|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 01 2013 11:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:35 SnipedSoul wrote:On November 01 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 11:19 SnipedSoul wrote:
No one asked to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate, he even said so himself.
If you're white, we'll just assume you were born in the US and are thus allowed to run for president.
If you're not white, then we'll have to go to great lengths to make sure you were born in the US, your word isn't enough.
Yep, totally reasonable and not at all motivated by race. Disclaimer: the following is a guess. I would guess that the fact that Obama had a non-native father is what fueled it. Romney's father (and entire family) were citizens at the time of his birth, as far as I'm aware. So there is nothing for a birther type to latch onto. So no, not about race. It was more like "Hey, how can we make Obama ineligible! Ah, his father wasn't American, can Obama prove that he IS?!!" Once again, you jump to insert race wherever you can. Try again. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico. Where were the birthers on that one? That's not Mitt Romney? Or are you going to go back to what, the 60s? Back then the birthers didn't have internet, so who knows how many there may have been? It's the classic internt saying, the internet allows both freedom and crazies to spread. You still can't show that the birther movement is race based.
My understanding of what you said is that since Obama's father was not from America that it gave birthers a reason to go after the president.
I'm asking why they didn't go after Mitt since his father was also not born in America.
There are only two real options here. One is that birthers are after Barack Obama because he's black. The other is that they honestly believe the Democrats would field a candidate who is not constitutionally allowed to be president.
I think the second is worse, to be honest.
|
On November 01 2013 12:01 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:51 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 11:35 SnipedSoul wrote:On November 01 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 11:19 SnipedSoul wrote:
No one asked to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate, he even said so himself.
If you're white, we'll just assume you were born in the US and are thus allowed to run for president.
If you're not white, then we'll have to go to great lengths to make sure you were born in the US, your word isn't enough.
Yep, totally reasonable and not at all motivated by race. Disclaimer: the following is a guess. I would guess that the fact that Obama had a non-native father is what fueled it. Romney's father (and entire family) were citizens at the time of his birth, as far as I'm aware. So there is nothing for a birther type to latch onto. So no, not about race. It was more like "Hey, how can we make Obama ineligible! Ah, his father wasn't American, can Obama prove that he IS?!!" Once again, you jump to insert race wherever you can. Try again. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico. Where were the birthers on that one? That's not Mitt Romney? Or are you going to go back to what, the 60s? Back then the birthers didn't have internet, so who knows how many there may have been? It's the classic internt saying, the internet allows both freedom and crazies to spread. You still can't show that the birther movement is race based. My understanding of what you said is that since Obama's father was not from America that it gave birthers a reason to go after the president. I'm asking why they didn't go after Mitt since his father was also not born in America. There are only two real options here. One is that birthers are after Barack Obama because he's black. The other is that they honestly believe the Democrats would field a candidate who is not constitutionally allowed to be president. I think the second is worse, to be honest.
Or the third option: in the 60s birtheirsm didn't have the internet? I still think that given what was known about Obama's father from his own book is what spurred it on. Again, there is no back up to your claim, you just really want it to be race.
Edit: Also, at the time of Romney's birth, he dad was a citizen, so there was no problem. Surely you get that? Your question isn't even relevent.
|
So birthers think Democrats are dumb enough to field a candidate without checking to make sure he can be president?
|
On November 01 2013 10:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 08:01 DoubleReed wrote:
Sorry, its just I get the feeling that you're arguing against Generic Liberal Guy rather than me. The talking point line was part of your script, rather than a response to me...
