Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Posted by sleeplessinftwayne z4-5 IND (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 17, 13 at 16:04

Some posters here are totally convinced of the idea that government controlled/mandated Healthcare ala Obamacare is opposed by the right because of the racial makeup of this President. It isn't so and just a brief look at the history of Healthcare legislation proves it.

In fact, such legislation has been proposed by both the left and the right and opposed by the other side for several reasons, mostly political. Racism is not now and has never been the purpose of the opposition.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Is the red herring this OP? I am confused. I have been avoiding most of the 14 threads on the ACA, so I might have missed references to the Presidents color. I haven't missed other comments about why the President is resisted at every turn by Republicans and specifically the GOP in Congress: making President Obama a failed president by not allowing him any victories. Sounds both unAmerican and unpatriotic to me.

I would expect this thread to be started by a defender of the President, a member of his own Party, not sleeplessanywhere. :)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- cont.

Sorry, the cat pounced on the keyboard before I could post the link or continue with the thought.

Wiki is admittedly incomplete on this subject and seems to be somewhat partisan, but the basic history is valid. One of the first pieces of Healthcare legislation in the US was proposed by Dorothea Dix in the 1850s. Bits and pieces have been enacted and sometimes phased out over time. Healthcare legislation has been proposed by Conservatives as well as Liberals. Opposition has been party based more often than not but not always. Sometimes support has been bipartisan and opposition has been bipartisan. In general, the arguments pro and con have remained fairly consistent. Accusations of racism as a point of opposition are new to this time around. There is no evidence that opposition to the ASA is specific to the race of the President.

There is little doubt there are racists in this country. They have no power to control the legislative process. They do not control the Republican party. They certainly do not control me. I am tired of the generalized accusations that portray me as a racist because I am a Republican. If you can find anywhere in any post I have written any racist claim, please, post it here. Lets have it out. I am sure there are others here who agree with me.

By the way, I keep seeing statements by several posters here that this is a liberal or progressive forum. It is not. Insisting that it is does not make it so. Just because you have managed to chase off most conservatives does not indicate in any way that your arguments are correct. It only means that you have been indulging in unjustified personal attacks or should I say they are lies justified by Media Matters and Rules for Radicals?

Here is a link that might be useful: Wiki- History of Health care Legislation in the US


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Well, I am glad to acknowledge your post is not directed at me,


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

The only people that I hear call this forum liberal or progressive are conservatives.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

In fact, the only party that has radicals at the moment is the republican party. I would say the last time the left had a faction that could be considered radical was about 50 years ago!

As far as racism and the ACA go, I don't remember anyone here making the connection but if you could come up with an example, that would be very helpful.

This post was edited by jerzeegirl on Sun, Nov 17, 13 at 18:00


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"As far as racism and the ACA go, I don't remember anyone here making the connection but if you could come up with an example, that would be very helpful."

Helping:

From the "I Have a Question..." thread:

Posted by heri_cles 10 (My Page) on Thu, Nov 14, 13 at 14:54

"bboy said:
The rats fight among themselves while the keepers look into the box from above.
It's not the corporations, it's the big family down the street, the Mexicans coming over the border, any other "different" people that make easy targets for blame.
That is the entire GOP&T party platform in a nutshell and it is oh so easy to sell to very receptive minds.
Initially this was just a Southern Strategy. Since President Obama was elected the Southern Strategy has expanded to include immigrants, the poor, the unemployed, teachers, government workers, Unions and primarily President Obama as the symbol of who and what they hate."


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I don't know who the O.P. is trying to convince, but from my own personal experience I know a lot 'o folks that are racist.

And the worse of them are tea party sympathizers. This includes puplic people I dont know, like Donald Trump.

So I respectfully disagree - I think it's sort of a "if 'T' then 'PU' sort of equation. .


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"As far as racism and the ACA go, I don't remember anyone here making the connection but if you could come up with an example, that would be very helpful."

More helping:

How about this one from "Lost Your Plan? Share Your Story" thread:

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 21:19
chase: "Nik, Mrs, Demi ,October et al...never answer a direct question because they haven't got an answer that can stand scrutiny. Worse yet they have absolutely no idea about alternatives or modifications to the ACA that would benefit the American people.
Their overwhelming consummation with their dislike ( kind word on my part) of this President prevents them from rationale discourse on the serious issues that face Americans with regards to health care....or anything else for that matter.

Its not about the ACA...it's about President Obama but they haven't the courage to say so."


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis: In case you haven't noticed, that post says NOTHING about race. Why are you making that assumption?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on Sun, Nov 17, 13 at 18:42

"Elvis: In case you haven't noticed, that post says NOTHING about race. Why are you making that assumption?"

You're right; chase was talking about his ears sticking out.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis ...will you please indicate , specifically , how my post relates to race...even in the slightest?

If not a retraction would be appropriate....


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

When I look at the bigger picture of everything that's happened since Obama was elected into office the first time, it's a little difficult to NOT make that leap to at least a small bit of racism, emanating from somewhere... especially since we still haven't heard any solid reasons for the GOP and its complete and utter blockade and hatred of anything Obama. And "we don't agree with policy" is not a solid reason for the very illogical actions and words within that bigger picture.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis, you know what I find very interesting about your post with regards to my comments? It is that the only reason you can imagine anyone having such intense dislike for the President is because of his race.

Now that is enlightening......


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

jodi: "When I look at the bigger picture of everything that's happened since Obama was elected into office the first time, it's a little difficult to NOT make that leap to at least a small bit of racism, emanating from somewhere... especially since we still haven't heard any solid reasons for the GOP and its complete and utter blockade and hatred of anything Obama. And "we don't agree with policy" is not a solid reason for the very illogical actions and words within that bigger picture."

From the fingertips of a liberal; I rest my case. Thank you, jodik.

Save the chum for someone hungry, jerzeegirl & chase.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

No Elvis, there was no chum on my part. Not at all.

I ask again,. Given your accusation, will you please indicate what in my post , in any way whatsoever, even insinuated that the dislike of this President was based on his race.

If not then it is you that is throwing out chum.....


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Interesting in that in neither of your examples, elvis, was race mentioned in the cited text. The "Southern Strategy" was promoted by and praised by Republican operatives and talking heads as gathering up the base, so to speak. That base just so happens to be mostly lily white, Christian, aged and hostile to multiculturalism and other liberal concepts.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis can now be added to my post she quotes above in terms of those who will not answer a direct question.

Funny thing is when you don't answer a direct question and a legitimate challenge to what you say....you , in fact , do answer the question.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Have the maid wheel in the fainting couch, and prepare to clutch those pearls.

From Robert Scheer, still carrying on the (metaphorical) good fight (expanding on what Marshall writes above): Racism and Cruelty: What’s Behind the GOP’s Healthcare Agenda?

Before he was disgraced into resigning his presidency over the Watergate burglary scandal, Richard Nixon had successfully engineered an even more odious plot known as his Southern Strategy. The trick was devilishly simple: Appeal to the persistent racist inclination of Southern whites by abandoning the Republican Party’s historic association with civil rights and demonizing the black victims of the South’s history of segregation.

That same divisive strategy is at work in the Republican rejection of the Affordable Care Act. GOP governors are largely in control of the 26 states, including all but Arkansas in the South, that have refused to implement the act’s provision for an expansion of Medicaid to cover the millions of American working poor who earn too much to qualify for the program now. A New York Times analysis of census data concludes that as a result of the Republican governors’ resistance, “A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help. ...” [ . . . ]

It might seem odd for governors to reject a program to help those living in their state that is fully funded by the federal government for the first few years and then 90 percent covered by the feds thereafter. But turning down a federal program to aid your own state’s population makes perfect sense when connected with the racist appeal initiated by Nixon that has turned the once Democratic South into a rock solid Republican bastion. There are certainly many whites among the 435,000 cashiers, 341,000 cooks and 253,000 nurses aides who the Times estimated will be denied needed health care in the states controlled by Republican governors who have decided to veto the most important provision of the Affordable Care Act.

In the end, this is a replay of the civil rights drama that gripped the nation more than half a century ago, but back then the Republican Party, following the enlightened leadership of Dwight Eisenhower, was on the humanitarian side of the equation. Now the elected leaders of a party that has been on the side of emancipation since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln acts to deny the basic human right to life-sustaining health care to the Southern progeny of slaves. As the Times study noted: “In all, 6 out of 10 blacks live in the states not expanding Medicaid. In Mississippi, 56 percent of all poor and uninsured adults are black, though they account for just 38 percent of the population.”

But that also means that almost 44 percent of the poor and uninsured in Mississippi are white, and the gutting of this program that hurts them is evidence of the false consciousness that informs racist appeals. As the Times points out, someone, black or white, making $11,000 a year frying chicken in a convenience store falls into the gap of making too much to qualify for the state’s existing Medicaid program but not enough to be subsidized under the new health care plan as the state defines it. For those who lose out, there’s what the Republican die-hards call tough love. That’s not love. It’s hate.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Interesting, isn't it, Marshallz? The whole Southern Strategy thing...


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"I ask again,. Given your accusation, will you please indicate what in my post , in any way whatsoever, even insinuated that the dislike of this President was based on his race."

Sure. Your words:

"Its not about the ACA...it's about President Obama but they haven't the courage to say so."

If that is not about the ongoing and seemingly endless assumption that any difference of opinion with the president is because he is mixed race, then what does your statement mean. Exactly.

"Funny thing is when you don't answer a direct question and a legitimate challenge to what you say....you , in fact , do answer the question."

