Senator Reid and the Negro Comment

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

You're right, Scuzzy, there's no comparison. While the GOP slanders the President and makes racist remarks, songs, images, or effigies of Obama, Reid was making a comment about how extremely racist people like you and the rest of the GOP are, just as Williams was also pointing out. So while you and your ilk and blatantly racist, which almost goes without saying, Reid was pointing out the fact. There's a huge difference; good point.

uBeR, I am disappointed that you are unable to debate this topic civilly. Calling me a racist is uncalled for. If you are going to continue with the personal attacks like this I don't see a point in continuing this discussion with you.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

It's just a plain fact, Scuzzy. You and I recognize it as such, as I'm sure most other people do here. As one other admin here explained his derogatory remarks toward me, "It's stating a fact." So I disagree with you that stating something so evident might be considered "uncalled for," when it's very much called for. If you're going to have a discussion of racism, perhaps you should address your own first, don't you think? Otherwise, there's a word for that.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Both sides do it--that's my point, sir.

Republicans: Healthcare is socialism! But wait, don't touch Medicare! That's not socialism!

Who's saying don't touch medicare? Most repubs bitch constantly about medicare and they like point out that it is a complete failure or a black hole tax sucking systems AND Obamas plan is going to be just like it.

Of course there could be a difference between a specific program which targets those who want it or qualify for it vs. forcing the entire population to accept what you as a government dictate to be the program that is "just".

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

It's just a plain fact, Scuzzy. You and I recognize it as such, as I'm sure most other people do here. As one other admin here explained his derogatory remarks toward me, "It's stating a fact." So I disagree with you that stating something so evident might be considered "uncalled for," when it's very much called for. If you're going to have a discussion of racism, perhaps you should address your own first, don't you think? Otherwise, there's a word for that.

I'm not here to discuss your perception of the past in this thread, you made a personal attack and it was not necessary to debate this topic or constructive to this conversation.

Scuzzy

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Yes, I did ask you for examples, but the nature of my question was ultimately why you brought it up in the first place. I personally do not support the "Well he did so I should be able to get away with it." to define what is right and wrong to do. I think each case should be examined independently.

Mkay, so give us a breakdown of what should happen in the 3 cases: Sen. Reid, the racist Presidential picture, and the racist money.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Does this mean you support that people who say those types of things, in both the republican and democratic party, should be allowed to keep their jobs?

Sure, unless it becomes a recurring problem. Most jobs will give you flex in some circumstances, why should these be different? Especially in the case of elected officials. They've got a constituency to worry about. If enough people find fault in it, he'll lose his job.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

That's not entirely accurate. Yes, there were liberal individuals who asked if he was black enough. There were liberal people who said, "Oh well the republicans are telling everyone they don't think Obama is black enough!" But the fact is that most of the people actually bringing up Obama's race were liberals, no conservatives. They focused on his race, not the conservative party.

I believe that.

Hang on.

YouTube

YouTube

Yeah, Conservatives had nothing to say about race.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Etzell

Mkay, so give us a breakdown of what should happen in the 3 cases: Sen. Reid, the racist Presidential picture, and the racist money.

I believe that if the Democrats are truely outraged about racism, in the same manner they were with Senate Leader Trent Lott, that they should do the same with Senate Leader Harry Reid. Otherwise I think their leadership is playing the race card in America for their own purposes and not out of genuine concern.

Originally Posted by Etzell

Sure, unless it becomes a recurring problem. Most jobs will give you flex in some circumstances, why should these be different?

I agree, depending on the job.

Originally Posted by Etzell

Especially in the case of elected officials. They've got a constituency to worry about. If enough people find fault in it, he'll lose his job.

True, to a point.

Originally Posted by Etzell

Yeah, Conservatives had nothing to say about race.

I don't believe that I stated conservatives have never said anything about race, you misunderstood my point.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I believe that if the Democrats are truely outraged about racism, in the same manner they were with Senate Leader Trent Lott, that they should do the same with Senate Leader Harry Reid. Otherwise I think their leadership is playing the race card in America for their own purposes and not out of genuine concern.

The Trent Lott case was one of repeated racist comments. Sure, there was one that really focused the interest, but it had happened before.

If it turns out Sen. Reid has a history of doing shit like this, can him.

Hey, Scuzzy? Real quick, do you have a problem with saying:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I think each case should be examined independently.

right before you said:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I believe that if the Democrats are truely outraged about racism, in the same manner they were with Senate Leader Trent Lott, that they should do the same with Senate Leader Harry Reid.

