes saw at the McCain-Palin rallies would prove. But because Obama had no hard evidence at the time, conservatives were able to say that it was Obama who'd injected race into the campaign. And in the narrow sense, they were, however infuriatingly, correct.
The thing is, and what most of our learned, knee-jerk ZOMG AM I RASCISS Languishians fail to understand, is that racism is simply more than overt, stone-cold acts, and there is as much racism in the passive nuance of the Wilsons or Rush Becks or "Big Guvmint".
Much like the continentals and their WHAT? US ANTI-SEMITES? attitudes--after all, if they're not stuffing Jews into cattle cars and ovens, then it's not anti-semitism, right?--then if we're not lynching the darkies or making them pay poll taxes, it's not "really" racism.
Well, that's bunk. Carter's called it like it is, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
Jesus. And I thought late Yugoslav politics was bad. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2009, 06:44:39 PM
The thing is, and what most of our learned, knee-jerk ZOMG AM I RASCISS Languishians fail to understand, is that racism is simply more than overt, stone-cold acts, and there is as much racism in the passive nuance of the Wilsons or Rush Becks or "Big Guvmint".
Much like the continentals and their WHAT? US ANTI-SEMITES? attitudes--after all, if they're not stuffing Jews into cattle cars and ovens, then it's not anti-semitism, right?--then if we're not lynching the darkies or making them pay poll taxes, it's not "really" racism.
Well, that's bunk. Carter's called it like it is, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
I'm glad that you are another whitey crying about racism directed at blacks.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2009, 07:18:55 PM
I'm glad that you are another whitey crying about racism directed at blacks.
Now is not the time for division, my brother.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2009, 07:20:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2009, 07:18:55 PM
I'm glad that you are another whitey crying about racism directed at blacks.
Now is not the time for division, my brother.
Together, we got power. Apart, we got pow-wow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2009, 07:20:47 PM
Now is not the time for division, my brother.
What have you done for me lately?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 10:25:13 AM
It isn't necessary; it is failure of leadership. The GOP is a leaderless party and the McCains of the party have completely lost control to the radio and TV talk show crowd. When the de facto leadership of a major political party is more concerned about Nielsen ratings than public policy, that is going to have a corrosive effect on public life.
In theory the Democrats should be more organized since they have an obvious charasmatic leader, but for some reason Obama has adopted this cool detached approach, and so the moveons slip into the vacuum and clowns like Carter come out of the woodwork.
The reason the Democrats are not organized is that they are Democrats.
I deny being racist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2009, 06:44:39 PM
The thing is, and what most of our learned, knee-jerk ZOMG AM I RASCISS Languishians fail to understand, is that racism is simply more than overt, stone-cold acts, and there is as much racism in the passive nuance of the Wilsons or Rush Becks or "Big Guvmint".
Much like the continentals and their WHAT? US ANTI-SEMITES? attitudes--after all, if they're not stuffing Jews into cattle cars and ovens, then it's not anti-semitism, right?--then if we're not lynching the darkies or making them pay poll taxes, it's not "really" racism.
Well, that's bunk. Carter's called it like it is, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
All of this rings false coming from a former police officer. You put black men in chains for a living.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2009, 07:53:45 PM
Embraced diversity.
Oh shit, here we go. Seedy's screwing another black girl, so he'll be Malcom X for the next few weeks :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 01:39:35 PM
Don't know. Alot of conservatives were fairly unhappy with Colon Powell.
Good point. Or at least it would be, were Colin Powell a conservative. Which he's not.
Yeah, once he started speaking his mind and ignoring official GOP marching orders, the Republicans tore up his little white card.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 10:44:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2009, 07:53:45 PM
Embraced diversity.
Oh shit, here we go. Seedy's screwing another black girl, so he'll be Malcom X for the next few weeks :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwFu11yUaE
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 06:07:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 05:34:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Calling someone a racist in an effort to ignore their argument is as reprehensible as actually *being* racist.
What if there is no argument?
Then there isn't any need to slander them as racists, now is there?
Ergo they must be racists since there is no reason to make it up.
Here is a nifty little chart to help you figure out whether you're a racist:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2Fmedia%2Fobamaflowchart21.jpg&hash=d2f954d583631455fbfac8ff19479be6f2e7a174)
I get stuck in an infinite loop between "Are you sure you're not white" and "Are you sure you read the first question correctly?" If only I'd registered as a Republican. :weep:
Anyway, Hans, are you a white?
