HornHuskerDad
5000+ posts
04/10/12 04:42 AM
|
|
Does this count as "racist?" The Link
HHD    
Post Extras:
|
bedhead
100+ posts
04/10/12 05:12 AM
|
|
Well, just put Mitt Romney in an ad, addressed to white voters, titled Whites for Romney, and use "inside" phrases about country clubs and church deacons instead of barbershops and church captains...what do you think people would say?
I'm actually kind of astonished that this would be produced it is so blatantly racist. The double standard that is in this country makes me very sad. Things will never improve as long as it exists.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 07:21 AM
|
|
I think some need to learn the difference between what is a racially targeted ad vs. what is racist.
But if that lack of understanding makes it easier for you to hate on our black president, go for it.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Clean
1000+ posts
04/10/12 07:38 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I think some need to learn the difference between what is a racially targeted ad vs. what is racist.
Do tell.
Didn't 99.99999999999999999% of African Americans who voted, vote for him last time? Why does he need to racially target them now? Don't tell me they're fed up with his BS too?
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/10/12 07:43 AM
|
|
Hope and Change has been replaced by Divide and Deride.
Post Extras:
|
dalhorn1
500+ posts
04/10/12 07:50 AM
|
|
I applaud Perham for implementing his deflection tactic so early in the day...my defenses aren't up and boiling before my first cup of coffee.
Since BigXII founding:
aggy 5-11 vs OU
aggy 6-10 vs Tech
aggy 5-11 vs Texas
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/10/12 07:52 AM
|
|
Obama has black skin so clearly this cannot be a racist ad. 
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 07:56 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Didn't 99.99999999999999999% of African Americans who voted, vote for him last time?
No.
In reply to:
Why does he need to racially target them now?
Notwithstanding the answer to that question, you seem to believe that his mere act of targeting that bloc is, by itself, racist.
I would say that it is your view that is racist.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/10/12 08:06 AM
|
|
The economic conditions for Black Americans has been so bad during this presidency that he has to do something to get this voting block motivated. I expect you will see a lot of racially divisive stuff out there as the election gets closer to help to get his base motivated and buying in to his tired old lines.
Post Extras:
|
HornHuskerDad
5000+ posts
04/10/12 08:17 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I think some need to learn the difference between what is a racially targeted ad vs. what is racist.
Enlighten us, Perham - exactly what is the difference between "racially targeted" and "racist?" Be sure to get out your micrometer to measure the difference - it may be too small to comprehend otherwise.
HHD
Post Extras:
|
Horn6721
5000+ posts
04/10/12 08:51 AM
|
|
I would have HOPED BO would be for all Americans and not exlude any.
I hoped in vain.
Calling the election of 2012 another moment in African American history is an "us against them" moment.
" Vote for me " because I am an African American.
It is sad and shameful for a man who is supposed to be the president of us all to put out this kind of ad.
Post Extras:
|
Leftwith
500+ posts
04/10/12 09:27 AM
|
|
A hundred years from now, this pathetic excuse for a human being (let alone President) will be known as one of America's biggest mistakes. Most likely THE biggest.
And just as we are perplexed at the following Hitler enjoyed, people will wonder what in the hell the Perhams and satchels of the world were thinking.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/10/12 09:38 AM
|
|
My company does not allow me to view certain videos from places is it a PAC, Super PACA or the Official Obama Campaign? Remember he has not control over what a PAC or Super PAC produces....
Not defending him, just wanting to be fair and I can't see the ad.
Post Extras:
|
Horn6721
5000+ posts
04/10/12 09:43 AM
|
|
MWA
since it is the bozo BO himself and only the bozo in the ad it is his own.
Post Extras:
|
Bronco
250+ posts
04/10/12 09:50 AM
|
|
major- It is not really an ad. It is a statement by BO speaking directly into a camera (he speaks a lot in the 3rd person which is pretty funny). He is asking black voters to vote BO and to get involved in the election process.
I don't know that it is downright racist but he does say, directly, that voting for him is a vote to make things equal for blacks. He doesn't specifically say (maybe Perham is really BO!!) that not voting for him will make things unequal for blacks but the implication is pretty easy to follow.
It is shameless.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/10/12 10:14 AM
|
|
I find that strange, why would he be pandering to his base unless they are starting to listen to the 25% unemployment rate by African American Men and realize that he is the Trojan Horse African American. Maybe the DNC is starting to lose the vice grip on the African American voting bloc, that they have had for almost 60 years...
Does anyone know if he did any ads like this in 2008 or for any of his State or US Senate races?
Post Extras:
|
Leftwith
500+ posts
04/10/12 10:17 AM
|
|
major, I think it's more about energizing them to get out there and vote than it is to keep them on his side.
Post Extras:
|
Horn6721
5000+ posts
04/10/12 10:34 AM
|
|
left??
In Bo's very first sentence he says they are ' launching African Americans for Obama"
Post Extras:
|
Leftwith
500+ posts
04/10/12 10:57 AM
|
|
What I'm saying is, the only thing they're worried about with African American vote is that they will stay home and not vote at all. They're not worried about a switch to the GOP.
Post Extras:
|
Bronco
250+ posts
04/10/12 10:57 AM
|
|
Left is correct. BO knows that the more blacks that actually vote, the better his chances as he will get a very high percentage of black votes. He is trying to fight apathy not a weakening hold on his base.
Post Extras:
|
HornHuskerDad
5000+ posts
04/10/12 12:04 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Enlighten us, Perham - exactly what is the difference between "racially targeted" and "racist?"
Still waiting for your enlightening response, Perham.
HHD
Post Extras:
|
IvanDiabloHorn
250+ posts
04/10/12 01:41 PM
|
|
It would only not be racist if it is okay for a white candidate to speak directly to whites in the same manner, bringing up points such as the much higher casualties white Americans have suffered than other races in every war fought by the USA, the greater amount of the country's tax base paid by the white race than other races and how much better whites do as a race on intellegence tests than other races.
If not, then yeah it is a racist message.
Edited by IvanDiabloHorn (04/10/12 01:44 PM)
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/10/12 02:25 PM
|
|
That makes sense, I guess the second time around would not be as historic as the first.
Wouldn't the same be true for those white votes that voted for Obama just because he was black and they wanted to be part of something historic?
For the first time ever we had over 50 million votes for both candidates, if was by far and away the largest turn out ever.
I think this will be a more interesting discussion after we see the demographic results after the 2012 election.
hmmm
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/10/12 02:28 PM
|
|
He only makes this video if he has information that his base is ticked off.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/10/12 02:39 PM
|
|
or as I think they were pointing out lethargic.
I am not sure I will go to the polls and vote in November...... I will be voting in the Texas Republican Race for Cruz, Gingrich and anybody running against Dr. Burgess!!!!!
Post Extras:
|
NEWDOC2002
2500+ posts
04/10/12 02:55 PM
|
|
In reply to:
anybody running against Dr. Burgess
I don't have a dog in that hunt but what is wrong with Burgess?
