First, your assumption is wrong. The statement was not racist. It may have been poorly stated but it was also accurate. Second, equating Red's statement with Lott's is rediculous. Reid offered abit of analysis in support of Senator Obama. Lott said the country would have been better off if the segrationist candidate running on a segregationist ticket had won. Reid's comments were offered in private and while offered in a way that many would find insensitive and even offensive were accurate and supportive. Lott's comments were in public, so wrong as to be foolish and expressed a longing for the good old days of segregation. The hypocracy in this situation is from thos e who complain about political correctness and then try to hang someone in a situation where it isn't called for.

 

Not sure what difference this would make. A racist comment is a racist comment whether made in private or public (not that I feel either Reid's or Lott's comment was racist).

Surely you know by now that football commentators are held to a higher standard than United States Senators.

Obviously...

Not sure what difference this would make. A racist comment is a racist comment whether made in private or public (not that I feel either Reid's or Lott's comment was racist).

 

The public versus private is important only to the extent that most people speak less carefully and more informally in private. It makes no difference as to whether the comment is racist. As far as Lott's comments, what part of longing for a victory by segregationists isn't racist?

I understand what you're saying and it's a valid point, though I don't honestly recall many people claiming the "You lie" remark to be racist, just inappropriate and rude (it was considering the setting in which it was made). I do think it was very unfortunate the way Lott got skewered for his remark - also not well articulated, but I don't think intended to be racist.

 

But I think there IS, in fact, a fair number of people indeed saying that Reid's remark was racist. Not across the board certainly, but that's a good thing because there are people (such as myself) who don't feel it was. Like I've said, I think it was stupid, stereotypical, and better left unsaid, but just not racist.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the comparison to the Limbaugh remark since it really wasn't made in a political environment, but a sports talk show forum. No, I don't think his comment was racist, but I think it was also inaccurate and unnecessarily over-the-top and intentionally controversial (McNabb had has been to three straight Pro Bowls, two consecutive NFC championship games, and NFL MVP runner-up to that point).

Here's an example.

 

Also, don't forget Jimmy Carter labled Joe Wilson a racist for that comment.

First, your assumption is wrong. The statement was not racist. It may have been poorly stated but it was also accurate. Second, equating Red's statement with Lott's is rediculous. Reid offered abit of analysis in support of Senator Obama. Lott said the country would have been better off if the segrationist candidate running on a segregationist ticket had won. Reid's comments were offered in private and while offered in a way that many would find insensitive and even offensive were accurate and supportive. Lott's comments were in public, so wrong as to be foolish and expressed a longing for the good old days of segregation. The hypocracy in this situation is from thos e who complain about political correctness and then try to hang someone in a situation where it isn't called for.

You don't get it. It is hypocracy when you call a guy a racist for yelling you lie and then give a pass to a guy whose commets were worse. That's OK though, I wouldn't expect anything less.

So was all the stuff said about Sarah Palin offensive to everyone? Whats the difference? Get over the emotions on your sleeve stuff and move forward. Why is it not offensive to degrade white folks but nothing close to what is said about white folks can even be thought of as acceptable for other peoples of color.

 

It is just our society and it continues to spiral down!

Here's an example.

 

Also, don't forget Jimmy Carter labled Joe Wilson a racist for that comment.

 

OK, fair enough, but in general, I don't think there was a huge outcry about the "You lie!" utterance being racist, only that it was highly inappropriate for the setting in which it occurred.

 

And yes, I totally agree with you that, in general, similar (or exact, for that matter) offensive/inappropriate/racist remarks made by the a member of the "left" and one from the "right" would result in different levels of attention and outrage.

The public versus private is important only to the extent that most people speak less carefully and more informally in private. It makes no difference as to whether the comment is racist. As far as Lott's comments, what part of longing for a victory by segregationists isn't racist?

 

He didn't "long for a victory for segragationists." That is absolutely an exaggeration. His remark occurred during a light-hearted birthday event. It was an off-the-cuff comment said without realizing his poor word choice. We all unintentionally say stupid and unfortunate things at times. Or at least I'll admit to falling into that group.