And don't get so impatient. Also, you are wrong about that, unless you enjoy making up your own answers to your own questions. For all you know, I had something else to do.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Nixon lost to Kennedy with the help of the Dixiecrats, Nixon beat the liberal Dem. challenger by allying himself with the Dixiecrats as they bailed from the Democrat Party to join the Republicans, often switching Party while still in office. And winning re-election as Republicans.

Nancy, I have read several studies about the demographic patterns underlying the resistance to the ACA. Thanks for posting this one. This is not just about race but about class and the lack of infrastructure to bring such a large poor population under competent health care.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I made no assumption as to why those who dislike this President do so.

There could be many reasons but in the context of the thread you lifted my post from the discussion was his policies vis a vis the AHCA.

It just may be that some dislike him because they dislike his policies and see them as too left wing or socialistic. Prehaps it's because he is a Democrat, perhaps they dislike his erudite manner, perhaps they believe he is not American, perhaps he isn't Christian enough, perhaps they are racist, perhaps it's about his ears.

I have no idea and I made no inference in any way.........what I do know is that the tone of their posts indicate animosity towards this President...why I have no idea. .......but apparently you do.

I would appreciate you acknowledging that any inference with regard to rascism in my post was of your making.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"I would appreciate you acknowledging that any inference with regard to rascism in my post was of your making."

I acknowledge that I thought that chase was on the bandwagon of posters who assume that all conservatives who disapprove of the president do so because he is of mixed race. Chase has disillusioned me of same thought with regard to her personally. I apologize for the offense that my misapprehension caused to you, chase.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

."Chase has disillusioned me of same thought with regard to her personally. I apologize for the offense that my misapprehension caused to you, chase."

Come again?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Hooooot! Elvis, that must have hurt your brain.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 17, 13 at 21:55

I made no assumption as to why those who dislike this President do so.

*

???????

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Tue, Mar 12, 13 at 14:25

it is interesting to me that some just can't bring themselves to admit that the racially motivated vitriol directed towards the Obama's is totally inexcusable without doing a "yeah but"...
...speaks volumes .


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

..speaks volumes .

Once again, context is everything, and presenting that sentence out of context is not an honest presentation of Chase's thought. My opinion.

Chase was addressing the topic of that particular thread - actual racist comments, available for all to see, on the internet. No assumptions needed, the information speaks for itself.

And the usual hand flapping follows in yet another futile attempt to deflect from the hate being spewed by uber conservatives.

Here is the thread in which Chase's comments appear: Who says rightwingers aren't any more racist than libs.

Again, please note that the subject is actual racist comments being posted on the First Lady's Twitter account -- #askFLOTUS, Hashtag for Citizens to Tweet Michelle Obama, Swarmed by Hate and Rage.

What Chase's comments very clearly demonstrate is her ability to address the topic in discussion -- racists attacks on Michelle Obama that appear on the internet.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

OMG! a flash of flummoxing facts


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Some posters here are totally convinced of the idea that government controlled/mandated Healthcare ala Obamacare is opposed by the right because of the racial makeup of this President.

I wish you'd elaborate, Sleepless? The sole racist thing I've read here in the context of the ACA (Elvis' perennial troubles with attribution aside, of course) was written yesterday by a radical conservative claiming Obama won the presidential election(s) with no qualifications besides being black.

In the recent spate of tediously jingoistic anti-ACA threads, there have been a lot of personal attacks on the president's intelligence, experience, etc, but there's been no reason to believe that posters here disagree with the ACA expressly because of the racial makeup of our Commander in Chief.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

OMG! a flash of flummoxing facts

dealt out with delicious decorum by our dame of decency.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Aaaawwww circuspeanut...it must be I you are calling a radical conservative.
I am laughing so loud I woke a neighbor.
I am so far removed from a radical anything.
I have a very soft voice...do not carry a big stick and I love just about everyone .
I am not radical regarding anything.
Your words....I'm assuming because I said and will always say obama was elected because of the color of his skin.
I believe that.....several million people believe that but that does not make us radical.
We just watched and listened .
Thats all .
Liberals are so consistant.
Next you will vote for Hillary Clinton because you will want the first woman as president.
First came your first black president .......next the democrats will go for the woman.
Liberals vote their social soap-box not the best candidate.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis:
You have told a few stories here about how your mother was embittered after having to sell her home in Chicago at a loss because of the influx of blacks into your neighborhood years ago. You have also posted about black gang members intimidating white students at your high school and forcing whites to leave the neighborhood. Then there is the story of your mother stopping the rape of a girl by blacks behind your garage.
The point is this - your repeated assertions that race has no part in anti-Obama sentiments have not been made in isolation but rather in the context of many posts by you over time.

As far as you cutting and posting my endorsement of comments that bboy made, I stand by what he said.

"The rats fight among themselves while the keepers look into the box from above.It's not the corporations, it's the big family down the street, the Mexicans coming over the border, any other "different" people that make easy targets for blame."

Well said indeed, bboy.

===================
Sleepless:

Similar to your OP, there have been other threads started for the sole purpose of denying that race has anything to do with the unprecedented opposition of President Obama and anything he has tried to accomplish.
Why ?
I'm sorry, but this makes me think of that saying: "When someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money."

Race has been a component of politics throughout our nations history. We even fought a War over race and slavery where hundreds of thousands died. So it was no surprise when after the election of Barack Obama racial sentiments bubbled over in many Republicans - especially those from their Southern power base. They declared what was in effect a second Civil War aimed at discrediting President Obama from day one, disrespecting him openly in Congress, seeking to nullify his legitimacy as President, accusing him of racism, and using the old Southern Strategy to appeal to racial sentiments within their base. Yes, as people used to say about the Democratic party back in the 1960's, Obama wants to give all your money to the "n-words."
That was so racist back then but unfortunately not much has changed since those days. Republicans never had an epiphany about race. Most still live in largely segregated neighborhoods, send their kids to largely segregated schools, attend mostly segregated churches and avoid voting "Democrat."
So instead of the pseudo-intellectual rationales about why you just hate anything Obama, why not admit you hate him, at least in part, because he is black?
Why hasn't any Republican admitted that? Why can't anyone admit that they have not been able get over their negative feelings about race since they had that imprinted on them by their parents, by their peers, or by their circumstances?
Shouldn't racism be like drug addiction where a certain number of addicts will renounce their addiction at some point and reform themselves?
So who will be the first among you Republicans to come clean here?

This post was edited by heri_cles on Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 2:54


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis,

Some folks here don't have much of a life outside this forum. So, when you post, make damn sure you remain seated at the keyboard for at least 24 hours to respond. :)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 21:19
chase: "Nik, Mrs, Demi ,October et al...never answer a direct question because . . ."

You ask stupid questions, chase. You think you're so clever, but, you're not.

(My apologies to everyone else, but chase deserves that.)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Thank you Nancy, you are exactly right.

My comments of last March were specifically related to an overt incident of racism and were in the context of that conversation.

My comments on the thread Elvis linked to were related to the dislike of this President as it relates to the AHCA..

I never even responded on this thread which specifically links racism to the dislike for the AHCA and this President.

If I thought that to be the case I would have posted something in response to the OP, I'm not shy.

October, I can understand that when one does not fully understand a question it may seem to them that the question is stupid.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

With all due respect, Citywoman, to claim that a presidential candidate, of all people, was elected solely because of the color of his skin is a racist statement. You provide the exact converse of the racism Sleepless is asserting never happens, namely to reject a presidential effort solely because of the color of his skin.

I'm sure there are adherents to both beliefs that would fall into a racist spectrum, analyzed carefully, and we've seen glimmers of both along the way in this forum. However as a global claim, neither is remotely true.

And equally respectfully, your claim about Hillary Clinton is idiotic. I am neither a Democrat nor would I vote for Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 8:29

Thank you Nancy, you are exactly right.

My comments of last March were specifically related to an overt incident of racism and were in the context of that conversation.

*

Ummm Hmmmmm.


Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 8:29

October, I can understand that when one does not fully understand a question it may seem to them that the question is stupid.

*

Yes but that is not the case.

The case is that when someone makes an insulting blanket statement, as October pointed out here:

Posted by october17 5chgo (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 8:11

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 21:19
chase: "Nik, Mrs, Demi ,October et al...never answer a direct question because . ."

...an allegation that is a flat out misstatement of fact--and I am being benevolent in that characterization--because we have each answered a direct question, one tends to dismiss those self servicing "mischaracterizations" and one understands that communication is not the objective here, but personal insults.

Some of us are smart enough not to want to waste time answering someone that does not deserve an answer to an irrelevant or poorly articulated question, or one that includes misstatements of fact, as in above, might be the reason--not your obviously self assessed brilliant questions that Nik, Mrskjun, October and I "do not fully understand."

For you see--that taunting and insulting comment alone makes those taunted and insulted not want to even try to communicate with the kind of person that would say something like that.

That should be painfully obvious.
Maybe you just don't "fully understand."

*

I knew there would be more Saul Alinsky Brood members here spouting racism when Obamacare showed itself to be the failure it is.

So predictable.

"The Republicans don't have anything and/or you're all racists."

Never the reality of the incompetence and why it won't work.

Blame Blame Blame.

Yawn Yawn Yawn.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I don't understand, Demi. What's a "Saul Alinsky Brood", and why is Sleepless a member of it?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Ummm Hmmmmm.

What is there to dispute?

The thread's topic was racist and hateful comments made to the First Lady's Twitte account. There was no disagreement in the thread that the comments were ugly, only deflection to misattribute the comments.

To try and use Chase's comment -- entirely appropriate given the context -- as contradicting later statements is disingenuous and dishonest. It may be an opinion, but an opinion that is rendered erroneous when the facts are presented.