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/10/12 03:14 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Didn't 99.99999999999999999% of African Americans who voted, vote for him last time?
It was only 95%, geez let's not exaggerate the facts here.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
Horn6721
5000+ posts
04/10/12 03:34 PM
|
|
uh
Only 95%?
I guess there are more dominants than anyone thought.
As had been pointed out this kind of call for blacks to vote for the brutha BO does signal unease in BO's camp, maybe not necessarily the worry that Smart African Americans will not vote for BO this time but that Bo will lose some of the white guilt.
It is still an offensive ad.
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/10/12 04:10 PM
|
|
Ha.
Ha ha.
Not racist.
Responding to race's place in politics, especially in the self-identification of a major portion of his constituency? Yes.
A double standard is not racist, or necessarily inappropriate. The grasp some of you have of the concepts of race and racism is child like. So facile and unaware.
I think the assumption that he is trying to get his base going is correct. He does not want African Americans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida staying home.
Post Extras:
|
HornHuskerDad
5000+ posts
04/10/12 04:36 PM
|
|
In reply to:
A double standard is not racist, or necessarily inappropriate. The grasp some of you have of the concepts of race and racism is child like. So facile and unaware.
HHD
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
500+ posts
04/10/12 04:45 PM
|
|
Ever notice how some posters on here grow their vocabulary as their argument gets weaker?
Post Extras:
|
Mr. Deez
500+ posts
04/10/12 04:50 PM
|
|
In reply to:
I will be voting in the Texas Republican Race for Cruz, Gingrich and anybody running against Dr. Burgess!!!!!
I'm voting for Cruz and Paul. However, what's the case against Burgess? I prefer his predecessor (Professor Armey), but Burgess has been a solid conservative.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/10/12 08:08 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Enlighten us, Perham - exactly what is the difference between "racially targeted" and "racist?" Be sure to get out your micrometer to measure the difference - it may be too small to comprehend otherwise.
Husker Dad, what definition of "racist" are you using for purposes of posing your question?
Post Extras:
|
HornHuskerDad
5000+ posts
04/10/12 08:42 PM
|
|
^Satch, I'm waiting to hear from Perham. He's the one who tried to make a distinction between "racist" and "racially targeted" and I'd like to see how he defines the difference (if there is a difference).
HHD
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/10/12 08:43 PM
|
|
Wow.
Post Extras:
|
bedhead
100+ posts
04/10/12 10:21 PM
|
|
Go ahead and call it racial targeting--the question still remains: If a white man had "racially targeted" "his people" by starting up a "Whites for fill in the blank" and used white insider phrases terms, how you feel about it and what would you be saying?
It is disingenuous to act as if the press and the public wouldn't be tearing the man apart. Pretending otherwise is when some people on the board lose credibility or the potentially open mind of someone like myself.
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/11/12 02:06 PM
|
|
No one cares about Italians for Santorum, etc., because Italians are a subset of whiteness and wield a relatively diluted power when they put themselves forward as Italians. They are rightly seen as attempting to rally around a circumscribed set of interests that do not necessarily portend some sort of wider domination.
There would be some hubub about a candidate trying to rally whites as the potential for domination of minority subgroups would be seen as an implicit possibility. At least if you have any sort of sense of history and white power, etc.
Black power has a more nuanced history because, in addition to racist nonsense, there is a broader underpinning to it that involves fighting for equality and access, etc. Those are two different sets of interests, one of which this nation has always punished or marginalized with severity, and the other of which the country has on occasion recognized as laudable, even supportable. Same with Women's rights vs Men's rights, etc.
African Americans are an important voting block for Obama. The Ad is hardly different from a visit to a black community center. Would it be racist of Obama to visit such a place and speak about his version of the Admin's record on and support for black interests? Is the problem that blacks see themselves as having particular interests that are at least in part deeply rooted in their experience as blacks in America?
Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays (I believe) find themselves in a world that labels and circumscribes them. They adopt a certain amount of the logics and socio-cultural practices that are involved with the construct of race. It is hard, if not impossible, not to. They naturally consider themselves to be members of a subgroup of Americans and to share certain interests, though some have multiple self-identifications with subgroups. Blackness is a powerful mark and usually trumps most others for those who wear the mark. Blacks vote liberal because conservatism hasn't been particularly helpful. Whichever party carries that torch gets their vote as a group that share a powerful marker of experience and, therefore, interests. Obama knows they are important to his re-election bid. He is going to target the groups that he feels will support him. Blacks are such a group. If he wants to get their attention, he needs to recognize the group and call them by name. The group identification is based on race. Noting that is not racist, though it is racialized, which is to say connected with race.
Post Extras:
|
Crockett
1000+ posts
04/11/12 02:54 PM
|
|
Making a targeted ad is "pandering?" Is creating a resume that highlights different experiences for different job applications pandering or talking differently to the CEO and the technical guru? If this kind of stuff pisses you off, you're going to use up all your adrenalin and die young.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/11/12 03:47 PM
|
|
It doesn't piss me off because I already knew what Obama was. This just further confirms it. He's not my president.
Post Extras:
|
Namewithheld
2500+ posts
04/11/12 08:22 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Wouldn't the same be true for those white votes that voted for Obama just because he was black and they wanted to be part of something historic?
Remember according to some of the black leadership--------------blacks can't be racist since they don't have power.
"At the end of the day, we want to lead the nation in wins. That's the only stat that matters.." - Manny Diaz the NEW DC at Texas
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/11/12 08:38 PM
|
|
In reply to:
It is disingenuous to act as if the press and the public wouldn't be tearing the man apart. Pretending otherwise is when some people on the board lose credibility or the potentially open mind of someone like myself.
So, you got jokes, huh.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/11/12 08:41 PM
|
|
In reply to:
It doesn't piss me off because I already knew what Obama was. This just further confirms it. He's not my president.
Who's your president?
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/11/12 08:50 PM
|
|
HuskerDad, why is it you and others like you can start threads on race on nobody accuses any of you of being race baiters and hustlers?
Post Extras:
|
theiioftx
500+ posts
04/11/12 09:00 PM
|
|
I will bite. Because the President is specifically segregating the people he was chosen to lead as a nation. That is racist.
Satchel, is racism only a white problem?
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/11/12 09:41 PM
|
|
Ordinarily, I'd say no, but it seems that since November '08, whites such as yourself seem to be obsessed with race and racism, real or imagined in black people.
Post Extras:
|
HornHuskerDad
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:24 PM
|
|
In reply to:
HuskerDad, why is it you and others like you can start threads on race on nobody accuses any of you of being race baiters and hustlers?
Satch, I started the thread just to (a) report what Obama said and (b) see what the reaction would be. It seems reasonably obvious to me, and apparently to many others, that Obama was basing an appeal strictly on racial grounds. If Mitt Romney had broadcast an appeal to white voters to back him as a bloc, everyone would be screaming "Racist!" at the top of their lungs. I'm just wondering why that standard doesn't apply both ways.
