|
|
On October 04 2012 04:42 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:37 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:22 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:19 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
You parrot Republican talking points so readily, and yet fail to respond to any of the available criticism outlining how fundamentally flawed your conception of economics is. You do realize that saying "debt" over and over again does little to change to actuality of the situation and instead just looks sycophantic. Furthermore, I'll take it by your silence that you have never been to New Orleans, so let me enlighten you. I traveled down in 2005 with a community group to help clean up, and I've seen some FEMAvilles, I've seen the lower 9th ward, and I've seen just how deplorable our governments response was. That you so willingly mitigate the harm caused by the government mishandling of the Katrina events only to then trumpet some vague and ill-informed economic critique of Obama as worse leads me to believe you really have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I would vote Gary Johnson if I didn't live in a swing state. Obama used Katrina to worsen the racial divide in our country, that is the only reason it is being talked about. Obama never had to "use" anything, the Katrina debacle made it plain as day that those in charge of FEMA, emergency response, and the US Federal Government in general simply did not care as much as they should have. Obama was simply speaking to an obvious racial divide that already existed, regardless of whatever conservative talking points one might believe in. So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? Just break it down for me what is wrong with what Tucker Carlson is saying here: After rolling out a Daily Caller exclusive video Tuesday on the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” that showed then-Sen. Barack Obama speaking to an audience in 2007 with an accent, Daily Caller Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson reacted by explaining, as Obama once said himself, “words matter.” Carlson said the message Obama was trying to convey, that the federal government plays against minorities in disaster circumstances, particularly with Hurricane Katrina, which struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “Let me just be totally clear for anyone who just watched it and who has seen Obama speak in public over the last ten years will note, this accent is absurd,” Carlson said. “This is not the way Obama talks — at least it’s not the way he’s talked in the dozens, the scores of speeches I’ve watched him give, or public appearances I’ve seen him make. This is a put-on. This is phony. That’s issue one. The second issue is he is telling a predominantly black audience something very clear: The federal government doesn’t like you because you are black.” He said that Obama’s use of racial overtones to describe the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina had negative implications on several levels. “That’s what he’s saying: ‘They don’t like you’ because they are black. That is the theme of the speech from front to back, from beginning to end: ‘They don’t like you because of your skin color.’ And that is a shockingly — that’s a nasty thing to say. It’s a divisive thing to say. It’s a demagogic thing to say. And in the case of Katrina, it’s an untrue thing to say.” Carlson explained that the federal government issued the same fund-matching waiver to Katrina-torn regions that Obama claimed was held back unfairly. “At the moment he uttered those words — you are getting short-changed in the Katrina reconstruction funds — the administration, the government had pledged $110 billion to the Gulf. Two weeks before this speech, the Bush administration gave the Katrina-affected areas $7 billion with no strings attached,” Carlson explained. “He was a sitting senator. He knew that and he said this anyway to that audience and I think that’s a shocking thing to do.” When asked by host Sean Hannity if it had so-called “dog whistle” qualities, Carlson responded by saying it went beyond that. “This is not a dog whistle,” Carlson said. “This is a dog siren.” “These are appeals to racial solidarity. And a few minutes before that, he said, ‘Our people’ — ‘our young people’ should have gotten the construction jobs to rebuild after Katrina, but instead they went to Halliburton, right? So look, he is make very clear case, again, on the basis of his racial solidarity with this audience, that they are getting shafted by a racist federal government. And by the way, unless you can provide evidence that that’s true, unless you can nail down factually that that’s true, you should not say things like that because it’s dangerous to say things like that.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/tucker-carlson-on-obama-speech-this-is-a-dog-siren-video/#ixzz28Ga6mzCpYeah yeah I get it Sean Hannity, faux news, blah blah blah, don't really care how biased it is, the only thing that matters to me is if our President actually is using race-charged rhetoric to convince the black community they are being singled out by the federal government, and it seems to me he is doing exactly that in the video. Can't take anyone seriously who's sole job is to make the other party look bad. Can't trust anything he says about politics sadly.
Oh, so you have no comment on the President's racially dividing speech?
|
On October 04 2012 04:41 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:22 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:19 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
You parrot Republican talking points so readily, and yet fail to respond to any of the available criticism outlining how fundamentally flawed your conception of economics is. You do realize that saying "debt" over and over again does little to change to actuality of the situation and instead just looks sycophantic. Furthermore, I'll take it by your silence that you have never been to New Orleans, so let me enlighten you. I traveled down in 2005 with a community group to help clean up, and I've seen some FEMAvilles, I've seen the lower 9th ward, and I've seen just how deplorable our governments response was. That you so willingly mitigate the harm caused by the government mishandling of the Katrina events only to then trumpet some vague and ill-informed economic critique of Obama as worse leads me to believe you really have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I would vote Gary Johnson if I didn't live in a swing state. Obama used Katrina to worsen the racial divide in our country, that is the only reason it is being talked about. Obama never had to "use" anything, the Katrina debacle made it plain as day that those in charge of FEMA, emergency response, and the US Federal Government in general simply did not care as much as they should have. Obama was simply speaking to an obvious racial divide that already existed, regardless of whatever conservative talking points one might believe in. So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? How would have / could have the response been different? You really think it was a disaster because white people didn't try hard enough? Erhm, just curious... Are you taking the stance that the government response to Katrina was perfect given the circumstances?
