|
|
The same people who can twist logic and words into contortions to suggest that Republicans are guilty of "subtle racism" or "dog whistle politics" are apparently equally skilled at contorting in the opposite direction to defend Democrats.
|
On October 04 2012 05:09 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[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? 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.
How would the federal government have responded differently in those communities? I really don't see the issue with New Orleans having much to do with a lack of federal resources or effort.
|
On October 04 2012 05:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The same people who can twist logic and words into contortions to suggest that Republicans are guilty of "subtle racism" or "dog whistle politics" are apparently equally skilled at contorting in the opposite direction to defend Democrats.
Exactly, funny when the tables are turned. Sorry, I'm not buying that Obama's one comment about minority-businesses means he is just a little bit racially skewed. I think it speaks for the whole damn speech.
|
On October 04 2012 05:20 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The same people who can twist logic and words into contortions to suggest that Republicans are guilty of "subtle racism" or "dog whistle politics" are apparently equally skilled at contorting in the opposite direction to defend Democrats. Exactly, funny when the tables are turned. Sorry, I'm not buying that Obama's one comment about minority-businesses means he is just a little bit racially skewed. I think it speaks for the whole damn speech.
You think it does because you want to think it does.
|
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.”
You're kidding me right? That's your example?
In the same speech, he's criticizing the federal government for not investing more in infrastructure or education to help the lower classes rise from poverty, while inferring that a majority of the Black community is underskilled and undisciplined, and they need to get their shit together.
Surprise! Obama is a centrist!
|
On October 04 2012 05:24 Defacer 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.” You're kidding me right? That's your example? In the same speech, he's criticizing the federal government for not investing more in infrastructure or education to help the lower classes rise from poverty, while inferring that a majority of the Black community is underskilled and undisciplined, and they need to get their shit together. Surprise! Obama is a centrist!
Surprise, your inference just proved that he IS talking about the black community, yet on the other side of your mouth you keep saying this isn't racially charged. Are you serious?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 04 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Can't believe I'm continuing with this, but if a speech like that was able to appeal to minorities and 'incite hatred towards white people,' then the problem is with an underlying cause that resonates within the audience. If someone can win votes by appealing to some sense of racial inequality then that's an issue pertinent to a society that's been marginalized throughout the years. Instead of blaming Obama for something he did not say, it's better if you looked around to see why something like this gets blown out of proportion in the first place.
|
On October 04 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:09 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[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? 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. How would the federal government have responded differently in those communities? I really don't see the issue with New Orleans having much to do with a lack of federal resources or effort.
You don't think the federal government -- and society as a whole -- is biased to certain cities or certain communities due to their political, cultural or economic relevance?
|
On October 04 2012 05:28 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote: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. Can't believe I'm continuing with this, but if a speech like that was able to appeal to minorities and 'incite hatred towards white people,' then the problem is with an underlying cause that resonates within the audience. If someone can win votes by appealing to some sense of racial inequality then that's an issue pertinent to a society that's been marginalized throughout the years. Instead of blaming Obama for something he did not say, it's better if you looked around to see why something like this gets blown out of proportion in the first place.
Something like this gets blown out proportion because appealing to some sense of racial inequality is wrong and exactly what leads to more racial inequality. It just makes things worse and that is why this speech is being criticized. I do agree with you that there already WAS a problem, but I still think his speech exacerbates it more than it brings us together.
|
My goodness... a video from 07(sic!) is being discussed here, where Obama wasn't even President but ran for office(the first time), or rather was trying to get the nomination to be able to run for office.
Can somebody explain to me how this slipped by in the 08(!) campaign? You know, when it would have been actual news and, potentially, relevant. And how on earth did this "great divider" and "hater of all crackers" get elected POTUS in the first place?
Maybe I am just missing something - or this campaign reached a new low where it is not about the IMPORTANT ISSUES of our time as the Republicans would call it, but more about... well good question, ancient history nobody except rather panicky Republicans think it should be about.
Pathetic.
|
On October 04 2012 05:27 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:24 Defacer 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.” You're kidding me right? That's your example? In the same speech, he's criticizing the federal government for not investing more in infrastructure or education to help the lower classes rise from poverty, while inferring that a majority of the Black community is underskilled and undisciplined, and they need to get their shit together. Surprise! Obama is a centrist! Surprise, your inference just proved that he IS talking about the black community, yet on the other side of your mouth you keep saying this isn't racially charged. Are you serious?
