Letters to the Editor
-
Anyone who condones Reverend Wright has no room to gripe about race.
Sorry but it's past time for America to stand up to black hypocrisy. And unfortunately people will. If we're honest we'll admit the majority of the white, asian,hispanic and other non-black voters are disgusted with black racism and the wholesale hypocrisy of their one-sided gripes about race.
Lockstep voting on race is b.s. regardless of who does it.
Attending for 20 years a black liberation church where a supposedly Christian pastor is spewing that sort of unabashed hatred against an entire nation of people who happen to be white is just insane if you are going to suggest you want a civil dialogue on race.
But race wasn't on the plate for this election and hell only knows the country had much much bigger problems and concerns. It's a manufactured issue by the Obama campaign to win the primary with states unwinnable in the general, and then to use as a cheap excuse to justify his loss.
Obama obviously, once again, was just in this for the cash.
-
We talk past each other
Some people read into what we say what they want to attack. Some of us just do NOT hear each other anymore.
I didn't vote for Obama OR Clinton. Yet I've been attacked as an Obama supporter for complimenting BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME. We can NOT have a dialogue until some people calm down and stop seeing monsters where there are none.
You can't hold a discussion about race when the first words that come out of your mouth are "You are a racist". That's dismissive and insulting, and will immediatly end the discussion.-- jebldmm
You also can not hold a conversation with people screaming "welfare queen" and equating all blacks with stereotypes or calling all blacks "racists". We have to treat people as individuals before we can talk about race. WHich means some people around here may never be able to join the conversation.
What's ironic is I interact with Clinton, Obama, and McCain supporters every day. They don't do this. Is it because they have home training? I think that the Internet is simply magnifying the voices of trolls again to make there seem like more of them than there are.
Only 27% of whites in Penn said race was theit big issue. Accusing all white blue collar workers of racism AND/OR sexism is just factually wrong. Assuming that ALL white blue collar workers are the same is also factually wrong. Appalachian white is very different from Norwegians from Italians for Irish, etc. Ethnicity is not a meaningful marker for individual behavior, either. Since almost 40% of blacks are NOT REGISTERED, equating "REGISTERED VOTING BLACKS" with ALL BLACKS is also a problem. Treating all blacks as one monolithic group, just like treating all whites as one monolithic group, or all Hispanics or all Asians as monolithic, is a lazy way to do things.
Clinton and Obama as virtually the same on everything, including experience (she has no legislative experience at the state level, he has 8 years at the state and 3 at the federal, both have little to no major legislation started that speaks to Democrats or Independants (yes, I know some of her votes tick off people, but some of Obama's vote also tick off people), while McCain has major legislation that turns people off).
What gets me are the people who CLEARLY HAVE NOT RESEARCHED THE CANDIDATES or they would not repeat such things. Maybe we should have a multiple point quiz to see who actually KNOWS what they are talking about, rather than those who just parrot pundits.
At the Chicago Tribune they have a widget that automatically removes namecalling. Wish they had that here.
And if I hear another ignorant "those awful Clinton/Obama supporters who race/sex bait) I will write that person off as STUPID. There are TROLLS here masquerading as Obama and Clinton supporters who are stirring shit. We've seen this before. Even the regular trolls have commented on the chain yanking. For people to take trolls at their words that they are this and that is just absolutely ridiculous. It makes me wonder if some here have just lost there damn mind. When I get insulted by either side (and I HAVE been insulted by trolls masquerading as both) I just write them off as chain yankers.
Maybe people should be banned from even saying race and gender. Forcing them to make arguments without those terms would strain a number of people here. I can defend both Clinton and Obama. WHo else can?
And Joan, you do owe Bazile an apology. She did not say what you claimed.
-
Hee-Hee-Hee-Haw-Haw-Hee-Hee-Haw-Haw!!!
Hee-Hee-Haw-Haw-Haw!!!
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
-
Rufus-Doofus - aren't you celebrating a little early?
John McCain was the person your Empty Suit had to run against, remember? What you have is your new Ned Lamont and I suspect it's your hate-mongering, vulgar rear-end that is "bitter". Not half so much as you will be in November though I suspect.
-
Talk is impossible if it's in bad faith
Joan's point might be valid were it not made in bad faith.
She starts this wrongly stating Brazile suggested "the party might be able to do without the support of white working-class voters and Latinos". Which isn't what she said and Walsh admits this -- later in this post.
So why does the open with something she knows isn't true.
For reference here's Brazile's quote:
A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Even as Walsh belatedly admits her interpretation was wrong, she still argues for it:"Still, she sounded ready to write off working-class whites and Latinos; it wasn't until I read the transcript that I noticed she said "just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics."
No, Joan, she didn't. Not only does "just rely" clearly not mean "do without" but also "expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bath water" clearly doesn't mean "do without".
If this were someone else trying to push a view they just admitted was false, Joan would denounce the arrogant double talk. Why does she make excuses for the same behavior she critiques in others?
After much bloviation and equivocation, Joan says: "What's the answer? I hammered out this whole post, and I don't have one."
I do. Media pundits who can't make a point without being dishonest should get right or stop taking part.