If you're talking to me, I was just making a comment on the overall theme of downtrodden and much-maligned Republicans as a whole. No matter what the topic, it seems like the recurrant cry is "If he'd been a Republican...." Both parties have mostly idiots. If we throw them all out, who's going to rule the rest of us dunces?

 

Me! :dancingpa

If you can't see anything offensive in that or it actually needs to be explained to you, well then there is no point arguing with you. You usually make well thought out posts, not so in this case. I see you'd rather wiggle out of the fact that you yourself said it was "out of touch" which would, at the very least, show that it was offensive. You choose to blow off the fact that he felt the need to apologize for the comment which again, at the very least, shows that it was offensive. Instead you choose to just take a shot at me, which tells me deep down, you know you're wrong.

 

I don't need anything explained to me, I just don't believe you know what you're talking about. You're continued inability to explain it is growing support of that fact.

 

I'm not wiggling at all, yet you can't answer a simple question that would substantiate your claims, which should be a must on a forum like this. As far as being out of touch, he is. Out of touch doesn't mean offensive or racist. As far as apologizing, he's a bad politician getting pummeled in the polls, that doesn't explain anything. He would have to apologize for anything with the slightest bit of controversy. Where's your explanation?

I don't need anything explained to me, I just don't believe you know what you're talking about. You're continued inability to explain it is growing support of that fact.

 

I'm not wiggling at all, yet you can't answer a simple question that would substantiate your claims, which should be a must on a forum like this. As far as being out of touch, he is. Out of touch doesn't mean offensive or racist. As far as apologizing, he's a bad politician getting pummeled in the polls, that doesn't explain anything. He would have to apologize for anything with the slightest bit of controversy. Where's your explanation?

 

Which is another reason why I am surprised the D's are really wanting to keep him around. It is the perfect opportunity for them to cut bait. Why do you think that is the case? By getting rid of him now, they probably stand a better chance of holding his seat in 2010.

If you're talking to me, I was just making a comment on the overall theme of downtrodden and much-maligned Republicans as a whole. No matter what the topic, it seems like the recurrant cry is "If he'd been a Republican...." Both parties have mostly idiots. If we throw them all out, who's going to rule the rest of us dunces?

 

Sorry did not quote the response. It was not your post I was responding to.

I don't need anything explained to me, I just don't believe you know what you're talking about. You're continued inability to explain it is growing support of that fact.

 

I'm not wiggling at all, yet you can't answer a simple question that would substantiate your claims, which should be a must on a forum like this. As far as being out of touch, he is. Out of touch doesn't mean offensive or racist. As far as apologizing, he's a bad politician getting pummeled in the polls, that doesn't explain anything. He would have to apologize for anything with the slightest bit of controversy. Where's your explanation?

Nice try , but wrong again. OK, I'll play your game, although it should be quite obvious what's wrong with his comment.

 

Let's look at the the main part of the comment in question. a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"

 

So, A dark skinned African American can't win, he has to have some white in him to be worthy of winning the presidency? That's what he's saying in a nut shell. For starters, white America should be extremely offended for having been portrayed as superficial and backward. Secondly, the comment views black Americans as second class or second rate. It basically says their only real hope for success depends on how well they can approximate whiteness.

 

Turn a blind eye, if you wish, but it's clear what's being said. Or at least it should be.

Nice try , but wrong again. OK, I'll play your game, although it should be quite obvious what's wrong with his comment.

 

Let's look at the the main part of the comment in question. a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"

 

Finally, an answer.

 

So, A dark skinned African American can't win, he has to have some white in him to be worthy of winning the presidency? That's what he's saying in a nut shell.

 

He's not at all saying someone must have white in them "to be worthy." Not even close.

 

For starters, white America should be extremely offended for having been portrayed as superficial and backward.

 

White America can be offended all they want, but there is truth in what Reid said. Are you disputing this? Race and skin tone don't matter in this country? Is this what offends you?