To be completely honest, the response in the latest hurricane by a private company was no better. We went a week and a half with no power for a category 1 storm. I don't buy that the government response was terrible for no reason. It takes more then government action to recover from a big storm like that, which imo is something New Orleans doesn't do. There are still vacant lots in uptown from Katrina just sitting there...
|
On October 04 2012 04:41 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:22 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:19 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
You parrot Republican talking points so readily, and yet fail to respond to any of the available criticism outlining how fundamentally flawed your conception of economics is. You do realize that saying "debt" over and over again does little to change to actuality of the situation and instead just looks sycophantic. Furthermore, I'll take it by your silence that you have never been to New Orleans, so let me enlighten you. I traveled down in 2005 with a community group to help clean up, and I've seen some FEMAvilles, I've seen the lower 9th ward, and I've seen just how deplorable our governments response was. That you so willingly mitigate the harm caused by the government mishandling of the Katrina events only to then trumpet some vague and ill-informed economic critique of Obama as worse leads me to believe you really have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I would vote Gary Johnson if I didn't live in a swing state. Obama used Katrina to worsen the racial divide in our country, that is the only reason it is being talked about. Obama never had to "use" anything, the Katrina debacle made it plain as day that those in charge of FEMA, emergency response, and the US Federal Government in general simply did not care as much as they should have. Obama was simply speaking to an obvious racial divide that already existed, regardless of whatever conservative talking points one might believe in. So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? How would have / could have the response been different? You really think it was a disaster because white people didn't try hard enough? Erhm, just curious... Are you taking the stance that the government response to Katrina was perfect given the circumstances?
Certainly not, I just made a post saying that there were many factors for the poor response including mis-management at the federal level.
|
On October 04 2012 04:43 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:42 Zooper31 wrote:On October 04 2012 04:37 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:22 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:19 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I would vote Gary Johnson if I didn't live in a swing state. Obama used Katrina to worsen the racial divide in our country, that is the only reason it is being talked about.
Obama never had to "use" anything, the Katrina debacle made it plain as day that those in charge of FEMA, emergency response, and the US Federal Government in general simply did not care as much as they should have. Obama was simply speaking to an obvious racial divide that already existed, regardless of whatever conservative talking points one might believe in. So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? Just break it down for me what is wrong with what Tucker Carlson is saying here: After rolling out a Daily Caller exclusive video Tuesday on the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” that showed then-Sen. Barack Obama speaking to an audience in 2007 with an accent, Daily Caller Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson reacted by explaining, as Obama once said himself, “words matter.” Carlson said the message Obama was trying to convey, that the federal government plays against minorities in disaster circumstances, particularly with Hurricane Katrina, which struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “Let me just be totally clear for anyone who just watched it and who has seen Obama speak in public over the last ten years will note, this accent is absurd,” Carlson said. “This is not the way Obama talks — at least it’s not the way he’s talked in the dozens, the scores of speeches I’ve watched him give, or public appearances I’ve seen him make. This is a put-on. This is phony. That’s issue one. The second issue is he is telling a predominantly black audience something very clear: The federal government doesn’t like you because you are black.” He said that Obama’s use of racial overtones to describe the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina had negative implications on several levels. “That’s what he’s saying: ‘They don’t like you’ because they are black. That is the theme of the speech from front to back, from beginning to end: ‘They don’t like you because of your skin color.’ And that is a shockingly — that’s a nasty thing to say. It’s a divisive thing to say. It’s a demagogic thing to say. And in the case of Katrina, it’s an untrue thing to say.” Carlson explained that the federal government issued the same fund-matching waiver to Katrina-torn regions that Obama claimed was held back unfairly. “At the moment he uttered those words — you are getting short-changed in the Katrina reconstruction funds — the administration, the government had pledged $110 billion to the Gulf. Two weeks before this speech, the Bush administration gave the Katrina-affected areas $7 billion with no strings attached,” Carlson explained. “He was a sitting senator. He knew that and he said this anyway to that audience and I think that’s a shocking thing to do.” When asked by host Sean Hannity if it had so-called “dog whistle” qualities, Carlson responded by saying it went beyond that. “This is not a dog whistle,” Carlson said. “This is a dog siren.” “These are appeals to racial solidarity. And a few minutes before that, he said, ‘Our people’ — ‘our young people’ should have gotten the construction jobs to rebuild after Katrina, but instead they went to Halliburton, right? So look, he is make very clear case, again, on the basis of his racial solidarity with this audience, that they are getting shafted by a racist federal government. And by the way, unless you can provide evidence that that’s true, unless you can nail down factually that that’s true, you should not say things like that because it’s dangerous to say things like that.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/tucker-carlson-on-obama-speech-this-is-a-dog-siren-video/#ixzz28Ga6mzCpYeah yeah I get it Sean Hannity, faux news, blah blah blah, don't really care how biased it is, the only thing that matters to me is if our President actually is using race-charged rhetoric to convince the black community they are being singled out by the federal government, and it seems to me he is doing exactly that in the video. Can't take anyone seriously who's sole job is to make the other party look bad. Can't trust anything he says about politics sadly. Oh, so you have no comment on the President's racially dividing speech?
