|
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 13:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote: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".
And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity.
My God, are we actually back to debating birthers????
If you read what is going on, you will find the answer. (It's "no")
|
On November 01 2013 13:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:27 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote: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". And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity.
The "politics of Kenya" have absolutely nothing to do with what he was denouncing (communism), so no, you're wrong. You also forgot about the first part of my argument, which is that he rejected Obama as un-American, linking it to his "origins", all the while attaching a negative quality to them. Obama didn't come from Kenya. Obama was born on U.S. soil and is a U.S. citizen.
|
On November 01 2013 13:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:36 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:27 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote: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". And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity. The "politics of Kenya" have absolutely nothing to do with what he was denouncing (communism), so no, you're wrong. You also forgot about the first part of my argument, which is that he rejected Obama as un-American, linking it to his "origins", all the while attaching a negative quality to them. Obama didn't come from Kenya. Obama was born on U.S. soil and is a U.S. citizen.
I'm not debating if he's a citizen. That comment makes me think you don't even know what I'm saying. I'm saying Cruz was denouncing those places not for the color of their peoople, but for their politcal history. Communist anti-colonials in Kenya and corrupt democrats in Chicago.
|
Not really, we're just trying to make the topic more interesting than a few idiots shouting back and forth at each other; so I try to change the topic to anything that might allow for actually interesting material in, like those studies (regardless of their flaws, they're interesting reading at least).
Here's a question for anyone in US:
How's the partisanship in your state? While the federal government may have issues at the moment, at state level there's a lot of variance.
I'm not actually too aware of what's happening in my state; but my general impression is that stuff's getting done at a reasonable pace, and the ideological divides aren't really stopping stuff from getting done.
|
On November 01 2013 13:56 zlefin wrote:
Not really, we're just trying to make the topic more interesting than a few idiots shouting back and forth at each other; so I try to change the topic to anything that might allow for actually interesting material in, like those studies (regardless of their flaws, they're interesting reading at least).
Here's a question for anyone in US:
How's the partisanship in your state? While the federal government may have issues at the moment, at state level there's a lot of variance.
I'm not actually too aware of what's happening in my state; but my general impression is that stuff's getting done at a reasonable pace, and the ideological divides aren't really stopping stuff from getting done.
Depends on your state... I'm in CA, where things are getting "done" but only becuse the dems have a super-majority. It's no surprise we discuss the federal gov so much, it has so much power relative to the states.
|
On November 01 2013 13:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:43 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:36 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:27 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote: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". And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity. The "politics of Kenya" have absolutely nothing to do with what he was denouncing (communism), so no, you're wrong. You also forgot about the first part of my argument, which is that he rejected Obama as un-American, linking it to his "origins", all the while attaching a negative quality to them. Obama didn't come from Kenya. Obama was born on U.S. soil and is a U.S. citizen. I'm not debating if he's a citizen. That comment makes me think you don't even know what I'm saying. I'm saying Cruz was denouncing those places not for the color of their peoople, but for their politcal history. Communist anti-colonials in Kenya and corrupt democrats in Chicago.
Your comment makes me think you don't even know what Cruz is saying. When is Kenya supposed to have ever been communist?! And I'm not saying you are debating if he's a citizen. I'm saying CRUZ is the one who is trying to paint Obama as foreign, and attaching a negative quality to that, when he is not at all. Again, why do you think he said "send him back to Kenya"?
|
On November 01 2013 14:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:52 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:43 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:36 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:27 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote: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". And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity. The "politics of Kenya" have absolutely nothing to do with what he was denouncing (communism), so no, you're wrong. You also forgot about the first part of my argument, which is that he rejected Obama as un-American, linking it to his "origins", all the while attaching a negative quality to them. Obama didn't come from Kenya. Obama was born on U.S. soil and is a U.S. citizen. I'm not debating if he's a citizen. That comment makes me think you don't even know what I'm saying. I'm saying Cruz was denouncing those places not for the color of their peoople, but for their politcal history. Communist anti-colonials in Kenya and corrupt democrats in Chicago. Your comment makes me think you don't even know what Cruz is saying. When is Kenya supposed to have ever been communist?! And I'm not saying you are debating if he's a citizen. I'm saying CRUZ is the one who is trying to paint Obama as foreign, and attaching a negative quality to that, when he is not at all. Again, why do you think he said "send him back to Kenya"?