My opinion, derived from actual evidence.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Posted by circuspeanut coastal 5 (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 9:36

I don't understand, Demi. What's a "Saul Alinsky Brood", and why is Sleepless a member of it?

*

I do not consider Sleepless part of the Saul Alinsky Brood.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:
" “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”Wiki


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I recall reading one of those articles describing the differences in the values and actions of liberals versus conservatives, sort of psychological listing of traits. One of those that struck me as very true was the ability and willingness to fabricate/lie/misrepresent in opposition in political situations and feeling fully justified. All the while these fabricators are believing that they themselves were honest and upright and probably were in normal situations. Such a disconnect from reason and logic.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"When someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money."

Heri, I have to agree... taken in context, it is what it looks like it is... in my opinion, of course.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Why is Saul Alinsky relevant here, Demi?

I ask honestly, because I never heard of him in 8 years of post-graduate education in leftist political theory at an ivy league institution. A quick search of google shows that he is a beloved demonic figure for the Tea Party, but other than your invocation of him, I doubt his writings -- long since out of print, aren't they? -- have much influence on any members of this forum other than yourself.

You might as well cite Goebbels or Hoover or Brecht or Le Pen -- they too wrote up many universal, basically banal observations on how social movements of all stripes can be promoted to gain efficacy in the popular mind. Anyone halfway skilled at rhetoric can craft these same techniques to their benefit, completely independent of a decades-dead forgotten author. Every political party active in America today does it.

On the other hand, I'm always pleased to see anyone delve into otherwise buried documentation from the early labor movement period in the US. I just wouldn't have pegged you as a scholar of history. Fascinating times those were, eh?

But I still don't understand to whom are you referring if not Sleepless, who started this thread about racism?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Demi's Alinsky list reinforces what I just wrote above, but she is applying it to leftists when it is equally applicable to rightist -- all shade of activists for that matter. Alinsky just happened to come out of the labor movement of the past century. Reads a lot like Machiavelli's advice to princes of Florence and other city states of the Italian peninsular many centuries ago.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

marshall, that was a great observation of Obama, and Nancy Pelosi as well. Of course there are a few more like Debbie Wasserman Schulz etc.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Posted by circuspeanut coastal 5 (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 10:13

Why is Saul Alinsky relevant here, Demi?

*

Because his tactics are used by some Democrats and liberals, particularly on this forum, and because I have read that Barack Obama has actually taught the Alinsky Rule For Radials at the University of Chicago . I have also read that HIllary Clinton's college thesis was Alinsky's organizing methods.

If that is incorrect, then please show me.

I think when our PRESIDENT teaches classes and learns about these "rules for radicals" and his staunchest defenders practice them--when have to do with manipulation and not facts--it is worth noting.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Demi, the staunchest practitioners now seem to be uber-conservatives as much as leftists, these mostly restricted to a few States at least in Congressional terms. Be careful on trying to flay an ideological horse with this, thus practicing one of Alinsky's methods. I am holdlng back great guffaws right now.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

If that is incorrect, then please show me.

What relevance does Hillary's thesis have to this conversation? She was also a Goldwater Girl in her youth and I'm not holding that against her.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

@ demi, a PS to this:

"I think when our PRESIDENT teaches classes and learns about these "rules for radicals" and his staunchest defenders practice them--when have to do with manipulation and not facts--it is worth noting."

I didn't know the "PRESIDENT teaches classes and learns these "rules for radicals"." He sure has been busy. I shudder to think of what heinous subject matter once studied in school by some future President will automatically disqualify him or her from office. Goes to the reasonable rule that we should not condemn people on the basis of past associations (or schooling, for that matter.)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Because a university professor lists a writer on her or his syllabus does not mean that the professor’s POV is the same as the writer’s. It’s often the case that the POV’s of several writers are investigated in detail in order to understand the complexity of an issue. That Alinsky may have been an Obama syllabus does not mean that it was Obama’s POV.

University professors generally exercise academic freedom, which does not mean arguing a particular perspective but the freedom to investigate all kinds of perspectives whether one agrees with them or not.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Goes to the reasonable rule that we should not condemn people on the basis of past associations . . .

Marshall, you just shot a cannon through the "pals around with a terrorist" attack on Barack Obama for his casual association with Bill Ayers years after the latter's involvement with the Weather Underground.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Isn't that what university is all about? Exploring different points of views and challenging your own boundaries?

Regardless of who Alinsky is or was most of what is listed above could be said equally of conservatives. At least five of those "rules" apply to the current conservative tactics with regard to the AHCA.....and specifically to threads started here.

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Demi, I've taught chapters of the Bible in Freshman English classes without believing a word of it. It's fully possible, (indeed is very often the case) that professors teach widely opposing texts within the same course, and certainly texts that don't always represent the teacher's own viewpoint, as an excellent way of teaching their students critical reading skills. By analyzing many differing points of view, students can best figure out what their own beliefs are and how to argue effectively for them.

I don't know anything about Clinton's thesis, but I wrote my master's thesis on a socialist artist, and I'm neither a socialist nor, alas, an artist. ;-)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

heri: "Elvis:
You have told a few stories here about how your mother was embittered after having to sell her home in Chicago at a loss because of the influx of blacks into your neighborhood years ago. You have also posted about black gang members intimidating white students at your high school and forcing whites to leave the neighborhood. Then there is the story of your mother stopping the rape of a girl by blacks behind your garage."

You need to reprint and post these so I can be fully informed; your recollection reminds me of that game "telephone." Particularly that last sentence, which is a fabrication on your part.

My apologies to the rest for veering here; I just now looked at this thread.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis:
You have repeatedly posted about frightening experiences you and your mother had during your high school years including her embitterment after having to sell her home due to blacks moving into the neighborhood, black gang violence at your high school, burglary and rape. I may not have remembered all the details, but its all there.
Are you suggesting that you do not have one iota of racial intolerance?
Is the OP suggesting that not one Republican is anti Obamacare because they hate President Obama, at least in part because he is black....or that all Republicans are free from racial sentiments that have clouded and even determined their position on issues?

The old Southern strategy of riling the base up about giving their money to black people is alive and well. It is just couched in more politically correct terms and diverted into a sea of lame denials and pseudo-intellectual talking points.

======
RE: Chicago Holiday Crime (Follow-Up #44)

posted by: elvis on 07.09.2013 at 10:40 pm in Hot Topics Forum
I have really wistful memories of the West Side while I was growing up. I like to block out the riots, the rape of an old woman behind our garage, the men breaking into the house till Mom cocked her shotgun, the vandalism and theft.
"No one else has any blame or responsibility."
That's what really is scary.

This post was edited by heri_cles on Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 13:22


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Ouch, heri. You just shot yourself in the foot with your inaccurate memories. One less thing.

You won't remember, or at least admit to remembering, but the context of revealing some of my personal experiences as relates to reasons why a person could become somewhat jaded about race relations was that despite haviing had these personal experiences, and at the same time because of them, I am in a far better position to speak to race relations than one who has no firsthand experience. That's it.

As far as your use, and many others' use of the word "racism", you really need to know what the word actually means. Talking about problems/differences is not racism. Giving examples of events which actually occurred between people of different races is not racism; they are facts. I was honest; you don't want it to be true. Too bad, it really was too bad.

Were the blacks who precipitated these events, some of them crimes, racist because the victims were white? Of course they were.

My point back then was the same that it is now. Racism is a problem, but it's not a one-sided problem. You need to lighten up on white people. You and others need to open up that narrow minded pov, else racism can never be addressed in an ultimately productive manner. There is no bad guy here; you've got your head in the sand and it looks to me like you are in denial that all of mankind has "skin in this game."

If you really truly want race relations for everyone to continue to improve you have to try to work with everyone, not continue to be stuck in this circle of blame.

If you wish to start a thread on denial of multilateral responsibility for racist attitudes, do that. I will not expound further on that topic on this thread


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

What a strange OP! Who ever said the resistance to the ACA is due to racism? And the only ones who have ever said this is a liberal board are conservatives. So strange.

And then Elvis who so often reads posts quite literally without understanding of the poster and their positions all of a sudden is reading something in chase's posts that was never there.

Have we enterered backwards/upside down world here on HT.

Circus - thank you for showing some who think they are highly intelligent and well educated what that actually looks like. I for one really enjoy your posts.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

If you really truly want race relations for everyone to continue to improve you have to try to work with everyone, not continue to be stuck in this circle of blame.

OK. I'll grant you that we have to work with all [so-called] white people to overcome racism.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

What a great response Circuspeanut. College students usually understand that concept.

Marshall, I believe that yes, the red herring is this OP.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I empathize Elvis...it's so annoying when one takes someone else posts totally out of context and applies them to a different argument.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I took nothing out of context.
Elvis brought me into this thread by citong some post from months back that I made, then falsely accused me of fabrication.
She stated that she did not remember what she posted.
I proved that she lied.
I expected an apology for that false accusation, not a denial and a diversion.

My post was on topic - whether or not racism informs political opinions regarding Obamacare.
Meanwhile you have turned into an angry, vengeful, petty troll who stalks my posts trying to get a dig in. How cheap.

This post was edited by heri_cles on Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 17:37


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Your opinion of me is not my business, heri; nor is it anyone else's, but have at it. You are much too angry a person for me to deal with, so I just won't. One less thing.

Peace out.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

heri, if you go back and read the entire thread you will see that my comment was a sarcastic one directed at Elvis not at you.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Chase. My mistake and my sincere apologies since you did not direct that comment at me.

