.......we have a debate rule about not just linking to articles… and/or if you do just link without highlights, you shouldn’t expect anyone to respond… as you have not made an argument. We can all just link to articles all day… again, so what? Links are not arguments.
The exception is if you link to ‘just share’ something of interest… but again, that’s covered under the ‘don’t expect a debate response as you have not made an argument’…
I have no doubt that sl0re would have told you this if I hadn’t.......
.......we have a debate rule about not just linking to articles… and/or if you do just link without highlights, you shouldn’t expect anyone to respond… as you have not made an argument. We can all just link to articles all day… again, so what? Links are not arguments.
The exception is if you link to ‘just share’ something of interest… but again, that’s covered under the ‘don’t expect a debate response as you have not made an argument’…
I have no doubt that sl0re would have told you this if I hadn’t.......
A link is less in my face than posting the whole article.... without bolding / highlights…
I do it sometimes (post links)… but again, I don’t consider it an argument and/or expect a reply. I’ll usually add my own comments about the article. People are free to comment on those if they want (re: at least they’re my thoughts)....
I think it comes from a history of slavery, racism, jim crow, etc. that was designed to hurt them.
Hey, Bart! My ancestors were enslaved at such a stupendous rate that the name of the people—Slavs—became the common term for enslaved people—slaves!
You liberals have got to get past the idea that slavery is the invention of white Americans. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time, and is still going on today—espeically in BLACK Africa!
What was unique about WASPs was that they decided slavery was wrong! It was white Ango-Saxon protestants who first worked and sacrificed to end slavery in their areas—both Europe and America at a time when the rest of the world was very happy with the institution of slavery.
The Persian Empire was the first civilization to prohibit the systematic enslavement of conquered non-combattant population.
The Persian empire didn’t have the global reach of the British Navy / Empire. Their thoughts on the matter didn’t have the opportunity to be enforced around much of the world as a result… Ergo… the slave trade outlived them.
He breathlessly compares his grandmother to the putrid Wright
He didn’t.
He did.
I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother
Agreed. He did. Not only in not disowning her, but also their attitudes...
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
Wrong. Why would the subject even be on the table unless they were both guilty of moral trespasses? In her case, her ‘typical white person’’s racial profiling / racism. The comments don’t make sense if you try to pull that jenga block from out of them. As in, then what the heck was he even talking about his grandmother to begin with for if not that?
He breathlessly compares his grandmother to the putrid Wright
He didn’t.
He did.
I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother
Agreed. He did. Not only in not disowning her, but also their attitudes...
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
Wrong. Why would the subject even be on the table unless they were both guilty of moral trespasses? In her case, her ‘typical white person’’s racial profiling / racism. The comments don’t make sense if you try to pull that jenga block from out of them. As in, then what the heck was he even talking about his grandmother to begin with for if not that?
Were Obama only to have said I cannot disown him anymore than my own grandmother he might have gotten a pass. But he didn’t do that. He put in the equivocation that his grandmother is just as much a racist as Wright is. Except I don’t see where being nervous about an aggressive panhandler is the same as declaring that a race of people is the source of all your problems in society. (Which by the way is what blows the argument you have been perpetrating about “white people can’t claim that black people are keeping them down so you can’t compare them.” In fact you can because you can have white people claiming that it is black people that are the source of problems just like Wright does with white people. You’ve attempted to frame an argument that wasn’t being made and declaring victory.)
And Wright apparently would have no trouble disowning his grandmother. Since there was the recent claim that he was going to do that with Wright but the old man went and retired so he didn’t think he’d have to. And then apparently Obama doesn’t have much care for his grandmother anymore, since his interview on the view declared that Wright was merely his church’s reverend and held no real special connection with him. That of course runs counter to previous statements he’s made.
If he wasn’t running against Hillary I would swear that Bill was giving him advice on what to say.
.......we have a debate rule about not just linking to articles… and/or if you do just link without highlights, you shouldn’t expect anyone to respond… as you have not made an argument. We can all just link to articles all day… again, so what? Links are not arguments.
The exception is if you link to ‘just share’ something of interest… but again, that’s covered under the ‘don’t expect a debate response as you have not made an argument’…
I have no doubt that sl0re would have told you this if I hadn’t.......
A link is less in my face than posting the whole article.... without bolding / highlights…
I do it sometimes (post links)… but again, I don’t consider it an argument and/or expect a reply. I’ll usually add my own comments about the article. People are free to comment on those if they want (re: at least they’re my thoughts)....
… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… we have a debate rule about not just linking to articles, unless it’s ok..........got it…
I think it comes from a history of slavery, racism, jim crow, etc. that was designed to hurt them.
Hey, Bart! My ancestors were enslaved at such a stupendous rate that the name of the people—Slavs—became the common term for enslaved people—slaves!
You liberals have got to get past the idea that slavery is the invention of white Americans. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time, and is still going on today—espeically in BLACK Africa!
What was unique about WASPs was that they decided slavery was wrong! It was white Ango-Saxon protestants who first worked and sacrificed to end slavery in their areas—both Europe and America at a time when the rest of the world was very happy with the institution of slavery.
The Persian Empire was the first civilization to prohibit the systematic enslavement of conquered non-combattant population.
The Persian empire didn’t have the global reach of the British Navy / Empire. Their thoughts on the matter didn’t have the opportunity to be enforced around much of the world as a result… Ergo… the slave trade outlived them.
… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… we have a debate rule about not just linking to articles, unless it’s ok.....the Persian Empire was the first civilization to prohibit slavery....except it doesn’t count.....got it…
He breathlessly compares his grandmother to the putrid Wright
He didn’t.
He did.
I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother
Agreed. He did. Not only in not disowning her, but also their attitudes...
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
Wrong. Why would the subject even be on the table unless they were both guilty of moral trespasses? In her case, her ‘typical white person’’s racial profiling / racism. The comments don’t make sense if you try to pull that jenga block from out of them. As in, then what the heck was he even talking about his grandmother to begin with for if not that?
They are both of guilty moral trespasses - just to differing degrees. I’m not saying his spectrum was from extremely not racist to extremely racist. I mean on the racist spectrum. She was casually a little racist (but in a defensive way), whereas he’s arguably out-and-out loud and proud aggressive racist (although we haven’t even been able to have an actual discussion about that, as I and Tripper have pointed out).
Again, I can see how ‘typical white person’ could be taken in an offensive way, but when I read/heard it, I didn’t take it like that. It was only when I read what people wrote on here that I considered the possibility of how it could be offensive. As I understood it, he meant that she was a normal average white person in that she wasn’t overtly racist. But she still felt a little nervous when ‘insert variation to the panhandler story here’. As I’ve said, I don’t see how it was the same as a white person saying ‘you people’ meaning blacks.
Though his variations to the story aren’t helpful to him.
I think there are people out there that are feigning offensive. I’m sure the same people complain bitterly when blacks complain about something that wasn’t racist (or wasn’t meant to be).
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
So repeatedly mentioning one person or group in the same or adjoining sentences as another person or group isn’t intentionally conflating them?
Does it only count as such when the sentence includes a negation? Or maybe it only counts when the speaker isn’t liberal?
… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… we have a debate rule about not just linking to articles, unless it’s ok..........got it…
You could just not be an as* and only post a link saying ‘I found this article interesting especially regarding where they talk about X’ vs quoting whole articles with no comment or highlights signifying what parts you found relevant....
They are both of guilty moral trespasses - just to differing degrees. I’m not saying his spectrum was from extremely not racist to extremely racist. I mean on the racist spectrum. She was casually a little racist (but in a defensive way), whereas he’s arguably out-and-out loud and proud aggressive racist (although we haven’t even been able to have an actual discussion about that, as I and Tripper have pointed out).
Again, I can see how ‘typical white person’ could be taken in an offensive way, but when I read/heard it, I didn’t take it like that. It was only when I read what people wrote on here that I considered the possibility of how it could be offensive. As I understood it, he meant that she was a normal average white person in that she wasn’t overtly racist. But she still felt a little nervous when ‘insert variation to the panhandler story here’. As I’ve said, I don’t see how it was the same as a white person saying ‘you people’ meaning blacks.
Though his variations to the story aren’t helpful to him.
I think there are people out there that are feigning offensive. I’m sure the same people complain bitterly when blacks complain about something that wasn’t racist (or wasn’t meant to be).
I think it comes from a history of slavery, racism, jim crow, etc. that was designed to hurt them.
Hey, Bart! My ancestors were enslaved at such a stupendous rate that the name of the people—Slavs—became the common term for enslaved people—slaves!
You liberals have got to get past the idea that slavery is the invention of white Americans. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time, and is still going on today—espeically in BLACK Africa!