 

Secondly, the comment views black Americans as second class or second rate. It basically says their only real hope for success depends on how well they can approximate whiteness.

 

It doesn't relegate them to second-class status, it's merely aware of their plight in this country. Again, do you dispute this? I would say this is doubly true of a black politician, especially a national one.

 

Turn a blind eye, if you wish, but it's clear what's being said. Or at least it should be.

 

Turn a blind eye to what? There is nothing offensive toward black people in Reid's comment, as much as you wish there to be. The only segment of society that could take offense to it would be the American electorate. And if they do take offense to it they aren't being honest.

 

As I suspected, you are way off base and out of touch here. I think you would have been better off continuing to dodge the question. Do you believe race doesn't matter in this country? My goodness. But keep spinning this and perpetuating the partisan hypocrisy you keep complaining about. However, you might be the last person left hanging on trying to equate any mention of race with racism.

Haven't been to P&R in awhile. Just dipping my feet into the shallow end today.

 

I can’t stand Harry Reid. I wish he would simply slink away and never be heard from again. I am looking forward to his crushing defeat next election.

That being said, I don’t think his remarks were “racist.” They were stupid, superficial, stereotypical, and better off left unsaid - but not racist. Racism implies the ultimate level of prejudicial hate. If you have to deeply analyze someone’s comment to glean something racist from it, it probably wasn’t a racist remark.

 

It is rather clear that what Reid was essentially saying was that, with respect to electability, lighter skin is better and whiter-sounding is better. And while that’s probably a sentiment he should have kept to himself, let’s face it – he’s probably right. He is saying that a dark-skinned African American who speaks in a way that some would consider more stereotypical would not be electable. Can you really argue with that? Can you really argue that someone who looks and sound more like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would be a much harder sell to the American people?

 

That being said, while I don’t think Mr. Reid’s remarks are racist nor do I think he is a racist, neither do I think that Lott’s off-the-cuff comment about Thurmond was racist. I read somewhere that a better comparison to Reid’s remark was something Biden said during the 2007 primaries - that Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." But then again, it’s Joe Biden. We expect stupid remarks from him. :sssh:

Nice try , but wrong again. OK, I'll play your game, although it should be quite obvious what's wrong with his comment.

 

Let's look at the the main part of the comment in question. a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"

 

So, A dark skinned African American can't win, he has to have some white in him to be worthy of winning the presidency? That's what he's saying in a nut shell. For starters, white America should be extremely offended for having been portrayed as superficial and backward. Secondly, the comment views black Americans as second class or second rate. It basically says their only real hope for success depends on how well they can approximate whiteness.

 

Turn a blind eye, if you wish, but it's clear what's being said. Or at least it should be.

You are saying that your last statement is what should be said about the electability of black candidates .:confused:

Finally, an answer.

As I said, there really shouldn't have been the need for one.

 

 

 

He's not at all saying someone must have white in them "to be worthy." Not even close.

Oh, but he is.

 

 

 

White America can be offended all they want, but there is truth in what Reid said. Are you disputing this? Race and skin tone don't matter in this country? Is this what offends you?

Am I disputing that there are white racists? No. How you read that out of my post is beyond me.

 

 

 

It doesn't relegate them to second-class status, it's merely aware of their plight in this country. Again, do you dispute this? I would say this is doubly true of a black politician, especially a national one.

This is getting laughable. So, according to Reid, and apparently you, there is a dialect that is peculiarly undesirable and that it is not tied to region or education, but to ethnicity. And not just any ethnicity, but the African-American race particularly?

If the comment wasn't offensive, why did Obama, Sharpton & the NAACP accept his apology? :idunno: Why would one accept an apology if one felt no need for an apology? :idunno:

 

 

 

Turn a blind eye to what? There is nothing offensive toward black people in Reid's comment, as much as you wish there to be. The only segment of society that could take offense to it would be the American electorate. And if they do take offense to it they aren't being honest.

