financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Dp.
It's all about policy, not race.
The British newspaper journalist who wrote in 2004 "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"... what a racist.
The Guardian withdrew the article from its website and published and endorsed an apology by Brooker.[5] He has since commented about the remark in the column stating:
Look at all these racists...
Um... I'm waiting for the part where it's about race.
The British newspaper journalist who wrote in 2004 "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"... what a racist.
And the movie "Death of a President"... what a bunch of racists that produced it and went to go see it.
Why can't crazy people just be crazy people, BVS?
Look at all these racists... By the way, BVS, notice the typoed "there" in the first sign. I know you'll appreciate that.
The difference is, I distance myself from these people. You and the "mainstream" hardcore right have not...
The difference is, I distance myself from these people. You and the "mainstream" hardcore right have not...
Are these slogans legal under the US Constitution?
Bush authorised stuff that wasn't legal under the US Constitution. A point that seems to have escaped your attention.
Well, when that's your voter base....
What there is no need to distance myself from are the overwhelming majority of honest protesters who so many here and in the media want to avoid by simply dismissing as racists when they are not.
I do distance myself from racists when I come to the conclusion that they are such. What there is no need to distance myself from are the overwhelming majority of honest protesters who so many here and in the media want to avoid by simply dismissing as racists when they are not.
i don't see a shred of the same when i browse through the comments section on Michelle Malkin, or when i hear Glenn Beck call Obama a racist (or when he mentions "white culture," for example).
Really? You're really pointing to a comments section of a political website to make a point? Do you ever read the comments on Daily Kos or Huffington Post or others? Lots of policy debate and rationale coming from there.
Regarding the Beck thing, that was a dumb statement and he shouldn't have said, and as far as I know, he said it once. Do you even watch his show? It is nothing but attacking Obama based on policies.
Fantastic column on race I read the other day.
S. E. Cupp : Generational Racism is Old and Tired - Townhall.com
Generational racism is old and tired
by S.E. Cupp
Jimmy Carter is 85 years old. Dave Letterman is 62, Nancy Pelosi is 69, Maureen Dowd is 57, and Al Sharpton is 54.
These are the people – and theirs is the generation – who are teaching America’s youth how to be racist in 2009. They are very good instructors.
Whether it’s Carter’s insistence that “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition to Obama is racist, or it’s Dowd declaring “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president,” or it’s Pelosi’s feigned crocodile tears over the “language being used,” or it’s Letterman baiting the president into a race discussion, each one of them is telling my generation and the ones that follow that race is merely a political weapon of expedience, to be used haphazardly and crudely simply to get what you want. As long as there is a convenient victim to prop up, some kind of imagined target of the hood-donning right, it doesn’t matter if the racism is real or perceived. It just matters that it’s effective.
And it used to be. Race was always a hot-button topic in this country, and it still is. But the sharpness of that threat has been dulled a bit. Thanks to the inarguable success of the civil rights movement, my generation, the 20- and 30-somethings, didn’t grow up encumbered by the aggressive identity politics of the 60s and 70s, or the kind of rhetoric that made white people scared to talk about race, and men scared to talk about gender.
So my generation isn’t so easily intimidated by discussions of race, because we were raised in a climate that was much less hostile toward them. And that should be a good thing, the unmitigated result of equality and justice, the mark of progress. We talk about race in blunt and unthreatening terms when race is an issue. And when it isn’t an issue, well, we don’t pretend it is.
Not so with the aging liberal cognoscenti, which, as of late, would be better labeled the “ignoscenti” for some of the baffling oddities they’ve uttered. For them, race is simply everywhere. It is hanging from the trees and falling from the sky. It’s in the air, in the water, it is both viscous and fluid, and permeates every willing orifice of every fertile sponge. The Sharptons and Dowds and Carters and Lettermans have decided that they’re not quite ready to live in the post-race America they effervesced about so dreamily and giddily during the presidential campaign. And why not? Because, as it turns out, living in a “racist America” is much more useful to them.
Instead of discussing Obama’s plans for health care reform, immigration, foreign policy or the economy on their merits (or demerits, as it were), graying liberal finger-pointers have discovered it’s so much easier to simply play the race card. So any opposition to the president’s initiatives – which are frightening enough without projecting an imagined veil of racism onto them – quickly elicits throaty screams of “racism!” with the hope that all their enemies will scurry back into their caves, shamed into hiding by the tenured, holier-than-thou professors of race politics who are still clinging to their 1965 textbooks.
And some of them do scurry back into their caves, chastised and ridiculed. But I'd bet every time they weren't from my generation. We don’t take the scurrilous accusations levied at a Joe Wilson, or a tea partier or a town hall seriously – because they’re not. They are quite simply preposterous. And so, as we are wont to do, we point and laugh instead, throwing our heads back in bemusement at the old establishment fogies who’ve yet to enter the 21st century.