No, it's not communist. But Obama's father was. That's the point. He's saying "send him back to Kenya" essentailly so he can go follow his (supposedly) communist ideology there. He is talking badly about kenya, but NOT about race. That's all I'm trying to say.
edit: sorry for the typos, I'm replying in between Counter-strike games.
|
On November 01 2013 14:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:00 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:52 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:43 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:36 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:27 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote: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". And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity. The "politics of Kenya" have absolutely nothing to do with what he was denouncing (communism), so no, you're wrong. You also forgot about the first part of my argument, which is that he rejected Obama as un-American, linking it to his "origins", all the while attaching a negative quality to them. Obama didn't come from Kenya. Obama was born on U.S. soil and is a U.S. citizen. I'm not debating if he's a citizen. That comment makes me think you don't even know what I'm saying. I'm saying Cruz was denouncing those places not for the color of their peoople, but for their politcal history. Communist anti-colonials in Kenya and corrupt democrats in Chicago. Your comment makes me think you don't even know what Cruz is saying. When is Kenya supposed to have ever been communist?! And I'm not saying you are debating if he's a citizen. I'm saying CRUZ is the one who is trying to paint Obama as foreign, and attaching a negative quality to that, when he is not at all. Again, why do you think he said "send him back to Kenya"? No, it's not communist. But Obama's father was. That's the point. He saying "send him back to Kenya" essentailly so he can go follow his (supposedly) communist ideology there. He is talking badly about kenya, but NOT about race. That's all I'm trying to say.
Obama's father does not embody Kenya. If he had said "send him to Cuba", that would actually have been different because in this case he would clearly have been talking about the ideology. The statement "Obama needs to be sent to Cuba" does not, in my opinion, have any racist undertone.
In this case, however, the reference to Kenya does not have any political link to Cruz' criticism of what he defines as Obama's ideology. It is there purely to serve to undermine Obama's credibility as an actual and "real" U.S. citizen. That's also why, as I keep telling you and you keep missing, he says "back to Kenya" instead of "to Kenya". This attempt to paint Obama as foreign, and to put a negative quality to it, is why the statement has racist undertones.
|
United States42778 Posts
On November 01 2013 12:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 12:24 SnipedSoul wrote: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)
Yeah, Obama turned out pretty badly by Democratic standards and awfully compared to his rhetoric.
|
On November 01 2013 14:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:05 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 14:00 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:52 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:43 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:36 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:27 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:14 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 12:49 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
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". And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity. The "politics of Kenya" have absolutely nothing to do with what he was denouncing (communism), so no, you're wrong. You also forgot about the first part of my argument, which is that he rejected Obama as un-American, linking it to his "origins", all the while attaching a negative quality to them. Obama didn't come from Kenya. Obama was born on U.S. soil and is a U.S. citizen. I'm not debating if he's a citizen. That comment makes me think you don't even know what I'm saying. I'm saying Cruz was denouncing those places not for the color of their peoople, but for their politcal history. Communist anti-colonials in Kenya and corrupt democrats in Chicago. Your comment makes me think you don't even know what Cruz is saying. When is Kenya supposed to have ever been communist?! And I'm not saying you are debating if he's a citizen. I'm saying CRUZ is the one who is trying to paint Obama as foreign, and attaching a negative quality to that, when he is not at all. Again, why do you think he said "send him back to Kenya"? No, it's not communist. But Obama's father was. That's the point. He saying "send him back to Kenya" essentailly so he can go follow his (supposedly) communist ideology there. He is talking badly about kenya, but NOT about race. That's all I'm trying to say. Obama's father does not embody Kenya. If he had said "send him to Cuba", that would actually have been different because in this case he would clearly have been talking about the ideology. The statement "Obama needs to be sent to Cuba" does not, in my opinion, have any racist undertone. In this case, however, the reference to Kenya does not have any political link to Cruz' criticism of what he defines as Obama's ideology. It is there purely to serve to undermine Obama's credibility as an actual and "real" U.S. citizen. That's also why, as I keep telling you and you keep missing, he says "back to Kenya" instead of "to Kenya". This attempt to paint Obama as foreign, and to put a negative quality to it, is why the statement has racist undertones.