He was caught in the moment of the horrible disaster that was Katarina, speaking to an african american crowd who wanted nothing more than express their discontent at the sluggish pace of the government to even showed they cared.
I take no offense to what he said and I'm white who grew up in the suburbs and then rural side.
|
On October 04 2012 04:42 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:22 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:19 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
You parrot Republican talking points so readily, and yet fail to respond to any of the available criticism outlining how fundamentally flawed your conception of economics is. You do realize that saying "debt" over and over again does little to change to actuality of the situation and instead just looks sycophantic. Furthermore, I'll take it by your silence that you have never been to New Orleans, so let me enlighten you. I traveled down in 2005 with a community group to help clean up, and I've seen some FEMAvilles, I've seen the lower 9th ward, and I've seen just how deplorable our governments response was. That you so willingly mitigate the harm caused by the government mishandling of the Katrina events only to then trumpet some vague and ill-informed economic critique of Obama as worse leads me to believe you really have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I would vote Gary Johnson if I didn't live in a swing state. Obama used Katrina to worsen the racial divide in our country, that is the only reason it is being talked about. Obama never had to "use" anything, the Katrina debacle made it plain as day that those in charge of FEMA, emergency response, and the US Federal Government in general simply did not care as much as they should have. Obama was simply speaking to an obvious racial divide that already existed, regardless of whatever conservative talking points one might believe in. So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? How would have / could have the response been different? You really think it was a disaster because white people didn't try hard enough? No. I think it was a disaster because the government responded poorly. To underestimate the potential of the disaster is understandble, to respond so slowly is deplorable. I'm not going to get into a strawman argument with you guys.
I'm not raising a strawman. I'm responding to your claim that the response was bad because of racism.
|
On October 04 2012 04:46 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:43 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:42 Zooper31 wrote:On October 04 2012 04:37 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:22 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Obama never had to "use" anything, the Katrina debacle made it plain as day that those in charge of FEMA, emergency response, and the US Federal Government in general simply did not care as much as they should have. Obama was simply speaking to an obvious racial divide that already existed, regardless of whatever conservative talking points one might believe in. So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? Just break it down for me what is wrong with what Tucker Carlson is saying here: After rolling out a Daily Caller exclusive video Tuesday on the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” that showed then-Sen. Barack Obama speaking to an audience in 2007 with an accent, Daily Caller Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson reacted by explaining, as Obama once said himself, “words matter.” Carlson said the message Obama was trying to convey, that the federal government plays against minorities in disaster circumstances, particularly with Hurricane Katrina, which struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “Let me just be totally clear for anyone who just watched it and who has seen Obama speak in public over the last ten years will note, this accent is absurd,” Carlson said. “This is not the way Obama talks — at least it’s not the way he’s talked in the dozens, the scores of speeches I’ve watched him give, or public appearances I’ve seen him make. This is a put-on. This is phony. That’s issue one. The second issue is he is telling a predominantly black audience something very clear: The federal government doesn’t like you because you are black.” He said that Obama’s use of racial overtones to describe the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina had negative implications on several levels. “That’s what he’s saying: ‘They don’t like you’ because they are black. That is the theme of the speech from front to back, from beginning to end: ‘They don’t like you because of your skin color.’ And that is a shockingly — that’s a nasty thing to say. It’s a divisive thing to say. It’s a demagogic thing to say. And in the case of Katrina, it’s an untrue thing to say.” Carlson explained that the federal government issued the same fund-matching waiver to Katrina-torn regions that Obama claimed was held back unfairly. “At the moment he uttered those words — you are getting short-changed in the Katrina reconstruction funds — the administration, the government had pledged $110 billion to the Gulf. Two weeks before this speech, the Bush administration gave the Katrina-affected areas $7 billion with no strings attached,” Carlson explained. “He was a sitting senator. He knew that and he said this anyway to that audience and I think that’s a shocking thing to do.” When asked by host Sean Hannity if it had so-called “dog whistle” qualities, Carlson responded by saying it went beyond that. “This is not a dog whistle,” Carlson said. “This is a dog siren.” “These are appeals to racial solidarity. And a few minutes before that, he said, ‘Our people’ — ‘our young people’ should have gotten the construction jobs to rebuild after Katrina, but instead they went to Halliburton, right? So look, he is make very clear case, again, on the basis of his racial solidarity with this audience, that they are getting shafted by a racist federal government. And by the way, unless you can provide evidence that that’s true, unless you can nail down factually that that’s true, you should not say things like that because it’s dangerous to say things like that.