What was unique about WASPs was that they decided slavery was wrong! It was white Ango-Saxon protestants who first worked and sacrificed to end slavery in their areas—both Europe and America at a time when the rest of the world was very happy with the institution of slavery.
The Persian Empire was the first civilization to prohibit the systematic enslavement of conquered non-combattant population.
The Persian empire didn’t have the global reach of the British Navy / Empire. Their thoughts on the matter didn’t have the opportunity to be enforced around much of the world as a result… Ergo… the slave trade outlived them.
… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… we have a debate rule about not just linking to articles, unless it’s ok.....the Persian Empire was the first civilization to prohibit slavery....except it doesn’t count.....got it…
You’ve got a point / your right in that she said ‘ended in their areas’… but I was thinking of something else. They’re the first people (I know of) to use their power to end it in other areas too. In that, the British were unique. Also, because they were a global power, their thoughts on the matter had a global impact (vs. the Persian Empire). But yeah, on the actual point, your totally right.
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
So repeatedly mentioning one person or group in the same or adjoining sentences as another person or group isn’t intentionally conflating them?
Does it only count as such when the sentence includes a negation? Or maybe it only counts when the speaker isn’t liberal?
Double standard, perhaps?
It’s already being noticed around that Obama is a lawyer / talks like a lawyer and manages to parse a lot like Mr Clinton and Moore. He’ll imply stuff with out really saying it. Giving his apologists wiggle room.
They are both of guilty moral trespasses - just to differing degrees. I’m not saying his spectrum was from extremely not racist to extremely racist. I mean on the racist spectrum. She was casually a little racist (but in a defensive way), whereas he’s arguably out-and-out loud and proud aggressive racist (although we haven’t even been able to have an actual discussion about that, as I and Tripper have pointed out).
Again, I can see how ‘typical white person’ could be taken in an offensive way, but when I read/heard it, I didn’t take it like that. It was only when I read what people wrote on here that I considered the possibility of how it could be offensive. As I understood it, he meant that she was a normal average white person in that she wasn’t overtly racist. But she still felt a little nervous when ‘insert variation to the panhandler story here’. As I’ve said, I don’t see how it was the same as a white person saying ‘you people’ meaning blacks.
Though his variations to the story aren’t helpful to him.
I think there are people out there that are feigning offensive. I’m sure the same people complain bitterly when blacks complain about something that wasn’t racist (or wasn’t meant to be).
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
So repeatedly mentioning one person or group in the same or adjoining sentences as another person or group isn’t intentionally conflating them?
Does it only count as such when the sentence includes a negation? Or maybe it only counts when the speaker isn’t liberal?
Double standard, perhaps?
He’s clearly not attempting to link them in any way other than in a discussion about different forms/levels of racism and whether that is relevant to disowning someone. I don’t see the relevance to Sept 11 and Saddam.
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
So repeatedly mentioning one person or group in the same or adjoining sentences as another person or group isn’t intentionally conflating them?
Does it only count as such when the sentence includes a negation? Or maybe it only counts when the speaker isn’t liberal?
Double standard, perhaps?
It’s already being noticed around that Obama is a lawyer / talks like a lawyer and manages to parse a lot like Mr Clinton and Moore. He’ll imply stuff with out really saying it. Giving his apologists wiggle room.
They are both of guilty moral trespasses - just to differing degrees. I’m not saying his spectrum was from extremely not racist to extremely racist. I mean on the racist spectrum. She was casually a little racist (but in a defensive way), whereas he’s arguably out-and-out loud and proud aggressive racist (although we haven’t even been able to have an actual discussion about that, as I and Tripper have pointed out).
Again, I can see how ‘typical white person’ could be taken in an offensive way, but when I read/heard it, I didn’t take it like that. It was only when I read what people wrote on here that I considered the possibility of how it could be offensive. As I understood it, he meant that she was a normal average white person in that she wasn’t overtly racist. But she still felt a little nervous when ‘insert variation to the panhandler story here’. As I’ve said, I don’t see how it was the same as a white person saying ‘you people’ meaning blacks.
Though his variations to the story aren’t helpful to him.
I think there are people out there that are feigning offensive. I’m sure the same people complain bitterly when blacks complain about something that wasn’t racist (or wasn’t meant to be).
Thats a lot of talking to say I was right....
WTF? I don’t think you are.
Oh. Ok.
He downplayed Wright from being an overt racist and exaggerated the grandmother’s actions… and in the end, can’t disown either… because that would be uncool…
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
So repeatedly mentioning one person or group in the same or adjoining sentences as another person or group isn’t intentionally conflating them?