HHD
Post Extras:
|
dalhorn1
500+ posts
04/12/12 07:20 AM
|
|
HHD---only whites can be racist 
Haven't you learned anything from Satchel?
Since BigXII founding:
aggy 5-11 vs OU
aggy 6-10 vs Tech
aggy 5-11 vs Texas
Post Extras:
|
HornHuskerDad
5000+ posts
04/12/12 07:49 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Haven't you learned anything from Satchel?
Actually, I've found Satchel to be a very useful indicator. If an issue arises on the West Mall and I have no preconceived position on that issue, I watch to see what Satchel says - I'm then pretty sure I should be on the opposite side. 
HHD
Post Extras:
|
Bronco
250+ posts
04/12/12 08:41 AM
|
|
Buckhorn/Crockett- I don't think most here would argue your points in the way that you are making them. Simply revving up your base is not racist. However, you are both discounting/neglecting what is actually said in the ad.
If you approach a block of voters based soley on their race as BO is doing here, then you must keep the meesage completely positive to avoid the message becoming racist. If BO simply said that his policies and beliefs are better for black people or that he was going to look out for black people, it certainly would be racial but not racist. But that isnt what he did. He directly claims that whoever his opponent is would hurt blacks and hurt whatever progress they have made. if he said poor instead of black, orrich instead of black, or smart instead of black or dumb instaed of black he could skirt the issue. But he didin't. He just said blacks. So the only way his opponents could do what he says they will do, is to say that their (his opponenets) policies are specifically designed to harm blacks. There can be no other interpretation. They hv\ave to be targeted specifically to harm a particular race. It is a blurred line if this is BO being racist but it is not a blurred line that he is accusing his opponents of being racist. This is the problem with this type of targeting. Once you stop being positive about what you can do and start talking about what will happen if else is in charge, you cross the line.
BO certainly knows this well. This would be the EXACT argument that he and leaders of pther race groups would make if the ad was worded EXACTLY the same but was made by a white candidate. And, I would agree with them.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/12/12 09:35 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Satch, I started the thread just to (a) report what Obama said and (b) see what the reaction would be. It seems reasonably obvious to me, and apparently to many others, that Obama was basing an appeal strictly on racial grounds. If Mitt Romney had broadcast an appeal to white voters to back him as a bloc, everyone would be screaming "Racist!" at the top of their lungs. I'm just wondering why that standard doesn't apply both ways.
If you were to do a quick review of threads currently active in West Mall, you'd find that many of them are raced based and authored by people such as yourself. Again, my question is this: Why are you not charged with being race baiters and hustlers when that charge is made of me routinely even when responding to race based threads started by others. Why is that?
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/12/12 10:13 AM
|
|
As far as Burgess goes, Hutchinson or Cornyn, I told them if they voted for TARP, I would vote against them in any primary they ever ran in for the rest of their political careers. I am holding their feet to the fire and will never vote for them in the primaries. If you waiver one time, you will never get my vote in the primary and I will not vote against you in the general but won't go out of my way to vote for you, nor donate any money.
On top of that, the Pork or money that Burgess brings back to our district is so pathetic it is not funny. With a Trillion dollars worth of stimulus money we still have the same I-35 cluster in Lewisville that we have had for 10 years, hell we still have street lights running down the middle of I-35!!!
The stimulus money we got in Denton County, was a new Military Reserve Depot on FM407 right near I-35!!!! What the hell does the military need a new reserve center for? Total waste of tax payer money. Our train project got accelerated, boy is that thing used, I think they just cut the schedule in half as so few people work downtown. They are building old transportation models in the new work at home economy. More stupidity!!!!!
Hutchinson was one of the big backers of that stupid Billion dollar bridge!!!!! She will never be a factor in politics again and I am very happy about that....I am against pork spending and the bridge and that new Military Reserve Center were gross expenditures that were not necessary and I will be holding their feet to the fire on stupid spending!!!
I am now stepping off my soap box....have a nice day!
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/12/12 10:31 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I am now stepping off my soap box....have a nice day!
I believe you missed two exclamation marks at the end there. 
Completely agree with you on TARP. I sent all my representatives personal letters asking to vote against the bill and I vowed to vote against all in the primaries who supported TARP. It didn't make any difference though, they were all reelected.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/12/12 11:27 AM
|
|
In reply to:
If you approach a block of voters based soley on their race as BO is doing here, then you must keep the meesage completely positive to avoid the message becoming racist.
You'll have to unpack the math on this assertion. That makes it sound like, as a general principle, accusing someone of being racist is an act of racism. That seems bizarre to me.
In reply to:
He directly claims that whoever his opponent is would hurt blacks and hurt whatever progress they have made. if he said poor instead of black, orrich instead of black, or smart instead of black or dumb instaed of black he could skirt the issue. But he didin't. He just said blacks. So the only way his opponents could do what he says they will do, is to say that their (his opponenets) policies are specifically designed to harm blacks. There can be no other interpretation.
I disagree.
Small issue first: Conservatism and its political allies do not need to be seen as constantly attempting to erect policies and protocols specifically meant to harm blacks. All that need be understood is that conservatism has never been a particularly vocal or active ally of African American interests, and has often stood in the way of black progress, whether said interference came from Democrats or Republicans. Much of black progress has come at the expense of things conservatives cherish: local decision making, limited federal reach, property rights, etc. Blacks understand that their interests often lie in areas that conservatives want to attack, i.e., affirmative action, vigorous enforcement of Civil Rights legislation, etc. It doesn't have to be a matter of the opposition wanting to harm blacks, it is simply a matter of the opposition being indifferent, uninformed or disposed to other interests.
Bigger Issue:
Indicating to a portion of your constituency that your opponent's ascent to power will harm their interests is basic, as I think you noted. If the group perceives themselves to be a group based on their race, and if they believe that their interests overlap in important ways based on their having a shared racial status, then the correct way to address those interests is to say 'African Americans for Obama' step up and be aware that your interests are in peril should Romney, or whoever is on the right side of the ledger, get into office. To try to come at it according to age or economic status, etc., largely misses was makes the black community a community, i.e., the shared experience of being black in America.
Do you think that blacks as a group should not think of themselves as a groups whose race has given rise to shared interests? That seems like a forceful disassociation from reality to me. Consider this old joke:
Q - What do you call a black man with an MD from Harvard Medical School?
A - A Nigger.
There are various permutations to this joke, i.e.:
Q - What would you call the Flintstones if they were black?
A - The Niggers.
The underlying meaning of this joke is, no matter your intelligence, wealth, education, or metaphysical status, if you are black you are marked by the stigmas that attach to blackness as wrapped up neatly in the word 'nigger.' Second class citizenship, derision, unequal access, de facto and de jure insecurity, the whole nine yards. There was for a long time a far-reaching truth to underpinning of that joke, and that truth went a long way toward creating a demographic that understands their racial status, their 'niggerness,' to be decisive and ignored only at considerable danger. It is not an unreasoned or delusional position. It is also not racist. It is not racist to note that being black matters, that race matters, and that, because the dominant culture and its tendencies have often used race as a marker meant to assist in marginalizing your group, etc., you have shared interests as a result of being in that group. In short, if racism abides in the overall structure supporting the dominant culture, it behooves you to be aware of your racial status and how it fits into the big picture. Recognizing that position is not racist and political responses to that identification of interest sets is not racist. Rather, such is a basic tack in politics which, in this instance, involves recognition of race issues.