 

He apologized for it and acknowledged his words were unacceptable and insensitive, and also made it abundantly clear that he did not agree with Thurmond’s views 50 years earlier on segregation, that they were neither justified or right, and even called them "wrong, immoral, and repugnant". What more would you ask of the guy? He apologizes for a seemingly racial remark on the surface, but it’s not accepted. Reid apologizes for a seemingly racial remark on the surface and it’s accepted whole-heartedly. It IS indeed a double-standard.

You don't get it. It is hypocracy when you call a guy a racist for yelling you lie and then give a pass to a guy whose commets were worse. That's OK though, I wouldn't expect anything less.

 

And if you will find the part where I called Wilson a racist you might have a point. Wilson's comments were rude, uncalled for, wrong and a lot of other things, but I wouldn't call the comment racist. His comment was also far worse than what Reid said. What Reid said was the poorly stated truth.

And if you will find the part where I called Wilson a racist you might have a point. Wilson's comments were rude, uncalled for, wrong and a lot of other things, but I wouldn't call the comment racist. His comment was also far worse than what Reid said. What Reid said was the poorly stated truth.

First off, I never said you did call Wilson a racist. My point was that it's a double standard and that's a fact.

 

Far worse in you mind, maybe....

 

There are people, both black and white, that found Reid's comment offensive so your last point is incorrect.

He didn't "long for a victory for segragationists." That is absolutely an exaggeration. His remark occurred during a light-hearted birthday event. It was an off-the-cuff comment said without realizing his poor word choice. We all unintentionally say stupid and unfortunate things at times. Or at least I'll admit to falling into that group.

 

He apologized for it and acknowledged his words were unacceptable and insensitive, and also made it abundantly clear that he did not agree with Thurmond’s views 50 years earlier on segregation, that they were neither justified or right, and even called them "wrong, immoral, and repugnant". What more would you ask of the guy? He apologizes for a seemingly racial remark on the surface, but it’s not accepted. Reid apologizes for a seemingly racial remark on the surface and it’s accepted whole-heartedly. It IS indeed a double-standard.

:thumb: And THAT, my friends, is exactly what I've been trying to tell you. It's simple hypocrisy from the left.

Point was, his comment should have sufficed.

 

Not at all, especially in the context of a debate. I still haven't seen anyone successfully argue it was offensive.

 

Uh huh, and demeaning both whites and blacks in the process.

 

It was in no way demeaning. He was literally making a very basic observation. A particularly accurate observation, I might add.

 

You can't seem to grasp that not giving a call back because their name sounds black IS racist, perhaps they're not the nice good hearted people you're thinking they are. I honestly don't see any other way to view it, I'm rather surprised that you do.

 

It isn't intentional. It isn't conscious. Every person makes subconscious evaluations of other persons and race is a part of it. Race is part of our identity and with our identities come preconceptions. It's how the mind works. It's how society works. Which is why it is important to recognize these things. You can test it yourself: implicit.harvard.edu

 

The problem here is that you only believe race is a factor when someone is wearing a hood or when minority groups raise it as an issue. You believe society is colorblind, that you're either a Klansman or not, that race doesn't exist. I think that is fundamentally at odds with reality.

 

Quite familiar with it, we all remember Hillary while in the South, no? So again, with Reid that's only done by the African-American race? I've never heard him speak such things about Southerners that switch back and forth on their dialect.... You?

 

He didn't say it was only done by one race. I do it. It's a desirable ability. It's why Reid's comment was complimentary of Obama, he was saying Obama is good at it. And he is. Listen to him address the NAACP, for instance, as opposed to how he spoke at the debate.

 

But, if there was nothing wrong in his comments, what's there to sweep under the rug? I don't know about you but if someone apologizes to me and I see no reason to apologize, I don't accept it, I tell them there's nothing to apologize for.

 

I don't know. They are politicians. They want it out of the news as quickly as possible.