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/tucker-carlson-on-obama-speech-this-is-a-dog-siren-video/#ixzz28Ga6mzCpYeah yeah I get it Sean Hannity, faux news, blah blah blah, don't really care how biased it is, the only thing that matters to me is if our President actually is using race-charged rhetoric to convince the black community they are being singled out by the federal government, and it seems to me he is doing exactly that in the video. Can't take anyone seriously who's sole job is to make the other party look bad. Can't trust anything he says about politics sadly. Oh, so you have no comment on the President's racially dividing speech? He was caught in the moment of the horrible disaster that was Katarina, speaking to an african american crowd who wanted nothing more than express their discontent at the sluggish pace of the government to even showed they cared.
You may want to check your dates.
|
On October 04 2012 04:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:46 Zooper31 wrote:On October 04 2012 04:43 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:42 Zooper31 wrote:On October 04 2012 04:37 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? Just break it down for me what is wrong with what Tucker Carlson is saying here: After rolling out a Daily Caller exclusive video Tuesday on the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” that showed then-Sen. Barack Obama speaking to an audience in 2007 with an accent, Daily Caller Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson reacted by explaining, as Obama once said himself, “words matter.” Carlson said the message Obama was trying to convey, that the federal government plays against minorities in disaster circumstances, particularly with Hurricane Katrina, which struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “Let me just be totally clear for anyone who just watched it and who has seen Obama speak in public over the last ten years will note, this accent is absurd,” Carlson said. “This is not the way Obama talks — at least it’s not the way he’s talked in the dozens, the scores of speeches I’ve watched him give, or public appearances I’ve seen him make. This is a put-on. This is phony. That’s issue one. The second issue is he is telling a predominantly black audience something very clear: The federal government doesn’t like you because you are black.” He said that Obama’s use of racial overtones to describe the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina had negative implications on several levels. “That’s what he’s saying: ‘They don’t like you’ because they are black. That is the theme of the speech from front to back, from beginning to end: ‘They don’t like you because of your skin color.’ And that is a shockingly — that’s a nasty thing to say. It’s a divisive thing to say. It’s a demagogic thing to say. And in the case of Katrina, it’s an untrue thing to say.” Carlson explained that the federal government issued the same fund-matching waiver to Katrina-torn regions that Obama claimed was held back unfairly. “At the moment he uttered those words — you are getting short-changed in the Katrina reconstruction funds — the administration, the government had pledged $110 billion to the Gulf. Two weeks before this speech, the Bush administration gave the Katrina-affected areas $7 billion with no strings attached,” Carlson explained. “He was a sitting senator. He knew that and he said this anyway to that audience and I think that’s a shocking thing to do.” When asked by host Sean Hannity if it had so-called “dog whistle” qualities, Carlson responded by saying it went beyond that. “This is not a dog whistle,” Carlson said. “This is a dog siren.” “These are appeals to racial solidarity. And a few minutes before that, he said, ‘Our people’ — ‘our young people’ should have gotten the construction jobs to rebuild after Katrina, but instead they went to Halliburton, right? So look, he is make very clear case, again, on the basis of his racial solidarity with this audience, that they are getting shafted by a racist federal government. And by the way, unless you can provide evidence that that’s true, unless you can nail down factually that that’s true, you should not say things like that because it’s dangerous to say things like that.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/tucker-carlson-on-obama-speech-this-is-a-dog-siren-video/#ixzz28Ga6mzCpYeah yeah I get it Sean Hannity, faux news, blah blah blah, don't really care how biased it is, the only thing that matters to me is if our President actually is using race-charged rhetoric to convince the black community they are being singled out by the federal government, and it seems to me he is doing exactly that in the video. Can't take anyone seriously who's sole job is to make the other party look bad. Can't trust anything he says about politics sadly. Oh, so you have no comment on the President's racially dividing speech? He was caught in the moment of the horrible disaster that was Katarina, speaking to an african american crowd who wanted nothing more than express their discontent at the sluggish pace of the government to even showed they cared. You may want to check your dates.
