Patterico's Pontifications

3/20/2008

Obama: My Grandma Who Utters Racial and Ethnic Stereotypes Is a “Typical White Person”

Filed under: 2008 Election,General,Race — Patterico @ 8:50 pm

Obama clarifies about Grandma: it’s not that she’s a racist, per se — it’s that white people are typically racist. Think I’m making it up? Audio is here, and here is the relevant quote:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, uh, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there’s a reaction that’s been been bred into, uh, our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it.

Let me remind you what Obama considers to be a typical white person:

I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Thanks to Rick and James D.

256 Responses to “Obama: My Grandma Who Utters Racial and Ethnic Stereotypes Is a “Typical White Person””

  1. So is Obama and example of an intelligent person who just doesn’t know when to shut up, or is he maybe not all that bright to begin with? I am leaning towards the former.

    JVW (85f15c)

  2. The story I read was that grandma was afraid of a particular black man, an aggressive panhandler that harassed her at a bus stop. But hey, even Jesse Jackson said he was afraid of young black males while walking down the street. Obama is just another hack Democrat-progressive-communist politician who can speak pretty words. He will be a one term senator after November. One there will be a black president and a woman president, both of them will be Republicans.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  3. Barry used a story to cover up his own astounding lack of judgment, and in doing so tried to expose his grandmother as a racist.

    Nice work – this lady takes him in when his mom abandons him, and the reward is to be mocked on national TV.

    steve miller (0574db)

  4. The more he talks on this subject, the worse he comes across. He started out as the candidate who could transcend the racial divide and now he has talked himself into appearing as a black racist. That is really sad as I think he has set racial progress back by his twenty-year acceptance of the bigotry of some in the black community.

    Fritz (e5760e)

  5. Ah yes, the “Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus” theme is where we’re all at today, is it? How utterly predictable. Could there be a more tacit acknowledgment that everything Obama says flies right over your blissfully ignorant, empty little heads?

    Levi (76ef55)

  6. Levi – I might be a typical honky according to Obama because I don’t like crime. I don’t think the CIA invented AIDS, though. Is that bad?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  7. This feller does a seemingly good job on the subject.

    Confessions of a Bigot

    [clip]

    “As a white male, I am tired of shouldering the blame for the ills of the Black Community. The first Hoosierboys to arrive here were pushed from their German homeland because they were Protestant at the end of the Thirty Years War. Arriving here in the ealry 1700’s there is no record of a member of my family ever owning a slave. The other branch of my family arrived in the post Civil War. As a child my Great-Great Grandmother was orphaned. She was placed on a train and sent westward, dropped off in Boone County, Indiana. She was ‘adopted’ by a family. In reality, she was free servant labor throughout her youth. The only difference between her lot in life and that of a slave is if she ran away, likely no one would chase her. I do not shout and scream and Blame the Germans or the Catholics or the well-intentioned (or not) Clergy that sent my ancestors from their homes. We moved on.”

    [clip]

    TC (1cf350)

  8. I want to hear what Obama has to say about typical Jews and Koreans and Salvadoreans and others. I’m just so happy he has moved beyond race and bigotry to other things.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  9. And while we’re at it, can someone explain how Wright’s claim that the US faked Pearl Harbor relates to the historic experience of black oppression excuse?

    That theory has been batted around for years on the fringes but Wright was clearly not talking about taking an academic approach to the matter. It was by his use just another example of how awful the Great Satan is. Yet I can’t for the life of me see how that gets covered by white vs black racial injustices. The way he used it was just blind anti-Americanism on a roll.

    DaMav (e84050)

  10. Thomas Sowell says it nicely for people like Levi, with his Bush Derangement Syndrome and Obama worship:

    “Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now “move on,” even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.

    Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.”

    daleyrocks (906622)

  11. I’d like to remind everyone, Obama is half-white.

    Anybody not know that already? Anybody need to go look that up to double-check? Because call me crazy, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to call someone with Obama’s family background a black racist.

    I mean, what are the odds that someone comes from a half-white, half-black family background, gets converted to black supremacy by his crazy pastor later on in his life, and then gets absurdly close to winning his party’s nomination?

    To me, that sounds like an absolutely implausible, laughably unbelievable, infinitely remote scenario. But I guess that’s what’s going on here, is that what you people are saying?

    Levi (76ef55)

  12. Levi uses stereotypes, broad brush descriptions, and collective responsibility assignment as poorly as Obama. It no wonder Levi would lick the dog shit off his shoes.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  13. daley,

    Getting lectured by Bush people about not letting myself become a ‘useful idiot’ is just a little ironic, I’m having a surreal moment right now. You people were tricked into voting against your own self-interests by one of the stupidest people to have ever lived, twice, and I need to worry about becoming a useful idiot?

    Levi (76ef55)

  14. Comment #11 by Levi — 3/20/2008 @ 11:31 pm:

    I mean, what are the odds that someone comes from a half-white, half-black family background, gets converted to black supremacy by his crazy pastor later on in his life, and then gets absurdly close to winning his party’s nomination?
    To me, that sounds like an absolutely implausible, laughably unbelievable, infinitely remote scenario.

    Well, okay. So what sort of scenarios might someone like Levi believe in?

    Comment #83 by Levi — 3/20/2008 @ 1:33 pm:

    You don’t have any reason to believe Obama is a racist or against patriotism other than your own desire for it to be true, because that’s the fuel that runs your party’s electoral victories. And Diebold.

    Comment #106 by Levi — 3/20/2008 @ 10:44 pm:

    That was Bush’s strategy, we’re in the age of Karl Rove politics, that’s what’s given you your electoral success.

    With the assist from Diebold, of course.

    Ah, it all becomes clear.

    Shad (36f787)

  15. Diebold is a big Republican backer and monkeys can crack their voting machines. You telling me you’d feel comfortable voting on machines built by George Soros that provided you with no paper trail and were so easily compromised that an animal could be trained to do it?

    Levi (76ef55)

  16. Mr. Not-ready-for-prime-time Obama; “Do you consider the racist Mr. Wright a typical black person?”

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  17. What Cubanbob said. My first thought on hearing that statement was “Is Jesse Jackson a typical white person, too?”

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  18. Because call me crazy, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to call someone with Obama’s family background a black racist.

    OK, you’re crazy, Levi.

    And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me.

    Plus, Granny’s a racist, so there’s that.

    Pablo (99243e)

  19. On the subject of aggressive panhandling, friend BigLeeH left this comment on my site once:

    “Your story reminds me of a colorful local character from my time as an undergraduate at FSU 35 years or so ago. Since there is no way to talk about “Moms” that is politically correct without making her story disappear, I must start by identifying her as an elderly black street person who always wore the same old red dress and carried a cane made out of a broken-off pool cue. She would panhandle at the local student hangouts and was a particular feature of the “Omni” — an outdoor dining burger joint next to the Fine Arts building. When the students saw her coming they would call “Moms alert!” and those who didn’t want to deal with her would scatter.

    Her spiel was always the same, varying only depending on whether her mark gave her the money she asked for. She was remarkably direct:

    “Gimme a dime, white man.” she would say, peering earnestly into your face. If you gave her a dime she would immediately escalate. “Gimme a quarter, then…” but if you refused she would berate you. “You ain’t no white man. What is you? You shore ain’t no white man…””

    It might not be exactly the tone of Obama’s campaign, but it’s close. And pretty darn close to Michelle Obama’s tone. Entitlement and white guilt.

    nk (34c5da)

  20. Re #1 & #4: VDH, at the Corner

    The problem is instead the environment that he heretofore has navigated in — prep school, the Ivy League, the regional identity politics of Chicago, or Illinois liberalism — is hardly representative of his own country. So what he can say among sympathizers and friends will not be excused or contextualized by average others who don’t know him and won’t give him the latitude he is accustomed to and apparently has counted on.

    … When he praises Rev. Wright he sounds like he is from Mars — but hasn’t a clue that he does. And so like a deer in the headlights Obama keeps waiting for a black precinct captain or a Columbia professor to come to the rescue and explain — ever more clueless that even if they did, it wouldn’t matter a bit.

    Oh, and I’ve thought that electric voting machines were a bad idea from the get go. I’m just glad that Diebold’s CEO favors Republicans, so that Democratic paranoia opposes them. If he were a dyed in the wool Democrat, Levi et al would be all for them.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  21. Levi,

    The notion that someone’s ethnic make-up precludes their being racist is as ridiculous and offensive as Obama’s comment that his grandmother’s racial prejudice makes her a typical white person.

    Being a racist goes to the content of one’s character, not the color of one’s skin.

    Stephen Macklin (f552f7)

  22. Obama really doesn’t know when to shut up.

    Now going off-topic.

    Hey, guys:
    Obama-Richardson ticket?

    Uh-oh.

    Joe M. (5d215f)

  23. Levi – I might be a typical honky according to Obama because I don’t like crime. I don’t think the CIA invented AIDS, though. Is that bad?

    Comment by daleyrocks
    Don’t forget that the American government also put cocaine into the black neighborhoods too, according to Obama’s church.

    Yes, he will bring the races together, amen!

    Alta Bob (aada0c)

  24. I get the sense that Levi was not old enough to vote in 2000. Just a feeling.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  25. I found Levi’s little rants about not trusting Diebold voting machines hilarious … given that he wants us to vote for a politician from Chicago’s Daley machine.

    Cognitive dissonance – by the bucketload.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. I’ve enjoyed this blog for years, but how could you fail to see what Obama meant: his Gramdma is a “typical white person” for her age and generation. My dear recently-deceased Grandma said things about race that made me cringe too. What 90-year-old doesn’t? We’ve made a lot of social progress since their attitudes solidified.

    Marie (f7b9da)

  27. Obama’s Plan 1.1: bring all the races together to smite whitey.

    The only disturbing thing is the number of self loathing honkeys signing up.

    Sweetie (ca63cb)

  28. #25, Marie, if you consider Obama’s grandmother a typical [white] person for age and generation, do you also consider his womanizing, deadbeat, alcoholic father a typical black man for his age and generation?
    If so, then that would explain why the cycle of poverty has continued in black families.

    And if you think that we have made social progress, perhaps you can explain how Rev. Wright seems to be stuck in the 60’s philosophy of Malcolm X who he chose to follow instead of Dr. King. Or why Senator Obama chose to follow down that road with his mentor, pastor and [family-like] friend.

    retire05 (ca9840)

  29. As I said on QandO:

    Fuck you Senator. Come to the middle of your “home” state, and I’ll gift unto you a bit of my mind, you racist pile of shit.

    I couldn’t say “typical black person” without being nailed to a cross, and burned alive.

    Here I thought everyone was equal. Silly me.

    Fuck you, Senator Obama. Fuck you.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  30. Marie – Why didn’t Obama say what he meant in the first place if that is your interpretation?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  31. Hey Levi QUICK turn off your Computer, it’s being powered by the big right-wing electric companies, and sell your car you’re contributing to the big bad oil companies, and I think Thomas Jefferson would have been a Republican so turn off all your lights, “they see you”! George Soros invented tin foil though so go make a tin foil hat, put it on and crouch down in a corner of your Mom’s basement! Seriously the housing crash must be missing Oblivion USA, because it still has quite a few residents.