Elvis: Why can't you admit when you are wrong?
And now, since you did not recall posting about the rape behind your garage incident, I have to wonder about you being the one who fabricated that story.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Heri, I don't think I have ever seen anyone who can twist what someone says the way you do. Did you ever really look at what Elvis posted? It was obviously several events and you conveniently made them into one.

So... Not one of you will cop to accusing Conservatives of racism? Why am I not surprised? Since it is so common here and because I don't read each and every posting I won't search out individual posts. I will point out some persistent authors of the claim. Many in the past month, heck, some in the past week or so. Heri is the most strident and irritating,lily is deeply into such claims. Jodik keeps insisting on it, Circuspeanut keeps harping away. David has claimed it occasionally to my surprise. Chase, you made the accusation about a week or ten days ago. Marshall, you just post agreement that it must be so without actually saying it.

I could name most of you but why bother? You know who you are and so does everyone else. It is hogwash, a convenient political fiction that you think allows you to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. Guess what, it is still a lie. If you repeat a lie, it makes you a liar. Wish some of you would get that through your heads.

At least the fools claiming that anyone who disagrees with the President are traitors didn't stick around very long. I guess they think we have a dictator rather than a president.

Opposition to Obamacare and many of Obama's actions have everything to do with the policy. Race is not a factor except when supporters need a distraction. Opposition to the liberal version of healthcare happened under FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ and Clinton. Somehow I don't recall the specter of Racism being thrown around then although the objections were much the same. I think those accusations being used now are convenient political lies because the administration and its supporters cannot defend it except by using another lie. The fact that the results are proving it is not going to be the boon to mankind it was touted to be, will wake up some of the previously naive. But I'm pretty sure most of you are such true believers you won't admit it.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Pointing out that some 'liberals' have accused some 'conservatives' of using racist statements(in the cases I remember this is what generally happens) in no way substantiates the claim of the OP that

"Some posters here are totally convinced of the idea that government controlled/mandated Healthcare ala Obamacare is opposed by the right because of the racial makeup of this President."

One does not logically follow the other.

This is a commonly used red herring argument-you dictate to me what I believe and then destroy "my" point of view with your brilliant rhetoric. Pish.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Which is why I claimed the OP to be a red herring right at the top of this skein of posts.

My claim has always been that racism is American as apple pie and is so evident to anyone with an open mind. That doesn't mean that every America is a racist, only that our citizens and institutions are deeply molded by past and current form of racism, augmented by other bigotries.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

My claim has always been that racism is American as apple pie and is so evident to anyone with an open mind. That doesn't mean that every America is a racist, only that our citizens and institutions are deeply molded by past and current form of racism, augmented by other bigotries.

I agree.

I might amend the above to include racism and violence.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"My claim has always been that racism is American as apple pie and is so evident to anyone with an open mind. That doesn't mean that every America is a racist, only that our citizens and institutions are deeply molded by past and current form of racism, augmented by other bigotries."

I don't know if anyone disputes that racism exists in the USA; I don't dispute that. I do disagree with outright calling out or insinuation that other posters here are racists. It's extremely insulting on a very very personal level. Disagree if you will, think that if you must, but keep it to yourself; proclaiming what you think about another poster's beliefs to the world serves no productive purpose. This is not the place to be hateful; one can do that in private if that's his/her thing.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I do disagree with outright calling out or insinuation that other posters here are racists. It's extremely insulting on a very very personal level. Disagree if you will, think that if you must, but keep it to yourself; proclaiming what you think about another poster's beliefs to the world serves no productive purpose. This is not the place to be hateful; one can do that in private if that's his/her thing.

Ironic words coming from someone who accused other posters of having dementia or a drinking problem with absolutely no proof...more than once.


RE: Sandy Hook Elementary Shootings "a Hoax" say Sandy Hook Truth clip this post email this post what is this?
see most clipped and recent clippings

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 0:21

That would be nice, Bothell. I can't help but wonder if the really venomous posters have some form of dementia, or maybe they're just loaded.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

But at least she didn't call anyone racist in that clip so she is consistent in upholding that high standard. Venemous and dementia, and loaded fall in general conversation category, I guess.

OK, another personal proclamation:

Racism will continue to rule individuals and culture and institutions as long as people hush up about racism when they run into someone or some circumstances that are racist.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"Racism will continue to rule individuals and culture and institutions as long as people hush up about racism when they run into someone or some circumstances that are racist."

And if one is being called a racist wrongly? Who gets to judge? From what I've read here over the past couple of years, the mere perception of racism is enough to set some to proclaiming that certain individuals or their posts are racist. One is left to either argue against that, giving the appearance of being on the defensive (for nefarious reasons, no doubt), or just shake one's head and withdraw, which can bring, on this forum, the oft repeated assertion that silence = tacit agreement.

It's a lose, lose. So what is one to do? Avoid the subject of racism? If so, I fail to see how that furthers this important dialog.

Agree, marshall. Take meaningful action. Educate. Slinging insults is not the way to do that.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Avoid the subject of racism?

elvis, if I remember correctly, you have commented that you have no knowledge of "coded language" and "dog whistles" when those subjects have been discussed.

If I am mistaken, please correct me.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

You are correct. Point me to the code book so I can recognize the dog whistles when I see/hear them. I looked around, and haven't been able to locate it.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

elvis, if you are unable to recognize coded language -- the so-called dog whistles -- that may be part of your confusion regarding the incidences of racism and bigotry.

I've pointed out more than once that Sarah Palin used coded language in her stump speechs during the 2008 campaign. We've had numerous discussions here regarding the GOP's Southern Strategy which makes ample use of coded language.

It's rather disingenuous to ask for a "code book" when the subject has been explored in depth. You've been given examples of coded language in the past, and then state that you see no evidence of bigotry. You have had chances to learn, but have rejected the evidence, so I'm confused by your supposed quandry about what to do in the face of racism.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Elvis, I ought not have to coach you on how to deal with bullies, especially those on chat rooms such as this. There is a truism that verbal bully cannot get satisfaction if the object of the bullying ignores the overt slings and slimes directed at that person. By ignoring I don't mean silence but a neutral reaction challenging the point without attacking the bully back as he or she expects. Let the bully rant and rave and snipe away. My favorite responses include:

"Thank you for sharing"
"I hope you have a better tomorrow"
"I am often surrounded by good company and friends."
"Hoooot!"


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

You have had chances to learn, but have rejected the evidence, so I'm confused by your supposed quandry about what to do in the face of racism.

"supposed quandry" Well, I don't need a code book to interpret that.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about, nancy. In the absence of proof that a code book exists, I don't believe there is a code. What good is a code if there is no reliable means by which to de-code it? Word of mouth is not reliably reliable.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next woman, but I don't rely upon them until they change from theory to fact.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

None so blind as those who will not see.

Here, elvis, is a primer for you from 2008: From Bachmann to Romney: Coded racial rhetoric is out of control

Today, most politicians avoid making outright racist statements. But race-baiting rhetoric is alive, well, and shockingly common. Many of our current politicians, including presidential nominees and their supporters, use coded language full of racial undertones to deliver prejudiced messages to segments of the electorate primed to hear them.

Recently, an aide to presidential nominee Mitt Romney made headlines when he told a UK newspaper that President Obama didn’t understand the “Anglo-Saxon heritage” shared by the United States and Britain. This week, Romney compared the strength of the Israeli economy to that of the Palestinian territories’ and concluded that “culture makes all the difference.” [ . . . ]

. . . former New Hampshire governor John Sununu told CNN that President Obama needs to “learn how to be an American,” bringing back to the forefront the endless “birther” rhetoric that has permeated the public discourse since Obama’s inauguration. Such underhanded communication needs a more vigilant ear to battle.

Statements like these may not be labeled as overt hate speech, but are still codes using subtle language to evoke a deeply narrow-minded view of race and what it means to be an American. Racial rhetoric, coded or not, sends a message to bigoted voters that these politicians agree with them. There are some people in the U.S. that see American diversity as a threat to “their” country; what are truly attempts to create a more just, equitable society are instead perceived as a threat to such peoples’ values.

The use of coded language sends another message to the people of color that these statements concern: that we are not part of the conversation, that our opinions do not matter and that our voices are not heard. And when our voices are silenced, it can have repercussions that go far beyond the world of rhetoric. Alienating people of color in the national dialogue leads to disenfranchising people of color in our political process. Race-baiting speech is being used to advance voter suppression efforts across the country.

Voter suppression policies have been introduced in more than 20 states, and have recently passed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Minnesota. These policies have been promoted through the worst kind of leadership -- building support using coded language about who should be able to participate in our democracy and who shouldn’t among portions of America that want to take control of “their country” back. To provide further evidence of the motivation behind these efforts, Pennsylvania House Leader Mike Turzai remarked during a Republican State Committee meeting in late June: “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Every time politicians use coded racial language and American citizens do not push back, race-baiting remains an acceptable part of our national discourse. When a politician makes an inflammatory statement about the president, another politician, or simply a group of voters and is not taken to task, it validates that statement and implies that it holds truth. When we neglect to call this rhetoric out for what it is and hold our leaders accountable, we implicitly agree with the intolerance being peddled and the harmful impact it has on our communities.

And from the 2012 presidential campaign: The Power of Words: Racially Coded Political Rhetoric

New Gingrich has repeatedly referred to President Obama as “The Food Stamp” President while contrasting that with his own aims to become “The Paycheck” President.

Ron Paul, in an attempt to beat unruly logic into submission, has tried to convince us that “entitlements” are not “rights.” In an effort to dispute affirmative action and minority rights he equates such “entitlements” with the “entitlements” that big businesses get from big government, thus causing the word itself to lose any precision it might have had. This of course is in addition to his refusal to clearly address his connection to several blatantly racist comments on publications bearing his name.

