I thought you were finished with this discussion?

 

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

 

:lol: I've said about everything there is to say, but I just can't lay off the waist high fastballs.

 

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."

 

I think you've been fair about it. Just looking back at the imbroglio that resulted from Lott's comment, especially now that it's being rehashed, there seem to be many in the category that I described.

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.

It is a challenging tug-of-war to be encouraging a kid to study hard, read good books, learn, challenge and improve their mind, spirit and character only to be countered by knuckleheads pulling them the opposite direction... for no good reason other than "sticking together" and "keepin' it real". This attitude has little if anything genuinely to do with a person's skin tone, and is entirely cultural and self-defeating IMO. Oppression is oppression, whether from within or without. This attitude holds people down just as effectively as bigotry and discrimination from outside a community.

 

I don't think Reid is a racist necessarily. He's an agenda driven ideologue shill that has sold his soul for power and prestige... but he's not stupid enough to be openly racist. The big issue here is the double-standard that gives Reid a pass and calls for Trent Lott's head on a platter... just because Reid is working to make acceptable policies and hand outs.

 

The hilarious thing in all this is the fact that two of the guys who should be most offended by Reid's comments... (...Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson... apparently Obama is all the things they aren't in Reid's mind...) ...are all over the airwaves defending Reid.

The big issue here is the double-standard that gives Reid a pass and calls for Trent Lott's head on a platter... just because Reid is working to make acceptable policies and hand outs.

 

The hilarious thing in all this is the fact that two of the guys who should be most offended by Reid's comments... (...Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson... apparently Obama is all the things they aren't in Reid's mind...) ...are all over the airwaves defending Reid.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

The hilarious thing in all this is the fact that two of the guys who should be most offended by Reid's comments... (...Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson... apparently Obama is all the things they aren't in Reid's mind...) ...are all over the airwaves defending Reid.

 

The nice thing is that these two talking heads have essentially become irrelevent these days. Who really pays that much attention to them anymore? A couple of my African-American co-workers tell me that they absolutely hate the fact that these two knuckleheads are seen as the "spokesmen" for the black community and that they don't in the slightest represent their views of beliefs.

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.

I took the test, this was my result:

 

Your Result

Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about me thinking one has to wear a hood or when minority groups raise it as an issue. I understand that there are different levels of racism and I certainly don't think society is colorblind. I know it exists, so I'm not sure of what you're getting at.

 

Reading your words here and knowing that you think Reid's comment couldn't of had any racial overtones baffles me.

 

I'll get into the rest of you post later as the test took up more time than I have right now.

I took the test, this was my result:

 

Your Result

Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about me thinking one has to wear a hood or when minority groups raise it as an issue. I understand that there are different levels of racism and I certainly don't think society is colorblind. I know it exists, so I'm not sure of what you're getting at.

 

Reading your words here and knowing that you think Reid's comment couldn't of had any racial overtones baffles me.

 

I'll get into the rest of you post later as the test took up more time than I have right now.

 

I agree with Reid, Obama's skin tone and ability to code-switch were beneficial to him electorally. I think that is a fair re-statement of Reid's remark. Am I a racist now? Is my opinion racist?

I agree with Reid, Obama's skin tone and ability to code-switch were beneficial to him electorally. I think that is a fair re-statement of Reid's remark. Am I a racist now? Is my opinion racist?

 

Not in my book. But to be fair you would also allow other's "racist" words (i.e., Lott) to be re-stated to be less offensive, correct???

I agree with Reid, Obama's skin tone and ability to code-switch were beneficial to him electorally. I think that is a fair re-statement of Reid's remark. Am I a racist now? Is my opinion racist?

I don't know, how'd you do on the test? :lol:

 

It's not so much what he said, but how he said it and that's why many see it as racist. Sam with Lott, but since he has an 'R' behind his name he was expected to step down, hence the hypocrisy.

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

At that point I wasn't really debating, just giving my opinion. To me, hypocrisy was, and still is, quite obvious.

I haven't seen you or anyone else successfully argue it wasn't offensive either.

 

 

 

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

It was obviously demeaning to some, as I said I found examples of both sides of the argument. Your opinion or mine isn't a decider of this.

 

 

 

 

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.

Yet people, both black and white, were offended by the comment. Not everyone agrees with your assessment.

 

 

 

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

How did that work out for them? :lol:

 

 

 

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.

No, you're mislabeling it rhetoric. Just because one disagrees with you and honestly sees something in a different light than you do it doesn't make it rhetoric. A little food for thought.

 

See my response to quote number one here as to why it took until page two. I was seriously a bit perplexed that you couldn't see the hypocrisy, still am.

