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.

Well no duh we don't live in a colorblind society. You're really reaching here. So, are you trying to tell me he won because of his skin color? He won because he ran a much better campaign, what's so hard to understand about that? It had zero to with Reid's goofy perception.

 

 

 

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

Sure it was and, I might add, it was no more rhetoric than the things you were saying.

 

 

 

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.

You've given nothing more than opinion after opinion in this thread. You've given no supported claim as to why it wasn't racist or offensive, just Democrat talking points and your opinion. Just the use of the term Negro from a guy his age is generally the first red flag. It's looked at by many as a somewhat polite synonym for a much more disparaging term. Also, don't forget, just a few weeks ago Reid was talking about healthcare in the context of slavery. The man is buffoon.

 

 

 

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

Well gee, I don't think that if someone talked like a redneck from the deep south all the time they fare well either, so I'm not claiming if they constantly spoke that way it wouldn't hurt them. I don't, however, feel that dialect in and of itself would be a big deciding factor for myself. What one has done in the past, their moral or ethical characteristics, their ability to run a business or form of government, their stance on guns, the direction they want to take the country and so on are much more important to me.

 

 

 

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.

I guess I'm not that shallow.

 

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?

I suppose it's how you want to twist my opinions. Of course people aren't colorblind, it's just most people can put that crap behind them. After all, Obama did get elected and that was do to a lot of whites voting for him, which only supports my thoughts on this.

Still, I think Reid's comments go much deeper than you are willing to consider. You ask me "which is it", yet you aren't willing at the very least to consider that his comments could have very well had racial overtones. I find that rather odd.

Edited January 17, 201016 yr by Run To State

Well no duh we don't live in a colorblind society. You're really reaching here. So, are you trying to tell me he won because of his skin color? He won because he ran a much better campaign, what's so hard to understand about that? It had zero to with Reid's goofy perception.

 

We don't live in a colorblind society but the race of the first major black presidential candidate was completely irrelevant? No one in the country thought his race might play a factor in the election?

 

 

You've given nothing more than opinion after opinion in this thread. You've given no supported claim as to why it wasn't racist or offensive, just Democrat talking points and your opinion. Just the use of the term Negro from a guy his age is generally the first red flag. It's looked at by many as a somewhat polite synonym for a much more disparaging term. Also, don't forget, just a few weeks ago Reid was talking about healthcare in the context of slavery. The man is buffoon.

 

I've explained several times why I think Reid's comments were accurate and non-offensive. Sure, it's my opinion, but I've provided my reasoning for it. I'm just looking for a partisan apologist to say, "Reid's comments were offensive because..." I've seen that nowhere.

 

Well gee, I don't think that if someone talked like a redneck from the deep south all the time they fare well either, so I'm not claiming if they constantly spoke that way it wouldn't hurt them. I don't, however, feel that dialect in and of itself would be a big deciding factor for myself. What one has done in the past, their moral or ethical characteristics, their ability to run a business or form of government, their stance on guns, the direction they want to take the country and so on are much more important to me.

 

I'm not speaking about you here. I'm speaking about the collective electorate. When you say "I'm not claiming if they constantly spoke that way it wouldn't hurt them" you are echoing Reid.

 

I guess I'm not that shallow.

 

I suppose it's how you want to twist my opinions. Of course people aren't colorblind, it's just most people can put that crap behind them. After all, Obama did get elected and that was do to a lot of whites voting for him, which only supports my thoughts on this.

Still, I think Reid's comments go much deeper than you are willing to consider. You ask me "which is it", yet you aren't willing at the very least to consider that his comments could have very well had racial overtones. I find that rather odd.

 

I don't think most people have put it behind them. I think most people want to ignore societal and institutional factors when discussing race, since, afterall, Jim Crow is over, and that's good enough for most people.

 

I've considered his comments from all angles. He's not speaking of what he wants to see or attempting to discriminate people out of the party. He's analyzing the electorate and considering how Obama's race will be a factor. And he's saying it won't matter much.

We don't live in a colorblind society but the race of the first major black presidential candidate was completely irrelevant? No one in the country thought his race might play a factor in the election?

No one said that, I said that's not why he won, and it's not. Or are you saying if he was white he would have lost?