Explain to me: what is you're problem? That Obama is acknowledging or addressing a specific race or community? Are you seriously offended?
Are you saying that acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is the same as being racist? Or phoney? Are you scared that Black Obama is trying to mobilizes the Blackies to rise up against the Whities?
I actually don't understand why you or Tucker Carlson give a shit about this speech.
|
On October 04 2012 05:35 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:27 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 05:24 Defacer 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.” You're kidding me right? That's your example? In the same speech, he's criticizing the federal government for not investing more in infrastructure or education to help the lower classes rise from poverty, while inferring that a majority of the Black community is underskilled and undisciplined, and they need to get their shit together. Surprise! Obama is a centrist! Surprise, your inference just proved that he IS talking about the black community, yet on the other side of your mouth you keep saying this isn't racially charged. Are you serious? Explain to me: what is you're problem? That Obama is acknowledging or addressing a specific race or community? Are you seriously offended? Are you saying that acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is the same as being racist? Or phoney? Are you scared that Black Obama is trying to mobilizes the Blackies to rise up against the Whities? I actually don't understand why you or Tucker Carlson give a shit about this speech.
Acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is not racist. Using these prevailing issues and concerns to incite anger towards white people is.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 04 2012 05:32 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:28 Souma wrote:On October 04 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote: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. Can't believe I'm continuing with this, but if a speech like that was able to appeal to minorities and 'incite hatred towards white people,' then the problem is with an underlying cause that resonates within the audience. If someone can win votes by appealing to some sense of racial inequality then that's an issue pertinent to a society that's been marginalized throughout the years. Instead of blaming Obama for something he did not say, it's better if you looked around to see why something like this gets blown out of proportion in the first place. Something like this gets blown out proportion because appealing to some sense of racial inequality is wrong and exactly what leads to more racial inequality. It just makes things worse and that is why this speech is being criticized. I do agree with you that there already WAS a problem, but I still think his speech exacerbates it more than it brings us together.
I'm not saying he is explicitly appealing to some sense of racial inequality, I'm saying that it ends up being understood that way and that's a problem in and of itself. But I do disagree that this kind of stuff should be swept under the rug regardless. These racial issues should be brought forth and discussed. We should hate each other. We should fight over them. In the short-term it may bring some uneasiness between the races, but in the long term it is a necessity to progress. We fought a Civil War over this stuff. We went through the Civil Rights Movement because of it. And each time we came out better. The war on racial inequality is not over yet, and it never will be unless we give up a fight.
|
On October 04 2012 05:39 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:35 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 05:27 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 05:24 Defacer 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.” You're kidding me right? That's your example? In the same speech, he's criticizing the federal government for not investing more in infrastructure or education to help the lower classes rise from poverty, while inferring that a majority of the Black community is underskilled and undisciplined, and they need to get their shit together. Surprise! Obama is a centrist! Surprise, your inference just proved that he IS talking about the black community, yet on the other side of your mouth you keep saying this isn't racially charged. Are you serious? Explain to me: what is you're problem? That Obama is acknowledging or addressing a specific race or community? Are you seriously offended? Are you saying that acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is the same as being racist? Or phoney? Are you scared that Black Obama is trying to mobilizes the Blackies to rise up against the Whities? I actually don't understand why you or Tucker Carlson give a shit about this speech. Acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is not racist. Using these prevailing issues and concerns to incite anger towards white people is.
How the hell is Obama trying to "incite anger towards white people" in that speech?!
|
On October 04 2012 05:30 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 05:09 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. How would the federal government have responded differently in those communities? I really don't see the issue with New Orleans having much to do with a lack of federal resources or effort. You don't think the federal government -- and society as a whole -- is biased to certain cities or certain communities due to their political, cultural or economic relevance?
In the middle of a disaster? No, at least not to any meaningful extent.
If you disagree please give some facts to support your opinion. Saying that the response in Orange County would have been different is meaningless - it is complete speculation and the disaster would have been fundamentally different there.
|
On October 04 2012 05:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The same people who can twist logic and words into contortions to suggest that Republicans are guilty of "subtle racism" or "dog whistle politics" are apparently equally skilled at contorting in the opposite direction to defend Democrats.