    Obama’s true colors are coming out! Excuse the pun! I think he’s starting to believe the embellished bio he wrote on himself! He’s NO Martin Luther King! Not even close!

    Ed O'Shea (56a0a8)

  32. Diebold make cash registers; much like NCRs: excuse me point of sale terminals. Has anyone ever needed to hack a point of sale terminal.
    Has nayone been able to hack a Diebold or ESE
    machine, from an outside line. Optical scanners
    the brand spanking new solution had twice the failure rate when they were tried in Central Florida in 2000. Do you even pretend to know
    anything outside of the “black box” scammers, Levi.

    narciso (c36902)

  33. “it’s that white people are typically racist.”

    And the quote says:

    “The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. “

    stef (6c5bbe)

  34. The notion that someone’s ethnic make-up precludes their being racist is as ridiculous and offensive as Obama’s comment that his grandmother’s racial prejudice makes her a typical white person.

    You don’t understand what Obama is saying, or you’re pretending not to anyways.

    All he means, and this I thought was pretty self-evident, is that there are stereotypes. Which is true; you have a few, I have a few, we all have a few, about different religions, genders, races, backgrounds, professions, political affiliations, etc. He’s not calling his grandmother a racist and then saying all white people are racist, and you’ve got to have a third-graders’ reading comprehension to genuinely believe that’s what he meant.

    What he said, is that she’s a ‘typical white person’ in that she harbors those stereotypes, but is an otherwise great lady. He’s not condemning her for it, he’s not condemning ‘typical white people’ for the way they feel, he’s just saying that that is the lay of the land; people, all people, have stereotypes. This is exactly how we need to be talking about race in this country, and it’s unfortunate that so many of you refuse to even try to listen to the man.

    Levi (76ef55)

  35. Diebold make cash registers; much like NCRs: excuse me point of sale terminals. Has anyone ever needed to hack a point of sale terminal.
    Has nayone been able to hack a Diebold or ESE
    machine, from an outside line. Optical scanners
    the brand spanking new solution had twice the failure rate when they were tried in Central Florida in 2000. Do you even pretend to know
    anything outside of the “black box” scammers, Levi.

    Dude, what are you even talking about?

    Look, I don’t want to talk about Diebold, this hysterical outrage you’re all pretending to feel about Obama is a much better story, but I will pose the question again:

    If George Soros was manufacturing a majority of the voting machines that Americans were to use, voting machines that left no paper trail and were as easy to corrupt as changing a few values in a spreadsheet, would you not be the slightest bit worried that your vote might not be counted?

    Levi (76ef55)

  36. Levi, I vote non-democrat in Illinois. My vote hasn’t been counted since I started voting…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  37. What he said, is that she’s a ‘typical white person’ in that she harbors those stereotypes,

    Maybe you hang out woth people who use racist phrases, but I actively distance myself from those sorts of people. Maybe you’re just more tolerant of drooling idiocy that I am (Come to think of it, you live with yourself, so you must).

    If you think holding racist stereotypes is typical of white people, then you have a pretty low opinion of white people. One might even call it a self-loathing.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  38. So? I vote non-Republican in Montana and so my vote has never actually counted. Maybe I’ll amend the last part of my last comment, ‘vote might not be counted’ to ‘vote might be switched.’

    Levi (76ef55)

  39. Not any more than I am now. Just because they are easy to crack doesn’t mean only one party might benifit. Anything easy to break is easy to break for both parties…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  40. Considering that the majority of “illegal voting” has benifited democrats over the years, why do you naturally assume Republicans will cheat more that Dems? Are you projecting or something?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  41. Levi – I was thinking of going ice fishing this weekend. My auger ice is broken. You’ve been spinning so fast nonstop on this on this blog that I think you’d make a great replacement, plus a great stink bait. Are you available?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  42. Scott, how childish can you be? I don’t know anybody that doesn’t have racial stereotypes, and neither do you, don’t lie to yourself. Having stereotypes doesn’t mean you’re a racist, they’re two completely separate things. A stereotype is just a cultural construct that for better or worse, gets bred into people over generations. Like Asian people are good at math, white people can’t dance, trailer parks are for trailer trash, etc. These sorts of things aren’t necessarily counter-productive, and are a pervasive, defining force that affects American culture.

    To be a racist, you have to start hating based on the stereotypes. Barack never said his grandmother started hating blacks, he only said that at times, he’d heard her express some of the not-so-flattering stereotypes about black people, to illustrate a point; that it’s possible for us to feel certain things and say certain things that could be considered racist or offensive, due to some of the stereotypes that are an inherent part of our society. But that doesn’t make you a bad person. It makes you an American, living in modern America.

    Levi (76ef55)

  43. I have to say, I am extremely appreciative of my Republican brothers here at this blog, and their brave, unequivocal commitment to ensuring that we do not elect a black man as president unless that black man makes it clear that he is opposed to the terrible, racist stereotypes held by certain black people toward whites.

    White people have suffered under the yoke of black racism for too long. For hundreds of years, blacks have stereotyped whites as slave owners, writers of jim crow laws, segrigationists, and the perpetrators of systemic discrimination. When does it end?

    This must stop now. We have tolerated much racism against whites, but a PRESIDENT making racist accusations against whites, suggesting that whites have committed these unthinkable acts, is utterly intolerable. Thank you for drawing the line.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  44. Comment by Charles Krauthammer last night on Fox:

    Obama uses his grandmother as an example of unthinking racism based on experience because she stereotyped all black men as being threatening to her safety.

    He then called her a typical white — applying a stereotype himself that is no less invidious than the one he accused her of holding about —- “typical blacks”???

    wls (e9f058)

  45. *rolls his eyes* At least Jesse Jackson has accomplished stuff. He’s actually be better than Obama. At least Jackson’s anti-white bias is something he displays…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  46. Not any more than I am now. Just because they are easy to crack doesn’t mean only one party might benifit. Anything easy to break is easy to break for both parties…

    Republicans aren’t going to manufacture a bunch of corrupt voting machines and let the Democrats get a hold of them, that defeats the purpose of rigging an election.

    So you get state-level cooperation. Is it a coincidence that in the last two elections, the two states that the decision hanged on both had Secretaries of State that were members of Bush’s campaigns and in which there were thousands of reported instances of disenfranchisement? Katherine Harris purged thousands of minorities from the rolls ‘accidentally’ in Florida. Kenneth Blackwell was moving around voting machines to create artificially long (12+ hours) waiting lines to vote in urban, poor, minority (DEMOCRATIC) neighborhoods and calling out fake FBI alerts to lock people out of the vote-counting process.

    Couple that with the Diebold CEO’s promise to deliver the election to Republicans, and you could see how I’m a little suspicious? Try to tell me with a straight face that you’d have no concerns if all of those peoples’ party affiliations were switched?

    Considering that the majority of “illegal voting” has benifited democrats over the years, why do you naturally assume Republicans will cheat more that Dems? Are you projecting or something?

    It just makes sense. The minority vote breaks like 80% to 90% against you guys in a lot of areas. So if Republicans suppress the minority vote, they’re eliminating 8 or 9 votes for their opponent and 1 for themselves. If yours is a party of dirty, soulless politicians who can’t govern and only seem to care about winning elections, it’s a smart strategy.

    Levi (76ef55)

  47. And Phil, you can’t seem to grasp the idea that we don’t like Sen. Obama because he’s never actually done anything, and is absolutely not qualified for the job.

    No, it has to be because we’re racists…

    Asshat.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  48. Republicans aren’t going to manufacture a bunch of corrupt voting machines and let the Democrats get a hold of them, that defeats the purpose of rigging an election.

    You don’t have to get ahold of a Diebold to break them wide open, plus they CAN get ahold of them, as any democrat running the local voting booths can access them.

    If yours is a party of dirty, soulless politicians who can’t govern and only seem to care about winning elections, it’s a smart strategy.

    The funny part of tht is that you think you’re describing Republicans…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  49. Is it a coincidence that in the last two elections, the two states that the decision hanged on both had Secretaries of State that were members of Bush’s campaigns and in which there were thousands of reported instances of disenfranchisement?

    No, it’s not a coincidence that sleazy Democrats who make reckless, politically motivated changes of “disenfranchisement” usually direct these frivolous accusations at Republican Secretaries of State rather than at their fellow Democrats. What else did you expect?

    Xrlq (b71926)

  50. Kenneth Blackwell was moving around voting machines to create artificially long (12+ hours) waiting lines to vote in urban, poor, minority (DEMOCRATIC) neighborhoods and calling out fake FBI alerts to lock people out of the vote-counting process.

    Levi, I challenge you to provide a link for this accusation, and one that is not from some fringe-left outfit. Otherwise, we’ll know which hole you are talking out of.

    Though I am impressed by Ken Blackwell’s physical strength if he can carry voting machines hither and yon.

    JVW (85f15c)

  51. I think we’re all making too big a deal out of this. It’s just politics. Obama was just talking to his “kill all whites base.

    nk (34c5da)

  52. “Typical White Person” just made me cringe.

    I grew up an “Army brat,” which meant that given President Eisenhower’s desegregation of the military, I had plenty of black, brown, yellow and white friends in the Army schools.

    I was never ever taught to discriminate, except perhaps the difference between Irish and non-Irish, and as a Catholic, my mother told me about KKK cross burnings in Pennsylvania and that the KKK “hated Catholics and Negroes.”

    As a teen in the 60’s, I was genuinely perplexed that there was any need for a “civil rights” movement, as it just seemed obvious that the outcome would and should be just like the military.

    Having the likes of Rev. Wright shoved in my face really begins to give me pause as to who really are the “racists” in our society.

    Rev. Wright is anything but a Christian man. Christ never taught anyone to hate. I find his kind of religion to be anathema to any form of Christianity.

    As the past week has unfolded, to find out that Rev. Wright isn’t the exception in the Black community has been a real shock.

    I’m starting with the man in the mirror
    I’m asking him to change his ways
    And no message could have been any clearer
    If you wanna make the world a better place
    Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

    .. but my change doesn’t include Obama.

    Neo (cba5df)

  53. Stef #32:

    # “it’s that white people are typically racist.”

    And the quote says:

    “The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity.”

    It’s good to know that being racist and saying racist things are different in your book. I guess that also explains why some people aren’t offended by Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  54. Ah yes, the “Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus” theme is where we’re all at today, is it? How utterly predictable. Could there be a more tacit acknowledgment that everything Obama says flies right over your blissfully ignorant, empty little heads?

    This is not the “Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus” theme. This is the “white people are all racists” theme, if you understood what this post actually says. Talk about going over one’s (air)head. What is it about lefties where they can’t respond to (understand?) what’s actually written?

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  55. I vote non-Republican in Montana and so my vote has never actually counted.

    Whaaa-a–a–t?

    Montana?!?

    Levi, you claimed to live in New Mexico a few months ago near the US/Mexico border. You argued in the same comment that you saw no illegal immigrants running by your window as a rebuttal to DRJ’s link to a MSM article about a rancher that saw illegals crossing his property constantly.

    Are you being dishonest with us in order to embellish your arguments?

    Where do you really live? Montana or New Mexico?