 

 

 

 

I've explained several times why I think Reid's comments were accurate and non-offensive. Sure, it's my opinion, but I've provided my reasoning for it. I'm just looking for a partisan apologist to say, "Reid's comments were offensive because..." I've seen that nowhere.

I've told you why, don't know what more than that I can do. Doesn't seem to matter what I answer with, you're just going to continue parroting the same redundant statement.

 

 

 

I'm not speaking about you here. I'm speaking about the collective electorate. When you say "I'm not claiming if they constantly spoke that way it wouldn't hurt them" you are echoing Reid.

Choose to see it the way you wish. You're still giving an opinion about his remarks and I simply disagree. I also maintain that if a Republican said it, Obama, the Dems and the media would have painted it in a different light, hence the hypocrisy I've pointed out since the beginning.

 

 

 

I don't think most people have put it behind them. I think most people want to ignore societal and institutional factors when discussing race, since, afterall, Jim Crow is over, and that's good enough for most people.

If most people wouldn't have put it behind them, we wouldn't be having this conversation because Obama would have been unelectable.

 

I've considered his comments from all angles. He's not speaking of what he wants to see or attempting to discriminate people out of the party. He's analyzing the electorate and considering how Obama's race will be a factor. And he's saying it won't matter much.

In your opinion. I've seen nothing in this thread or anywhere else to back that up and again, if that's all he was saying no apology would have been made or accepted.

I think it's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. It's simply your opinion and how you perceived his comments and my opinion and how I perceived his comments.

No one said that, I said that's not why he won, and it's not. Or are you saying if he was white he would have lost?

 

I'm not saying it's why he won. No one is. But to say his race is irrelevant is outlandish.

 

I've told you why, don't know what more than that I can do. Doesn't seem to matter what I answer with, you're just going to continue parroting the same redundant statement.

 

Ok.

 

Choose to see it the way you wish. You're still giving an opinion about his remarks and I simply disagree. I also maintain that if a Republican said it, Obama, the Dems and the media would have painted it in a different light, hence the hypocrisy I've pointed out since the beginning.

 

I don't know what other light the comments could be viewed in. No one is explaining it. The only explanation I've seen is that it sets the bar too low for black people. I don't know how that is possible. That doesn't make sense.

 

If most people wouldn't have put it behind them, we wouldn't be having this conversation because Obama would have been unelectable.

 

Not really.

 

In your opinion. I've seen nothing in this thread or anywhere else to back that up and again, if that's all he was saying no apology would have been made or accepted.

 

I've provided explanations of his statements plenty of times. You can disagree with them, but you can't say I haven't provided them.

 

I think it's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. It's simply your opinion and how you perceived his comments and my opinion and how I perceived his comments.

 

Ok.

To paraphrase Chris Rock:

 

George Bush screwed up so badly over the previous eight years that a white man had no chance of being elected President.

"He won because he ran a much better campaign."

 

Was part of that campaign doing exactly as Harry Reid described?

I'm not saying it's why he won. No one is. But to say his race is irrelevant is outlandish.

No one said his race is irrelevant, just that it nothing to do with why he won.

 

 

 

Ok.

Ditto

 

 

 

I don't know what other light the comments could be viewed in. No one is explaining it. The only explanation I've seen is that it sets the bar too low for black people. I don't know how that is possible. That doesn't make sense.

If you think for one second that the Dems or the media wouldn't have viewed it in a different light if if came from a Republican, you're kidding yourself.

 

 

 

 

Not really.

Yes, really.

 

 

 

I've provided explanations of his statements plenty of times. You can disagree with them, but you can't say I haven't provided them.

You've provided your opinions, nothing more.

 

 

 

Ok.

Ditto, again.

"He won because he ran a much better campaign."

 

Was part of that campaign doing exactly as Harry Reid described?

No.

If you think for one second that the Dems or the media wouldn't have viewed it in a different light if if came from a Republican, you're kidding yourself.

 

Likewise, the Republicans would have reacted totally different to it. Many of those calling it racism now would be calling it over reacting on the part of those labeling it such.

Likewise, the Republicans would have reacted totally different to it. Many of those calling it racism now would be calling it over reacting on the part of those labeling it such.

I won't disagree with that, but not a lot of Dems will agree with me about their side.

 

BTW, glad to see you back in P&R. Hope you stay.