Also, I'm not necessarily going to "snap to it" to satisfy your curiosity.

 

 

 

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?

Problem here is, not all blacks talk that way, in fact I'd say more don't than do. If Obama talked that way all the time, he'd turn more than just whites off.

 

Please don't bring NASCAR into this, I loath that crap.

A Southern draw? He's a Texan for God's sake. Of course he had a Southern draw. :lol:

 

 

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.

Did you defend Lott?

Sure, both sides do it, but the Dems are masters at it and they usually get a pass from the media.

:lol: I've said about everything there is to say, but I just can't lay off the waist high fastballs.[/Quote]Lucky for me you're a curve ball hitter. :lol:

You couldn't be more wrong about me thinking one has to wear a hood or when minority groups raise it as an issue. I understand that there are different levels of racism and I certainly don't think society is colorblind. I know it exists, so I'm not sure of what you're getting at.

 

My point is that if you believe this, then how can you turn around and say that Obama's race wasn't relevant in this election? Reid was saying that Obama had the ability to make people comfortable with him. That's not racist or offensive, I think it's pretty obvious.

 

No, you're mislabeling it rhetoric. Just because one disagrees with you and honestly sees something in a different light than you do it doesn't make it rhetoric. A little food for thought.

 

Again, it's not the difference of opinion. It's the hyperbolic adjectives, sarcasm, and general condescension towards anyone with a dissenting opinion.

 

See my response to quote number one here as to why it took until page two. I was seriously a bit perplexed that you couldn't see the hypocrisy, still am.

Also, I'm not necessarily going to "snap to it" to satisfy your curiosity.

 

I think the argument that "Reid's comment is racist, how can you not see that?" is as ridiculous as saying "George Bush was a terrible president, how can you not see that?" All I'm asking for is a "Reid's comment was racist because of X, Y, and Z." And for the record, I've skewered the internet over this issue, and yours is the only attempted explanation I've found. Though, I don't think you elucidated how it could possibly be offensive, which explains why no one else is providing explanations, just hammering it until people believe them or give up.

 

Problem here is, not all blacks talk that way, in fact I'd say more don't than do. If Obama talked that way all the time, he'd turn more than just whites off.

 

So you agree with Reid? Interesting.

 

Please don't bring NASCAR into this, I loath that crap.

A Southern draw? He's a Texan for God's sake. Of course he had a Southern draw. :lol:

 

Well, he's from New Hampshire, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that different groups of people often have distinct dialects and those can be either beneficial or damaging in a national election. I think Bush's helped him, even though he was lampooned for it. If Obama always spoke in the way he did in front of the NAACP I think it would have hurt him. A percentage of this country already thought he was a Muslim, imagine if he kept the vocal cadence of Malcolm X. :eek:

Can we agree that Sen. Reid is not a racist but may be a racial profiler?

Can we agree that Sen. Reid is not a racist but may be a racial profiler?

 

Maybe.

 

These comments by the Democratic US Senate Majority Leader and similar comments from the Democratic Vice President point out what should be a serious issue with some of the thinking by the leaders of the Democratic party. And that is that there is a threshold of 'whiteness' that you must attain to be considered worthy of high post and leadership positions in the Democratic Party. The comments of Reid and Biden clearly and without a doubt indicate that is the case.

 

Their comments seem to say - You must hide or change the things that indentify your black, possibly inner city heritage, if you want to be at the upper echelons of the Democratic party. That includes your dialect (can not be inner city or 'Negro'), you skin color (must be light skinned and not too dark), you hair style (close cut, no noticable natural afro type hair), and so on.

 

The problem with Reid and Biden is that they clearly are race sensitive and they use some level of measuring process that is based on race characteristics.

 

Is that a 'racist' or a 'race profiler' or something else? It is hard to say. But it certainly does not feel right and seems wrong. It is revealing of the character of these two men and possibly the inner circle of the Democratic National Party.

My point is that if you believe this, then how can you turn around and say that Obama's race wasn't relevant in this election? Reid was saying that Obama had the ability to make people comfortable with him. That's not racist or offensive, I think it's pretty obvious.

Obama won because this country was tired of Bush and McCain was a horrible candidate. It's that simple.

 

 

 

Again, it's not the difference of opinion. It's the hyperbolic adjectives, sarcasm, and general condescension towards anyone with a dissenting opinion.

:lol: I gave you my opinions and you labeled them as hyperbole and rhetoric while you labeled your opinions as fact. That's very condescending of you, yet you ignore it.