I know Katrina happened in 2005, I grew up in florida during that time and we had children coming into our high school because there wasn't enough working schools in Lousiana. In 2007 Lousiana still wasn't livable.
|
Hey guys, lets build up for seven hours on drudge and fox news a story that turns out to be a speech we all covered five years ago.
Hey, this new and breaking news is about something we didn't know about, even though our guys reported on it years ago.
Hell Tucker Carlson, the guest on Hannity with the big story was sitting in the audience when Obama gave the speech, but he didn't know about the flaws of the speech either until just now, after Romney has fallen behind in all of the polls and it is the eve of the first debate.
|
On October 04 2012 04:55 Saryph wrote:
Hey guys, lets build up for seven hours on drudge and fox news a story that turns out to be a speech we all covered five years ago.
Hey, this new and breaking news is about something we didn't know about, even though our guys reported on it years ago.
Hell Tucker Carlson, the guest on Hannity with the big story was sitting in the audience when Obama gave the speech, but he didn't know about the flaws of the speech either until just now, after Romney has fallen behind in all of the polls and it is the eve of the first debate.
It wasn't flaws in the speech, it was flaws in the way the POTUS views racial equality.
|
I don't have time for this one -- too busy at work, so I'll let the Daily Dish answer for me.
--
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-tucker-carlson.html
The Dish actually transcribed the entire Obama speech - Carlson's massively hyped "scoop" yesterday - in June 2007. You can read the speech in full here. What struck me at the time was the following quote:
We can diminish poverty if we approach it in two ways: by taking mutual responsibility for each other as a society, and also by asking for some more individual responsibility to strengthen our families.
So Carlson is trying to make a speech that was in part about African-Americans taking "more individual responsibility to strengthen our families" into a leftist rant.
Yes, Obama defended government programs - to help young mothers with infants, for example - but the speech's blend of conservative goals and liberal policies is almost Obama's centrist brand. Yes, he implied that in many inner cities there is a constant quiet riot and that the authorities tolerate things there they wouldn't elsewhere (sounds like Giuliani to me). He also implied that the Feds did not respond to Katrina with sufficient urgency in part because the people affected the most were black and powerless. Isn't that obviously true? If Katrina had hit Georgetown, or San Francisco, do you think residents would be on their roofs begging for federal help for days? Yes, in black audinces his cadence shifts a little. So fucking what?
Here was what I wrote about it at the time:
Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity.
All that Carlson did is clip it to get an "angry black man" in the minds of Americans. It's at once one of the most desperate and lame and vile plays of the race card I can remember - an obvious recognition that the 47 percent tape can only really be countered emotionally with race-baiting. But it lit up "conservative" media in ways that Conor best expresses:
If the New York Times was constantly searching for archival footage to prove that Mitt Romney doesn't like black people, or that he is "whipping up race hatred," the conservative media would accuse them of frivolously ignoring the actual issues that this election ought to turn on. It would say that they were exploiting the racial anxieties of Americans to tarnish the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism.
When it comes to racial demagoguery, the right has become everything it says it hates about the left.
Carlson used to be a brilliant writer. He's now a racist demagogue. He's a story in one person of how degenerate and disgusting much of American "conservatism" has become.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
imo it was more a poke at New Orleans being poor as opposed to Obama playing the race card. I mean, isn't the guy half white? C'mon now.
|
On October 04 2012 04:59 Defacer wrote:I don't have time for this one -- too busy at work, so I'll let the Daily Dish answer for me. -- http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-tucker-carlson.htmlThe Dish actually transcribed the entire Obama speech - Carlson's massively hyped "scoop" yesterday - in June 2007. You can read the speech in full here. What struck me at the time was the following quote: Show nested quote +We can diminish poverty if we approach it in two ways: by taking mutual responsibility for each other as a society, and also by asking for some more individual responsibility to strengthen our families. So Carlson is trying to make a speech that was in part about African-Americans taking "more individual responsibility to strengthen our families" into a leftist rant. Yes, Obama defended government programs - to help young mothers with infants, for example - but the speech's blend of conservative goals and liberal policies is almost Obama's centrist brand. Yes, he implied that in many inner cities there is a constant quiet riot and that the authorities tolerate things there they wouldn't elsewhere (sounds like Giuliani to me). He also implied that the Feds did not respond to Katrina with sufficient urgency in part because the people affected the most were black and powerless. Isn't that obviously true? If Katrina had hit Georgetown, or San Francisco, do you think residents would be on their roofs begging for federal help for days? Yes, in black audinces his cadence shifts a little. So fucking what? Here was what I wrote about it at the time: Show nested quote +Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity.