    Paul (249390)

  56. Paul,

    Levi claims he is from Montana. He is not the same person as Leviticus, who is a student in New Mexico. Until this Levi came along, most of us referred to Leviticus as Levi but they are not the same.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  57. Thanks for the clarification, DRJ.

    Paul (249390)

  58. “It’s good to know that being racist and saying racist things are different in your book. ”

    Seriously. Did you read the quote? Its about people being raised in certain ways and having certain experiences that come out the wrong way and is the nature of race in society. Thats very typical.

    stef (16fb1f)

  59. I found it confusing, Paul, but then Leviticus mentioned it here.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  60. Stef,

    I did read the quote, many times, but if I subscribe to your interpretation then I would have the perfect excuse for everyone to perpetuate racism because that was their experience. Do you really want that to be the rule — that we can never change ourselves, and we need someone like Obama to do it for us?

    DRJ (a431ca)

  61. What’s more, Stef, do you really think that people can’t overcome racist beliefs and feelings? I give people more credit than that.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  62. Republicans aren’t going to manufacture a bunch of corrupt voting machines and let the Democrats get a hold of them, that defeats the purpose of rigging an election.

    Hey circular reasoning! What a shocker! You know they were deliberately made “corrupt” in order to rig an election, so therefore it follows that only the Republicans could get a hold of them. You don’t explain how only the Republicans could get a hold of them. But it must be the case that only Republicans could get a hold of them since the election was rigged. Which you know it was since the machines were deliberately made “corrupt”. Etc.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  63. “I did read the quote, many times, but if I subscribe to your interpretation then I would have the perfect excuse for everyone to perpetuate racism because that was their experience. ”

    The quote ends with:

    “We have to break through it.”

    Don’t seem like its about perpetuating.

    “What’s more, Stef, do you really think that people can’t overcome racist beliefs and feelings? I give people more credit than that.”

    I think its typical for people to have certain feelings or built in reactions that are hard to change but do not show ill intent. Rather, they show the force of history.

    But I do agree that tolerance issues are hugely generational. The next few generations are not going to believe or find acceptable the sorts of things that get said about homosexuals these days.

    stef (1bf27e)

  64. You can’t have it both ways, Stef. Either people are racist or they aren’t. (You seem to posit a third choice: people who aren’t racist but simply have “built-in reactions” from the “force of history.” Frankly, I’m not even sure what you mean by that. Is there a difference between well-meaning racists and ignorant racists?)

    My parents were raised in the South during a racist era but neither one was racist or spouted racist rhetoric. I was raised in an era when homosexuals were not accepted but I don’t feel ill will or hatred toward them. People choose to be hateful, and if you believe otherwise then you don’t believe in free will.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  65. The next few generations are not going to believe or find acceptable the sorts of things that get said about homosexuals these days.

    Don’t know who you hang out with stef, but 29 year olds and down generally don’t find that stuff acceptable NOW. Why is it that only future generations will be tolerant?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  66. Basicly, Phil’s called me a racist, and Stef has called me a homophobe.

    Fuck the both of them.

    Out loud.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  67. “You can’t have it both ways, Stef. Either people are racist or they aren’t.”

    God forbid the issue of race be complicated and people defy tired simplistic views of it.

    “Is there a difference between well-meaning racists and ignorant racists?”

    For example, I find it much more inexcusable for a 29 year old to believe that gays can’t adopt or get married than for a 59 or 69 year old to think that. But in neither case do I boil it down to a simple ‘are they bigots or not.’

    “Don’t know who you hang out with stef, but 29 year olds and down generally don’t find that stuff acceptable NOW. Why is it that only future generations will be tolerant?”

    And it will get more so. Thats my point. Eventually some things that are said today about gays will sound like ‘segregation forever’ sounds like to today. Which still means that there will be Trent Lotts.

    “Stef has called me a homophobe.”

    ?

    “Fuck the both of them.”

    I will call you a victim though.

    stef (a91763)

  68. The question is very simple and straightforward, Scott. Are you going to support Obama for President or should we fit you with a white sheet right now?

    nk (34c5da)

  69. Exactly, nk. And as long as that’s the tone from his supporters, I won’t support him. Unless I’m free to reject him and NOT be called a racist, then I REFUSE to support him.

    The idea that the ONLY reason we don’t like Sen Obama is because of his race is nothing short of laughable…

    Hell, to people in central IL, his being from Chicago alone is reason enough.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  70. Stef:

    “God forbid the issue of race be complicated and people defy tired simplistic views of it.”

    Life always seems complicated to the young, Stef, but it isn’t.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  71. “Life always seems complicated to the young, Stef, but it isn’t.”

    Ask Trent Lott.

    stef (4fe3dc)

  72. Yeah.

    He’s been the most pro-abortion State Senator in Illinois. I’ve been anti-abortion since I was born.

    He’s been anti-gun all his career. I’ve owned guns since I was sixteen.

    I have always supported the War Against Terror. He has always opposed it.

    I’ve had to allow the precinct captain to put up lawn signs on my law front yard if I wanted a garbage can. He’s part of the Chicago Democratic Machine.

    I’m a racist.

    nk (34c5da)

  73. It’s complicated, NK. Ask Stef.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  74. I’ve been anti-abortion since I was born.

    Personally, I’ve been not-pro-abortion (I’m pro choice, but prefer you chose life) since BEFORE I was born. :)

    I’ve had to allow the precinct captain to put up lawn signs on my law front yard if I wanted a garbage can.

    That sounds suspiciously like compelling speech. Couldn’t you have made a first amendment argument?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  75. Phil and Levi are racists.

    JD (75f5c3)

  76. Basicly, Phil’s called me a racist, and Stef has called me a homophobe.

    Fuck the both of them.

    Out loud.

    I’ve never called you a racist. And I won’t say anything negative about you personally now, either. I’ll let your own words and actions define you, as they have above.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  77. Bullshit, you damned liar. You’ve called every person who disagrees with you a racist multiple times in multiple threads for ages.

    Do you really think we’re all so gulible as to be unable to remember things that have happened in the past?

    We aren’t all liberals, you know. We have functional memories.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  78. And anyone who would judge me poorly for swearing at you or Stef, well, they can go screw off.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  79. “We aren’t all liberals, you know. We have functional memories.”

    And we’re up in arms about “typical white person.” Man it is a complicated world.

    stef (48e229)

  80. Quite right. What I should have said is “We’re not all like the talking heads in Main Stream Media, or you and stef”.

    Thank you for pointing out my error, stef.

    And shame you won’t remember having done it come the rising of the sun tomorrow…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  81. “God forbid the issue of race be complicated and people defy tired simplistic views of it”

    Why is it that the media and their buddies on the Left always talk about race issues as those these “discussions” will be difficult discussions?

    There is nothing “difficult” about this. Treating people as individuals is easy. Treating people in a color-blind or race neutral manner is easy.

    The difficult part only comes along when people like Phil and Levi conflate things like being against affirmative action as being racist, or the notion that ILLEGAL immigration is wrong is racist, or disagreeing with a policy position is racist. It seems that those on the Left may find this discussion difficult, but it shouldn’t be.

    JD (75f5c3)

  82. Bullshit, you damned liar. You’ve called every person who disagrees with you a racist multiple times in multiple threads for ages. Do you really think we’re all so gulible as to be unable to remember things that have happened in the past?

    You don’t need a good memory. Go back and find a post where I wrote “you are a racist” or “xxxx is a racist” or anyone “is a racist.”

    That said, I’m sure you’ll find a whole bunch of posts saying “phil is a racist.” And some saying “Phil, you’re calling me a racist.” Those don’t count. I know a lot of people here say they think I’m calling them racists. I’ve given up trying to figure out why that is.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  83. Levi lied: Look, I don’t want to talk about Diebold…

    Dude, if you didn’t want to talk about Diebold, you wouldn’t have brought it up without context several times while trolling in two threads on consecutive days.

    …people, all people, have stereotypes.

    And there’s no greater example of that fact than your laughable performance here the past couple of days. Every stereotype about Republicans and/or conservatives going back to the Clinton Administration has been upchucked in your comments.

    Being a lifelong news junkie, when I was younger, I used to swallow the MSM crap about conservatives too; “Bigots, misogynists, warmongers, etc.” The so-called Fairness Doctrine was in place. The New York Times, Walter Cronkite, and the sitcoms of Norman Lear were the filter through which the uninformed learned about everybody right of center. But as I grew in knowledge and experience, I found out I had been sold a bill of goods.

    There’s still hope for you, son.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  84. Stef:

    “Life always seems complicated to the young, Stef, but it isn’t.”

    Ask Trent Lott.

    Stef, is this your idea of a clever retort or are you being serious? Because if you are serious, you’ve proven my point. Racism isn’t that complicated and Trent Lott is a good example. His statements were unacceptable and racist to me, and I was glad to see him step down as Leader and leave the Senate.

    As JD said so well, there’s nothing difficult about treating people in a race-blind manner.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  85. Scott and Phil – take it outside. Try yoga.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  86. “Treating people as individuals is easy. ”

    Actually I’d say treating people as stereotypes is easy. Treating them as individuals is hard and takes time. People who based on their experience and background cross the street when approaching teenagers are doing the easy thing, rather than getting to know those teens and treating them like individuals. Demanding that people be declared racist or not is easy. Understanding how and why each individual feels what they do about race is difficult.

    stef (394243)

  87. No, Phil does not overtly say it. He just conflates disagreement on policy positions with holding racist views. VOR does the same thing. They are very careful to not say it outright, but the words that they use lead to no other conclusion. It is done so he can come back with that exact post that he put up in #82.

    JD (75f5c3)

  88. Actually I’d say treating people as stereotypes is easy. Treating them as individuals is hard and takes time.

    That says more about you than anyone else.

    JD (75f5c3)

  89. “His statements were unacceptable and racist to me, and I was glad to see him step down as Leader and leave the Senate.”

    Well, then ask people who are of the opinion on this board that thats not the case. I don’t think the statement shows he’s racist. He could very well act quite nice to his black staff and treat them equally and color blind.

    I think it shows he’s a dated product of his time. And that talk of race is complicated.

    stef (394243)

  90. “That says more about you than anyone else.”

    Am I wrong here, or is it not true that it takes more time to get to know someone than to simply apply stereotypes based on easily perceived criteria such as race or gender?

    stef (b39392)

  91. Racism isn’t that complicated and Trent Lott is a good example. His statements were unacceptable and racist to me, and I was glad to see him step down as Leader and leave the Senate.

    Yeah, well, it should be noted that Lott’s statements were interpreted as wistful longing for the days of segregation and lynching. Quite a bit different from Obama’s description of a “typical white person,” whatever that is.

    Plus, if you do consider Obama’s statement to be racist, you’ve got the cancellation factor — how bad is it to be racist if your racism is basically stereotyping people as racist?

    At worst, Obama was saying “typical white people are like my grandmother — they make assumptions about black people that are not universially, or even generally, true.”

    Trent Lott allegedly was saying “Gosh, everything would have been so much better if we’d had a president who kept segregation the law of the land.”

    Somehow, those statements just don’t seem equivocal in any sense.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  92. Typical BS. I do not recall Phil jumping up and down in histrionics when Sen. Dodd said that Sen. Byrd would have been the right man at any point in time. The position that Phil takes has nothing to do with race – it has to do with politics, selective applications of ever-moving standards, and a considerable holier-than-thou complex.

