Yes, we can. - Page 134

scaeagles · 07-17-2008, 08:35 AM

I don't think anyone denies that there is racism from any one race to another. Would the same defense be considered with some white kid growing up in a primarily minority neighborhood who was abused by that minority? Would it be acceptable to defensible if later in life that kid was a racist or uttered racial hatred because of his experiences?

Strangler Lewis · 07-17-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't think anyone denies that there is racism from any one race to another. Would the same defense be considered with some white kid growing up in a primarily minority neighborhood who was abused by that minority? Would it be acceptable to defensible if later in life that kid was a racist or uttered racial hatred because of his experiences?

Sure. Does anyone have problems with people who were abused by clergy suggesting that priests are perverts and that priestly celibacy is not a good idea. Raising the question of exactly what racism/sexism/antisemitism/fill-in-the-blank-ism is. In many areas of life, I don't think it's racism to make a personal judgment based on information, experience and apparent probabilities. Political judgments require greater sensitivity to root causes.

innerSpaceman · 07-17-2008, 09:09 AM

Wow, i'm agreeing with scaeagles. Someone fetch me my blood pressure medicine.

Alex · 07-17-2008, 09:49 AM

Yes, racism is racism. I would just argue with the suggestion that all uses of that word, regardless of speaker and context, is actually racism.

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-17-2008, 03:15 PM

Jews were a very large proportion of the non-blacks who marched for civil rights causes in the 60s. There are going to be instances back and forth for all sides.

Racism is racism. Jackson is nothing but a detriment to the whole process.

scaeagles · 07-18-2008, 07:12 AM

Is it just me or is the media having an Obasm about Obama going to Afghanistan and Iraq? McCain went in March and I don't recall all three network anchors going along. Perhaps I'm not recalling correctly.

Alex · 07-18-2008, 08:50 AM

Yes they are.

Tom · 07-18-2008, 01:22 PM

According to this, McCain chose not to take reporters with him on his trip in March.

scaeagles · 07-18-2008, 04:20 PM

It isn't simply the reporters - of course Obama will have reporters with him wherever he goes, but the three anchors don't even go with the President when he goes somewhere. They are like starry eyed groupies.

Alex · 07-18-2008, 04:34 PM

They certainly would if he gave each of them a one-on-one sit down while he was over there.

If Bush said "I'm going to be in place X, Katie Couric, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Tuesday?" her answer would be "yes sir, I would."

Then if Bush said "I"m going to be in place Y, Brian Williams, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Wednesday?" his answer would be "Absolutely I would, what color M&Ms would you like in the green room?"

Then if Bush said "I'm going to be in placy Z, Charlie Gibson, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Thursay?" his answer would be "Sloppy thirds are good enough for me, Mr. President!"

And that is exactly what Obama has done. To get them to come along he is giving each of them their own daily exclusive and that is all the currency you need to get a network anchor to do a lapdance for you (I'm guessing Gibson gives the best ones).

Plus, McCain suffered from bad timing on his trip, coming as it did after he had locked up the nomination but the Democrat primary campaign was still going strong.

Yes, the press is drooling over Obama but a fair portion of that has to be credited to him having a much better press strategy than McCain has evidenced so far. Back in his two campaigns that is exactly what Reagan succeeded in doing and you could hardly say that the press was starry-eyed with optimism for his victory.

07-17-2008, 08:35 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't think anyone denies that there is racism from any one race to another. Would the same defense be considered with some white kid growing up in a primarily minority neighborhood who was abused by that minority? Would it be acceptable to defensible if later in life that kid was a racist or uttered racial hatred because of his experiences?
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2008, 09:09 AM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Wow, i'm agreeing with scaeagles. Someone fetch me my blood pressure medicine.
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2008, 09:49 AM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, racism is racism. I would just argue with the suggestion that all uses of that word, regardless of speaker and context, is actually racism.
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2008, 03:15 PM	#5
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Jews were a very large proportion of the non-blacks who marched for civil rights causes in the 60s. There are going to be instances back and forth for all sides. Racism is racism. Jackson is nothing but a detriment to the whole process. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

07-18-2008, 07:12 AM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Is it just me or is the media having an Obasm about Obama going to Afghanistan and Iraq? McCain went in March and I don't recall all three network anchors going along. Perhaps I'm not recalling correctly.
	Submit to Quotes

07-18-2008, 08:50 AM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes they are.
	Submit to Quotes

07-18-2008, 01:22 PM	#8
Tom Valued member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 541	According to this, McCain chose not to take reporters with him on his trip in March.
	Submit to Quotes

07-18-2008, 04:20 PM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	It isn't simply the reporters - of course Obama will have reporters with him wherever he goes, but the three anchors don't even go with the President when he goes somewhere. They are like starry eyed groupies.
	Submit to Quotes

07-18-2008, 04:34 PM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	They certainly would if he gave each of them a one-on-one sit down while he was over there. If Bush said "I'm going to be in place X, Katie Couric, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Tuesday?" her answer would be "yes sir, I would." Then if Bush said "I"m going to be in place Y, Brian Williams, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Wednesday?" his answer would be "Absolutely I would, what color M&Ms would you like in the green room?" Then if Bush said "I'm going to be in placy Z, Charlie Gibson, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Thursay?" his answer would be "Sloppy thirds are good enough for me, Mr. President!" And that is exactly what Obama has done. To get them to come along he is giving each of them their own daily exclusive and that is all the currency you need to get a network anchor to do a lapdance for you (I'm guessing Gibson gives the best ones). Plus, McCain suffered from bad timing on his trip, coming as it did after he had locked up the nomination but the Democrat primary campaign was still going strong. Yes, the press is drooling over Obama but a fair portion of that has to be credited to him having a much better press strategy than McCain has evidenced so far. Back in his two campaigns that is exactly what Reagan succeeded in doing and you could hardly say that the press was starry-eyed with optimism for his victory.
	Submit to Quotes