Does it only count as such when the sentence includes a negation? Or maybe it only counts when the speaker isn’t liberal?
Double standard, perhaps?
He’s clearly not attempting to link them in any way other than in a discussion about different forms/levels of racism and whether that is relevant to disowning someone. I don’t see the relevance to Sept 11 and Saddam.
You have repeatedly told us that the Admin saying there was no evidence of Saddam being involved with 9/11 was a deliberate attempt to link the two in people’s minds. Yet you insist that Obama’s mentioning his grandmother and Rev.Wright together to say there are similarities between their attitudes isn’t an attempt to link the two.
They are both of guilty moral trespasses - just to differing degrees. I’m not saying his spectrum was from extremely not racist to extremely racist. I mean on the racist spectrum. She was casually a little racist (but in a defensive way), whereas he’s arguably out-and-out loud and proud aggressive racist (although we haven’t even been able to have an actual discussion about that, as I and Tripper have pointed out).
Again, I can see how ‘typical white person’ could be taken in an offensive way, but when I read/heard it, I didn’t take it like that. It was only when I read what people wrote on here that I considered the possibility of how it could be offensive. As I understood it, he meant that she was a normal average white person in that she wasn’t overtly racist. But she still felt a little nervous when ‘insert variation to the panhandler story here’. As I’ve said, I don’t see how it was the same as a white person saying ‘you people’ meaning blacks.
Though his variations to the story aren’t helpful to him.
I think there are people out there that are feigning offensive. I’m sure the same people complain bitterly when blacks complain about something that wasn’t racist (or wasn’t meant to be).
Thats a lot of talking to say I was right....
WTF? I don’t think you are.
Oh. Ok.
He downplayed Wright from being an overt racist and exaggerated the grandmother’s actions… and in the end, can’t disown either… because that would be uncool...
Whether he ‘downplayed’ Wright depends on your position. Again, we don’t seem to be able to have an actual discussion about what he said and what he meant and what it means. We have to rely on an assumption that everybody must agree that he’s a dispicable human being. As I said, much of what he said seems to be anger at the dominant power structure, as opposed to being racist. But I can see that it’s a huge advantage to brush over all that and just call it all ‘racist’ because then it makes it impossible for people to disagree. If he’s just a racist, then he’s indefensible.
Exaggerated grandma’s actions - possibly. I’m not sure how relevant that is though. The general point (which is what I took from it) remains the same. Can you explain how it changes everything?
For someone who claims to hate spin, you seem to certainly be accepting whatever spin can be possibly generated on this one to make him look as bad as possible.
I think you are wrong.
He is talking about disowning. That is the subject of that sentence. He’s comparing his ability or willingness to disown people that he is close to. He’s not comparing and justifying differing levels of racism, real or perceived. He’s picked two positions on a spectrum.
So repeatedly mentioning one person or group in the same or adjoining sentences as another person or group isn’t intentionally conflating them?
Does it only count as such when the sentence includes a negation? Or maybe it only counts when the speaker isn’t liberal?
Double standard, perhaps?
He’s clearly not attempting to link them in any way other than in a discussion about different forms/levels of racism and whether that is relevant to disowning someone. I don’t see the relevance to Sept 11 and Saddam.
You have repeatedly told us that the Admin saying there was no evidence of Saddam being involved with 9/11 was a deliberate attempt to link the two in people’s minds. Yet you insist that Obama’s mentioning his grandmother and Rev.Wright together to say there are similarities between their attitudes isn’t an attempt to link the two.
Why is one conflating and the other not?
Seems you still don’t understand what I repeatedly said in that other thread - for 2 years after 11 Sept, 2001 the Admin repeatedly refuse to provide a straight answer. They did NOT say there was no evidence. They left it sufficiently murky, and took advantage of the opportunity to conflate the two in a vague sense, so that an average person with average knowledge would come away with a sense that perhaps he was involved. It was over 2 years before they categorically denied a link. During which time the number of people who believed that Saddam was linked to the attacks grew to over half the population.
No, I don’t see how pointing at two examples on a racist specturm is attempting to link the two. Their only link is through Obama (in terms of a relationship) and his sense of the fact that there IS a spectrum and these two people occupy different places on it. The whole speech was about attitudes to race and how different people harbour different feelings, and that there is anger/fear that can be real, and that if it is just ignored and bottled up then it will never improve.
The Admin had a strong motive, and it proved to be a succe