:lol:
Hansy, as a non-American, I find that chart quite funny; even witty.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2009, 04:20:37 PM
I get stuck in an infinite loop between "Are you sure you're not white" and "Are you sure you read the first question correctly?" If only I'd registered as a Republican. :weep:
Anyway, Hans, are you a white?
Perhaps the white part of your bloodline is predominating. Don't be so sure.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2009, 04:40:08 PM
Perhaps the white part of your bloodline is predominating. Don't be so sure.
Neither of my parents like Obama. :o
Spelled the name of my state wrong.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 19, 2009, 04:25:48 PM
:lol:
Hansy, as a non-American, I find that chart quite funny; even witty.
Rascism is funny to the Rush Beckmeisters.
Of course the real irony is that if anyone can be called a racist then it is Jimmy Carter. People forget he was a George Wallace Democrat until he ran for President.
Nowadays he seems to mostly hate jews, of course, like a typical modern progressive.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:16:44 AM
Of course the real irony is that if anyone can be called a racist then it is Jimmy Carter. People forget he was a George Wallace Democrat until he ran for President.
I thought he was the first Southern Governor to say that racial segregation had no place in public policy and appointed a number of blacks to senior positions in Georgia government? I'd always thought that - in the context of the time - he was a Southern moderate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 08:25:24 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:16:44 AM
Of course the real irony is that if anyone can be called a racist then it is Jimmy Carter. People forget he was a George Wallace Democrat until he ran for President.
I thought he was the first Southern Governor to say that racial segregation had no place in public policy and appointed a number of blacks to senior positions in Georgia government? I'd always thought that - in the context of the time - he was a Southern moderate.
His conversion only came after he was unable to continue fighting desegregation. As a school board member he continued to fight for segregated schools long after Brown v. Board of Education. When he ran for governor he distributed pictures of his opponent being embraced by two black basketball players at KKK raliies. He promised to second George Wallace's nomination for president in '72 (he broke that promise when he backed Scoop Jackson instead). He spent decades as your typical southern democrat racist until his miraculous transformation in order to run for national office.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 08:25:24 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:16:44 AM
Of course the real irony is that if anyone can be called a racist then it is Jimmy Carter. People forget he was a George Wallace Democrat until he ran for President.
I thought he was the first Southern Governor to say that racial segregation had no place in public policy and appointed a number of blacks to senior positions in Georgia government? I'd always thought that - in the context of the time - he was a Southern moderate.
Hansy's hatred of Carter is even deeper than his hatred of Clinton, as it's based primarily in mythology.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:42:08 AM
His conversion only came after he was unable to continue fighting desegregation. As a school board member he continued to fight for segregated schools long after Brown v. Board of Education. When he ran for governor he distributed pictures of his opponent being embraced by two black basketball players at KKK raliies. He promised to second George Wallace's nomination for president in '72 (he broke that promise when he backed Scoop Jackson instead). He spent decades as your typical southern democrat racist until his miraculous transformation in order to run for national office.
:lol:
You're full of more shit than a Palestinian well within 10 feet of Siegy.
What's wrong with backing George Wallace in '72 for the Democratic nomination? Anybody would be better than the guy who actually got nominated.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2009, 08:47:49 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:42:08 AM
His conversion only came after he was unable to continue fighting desegregation. As a school board member he continued to fight for segregated schools long after Brown v. Board of Education. When he ran for governor he distributed pictures of his opponent being embraced by two black basketball players at KKK raliies. He promised to second George Wallace's nomination for president in '72 (he broke that promise when he backed Scoop Jackson instead). He spent decades as your typical southern democrat racist until his miraculous transformation in order to run for national office.
:lol:
You're full of more shit than a Palestinian well within 10 feet of Siegy.
Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about. Apparently you believe in the immaculate rise of the good ol'boy southern democrat, free of association to racism in the '50s and '60s. :lmfao:
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 09:26:24 AM
Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Unfortunately, this morning you're in your rabidly frothy Hyperbolemeister mode when it comes to Carter's early political career. I suggest more reading on the topic. Of books, not blogs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2009, 09:30:22 AM
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Unfortunately, this morning you're in your rabidly frothy Hyperbolemeister mode when it comes to Carter's early political career. I suggest more reading on the topic. Of books, not blogs.
I like this from Encarta:
QuoteAlthough Carter's campaign had been tinged with racism, there was no trace of racism in his subsequent actions. In his inaugural speech in 1971, Carter declared, "The time for racial discrimination is over."