In reply to:
Once you stop being positive about what you can do and start talking about what will happen if else is in charge, you cross the line.
You are talking about negative ads, in essence, and such are basic to our politics. Again, I think that the crux of your line of reasoning revolves around the dynamcis that lead blacks to think of themselves as a group and to vote accordingly. If you cannot master that issue I don't think you can really assess the nature of Obama's message or how it plays with race and racism. By the by, I do not think that you have to be black to understand.
Finally, as a sort of aside, I see in this thread claims that Obama has not really done much for blacks and an expression of a belief that his ad aimed at blacks, trying to note what his presidency means for blacks, is an indication that he is not 'my president.' I realize that this is a composite of positions taken from different posters and that there are multiple ways to take such a composite, i.e., the liberal approach is not good for blacks and yet blacks vote in such a way as to lead the politician in question to sculpt his message and policies in line with positions that make it clear he is not 'my president' (which I hopefully read as a way of saying 'he doesn't represent my interests' as opposed to 'I don't recognize his authority')( I am not altogether comfortable with that read, i.e., that read seems to assume that there is a disconnect between black perceptions of the group's interests and what those interests really are). Additionally, one could read the composite as pointing to a lose/lose proposition, i.e., either the president is going to be derided for failing to do enough for black while also noting that, were he to do something specific for blacks, he would not be 'my president.' I guarantee that Obama knowingly tightropes both of those considerations, among many others.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/12/12 11:48 AM
|
|
I appreciate your insight, Buckhorn.
I probably didn't understand most of it as I, well I just am not that smart!!!
I look at the President of the United States as an American above all, when I see him address a race or group specifically and saying that his opponent would not do as much as he would or their lot in life would be worse if it was not for him, that is very disappointing. I expect more from the President of the United States.
I would feel the same if John F. Kennedy was sitting there with his feet on the desk and bottle of Jamison in his hands singing Danny Boy with a tear coming down his cheek, saying I will be the only one that will go to bat for you paddies...
Anyway, I think the ad was wrong on so many levels and will end up hurting Obama in the long run. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the one of inclusion and that ad excludes alot of Americans.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/12/12 11:55 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I look at the President of the United States as an American above all, when I see him address a race or group specifically and saying that his opponent would not do as much as he would or their lot in life would be worse if it was not for him, that is very disappointing. I expect more from the President of the United States.
Republican politicians remind the one percenters almost daily that their lives would be so much better under their rule. I'm surprised you don't see that.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/12/12 12:21 PM
|
|
Even if I agreed with that Satch, Republican Politicians are not the President of the United States, big difference there......even if that POTUS was a Repbulican, he is excluding me as an American in that ad.
Bad ad, bad message! It will hurt in the long run, exclusion never does well in advertising or marketing!!!
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/12/12 01:28 PM
|
|
It may hurt the President with people like you who would never vote for him in the first place.
Can you put a sock in your outrage for a minute and comment on this?
The Link
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/12/12 01:35 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Can you put a sock in your outrage for a minute and comment on this? The Link
Are you really suggesting that Mitt Romney's campaign put this half ass facebook page together to solicit the latino vote in a similar manner as the president's ad?
That's a pretty weak comparison. A Romney supporter building a promotional page is not even close to Obama's personal video. There's not a single example of the style of rhetoric that Obama used.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/12/12 01:36 PM
|
|
major
To be sure, the ad has some problematic aspects to it, one being that, though Obama has purposefully avoided making race a major issue in his campaigns or presidency, the ad can be seen as exclusionary. I don't think that is reasonable, really, as I read the ad as a nod to a constituency's needs, something that all presidents do (most presidents also ignore or in some way exclude groups that fail to support them -- Bush was very reticent to speak to the NAACP and similar groups because he felt they were hostile, something that may have further led to blacks feeling that bush didn't care about them -- not saying that is necessarily accurate, by the way). Obama is going to have a great deal to say to the whole populace, his entire constituency, etc.
Beyond that, the fact that blackness is so culturally, socially, and politically prominent in the black experience is problematic, as well. It is understandable, but it is nonetheless at times the less optimal approach. That is another topic altogether.
At any rate, I understand that the mechanics of race and racism are slippery, that it seems progress tramples on itself (how does one recognize one's position as black, and the myriad dynamics that go along with that position, without helping to perpetuate the negative aspects of race, and even racism?).
It is taxing. I know that. It is taxing and trying for blacks, as well.
Whiteness is sometimes described as being invisible, as being the default position, i.e., the dominant position has a fabric interlaced with connections to systems and structures that supported whiteness overtly and covertly, purposefully and incidentally, and that fabric is assumed to be preferable, accepted, and productive. Blackness is always on stage, it is always being vetted, pushed this way and that, tested and questioned. It is always seen or imagined and has trouble hiding or blending in. If there is a default with blackness it has traditionally been one that considers darkness of skin to be connected with devalued characteristics, dirtiness, stupidity, childishness, laziness, ugliness, animalism, primitivism. Some of these characteristics have at times been thought of as useful to the overall project of whiteness, i.e., slumming with the Negroes helped well-off whites feel they could for a time get in touch with the 'real human' in themselves, the part that had been obscured by modernity. But generally, blackness carries negative weight. It is a tiresome load and it is not easy to altogether throw it off.
Like it or not, race is a big issue in our society, in the deepest nooks of the country's workings. It is complicated and requires a vigilant honesty in the assessment of the self and others, so, naturally, not many people, black, white, or otherwise, are particularly adroit at effectively discussing it.
When I read that people think that the NAACP is a racist organization because the title refers to the advancement of 'colored' people, as opposed to everyone, I am discouraged. To me such a read is incredibly simplistic and indicative of attitudes that are very problematic for progress. You may not have noticed, but, while I post about race issues with regularity, I do not affix the label of 'racist' to very much. In this day and age there is usually something a little more complicated going on. Racism is not really simple to fully explore, so that should say something about how complicated our current race issues are, and when I say 'our' I mean all US, even, global inhabitants.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 02:17 PM
|
|
In reply to:
it is always being vetted
Hardly.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 02:28 PM
|
|
Well spoken white man = out of touch with the real world.
Well spoken black man - presidential material, regardless of experience.
Buckhorn, you write a nice essay that may have been applicable in the 60's.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/12/12 03:26 PM
|
|
As we have seen, one can be an inarticulate white man with unfortunate academic and business histories and be elected president. Tell the whole picture, Shiner.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 03:31 PM
|
|
And you know about these histories because he was vetted.