    Our President should not be out there making statements that the “typical white” holds racist views. If that is too difficult for you, I would only ask one further question. Is it hard to make it through a day when you have to constantly remind yourself to breathe, and blink?

    JD (75f5c3)

  93. Am I wrong here, or is it not true that it takes more time to get to know someone than to simply apply stereotypes based on easily perceived criteria such as race or gender?

    Taking time to get to know someone isn’t the same as treating everyone as individuals. I can treat a complete stranger like he’s an individual and not part of some group. Can’t you?

    Steverino (e00589)

  94. No, steverino. Everyone to them is a member of some identity politics greivance group, and must be treated accordingly.

    JD (75f5c3)

  95. Damn, JD. What was I thinking, treating people like individuals and letting everyone start with a clean slate?

    I’ll try to mend the error of my ways.

    Steverino (e00589)

  96. “Can’t you?”

    Sure. But I think we’re talking about different things then.

    stef (9f07c5)

  97. Sure. But I think we’re talking about different things then

    No, we’re not. You’re saying it’s easier to treat people using stereotypes than it is to treat them as individuals. You apparently support this by saying it takes time to get to know someone.

    I say you can treat anyone as an individual without knowing a thing about him.

    If you think that’s talking about two different things, then there’s no point in discussing this further, because you’ll just change your definitions to suit your needs.

    Steverino (e00589)

  98. I say you can treat anyone as an individual without knowing a thing about him.

    I don’t get that. How can you treat someone as an individual if you don’t know anything about the individual?

    For example, I notice you already called this individual a “him.” Would that be a sexist presumption, if you don’t know this individual’s sex, yet?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  99. “You apparently support this by saying it takes time to get to know someone.”

    Just because its easier doesn’t mean it should be done. Obama’s grandma should have gotten to know all those individuals she feared on the street, rather than applying a stereotype to them. But I do think its a simple fact that it takes to get to know people rather than simply reacting based on their outward appearance. That is all.

    “I say you can treat anyone as an individual without knowing a thing about him.”

    Sure, you can act in complete ignorance. I suppose thats even easier than acting based on their easily perceived outward appearance.

    stef (034065)

  100. Now Phil is lying about what Trent Lott said. It seems hilarious to me that if what Lott said was so bad, that those who continually bring it up have to actually lie about it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  101. Now Phil is lying about what Trent Lott said. It seems hilarious to me that if what Lott said was so bad, that those who continually bring it up have to actually lie about it.

    I’m not lying about what either person said. I’m characterizing the statements of each person as they have been interpreted by those criticizing them. That’s why I use words like “At worst, Obama was saying” and “Trent Lott was allegedly saying.”

    In neither case am I reproducing their exact words. I’m summarizing the characterizations of what they said, by critics, as I read them to be.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  102. SPQR – That is what they do. Now, he and stef are arguing in favor of treating people according to stereotypes. Remind me, who are the racists and bigots ?

    JD (5f0e11)

  103. Phil, that is the most pathetic excuse I’ve seen even from you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  104. “Now, he and stef are arguing in favor of treating people according to stereotypes.”

    Jayzus Christ. Dealing with this? This is difficult. I mean, when I say:

    “Just because its easier doesn’t mean it should be done. Obama’s grandma should have gotten to know all those individuals she feared on the street, rather than applying a stereotype to them.”

    What I get is:

    “stef are arguing in favor of treating people according to stereotypes.”

    Jayzus christ.

    stef (751832)

  105. Oh, I see. He is not lying, he is just knowingly reiterating mischaracterizations. A distinction without a difference.

    Racist

    JD (5f0e11)

  106. Phil, that is the most pathetic excuse I’ve seen even from you.

    I love you too, SPQR!

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  107. Oh, I see. He is not lying, he is just knowingly reiterating mischaracterizations. A distinction without a difference.

    Racist

    Why do you sign your posts “Racist”?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  108. “Why do you sign your posts “Racist”?”

    LOL. looking at you as individuals, you deserve each other.

    stef (dfd808)

  109. Obama’s grandma should have gotten to know all those individuals she feared on the street, rather than applying a stereotype to them.

    stef, with all due respect, you’re an idiot. Trying to get to know all the individuals you fear on the street is how you ge to be a robbery, rape and serial-killing victim.

    nk (34c5da)

  110. stef – It is easy to treat people as individuals. Try it.

    JD (5f0e11)

  111. Racist

    JD (5f0e11)

  112. Yea, Stef, geeze. Come on. Listen to NK and JD and SPQR and STFU.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  113. “stef – It is easy to treat people as individuals. Try it.”

    Oh I certainly do. When I get this:

    “We aren’t all liberals, you know. We have functional memories.”

    I certainly know something about the individual that says that.

    stef (87fe55)

  114. Nobody is telling you to STFU, Phil. We are just pointing out hypocrisy and lies, oops, I mean knowing mischaracterizations that you fling around.

    JD (5f0e11)

  115. Phil, I’ve never told anyone to STFU. It is not an acceptable response by my ethics, and although it seems to be a frequent pastime of yours, I’d appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  116. There’s really no need to argue over what lott said. I quoted it in the other thread.

    stef (48e229)

  117. Phil, I’ve never told anyone to STFU.

    Apparently my attempt at acronym humor/irony did not translate well.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  118. Phil, because it wasn’t humor. It was deliberately mischaracterizing others’ statements because you’ve got no answer to the substance, so you claim we said other things you think you might be able to compose a response to.

    Its old.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  119. Stef, you mean the thread where you got called on your own misrepresentation of Trent Lott?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  120. DRJ wrote: Racism isn’t that complicated and Trent Lott is a good example. His statements were unacceptable and racist to me, and I was glad to see him step down as Leader and leave the Senate.

    There was a fierce debate at Free Republic about whether Lott should have stepped down or resigned. My position was that while I didn’t believe he was necessarily a racist, the fact of the matter was that what Lott said WAS something a racist would have said, and there was NO getting around it.

    A refresher about what Lott actually said:

    “When Strom Thurmond ran for president [in 1948 as a segregationist], we [Mississipians] voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

    There’s no way this can be parsed into something benign.

    After the MSM had the proverbial cow over Lott’s verbal diarrhea, some conservatives were — rightfully — throwing former KKK leader Robert Byrd in the face of outraged liberals. But after so many years of pointing to Byrd as an example of liberal hypocrisy, how could the GOP keep Lott in place after that quote? So it could say, “You’re no better than us?” Conceding the high ground is no way to run a party.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  121. Dude, if you didn’t want to talk about Diebold, you wouldn’t have brought it up without context several times while trolling in two threads on consecutive days.

    Nothing I could say would convince you, what’s the point?

    But it is true, and that case can be made pretty easily given the raw data from Ohio. Some of the numbers just don’t add up, like undervoting rates, and the ratio of broken voting machines in Democratic precincts versus Republican precincts. And obviously, there are going to be inconsistencies and voter error and machines breaking, but when virtually every single one of these ‘anamolies’ just happen to benefit one of the candidates, well, red flags are raised, to put it lightly. Couple that with the egregious conflict on interest of having the Secretary of State on your re-election committee and the manufacturer of the machines promising to deliver electoral votes to Bush, well like I said, I think I have a pretty good case.

    And there’s no greater example of that fact than your laughable performance here the past couple of days. Every stereotype about Republicans and/or conservatives going back to the Clinton Administration has been upchucked in your comments.

    Being a lifelong news junkie, when I was younger, I used to swallow the MSM crap about conservatives too; “Bigots, misogynists, warmongers, etc.” The so-called Fairness Doctrine was in place. The New York Times, Walter Cronkite, and the sitcoms of Norman Lear were the filter through which the uninformed learned about everybody right of center. But as I grew in knowledge and experience, I found out I had been sold a bill of goods.

    There’s still hope for you, son.

    I’m not really on track with your laid-out trajectory though. I only watch Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, and the blog I default to is Michelle Malkin. Most days, the only media I consume is conservative media. And believe me, I will never be a convert. Really, you could probably think of me more accurately as an anti-Republican than a liberal.

    Levi (76ef55)

  122. A refresher about what Lott actually said:

    “When Strom Thurmond ran for president [in 1948 as a segregationist], we [Mississipians] voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

    There’s no way this can be parsed into something benign.

    You mean, he didn’t mean stagflation??

    Geo W (f7a3db)

  123. If it can’t be parsed into something benign, then why does it have to have the racist implication inserted into it in brackets?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  124. “If it can’t be parsed into something benign, then why does it have to have the racist implication inserted into it in brackets?”

    Why don’t you tell us what you think the platform Strom ran under was?

    stef (72206b)

  125. Why don’t you tell us what you think the platform Strom ran under was?

    What’s a-matter, stef? Can’t answer SPQR’s question without asking your own?

    Paul (249390)

  126. Levi,

    You wrote (Comment#11): “Anybody not know that already? Anybody need to go look that up to double-check? Because call me crazy, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to call someone with Obama’s family background a black racist.”

    Regardless of whether or not you consider Obama’s “typical white person” comment to be racist or just an expression of a racial stereotype (though I am had pressed to see much difference) your statement is utterly asinine.

    Your assertion is that it is illogical to call someone of mixed racial heritage a racist. Just how much white would a person have to have in their background before you found the label applicable? And please elucidate on what exactly the difference is between a black racist and a white racist? As far as I am concerned a racist is a racist is a racist.

    If you need that in more easily understandable concrete terms: David Duke = Racist = Jeremiah Wright = Racist. Yes. That is the moral equivalence Obama should have drawn. It matters not who you choose to hate on the basis of race.

    As I replied (comment #21) “Being a racist goes to the content of one’s character, not the color of one’s skin.”

    Stephen Macklin (f552f7)

  127. “What’s a-matter, stef? Can’t answer SPQR’s question without asking your own?”

    See, I don’t think there’s a racist implication that needs to be put in brackets. I think there’s the idea that Strom’s candidacy was good for the country. And Strom’s candidacy? It was the platform of segregation, Jim Crow and the terrorism of lynching. What do you think Strom’s candidacy was?

    stef (d2f168)

  128. Stef, since you were the first offender, I find it amusing that you are still flogging the Trent Lott theme.

    I don’t care for Trent Lott, and I liked Strom Thurmond even less. I’m happy to be rid of both. My point was and remains that I find it most indicative of your character and Phil’s ( and all the rest of your cohort on all the many other blogs that I’ve seen this theme used to defend Obama ) that every time this theme is run, the commenter intentionally misrepresents Lott’s statement.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  129. Exactly, SPQR. If Lott’s statement was so blindingly racist and offensive, it would stand on its own demerit. There woud be no need for misrepesentation, mischaracterization or bracketeering.

    I’m not a fan of Lott or the late Thurmond either.

    Paul (249390)

  130. Stephen,

    It goes without saying that someone could come from a mixed-race background and still become a racist, but let’s be honest, that’s probably not something that happens all that often. I can’t back that up with numbers or stats or anything, but doesn’t it just makes sense that someone with a black father and a white mother has an extremely unique perspective on race? And that it’s unlikely they’d take to being racist towards people of either parent’s race? I only mention it because you people seem waaaay too eager to portray Obama as some white-bashing black supremacist, and I thought that maybe reminding you that half his family is white might make you think about how that portrayal just doesn’t make any sense.

