You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by salami
You can't openly discuss it when accusing somebody of racism. You can only assume what their intent is. It is not racism to exploit the perceived
You can't openly discuss it when accusing somebody of racism. You can only assume what their intent is. It is not racism to exploit the perceived difference between her beliefs and those of the average American. I think it's offensive to label somebody a racist for doing so.
If a person hasn't 'a racist bone in their body' as the saying goes (and unlike most people I talk to about this I truly believe that a great many people are NOT racist and work hard to not absorb the racism that permeates our culture), then what you say is true. The problem is a person who is not racist will often stoke the fires of the racial resentment that's out there by "exploit(ing) the perceived difference between her beliefs and those of the average American" as you put it. And this will happen because a great many people listening take in the debate through the filter of racial fear and mistrust that has a 400 year pedigree in this country, and a good many of the people who are not actively or publically racist know this, but still exploit the situation knowing that it will advance their cause in the dispute.
The question is, is exploiting racial fear and tension for tactical reasons "racist" even if you aren't particularly racist in your own personal life?
The answer is YES, it's racist in effect. TAKE A CLEAR EXAMPLE: In 2000 Bush and Rove used the McCain has a black baby rumor to clobber McCain among South Carolina Republicans. That group of voters has as large a proportion of unashamedly racist voters in it as any demographic in the country. Bush killed McCain with it. Is Bush a racist in his personal life and beliefs? I've never thought so. But was this act racist in effect? I think it pretty uncontroversially was. That's what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Now, if this was the KKK guy from the Stern show, I think it would be a safe assumption, but to imply that it's race related, also implies that those who are genuinely concerned are racists. Therefore, the desired effect of claiming racism is to influence people ignore the issue, fearing that if they voice their concerns they will be labeled as racists.
I just don't think it makes sense to say if the speaker isn't saying ****** and wearing a pillowcase on his head we need to withhold judgement on whether there is racism going on. My posts #33 and #38 and my prior comments here explain why.
I also think that those who want to talk about whether Michelle or Barack Obama share the values of an "average American" need to specify what exactly they mean by that. What are those values? What are we talking about? If what they specify is that they have different values and that has to do with them being black and having experieinced life as black people in this country and statement "X" proves it, then we're back to talking about race again aren't we? So if people want to talk about these things they need to do it in a way that keeps race out of the equation.
And if people talk clearly and specifically about what they think she believes, and she contradicts them, discusses what she has said, explains it, and her statements and/or apologies can be judged as sincere and honest by a fair person, then what?
Quote:
Like I said before, this will work at first, but if it continues, a point will be reached when people will realize that they are blaming EVERYTHING on racism.
First, the Obama campaign itself can't be accused of this because they have carefully and consistently avoided doing much, if any, of it. So this charge can't fairly or reasonably be directed at that campaign.
Second, most Obama opponents still accuse them of this even though they aren't doing it ("blaming EVERYTHING on racism"). In fact, the purpose of many of the opponents of Obama in bringing up issues or making comments with a racial edge is precisely TO GET OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN TO LABEL THINGS AS RACIST. In this country, at this point, it is far more damaging to a politician to defend himself against remarks by saying "racism" than it is to make the racially loaded attacks themselves. The reason is clear enough; almost nothing makes many whites angrier.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Why did Hillary Clinton make such a stink about how Obama "can't get white working class votes"? Because, 1) she was opening the door to whites to say to themselves that it was OK to vote on the basis of race against Obama, and 2) She was desperately hoping somebody in the Obama campaign would say "They're not voting for us because of racism." Her tactic was as racist as they day is long. A direct play to make race important in the campaign. Is she personally racist? No, she's like Bush.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Last edited by Leonidas; June 14th, 2008 at 11:16 AM.
Leo, denouncing the comments of Jeremiah Wright under political duress hardly makes up for the 20+ years that he sat in the church listening to ,and thus condoning, the anti-white, anti-America, hate rhetoric. When it comes to Michelle Obama, her statement about never having been proud of America only reinforces the suspicion created by the Wright issue.
Now, you're a smart guy. The fact that you're denying these issues tells me that you've either got your "our guy" glasses on (which I find hard to believe), or you're willing to accept these flaws as, at the very least, a character flaw in the Obamas, or supportive of your own opinion (or somewhere in between).
As the official LGK spokesman of the left, can you please enlighten those of us on the other side of the fence, as to why this is acceptable?
Sure.
I think it is absurd to believe that Barack or M. Obama are anti-white or anti-America or not proud to be Americans. None of hispublic comments give any support to these ideas. In fact, just the opposite. I trust that MO's "proud" comment means nothing because I'm sure she is proud (not of EVERYTHING, but certainly by and large), and she is especially ("really") proud to see how the Democratic party has seen fit to nominate her husband for president. That Obama first gave an excellent appraisal of the state of race relations in the US and described how we should talk about race, and then, when Wright violated the principles that Obama had presented, Obama renounced and rejected Wright's behavior and withdrew from the Trinity Church, shows NOT that Obama has some fatal "character flaw," but THAT HE DOES NOT. What would you have had him do instead?