And that's the bottom line, cause Habib said so. Since when do you speak for black and white America? :notworthy: I know it's a shock for you to think you might possibly be wrong, but you are.

 

Michael Steele, an African-American, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," found it "interesting" that "when Democrats get caught saying racist things, you know, an apology is enough":

 

If that had been [senate Republican leader] Mitch McConnell saying that about an African-American candidate for President of the United States, trust me, this chairman and the DNC would be screaming for his head very much like they were with Trent Lott.

 

I know, Steele wont matter in your opinion, since he's a mean old republican and all...

 

As I suspected, you are way off base and out of touch here. I think you would have been better off continuing to dodge the question. Do you believe race doesn't matter in this country? My goodness. But keep spinning this and perpetuating the partisan hypocrisy you keep complaining about. However, you might be the last person left hanging on trying to equate any mention of race with racism.

And as I suspected you'd find a way to twist it to try to make it look like you're the only one that has a grasp on things. :lol: You're not as seasoned as you're attempting to come off, but as you get older you'll realize what I mean.

I think the only one off base is you. Also, it's not Reid or me that's out of touch. It's you. It's a bit arrogant thinking I was dodging you and quite laughable, btw. :lol:

 

I can only imagine how differently you'd be spinning this if it was Sarah Palin or Rush that said it.

Nice try , but wrong again. OK, I'll play your game, although it should be quite obvious what's wrong with his comment.

 

Let's look at the the main part of the comment in question. a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"

 

So, A dark skinned African American can't win, he has to have some white in him to be worthy of winning the presidency? That's what he's saying in a nut shell. For starters, white America should be extremely offended for having been portrayed as superficial and backward. Secondly, the comment views black Americans as second class or second rate. It basically says their only real hope for success depends on how well they can approximate whiteness.

 

Turn a blind eye, if you wish, but it's clear what's being said. Or at least it should be.

After thinking about it long and hard I believe he meant that whites would not vote for a dark skinned black person. The fact that he is half white did not matter, if he would have been 100% black but still lighter skinned the statement would still apply.

You are saying that your last statement is what should be said about the electability of black candidates .:confused:

I said what I believe Reid was saying.

As I said, there really shouldn't have been the need for one.

 

You're explanation doesn't make sense. Of course there is a need for elaboration.

 

Oh, but he is.

 

Not even close. What are you reading? I mean, he's praising Obama's electability.

 

Am I disputing that there are white racists? No. How you read that out of my post is beyond me.

 

This has nothing to do with an isolated group of racists, which I'm not talking about. It has to do with societal and institutional factors that affect race. Even good-hearted, upstanding persons subconsciously consider race. As an anecdote, a recent study showed that resumes sent to firms with black sounding names were 50% less likely to receive a call back than identical resumes with white sounding names. And it's a fairly intuitive result and doesn't mean these companies have racist HR departments either. The fact that you can't grasp that, or blatantly deny it, explains a lot.

 

This is getting laughable. So, according to Reid, and apparently you, there is a dialect that is peculiarly undesirable and that it is not tied to region or education, but to ethnicity. And not just any ethnicity, but the African-American race particularly?

 

Is this a serious question? Do you really not know this? Have you ever heard of code-switching? I'm baffled.

 

If the comment wasn't offensive, why did Obama, Sharpton & the NAACP accept his apology? :idunno: Why would one accept an apology if one felt no need for an apology? :idunno:

 

Probably because they are politicians trying to help one of their ilk sweep one under the rug.

 

And that's the bottom line, cause Habib said so. Since when do you speak for black and white America? :notworthy: I know it's a shock for you to think you might possibly be wrong, but you are.

 

If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong. Your arguments in this thread, when you've chosen to make one instead of hurling rhetoric, have been anything but persuasive. I really think you're the only person not on a Republican payroll who believes it. And I don't think they even believe it.