Unfortunately, can't go into detail why birther = racist atm. Can write more later tonight. The only generic liberals I've addressed are in this thread. I look forward to seeing this proof. I'm sure it's based in logical deduction and facts, not generalities. By the way, it cannot just show that "many" birthers are racist, it must actually show that their britherism is from their racism, or vice versa. The whole "correlation vs causation" thing. I personally think birtherism is a thing because there were stories, not immediately disproven, that he wasn't born in America. (I know the burden of proof was on the birthers, but that's not my point.) It was people looking for a way to make him illegitimate as easily as possible. Now that I think about it, that really sums up the approach the left takes to the right. If you call them hateful names, it means you can ignore their point of view! TIL that not a single person could actually show me how it was racist, but they really FEEL deep in their hearts that it is, so it must be. If that's not putting oneself in danger of being affected by one's own bias, then what could be? It shows because A) No one could address the context or content of what he said, they just mentioned that ONE single, solitary sentence as definitive proof- Ignoring the context in the speech, ignoring the fact that he said nothing derogatory about blacks or Kenyans, etc, etc. B) Everyone keeps referencing the idea that Cruz said something about Africa. But that's not what Cruz said. He said Kenya. Nor would it have been racist if he HAD said Africa. But the Kenya bit is referring to the birther controversy, not to the idea that his skin color makes him makes him a bad president. Please, keep making feeling based statements, it displays how the left (in this thread) really views the world: through a lens of race, gender, class, or feeling. And that anyone who disagrees with them is simply an idiot to be dismissed. No argument needed!
You do realize that the right calls leftists socialists, commies, pinkos, traitors, and a whole host of names. And that's just the leftists. That's not the women, gays, blacks, latinos, and arabs. They get different names.
But let's get one thing straight: I'm pretty abrasive for a leftist. I speak for myself.
Anyway, here's a study linking racial prejudice with citizenship views:
Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated. Whites are guarded about openly endorsing the view that Blacks are less American than Whites, which may suppress overall mean differences in performance ratings and perceptions of Obama being un-American. However, bias in viewing Blacks as less American than Whites appeared to implicitly underlie Whites' negative evaluations of his performance.
Source
But wait! I hear! That's clearly not good enough for your ridiculous burden of proof. And I know it isn't. Because you're doing a funny thing called Motivated Skepticism.
But really, this is more talking past each other, honestly. This article explains it better. The motives of birthers are clearly driven by race. What you're looking for is something more explicit and more white supremacist-y. Which is obviously not there, and not what anyone - even me - is arguing.
So this is pretty much why I asked you what you consider racist and what you don't. I gave you a decent list of examples of race-based statements. Some were more innocuous than others. Here's the paragraph again:
I'm really curious how explicit people have to be before you call them racist. Do they have reference the correlation of race and IQ? Do they have to talk about how the homogeneity of Finland helps their children? Do they have to suggest that maybe whites should maintain their culture? Or maybe how whites should have their own country? Which of these crosses the line into racism for you.
Because I wouldn't say any of those are explicitly racist. What do you think?
|
On November 01 2013 11:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 10:47 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On November 01 2013 10:38 zlefin wrote:
have any actual studies been done to correlate either tea partyers or birthers with racism? 10 seconds of google searching gives this study showing the link between racism and birtherism. Study: racial prejudice plays role in Obama citizenship views "Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated. Whites are guarded about openly endorsing the view that Blacks are less American than Whites, which may suppress overall mean differences in performance ratings and perceptions of Obama being un-American. However, bias in viewing Blacks as less American than Whites appeared to implicitly underlie Whites' negative evaluations of his performance. Also, consistent with previous research, Blacks did not demonstrate such a relationship, nor did Americanism mediate the relationship between prejudice and performance evaluations when Vice-President Biden acted as target for either Whites or Blacks. Whereas previous work has linked White prejudice with negative perceptions of Obama, the current work reveals a mechanism that may be largely responsible for this effect, Obama's non-prototypicality (largely in terms of his race) and thus reduced perceptions of his Americanism." http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.UnMHfiRkyt8 Is there another study? That only discussed the white/black dynamic, and it said it was a survey of students. Most students are liberal leaning. Therefore, it really has nothing to do with the Tea Party, at any rate. So it's not a right wing thing, and I doubt it's a left wing thing. The part about Citizenship was when they asked another professor who had nothing to do with the study at all. That part appears to be pure conjecture. It was one paragraph without any citation. This study isn't saying what you think it is.
The study says exactly what he thinks it says, you are the one that is re-inserting political affiliation. People are talkimg about whether birthers are racist. The study says that people that have doubts about citizenship despite evidence to the contrary are more likely to have racial prejudices. Other political views are unimportant.