    And what exactly did Wright say that was racist that puts him on par with David Duke? I know he said the country is run by rich white people, is that not true?

    Levi (76ef55)

  131. Levi, if you don’t know what Wright said that has upset people ( and caused Obama – the person you think has a “unique” perspective – to disown him ), then why comment?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  132. He called him a racist, what did he say that was racist?

    I’ve heard ‘The chickens are coming home to roost.’ That’s not racist. I’ve heard ‘God Damn America.’ That’s not racist. He said the country is run by rich white people, and that’s a statement of fact. Suggesting the government invented AIDS is crazy, but it’s not racist.

    Am I missing something?

    Levi (76ef55)

  133. And by the way, the point of putting the brackets in Trent Lott’s quote is to give it much-needed context. The whole point is that Strom was a segregationist, and even if those aren’t the words that Lott used, that was the most important detail of his candidacy. Without the brackets, the quote is meaningless to someone that didn’t know that Thurmond was running on a segregation platform. It’s not a misrepresentation or distortion in anyway, it’s additional information the reader needs to understand the context.

    Levi (76ef55)

  134. Am I missing something?

    A billion or so brain cells, at the least. Ok, he’s not a racist. He only hates white people who invented AIDs and the country they live in. Idiot.

    nk (34c5da)

  135. Nothing I could say would convince you, what’s the point?

    But it is true, and that case can be made pretty easily given the raw data from Ohio. Some of the numbers just don’t add up, like undervoting rates, and the ratio of broken voting machines in Democratic precincts versus Republican precincts. And obviously, there are going to be inconsistencies and voter error and machines breaking, but when virtually every single one of these ‘anamolies’ just happen to benefit one of the candidates, well, red flags are raised, to put it lightly. Couple that with the egregious conflict on interest of having the Secretary of State on your re-election committee and the manufacturer of the machines promising to deliver electoral votes to Bush, well like I said, I think I have a pretty good case.

    I don’t think they used many Diebold electronic voting machines in Ohio. It’s not clear to me that they used any at all. They mostly had punch cards and where they had electronic it wasn’t necessarily Diebold.

    But then, nothing you could say would convince us, what’s the point right?

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  136. And who gives a rat’s ass about Trent Lott except you leftie clowns. We conservatives wanted him out of there ever since he blew Cinton[‘s impeachment].

    nk (34c5da)

  137. nk,

    If Wright is such a racist, why can’t you point me to the quote where he proves it?

    Levi (76ef55)

  138. It’s not a misrepresentation or distortion in anyway, it’s additional information the reader needs to understand the context.

    Then it’s not blindingly offensive and racist, is it?

    Am I missing something?

    What do you think has been discussed the last week on this and a million other blogs?

    Try to keep up.

    Paul (249390)

  139. I don’t think they used many Diebold electronic voting machines in Ohio. It’s not clear to me that they used any at all. They mostly had punch cards and where they had electronic it wasn’t necessarily Diebold.

    But then, nothing you could say would convince us, what’s the point right?

    You’re right, Diebold machines weren’t used primarily in Ohio. But there were problems with the punch card machines that were used, literally thousands of problems, almost all of which ended up bolstering Bush’s vote totals or lowering Kerry’s.

    If Wikipedia has any sort of credibility with you, you can find their entry on it by just typing in ‘Ohio 2004.’ That will get you started.

    Levi (76ef55)

  140. Paul,

    All I’m asking for is Wright’s big, anti-white, mega-racist quote, that’s all.

    Can you not provide it either?

    Does it exist?

    Levi (76ef55)

  141. So you are admitting Levi, that Trent Lott did not say the words that were added? So why add them, since Lott did not say them? It was not adding “context”, it was adding words to make the message that the commenter wished Lott said.

    Because then it would be less work to call Lott’s statement racist. Laziness is what makes people liars.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  142. All I’m asking for is Wright’s big, anti-white, mega-racist quote, that’s all.

    No, you are admitting that after all your commentary, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    If you are incapable of looking at the archives of this–and a million other–blogs this past week, you are lazy as well.

    Try to keep up…if you can.

    Paul (249390)

  143. Jesus Christ, how trivial is this? You just said you don’t like Lott or Thurmond, and you agreed that it was a racist comment.

    People use brackets all the god damn time. It’s part of the language, and it wasn’t used improperly in that quote.

    Also, people that argue semantics are a lower form of life.

    Levi (76ef55)

  144. WLS points out Wright’s advocacy of Black Nationalist ideology on this blog:
    Link here.

    The Black Liberation theology that Wright openly expouses specifically says that they believe in a God that is on the “side” of Blacks, and not on the side of Whites. It is a racist theology explicitly and openly.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  145. Levi, not as low as people who lie about others statements to call them names.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  146. What am I not keeping up with? I’ve been following this ridiculous, bullshit idiot frenzy as close as anyone. You’re all upset about a couple of things this guy has said, I get it.

    But now that you’re all labeling Wright a racist and Obama a racist by association, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a few quotes that back that up. Or even one quote.

    Is there one?

    That’s the third time I’ve asked you, by the way.

    Levi (76ef55)

  147. Levi, SPQR’s link is to one of the archives on this blog…something you could have found on your own by simply hitting the “Next Page” link at the bottom of the page.

    Lazybones.

    Paul (249390)

  148. You’re right, Diebold machines weren’t used primarily in Ohio. But there were problems with the punch card machines that were used, literally thousands of problems, almost all of which ended up bolstering Bush’s vote totals or lowering Kerry’s.

    There’s a better case to be made for fraud having swung Wisconsin to Kerry in 2004. If WI and OH both switched Bush would still have won. In Milwaukee there were more votes tabulated then there were voters. At least 4,609 more votes were cast than people identified as voting in Milwaukee. Kerry carried Wi by about 11,000. Then there’s the huge number of people who signed up to vote on election day.

    wisconsins-election-fraud-scandal-wheres-the-msmdem-outrage

    more-on-wisconsin-vote-fraud

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  149. But now that you’re all labeling Wright a racist and Obama a racist by association, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a few quotes that back that up.

    That Black Nationalist post SPQR linked has been up for two days…which you would know if you’ve “been following this ridiculous, bullshit idiot frenzy as close as anyone.”

    Lazybones.

    Paul (249390)

  150. And by the way, the point of putting the brackets in Trent Lott’s quote is to give it much-needed context. The whole point is that Strom was a segregationist, and even if those aren’t the words that Lott used, that was the most important detail of his candidacy. Without the brackets, the quote is meaningless to someone that didn’t know that Thurmond was running on a segregation platform. It’s not a misrepresentation or distortion in anyway, it’s additional information the reader needs to understand the context.

    In other words, we need to put words in his mouth so that you’ll know just how racist he is. What he said doesn’t really do it, so we’re going to help it along by inserting our context into his speech.

    Disclaimer: Lott is a slimeball and I’m glad he’s gone. But racism has nothing to do with that feeling.

    Pablo (99243e)

  151. But now that you’re all labeling Wright a racist and Obama a racist by association, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a few quotes that back that up. Or even one quote.

    I don’t think Obama has proved himself a racist, but he’s certainly fronting for one and that doesn’t bode well for his uniter schtick. As far as Wright goes, would it help if I put some bracketed context into a few quotes for you, Levi?

    Pablo (99243e)

  152. A discussion of Wright and his citation of Cone as authority on his Black Liberation Theology here as well.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  153. Oh, by the way, Levi, the link above provides context.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  154. Levi earlier on this thread:

    I only watch Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, and the blog I default to is Michelle Malkin. Most days, the only media I consume is conservative media.

    Malkin’s been talking about this for a week too.

    And yet you really don’t know what the fuss is all about, even though you’ve “been following this ridiculous, bullshit idiot frenzy as close as anyone.”

    Not only are you lazy, you’re also an idiot.

    Paul (249390)

  155. “The [white] government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African-American men with syphilis …”

    That’s utterly false, BTW.

    “Black men turning on black men – that is fighting the wrong enemy. [The right enemy is white] You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat.”

    How’s that, Levi?

    “God damn [white] America – that’s in the Bible – for killing innocent people. God damn [white] America for treating us citizens as less than human. God damn [white] America …”

    Does that work for you?

    “… what’s going on in white America, U.S. of KKKA …”

    Well, that one doesn’t need any help at all.

    If they don’t find them some weapons of mass destruction, they [the white government of US of KKKA] going to do just like the LAPD and plant them some weapons of mass destruction.

    Hmmm…that one is utterly false too.

    Pablo (99243e)

  156. That’s some great context, Pablo.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  157. Pablo, you owe me a new keyboard.

    Paul (249390)

  158. Brackets rawk!!

    Pablo (99243e)

  159. Oh, i forgot the whopper:

    “The [white] government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The [white] government lied.”

    Who lied? The racist, Jeremiah Wright lied, that’s who.

    Pablo (99243e)

  160. And Levi…everything that Pablo quoted [and bracketed, for context] has been out there for days, which you could have found on your own because

    I only watch Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, and the blog I default to is Michelle Malkin. Most days, the only media I consume is conservative media.

    …no, would already have known, had you really “been following this ridiculous, bullshit idiot frenzy as close as anyone.”

    Obtuse lazybones.

    Paul (249390)

  161. Levi…

    Ok, now tell us with semantics how none of what Wright said is racist/racism against whites….

    And, then explain how a half white, half black man who decided to spend 20 or so years of his life in that atmosphere is not racist…

    And, rememeber that those who argue semantics are low-life…

    And, remember that Obama said…

    WORDS MATTER

    reff (59b2ad)

  162. Wow, you sure get a kick out of yourselves.

    Anyways, I will give you though, that saying the US of KKK A is pretty racist. But still, I’m gonna need more to start labeling people. Even that is pretty tame against a lot of what’s said these days.

    And what is this bullshit I’m reading in all of these links? A bunch of writings from some guy named Cone proves that Wright is a racist? A paragraph on his church website about something called ‘The Black Values System?’ I’m looking for something along the lines of ‘whites are inferior, kill all the white man,’ that Wright wrote or said himself. He’s allowed to draw inspiration from Cone and Black Liberation Theology but that doesn’t mean he automatically takes every little bit of it. You’re all assuming the worst, once again.

    Here’s a quote from a black pastor you should all find incredibly offensive:

    “God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place…[God will say:] And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.”

    Isn’t that horrible? Whoever said that was probably a racist and hated America, right?

    RIGHT?

    Levi (76ef55)

  163. Levi, your response is hilarious because of your hypocrisy. Hypocrisy that we not merely expected but repeatedly telegraphed our expectation of above. In neon.

    By your own standards, as you have applied to Lott, you must conclude that Wright is a racist.

    That you do not, shows your fundamental intellectual dishonesty.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  164. Levi, that was pathetic. First of all, copying E.J. Dionne is just lame. Secondly, Dionne’s point was lame to begin with.

    Martin Luther King Jr. said “We …”.

    Grow up, Levi, and try to find an original argument of your own.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  165. I’m looking for something along the lines of ‘whites are inferior, kill all the white man,’ that Wright wrote or said himself.