Thanks for proving my point precisely.
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/12/12 03:58 PM
|
|
In reply to:
And you know about these histories because he was vetted.
Shiner I don't see what the big deal is. So he raised his kids in a radical church with a racist preacher spewing hate against the white man. And sure some of his friends and mentors were homegrown terrorists in their youth and/or authors of race baiting theories. If we took time to fully vet the president he might not have been able to provide us with the economy saving stimulus which kept unemployment below 8% as he promised. Just be happy with the success instead of always focusing on the failures.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 04:00 PM
|
|
OK, so we elected an articulate black man with an unknown academic history and zero business background. Is that more positive?
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/12/12 04:11 PM
|
|
Unknown academic history?
Maybe to you. It's well known to others that he attended, and graduated from, HLS.
But people here tend to create their own meanings for words. Just what is your meaning for "unknown academic history"?
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 04:29 PM
|
|
Any ideas about his grades, his activities in school, the papers he wrote, anything? If I hire someone for a professional position I verify that stuff. Anyway, Satchel brought us academic record of GWB. I just thought it was ironic. I'm sure Obama wrote some great papers and made great grades. Right?
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/12/12 06:17 PM
|
|
In reply to:
OK, so we elected an articulate black man with an unknown academic history and zero business background. Is that more positive?
What "we?" You had nothing at all to do with the election of Barack Obama.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/12/12 06:21 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Any ideas about his grades, his activities in school, the papers he wrote, anything? If I hire someone for a professional position I verify that stuff. Anyway, Satchel brought us academic record of GWB. I just thought it was ironic. I'm sure Obama wrote some great papers and made great grades. Right?
Seriously, Shiner. If bullsh_t were music, you'd be a symphony.
Post Extras:
|
Crockett
1000+ posts
04/12/12 09:47 PM
|
|
Shiner's right. I was so impressed with the fact that Obama was a [censored] Laude graduate from Harvard Law School after graduating from Columbia and was recruited to the faculty the University of Chicago that I simply assumed he was well educated and a good student. Give me a couple of impressive credentials and the fact that the faculty at the University of Chicago, stacked with Nobel Prize Winners, recruited him hard I just assumed the guy is academically gifted and a hard worker to boot. Damn, I'm just like the liberal media -- just skim through the resume and completely ignore the possibility that maybe Obama was a disinterested student in middle school or had a hard time coloring in the lines or making seven green trees as a first grader.
Post Extras:
|
IvanDiabloHorn
250+ posts
04/13/12 07:36 AM
|
|
He smokes, plays golf and drinks beer very well. I haven't seen him do anything as President better than those three activities.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/13/12 07:42 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Seriously, Shiner. If bullsh_t were music, you'd be a symphony.
Considering the source, this is sweet music.
Post Extras:
|
Bronco
250+ posts
04/13/12 09:14 AM
|
|
Buck- You make some good points.
In reply to:
You'll have to unpack the math on this assertion. That makes it sound like, as a general principle, accusing someone of being racist is an act of racism. That seems bizarre to me.
I am pretty sure my comment was that I am not sure this makes BO a racist but that it clearly shows him accusing his opponenets of being racist. That is unforgivable for the president of the US.
In reply to:
All that need be understood is that conservatism has never been a particularly vocal or active ally of African American interests, and has often stood in the way of black progress, whether said interference came from Democrats or Republicans.
I disagree, completely, here. Conservatism is not, in any way, based on race. It is a system of beliefs. There is not a single conservative principle that can't be applied to any person, regardless of race.
In reply to:
local decision making, limited federal reach, property rights, etc. Blacks understand that their interests often lie in areas that conservatives want to attack, i.e., affirmative action, vigorous enforcement of Civil Rights legislation, etc.
First, I do not agree that conservatives believe this or act in this way, but if we assume that they do, how do you reconcile that these policies negatively affect black people? Especially in 2012. Is there something about property rights that adversely affects blacks versus other races in 2012? How does local decision making affect blacks adversely as opposed to other races? I will grant that 80 or so years ago and before that policies were used against minority interests (almost more so by democrats in the south than republicans) but we are talking about today.
You bring up property rights. Do you really think (or can you give one single example) of any conservative policy or position that would somehow limit the property rights of blacks as opposed to any other race?
In reply to:
is to say 'African Americans for Obama' step up and be aware that your interests are in peril should Romney, or whoever is on the right side of the ledger, get into office
That is exactly the point. There is absolutely nothing in Romney's platform that is in any way perilous to blacks based on their race. Nothing. That is my point. BO is accusing Romney of being racist. It is not true or grounded in any single shred of evidence related to Romney. This is really the crux of the issue. BO is using beliefs and policies from the distant past (beliefs held by both dems and repubs) that have nothing to do with the principles of conservatism or the policies of Romney and acccusing Romney of wanting to re-enact those distant policies if he gets elected. That is absurd.
In reply to:
You are talking about negative ads, in essence, and such are basic to our politics. Again, I think that the crux of your line of reasoning revolves around the dynamcis that lead blacks to think of themselves as a group and to vote accordingly. If you cannot master that issue I don't think you can really assess the nature of Obama's message or how it plays with race and racism. By the by, I do not think that you have to be black to understand
I completely understand the issue. I am not making a comment on negative ads. I am making a comment on going negative in ads that are racially targeted. I thought I was clear that BO approaching blacks as a group and expressing that electing him was in their best interests was completely fine. It is when he accuses his opponenets of racism that he goes over the line. It would be the same for any race.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/13/12 10:45 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I disagree, completely, here. Conservatism is not, in any way, based on race. It is a system of beliefs. There is not a single conservative principle that can't be applied to any person, regardless of race
Some conservatives disagree:
The Link
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/13/12 01:28 PM
|
|
In reply to:
I am pretty sure my comment was that I am not sure this makes BO a racist but that it clearly shows him accusing his opponenets of being racist.
Your first quote, 'the message is racist,' taken in the context of accusations that suggest Obama is accusing Romney of being racist, makes it sound like accusations of racism are racist. The first quote remains confusing, notwithstanding your latter assertion that you are not sure if the ad is racist.
In reply to:
BO is accusing Romney of being racist.
No, he is noting that Romney comes from a political tradition that does not really do much in the way of addressing the particular needs of the black community. Conservatism does not have a track record of siding with progressions specifically aimed at addressing black issues. Was Colin Powell being racist or accusing the GOP of being racist when he indicated that they needed to improve their efforts to reach out to blacks, that they needed to cast off the 'Southern Strategy,' etc.?
Blacks see themselves as a group that has particular needs based in the way race has worked and still works in the overall system/structure of US life. Blacks don't generally think that the system has worked or does work for them the way it does for others. Some of that is at time based in a belief that there are racist actors and that the system is janky when it comes to addressing such, and some of it is based on the belief that the system promulgates inequality on a broad range of levels and that blacks have and continue to get the worst of it. It is hard to see where the nation's past of explicit and implicit acceptance of a system meant to confiscate black rights and well being ends and where a system that protects the resultant inequities through indifference and wavering vigilance begins. Blacks see conservatives as racist at worst or indifferent at best. Obama's add says 'I am not indifferent' more than anything else.