All that Carlson did is clip it to get an "angry black man" in the minds of Americans. It's at once one of the most desperate and lame and vile plays of the race card I can remember - an obvious recognition that the 47 percent tape can only really be countered emotionally with race-baiting. But it lit up "conservative" media in ways that Conor best expresses: Show nested quote +If the New York Times was constantly searching for archival footage to prove that Mitt Romney doesn't like black people, or that he is "whipping up race hatred," the conservative media would accuse them of frivolously ignoring the actual issues that this election ought to turn on. It would say that they were exploiting the racial anxieties of Americans to tarnish the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism. When it comes to racial demagoguery, the right has become everything it says it hates about the left. Carlson used to be a brilliant writer. He's now a racist demagogue. He's a story in one person of how degenerate and disgusting much of American "conservatism" has become.
"the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism"
WHAT?! Just ONE of the flubs he had in this speech highlights a perfect example of his policy-making showing evidence of racial animosity:
This theme — that black Americans suffer while others profit — is a national problem, Obama continues: “We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live. Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”
|
GOP getting desperate. I think the last thing the right wants to do is start digging up the past. Let's talk about formerly progressive Mitt next?
|
On October 04 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
imo it was more a poke at New Orleans being poor as opposed to Obama playing the race card. I mean, isn't the guy half white? C'mon now.
No way it was a poke at New Orleans being poor, you have to look at who he is talking to and who he was trying to appeal to with his speech to figure out what he was doing. He wanted to incite hatred towards white people so he could get voted into office.
|
On October 04 2012 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:42 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 04:26 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:14 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:31 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 03:22 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2012 03:19 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I would vote Gary Johnson if I didn't live in a swing state. Obama used Katrina to worsen the racial divide in our country, that is the only reason it is being talked about.
Obama never had to "use" anything, the Katrina debacle made it plain as day that those in charge of FEMA, emergency response, and the US Federal Government in general simply did not care as much as they should have. Obama was simply speaking to an obvious racial divide that already existed, regardless of whatever conservative talking points one might believe in. So you agree that Obama is telling them they got fucked by the government? Fixed, and yes. They did get fucked by the government. There were people pretty much living on their roofs begging for help for days. To me a seemed like the result of a economic/political divide in an area that quite visibly impacted a single racial demographic more than other. If a Hurricane hit San Francisco or Connecticut the government response wouldn't have been as nearly as tepid. So you, too, agree that Obama was telling the people in his speech that they got fucked by the government because of their race. Interesting, now suddenly everyone agrees with me about the speech. What's you're point? Are you disagreeing? Do you think if they where middle-class white surbanites the response would have been the same? Do you live in a imaginary post-racial bubble that only exists in the heads of middle class white people? How would have / could have the response been different? You really think it was a disaster because white people didn't try hard enough? No. I think it was a disaster because the government responded poorly. To underestimate the potential of the disaster is understandble, to respond so slowly is deplorable. I'm not going to get into a strawman argument with you guys. I'm not raising a strawman. I'm responding to your claim that the response was bad because of racism.
Not so much you, kmillz. I shouldn't lump you two together.
I do feel that the response to Katrina has more to do with the Black community in New Orleans being less politically relevant or influential than say, the white community in Orange County, or the black community in Chicago.
That is not the same as saying the government doesn't care about Black people, or they responded poorly because they are black. The speech is just another Obama call-to-action for the black community to engage in the political process. It's nothing remotely new.
|
On October 04 2012 05:06 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:59 Defacer wrote:I don't have time for this one -- too busy at work, so I'll let the Daily Dish answer for me. -- http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-tucker-carlson.htmlThe Dish actually transcribed the entire Obama speech - Carlson's massively hyped "scoop" yesterday - in June 2007. You can read the speech in full here. What struck me at the time was the following quote: We can diminish poverty if we approach it in two ways: by taking mutual responsibility for each other as a society, and also by asking for some more individual responsibility to strengthen our families. So Carlson is trying to make a speech that was in part about African-Americans taking "more individual responsibility to strengthen our families" into a leftist rant. Yes, Obama defended government programs - to help young mothers with infants, for example - but the speech's blend of conservative goals and liberal policies is almost Obama's centrist brand. Yes, he implied that in many inner cities there is a constant quiet riot and that the authorities tolerate things there they wouldn't elsewhere (sounds like Giuliani to me). He also implied that the Feds did not respond to Katrina with sufficient urgency in part because the people affected the most were black and powerless. Isn't that obviously true? If Katrina had hit Georgetown, or San Francisco, do you think residents would be on their roofs begging for federal help for days? Yes, in black audinces his cadence shifts a little. So fucking what? Here was what I wrote about it at the time: Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity.