    I guess you missed this:

    “Black men turning on black men – that is fighting the wrong enemy. [The right enemy is white] You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat.”

    Though that’s more along the lines of “whites are evil, kill them.”

    Pablo (99243e)

  166. And do you really have to advocate violence to be a racist? No.

    Simple question, Levi: Is Wright a racist? Yes or no.

    Pablo (99243e)

  167. There’s a better case to be made for fraud having swung Wisconsin to Kerry in 2004. If WI and OH both switched Bush would still have won. In Milwaukee there were more votes tabulated then there were voters. At least 4,609 more votes were cast than people identified as voting in Milwaukee. Kerry carried Wi by about 11,000. Then there’s the huge number of people who signed up to vote on election day.

    wisconsins-election-fraud-scandal-wheres-the-msmdem-outrage

    more-on-wisconsin-vote-fraud

    Virtually all the inconsistencies in Wisconsin have been attributed to problems associated with the states’s election day registration system. Lots of software glitches and and mistyped addresses, mainly. Most of those problems were in Milwaukee, an obvious Kerry stronghold, and he no doubt got a majority of the benefit, but we’re only talking about a couple thousand of extra votes, an amount well within Kerry’s margin of victory, anyways.

    Ohio’s irregularities are harder to explain away.

    Levi (76ef55)

  168. He’s allowed to draw inspiration from Cone and Black Liberation Theology but that doesn’t mean he automatically takes every little bit of it.

    He does say that if you haven’t read Cone, you can’t even discuss the theology, HIS theology. He didn’t take it all up automatically, he did it over decades.

    Pablo (99243e)

  169. SPQR,

    I never called Lott a racist. Wishing for a segregationist certainly won’t help his case, but I don’t know anything about the guy, and one dumb comment isn’t going to convince me he’s a racist.

    Also, I thought the MLK quote was illustrative, and that Dionne has a most excellent point. People jumped over all over King for saying things like that, and if Michelle Obama or Reverend Wright had said it today, about the Iraq war, conservatives would be calling for their heads. And you know it.

    Levi (76ef55)

  170. He does say that if you haven’t read Cone, you can’t even discuss the theology, HIS theology. He didn’t take it all up automatically, he did it over decades

    .

    He’s perfectly reasonable throughout that interview. At 4:28, he says he doesn’t assume superiority, and he doesn’t assume seperation.

    That video was supposed to convince me he’s a racist?

    Levi (76ef55)

  171. Also, I thought the MLK quote was illustrative, and that Dionne has a most excellent point.

    Someone with your level of obtusity would think that, and draw moral equivalence between MLK and Wright’s statements.

    Paul (249390)

  172. How odd. Levi won’t answer Pablo’s question…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  173. Paul, give me a break.

    If Obama or Wright said, “We are criminals in that war,” you’d be all over them. Just like you would have been all over King for saying it if we were in the sixties.

    Levi (76ef55)

  174. Scott,

    Which of Pablo’s questions?

    Levi (76ef55)

  175. The simple one, you simpleton…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  176. Levi in #146:

    But now that you’re all labeling Wright a racist and Obama a racist by association, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a few quotes that back that up. Or even one quote.

    Levi in #162:

    Anyways, I will give you though, that saying the US of KKK A is pretty racist. But still, I’m gonna need more to start labeling people. Even that is pretty tame against a lot of what’s said these days.

    Goalpost mover.

    I provide the rest with no additional commentary othert than to tel you what each is, to give it context.

    The quote Levi provided in #162…

    Here’s a quote from a black pastor you should all find incredibly offensive:

    “God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place…[God will say:] And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.”

    Levi drawing moral equivalence in #169:

    People jumped over all over King for saying things like that, and if Michelle Obama or Reverend Wright had said it today, about the Iraq war, conservatives would be calling for their heads. And you know it.

    The actual quotes of Wright that Levi claims moral equivalence of in #169:

    “The [white] government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African-American men with syphilis …”

    “Black men turning on black men – that is fighting the wrong enemy. [The right enemy is white] You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat.”

    “God damn [white] America – that’s in the Bible – for killing innocent people. God damn [white] America for treating us citizens as less than human. God damn [white] America …”

    “… what’s going on in white America, U.S. of KKKA …”

    If they don’t find them some weapons of mass destruction, they [the white government of US of KKKA] going to do just like the LAPD and plant them some weapons of mass destruction.

    “The [white] government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The [white] government lied.”

    Paul (249390)

  177. If Obama or Wright said, “We are criminals in that war,” you’d be all over them. Just like you would have been all over King for saying it if we were in the sixties.

    Project much?

    Paul (249390)

  178. Well, I couldn’t find his question at first, so thanks for the help jerk…

    But I see it now, and my answer is no, I don’t think Wright is a racist. I know practically nothing about the man. You morons think you do, because you’ve watched a few seconds of his sermons on YouTube, but you don’t really know anything about him either, and are in as much position as I am to make such a call.

    Levi (76ef55)

  179. Levi is doing a fine job of ignoring all that, isn’t he, Paul?

    Pablo (99243e)

  180. I know practically nothing about the man. You morons think you do, because you’ve watched a few seconds of his sermons on YouTube, but you don’t really know anything about him either, and are in as much position as I am to make such a call.

    Well then, by that standard, you cannot bash the CEO of Diebold, since you don’t know the man, right?

    RIGHT?

    Paul (249390)

  181. I know practically nothing about the man. You morons think you do, because you’ve watched a few seconds of his sermons on YouTube, but you don’t really know anything about him either, and are in as much position as I am to make such a call.

    By that standard, you cannot bash us with

    If Obama or Wright said, “We are criminals in that war,” you’d be all over them. Just like you would have been all over King for saying it if we were in the sixties.

    since you don’t know any of us here. Right?

    RIGHT?

    Paul (249390)

  182. Levi is doing a fine job of ignoring all that, isn’t he, Paul?

    I agree 100%, Pablo.

    Paul (249390)

  183. I’m not moving the goalposts, you found a quote and I agreed that it was racist. But one quote does not a racist make.

    It’s not projection, and it’s not moral equivalence. Pretty much everything MLK said prompted a very similar reaction to the reaction that you people are having to Wright. And now forty years later, we can all agree that those reactions were overblown and hysterical. I’m in no way equating King to Wright, but in 40 years, if anyone cares enough, they’ll look back on this overblown, hysterical reaction and think that all of you were retards.

    Levi (76ef55)

  184. Levi is doing a fine job of ignoring all that, isn’t he, Paul?

    You give me six minutes to respond to that big long post? I’m trying to carry on like 3 different conversations here, cut me some slack, Jesus.

    Levi (76ef55)

  185. Pretty much everything MLK said prompted a very similar reaction to the reaction that you people are having to Wright.

    Uh, no. King would puke on Wright.

    Pablo (99243e)

  186. 7:52 to 9:23 would be 91 minutes, not 6, Levi.

    Pablo (99243e)

  187. I’m not moving the goalposts, you found a quote and I agreed that it was racist. But one quote does not a racist make.

    Not one quote, but 6. Counting is not your forte, is it, Levi?

    Pablo (99243e)

  188. By that standard, you cannot bash us with

    since you don’t know any of us here. Right?

    RIGHT?

    Oh, I know all of you plenty well. The warped psychology and perverse motivations of conservatives have been on prominent display during the Bush years. I’d go so far as to consider myself an expert on conservative media.

    There’s obviously a pretty big difference between knowing whether or not a man is a racist and talking about the ideological philosophy of conservatism.

    Levi (76ef55)

  189. I’m not moving the goalposts, you found a quote and I agreed that it was racist. But one quote does not a racist make.

    One quote?

    “The [white] government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African-American men with syphilis …”

    “Black men turning on black men – that is fighting the wrong enemy. [The right enemy is white] You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat.”

    “God damn [white] America – that’s in the Bible – for killing innocent people. God damn [white] America for treating us citizens as less than human. God damn [white] America …”

    “… what’s going on in white America, U.S. of KKKA …”

    If they don’t find them some weapons of mass destruction, they [the white government of US of KKKA] going to do just like the LAPD and plant them some weapons of mass destruction.

    “The [white] government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The [white] government lied.”

    I count six there, buddy boy.

    You give me six minutes to respond to that big long post?

    Dude, everything in that big long post was quoted from earlier comments in this thread, nearly of them posted by you. You’re not familiar what what you write?

    It’s not projection, and it’s not moral equivalence.
    Pretty much everything MLK said prompted a very similar reaction to the reaction that you people are having to Wright.

    Who said this quote: Wright or King?

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    It’s from the I have a Dream speech. The one that black leaders–and King’s decendants–didn’t allow the Republicans to use several years ago.

    And Pablo’s right: MLK would puke on Wright.

    Paul (249390)

  190. 7:52 to 9:23 would be 91 minutes, not 6, Levi.

    Jesus fucking Christ, if you morons want me to address something, specifically, why don’t you just tell me what the fuck it is? Sorry if I miss something you want me to say, but there’s a lot being said, and some clarity and specificity would be appreciated.

    Not one quote, but 6. Counting is not your forte, is it, Levi?

    I agreed with you on one, not six. You expect me to take all that bracketed bullshit seriously?

    Levi (76ef55)

  191. There’s obviously a pretty big difference between knowing whether or not a man is a racist and talking about the ideological philosophy of conservatism.

    Yup. The difference is called “using whatever dishonest weasel means necessary to win an argument.”

    Paul (249390)

  192. Oh, I know all of you plenty well. The warped psychology and perverse motivations of conservatives have been on prominent display during the Bush years.

    But black racists? A total fucking mystery.

    It would be funny if it weren’t so….ah, screw it. It’s funny!

    And I’m not all that much of a conservative.

    Pablo (99243e)

  193. I agreed with you on one, not six. You expect me to take all that bracketed bullshit seriously?

    Levi in #133:

    And by the way, the point of putting the brackets in Trent Lott’s quote is to give it much-needed context. The whole point is that Strom was a segregationist, and even if those aren’t the words that Lott used, that was the most important detail of his candidacy. Without the brackets, the quote is meaningless to someone that didn’t know that Thurmond was running on a segregation platform. It’s not a misrepresentation or distortion in anyway, it’s additional information the reader needs to understand the context.

    I repeat: the difference is called “using whatever dishonest weasel means necessary to win an argument.”

    Paul (249390)

  194. Hey Pablo, isn’t this fun?

    Paul (249390)

  195. I agreed with you on one, not six. You expect me to take all that bracketed bullshit seriously?

    You don’t? Then rebut it. And you can take the quote you agree with and use it as a reference, in Wright’s own words, as support for the bracketed inferences. Tell me why I’m reading him wrong.

    Pablo (99243e)

  196. Yup. :)

    Pablo (99243e)

  197. Oh, go fuck yourselves.

    You retards think you’re beating me over the head with this bracketing bullshit,

    meh, fuck it

    Levi (76ef55)

  198. Thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal, Levi. With game like that, how could you possibly lose an argument?

    Pablo (99243e)

  199. Well, McClatchy gets it, and they discussed it with Cone.

    Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

    Today, Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, stands by that view, but also makes clear that he doesn’t believe that whites individually are the Antichrist. [Well, that’s comforting – ed]

    In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, “I would point to that church (Trinity) first.” Cone also said he thought that Wright’s successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

    Pablo (99243e)

  200. You retards think you’re beating me over the head with this bracketing bullshit

    Whats-a-matter, Levi? Don’t like having your own comments used against you?