Race-baiting is so five minutes ago, we tell them – but it falls on deaf (or at least hearing-impaired) ears. No matter, they’re hoping that the old-school racializing of everything and anything (did Joe Wilson say “boy,” like Maureen Dowd said?! Gasp!) will come back into fashion. It won’t. Because my generation is the first that isn’t willing to go gentle into that good night, intimidated and threatened by Al Sharpton’s erratic dry-heaving or Maureen Dowd’s shrill lectures, or Jimmy Carter’s see-through sanctimony. I know they really, really want us to take them and their lunatic accusations of racism seriously, but we're rebelling instead. Better get used to it. It's all just part of the aging process.
The unfortunate thing is that racism is real. Racism does still exist here in America. I've seen it with my own eyes. And every time Nancy Pelosi or David Paterson or David Letterman pretends it lives somewhere it doesn’t, it makes it all the more difficult to find out where it actually does. So thanks, baby boomer liberals, for coming so far and trying to bring us with you. I think we’ll get off this train though. No one my age wants to go where you’re going: Back in time.
Regarding the Beck thing, that was a dumb statement and he shouldn't have said, and as far as I know, he said it once. Do you even watch his show? It is nothing but attacking Obama based on policies.
Fantastic column on race I read the other day.
When will one of you be brave enough to honestly discuss race?
Well, I can tell any real discussion is going to be difficult since you insist on not listening to me and keep distoring my view.I struggle to see the point in having a discussion with someone who is going to assume that objection to Obama is more likely than not subconsciously rooted in xenophobia, and someone who holds a "kill Obama" sign is a racist conservative while someone who holds a "kill Bush" sign is just an extremist nut and should not be taken seriously and, most likely, is probably just a plant by the right.
So come on. Let's discuss. What do you want?
Let's discuss why is it when Obama was running not even the canidate did we hear from you, Rush, and others that Obama will only win because "he's a good looking black man"? You were absolutely the first people to play any race card. Why? Yet you accused everyone else of playing it.
First of all stop equating 'objection' to 'protestors' I think Carter, Irvine, myself and most others KNOW the difference between the educated conservative that can argue based solely on policy from those at a rally. In fact if we would just eliminate the tea parties from the equation this would more than likely not even be a topic of discussion.
Let's discuss why is it when Obama was running not even the canidate did we hear from you, Rush, and others that Obama will only win because "he's a good looking black man"? You were absolutely the first people to play any race card. Why? Yet you accused everyone else of playing it.
i also don't see how anyone "plays the race card." race is a fact of life, and simply acknowledging that race exists and does play a role in people's lives seems to me to be reality.
Why if it's about spending and czars is "communism", "birth certificate", "Africa" showing up all over the place?
Why are ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS being caught sending racist emails out about Obama?
Why is the "christian right" not standing up and condemning Rush's racism?
Don't even answer the issue about why Bush's spending or Reagan's czars were never an issue, we know that answer.
Keep in mind I've been to the Apr 15 and to the latest tea party, they are a bunch of angry people who can't explain what they are angry about, and yes the majority of them have race issues. They celebrate ignorance.What is your problem with the protesters? I think I've yet to understand it. Do you think they're all motivated by race and are just a bunch of ignorant rednecks?
But you don't believe what Irvine said there, for you accuse people all the timeLet me have Irvine answer that.
What's wrong with it, is that YOU were the one that made the assumption that he would win only because he was black. That was you! How do you not get this? YOU were the very first person in FYM to bring up race.The only such talk that I remember was the assumption that Obama would get a significant number of votes just because he's black or just because he's young and cool or just because he supposedly can give a good speech, or any other asinine reason. What is wrong with objecting to that? What is wrong with not being comfortable with the idea of people voting for him just because he's black?
WILL YOU PLEASE START LISTENING TO ME!!! Otherwise this is just useless. I have stated that I am talking about the tea parties and not the Republican party in general.I would probably debate your definition of "all over the place." Is talk about Africa really that widespread, or does the media just find its occurrences and run with them? Look at the leaders of the Republican party. Do you see Huckabee talking about Africa? No. Do you see Romney talking about Africa? No. Palin? Gingrich? Crist? Pawlenty? No. And I've heard on multiple occasions these very people denouncing the birthers. But why focus on that when we can make Orly Taitz the head of the GOP? I understand, it is difficult...
It saddens me that you think comissioning and playing a song like "Barack the Magic Negro" isn't racist, your party has a long way to go.Perhaps because Rush isn't a racist.
It's not difficult the party as a whole are hypocrites on this one. You didn't speak out on Bush's spending. And no one said anything about Reagan's czars.What?
2861, why even get drawn into this 'debate' ?
I thought journalist Roger Simon...of all people...had a good thought on MSNBC last week.
Simon said that some Obama people believe that if the race issue "is worth stating, then it's worth overstating."
That's what is going on here.