In reply to:
Conservatism is not, in any way, based on race. It is a system of beliefs. There is not a single conservative principle that can't be applied to any person, regardless of race.
Great for Political Theory 101, nearly useless for the purposes of addressing race and political realities over the history of the nation. It is not the ideals of Burke, et. al., that are at issue, but rather the way that conservatism has played out in American politics. It is about the way race, the interests of blacks, and American conservatism have interacted. This is about the history of the nation, so naturally past protocols and positions are considered, especially if you don't find any great shifts in attitude or address in the more recent annals.
Shiner seems to think that issues such as redlining, segregation, disfranchisement, etc., ended in the 60s. You seem to suggest that it ended 80 years ago. I often hear conservatives lament that we shouldn't pay for the sins of slavery anymore, as if Jim Crow was not much more important in re our current issues. If the right sees the past so differently than does the left or progressives or most blacks, then how can the latter trust that the former gets what is going on at present. The past is on the table and suggesting that, based on past performance, the right, as productive of and represented by Romney, cannot be expected to really look out for black interests is not unreasonable or racist. Neither is it accusing Romney or racism. This is not just about 2012, though we play the current chapter out in that nominal timeframe. The message is, based on past performance, Romney doesn't get black needs. If you think that blacks have at any time operated on an even playing field, and that the past is not in effect, that the left does not tend toward a greater comfort with having big government address such issues and that blacks perceive that difference, then I don't know what.
Admittedly, the right has a tough road to hoe where making inroads into the black vote in concerned. The right and blacks don't see eye to eye on a number of important issues and it is hard to get past those fissures. How the past is viewed, how much race matters, how much government should do to interfere or remedy injustices both past and present, whether the system/structure supports blacks and others equally, etc. There are a number of nominally conservative tendencies in the black community, but the above issues get in the way of conservative politicos getting blacks to vote in that fashion. It's not going to go away easily and attacks on affirmative action ,a pet project of the right since the program's inception (notable undertaken by the NIxon Admin even as he was rolling out the groundwork for the aforementioned Southern Strategy), along with other attitudes, are not going to help wear away the distrust.
Post Extras:
|
Horn6721
5000+ posts
04/13/12 01:36 PM
|
|
Buck
'All that need be understood is that conservatism has never been a particularly vocal or active ally of African American interests, and has often stood in the way of black progress, whether said interference came from Democrats or Republicans."
Explain what you see as conservative principals that stood in the way of black progress.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/13/12 01:43 PM
|
|
Conservatives sat out the entire Civil Right Movement and only got involved when a church needed to be bombed, somebody needed to lynched or schools and lunch counters needed to be protected from integration.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/13/12 01:45 PM
|
|
Abe Lincoln says Hi, Purse.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/13/12 01:52 PM
|
|
What does Abe Lincoln have to do with conservatives who sat out the entire Civil Rights Movement?
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/13/12 01:55 PM
|
|
Horn
Again, this is not about political philosophy, it is about political actors. There has been opposition to virtually every move made by the government to push back against progressions made on behalf of blacks. I would consider those actions aimed at maintaining the prior inequities as conservative, whether from racism or a desire to see that the feds stay out of local issues or whatever. I note that one party/political tradition in re race issues sought to capitalize on the discontents of the southern whites when progressions were still hot in memory. The way the nation handled changes regarding Jim Crow went along way toward influencing the way a base was developed by the GOP during the post civil rights era. I am also referring to the way blacks view their interests and the way the GOP, while in its modern American conservative phase, has spoken of, ignored, or addressed those issues.
Post Extras:
|
Horn6721
5000+ posts
04/13/12 03:34 PM
|
|
Buck
You say it but you don't explain it.
In what way have ' conservatives" opposed every move to benefit blacks?
if you think this you should be able to say who and what was done
What did conservatives do vis a vis Jim Crow laws that make you think Dems were black people's friends and conservatives were not? IIRC the south was hugely and predominantly Democrats during the entire time Jim Crow laws were enforced in the south.
And you never answered.
have you researched how the congress vcoted on the civil rights act of 1964??
I am asking for examples and names of conservatives who you say acted against black interests.
If one studies history one would see it was the Dems. primarily southern dems who acted against black interests.
and i can give you names and actions.
Post Extras:
|
IvanDiabloHorn
250+ posts
04/13/12 03:58 PM
|
|
The white southern democrats voted for Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1968 and became white southern republicans in the mid 1970's. Exception being old white yellow dog democrats and young white idiot liberals.
Being old and raised in the 50's & 60's affords me the hindsight to just chuckle when people actually try to compare real racism of the 50s & 60s and some sort of imaginary racism existing today. Don't compare being forced go to a segregated school with being offended when someone uses a racial epithet . Ludicrous. No person born after 1980 has anyone to blame for their failing except themselves and that's why the ad is racist and self serving.
But, I am not offended because I can not find any law constitutional or not that says I have right "To not be offended".
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/13/12 05:45 PM
|
|
On what basis what have you concluded racism today is "imaginary'?
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/13/12 08:14 PM
|
|
In reply to:
If one studies history one would see it was the Dems. primarily southern dems who acted against black interests.
The Southern Dems were often conservative on this point. As I said, take any of the actors who were involved in trying to push back against the extension of rights and other programs of assistance to blacks and, black inclusion and equality being the non-default, those trying to stop a change of that circumstance were, by definition and trends of affiliation, conservative. We see where the party of modern conservatism went to gather base during the post civil rights era. Bedfellows. Do you think that was accidental? Do you think you can run away from that fact by repeatedly stating stupid [censored] like Lincoln was a Republican or the South was Democratic? The Republicans claimed the white South with a purpose and in furtherance of the power they wished to use for their overall conservative push (this implies that conservatism as it has grown these last 60 years or so was not based in the South alone). The Republicans get saddled with the positions their bedfellows chose.
Once we start into the story of modern conservatism's rise from the ashes of New Deal America, to this degree and that spurred on by the cold war's anti-communist fervor and responses to both political motions toward fighting racism and inequality and the civil rights movement, we are in for a sprawling story that probably ends up implicating the country as a whole (business types, Orange county, CA suburban ideologues, Goldwater supporters (he voted against the VRA, I believe, and such pointed the way toward the Southern strategy as he carried some of the southern states), and a host of other groups culled together into a viable movement over the course of new liberalism's hey day).
Goldwater, Thurmond, Collins, an any number of local actors pushed from the late 40s (Dems in '48 decide that part of the platform is going to move toward attending to interests specifically located in black circles) through the early 70s.
There are a host of good to excellent books covering the rise of modern conservatism throughout the country, often example-led by the Southern response to the expansion of black participation.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/16/12 11:59 AM
|
|
If you followed Goldwater and the beliefs that he and Buckley brought forth you would understand that it is not that they are or Conservatives are against anyone, it is about giving you as an individual the chance to succeed. They are not about the group, but the individual.