Rick Santorum, descendant of Ronald Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” rhetoric, told a room of mostly white voters in Iowa that he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Mitt Romney holds as one of his campaign slogans that he vows to, “Keep America American.” [ . . . ]

Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Romney and Perry’s comments make the perfect case for the power of words. They demonstrate racially coded rhetoric in an almost symphonic manner . . . Let’s look at the responses that these candidates are offering when confronted with charges of using coded and racist rhetoric.

Currently, former Speaker of the House, Gingrich is irritated with the response to his remarks calling President Obama the “Food Stamp” President. Despite having offered the NAACP his services to come and explain himself, they remain uninterested in hearing Gingrich’s explanations. Perhaps they consider it futile to give Speaker Gingrich the opportunity to explain how his comments are not simply about race. Something that would be hard to back up with his policy platform. Gingrich’s thinly veiled and deeply charged language is clearly deploying the racist belief that there are certain Americans (black and brown ones) who would rather not work and that our President is allied with such people and caters exclusively to their interests.

Congressman Ron Paul, is dancing along a thin and meandering line between coveting the votes of racists while disavowing racist statements in newsletters bearing his name. In fact, he rather clearly disowned without disavowal when stating, “ If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say -- it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say.” Given his broad and deep connections with people who say and do racist things, this is quite a non-apology and head fake toward contrition, but barely even that.

Former Senator Rick Santorum, has indeed disavowed racist intent, going so far as to claim that he doesn’t recall making those comments and that he “condemns all forms of racism.” This hasn’t of course gotten him so far as to condemn his votes against affirmative action programs, immigration reform and wage increases for this country’s working poor.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the Party’s frontrunner, when vowing to “Keep America American,” is positioning himself in opposition to President Obama, undoubtedly. While some have apologized for claiming that this phrase is a 1920′s slogan from the KKK, it is still worth investigating. When Romney positions himself as the keeper of American identity, he is implying that others are un-American. What does he mean by implying that our first black President might be un-American? Is it to question his values, his beliefs, his policies? Perhaps it is all of those things, but to deny that this is racially coded-language is naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst. [ . . . ]

Racists, and those who stand by when racist things are said, or actively exploit racism themselves, do not do so with blatant pride (for the most part). Such are the victories of the civil/human/womens rights movements, of which we are proud and for which we are grateful. Open declarations of racism are out of vogue. Which means we must look closely for the deployment of coded language and its aims.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

And from wiki, with all its faults:

One group of alleged code words in the United States is claimed to appeal to racism of the intended audience. The phrase "states' rights", although literally referring to powers of individual state governments in the United States, was described by David Greenberg in Slate as "code words" for institutionalized segregation and racism.[18] In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy (see also Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy) said:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*, n*, n*." By 1968, you can't say "n*" -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*, n*."[19][20]


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

What garbage. Nancy, by your statements and quotes, if I said something smells bad, you would say it was racist code while ignoring the fact that we were standing beside a garbage dump.

Guess what, people don't all grow up with the same values or goals in life even when they are in the same family, let alone just in the same country. You are not trying to give African-Americans a voice, you are trying to silence anyone who might disagree with whatever you think is right. Your so called code is ludicrous. All it does is cut off communication.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

What garbage. Nancy, by your statements and quotes, if I said something smells bad, you would say it was racist code while ignoring the fact that we were standing beside a garbage dump.

*

Now you're getting it!~

Alinsky 201. ;)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

sleepless, it is not my code, nor is its usage something new.

Please see the comments from Lee Atwater.

To deny coded language is to deny the GOP's Southern Strategy, which even the GOP admits that it uses.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Codes, there are. Our whole language and literature are filled with examples of how all societies manage to convey approbations about people, class, and situations. This is not something new or just restricted to "race." Perhaps the problem is literalism or the inability to grasp subtleties or nuances. I doubt that that is treatable.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Sleepless, I harp where harping is clearly necessary. To my recollection I've never made a blanket statement claiming that conservatives are all racists, much less in the context of the ACA.

I did say that this recent forum statement is clearly racist:

"This is what happens when a president is voted in not because of his intelligence but because of the color of his skin.
He is president not because of experience......not because he wanted to make America a better place to live...not because he was capable of doing the job.
Because he was going to be ..at last..............our first black president.
Why couldn't the democrats have waited for Colin Powell or Con Rice who either one would have been prepared for ruling the free world, if they had wanted to make a statement."

That's a racist claim. Why? Because the assertion that the ONLY salient qualification of a person for their job is the color of their skin -- dismissing all experience, personality, and numerous other factors as irrelevant -- is (particularly when considering the multivariate reasons an electorate chooses candidates) absurdly reductive. Racism is the attribution of qualities to a person's ethnicity/skin color to the exclusion of all else, and it encompasses the assignation of motivation based solely on that factor.

The statement continues to dig the hole deeper by suggesting that Democrats should have voted for either of two other people of color, people who are both quite conservative members of the Republican party -- as though just being black would trump every other consideration a Democratic voter might have in a candidate. The notion that "making a statement" about race would trump actual political goals relating to the economy, defense, and more, is a complete and utter misapprehension due to the apparent inability to see any factor as more important than skin color.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain any debate, but I doubt even the most neutral rhetoricians would argue this one. How can it even be disputed? Has the high fever of partisanship blinded people to this staggering level?

I'm presuming that it's blind and stubborn partisanship, because the claims about my own "liberal harping" don't make sense otherwise. I didn't vote for Obama this time around because his performance was staggeringly disappointing to me, I'm not a registered Democrat, and to argue with me as though I'm the Spirit Incarnate of Liberalism is just, honestly, dumb.

But I will call out racism or other bigotry when I see it. That's a snake that needs its head chopped off whenever it appears, or we all are demeaned as a consequence.

This post was edited by circuspeanut on Wed, Nov 20, 13 at 11:13


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Well said, Circus.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

That's a racist claim. Why? Because the assertion that the ONLY salient qualification of a person for their job is the color of their ski

*

I don't think the person that made that statement said or implied that the "only salient qualification" of Barack Obama for the job was "the color of their (his) skin."

From what I read, that was what was thought about why he was elected, and that is what I think too, along with other reasons, not just that alone.

Look at it this way--a person can possess other qualities and qualifications, but the one that puts them over the top and into winning a position--of any kind--can be their charisma, their good looks, or the color of their skin, or their sex--particularly when people want to be involved in making history.

That is not necessarily racist.
It's just an observation.

I know people who voted for Barack Obama strictly because he was black.

It's understandable.

Are those people racist?

Yes or no.

If not, then why label someone who observes the truth as racist?

As noted by Elvis or someone, I forget--it's a nasty label and used when someone is frustrated and wants to call someone nasty names by suggesting what they think and what they really mean.

Racism is pretty obvious in it's true form.

If someone has to tell someone else they're racist or convince others they are, well....we know what that is.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

It much different to say that some people voted for the President because he is Black than it is to say he was elected because he is Black.

To say he was elected because he is Black is to say the vast majority who voted for this Democratic President did so because of his race......and that is simply untrue and very insulting thing to say to thinking liberal voters.

I would bet that no liberal poster here voted for him because he was Black...they voted for him because he is a liberal (sorta) and represents their values


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I just do love to watch circular firing squads in action. And I much admire the truism that, if one calls out another person as racist, the accuser is racist. Ergo, all people discussing racism are racists (except, apparently, less so than those accused of being racists,)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I would bet that no liberal poster here voted for him because he was Black...they voted for him because he is a liberal (sorta) and represents their values

*

I agree with that statement.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Conversely, do you bet that no conservative poster here voted for Romney because he was white, but because he is a conservative (sorta) and represents their values?

And therefore did not vote AGAINST Barack Obama because he is black?

And to extrapolate, still do not support Barack Obama because he does not represent their values and not because they are "racists?"


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I don't think the person that made that statement said or implied that the "only salient qualification" of Barack Obama for the job was "the color of their (his) skin."

I see no other way to interpret these comments:

"This is what happens when a president is voted in not because of his intelligence but because of the color of his skin.

He is president not because of experience......not because he wanted to make America a better place to live...not because he was capable of doing the job.

Eliminated are: intelligence, experience, platform, or ability. What else does that leave? The reason given in the first sentence: the color of his skin.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Fair questions, Demi.

Look at it this way--a person can possess other qualities and qualifications, but the one that puts them over the top and into winning a position--of any kind--can be their charisma, their good looks, or the color of their skin, or their sex--particularly when people want to be involved in making history.

That is not necessarily racist.
It's just an observation.

Sure, and I can even agree with you, but that's not what the quoted observation was. The quote claimed that the color of Obama's skin was the ONLY reason people voted for him. The quote explicitly rules out his intelligence, his experience, his capability to do the job and the quality of his dreams for the country.

I know people who voted for Barack Obama strictly because he was black.

It's understandable.

Are those people racist?

Yes or no.

I'd argue yes, probably.

It's the global aspect that bears the racist mark. To be entirely unopposed to someone because of the color of their skin is as racist as being entirely opposed to them. Understandable given historical context in many cases, surely, but still definable as racist.

Racism is pretty obvious in it's true form.

If all racism against American blacks were limited to minstrel shows and pejorative nouns, black Americans would have a much easier time of it. Alas, that's not how human discourse works.

If someone has to tell someone else they're racist or convince others they are, well....we know what that is.

For Elvis, here's an example of subjective language code that isn't interpretable without a glossary -- I honestly don't know what you mean "that" is, Demi -- what is "it"?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Circuspeanut--first I want to thank you for an exchange of old--like we used to have on Hot Topics.

