Another PC story for HHSDad: Davis apologizes for remarks about Obama.

[True blue (and gold)]

Then answer these questions from your perspective:

 

1. Did Davis intend "boy" to be a bigoted term?

 

2. Did Obama intend to say that people in small towns were bitter?

 

3. Did Obama intend to say that bitter people in small towns cling to guns and religion?

 

But, even your questions show bias in how they are worded. When dealing with Davis' statement you question the intent. In Obama's statement you did not - you questioned whether they were said.

 

To look at in a more unbiased wasy, there are really two ways of re-wording them.

 

1. Did Davis intend "boy" to be a derogatory term?

 

2. Did Obama intend "people in small towns are bitter" (not his exact wording) to be derogatory?

 

3. Did Obama intend the "guns/religion' statement to be deogatory?

 

In these cases, I will assume "no" to all of these statements, though I have no "proof". This is my opinion.

 

The second was of stating them deals with how you stated the last two originally.

 

1. Did Davis intend to say "boy" in referring to Obama?

 

2. Did Obama intend to say that people in small towns were bitter?

 

3. Did Obama intend to say that bitter people in small towns cling to guns and religion?

 

In these cases, I assume "yes" to all of those statements, though I have no "proof". This is my opinion.

 

In the end, I am just not sure how this is anymore or less a "PC" issue than Obama's "typical" remark.

[Covercorner]

As an African-American, I have been in a situation where the word "boy" was used in a derrogatory way towards me. For all intents and purposes, he should have just called me the n-word. I could tell his intent by the use.

 

With Davis, I don't belive that his intent waas the same. I read into it that Davis was attacking Obamas youth and inexperience, and not his race.

 

My issue with what Davis said, is more a reflection of what all politicians at these supporter dinner events tend to say. Too many times, these events turn into a perfect time for a politicial to insert foot into mouth. If I'm not mistaken Trent Lott made some comments about the country being better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948, at Thurmonds 100 birthday political event. I'm sure there are other examples.

[H]

I think we're too quick to jump on verbal gaffes/poor choices of words and infer some sinister "inner meaning" or revelation about a candidate's true beliefs that have been carefully concealed. With 24 hour cable news networks, nationally syndicated political personalities, and the speed of the internet, it is all too easy for these stories to propagate. What do they really tell us? That these people are human, and that campaigning and the constant expectations of public speaking is a grueling business with very little margin for error.

 

Consider the following (short) list of verbal gaffes and poorly phrased statements. In each case, the range of potential interpretations changes significantly if worded slightly differently.

 

• Obama's "bitter" comments at a California fundraising event can be interpreted to signify that he is "elitist" and looks down on small town Pennsylvanians.
  
• McCain's recent statements that "Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran" can be interpreted that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the details of the Iraq war.
  
• Davis' unfortunate choice of the word "boy" in his comments about Barack Obama can be interpreted as a derogatory term with racial connotations.
  
• McCain's comment that "The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should." can be interpreted as an admission that he is not qualified to set economic policy.
  

 

Considering the rigors of campaiging and public speaking, I believe these folks deserve a bit more latitude than they are given by the ubiquitous use of the sound bite to define a person's thought process and inner beliefs.

[cch5432]

I think we're too quick to jump on verbal gaffes/poor choices of words and infer some sinister "inner meaning" or revelation about a candidate's true beliefs that have been carefully concealed.

:thumb: I never cared for this stuff much, I don't think that these gaffes are Freudian slips.

 

I already have a lot of reasons not to vote for all of the candidates. The only interesting thing that surprised me is that Obama is slipping up (a little) on his words, because he is pretty much the gold standard of public speaking. It is fairly expected out of McCain and Clinton

[Habib]

But, even your questions show bias in how they are worded. When dealing with Davis' statement you question the intent. In Obama's statement you did not - you questioned whether they were said.

 

To look at in a more unbiased wasy, there are really two ways of re-wording them.

 

1. Did Davis intend "boy" to be a derogatory term?

 

2. Did Obama intend "people in small towns are bitter" (not his exact wording) to be derogatory?

 

3. Did Obama intend the "guns/religion' statement to be deogatory?

 

In these cases, I will assume "no" to all of these statements, though I have no "proof". This is my opinion.

 

The second was of stating them deals with how you stated the last two originally.

 

1. Did Davis intend to say "boy" in referring to Obama?

 

2. Did Obama intend to say that people in small towns were bitter?

 

3. Did Obama intend to say that bitter people in small towns cling to guns and religion?

 

In these cases, I assume "yes" to all of those statements, though I have no "proof". This is my opinion.

 

In the end, I am just not sure how this is anymore or less a "PC" issue than Obama's "typical" remark.

 

:thumb:

[Sting]

I have followed Geoff Davis fairly closely since he started campaigning in late '01 and '02. I have never seen or heard him be anything but professional and respectful. I think if anything using the term boy was probably meant to emphasize youth and inexperience, not race. If anyone has ever heard a gaffe where Davis has said anything racial I've never heard of it.

[shooter]

But, even your questions show bias in how they are worded. When dealing with Davis' statement you question the intent. In Obama's statement you did not - you questioned whether they were said.

 

To look at in a more unbiased wasy, there are really two ways of re-wording them.

 

1. Did Davis intend "boy" to be a derogatory term?

 

2. Did Obama intend "people in small towns are bitter" (not his exact wording) to be derogatory?

 

3. Did Obama intend the "guns/religion' statement to be deogatory?

 

In these cases, I will assume "no" to all of these statements, though I have no "proof". This is my opinion.