You talk about understanding the black situation or needs, that is not what they are for or against, they are about the individual choice and allowing you that opportunity.
The reason that Goldwater voted against was simple and straightforward, it was about a group not the individual. That vote can directly be attributed to the "Special Interests" groups that we have today. Blacks, Hispanics, Religious Right, Anti Abortionists, Gay and Lesbian, Lobbyists etc.
To even mention Goldwater in the same vein as racism is absurd and shows how little you actually understand the Conservative movements roots and basis. I will be the first to admit that Group Think is far more powerful and easy to follow than Individual Think. Group Think has infected the Republican Party and there are many people out there not happy with it. When I hear Rubio speak, he reminds me of Goldwater, he doesn't think what is best for him or Latino's, he thinks what is best for America.
The idealogical difference here is Group Think mentality vs. Individual Think mentatlity.
That ad did nothing but reaffirm the group think mentality that I believe is wrong with this country.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/16/12 12:28 PM
|
|
In reply to:
To even mention Goldwater in the same vein as racism is absurd....
Really?
The Goldwater forces rolled over the moderates that year, with a fervor that their Tea Party legatees would find difficult to match. At the Republicans’ California state convention, moderates barely managed to block a platform resolution to “send Negroes back to Africa.”
But maybe it was his "forces" that were racist, and not Barry himself.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/16/12 12:37 PM
|
|
It is quite obvious you know nothing about Barry Goldwater, please don't continue to make yourself look foolish.
That man single handlidly did more for American Indians, Mexican Americans, Mexicans than almost any other man in history combined. Do a little more than read the rhetoric that was spewed by the LBJ machine.
The [censored] that LBJ threw out about Barry Goldwater was so much crap and that it still exists 60 years later tells you how absurdly powerful the media was then and is now.
There are many books about Goldwater, and all that have been written since the early 1970's have said that non of the protrayals of Goldwater from that election and demonization of him was even remotely accurate.
Please don't continue to make yourself look foolish, especially to someone that knows a little something about Barry Goldwater.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/16/12 12:48 PM
|
|
In reply to:
There are many books about Goldwater, and all that have been written since the early 1970's have said that non of the protrayals of Goldwater from that election and demonization of him was even remotely accurate.
Really? I guess the question now is, have you read any of them? Because my quote was from a book review in the NYT dated January 2012.
Here's another snippet.
In reply to:
When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, Kabaservice reports, it had proportionally greater support among Republicans than among Democrats (who had to fend off opposition from Southern segregationists). But Goldwater, the party’s “presumptive presidential nominee,” voted against the bill.
But please regale us with your erudition regarding something you apparently know nothing about.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/16/12 07:04 PM
|
|
In reply to:
To even mention Goldwater in the same vein as racism is absurd and shows how little you actually understand the Conservative movements roots and basis.
I do not think that Goldwater was a racist, but I have never read anything that leads me to believe he had any kind of realistic grip on the black experience in this country or any good ideas for the furtherance of that group's interests. It is absolutely reasonable to mention his brand of conservatism in the same conversation as anti-Civil Rights racism as his vote against the VRA, regardless of the reason for that vote, garnered him support in the white south, started the changeover from Southern Dem and Dixiecrat to mod con reps, and presaged the Southern Strategy. Again, bedfellows.
In reply to:
The reason that Goldwater voted against was simple and straightforward, it was about a group not the individual.
This is so stupid that it is hard not to think it is a euphamism or code for some set of words the speaker does not wish others to see leaving his or her mouth. When you vote you vote as an individual that understands and, usually, embraces a position within a group or a variation of groups that vote in a similar fashion. As has been noted, the black experience was one that forced a certain kind of groupness, a certain kind of experience on the black population, and the individualism of blacks understandably was a matter of fluid political importance given the fact that the system had for hundreds of years attempted to nullify or utterly drown that individuality. In short, it made sense, and to this degree and that continues to makes sense, to recognize the the individual's interests in those held by the group. Goldwater's ideas about the sanctity of individualism was incredibly tone deaf to the circumstances of blacks in the country who were suffering greatly because of the groupness the nation had created for that demographic.
I think you have hit on a major issue, i.e,. the cult of the individual that runs so fervently in the modern conservative tradition. It makes it hard for that group to recognize structural or systemic issues. The chant is always 'anyone can do anything in this country' even though the history of America doesn't really bear that out, and even thought conservatives often fail to demonstrate any kind of nuanced concept of how this or that individual attains whatever status is involved ('it's just good old fashioned up-with-boot-straps effort and gumption and knowhow,' etc., or 'so and so just made poor decision , didn't work hard enough, etc.).
The narrative of cultish individualism vs that which has a more civic or communal orientation is a profound rift. Ding ding ding for whiteapples.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/17/12 08:12 AM
|
|
Then you just don't get, you are a Group Think person. I am not a Group Think person.
I am an individual first and foremost, I vote for what is best for me not for what group I fit into.
I don't understand how that concept is so hard to understand.
That is what Goldwater was about, making the most in life about yourself. If you think I am racist or my thoughts are racist, hey that is issue.
My goals in life are what is best for:
1.) Me
2.) My family
3.) United States
Not what is best for:
1.) Me
2.) Irish
3.) Catholics
4.) My Family
5.) United States of America
I am sorry you have a problem and you label me a racist because I put bettering myself and family above your political concerns.
Demonizing Goldwater from the NYT in 2012 because some racist jackasses jumped on his bandwagon does not mean one is a racist or should even be charaterized in such a way. Do a little more research on Goldwater then one quote you pulled out of the NYT. Why don't you read what Kennedy wrote about him? How about what Dr. King said about him?
Again, you just spout [censored] off the top of your head that you have not clue about.
Post Extras:
|
BuffaloBayouBevo
250+ posts
04/17/12 08:22 AM
|
|
majorwhiteapples:
Given your post, my question is whether you think the civil rights act and voting rights acts should have been passed?
Post Extras:
|
Michtex
2500+ posts
04/17/12 08:25 AM
|
|
In reply to:
How about what Dr. King said about him?
You don't mean this, right?
In reply to:
On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
The Link
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/17/12 01:51 PM
|
|
Absolutely, that quote....it points out point blank what the difference between Group Think and Individual Think, MLK's opinions are his, his opinion of Goldwater is very unlike what Perham quoted from the NYT in 2012 and even MLK, who disagreed with Goldwater said he was not a racist.
MLK understood Goldwaters position and it was not one he supported, which is fine, you can have conversations like that...and walk away with respect for one another.
As far as me supporting The Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's there is very little legislation that I would have supported or actions of LBJ during that period. History has proved me right.
My opinion would have been much different then vs. today. I believe at the time something like that was needed or even necessary. Today, 60 years later it is time to evolve and quit blaming other people for your problems, situations and lot in life.