You made good points and articulated your position and communicated with me.

None of us know exactly what was meant by the OP's words, but the gist, and I am giving the benefit of the doubt because I generally agree with her--is not that Barack Obama was unintelligent, or his abilities, but that there were some that were only INTERESTED in the color of his skin that caused them to get out and vote.

It's a nuance but I think that did play into the election results.

As I have agreed, I think most people that voted for Barack Obama believed the "hope and change" and hype and wanted to be part of history in electing our first black president.

I can understand that, and if I agreed with his policies, I'd have been happy to jump on the bandwagon. Even after his election, I had hoped that although I did not think it would fare well economically, that the nation would come together, we'd probably have higher taxes and more welfare, but that the nation would be better off and I did assume some competence, particularly since he and his team were so adept at running elections and the use of modern technology to get elected.

How ironic in consideration of Obamacare.

Without getting into the general disappointment and more specific disappointments in his performance, I do not believe that many people that voted for Romney voted for Romney only because he was not black, but I do believe that many people that voted for Obama had not voted before and did in fact vote for him because he was black.

As I said, it's understandable.

Does it make them racists?

Does it make those who voted for Romney racists?

I don't know, but I would reserve that term for the most obvious, while admitting that it could be used for less visible motives, it is a nasty term to bandy about and accuse some of being.

In the end, our votes are our votes and it's no one's concern why we vote the way we do--only we know.

I think there are fewer racists than Democrats believe and more than Republicans believe.

PS--the "it" is an agenda to deflect and call your "opponent" names to discredit them.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Wed, Nov 20, 13 at 12:05


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I read a succinct comment on this subject the other day -

"To claim that all criticism of Obama is motivated by race is disingenuous. To claim that race plays no role is ridiculous."


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I would like to point out that voting for Obama because he was black(assuming the standard qualifications) is not necessarily racist. You can vote for a qualified black candidate in order to celebrate the change in our culture that gives you a black candidate to vote for. By placing a person of color into the office of presidency you change the way we view ourselves and each other. Worth doing.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"I would like to point out that voting for Obama because he was black(assuming the standard qualifications) is not necessarily racist. You can vote for a qualified black candidate in order to celebrate the change in our culture that gives you a black candidate to vote for. By placing a person of color into the office of presidency you change the way we view ourselves and each other. Worth doing."

It's beginning to look like the best thing about Obama's presidency is that he's Black.

Hay


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

patricia: "I would like to point out that voting for Obama because he was black(assuming the standard qualifications) is not necessarily racist. You can vote for a qualified black candidate in order to celebrate the change in our culture that gives you a black candidate to vote for. By placing a person of color into the office of presidency you change the way we view ourselves and each other."

Citywoman posted: "Your words....I'm assuming because I said and will always say obama was elected because of the color of his skin.
I believe that.....several million people believe that but that does not make us radical.
We just watched and listened .
Thats all."

So...patricia is supportive of citywoman's statement quoted above. Patricia has simply presented citywoman's assertion in a less inflammatory manner.

This is not to say that I think patricia is making a statement which in turn implies that citywoman's assertions are noble in motive. But it could be.

Maybe I'm in error here, but it seems to me that citywoman equates "racist" and "radical." This insight gives me the notion that citywoman considers racism to be radical, and further, that citywoman eschews radical behavior.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

So...patricia is supportive of citywoman's statement quoted above. Patricia has simply presented citywoman's assertion in a less inflammatory manner.

No, she has not if these are the comments [citywoman's] that you mean:

This is what happens when a president is voted in not because of his intelligence but because of the color of his skin.

He is president not because of experience......not because he wanted to make America a better place to live...not because he was capable of doing the job.

The above maintains that qualifications -- intelligence, experience, policies, ability -- were not considered.

Patricia draws a necessary distinction:

I would like to point out that voting for Obama because he was black(assuming the standard qualifications) is not necessarily racist. You can vote for a qualified black candidate in order to celebrate the change in our culture that gives you a black candidate to vote for.

So Patricia's comments and those first cited are not saying the same thing.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"No, she has not if these are the comments [citywoman's] that you mean:"

Nancy, actually no; I was talking about the comments that I quoted.

But let's do talk about these that you quoted here:

"This is what happens when a president is voted in not because of his intelligence but because of the color of his skin."
"He is president not because of experience......not because he wanted to make America a better place to live...not because he was capable of doing the job."

Of this you say "The above maintains that qualifications -- intelligence, experience, policies, ability -- were not considered."

Yes, it does say that. And citywoman may be right about that; certainly not for all the voters, but quite probably for many. That's a shame, sort of like the brainy woman who wins Miss Universe just because she's great looking.

Please note that these statements were made at the end of the president's first term; plenty of time for anyone paying attention to make their assessments, based upon his performance. Harsh? Certainly.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Nancy has it in one.

I reject the idea that Barak Obama is in any way unqualified to be president. It is ridiculous.

As I have said before we have only had one person in our history who became president with any experience of being president and that weirdly enough was George H. W. Bush who was very briefly acting president under Ronald Reagan. I don't see how you get the experience without doing the job. You cant go off and be president of another country-well I suppose legally you could if you had dual citizenship but what would the electorate make of that?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Please note that these statements were made at the end of the president's first term; plenty of time for anyone paying attention to make their assessments, based upon his performance. Harsh? Certainly.

*

And accurate.

Just look at Obama's namesake legislation.

Incompetence does not come in colors.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

After reading endless posts on racism here, numerous racist comments about the president or victims of violence or single mothers or those living in poverty, it seems that too many are focused on the word "racist" and how it can never apply to them or their own statements.
The United States is a racist country. There was a war about race. Some neighbourhoods are segregated. Black men and black women are still killed because of their colour. Jobs and opportunity are denied to blacks. A private prison system is making a fortune by incarcerating people for profit. Prisons are predominately black.
And yet, according to many people here, none of this effects you. How can your world not effect you?
I'd like to see fewer threads trying to convince us that the Republican Party is not racist and more threads about how people are combatting racism in their neighbourhood and outside it.
I'd like to see fewer threads from conservatives praising the Republican Party for being anti-slavery in its past and more posts criticizing it with honesty for what it does today.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

elvis, I sometimes wonder if we are reading the same comments even after you verify that we are.

not for all the voters, but quite probably for many.

How is this determined?

It seems that you're falling into the citywoman camp is that voters disregarded qualifications for skin color.

It's a convenient explanation for those who backed a losing candidate. But it really is more indicative of those who had, or still have, no clue how badly the Republican brand had been damaged by eight years of Bush/Cheney; the horrors of Katrina and the inadequacies of FEMA's response, the public's disgust with the situation in Iraq, the scandal of Abu Ghraib, and the economy and financial system teetering on the edge of collapse. And a GOP candidate promising more of the same, with an incompetent as a running mate is another matter that is willfully ignored.

I continually marvel at the eliding of events during the Bush years when discussion turns to why President Obama was elected.

I maintain that public opinion regarding the Bush Administration and its GOP supporters was so toxic in 2008 that voters turned to Barack Obama in spite of his skin color.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I'd like to see fewer threads trying to convince us that the Republican Party is not racist and more threads about how people are combatting racism in their neighbourhood and outside it.
I'd like to see fewer threads from conservatives praising the Republican Party for being anti-slavery in its past and more posts criticizing it with honesty for what it does today.

Leave it to the Canadians to see us better than we see ourselves.

Brava, Nina Marie.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Black men and black women are still killed because of their colour. Jobs and opportunity are denied to blacks. A private prison system is making a fortune by incarcerating people for profit. Prisons are predominately black.

*

White men and white women are still being killed because of their color. They're being knocked over as part of the knocking game, too.

Jobs and opportunity are denied to whites because of their color (ever heard of preferred hiring or affirmative action, and the lowering of required scores on government tests to include blacks that couldn't score as high as whites?"

NO difference.

Generally companies that provide a service are paid and are in business to make a profit.

Aside from the few that are incarcerated and are innocent, most people that are in prison are guilty, regardless of their color.

If more black people are in prison for robbery, pretty much more blacks commit robbery.

That is certainly the case in this area--just recently one more black man in a hoodie walked into a gas station convenience
store, on video, and killed the young clerk, who was working part time before he began his career in the military, where he planned to be a medic. Shot for no reason because he handed over the money.

But let's cry for him because he's black and it's not fair he's in prison, right? Not his fault, is it?

Whites and other races commit crimes too, it should not matter one whit what their color is--a criminal is a criminal.

Our prison population tells us something about the people that are in it. You can distinguish the color of their skin, the color of the eyes, whether they are bald or have a head of hair, whether they are skinny or fat, or any other distinguishing characteristic and is has NOTHING to do with the fact that they are are a criminal.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"Incompetence does not come in colors."

I don't know that this president is incompetent. He's certainly very bright and he seems very frustrated right now, understandably. Given the right support staff, I suspect that there are a lot of "qualified people" who could do the job. What's hard for me to fathom is why anyone would be willing to.

So he's willing and able, he hasn't performed well by the standards of some; others say they are satisfied; all very normal for a president.

However, it seems to me that some are eager to gloss over this president's perceived shortcomings because of his skin color.

In fairness, maybe more is expected of this president than the 100% anglo men who preceded him in the office; not unlike the prevalent attitude that was in place when women first began to take on positions traditionally held by men. They had to do that job even better than the men before them had done it. Maybe that's part of it.