If he said "send him back to Cuba" it wouldn't have had the rhetorical effect it did. It's a reference to Obama's father. I know it's an attempt to paint him as unamerican, but that's not racist. There just isn't any racism there unless you insert it there.
So let me make this clear: Whatever else is to be said, it's not racist. That's my only point.
Edit: YAY. I have a dragoon!
Also, almost bed time, and I will be gone all day tomorrow. I might not come back for a while. glhf
|
|
|
Why doesn't your graph go past 2008?
On November 01 2013 13:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The tea party can be backwards, racist, and bigoted regardless of Obama's merits or demerits.
Sometimes I get the feeling that you conservatives live enclosed in homogeneous communities where you can say things like "I don't see color" or "the birthers have political grievances with Obama, it has nothing to do with race or skin color" because you never interact with minority communities. Oh that's right, the suburbs.
|
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.
Why should they? Ironic is a big word.
And the hoops some are able to jump through to get their point across. Really impressive.
|
On November 01 2013 17:03 IgnE wrote:Why doesn't your graph go past 2008? Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:11 Danglars wrote: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. The tea party can be backwards, racist, and bigoted regardless of Obama's merits or demerits. Sometimes I get the feeling that you conservatives live enclosed in homogeneous communities where you can say things like "I don't see color" or "the birthers have political grievances with Obama, it has nothing to do with race or skin color" because you never interact with minority communities. Oh that's right, the suburbs.
I admit and perhaps you see a human level, where some of Obama's merits are ignored by tea party members and supporters. In fact, Michelle Obama may mean the very best in combating obesity and may herself enjoy gardening as well. Your feelings aside (and if you're intellectually honest, I have no doubt that they'll follow and change), it is a community deeply concerned with government involvement in the ordinary citizen's life and what its intentions are for control and spending. Obama preached a new brand of government, new hope and change, and governed in a way that threw out the center and plunged leftward. The Tea Party sees what has been lost in the push for greater government responsibility as greater than what has been gained. The debate rages on.
We do with the kooks what most everyone does. They're rejected and ignored.
We deal with the far fetched insults the same way. The left plays make believe with their opponents, surely believing that anybody who knew the plight of the poor could disagree with them in any way. Balkanize if you want--blacks have been doing very poorly under Obama. Yet, disagree at your peril for you will soon be labeled an Uncle Tom (Clarence Thomas for one). Drag out more sorry lines from the 70s and before trying to stratify America as an uncaring rich class and a destitute one. Democratic control means just one thing for communities: an increase in poverty and crime and a decrease in overall wealth and prosperity.
|
On November 01 2013 14:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:19 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 14:05 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 14:00 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:52 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:43 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:36 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:27 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2013 13:19 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 13:14 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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". And none of it was racist. I contend he was attaching it negativly to the country/city due to the poltics of those countries/cties. Had zero to do with skin color/ethnicity. The "politics of Kenya" have absolutely nothing to do with what he was denouncing (communism), so no, you're wrong. You also forgot about the first part of my argument, which is that he rejected Obama as un-American, linking it to his "origins", all the while attaching a negative quality to them. Obama didn't come from Kenya. Obama was born on U.S. soil and is a U.S. citizen. I'm not debating if he's a citizen. That comment makes me think you don't even know what I'm saying. I'm saying Cruz was denouncing those places not for the color of their peoople, but for their politcal history. Communist anti-colonials in Kenya and corrupt democrats in Chicago. Your comment makes me think you don't even know what Cruz is saying. When is Kenya supposed to have ever been communist?! And I'm not saying you are debating if he's a citizen. I'm saying CRUZ is the one who is trying to paint Obama as foreign, and attaching a negative quality to that, when he is not at all. Again, why do you think he said "send him back to Kenya"? No, it's not communist. But Obama's father was. That's the point. He saying "send him back to Kenya" essentailly so he can go follow his (supposedly) communist ideology there. He is talking badly about kenya, but NOT about race. That's all I'm trying to say. Obama's father does not embody Kenya. If he had said "send him to Cuba", that would actually have been different because in this case he would clearly have been talking about the ideology. The statement "Obama needs to be sent to Cuba" does not, in my opinion, have any racist undertone. In this case, however, the reference to Kenya does not have any political link to Cruz' criticism of what he defines as Obama's ideology. It is there purely to serve to undermine Obama's credibility as an actual and "real" U.S. citizen. That's also why, as I keep telling you and you keep missing, he says "back to Kenya" instead of "to Kenya". This attempt to paint Obama as foreign, and to put a negative quality to it, is why the statement has racist undertones. If he said "send him back to Cuba" it wouldn't have had the rhetorical effect it did. It's a reference to Obama's father. I know it's an attempt to paint him as unamerican, but that's not racist. There just isn't any racism there unless you insert it there. So let me make this clear: Whatever else is to be said, it's not racist. That's my only point.