All that Carlson did is clip it to get an "angry black man" in the minds of Americans. It's at once one of the most desperate and lame and vile plays of the race card I can remember - an obvious recognition that the 47 percent tape can only really be countered emotionally with race-baiting. But it lit up "conservative" media in ways that Conor best expresses: If the New York Times was constantly searching for archival footage to prove that Mitt Romney doesn't like black people, or that he is "whipping up race hatred," the conservative media would accuse them of frivolously ignoring the actual issues that this election ought to turn on. It would say that they were exploiting the racial anxieties of Americans to tarnish the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism. When it comes to racial demagoguery, the right has become everything it says it hates about the left. Carlson used to be a brilliant writer. He's now a racist demagogue. He's a story in one person of how degenerate and disgusting much of American "conservatism" has become. "the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism" WHAT?! Just ONE of the flubs he had in this speech highlights a perfect example of his policy-making showing evidence of racial animosity: Show nested quote +This theme — that black Americans suffer while others profit — is a national problem, Obama continues: “We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live. Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”
Why is it only black people are the minorities? What about the poor Hispanics, poor Chinese, poor every other race?
You know, I do like the second paragraph. Where it's a series of new federal programs meant to help the poor.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Oookay, this is getting stupid. Dragging old skeletons out of the closet to rile up a base that's been praying for a bone to chew on.
Debate in six hours. We're all gonna have new toys to play with then! ... or rather, old toys nicely polished.
|
On October 04 2012 05:09 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:59 Defacer wrote:I don't have time for this one -- too busy at work, so I'll let the Daily Dish answer for me. -- http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-tucker-carlson.htmlThe Dish actually transcribed the entire Obama speech - Carlson's massively hyped "scoop" yesterday - in June 2007. You can read the speech in full here. What struck me at the time was the following quote: We can diminish poverty if we approach it in two ways: by taking mutual responsibility for each other as a society, and also by asking for some more individual responsibility to strengthen our families. So Carlson is trying to make a speech that was in part about African-Americans taking "more individual responsibility to strengthen our families" into a leftist rant. Yes, Obama defended government programs - to help young mothers with infants, for example - but the speech's blend of conservative goals and liberal policies is almost Obama's centrist brand. Yes, he implied that in many inner cities there is a constant quiet riot and that the authorities tolerate things there they wouldn't elsewhere (sounds like Giuliani to me). He also implied that the Feds did not respond to Katrina with sufficient urgency in part because the people affected the most were black and powerless. Isn't that obviously true? If Katrina had hit Georgetown, or San Francisco, do you think residents would be on their roofs begging for federal help for days? Yes, in black audinces his cadence shifts a little. So fucking what? Here was what I wrote about it at the time: Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity.
All that Carlson did is clip it to get an "angry black man" in the minds of Americans. It's at once one of the most desperate and lame and vile plays of the race card I can remember - an obvious recognition that the 47 percent tape can only really be countered emotionally with race-baiting. But it lit up "conservative" media in ways that Conor best expresses: If the New York Times was constantly searching for archival footage to prove that Mitt Romney doesn't like black people, or that he is "whipping up race hatred," the conservative media would accuse them of frivolously ignoring the actual issues that this election ought to turn on. It would say that they were exploiting the racial anxieties of Americans to tarnish the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism. When it comes to racial demagoguery, the right has become everything it says it hates about the left. Carlson used to be a brilliant writer. He's now a racist demagogue. He's a story in one person of how degenerate and disgusting much of American "conservatism" has become. "the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism" WHAT?! Just ONE of the flubs he had in this speech highlights a perfect example of his policy-making showing evidence of racial animosity: This theme — that black Americans suffer while others profit — is a national problem, Obama continues: “We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live. Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.” Why is it only black people are the minorities? What about the poor Hispanics, poor Chinese, poor every other race? You know, I do like the second paragraph. Where it's a series of new federal programs meant to help the poor.
When did I say only black people are the minorities? I just gave you an example of policy-making racial animosity that favor "our (minority) neighborhoods"
|
On October 04 2012 05:12 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:09 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2012 05:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:59 Defacer wrote:I don't have time for this one -- too busy at work, so I'll let the Daily Dish answer for me. -- http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-tucker-carlson.htmlThe Dish actually transcribed the entire Obama speech - Carlson's massively hyped "scoop" yesterday - in June 2007. You can read the speech in full here. What struck me at the time was the following quote: We can diminish poverty if we approach it in two ways: by taking mutual responsibility for each other as a society, and also by asking for some more individual responsibility to strengthen our families. So Carlson is trying to make a speech that was in part about African-Americans taking "more individual responsibility to strengthen our families" into a leftist rant. Yes, Obama defended government programs - to help young mothers with infants, for example - but the speech's blend of conservative goals and liberal policies is almost Obama's centrist brand. Yes, he implied that in many inner cities there is a constant quiet riot and that the authorities tolerate things there they wouldn't elsewhere (sounds like Giuliani to me). He also implied that the Feds did not respond to Katrina with sufficient urgency in part because the people affected the most were black and powerless. Isn't that obviously true? If Katrina had hit Georgetown, or San Francisco, do you think residents would be on their roofs begging for federal help for days? Yes, in black audinces his cadence shifts a little. So fucking what? Here was what I wrote about it at the time: Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity.