DH & I were really excited the first time we heard Barack Obama speak. We were involved in some household project, he was on TV; we were captivated, stopped what we were doing, sat down and listened and watched. (We did notice that he was black; I mean there he was in living color, so to speak). We thought that he seemed wonderful! As time went on, we were disillusioned from our first impression. What we feel now about this president is disappointment. But maybe that's just us. Maybe it's citywoman, too. Maybe some of you.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"Black youth are arrested for drug crimes at a rate ten times higher than that of whites. But new research shows that young African Americans are actually less likely to use drugs and less likely to develop substance use disorders, compared to whites, Native Americans, Hispanics and people of mixed race.

“Our goal is to alert people to the burden of drug problems and also to how some of our concern about who has these problems may not be true,” says Dr. Dan Blazer, senior author of the study and a professor of psychiatry at Duke University. “There’s a perception among many individuals that African Americans as a group - regardless of socioeconomic status - tend to abuse or use drugs at higher rate and this [does not support] that.”

Using data from 72,561 youth interviewed for the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, researchers found that 37% of those aged between 12 and 17 had used alcohol or other drugs at least once in the past year. Nearly 8% met criteria for a substance use disorder - either the less severe “substance abuse” diagnosis or the more problematic “substance dependence,” which is more commonly known as addiction.

The study, which was published Monday in the Archives of General Psychiatry, controlled for variables like socioeconomic status because rates of severe drug problems tend to be greater amongst the poor. Despite this, Native American youth fared worst, with 15% having a substance use disorder, compared to 9.2% for people of mixed racial heritage, 9.0% for whites, 7.7% for Hispanics, 5% for African Americans and 3.5% for Asians and Pacific Islanders."

_____

But these are some of those scientific results that fly in the face of bigotry, so lets stick with what we know best -

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Just to pick one of the low-lying fruits:

Racial bias in sentencing

Just one page of search results:

New study by Prof. David Abrams and co-authors confirms racial ...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/.../2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abr...‎

David Abrams and co-authors confirms racial bias in criminal sentencing. August 22, 2012. Taking a fresh approach to long-standing problem in the study of ...

Wide Racial Divide in Sentencing - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142412788732443200457830446378985800...‎

Feb 14, 2013 - Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of ... of the criminal-justice process ignored possible bias at earlier stages, ...

Study: Black Defendants Are At Least 30% More Likely To Be ...
thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/30/770501/‎

Aug 30, 2012 - This seminal study has now “demonstrated conclusively for the first time that racial bias affects judicial sentencing decisions.” The researchers ...

Racial Bias : Equal Justice Initiative
www.eji.org › Death Penalty‎
Racial discrimination remains a dominant feature of criminal justice in the United ... of black death row prisoners have been sentenced for killing someone white.

Sentencing Bias : Equal Justice Initiative
www.eji.org › Race and Poverty‎
Racial disparities in sentencing persist. Email: * ... Sentencing Bias ... Habitual Felony Offender Act imposes increasingly severe sentences for repeat offenders.

The Sentencing Project News - Racial Disparity
www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122‎
The report indicates that a significant portion of the disparity in arrest rates is attributed to implicit racial bias -- unconscious associations people make about ...

[PDF] racial disparity in sentencing: a review of the literature
www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_sentencing_review.pdf‎
these studies sought to determine whether sentencing decisions were biased -- of the direct effect of race (white and black, for this purpose) on sentence severity ...

A Test of Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing
www.nber.org/papers/w16981‎
by AF Alesina - ‎2011 - ‎Cited by 18 - ‎Related articles
Jul 29, 2013 - A Test of Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing. Alberto F. Alesina, Eliana La Ferrara. NBER Working Paper No. 16981. Issued in April 2011

Freakonomics » Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing
freakonomics.com/2011/05/03/racial-bias-in-capital-sentencing/‎
May 3, 2011 - A new study of capital sentences handed down in first degree murder cases finds evidence of racial bias against minority defendants who killed ...

Racial Bias and the Death Penalty: A Change Is Coming : TIME.com
ideas.time.com/.../put-to-death-for-being-black-new-hope-against-judicia...‎

May 3, 2012 - Since McClesky, judges have not allowed defense attorneys to show juries studies proving racial bias in death sentencing, making it ...

Then there is racial profiling, institutional discrimination and racism, for two obvious examples.

I cringe whenever I see a defense of the racial injustice in the U.S.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I don't know that this president is incompetent. He's certainly very bright and he seems very frustrated right now, understandably.

*

Being "bright" and being competent are two different things, Elvis.

I know scientists that can't follow simple directions or read a map.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"Being "bright" and being competent are two different things, Elvis."

You're right.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Love how you totally ignored Nancy’s post, demi. Cute.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

The phrase "throwing out canards" comes to mind reading some of the posts above. David and Nancy are throwing in data back by research and all and others are responding with canards, which by the way is their right for there are not rules on HT forbidding such contributions.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 9:05

Red Herring? or Black Herring?

It all got started with scenes like this...

Mix in the Birther nonsense about Obama being a Kenyan, African Muslim, not one of us, and there ya go.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I don't get it. There are racists in both parties and independents. That is disgusting vgkg, and so were many of the posters of George Bush.

Washington (CNN) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday following reports he had privately described then-candidate Barack Obama during the presidential campaign as a black candidate who could be successful thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

How can you get more racist than that?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 9:23

ummmm, the topic was about Obamacare and racism...

"How can you get more racist than that?

....see my previous post


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

If more black people are in prison for robbery, pretty much more blacks commit robbery.

No. Just no. Faulty analytic conclusion. Read the numerous studies cited above.

PS--the "it" is an agenda to deflect and call your "opponent" names to discredit them.

But you will note that I never claimed any person was racist, nor did I even mention the poster's name. How can anyone know anything about some anonymous writer on an internet forum? What concerns me is the statement as cited. All we have to go by are words, and the words are fair game for analyzing.

(In addition, I have no counterargument I'm defending here -- I'm not claiming the virtues of the ACA, which I personally think is just an administrative blow-job (forgive my French) for the insurance corporations. Nor am I an Obama fan, whom I consider a milquetoast pushover for big business who could have fought for single-payer ... but didn't.)

I think folks are too hung up with the word "racist" as though they will up and die if labeled with it. At heart we ALL harbor certain unexamined prejudices -- it's part of being human in a complex society. What's important is shaking them out in the light of day and learning from them, isn't it? Nobody on earth comes from some total position of innocence, but we cannot know that about ourselves until we are placed in a position where we learn a different perspective from others. Isn't that why we all participate on fora like this one, despite all the attendant aggravations?

So my radical proposition is to consider that it's OK to examine one's words being called racist. :)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Yeah! circuspeanut. Well argued post and my continued thanks for your contributions to this board.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"I think folks are too hung up with the word "racist" as though they will up and die if labeled with it. At heart we ALL harbor certain unexamined prejudices -- it's part of being human in a complex society. What's important is shaking them out in the light of day and learning from them, isn't it? Nobody on earth comes from some total position of innocence, but we cannot know that about ourselves until we are placed in a position where we learn a different perspective from others. Isn't that why we all participate on fora like this one, despite all the attendant aggravations?"

Good stuff, peanut. I'm on board; will think extra hard (it hurts my brain, marshall!) to find ways to make good use of the well-intentioned comments from my fellow posters. In the same spirit, it's my fervent hope that these kind folks will learn from me.

I'll help them out with kind suggestions that they too can benefit from my observations about intolerance, bigotry.

"So my radical proposition is to consider that it's OK to examine one's words being called racist. :)"

Do you really think that no one already does that; has been doing that for a very long time?

"...one's words being called racist" and one being called racist are separate; the latter is personally insulting, the former is a subject for discussion. The turn-off resulting from the personal label, which quite naturally then occurs to all but the very thick-skinned, tends to preclude movement in a positive direction.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Well put, elvis. I would disagree mildly with you about people examining their prejudices. In my long experience, many people hold dear their to their beliefs as true, not prejudicial. Progress is measured in people's willingness to allow for more and more exceptions to prejudicial views of another race, for example. There stil remains a patina of racism but much mellowed...becoming so American. :)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"Progress is measured in people's willingness to allow for more and more exceptions to prejudicial views of another race, for example."

Nope. "Progress (is) CAN/COULD BE measured in people's willingness to allow for more and more exceptions to prejudicial views of another race." That could be an example.

One could as easily say, and rightly so IMO, that rather than allowing "for more and more exceptions to prejudicial views of another race", there needs to be more allowance for closer examination of the motive behind any statement that might be considered racist. I'm not seeing these questions asked when this occurs.

Let's take this excerpt from one of citywoman's posts.

"This is what happens when a president is voted in not because of his intelligence but because of the color of his skin."

Sounds pretty bad. Why would she say that? Did citywoman really mean "he lacks intelligence because of the color of his skin?" Did she mean that his intelligence was not considered ENOUGH because of the preoccupation with the color of his skin (see patricia's post at 13:34 yesterday:

"You can vote for a qualified black candidate in order to celebrate the change in our culture that gives you a black candidate to vote for. By placing a person of color into the office of presidency you change the way we view ourselves and each other."

There is a big difference between the two. Maybe there are more questions that could be asked about citywoman's statement in a good faith attempt to learn what she meant by that statement.

I took the statement at face value (for me). What I understood when I read the statement was that beyond the color of his skin, the CANDIDATE was not examined closely enough.

The color of the president's skin isn't the problem in and of itself; the problem is that everyone has to be so very careful not to give the impression that any criticism of this president is somehow related to his skin color. This has become circular.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I would say that the essence of racism is applying a judgement against one person to an entire race.
And I find it odd that posters who constantly rail against government are perfectly willing to accept the government's condemnation of a particular class of criminals. All I read from conservatives here is the inefficiency and ineptness of government. So, I guess I wonder how the justice system escapes those conclusions.
And I don't understand justifying racism because it also happens to whites. Or at least, that's what the argument sounds like.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"And I don't understand justifying racism because it also happens to whites. Or at least, that's what the argument sounds like."