    Sorry about that…but you were begging for it.

    Next time, bring your ‘A’ game.

    And if you want me to participate, you’ll have to wait a few days; I’m off to bed, and will be leaving for the in-laws for Easter very early in the morning.

    Paul (249390)

  201. SPQR wrote:

    every time this theme is run, the commenter intentionally misrepresents Lott’s statement.

    Paul wrote:

    If Lott’s statement was so blindingly racist and offensive, it would stand on its own demerit. There woud be no need for misrepesentation, mischaracterization or bracketeering.

    Levi wrote:

    …the point of putting the brackets in Trent Lott’s quote is to give it much-needed context. The whole point is that Strom was a segregationist, and even if those aren’t the words that Lott used, that was the most important detail of his candidacy. Without the brackets, the quote is meaningless to someone that didn’t know that Thurmond was running on a segregation platform. It’s not a misrepresentation or distortion in anyway, it’s additional information the reader needs to understand the context.

    Pablo wrote:

    In other words, we need to put words in his mouth so that you’ll know just how racist he is. What he said doesn’t really do it, so we’re going to help it along by inserting our context into his speech.

    Well, this is embarrassing. Levi the Troll is the only one who got it right.

    My bracketed insertions only identified the nature of Thurmond’s platform and the state that Lott was referring to when he said Mississippians were “proud” that Thurmond carried the state.

    Here’s article four of the platform of the States Rights Democratic Party (aka “Dixiecrats”) that nominated Thurmond as Presidential candidate in 1948 (no brackets this time, just bold type):

    4.We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one’s associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one’s living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

    In recent months, I have heard commentators I otherwise trust describe Lott’s words as “a joke.” Doing so is as disingenuous as the defense of Wright’s racist paranoia as a common and acceptable aspect of the black American experience.

    L.N. Smithee (cfaa14)

  202. My bracketed insertions only identified the nature of Thurmond’s platform and the state that Lott was referring to when he said Mississippians were “proud” that Thurmond carried the state.

    And those things do not exist in Lott’s speech.

    Pablo (99243e)

  203. The next time some pompous European pointed out the USA as a country of racists, let us all rise with one voice and say,
    “Yep.”

    Obama in ’08.

    “The unity candidate for
    you bunch of racists.”

    papertiger (fbc22c)

  204. The brackets are the wrong way to handle clarifying information when it’s controversial. That would be best handled in a separate sentence in the writer’s own voice, not amid quotes. Such as:

    “When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We’re proud of it,” Lott said. “And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

    Thurmond defected from the Democratic Party in 1948 when he ran for president in 1948 as a Dixiecrat, a Southern-based political party that opposed racial integration.

    That way, you have the factual information for context, but also avoid the appearance of making Lott saying something he didn’t say.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  205. Just because the Dixiecrat party had a segregationist plank in their platform and Thurmond was a Dixiecrat, it doesn’t mean that Thurmond bought into every little bit of the platform. Someone should prove, with multiple direct quotes from Thurmond himself that he was a segregationist.

    And after all, Thurmond had a black lover and had a child with her. You can’t possibly consider that someone with such a family background a white racist! That would be crazy.

    Do these arguments sound ridiculous? Well, they are, just as they were the first time they were presented on this thread on behalf of a different subject.

    Pablo (99243e)

  206. Levi:

    I’m in no way equating King to Wright, but in 40 years, if anyone cares enough, they’ll look back on this overblown, hysterical reaction and think that all of you were retards.

    Barack Obama:

    On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country…

    As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems…

    Hmmmm….who to believe, who to believe???

    Pablo (99243e)

  207. “Stef, since you were the first offender, I find it amusing that you are still flogging the Trent Lott theme.”

    I just want to know what it is you think i’ve misrepresented. And, i’m not the one that brought up Lott.

    “Exactly, SPQR. If Lott’s statement was so blindingly racist and offensive, it would stand on its own demerit.”

    Thats why I quoted it.

    “Disclaimer: Lott is a slimeball and I’m glad he’s gone. But racism has nothing to do with that feeling.”

    so you dislike Lott, but not because of his views on the dixiecrat presidential candidacy.

    “And those things do not exist in Lott’s speech.”

    what exists in lotts speech is the idea that those things were a good idea.

    stef (4fe3dc)

  208. “Just because the Dixiecrat party had a segregationist plank in their platform and Thurmond was a Dixiecrat, it doesn’t mean that Thurmond bought into every little bit of the platform.”

    What do you think were the differences between the dixiecrats and the democrats? Here’s how the dixiecrat party described a vote for the opponent:

    “anti-poll tax anti-lynching, and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever.”

    What other differences do you think might motivate Thurmond?

    stef (4fe3dc)

  209. stef,

    Do you think maybe Obama characterized his gramma’s tendency towards racism differently in his speech and in his later remarks?

    Yeah, it’s a rhetorical question.

    Patterico (e18e61)

  210. Not to her it isn’t…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  211. “Do you think maybe Obama characterized his gramma’s tendency towards racism differently in his speech and in his later remarks?”

    I think the entire point of the speech is lost if you think its about pointing out who is racist and who is not. Thats why I find the Lott example so illustrative — I don’t think he’s racist, i’m sure he works with black and white people just fine. But he does have problematic opinions which are a product of his time and which we have to work through and find ways to make sure that they aren’t impacting policy.

    I guess thats rhetorical too.

    stef (9abde3)

  212. If Pablo really thinks Thurmond didn’t explicitly support segregation, he should play this video of Thurmond:

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  213. Stef, perhaps when he made his comment about Thurmond, Lott meant segregation specifically, perhaps he didn’t mean segregation specifically. We don’t know. Which is certainly why Lott’s comment was a stupid one.

    But all you are doing is speculating and claiming that your speculation is proof.

    Hilariously, when logical connections that are no more explicit between Obama and Wright’s outrageous comments, the logic is no longer valid for you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  214. “If Pablo really thinks Thurmond didn’t explicitly support segregation, he should play this video of Thurmond:”

    Another example of what makes race so hard to talk about: the fact that there are people who argue on the Lott/Thurmond debate that don’t know that the entire point of the Thurmond candidacy was to preserve segregation and Jim Crow.

    P. I posted something to you earlier but it didn’t go up.

    stef (dfd808)

  215. “no more explicit ” should read “no less explicit”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  216. “Stef, perhaps when he made his comment about Thurmond, Lott meant segregation specifically, perhaps he didn’t mean segregation specifically.”

    Lott meant Thurmond’s candidacy. Now, you tell me what are the features of Thurmond’s candidacy?

    “But all you are doing is speculating and claiming that your speculation is proof.”

    I don’t speculate at all. I quote and show you what Thurmond’s candidacy was about. You got other ideas or quotes about Thurmond’s candidacy, please share.

    stef (dfd808)

  217. SPQR,

    The entire point of Thurmond’s campaign was to defend segregation. That’s why the Dixiecrat party was created, as a tool of white Southern resistance to integration. Trying to deny that is a bit like Holocaust denial – no offense intended — and it’s a great distortion of history to pretend otherwise.

    If you didn’t watch the video, here is its’ text:

    “. . .there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

    The transcription has Thurmond saying either “Negro” or “nigra”, but to me it sounded awfully like “nigger”. You play the clip and decide.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  218. Bradley,
    I’m getting more than a bit tired of your attempt to claim that I am denying that Thurmond was an advocate of segregation. And your reference to Holocaust denial is patently offensive and unacceptable.

    You are deliberately ignoring my point – which I’ve made repeatedly here. Which is about how Stef, Phil and Levi use Lott’s comment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  219. bill clinton said we needed to have a conversation about race. if he’s out there reading this thread, i just wanna tell him “bill, here you go. you happy now?”

    assistant devil's advocate (a87b8d)

  220. “Which is about how Stef, Phil and Levi use Lott’s comment.”

    I use it to show that Lott said that Thurmond’s candidacy should have won, and that it having won would have been better for this country.

    “. . .there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

    Thankfully he was wrong. And strong federal power helped to destroy the terror of Jim Crow.

    stef (2dd345)

  221. SPQR,

    I apologize for the insult, but it really strikes me that way. Are you actually doubting that Lott had segregation in mind when praising Thurmond’s candidacy? That is as plain as anything in history.

    I’ve agreed that putting the material in brackets was wrong, but Lott never explicitly referred to segregation. But the context is clear, and should be provided – outside the quotes so there is no misunderstanding.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  222. I need to clarify myself – that segregation was the reason for Thurmond’s candidacy is as plain as anything in history. The onus is on the doubters to provide an alternative explanation. For the sake of accuracy, I agree that the context should not be placed in the middle of Lott’s quote, because he didn’t actually say it outright.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  223. pablo isnt saying strom wasnt a segregationalist. he is echoing earlier comments from levi where levi insists he be provided w/ racist comments from wright, which were provided so levi pulled th goalposts down and moved them considerably. he then insisted it was ridiculous for anyone to think obama could be racist since he is half white and half black, hence the reference to strom’s love child. pablo and paul did this same thing to levi several times. levi would then object to them using the same tactics he used earlier. it was funny they way they led poor levi around on a leash! also look at the last sentence in pablo’s post, he states explicitly that the arugements are in fact crazy but no crazier than when made to defend wright/obama

    chas (68d8c2)

  224. On the topic of old white racists, who else out there wonders if Senator Byrd(D) will suffer sudden selective eye hand coordination disorder and just miss filling in the little bubble next to Obama’s name?
    Of course he’ll tell everyone he voted the Democratic slate, but fail to mention the brief medical disorder that affected his motor skills.

    SteveG (92b666)

  225. Pablo:

    Wright’s speech come right out of the ideology of the church. Obama may be able to get away with saying Wright’s specific remarks were wrong but how can you get past living in achurch for twenty years that proffesses Black supremacy White’s as the devil?

    davod (5bdbd3)

  226. The last line should read “professes Black supremacy and Whites as the devil.”

    davod (5bdbd3)

  227. I need to clarify myself – that segregation was the reason for Thurmond’s candidacy is as plain as anything in history. The onus is on the doubters to provide an alternative explanation.

    Only if anyone in this thread is doubting that this was really what Thurmond’s candidacy was about. Whether that was what Lott was thinking of when he praised him at his 100th birthday, however, is clear as mud. Assuming Lott meant to endorse Thurmond’s past views on segregation is only marginally less disingenuous than hearing Barack Obama describe Jeremiah Wright is a great, inspirational preacher, and extrapolating that this means Obama wants God to damn America for inventing AIDS. Or maybe it’s worse, given that by his 100th birthday, Thurmond had long since disavowed his past views, while Wright hasn’t.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  228. “Or maybe it’s worse, given that by his 100th birthday, Thurmond had long since disavowed his past views, while Wright hasn’t.”

    Lott didn’t praise all that Thurmond was. He praised the Thurmond candidacy. Problem.

    stef (2b5cca)

  229. chas,

    Thank you for the recap. This thread is so unwieldly it’s hard to keep track. Again, apologies to SPQR.