:lol:
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:42:08 AM
[ (he broke that promise when he backed Scoop Jackson instead).
Because if you're not going to back George Wallace, Scoop Jackson is the next closest thing. :blink:
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2009, 12:21:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2009, 09:30:22 AM
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Unfortunately, this morning you're in your rabidly frothy Hyperbolemeister mode when it comes to Carter's early political career. I suggest more reading on the topic. Of books, not blogs.
I like this from Encarta:
QuoteAlthough Carter's campaign had been tinged with racism, there was no trace of racism in his subsequent actions. In his inaugural speech in 1971, Carter declared, "The time for racial discrimination is over."
:lol:
Hey, there's a time for everything, you know :lol:
I wonder exactly what NRO article he got this from.
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2009, 12:33:48 AM
Hey, there's a time for everything, you know :lol:
Yeah I guess it is okay to espouse racist rhetoric, as long as it is useful.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 09:26:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2009, 08:47:49 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:42:08 AM
His conversion only came after he was unable to continue fighting desegregation. As a school board member he continued to fight for segregated schools long after Brown v. Board of Education. When he ran for governor he distributed pictures of his opponent being embraced by two black basketball players at KKK raliies. He promised to second George Wallace's nomination for president in '72 (he broke that promise when he backed Scoop Jackson instead). He spent decades as your typical southern democrat racist until his miraculous transformation in order to run for national office.
:lol:
You're full of more shit than a Palestinian well within 10 feet of Siegy.
Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about. Apparently you believe in the immaculate rise of the good ol'boy southern democrat, free of association to racism in the '50s and '60s. :lmfao:
This is a curious tack to take from a guy from the party of the south.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2009, 01:10:42 AM
This is a curious tack to take from a guy from the party of the south.
The Republicans are the party of a lot of places. The Midwest, the Western Interior, Alaska and the South.
Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2009, 06:45:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2009, 01:10:42 AM
This is a curious tack to take from a guy from the party of the south.
The Republicans are the party of a lot of places. The Midwest, the Western Interior, Alaska and the South.
It's having a hard time in the Midwest and the western interior.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2009, 10:52:41 AM
It's having a hard time in the Midwest and the western interior.
They've support in Southern California.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:16:44 AM
Of course the real irony is that if anyone can be called a racist then it is Jimmy Carter. People forget he was a George Wallace Democrat until he ran for President.
Nowadays he seems to mostly hate jews, of course, like a typical modern progressive.
Carter should be able to recognize racism quite easily then. Maybe I should not have been so quick to dismiss his opinions as the ravings of an old nutter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2009, 11:21:01 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:42:08 AM
[ (he broke that promise when he backed Scoop Jackson instead).
Because if you're not going to back George Wallace, Scoop Jackson is the next closest thing. :blink:
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Scoop Jackson. You take that :blink: back, dammit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 05:10:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2009, 11:21:01 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:42:08 AM
[ (he broke that promise when he backed Scoop Jackson instead).
Because if you're not going to back George Wallace, Scoop Jackson is the next closest thing. :blink:
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Scoop Jackson. You take that :blink: back, dammit.
In my book, being completely unlike George Wallace is a good thing.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 07:41:50 PM
Spike Lee chips in on the BBC Newsnight programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm)
Spike and Seedy are BFFs.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 08:59:12 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 07:41:50 PM
Spike Lee chips in on the BBC Newsnight programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm)
Spike and Seedy are BFFs.
It's gotta be the shoes.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 07:41:50 PM
Spike Lee chips in on the BBC Newsnight programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm)
My, I'm shocked Spike Lee would join in accusations of racism :o
I like his movies. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:10:09 AM
I like his movies. :blush:
He has a couple that are good, but most suck.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 12:01:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:10:09 AM
I like his movies. :blush:
He has a couple that are good, but most suck.
Too many black people in his movies.
Quote from: derspiess on September 22, 2009, 11:01:24 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 07:41:50 PM
Spike Lee chips in on the BBC Newsnight programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8267714.stm)
My, I'm shocked Spike Lee would join in accusations of racism :o
More money for him!
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:10:09 AM
I like his movies. :blush:
He's a great director. So's Ken Loach, who cares that he's a hard-core old school socialist :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 12:05:12 PM
Too many black people in his movies.
:huh: But they're a minstrel race.
Here's another example of what I mean by something that could be defended.
The Spectator's blog has a post about the brothers Miliband, who are both cabinet ministers and hyped future Labour Party leaders.