60 years ago, I could agree that the start of life didn't give some folks a fair and equal chance. 50-60 years later or anybody born after 1970, give me a break. There is nobody born after 1970 that was not given the same chance in life that I received.
If you still think I am a racist, fine by me, your opinion matters little if any to me, but to blatanly call someone a racist that you know nothing about is absurd.
Now if you want to call Buckly a racist you would have a much stronger case.....but that is a story for another time.......
Post Extras:
|
Michtex
2500+ posts
04/17/12 02:00 PM
|
|
In reply to:
There is nobody born after 1970 that was not given the same chance in life that I received.
So you lived a life similar to the teens in this story?
The Link
Post Extras:
|
BuffaloBayouBevo
250+ posts
04/17/12 02:02 PM
|
|
In reply to:
As far as me supporting The Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's there is very little legislation that I would have supported or actions of LBJ during that period. History has proved me right.
My opinion would have been much different then vs. today. I believe at the time something like that was needed or even necessary. Today, 60 years later it is time to evolve and quit blaming other people for your problems, situations and lot in life.
First, you may not have been addressing me, but I have not called you a racist.
Your two quotes above seem to be inconsistent. You are saying that you would not have supported civil rights or voting rights legislation then, but it was necessary then but not now?
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/17/12 02:34 PM
|
|
There is nothing preventing those kids from getting an education and getting out of the said area if they so choose. I am sure they have family outside of that area, if not they could easily go their pastor and discuss the situation.
In the hallways of my HS in Houston there was a shooting, stabbing, and I was attacked with no warning and for no reason other than saying hello in the hallway to a girl I sat next to in Chemistry. Fractured half my face and spent 10 days in the hospital.
I continued to go to school graduate HS, go to the Texas, pay for my own education and get a job.
So yes, I would say that my life growing up in questionable areas of Chicago, Mesa Arizona, New Orleans and Houston Texas was not much different then their life.
Would an organization like a church or Big Brothers and Big Sisters help, hell yes. The kids need to know they have alternatives and it is not up to society to point it out to them, they have to know to go find it. Their church might be a good alternative. By the way, why don't you just pick the most extreme of all circumstances possible? The people that live in that area elect criminals to office and the same members of the House of Representatives year after year, why don't they start there and elect somebody that would actually get something done? The crime rate is a direct reflection on the elected officials, don't tell me they can't do anything about it.....
Kids that want out can get out and or do something about it.
As far as the question about the Civil Rights Laws, after studying LBJ, which is hindsight, I would not have supported anything or very little that he stood for, I should have used the word hindsight. The New Deal, The Great Society, and Hope and Change were three extreme liberal movements that are proving to be the biggest hijacks of the American people in the history of the United States, sorry story for another time....
I will also say, that if I could go back in time and put my self at my age today or younger, I could see the benfits and need for some of the Civil Rights Legislation.
I don't believe that kids were given an equal opportunity, education wise until you start getting to the kids born around 1970, give or take 5 years or so for some other areas but in today's world there is no excuse or very few excuseable ones. I will give you kids that born with issues, or that have accidents or victims of extreme behavior but for kids within two Standard Deviations, there is not excuse, it is about you and what you want out of life. If your family and or surroundings don't motivate you, something needs too and that something is yourself.
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn
2500+ posts
04/17/12 03:34 PM
|
|
In reply to:
that quote....it points out point blank what the difference between Group Think and Individual Think, MLK's opinions are his, his opinion of Goldwater is very unlike what Perham quoted from the NYT in 2012 and even MLK, who disagreed with Goldwater said he was not a racist.
MLK understood Goldwaters position and it was not one he supported, which is fine, you can have conversations like that...and walk away with respect for one another.
Come on, man.
MLK 'point blank' says he urges blacks and whites of good conscience.
That is a request from a public, powerful, cultural leader aimed at steering a whole group of people from in any way supporting Goldwater or any member of another group (Republicans) who might politically support him. That is an individual asking other individuals to see their group interests in a certain way and to then individually take action that amounts to collective action vs the political prospects of another individual and any individual/group that might support that individual.
You have not expressed any support for anything like that, though I think that such is a very common, almost inescapable part of life.
You notice that King does not address blacks with any sort of qualifier. He suggests that the interests of the whole nation can be forwarded by 'whites of good conscience' but addresses blacks as a block. Do you think that is racist? I know a number of conservatives who do.
You suggest that post 1970 everyone has had an equal shake. In 1968 that generation's greatest, most powerful civil rights leader was assassinated, myriad inequalities were still in place, and nonetheless, by 1970 ground zero was level? Pray tell. How did that come to pass?
At any rate, being an individual does not mean that you have no group interests that lie between your family and the US. It may mean that, but not necessarily. Even if that is an accurate assessment for yourself, you should be able to see that it is not a full assessment of the interests of other individuals. I posit that you are being a little too simplistic and inflexible.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/17/12 03:44 PM
|
|
I agree.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/18/12 10:42 AM
|
|
MLK is a tough subject. The main point I am making is that he saw Barry Goldwater for what he was.....I think he, as you pointed out, understood Barry Goldwater better than alot of his folllowers. The key point that I mentioned way aboved is that Barry Goldwater was not a racist and his vote against the Legislation in question was a question for him about individual liberty.
When others on here pull up a quote from a 2012 NYT article throwing Goldwater in with known and admitted Racists it is just wrong, and that is why I have such disdain for LBJ and moronic posts.
As far as the 1970 comment, it was not meant as a point in time where everything was magic, it was people born in or around that time frame, by the time they started going to school and understanding the ways of the world, the opportunties given were relatively equal. Am I saying everything was all peaches and creme,no, but if you were born in or around 1970, opportunites are relatively equal.
I just believe that an individual makes his own way in the world and there are very few acceptable excuses. When I hear excuses about the school I went didn't have computers or the teachers weren't this and that, I call [censored], I had plenty of classes especially in HS that I could have taught the class. Why? Because I took the extra step, the teacher said do the even problems, well I did the odd problems too. Read Chapter 1 and 2 tonight and we will do Chapter 3 and 4 on Thursday, I read all 4 chapters that night. I would get my history books, civics books at the beginning of the year and have them read by the end of the first couple weeks of school. There is no magic but in life as in school you have to deal with inept Managers/Teachers with little or no budget, deal with it. I don't want to hear your excuses, the team that works for me knows there are no excuses and they accept full responsibilty for the outcome of their sales territories.
Post Extras:
|
UTChE96
5000+ posts
04/18/12 11:12 AM
|
|
LOL! Is Obama trying to win over that 5% of AA voters that didn't vote for him. Don't worry Barack, black voters will vote for any Democrat regardless of race or something else that actually matters.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/18/12 11:32 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Is Obama trying to win over that 5% of AA voters that didn't vote for him.
I believe that this has already been explained.
It is more of an attempt to ensure that blacks get out and vote at all, not to get them to vote for Obama (which they will).
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Shop the Co-op |
Email A Friend |
Contact Us
Pages in this thread: 
Rate thread
Print Thread