You've unwittingly just proven the existence of a phenomena resembling "Postmodernism" in politics. The reflection of your own accusations gleams red upon the veneer of your own flawed perspective, as you play the game you deride others for taking part in.
|
On October 04 2012 05:39 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:35 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 05:27 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 05:24 Defacer 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.” You're kidding me right? That's your example? In the same speech, he's criticizing the federal government for not investing more in infrastructure or education to help the lower classes rise from poverty, while inferring that a majority of the Black community is underskilled and undisciplined, and they need to get their shit together. Surprise! Obama is a centrist! Surprise, your inference just proved that he IS talking about the black community, yet on the other side of your mouth you keep saying this isn't racially charged. Are you serious? Explain to me: what is you're problem? That Obama is acknowledging or addressing a specific race or community? Are you seriously offended? Are you saying that acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is the same as being racist? Or phoney? Are you scared that Black Obama is trying to mobilizes the Blackies to rise up against the Whities? I actually don't understand why you or Tucker Carlson give a shit about this speech. Acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is not racist. Using these prevailing issues and concerns to incite anger towards white people is.
Is he? Or is that just Tucker's perception?
Anyway, I hope I haven't been too rude to you. I'd love to actually read up on this and have a thoughtful discussion with you, because I've always been particularly passionate about issues pertaining to race, but I'm actually swamped at work right now.
Must .... Focus ....
|
On October 04 2012 05:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:30 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 05:09 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. How would the federal government have responded differently in those communities? I really don't see the issue with New Orleans having much to do with a lack of federal resources or effort. You don't think the federal government -- and society as a whole -- is biased to certain cities or certain communities due to their political, cultural or economic relevance? In the middle of a disaster? No, at least not to any meaningful extent. If you disagree please give some facts to support your opinion. Saying that the response in Orange County would have been different is meaningless - it is complete speculation and the disaster would have been fundamentally different there.
Ugh. No time to argue. You win.
|
On October 04 2012 05:48 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 05:30 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 05:09 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. How would the federal government have responded differently in those communities? I really don't see the issue with New Orleans having much to do with a lack of federal resources or effort. You don't think the federal government -- and society as a whole -- is biased to certain cities or certain communities due to their political, cultural or economic relevance? In the middle of a disaster? No, at least not to any meaningful extent. If you disagree please give some facts to support your opinion. Saying that the response in Orange County would have been different is meaningless - it is complete speculation and the disaster would have been fundamentally different there. Ugh. No time to argue. You win.
I'm patient, come back to the issue anytime. We'll most likely be too busy chucking eggs at each other after tonight's debate though 
|
On October 04 2012 05:47 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:39 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 05:35 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 05:27 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 05:24 Defacer 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.” You're kidding me right? That's your example? In the same speech, he's criticizing the federal government for not investing more in infrastructure or education to help the lower classes rise from poverty, while inferring that a majority of the Black community is underskilled and undisciplined, and they need to get their shit together. Surprise! Obama is a centrist! Surprise, your inference just proved that he IS talking about the black community, yet on the other side of your mouth you keep saying this isn't racially charged. Are you serious? Explain to me: what is you're problem? That Obama is acknowledging or addressing a specific race or community? Are you seriously offended? Are you saying that acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is the same as being racist? Or phoney? Are you scared that Black Obama is trying to mobilizes the Blackies to rise up against the Whities? I actually don't understand why you or Tucker Carlson give a shit about this speech. Acknowledging prevailing issues and concerns in a specific demographic is not racist. Using these prevailing issues and concerns to incite anger towards white people is. Is he? Or is that just Tucker's perception? Anyway, I hope I haven't been too rude to you. I'd love to actually read up on this and have a thoughtful discussion with you, because I've always been particularly passionate about issues pertaining to race, but I'm actually swamped at work right now. Must .... Focus ....
I can't say for sure, it seems like some serious pandering to the audience to me, especially with the way he is talking, but it probably won't matter anyway. I think it highlights some of Obama's flaws in his what his vision of racial equality is, but I doubt it will make any difference on this election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
