Letters to the Editor
-
All these
fine folks arguing, arguing, arguing: fascinating to try to follow the points and counter-points. And I begin teaching my introduction to logic class on Wednesday. All this makes good grist for the mill :)
-
@Rosemaryk
I'm one of the bouncers here. What is you problem?
-
Rosemaryk
Deviance and social control....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZZ68i_TE2U&feature=related
Muwahahahaha!
-
Move on to substance, please!
I watched the clip that precipitated this post. And it seems a straight forward response from Bill Clinton. Jesse Jackson ran a good campaign and won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988. Senator Obama is running a good campaign now, and should also expect to win South Carolina. Given the demographics of South Caroline, this comparison would seem a fair one to make. I think Bill Clinton would have to go a lot farther than this for me to reasonably believe that he is interjecting race into the campaign.
-
hey shawnwm
But hey Oh-bama says we don't need to worry about all that tired old sixties stuff, so who cares if the daughter you paid 50k to send to college is going to get paid 40% less for doing the same job and all that boring old stuff.
Did Obama really say that? Hmmmm. Never heard that. And after sending my daughter (an Obama supporter) to school...
-
More substance please Ha Ha Ha
The mighty Internet writing heads have nodded their heads in unison and have spoken their golden words. With the barest amount of evidence, they gather to shred the reputation of the head of the mighty Democratic party, branding him as racist after a lifetime of good works to minority communities.
You no longer have to watch the Chris Matthews show, you can read the script here.
-
@ bucky1
The enlightened of us understand that you refer to the gospel of Ron Paul, who also does not support a woman's right to choose and does not affirm the Wall of Separation. Let me know when you have a real libertarian.
-
kovie
This was the same patently idiotic and dishonest argument made by Nader in '00, and bought hook, line and sinker by those who voted for him in states where he made the difference.
It wasn't Nader that made the difference, it was the drug war.
For decades now Democrats have advocated, almost to a man, the disenfranchising of a huge percentage of their single most loyal voting block, black voters.
There would have been thousands, if not tens of thousands, more black voters in Florida in 2000 if the Democrats had not enthusiastically supported what has become the de facto state religion of "The Land of the Free".
As usual, Democrats have shot themselves in the foot in order to pander to those who will not vote for them anyway.
I note that Obama, himself a former "drug user", still panders to the drug warriors by advocating giving a police record to those who do exactly the same things he did.
There is a word for that.
-
ShawnWM
Seems to me just about everyone gets away with bashing H. Clinton in ways nobody would dream of attacking anyone else. And fat people thought they were the last group it was okay to discriminate against.
But hey Oh-bama says we don't need to worry about all that tired old sixties stuff, so who cares if the daughter you paid 50k to send to college is going to get paid 40% less for doing the same job and all that boring old stuff.
And yet it's ok to make fun of someone's last name because it sounds "funny". What I find funny is how people seem to feel that this site is the place to project their insecurities, prejudices and straw man paranoid delusions and feel good about it.
How criticizing a candidate on something that has absolutely zero to do with her gender makes one a misgynist (that is what you're accusing us "Oh-bamaists" of, isn't it, oh sagacious one?) is beyond me. Got more soap balloons for us to pop?
And what on earth do the rising costs of a college education and diminishing earning potential of wage earners have to do with Obama's policies--let alone the topic of THIS thread, race-baiting? Even if this was a valid point, it's not germane to the topic being discussed here.
Don't you know that making a weak and dishonest argument in favor of a position diminishes the effectiveness of any potentially solid and honest arguments in favor of it? Can't you just stick to stuff that makes sense AND has to do with what we're talking about here?
-
AKA Smith
Let me know when you have a real libertarian.
Let me know when you have a real liberal.
One that does not advocate locking up people who do exactly the same things he has done would be nice.
-
kovie you perfectly illustrate the problem: you say that Clinton giving his analysis of the situation is inherently racist
I am truly shocked and alarmed at how many apparently mentally functional people seem to believe this. It really does lend credibility to all the right wing ranting about the tyranny of political correctness, etc. The idea that white people are obliged to prostrate themselves for their historical sins before the self appointed guardians of racial sensitivity will be toxic to Obamas chances against the Republicans if it is seen to taint him. I have to say also that young white liberals seem far more prone to this thinking than black people, perhaps because black people lead less sheltered lives.
-
The media did Bill Clinton a favor
by editing out the question whether Obama could win as an African American president. That bit of additional context makes matters worse for Clinton, not better: he took the bait. In that context, Clinton's comparison of Obama with Jesse Jackson adds to the suggestion that Clinton was playing the race card. As Big Tent Democrat of TalkLeft put it, Clinton meant that Obama was, "President of Black America."
-
Aycharaych
So because many (but far from all) Dems have supported many of the right's worst policies out of a misguided and shameful sense of political weakness makes them EQUALLY as bad and just as unlikely to be able to address the country's problems as the right? Is this the weak argument that you're making here?
If so, what VIABLE alternative do you propose to this set of affairs? People who make this argument never offer a viable explanation of what that alternative might be (well, except for those nihilists and anarchists who actually want us to go off a cliff so as to be able to start from scratch, never mind the dire consequences to so many people).
Well, here's mine. Support the lesser of two evils (which Dems clearly are right now in a COLLECTIVE sense), and then work to bolster the non-evil (however lesser) part of that lesser evil so that it hopefully becomes the dominant one in time. It's called making the most of a bad situation and not giving up just because the perfect solution isn't possible. It's called being a mature and responsible adult, rather than someone who prefers throwing rocks from the sidelines and ranting about how they're ALL BAD.
Again, Nader 2000. EXACTLY the same argument.
And I'm not exactly clear how Obama has been supportive of the "War on Drugs". Has this even come up in congress or in IL since he's been in elected office? Isn't he against mandatory minimums, the death penalty, and making crack sentences tougher than cocaine sentences? And didn't he right the police union in IL to get a law passed mandating video interrogations of suspects? I'd like to hear about one position he's taken and one vote he's cast (or failed to cast in a legislatively meaningful non-procedural vote) that was supportive of the WoD.
Sloppy and irresponsible thinking on your part.