    For the record, I think Wright’s views are hateful and nutty – and they are contemporary, not uttered 60 years ago. I can’t think of any innocent explanation for Obama’s membership in that cesspool of hatred that is TUCC. The least damning is that Obama joined the church out of political opportunism. He’d hardly be the politician to use religion for political purposes. And Victor Davis Hanson makes a convincing argument that Obama just didn’t realize how out of step TUCC’s political views were, because he has been in such an ultra-liberal cocoon.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  230. Lott didn’t praise all that Thurmond was.

    Technically, that’s true. Non-technically, praising all that Thurmond was was the sentiment. It was just misplaced, in that he carelessly gave a 50-year old example which, upon more careful scrutiny, really wasn’t so praiseworthy after all.

    He praised the Thurmond candidacy. Problem.

    It was a problem of sloppiness. If he had done his homework, Lott would have had the good sense to steer clear of that portion of Thurmond’s life. He failed to do so, and that was lame, but not nearly as lame as those who try to read into it a super-secret coded endorsement of segregation.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  231. “If he had done his homework, Lott would have had the good sense to steer clear of that portion of Thurmond’s life. ”

    Wait a minute, now you think that when Lott praised Thurmond’s candidacy, he wasn’t aware of what that meant? Wasn’t aware of what it meant to be proud that Mississippi went dixiecrat? What did he think it meant to pick that out of Thurmond’s accomplishments?

    stef (d4d008)

  232. The trouble with accepting an innocent (non-racist) interpretation of Lott’s remarks is that segregation was central to Thurmond’s candidacy. Discussing Thurmond’s candidacy without reference to segregation would be like discussing Lincoln’s campaign without reference to slavery.

    That, of course, doesn’t diminish in the least the demented racist nutbaggery of Jeremiah Wright, who said many things that were more offensive than anything Lott said. Lott made some brief remarks, Wright spews out hatred prolifically.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  233. That, of course, doesn’t diminish in the least the demented racist nutbaggery of Jeremiah Wright, who said many things that were more offensive than anything Lott said. Lott made some brief remarks, Wright spews out hatred prolifically.

    That’s the wrong comparison though. Obama is to Wright as Lott is to Thurmond. Comparing Lott and Wright is like comparing Obama and Thurmond. Do we really need to make that comparison?

    This is what I mean by Obama’s critics pretending that Wright is running for presdent. It sure is easy to attack him, and so people keep forgetting that he’s not the one they actually care about.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  234. Obama claimed he is so close to Wright that they are like family. Expecting voters to ignore the impact Wright has had on Obama would be the same as asking voters to disregard Bill’s influence with Hillary. No matter how much you want it to go away, it’s not going to happen.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  235. The trouble with accepting an innocent (non-racist) interpretation of Lott’s remarks is that segregation was central to Thurmond’s candidacy. Discussing Thurmond’s candidacy without reference to segregation would be like discussing Lincoln’s campaign without reference to slavery.

    That analogy might work if Lincoln had lost his run for the Presidency, repudiated his opposition to slavery, and then continued a political career for 50 more years, and then had someone then talk at length about what a great (or bad) guy he was, and make a brief reference to his past candidacy that didn’t gibe so well with it.

    Lott’s statement was dumb. Real dumb. But anyone who honestly believes Lott intended to praise Thurmond’s past segregationist views is not playing with a full deck.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  236. “But anyone who honestly believes Lott intended to praise Thurmond’s past segregationist views is not playing with a full deck.”

    Thats right. He just liked his view of limited government.

    stef (05d9a7)

  237. Xrlq,

    So let’s hear your alternative explanation. Just what about Thurmond’s policies did Lott have in mind when praising his presidential bid, if not segregation?

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  238. Has anybody mentioned yet that President Bush handed Lott his head over this? And the Republican caucus made him resign as majority leader? And that he was roundly denounced by conservatives such as Bill Bennett? And he went hat in hand to every black person he could find to apologize? And it was one sentence at a birthday party for a hundred-year old man? And that he was not saying “God Damn all n*****s for twenty years”? Anyway, nice “look over there!”, stef.

    Vera, nothing makes me more sick to my stomach than having to go to work, either. Well, maybe too much whiskey, on ocassion. In any case, congratulations on having gone on disability at age 42. I can’t fault you too much. Like my neighbor Slats Grbnik would say, “If work is good for you then why did they gat rid of the 12-hour workday?” But I still think that all you are doing here is spamming your book.

    nk (34c5da)

  239. Xrlq wrote: Only if anyone in this thread is doubting that this was really what Thurmond’s candidacy was about. Whether that was what Lott was thinking of when he praised him at his 100th birthday, however, is clear as mud.

    Exactly! I wrote earlier “the fact of the matter was that what Lott said WAS something a racist would have said, and there was NO getting around it.” You can say that Lott did not have to mean the worst of all possible meanings, but you couldn’t honestly point to the verbatim quote and say, “It proves he didn’t mean it.”

    L.N. Smithee (cfaa14)

  240. it was a throw away remark to kiss the arse of an old guy who served way too long in the senate.
    regardless of what lott meant when praising strom he paid the price for guilt by association.
    yet the obamamaniacs claim obama shouldnt and that its crazy to believe that obama would support wrights beliefs just because he went to to church there 20 years. and let the guy marry him and baptize his children. and gave him $21,000 of his money

    letting stef, levi and others steer the comments to trent is sloppy. he isnt running for president w/ his pastor as baggage. obama is, focus people.

    chas (68d8c2)

  241. chas,

    You’re absolutely right about the priorities. Lott is a has-been relic of a thankfully dead era, while Obama is running for president. The so-called racial unifier has by choice spent the last 20 years being ministered to by a racist preacher.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  242. That’s the wrong comparison though. Obama is to Wright as Lott is to Thurmond. Comparing Lott and Wright is like comparing Obama and Thurmond. Do we really need to make that comparison

    Yeah, because Thurmond was Lott’s mentor, one of his greater advisors, and was intimately involved in Lott’s life for 23 years…

    Seriously, do you even listen to yourself talk, or do you just fade in and out?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  243. So let’s hear your alternative explanation. Just what about Thurmond’s policies did Lott have in mind when praising his presidential bid, if not segregation?

    I don’t think he had any particular policies in mind. He was trying to say nice things about the guy on his 100th birthday, not to give a run-down on the guy’s record throughout his lifetime.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  244. Xrlq,

    You think Lott was just saying nice things to make Thurmond feel good. In my opinion, Lott’s language was too specific to make that explanation plausible.He said:

    “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either. . .

    What could those “problems” possibly have been, if not related to preserving segregation? The Dixiecrats’ campaign slogan was “Segregation Forever!”

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  245. If Pablo really thinks Thurmond didn’t explicitly support segregation, he should play this video of Thurmond:

    Bradley, did you perhaps miss the part where I declared the argument ridiculous as soon as I presented it? I was really just flipping the Wright defenses over to Thurmond for demonstrative purposes.

    Pablo (99243e)

  246. Or, what chas said in #222. Thank you, chas.

    Pablo (99243e)

  247. “Virtually all the inconsistencies in Wisconsin have been attributed to problems associated with the states’s election day registration system. Lots of software glitches and and mistyped addresses, mainly. Most of those problems were in Milwaukee, an obvious Kerry stronghold, and he no doubt got a majority of the benefit, but we’re only talking about a couple thousand of extra votes, an amount well within Kerry’s margin of victory, anyways. Ohio’s irregularities are harder to explain away.”

    You have no basis for your claim that “we’re only talking about a couple thousand of extra votes”. Remember Kerry only carried WI by 11,000.

    It’s only after your vote is counted verification begins, with a follow-up mailing to verify you do live at the address and that the address is valid. Well, as of today, and in Milwaukee alone, 10,000 votes cannot be verified.

    Milwaukee’s population is around 600,000. Of voting age: 430,000. According to election officials 83,000 people same-day-registered to vote. That’s 20% of eligible voters

    In 2000 Al Gore won Milwaukee by 22 points. Kerry won by 35! That contradicts a lot of trends — even Wisconsin ones.

    As for Ohio’s “irregularities” you only seem be able to explain them in a fraud context as having some Diebold connection. For example there’s the fact a Democrat judge got thousands more votes than Kerry did which seems to be the main “irregularity”. The implication is that Kerry’s votes were magically transformed into Bush votes. As I pointed out most of the votes in OH were punch card and that of the electronic machines it’s not even clear any were Diebold. I don’t understand how you switch punch card votes from Kerry to Bush. Bush carried OH by something like 65,000 votes, far more than Kerry carried WI.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  248. None of the Ohio conspiracies have borne fruit for the dems. Poor placement of voting machines by local democrat officials were found to by issues in some urban areas, but don’t expect democrats to acknowledge any responsibility. The real culprit behind the claimed conspiracies was exit polling which deviated from actual results by unanticipated margins. As it turns out, by widespread agreement, the exit polling methodology was flawed. None of the cockamamie charges leveled by the democrats that I am aware of were ever proved and after bursts of great publicity, died quiet deaths. If Levi was actually knowledeable about the subject, he wouldn’t have raised the issue. Complaining about stealing Ohio in 2004 is really equivalent to being a 9/11 Truther.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  249. bradley #243 – lott was possibly just being generic in saying problems. who knows who wrote the speech? it may not have even been vetted, after all it wasnt a very important address. not a state of the union or anything.but if you think lott was explicitly making a racist remark and planning on getting away with it you certainly dont think much of the man! while he may not have been the best majority leader he was certainly better than frist.

    chas (68d8c2)

  250. pablo,

    I did miss that part, and reread it later. Apologies for my lack of comprehension.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  251. chas,

    If there is a plausible explanation of what aspect of Thurmond’s presidential campaign Lott was praising, apart from segregation, I’d like to hear it.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  252. ffs Bradley. Maybe he was just being nice to a REALLY old guy. Have you ever said anything nice about someone you didn’t always see eye to eye with?

    Christ, I hope your kids have some nasty stuff to air at your funeral man. I mean, why praise you? that would be condoning everything you did they didn’t agree with. They best hammer you good.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  253. so you think it isnt plausible that it was just an innocous remark that meant nothing? you are absolutely convinced it had racial connotations and that is all it could be?

    chas (68d8c2)

  254. Of cource they are convinced. When you only see people as a color, you assume everyone is a racist right along with you.

    And mark my words, liberals are the people MOST obsessed about race. I couldn’t care less what the color a man’s (or woman’s) skin is. If they are good, decent people, that’s all that matters.

    A shame the lefties can’t see things without color.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  255. chas,

    Some have supposed that Lott was just saying nice things about Thurmond. But that supposition ignores the whole context of Thurmond’s candidacy, which was built on segregation. Lott’s reference to Mississippians voting for Thurmond is especially damning. They and other states of the Deep South voted to retain segregation. Those historical facts about legally enforced segregation are not as well known in some circles as they should be. But Lott certainly knew, so he can’t be excused on those grounds — “I’m shocked, SHOCKED to learn Strom Thurmond ran a segregationist campaign for president!”

    If that’s not enough, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  256. Why did President Clinton not come under this type of scrutiny when he stated that Fulbright was one of his inspirations?

    JD (25bb93)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6831 secs.