I can't see where you get that. Unless you are referring to the occasional instance wherein it is pointed out that sometimes there is color vs. white racism. That would be an "equal time assertion", not a justification ploy.

Not unlike the countless "Obama did this" well, "Bush did that" circles we often see here.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Too many circular arguments and non sequiturs for me to follow these conversations.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

An argument can be made that citywoman's recent comment wasnt necessarily racist, I would agree with that.
Its when you take ALL the comments and OPs and full replies to all the threads she has made since she joined regarding the President, black people and white people, race etc, that is when a much greater defining attitude can be drawn by that whole.

For those who have been posting here since citywoman came back in with this new name, I think the attitude by many has been drawn from all that.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

An argument can be made that citywoman's recent comment wasnt necessarily racist, I would agree with that.
Its when you take ALL the comments and OPs and full replies to all the threads she has made since she joined regarding the President, black people and white people, race etc, that is when a much greater defining attitude can be drawn by that whole.

For those who have been posting here since citywoman came back in with this new name, I think the attitude by many has been drawn from all that.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Maybe she has evolved; I hope we all do. Maybe she was misunderstood from the get go. Maybe she's unskilled at self expression while making sure to sugar coat her words so as not to offend.

Maybe I'm wasting my time here.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Miss elvis, you are being so kind. Luv ya!


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

So, the original intent of the post is going to continue to be ignored. Why am I not surprised.

There has been opposition to socialized healthcare in the US since the 1800s. Until now the issue of race in any form has not been an issue.Now it is the only thing you hang your hats on.

You can't even come up with a rational defense of ACA/Obamacare without raising the hideous specter of racism. Sorry, it fails every test. I am beginning to suspect the only reason it has gotten as far as it has this time is because of the accusation/lie of racism. No, not beginning, I'm pretty sure it is the only reason.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Good luck with that reasoning with that elaborated red herring


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

There has been opposition to socialized healthcare in the US since the 1800s. Until now the issue of race in any form has not been an issue.Now it is the only thing you hang your hats on.

Who is "you"? What is the "hat" being hung? Until you clarify (and optimally give examples of) what you are arguing, I doubt anyone can seriously take it up for debate.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

PS thank you very kindly, Marshall. Until I get my little starter business rocking or else go back to teaching eager young minds, I think you're stuck with my occasional lectures. :)


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Excuse me? sleepless, if you wanted us to discuss a defense of ACA then why didn't you say that 130 posts ago? You told us we believe criticism of ACA was due to racism. We told you that is a load of pickled and smoked fish. Now you say why haven't you defended ACA without bringing up racism? Well you brought up racism. Heck, we didn't defend the administration's action in Benghazi either. Our bad?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Good posts, Elvis.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

There seems to be a division in this country between those that want our representatives to vote with the financial solvency of our country in mind, and those that want our representatives to vote without financial solvency of our country in mind.

Some would argue that those against the president are that way because they are racist, and some will see that claim as an opportunity to have a shout-out they've been wanting to have for a long time. Is there racism, of course there is. Unfortunately, those that don't deserve to be targeted get to pay for those that give their race a bad name. It is natural that mankind judges others, not only by what a particular person says or does, but also by who or what they're associated with. But the topic also offers the opportunity to shift the attention from what is tremendously important (an understatement). and that would be ....

There is no way that the ACA (Obamacare) is affordable by the taxpayer and will only help this country become insolvent. Companies and individuals will also become insolvent -- so for those that don't agree, just wait until you see fewer jobs available, higher prices, and much more that will be tragic.

We have a president that wants the coal industry to end -- what does that say -- my electric bill is increasing by 42%. What does it have to do with racism -- nothing.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

That's not taking into consideration the larger picture of what coal and similar industry have done and are still doing to the planet, its atmosphere and stratosphere, and how it's affecting civilization and our ability to feed the planet and other major issues by way of Global Warming/Climate Change.

Of course the President wants to move toward cleaner energy! This is something we should have moved toward decades ago, but those in places of power and influence were too greedy to do anything at the time, except go into denial mode to keep the involved industries happy and everyone's pockets filling up!

The amount and level of outright hate and obstructionism, the spread of such obvious lies, and the general tone heard emanating from the far right/GOP has been well beyond anything considered rational or logical... and falls far from anything that could be considered normal.

"Why?" is the question... and that question is still in play because there haven't been any satisfactory answers given.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

"The amount and level of outright hate and obstructionism, the spread of such obvious lies, and the general tone heard emanating from the far right/GOP has been well beyond anything considered rational or logical... and falls far from anything that could be considered normal.

"Why?" is the question... and that question is still in play because there haven't been any satisfactory answers given."

No satisfactory answers. Apparently not satisfactory to folks who refuse to open their minds. This surprises me coming from you, jodik; I consider you one of the most open-minded people on HT.

Brushwork's post above speaks for me and for many others, I suspect. Please give it some more thought, without reservations.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Really... so the answer to the question lies somewhere between all the rhetorical nonsense that's been spewed, and how you assume all of my time is spent? Is that about the size of it?


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

•Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on Sat, Nov 23, 13 at 12:28

"Really... so the answer to the question lies somewhere between all the rhetorical nonsense that's been spewed, and how you assume all of my time is spent? Is that about the size of it?"

I meant no offense; I apologize for my phrasing; I see that I was unclear in that regard. It's clearly my fault for projecting my own understanding of what brushworks posted and what you posted, jodi.

Having sincerely said that, I withdraw this: "I consider you one of the most open-minded people on HT." My mistake.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

For those who see a racist behind every tree, Here's a new angle for you.

(From the author of one of Ohiomom's links somewhere.)

"Now back to the question I pose in the title of this post: given that Obamacare will help blacks and Hispanics more than other segments of the American population, is it racist to oppose the law?

The answer is: mainly no, but occasionally yes. There are some racist people who oppose the law because they hate seeing their tax dollars used in ways that benefit blacks and Hispanics. They oppose the law because they believe that black and Hispanic people who lack health insurance simply need to stop being so lazy, and get better educations and better paying jobs so they can buy insurance on their own. But most people who oppose the law do not do so for such explicitly crass reasons. They do so because they are worried about government spending. They do so because they don’t trust the federal government to administer the system effectively and efficiently."

Something for everybody.

Hay


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Jodik,
My post was not about the coal industry. Hopefully you will concur that those that are against the president for his stance on the coal industry aren't being blamed for racist behavior.

The answer to what? Why so many people are against the president? It is because he is running this country as if he would like to see it insolvent -- go into bankruptcy. That makes some us mad as hell. Most of the democrats vote with their leaders -- who are in harmony with the president.

I am an Independent.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

At lunch the other day I overheard some old geezers complaining about the ACA and getting around to worry about the cost of such a program. After bantering back and forth for a while, one fellow added that that would be money wasted lazy blanketyblanks and other ethnic minorities and illegal aliens. General agreement and some off-colored racial joking closed out the conversation. I live in a former cow town, turned oil town, and settled by families coming in from the southcentral part of the country. Lots of Okies and proud folks, and good family people. Just not very happy with multiculturalism and socialism.

The hills around here and up valley are growing more liberal and diverse as more people move into the region.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

I understand, Brass_tacks... I just don't see the President's role or who he is quite as you might.

We knew even before he was elected that he wasn't liberal, as one might think when the word Democrat comes into play... he's always been slightly right of center... but in order to even get nominated, one has to choose either D or R to run under, or they can't possibly hope to attain the actual votes they need to win. So, in this respect, Democrat is just a label... it's not really who he is, though he's a lot more moderate than anyone who stands under the big R. That's become a rather odd group of religionists, misogynists, power hungry idiots, and clowns, along with a contingent of silent moderates.

Just by the age and frustration that has appeared on his face since he first took office, it's apparent that what goes on behind the curtain is not always what we're told, or what we might assume.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I see a man who has been forced to play a game he had not exactly intended on playing. The majority of power does not lie in his hands, anyway, our government being what it is with its checks and balances, but it's even more lopsided because of idealism, personal agendas of those who manipulate the puppet strings... and basically, it all boils down to money.

Within the citizenry, however, there are without doubt pockets of what is very obviously racial bigotry at having a black man standing at what they view as the sacred helm of the nation... and that simply can't stand, in their minds and by their beliefs.

I believe it was Rosie who used the term "halcyon days" in another thread... but that is what a portion of people in this country are/were hoping to see... a return to days past, an America of yesteryear, inequality and all ... which isn't gonna happen.

I hear the same things Marshallz hears... people not excited at the ideas of multiculturalism or socialism

We're part of a global community that is changing rapidly, and if we, the people, don't wake up and grab the reigns and put on the brakes, we're all gonna be in a lot more trouble than some think.

It is my opinion that Obama is a little bit more for the people than some might think, but his hands are tied by a power structure he didn't create, but has to navigate... all while dealing with the fact that he's the very first black President this nation has ever seen, and knowing that a lot of people don't like him or are suspicious of him because of this.

Just the over-the-top lack of logic and common sense since his election tells me that something is very off... and a part of it has very little to do with his "policies".


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Good post, jodi. Clinton tried to be his own man and was forced to back down when the Reps took control of the House under Gingrich.


 o
RE: Red Herrings- It isn't new and it isn't racist

Thank you, Marshallz... that means a lot coming from you. :-)


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here