 

The second was of stating them deals with how you stated the last two originally.

 

1. Did Davis intend to say "boy" in referring to Obama?

 

2. Did Obama intend to say that people in small towns were bitter?

 

3. Did Obama intend to say that bitter people in small towns cling to guns and religion?

 

In these cases, I assume "yes" to all of those statements, though I have no "proof". This is my opinion.

 

In the end, I am just not sure how this is anymore or less a "PC" issue than Obama's "typical" remark.

The issue isn't whether either Obama or Davis meant to offend. Neither meant to offend. The issue is whether the thoughts they wished to communicate were offensive.

 

Therefore, there is no bias in focusing on the meaning intended in Davis' words and not in Obama words. If Davis intended to refer to Obama in a demeaning way then clearly the word boy is offensive. If he only meant to highlight Obama's inexperience then his meaning is not offensive. Therefore, understanding what message Davis intended to convey is key to understanding if he meant to convey a message that was offensive.

 

There is no such confusion in Obama's message and so what Obama intended to say is not in question. Obama meant to say (I am paraphrasing but feel free to quote Obama exactly if you wish) that people in small towns in Pennsylvania (and other places) are bitter and they cling to religion and guns because of their bitterness. Where is the confusion in his message? Perhaps I am ignorant of some hidden meaning to the words "bitter" or "religion" or "guns", or "Pennsylvannia" but I don't believe that to be the case. Everybody understood his meaning and his meaning was offensive! Characterizing people's faith (or belief in the second amendment) as an emotional response to economic hard times denigrates people's religious and political beliefs and his statement is therefore offensive.

 

Now, you could say that Davis' words were offensive because some people would interpret them as being offensive. I don't doubt that some people were offended by Davis' words. However, that brings us back to my previous post. Davis' remarks are an issue because they could be misunderstood. Obama's remarks are a problem because they were understood!

[True blue (and gold)]

The issue isn't whether either Obama or Davis meant to offend. Neither meant to offend. The issue is whether the thoughts they wished to communicate were offensive.

 

Therefore, there is no bias in focusing on the meaning intended in Davis' words and not in Obama words. If Davis intended to refer to Obama in a demeaning way then clearly the word boy is offensive. If he only meant to highlight Obama's inexperience then his meaning is not offensive. Therefore, understanding what message Davis intended to convey is key to understanding if he meant to convey a message that was offensive.

 

There is no such confusion in Obama's message and so what Obama intended to say is not in question. Obama meant to say (I am paraphrasing but feel free to quote Obama exactly if you wish) that people in small towns in Pennsylvania (and other places) are bitter and they cling to religion and guns because of their bitterness. Where is the confusion in his message? Perhaps I am ignorant of some hidden meaning to the words "bitter" or "religion" or "guns", or "Pennsylvannia" but I don't believe that to be the case. Everybody understood his meaning and his meaning was offensive! Characterizing people's faith (or belief in the second amendment) as an emotional response to economic hard times denigrates people's religious and political beliefs and his statement is therefore offensive.

 

Now, you could say that Davis' words were offensive because some people would interpret them as being offensive. I don't doubt that some people were offended by Davis' words. However, that brings us back to my previous post. Davis' remarks are an issue because they could be misunderstood. Obama's remarks are a problem because they were understood!

 

Not true. I am from a small town, own guns and am religious. I did not take offense at Sen. Obama's statement.

 

There is obvious bias in how you worded your questions and the fact that you feel, acccording to your post that I have highlighted above, that there is only one intrepretation of the statement. It is okay for us to think differently.

[MoreheadEagle]

Not true. I am from a small town, own guns and am religious. I did not take offense at Sen. Obama's statement.

 

There is obvious bias in how you worded your questions and the fact that you feel, acccording to your post that I have highlighted above, that there is only one intrepretation of the statement. It is okay for us to think differently.

 

You're not the only one. Obama's poll numbers in PA haven't changed a lot, he's out-raised Clinton in small town PA, and got the endorsement of a hunting, and gun group.

 

I'm from a small town, I own guns, and I am bitter. He was right in what he said.

As for Davis. I don't think he meant anything derogatory by it and I am happy he apologized.

[shooter]

Not true. I am from a small town, own guns and am religious. I did not take offense at Sen. Obama's statement.

 

There is obvious bias in how you worded your questions and the fact that you feel, acccording to your post that I have highlighted above, that there is only one intrepretation of the statement. It is okay for us to think differently.

 

Are you bitter?

[True blue (and gold)]

Are you bitter?

 

About some things, yes. :jump:

[Run To State]

Davis' comment was not racist.

Barack Hussein Obama's were elitist.

[pigman]

Whenever you use the word boy in reffering to a black man you better expect it to be considered racial whether you meant it to be or not. If he was talking about his age young man or inexperienced would've worked.

[westsider]

Hardly.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Then again, you are one of the guys that seems to be constantly whipped into a frenzy ...

[True blue (and gold)]

Whenever you use the word boy in reffering to a black man you better expect it to be considered racial whether you meant it to be or not. If he was talking about his age young man or inexperienced would've worked.

 

Every time that I have heard the name used to refer to someone of at least voting age it has been used as a racial slur. I hope that this was not the case for Davis and will accept his apology as just a poor choice of words.

 

Again, I find Obama's "bitter" and "typical" comments as being blown out of proportion by those that are seeking to find fault in him.