I clearly explained why it was. At this point, you're only repeating "it's not racist" without addressing what I said.
|
This is why I was trying to get him to differentiate between different implicitly racist statements. I was trying to get him out of this rut of "Oh sure birthers are totally racist but birtherism isn't racist" or "You can't be racist against cities/places" or whatever. I was trying to start from some sort of common ground. Oh well.
We do with the kooks what most everyone does. They're rejected and ignored.
Well I was going to respond to you but if you insist.
|
On November 01 2013 13:35 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +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.
By definition, they're not racist but nativist. So they don't have a problem with Obama because he's (half-black) but because it was reported that he was born in Kenya. And birthers don't seem to have ever been able to let go of that.
Blanketing them as racist is really funny because the whole thing started as a dirty trick by Hillary Clinton's campaign, not by Republicans. The unfortunate and tragically stupid part of these discussions is that it often ends up showing as ugly an anti-Republican bigotry (i.e. assuming they are all racists) as it does the pigheadedness of the birthers.
The guy's been president for five years now and has been elected twice. You'd think we could just let go of it by now and bury the controversy.
I will note that the Tea Party is a totally separate issue. I don't think they're racist either, although I think some racists have put themselves under the Tea Party banner. But please, let's not generalize by the lowest common denominator.
|
The Tea Party IS the lowest common denominator. You should be saying "lets not judge the Republicans by the Tea Party."
|
On November 01 2013 17:03 IgnE wrote:
Why doesn't your graph go past 2008?
I didn't notice anywhere that the author explicitly said why only up to 2008. My guess would be that there are data gaps beyond 2008 and so he decided to limit the paper to an era: a nice round two decades stretching from the Berlin wall falling to the financial crisis.
|
Slow-motion regulatory explosion update In the latest instalment in an occasional series — Dodd-Franking — let’s check in on the progress of regulators writing the 398 different sets of rules required by the signature piece of post-crisis financial reform legislation. ![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/11/ScreenShot081-e1383312308434.jpg) Davis Polk have maintained their place as the Systemically Important Financial Illustrator of choice. The final rulemaking deadline specified by Dodd-Frank passed in the third quarter, and of the 280 such deadlines it breaks down thus: two-fifths finalised and passed, two-fifths proposed after the deadline passed, and one fifth not even proposed yet. What’s the holdup? Well derivative reformers have had their hands full. But about that banking reform… ![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/11/ScreenShot082-e1383312870814.jpg) To be fair, the Volcker Rule has proved rather hard to pin down, and regulatory keyboards have not been quiet. The original 848 page bill had prompted more than 15m words of new regulation as of its third birthday in July, a legal leverage ratio of 42 words to every one in the original law. Indeed, the pace of rulemaking has actually been quite consistent, so we should expect the final chapter in a work equivalent to 70 copies of Tolstoy’s War and Peace right around Christmas 2017.
Link
That's a lot of fish words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Change-in-real-income-between-1988-and-2008-at-various-percentiles-of-global-income-distribution-calculated-in-2005-international-dollars-Branko-Milanovic.jpg)