The ideas that Obama Is anti-white, or any kind of racist is unconvincing. He's lived in more kinds of cultures with family members of more races than any person to ever run for the presidency. His mother was white, his white grandparents from Kansas had a huge part in bringing him up, he had an Indonesian stepfather, he has lived in contact with and learned about three different religious systems. He went to a predominantly white and Hawaiian private school, he went to Occidental College in LA and then to Columbia and later to Harvard law school where he edited the Law Review. He's done community organizing among poor and unemployed people. HE IS EXPLICITLY NOT ANY OY THE THINGS PEOPLE ARE "suspicious" about. It's a non-issue. Let's talk about policy is what I say.
Last edited by Leonidas; June 15th, 2008 at 10:14 AM.
=KINGS17;1171183]Why is it that anyone that questions Obama's judgment based on his association with the Trinity Church for 20 years has to be full of racial resentment?
Did I say ANYONE?
Quote:
Why can't you do the political thing without calling other people racists?
CAN'T I?
Quote:
Please explain why you won't
Why I WON'T?
Read my posts in the thread. And for future reference KINGS17, if you oversimplify and use absolutes indiscriminantly you usually are constructing a weak argument.
It's still an issue because he was part of that church for so long that by simply repudiating the statements of its pastor and suggesting that he never heard any of that rhetoric while he attended should cause any reasonable individual to raise questions about Obama's ability to listen and judge character.
So this is an "issue" that won't go away because you won't allow it to go away because you're just a reasonable individual? I get it.
Well, I'm a reasonable person and my questions about this have been asked and answered. I think Obama is NOT Reverend Wright, and I think he's not just able to "listen" but that he's sincere and that he's probably the smartest guy in the room most of the time. And I've decided he's a person of high character.
When you keep bringing up an "issue" that isn't about policy questions and refuse to let it go just because you see it as damaging to an individual to repeat it, that's called a smear campaign.
Wright is not and was not "anti-white" or anti-American." He denounced systematic racism. Wright was a Corpsman who helped operate on LBJ. He served his country in Vietnam. And the experience he gained from that particular imperial venture for naught made him critical of imperialistic US foreign policy in general. He also picked up some stupid conspiracy theories on the way. But to call him "anti-white" or anti-American is tantamount to claiming that there is no racism in the United States and US foreign policy over the last 60 years has not made some enemies.
Wow, you must have a permanent red tongue from drinking all the kool-aid.
Are you serious? You are actually able to deny what you see and hear based upon what you're told?
So this is an "issue" that won't go away because you won't allow it to go away because you're just a reasonable individual? I get it.
Well, I'm a reasonable person and my questions about this have been asked and answered. I think Obama is NOT Reverend Wright, and I think he's not just able to "listen" but that he's sincere and that he's probably the smartest guy in the room most of the time. And I've decided he's a person of high character.
When you keep bringing up an "issue" that isn't about policy questions and refuse to let it go just because you see it as damaging to an individual to repeat it, that's called a smear campaign.
I have nothing to do with whether this issue goes away or not. And really, it isn't even the deciding factor for me, since my mind was made up to not vote for him because of his very low level of experience and far left political leanings well before any of that stuff came out.
But if you're willing to look past 20+ years of involvement with an obviously racially bigoted (towards white people) church organization simply because he publicly denounces recent comments from the leader of that church (and rightly so...those comments SHOULD be denounced), then I'm not sure I'd agree with your personal assessment of reason. The man was a member of the congregation for over twenty years, and there's no doubt in people's minds that the kind of stuff that Wright spewed recently was being spewed well before the media brought it to the public's attention. Any person who didn't swallow the stuff that Wright was screaming hook, line, and sinker would have walked out of that church and never returned...the same way you or I or anyone here (i.e. reasonable people) would have no-doubt walked out of any church that spoke that way about blacks or latinos etc etc.
And this particular issue, though it may not be directly about policy, should lead people to wonder exactly what policies he would introduce were he to be elected, and to what end. I just don't get why people are so willing to let an obvious political move designed to divert attention (his denouncement) instantly qualify as questions "asked and answered" that should be completely ignored for the remainder of the campaign.
Good dialogue, Leo. And I mean that sincerely.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Last edited by FlyBoeingJets; June 14th, 2008 at 05:56 PM.
When presented with the facts of the matter you write it off as kool-aid.
Please. Come up with an argument, with evidence. Or just get lost you shill.