All that Carlson did is clip it to get an "angry black man" in the minds of Americans. It's at once one of the most desperate and lame and vile plays of the race card I can remember - an obvious recognition that the 47 percent tape can only really be countered emotionally with race-baiting. But it lit up "conservative" media in ways that Conor best expresses: If the New York Times was constantly searching for archival footage to prove that Mitt Romney doesn't like black people, or that he is "whipping up race hatred," the conservative media would accuse them of frivolously ignoring the actual issues that this election ought to turn on. It would say that they were exploiting the racial anxieties of Americans to tarnish the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism. When it comes to racial demagoguery, the right has become everything it says it hates about the left. Carlson used to be a brilliant writer. He's now a racist demagogue. He's a story in one person of how degenerate and disgusting much of American "conservatism" has become. "the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism" WHAT?! Just ONE of the flubs he had in this speech highlights a perfect example of his policy-making showing evidence of racial animosity: This theme — that black Americans suffer while others profit — is a national problem, Obama continues: “We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live. Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.” Why is it only black people are the minorities? What about the poor Hispanics, poor Chinese, poor every other race? You know, I do like the second paragraph. Where it's a series of new federal programs meant to help the poor. When did I say only black people are the minorities? I just gave you an example of policy-making racial animosity that favor "our (minority) neighborhoods"
So your contention in that speech is his use of minority in one section, when everything else referred to the poor?
|
On October 04 2012 05:14 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:12 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 05:09 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2012 05:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 04:59 Defacer wrote:I don't have time for this one -- too busy at work, so I'll let the Daily Dish answer for me. -- http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-tucker-carlson.htmlThe Dish actually transcribed the entire Obama speech - Carlson's massively hyped "scoop" yesterday - in June 2007. You can read the speech in full here. What struck me at the time was the following quote: We can diminish poverty if we approach it in two ways: by taking mutual responsibility for each other as a society, and also by asking for some more individual responsibility to strengthen our families. So Carlson is trying to make a speech that was in part about African-Americans taking "more individual responsibility to strengthen our families" into a leftist rant. Yes, Obama defended government programs - to help young mothers with infants, for example - but the speech's blend of conservative goals and liberal policies is almost Obama's centrist brand. Yes, he implied that in many inner cities there is a constant quiet riot and that the authorities tolerate things there they wouldn't elsewhere (sounds like Giuliani to me). He also implied that the Feds did not respond to Katrina with sufficient urgency in part because the people affected the most were black and powerless. Isn't that obviously true? If Katrina had hit Georgetown, or San Francisco, do you think residents would be on their roofs begging for federal help for days? Yes, in black audinces his cadence shifts a little. So fucking what? Here was what I wrote about it at the time: Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity.
All that Carlson did is clip it to get an "angry black man" in the minds of Americans. It's at once one of the most desperate and lame and vile plays of the race card I can remember - an obvious recognition that the 47 percent tape can only really be countered emotionally with race-baiting. But it lit up "conservative" media in ways that Conor best expresses: If the New York Times was constantly searching for archival footage to prove that Mitt Romney doesn't like black people, or that he is "whipping up race hatred," the conservative media would accuse them of frivolously ignoring the actual issues that this election ought to turn on. It would say that they were exploiting the racial anxieties of Americans to tarnish the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism. When it comes to racial demagoguery, the right has become everything it says it hates about the left. Carlson used to be a brilliant writer. He's now a racist demagogue. He's a story in one person of how degenerate and disgusting much of American "conservatism" has become. "the character of a man whose long record of public policy-making shows no evidence of racial animosity or radicalism" WHAT?! Just ONE of the flubs he had in this speech highlights a perfect example of his policy-making showing evidence of racial animosity: This theme — that black Americans suffer while others profit — is a national problem, Obama continues: “We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live. Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.” Why is it only black people are the minorities? What about the poor Hispanics, poor Chinese, poor every other race? You know, I do like the second paragraph. Where it's a series of new federal programs meant to help the poor. When did I say only black people are the minorities? I just gave you an example of policy-making racial animosity that favor "our (minority) neighborhoods" So your contention in that speech is his use of minority in one section, when everything else referred to the poor?
Well he connected them together didn't he?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