 

:lol: Funny how a different opinion than yours is rhetoric, not persuasive and partisan. That's being quite full of ones self.

 

It's not the difference in opinion I'm labeling rhetoric. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm certainly wrong a lot and I like to be challenged. But it took me until the second page of this thread to get you to make an argument.

 

His remarks reinforce the notion that only those black Americans who look and talk like stodgy white males are acceptable for positions of power. It’s subtle, but it runs deep.

 

You disagree with this? You think if Obama talked like Jay-Z he would have been competitive this election? Whereas someone like John Edwards or George Bush can lay the southern drawl on thick. What is more, I think one of the things that made Bush endearing was his ability to speak like he was in the crowd at a NASCAR race. Could Obama speak like he was at the Source Awards and be electable?

 

 

As far as the double standard stuff goes, both sides do it. Republicans are embroiled about this but the first in line to say Trent Lott's being proud of being from one of the states that voted for Thurmond in '48 was perfectly innocent, which is why I'm a fan of neither party and I don't betray myself trying to defend one or the other. I call it as I see it.

As far as the double standard stuff goes, both sides do it. Republicans are embroiled about this but the first in line to say Trent Lott's being proud of being from one of the states that voted for Thurmond in '48 was perfectly innocent, which is why I'm a fan of neither party and I don't betray myself trying to defend one or the other. I call it as I see it.

 

Well, at least as it applies to me personally, I certainly never implied Lott's remark was "perfectly innocent." It most definitely was not. It was stupid. It was thoughtless. It was horribly worded. And it is certainly understandable that people found it offensive. But I don't feel that he is a racist and don't feel he intended the remark to be a reflection of his true values. Big difference from saying he was "perfectly innocent."

Not at all, especially in the context of a debate. I still haven't seen anyone successfully argue it was offensive.

 

 

 

It was in no way demeaning. He was literally making a very basic observation. A particularly accurate observation, I might add.

 

 

 

It isn't intentional. It isn't conscious. Every person makes subconscious evaluations of other persons and race is a part of it. Race is part of our identity and with our identities come preconceptions. It's how the mind works. It's how society works. Which is why it is important to recognize these things. You can test it yourself: implicit.harvard.edu

 

The problem here is that you only believe race is a factor when someone is wearing a hood or when minority groups raise it as an issue. You believe society is colorblind, that you're either a Klansman or not, that race doesn't exist. I think that is fundamentally at odds with reality.

 

 

 

He didn't say it was only done by one race. I do it. It's a desirable ability. It's why Reid's comment was complimentary of Obama, he was saying Obama is good at it. And he is. Listen to him address the NAACP, for instance, as opposed to how he spoke at the debate.

 

 

 

I don't know. They are politicians. They want it out of the news as quickly as possible.

 

 

 

It's not the difference in opinion I'm labeling rhetoric. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm certainly wrong a lot and I like to be challenged. But it took me until the second page of this thread to get you to make an argument.

 

 

 

You disagree with this? You think if Obama talked like Jay-Z he would have been competitive this election? Whereas someone like John Edwards or George Bush can lay the southern drawl on thick. What is more, I think one of the things that made Bush endearing was his ability to speak like he was in the crowd at a NASCAR race. Could Obama speak like he was at the Source Awards and be electable?

 

 

As far as the double standard stuff goes, both sides do it. Republicans are embroiled about this but the first in line to say Trent Lott's being proud of being from one of the states that voted for Thurmond in '48 was perfectly innocent, which is why I'm a fan of neither party and I don't betray myself trying to defend one or the other. I call it as I see it.

I thought you were finished with this discussion?

 

I'll respond later when I have time to point out where you're wrong.

My comment about this is I and my kids have heard the same thing said about us more from family and our black friends than from anyone else of different ethnic background.

 

No, it doesn't bother me at all. This feeling is more prevalent among African Americans than people realize. You are considered a sell out by some if you try to study hard in school and learn to pronounce words properly.