The first comment says that the majority of the electorate won't identify with them and that the parties need someone who is 'Middle England not middle Europe' and that they'd be damaged by constant details about their family.
Now this to me seems like thinly veiled anti-semitism - given that they're Jewish. But if I said that this guy could turn around and say he meant that their father was an Eastern European Marxist intellectual (never terribly popular) and that I'm just being politically correct. He didn't mean anything about them being Jewish and if he had he'd have mentioned. He could say, quite plausibly, that he never meant anything about their Jewish background and that it hadn't entered his head. In short, I'm the one bringing up their ethnic and religious background.
And I think he'd be right. But what makes it sound anti-semitic to me is that in discourse about Jews they've always been attacked as alien and as of no fixed nationality. So the cosmopolitan vagueness of 'middle Europe' seems to me an anti-semitic attack, while it could equally be that he just doesn't know where their dad comes from and it was general German Eastern Europe, the heart of pre-war Mitteleuropa. That and that the vast majority of the electorate can't identify with them because there's something so different about them - I think he means their Jewishness.
But I don't know, does anyone else think that what was said was anti-semitic?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 12:25:42 AM
But I don't know, does anyone else think that what was said was anti-semitic?
It's getting to where you can't comment on anyone without a knee-jerk defensiveness that begins seeking ulterior motives rather than the stated criticisms.
Is non-Englishness not sufficient an insult, they have to be Jews in the bargain?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 12:25:42 AM
But I don't know, does anyone else think that what was said was anti-semitic?
No, the comment was meant to be anti a pro-Europe stance, if you ask me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 05:10:56 PM
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Scoop Jackson. You take that :blink: back, dammit.
Yeah, he was one of the best Democrats of national prominence since the Truman administration.
Not seeing the anti-semitism there, no.
Even if there was antisemitism there, that doesn't mean that there is racism elsewhere.
Merely noting that it is possible to couch racist remarks in "defensible" wording is inadequate to prove that it is actually happening in some other particular case, especially when the "defensible" wording is as vague as generic political commentary that doesn't even address the individual at all, like "I think Obama health care plan sucks!"
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:38:56 AM
Merely noting that it is possible to couch racist remarks in "defensible" wording is inadequate to prove that it is actually happening in some other particular case, especially when the "defensible" wording is as vague as generic political commentary that doesn't even address the individual at all, like "I think Obama health care plan sucks!"
I agree. I've only used two examples from American politics which I think were racist. I don't think much opposition to Obama is anything to do with racism, but I think we should still be alive to the ambiguities of language. I don't think racism is really worth moaning about because racists speak ambiguously and so it's never them who are bringing race into the conversation. But also I agree with John McWhorter:
http://www.tnr.com/article/color-bind
QuoteNo, the comment was meant to be anti a pro-Europe stance, if you ask me.
Then why mention their family background or use the phrase 'Middle Europe'?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 12:25:42 AM
Here's another example of what I mean by something that could be defended.
The Spectator's blog has a post about the brothers Miliband, who are both cabinet ministers and hyped future Labour Party leaders.
The first comment says that the majority of the electorate won't identify with them and that the parties need someone who is 'Middle England not middle Europe' and that they'd be damaged by constant details about their family.
Now this to me seems like thinly veiled anti-semitism - given that they're Jewish. But if I said that this guy could turn around and say he meant that their father was an Eastern European Marxist intellectual (never terribly popular) and that I'm just being politically correct. He didn't mean anything about them being Jewish and if he had he'd have mentioned. He could say, quite plausibly, that he never meant anything about their Jewish background and that it hadn't entered his head. In short, I'm the one bringing up their ethnic and religious background.
And I think he'd be right. But what makes it sound anti-semitic to me is that in discourse about Jews they've always been attacked as alien and as of no fixed nationality. So the cosmopolitan vagueness of 'middle Europe' seems to me an anti-semitic attack, while it could equally be that he just doesn't know where their dad comes from and it was general German Eastern Europe, the heart of pre-war Mitteleuropa. That and that the vast majority of the electorate can't identify with them because there's something so different about them - I think he means their Jewishness.
But I don't know, does anyone else think that what was said was anti-semitic?
I don't see it as anti-semitic, but then again, it was written for a British audience rather than an American one, so if "middle Europe" is intended as a code for "Jewish" then it may just be that Americans wouldn't be expected to pick up on it. To me, it simply sounds like the writer was calling the brothers eggheads.