Unless your contention re students is that students being left leaning creates too small a sample size of birthers, the points you bring up are utterly irrelevant to the statistics of the study. However, even that additional concern is unlikely.
|
My favorite part of the birther movement is they now all support the Canadian born Ted Cruz with not a second thought. I don't think they realize how ironic it is.
|
He says that he would like Obama to be sent back to Kenya. This means that he considers Obama to be out of the "real" American population - he's not "from here" and needs to be sent from where he comes from because he does not belong here.
He is therefore making a distinction between Americans/those with real American values on the one side, and Obama/Kenya on the other side. He is also attributing a negative quality to being those "others" - they are below the American values and the American people.
The combination of him refusing to acknowledge the fact that Obama is American and not "from elsewhere", and of the negative quality (compared to "actual" Americans) that he attributes to the "others" he groups Obama into, is what makes it a statement with racist undertones.
|
On November 01 2013 12:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:
My favorite part of the birther movement is they now all support the Canadian born Ted Cruz with not a second thought. I don't think they realize how ironic it is.
I enjoy this as well. If he were anything other than a white republican they would be screaming from the rooftops about his Canadian birth.
|
On November 01 2013 12:24 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 12:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:
My favorite part of the birther movement is they now all support the Canadian born Ted Cruz with not a second thought. I don't think they realize how ironic it is. I enjoy this as well. If he were anything other than a white republican they would be screaming from the rooftops about his Canadian birth.
Welcome to politics, the profession of being an ignoramus. Both aisle's are as guilty. How many times have I heard a Democrat say while Bush was in office that we have to balance the budget (it was of grave national concern...), end the foreign interventions, and restore our lost civil liberties. Now, while Obama has been in office the mantra has been we aren't spending at a great enough deficit even though Obama now has had the highest budget deficit among any President, cheer on more foreign interventions (in the name of humanitarianism no less!) abetting the folks we're supposed to be fighting against (helping Al Qaeda affiliates secure Libya, the entire mess of Egypt, giving aid and comfort to Al-Nusra, continued bombing of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. and now even American Citizens...), and then cheer on the Executive powers as breaches of our civil liberties through NSA, continued and increased drug raids against States that have legalized e.g. marijuana, and neutered pretty much every amendment meant to be a bulwark for our civil liberties. Quite frankly, as an outsider observer both sides are as dumb and hypocritical as any group could ever hope to be. (Or perhaps not dumb, just blindly partisan sycophants...which is worse imho)
|
On November 01 2013 12:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 10:28 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 08:01 DoubleReed wrote:
Sorry, its just I get the feeling that you're arguing against Generic Liberal Guy rather than me. The talking point line was part of your script, rather than a response to me...
Unfortunately, can't go into detail why birther = racist atm. Can write more later tonight. The only generic liberals I've addressed are in this thread. I look forward to seeing this proof. I'm sure it's based in logical deduction and facts, not generalities. By the way, it cannot just show that "many" birthers are racist, it must actually show that their britherism is from their racism, or vice versa. The whole "correlation vs causation" thing. I personally think birtherism is a thing because there were stories, not immediately disproven, that he wasn't born in America. (I know the burden of proof was on the birthers, but that's not my point.) It was people looking for a way to make him illegitimate as easily as possible. Now that I think about it, that really sums up the approach the left takes to the right. If you call them hateful names, it means you can ignore their point of view! TIL that not a single person could actually show me how it was racist, but they really FEEL deep in their hearts that it is, so it must be. If that's not putting oneself in danger of being affected by one's own bias, then what could be? It shows because A) No one could address the context or content of what he said, they just mentioned that ONE single, solitary sentence as definitive proof- Ignoring the context in the speech, ignoring the fact that he said nothing derogatory about blacks or Kenyans, etc, etc. B) Everyone keeps referencing the idea that Cruz said something about Africa. But that's not what Cruz said. He said Kenya. Nor would it have been racist if he HAD said Africa. But the Kenya bit is referring to the birther controversy, not to the idea that his skin color makes him makes him a bad president. Please, keep making feeling based statements, it displays how the left (in this thread) really views the world: through a lens of race, gender, class, or feeling. And that anyone who disagrees with them is simply an idiot to be dismissed. No argument needed! You do realize that the right calls