[uBeR]

If you want a pretty good commentary on the matter, there's one here. As I, Williams on FOX, and basically everyone else who's put some thought into it have been saying, Reid was basically pointing out how racist America is, particularly within the Republican Party. As Scuzzy correctly points out, this is very different than the type of racism the right likes to deride Obama with. To be sure, Reid used an outdated term, "Negro," which the Census also uses to record demographics (including this year), and virtually everyone agrees it was inappropriate, hence the criticism. Now, if his constituents--Nevadans, not us--feel that he should be "fired" they can choose to do so in the next election. That's part of what we refer to as "democracy," regardless of how much others here might despise the concept. It should be noted, however, that even pointing out Reid's own pointing out of racist members of society will get branded as a "personal attack," no matter how true it is. You're not supposed to point out the racism that exists, you know. That gets you in trouble. I think that says something about contemporary culture, which isn't totally different from the racist culture that existed a couple hundred years ago, or, say, fifty years ago for that matter.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Etzell

The Trent Lott case was one of repeated racist comments. Sure, there was one that really focused the interest, but it had happened before.

If it turns out Sen. Reid has a history of doing shit like this, can him.

Hey, Scuzzy? Real quick, do you have a problem with saying:
right before you said:

No, why would I? Both cases were handled independently, in one case they faked the outraged to gain political points and power, in the other they showed their true colors by defending his comments by claiming he "mispoke". Both show the real intentions of the party leadership when it comes to racism.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

As Scuzzy correctly points out,

uBeR, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to bait me by lying about things that I have not said.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

You were stressing there was a difference. I was agreeing.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

You were stressing there was a difference. I was agreeing.

I have never stated or stressed anything about that uBeR. Please stop making stuff up.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Yes, when you asked us to relate Reid's controversy with the other ones Etzell mentioned, you were stressing that there's a difference between them. I agree completely, Scuzzy. I hope you're no longer confused over the matter, as I think it's settled now.

[Backstaber]

Keep him on the ticket, he's easier to defeat in November that way.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Yes, when you asked us to relate Reid's controversy with the other ones Etzell mentioned, you were stressing that there's a difference between them. I agree completely, Scuzzy. I hope you're no longer confused over the matter, as I think it's settled now.

I haven't asked you to relate anything uBeR, I asked how you two felt they were related in the context you were grouping them together as both examples of racists act that shouldn't get people fired. Now you've changed your argument to say they are not the same... couple that with your racist accusations and lying about what I'm supposedly agreeing too... what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Can [you and uBeR] explain to me how you relate these individuals actions to those of Harry Reid?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I haven't asked you to relate anything uBeR

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I asked how you two felt they were related

Much does not need to be said about that.

But you're confusing me and Etzell. You know, "I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to bait me by lying about things that I have not said." If you could "please stop making stuff up," that'd be great, because it is not "constructive to this conversation."

Now, what I have said is that the Republican racism toward Obama is markedly different than the comment Reid made, which was more a sad reflection on contemporary American culture, just as everyone else has pointed out. So, yes, there's no relation, just as you were stressing. Not only is the difference striking, though, but so is the reaction by the right. Mute on their own racism (as we've witnessed here), eager to pounce on an outdated term a Democratic senator borrowed from the 2010 Census. There's a word for that.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Much does not need to be said about that.

That's correct, I asked you a question. I didn't make any statements, you're either reading too much into my question or you're intentionally lying about me making some point you've decided to push upon me.

Originally Posted by uBeR

But you're confusing me and Etzell. You know, "I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to bait me by lying about things that I have not said." If you could "please stop making stuff up," that'd be great, because it is not "constructive to this conversation."

??? You're explaining how you're confusing me by saying I've confused you and quoting what I said? I really am not following what you're trying to accomplish here.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Now, what I have said is that the Republican racism toward Obama is markedly different than the comment Reid made, which was more a sad reflection on contemporary American culture, just as everyone else has pointed out. So, yes, there's no relation, just as you were stressing. Not only is the difference striking, though, but so is the reaction by the right. Mute on their own racism (as we've witnessed here), eager to pounce on an outdated term a Democratic senator borrowed from the 2010 Census. There's a word for that.

Actually I wasn't stressing it, but now that you've brought it up, let's talk about it. I have asked if Reid's comments should get him fired. You and Etzell brought up other individuals remarks. I asked how you were relating them. You now claim that "yes, there's no relation". So, why did you bring them up in the first place?

Scuzzy

[binky]

I think its silly that people would rather avoid the content of the comment in order to inject their partisan political agendas (here and in the media) then to discuss the merits of the comment.

[FrenchToast]

You must be new here.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by binky

I think its silly that people would rather avoid the content of the comment in order to inject their partisan political agendas (here and in the media) then to discuss the merits of the comment.

Yes, you're right, binky. I've discussed the merits of the comment, already multiple times. It seems other people have the intent to derail threads. No one's surprised of course. Perhaps we should stop feeding the troll.