 

Michael Steele, an African-American, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," found it "interesting" that "when Democrats get caught saying racist things, you know, an apology is enough":

 

If that had been [senate Republican leader] Mitch McConnell saying that about an African-American candidate for President of the United States, trust me, this chairman and the DNC would be screaming for his head very much like they were with Trent Lott.

 

I know, Steele wont matter in your opinion, since he's a mean old republican and all...

 

Why would any person's opinion matter to me? There is no argument there. No facts. Just partisanship.

 

And as I suspected you'd find a way to twist it to try to make it look like you're the only one that has a grasp on things. :lol: You're not as seasoned as you're attempting to come off, but as you get older you'll realize what I mean.

I think the only one off base is you. Also, it's not Reid or me that's out of touch. It's you. It's a bit arrogant thinking I was dodging you and quite laughable, btw. :lol:

 

I don't claim to be the "only" person to think anything. I'm certainly in good company on this one. I challenge you to find anything I've said I haven't supported with a logical argument. You aren't even trying to prove me wrong you're just insulting me. It's a joke.

 

I can only imagine how differently you'd be spinning this if it was Sarah Palin or Rush that said it.

 

I don't like them but I'm not an idiot. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum who would say I'm unfair or partisan.

After thinking about it long and hard I believe he meant that whites would not vote for a dark skinned black person. The fact that he is half white did not matter, if he would have been 100% black but still lighter skinned the statement would still apply.

As a white guy, I find that offensive. I couldn't care less about how dark or light skinned a man or woman is, I care what they stand for.

You're explanation doesn't make sense. Of course there is a need for elaboration.

 

 

 

Not even close. What are you reading? I mean, he's praising Obama's electability.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with an isolated group of racists, which I'm not talking about. It has to do with societal and institutional factors that affect race. Even good-hearted, upstanding persons subconsciously consider race. As an anecdote, a recent study showed that resumes sent to firms with black sounding names were 50% less likely to receive a call back than identical resumes with white sounding names. And it's a fairly intuitive result and doesn't mean these companies have racist HR departments either. The fact that you can't grasp that, or blatantly deny it, explains a lot.

 

 

 

Is this a serious question? Do you really not know this? Have you ever heard of code-switching? I'm baffled.

 

 

 

Probably because they are politicians trying to help one of their ilk sweep one under the rug.

 

 

 

If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong. Your arguments in this thread, when you've chosen to make one instead of hurling rhetoric, have been anything but persuasive. I really think you're the only person not on a Republican payroll who believes it. And I don't think they even believe it.

 

 

 

Why would any person's opinion matter to me? There is no argument there. No facts. Just partisanship.

 

 

 

I don't claim to be the "only" person to think anything. I'm certainly in good company on this one. I challenge you to find anything I've said I haven't supported with a logical argument. You aren't even trying to prove me wrong you're just insulting me. It's a joke.

 

 

 

I don't like them but I'm not an idiot. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum who would say I'm unfair or partisan.

Habib, since I'm at work I will have to respond to this when I get home. I will say though, that I gave you good reasons as to why it was offensive, you were the one that was doing the insulting, which I in turn thought was a joke. I'd rather discuss this without the insults, but you were the one that went there my friend and continue to do so. That's part of youth and frustration on your part, I suppose.

 

I'll take this up with you later, if thats acceptable.

Habib, since I'm at work I will have to respond to this when I get home. I will say though, that I gave you good reasons as to why it was offensive, you were the one that was doing the insulting, which I in turn thought was a joke. I'd rather discuss this without the insults, but you were the one that went there my friend and continue to do so. That's part of youth and frustration on your part, I suppose.

 

I'll take this up with you later, if thats acceptable.

 

I think you've been fairly condescending since the beginning of this. But that is neither here nor there. It's not my nature to by surly but I've never felt like I was in an honest debate here. I apologize to any other posters turned off by my browbeating here. But, I've said about all there is to say on this subject. I don't think it could be more straightforward.

 

And you have no idea how old I am. How is that relevant anyhow?