leftists socialists, commies, pinkos, traitors, and a whole host of names. And that's just the leftists. That's not the women, gays, blacks, latinos, and arabs. They get different names. But let's get one thing straight: I'm pretty abrasive for a leftist. I speak for myself. Anyway, here's a study linking racial prejudice with citizenship views: Show nested quote +Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated. Whites are guarded about openly endorsing the view that Blacks are less American than Whites, which may suppress overall mean differences in performance ratings and perceptions of Obama being un-American. However, bias in viewing Blacks as less American than Whites appeared to implicitly underlie Whites' negative evaluations of his performance. SourceBut wait! I hear! That's clearly not good enough for your ridiculous burden of proof. And I know it isn't. Because you're doing a funny thing called Motivated Skepticism. But really, this is more talking past each other, honestly. This article explains it better. The motives of birthers are clearly driven by race. What you're looking for is something more explicit and more white supremacist-y. Which is obviously not there, and not what anyone - even me - is arguing. So this is pretty much why I asked you what you consider racist and what you don't. I gave you a decent list of examples of race-based statements. Some were more innocuous than others. Here's the paragraph again: Show nested quote +I'm really curious how explicit people have to be before you call them racist. Do they have reference the correlation of race and IQ? Do they have to talk about how the homogeneity of Finland helps their children? Do they have to suggest that maybe whites should maintain their culture? Or maybe how whites should have their own country? Which of these crosses the line into racism for you. Because I wouldn't say any of those are explicitly racist. What do you think?
How carefully do you read?
I know the right uses names, but the left does it more. Their leaders do it more. Take the number of inflammatory things said by Conservative leadership vs Democratic. And the democrats don't even always get rid of their guys, they just ignore them, then go crazy when someone on the right makes a stupid rape comment.
The article uses a study I already addressed! And now someone has replied to it.
The study says exactly what he thinks it says, you are the one that is re-inserting political affiliation. People are talkimg about whether birthers are racist. The study says that people that have doubts about citizenship despite evidence to the contrary are more likely to have racial prejudices. Other political views are unimportant.
Unless your contention re students is that students being left leaning creates too small a sample size of birthers, the points you bring up are utterly irrelevant to the statistics of the study. However, even that additional concern is unlikely.
Actually, it doesn't, since the statement you have taken to defending is that being a birther makes you prejudiced. I think it could merely be an indicator.
First of all, I would expect that since 99% of African Americans vote for Obama, it seems reasonable that more of them would approve of Obama than whites. I could just as easily title the article "Blacks hold more favorable view of Obama than whites." and it would no longer make your point. Whites are more politically and ideologically diverse, it would appear. (At least in terms of voters.)
However, to be fair to the study, it did find those with prejudices were more likely to disapprove. That may very well be race based, just as those who approve more of him (blacks) might be racially motivated. The article, curiously, didn't discuss that data.
Second, and more importantly, the question it asked was "how American was he" not "Is he a US citizen?" As in, do you think Obama shares American ideals more or less than Joe Biden? To bring in birtherism is a stretch, IMO.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying there aren't racists in the birther movement. We would expect people with underlying prejudices to be more susceptible to this kind of crap. But the statement that "birtherism=racism" is false. That's my point.
For me personally- I'm not a birther, but I disapprove of Obama and often I do doubt whether or not he shares my ideals. That's not racist. I doubted a lot of that about GWB as well.
Which goes back to the point that Cruz cannot be assumed, based in what he said and its context, to be a racist. It's like saying he's racist against Cubans because he doesn't want Fidel Castro as president, or something.
So please, unless you can show me where "birtherism=racist" then what Cruz said must be looked at in context. Which everyone here refuses to do.
|
On November 01 2013 12:24 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 12:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:
My favorite part of the birther movement is they now all support the Canadian born Ted Cruz with not a second thought. I don't think they realize how ironic it is. I enjoy this as well. If he were anything other than a white republican they would be screaming from the rooftops about his Canadian birth.
He is a Hispanic. Or does that only count when one is a democrat? Again, just like Trayvon Martin. Need to paint the white guy as a racist, even when he's not white!
He says that he would like Obama to be sent back to Kenya. This means that he considers Obama to be out of the "real" American population - he's not "from here" and needs to be sent from where he comes from because he does not belong here.