 

 

 

I think the argument that "Reid's comment is racist, how can you not see that?" is as ridiculous as saying "George Bush was a terrible president, how can you not see that?" All I'm asking for is a "Reid's comment was racist because of X, Y, and Z." And for the record, I've skewered the internet over this issue, and yours is the only attempted explanation I've found. Though, I don't think you elucidated how it could possibly be offensive, which explains why no one else is providing explanations, just hammering it until people believe them or give up.

Is your internet broke?

 

“If Michael Steele or any other conservative had said anything like it, the remarks would be labeled racist and plastered over every available news outlet “What would my uncle and my father think, to hear such things from one of the most powerful leaders in the country? Their ‘beloved community’ is sorely threatened when racism rears its ugly head once again.” ~ Alveda King (MLK’s Niece)

 

What Harry Reid said, is what white men say in private all the time. He just happened to say it around some white men who broke the code of silence. Harry Reid is a part of a system, that for 400 years tried to destroy, enslave, and disenfranchise black people, and since he has been in the senate, I have never seen him speak against racism nor try to promote any level of equality. He went along w/the status quo and continues that process today. You, Dr. Boyce are wrong for trying to defend Senator Reed, he has not been a great leader, and I know you are trying to stay in the good graces of of the producers at CNN. This system ain't even close to changing, no matter how many light skinned negroes they promote to us. Harry Reid is no different from his, as he would probably say my honorable and esteemed colleague, and friend Sen. Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond,, he just doesn't openly express himself the way helms or thurmond did. Racsim is as entrenched in every facet of America as the air we breath or the blood that flow thru our veins. Obama's election means nothing in regards to that changing anytime soon!!!

 

Took about 20 seconds to find these and there's more out there.

 

Again, it's about opinions and perception, yours is neither the only one out there or necessarily the correct one.

 

 

 

So you agree with Reid? Interesting.

:lol: No, because I believe a dark skinned man or woman is quite electable and I don't think they need to use "Negro dialect" to make it.

 

 

 

Well, he's from New Hampshire, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that different groups of people often have distinct dialects and those can be either beneficial or damaging in a national election. I think Bush's helped him, even though he was lampooned for it. If Obama always spoke in the way he did in front of the NAACP I think it would have hurt him. A percentage of this country already thought he was a Muslim, imagine if he kept the vocal cadence of Malcolm X. :eek:

Bush spent quite a bit of his childhood in Midland and Houston, Texas.

I don't think his dialect helped or hurt Bush in any way, shape or form. Same goes for Obama. In both cases it was the message and the promises they hammered on, like all presidents. That and who they were running against.

 

A small and racist percentage thought that, Obama was never in any danger of losing because of ignorance such as that.

Obama won because this country was tired of Bush and McCain was a horrible candidate. It's that simple.

 

But you just said that we don't live in a colorblind society, that race is relevant, and affects people even if it is subtle. You're simultaneously espousing two competing ideas.

 

:lol: I gave you my opinions and you labeled them as hyperbole and rhetoric while you labeled your opinions as fact. That's very condescending of you, yet you ignore it.

 

It's not your opinion I labeled rhetoric, read it again.

 

Is your internet broke?

 

Took about 20 seconds to find these and there's more out there.

 

Again, it's about opinions and perception, yours is neither the only one out there or necessarily the correct one.

 

Again, I asked for an explanation. None was given in the quote you cited. I can find opinions all day. I don't care about them if they aren't supported. I can find Liz Cheney share her opinion that the comment was racist but stammer and bumble when asked to explain why. They are different things and I want to see an explanation.

 

:lol: No, because I believe a dark skinned man or woman is quite electable and I don't think they need to use "Negro dialect" to make it.

 

But you just said that dialect would turn them off to both whites and blacks. Which is it? You keep changing your argument.

 

Bush spent quite a bit of his childhood in Midland and Houston, Texas.

I don't think his dialect helped or hurt Bush in any way, shape or form. Same goes for Obama. In both cases it was the message and the promises they hammered on, like all presidents. That and who they were running against.

 

A small and racist percentage thought that, Obama was never in any danger of losing because of ignorance such as that.

 

I find it hard to believe you don't think Bush's dialect was relevant. Half the country thought he was an idiot and the other half thought he was "one of their own," and his dialect was at the center of it. But, to each his own I guess.

 

And again, as the very small percentage you claim, you just said "You couldn't be more wrong about me thinking one has to wear a hood or when minority groups raise it as an issue. I understand that there are different levels of racism and I certainly don't think society is colorblind. I know it exists, so I'm not sure of what you're getting at." Which is it?