Jeez, aside from the numerous quotes that have been plaguing the newspapers, television, internet, radio (both terrestrial and satellite), I don't know what I'd be able to come up with.
I guess you win.
Thank you for continuing to argue on behalf of the left. Along with go and maddog420, with every political post, you reinforce the fact that most of the left is completely uninformed, devoid of common sense, and well, out there.
I have nothing to do with whether this issue goes away or not. And really, it isn't even the deciding factor for me, since my mind was made up to not vote for him because of his very low level of experience and far left political leanings well before any of that stuff came out.
Sure you do FBJ, in the following sense. Every mention of it as a credible question/charge against Obama reinforces every other such mention. (It is true that you aren't Sean Hannity or Wolf Blitzer. Good for you.)
It isn't the deciding factor for you, but the purpose in people saying that Obama MUST, OBVIOUSLY agree with Wright in some important ways, even though he has denounced him and rejected his racial resentments and conspiracy theories, AND HAS NEVER MADE ANY SUCH STATEMENTS HIMSELF, is to make Wright the filter through which Obama is percieved by people and make that the deciding factor in their decisions on him.
Quote:
But if you're willing to look past 20+ years of involvement with an obviously racially bigoted (towards white people) church organization simply because he publicly denounces recent comments from the leader of that church (and rightly so...those comments SHOULD be denounced), then I'm not sure I'd agree with your personal assessment of reason. The man was a member of the congregation for over twenty years, and there's no doubt in people's minds that the kind of stuff that Wright spewed recently was being spewed well before the media brought it to the public's attention. Any person who didn't swallow the stuff that Wright was screaming hook, line, and sinker would have walked out of that church and never returned...the same way you or I or anyone here (i.e. reasonable people) would have no-doubt walked out of any church that spoke that way about blacks or latinos etc etc.
Just not the case that people walk into and out of churches because of what ministers or priests say. People join, stay, or go for all kinds of reasons and members of congregations do not, and in most congregations that aren't cults, are not expected to swallow things hook, line and sinker. People stay in the Catholic Church even though they disagree with important doctrines of the Church. Both synagogues and mosques are, to a meaningful degree, SUPPOSED to be places where people gather TO DISPUTE with each other about the meaning of their religion. But most importantly, there is no plausible reason to watch and listen to Obama and people that know him well, to know his family history and the fact that he is BI-RACIAL, and to still believe that he is a "closet racist" or any kind of racist.
Quote:
And this particular issue, though it may not be directly about policy, should lead people to wonder exactly what policies he would introduce were he to be elected, and to what end.
What kinds of policies do you have in mind FBJ? What ends are you suggesting he might have that would be suggested by his former membership at Trinity Church?
I think the answers to these questions are key, because the answers need to be believable and unsavory if this discussion of his religious history is to have any real important point to it other than, 'This hurts Obama with white voters because it scares them in some abstract way', or, in other words, 'it's about race and using Obama's race to defeat him.'
So what specific actions or plans do we have to fear that could be connected to the Wright thing?
Quote:
I just don't get why people are so willing to let an obvious political move designed to divert attention (his denouncement) instantly qualify as questions "asked and answered" that should be completely ignored for the remainder of the campaign.
Questions didn't "instantly" qualify as asked and answered, but now they have been and there is nothing new to say. He did what he did, he explained it, the explanation is as believable or more so than any competing ideas, discussion was held, and further attempts to keep this alive are now about making him and his wife appear to be "too black" as he has pointed out himself.
LAST. Earlier in your post you said he did denounce Wright and his comments "and rightly so...those comments SHOULD be denounced." Immediately above you say Obama's denouncement was "an obvious political move designed to divert attention." And yet it was indeed the right thing to do!! So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
By this logic there is nothing he can do to respond that is trustworthy or believable even if it's the right thing to do and also the truth!! Logically then, Obama CAN'T defend himself. And what's he accused of? Having a sometimes wacky angry black minister who must believe the same things Obama believes. If there is no allowable defense then this thing is indeed about race and scary, unpredictable, "too black" black people.
Last edited by Leonidas; June 15th, 2008 at 05:43 PM.
Questions didn't "instantly" qualify as asked and answered, but now they have been and there is nothing new to say. He did what he did, he explained it, the explanation is as believable or more so than any competing ideas, discussion was held, and further attempts to keep this alive are now about making him and his wife appear to be "too black" as he has pointed out himself.
LAST. Earlier in your post you said he did denounce Wright and his comments "and rightly so...those comments SHOULD be denounced." Immediately above you say Obama's denouncement was "an obvious political move designed to divert attention." And yet it was indeed the right thing to do!! So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
He's "damned" for attending wright's church for 20 years, and constructively supporting the hate speech.
As far as changing history, you're correct, there's nothing he can say to change his constructive support of the hate speech toward America and its white population.
salami