He is therefore making a distinction between Americans/those with real American values on the one side, and Obama/Kenya on the other side. He is also attributing a negative quality to being those "others" - they are below the American values and the American people.
The combination of him refusing to acknowledge the fact that Obama is American and not "from elsewhere", and of the negative quality (compared to "actual" Americans) that he attributes to the "others" he groups Obama into, is what makes it a statement with racist undertones.
He is drawing an ideological difference, and you are inserting race into it. He didn't insert him into a group of Kenyans, but said that Obama should go back to Kenya. It's no different than saying someone should go back to Germany, Japan, England, etc. Especially since his Chicago comments indicate he was in fact talking about places/ideas, not race.
To me, if we were to ask "is it more likely that his statement was race based or ideology based" the answer is obvious. Thus, marking him a racist, or someone with racist undertones, is too far a leap to defend.
|
I don't think it would be acceptable to tell someone of Polish descent to go back to Poland because the two of you have ideological differences.
|
On November 01 2013 13:06 SnipedSoul wrote:
I don't think it would be acceptable to tell someone of Polish descent to go back to Poland because the two of you have ideological differences.
But it's not racist. Again, I've never stated an opnion on what he said, except that it is NOT a racist statement. That's the discussion.
|
On November 01 2013 09:34 IgnE wrote:
The tea party is a backwards, racist, bigoted party.
And we've been hearing that assault from backwards, bigoted men and women.
There are just as many Obama supporters now as there are Tea Party supporters according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Scary for some on the left. They expected the lambasting to be narrowly applicable to the country, but it only underscores a serious ideological divide. An ideological divide only sparingly and grudgingly admitted.
Their power will erode as it becomes more and more apparent to a new generation of how very little the government can organize or do right.
|
On November 01 2013 12:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +He says that he would like Obama to be sent back to Kenya. This means that he considers Obama to be out of the "real" American population - he's not "from here" and needs to be sent from where he comes from because he does not belong here.
He is therefore making a distinction between Americans/those with real American values on the one side, and Obama/Kenya on the other side. He is also attributing a negative quality to being those "others" - they are below the American values and the American people.
The combination of him refusing to acknowledge the fact that Obama is American and not "from elsewhere", and of the negative quality (compared to "actual" Americans) that he attributes to the "others" he groups Obama into, is what makes it a statement with racist undertones. He is drawing an ideological difference, and you are inserting race into it. He didn't insert him into a group of Kenyans, but said that Obama should go back to Kenya. It's no different than saying someone should go back to Germany, Japan, England, etc. Especially since his Chicago comments indicate he was in fact talking about places/ideas, not race. To me, if we were to ask "is it more likely that his statement was race based or ideology based" the answer is obvious. Thus, marking him a racist, or someone with racist undertones, is too far a leap to defend.
I'm not "inserting race into it". Cruz made the distinction between the United States and Kenya. He attached a negative quality to Obama, which transfers to the place where he said he belonged to - the two are grouped in his statement. The Chicago comment he made before doesn't change anything - in fact, it supports what I said, since you could clearly hear the negative quality attached to Chicago. You can't really be "racist" against a single city, but you can clearly be so against a country and its inhabitants. Here, again, the racist undertones of the statement can be found both in the rejection of Obama as un-American, this being linked to his "origins", and in the negative quality attached to the non-American "others" (because of them not being "truly" American) Obama and Kenya embody.
|
On November 01 2013 13:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 12:49 Introvert wrote:He says that he would like Obama to be sent back to Kenya. This means that he considers Obama to be out of the "real" American population - he's not "from here" and needs to be sent from where he comes from because he does not belong here.
He is therefore making a distinction between Americans/those with real American values on the one side, and Obama/Kenya on the other side. He is also attributing a negative quality to being those "others" - they are below the American values and the American people.
The combination of him refusing to acknowledge the fact that Obama is American and not "from elsewhere", and of the negative quality (compared to "actual" Americans) that he attributes to the "others" he groups Obama into, is what makes it a statement with racist undertones. He is drawing an ideological difference, and you are inserting race into it. He didn't insert him into a group of Kenyans, but said that Obama should go back to Kenya. It's no different than saying someone should go back to Germany, Japan, England, etc. Especially since his Chicago comments indicate he was in fact talking about places/ideas, not race. To me, if we were to ask "is it more likely that his statement was race based or ideology based" the answer is obvious. Thus, marking him a racist, or someone with racist undertones, is too far a leap to defend. I'm not "inserting race into it". Cruz made the distinction between the United States and Kenya. He attached a negative quality to Obama, which transfers to the place where he said he belonged to - the two are grouped in his statement. The Chicago comment he made before doesn't change anything - in fact, it supports what I said, since you could clearly hear the negative quality attached to Chicago. You can't really be "racist" against a single city, but you can clearly be so against a country and its inhabitants. Here, again, the racist undertones of the statement can be found both in the rejection of Obama as un-American, this being linked to his "origins", and in the negative quality attached to the non-American "others" (because of them not being "truly" American) Obama and Kenya embody.
The Kenya comment doesn't support what you said, since, as you indicated, you can't racist against cities/places. He was naming places. Moreover, refering to the place of Obama's father, the communuist revolutionary. The same thing he denounced in HIS own country. Not for their race, but for their government! (or desired government)
|
On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:14 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 12:49 Introvert wrote:He says that he would like Obama to be sent back to Kenya. This means that he considers Obama to be out of the "real" American population - he's not "from here" and needs to be sent from where he comes from because he does not belong here.
He is therefore making a distinction between Americans/those with real American values on the one side, and Obama/Kenya on the other side. He is also attributing a negative quality to being those "others" - they are below the American values and the American people.
The combination of him refusing to acknowledge the fact that Obama is American and not "from elsewhere", and of the negative quality (compared to "actual" Americans) that he attributes to the "others" he groups Obama into, is what makes it a statement with racist undertones. He is drawing an ideological difference, and you are inserting race into it. He didn't insert him into a group of Kenyans, but said that Obama should go back to Kenya. It's no different than saying someone should go back to Germany, Japan, England, etc. Especially since his Chicago comments indicate he was in fact talking about places/ideas, not race. To me, if we were to ask "is it more likely that his statement was race based or ideology based" the answer is obvious. Thus, marking him a racist, or someone with racist undertones, is too far a leap to defend. I'm not "inserting race into it". Cruz made the distinction between the United States and Kenya. He attached a negative quality to Obama, which transfers to the place where he said he belonged to - the two are grouped in his statement. The Chicago comment he made before doesn't change anything - in fact, it supports what I said, since you could clearly hear the negative quality attached to Chicago. You can't really be "racist" against a single city, but you can clearly be so against a country and its inhabitants. Here, again, the racist undertones of the statement can be found both in the rejection of Obama as un-American, this being linked to his "origins", and in the negative quality attached to the non-American "others" (because of them not being "truly" American) Obama and Kenya embody. The Kenya comment doesn't support what you said, since, as you indicated, you can't racist against cities/places. He was naming places. Moreover, refering to the place of Obama's father, the communuist revolutionary. The same thing he denounced in HIS own country. Not for their race, but for their government!
I said the Chicago comment supported what I said, and it did, due to the negative quality attached to it. The only reason you couldn't argue it has racist undertones is that the term "racist" isn't used when talking about cities and their population. You're trying to equate a city and a country as if you couldn't be racist against a country and its population, which is completely false.
Cruz did NOT simply denounce Obama's ideology/government. He ALSO rejected Obama as un-American (linking it to his "origins" - why exactly do you think he used the word "back" instead of simply saying "go to Kenya"?) AND attached a negative quality to the non-American "others".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i thought chicago stood for some sort of black hood/slum. like how the song "it's so cold in the d" has heavy racial connnotations of black detroit
|
My God, are we actually back to debating birthers????
|
On November 01 2013 13:29 coverpunch wrote:
My God, are we actually back to debating birthers????
We're debating whether or not they are racist.
I am led to believe that there are a number of good reasons behind the birther movement that have nothing to do with race. Unfortunately, those reasons are still unclear and I imagine they will continue to be unclear until I am a very old man and my senility brings me some understanding of the birther mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
