Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.

Why do you repeat this kind of crap?

I have roughly the same relationships with Bill Ayers that Obama does. We've shaken hands a couple times, attended some of the same functions, and have some common "friends". We've done these things because living in Chicago and being involved with politics entails engaging with certain people, just as it would in any city.

Apparently Bill Ayers is now my mentor, and Fraz is a horrible person because he has conversed with me.

Also, let's be clear, Bill Ayers is not a nice person. His extremism has moved from blowing things up to being unable to tolerate dissent with respect to his beliefs.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.

Mother of God is he a dumbass. I met him through my dad at a UCC council of ministers, and he's as much of a dick as you would expect (lots of smiling and nodding followed). Also he's a little bit corrupt.

Of course, that use of tax exemption is not uncommon among ministers, and its not uncommon for long time pastors to be given retirement gifts by the congregation. My dad does it too and I imagine you would be hard pressed to find an minister that didn't do it.

 dogma wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.

Why do you repeat this kind of crap?

I have roughly the same relationships with Bill Ayers that Obama does. We've shaken hands a couple times, attended some of the same functions, and have some common "friends". We've done these things because living in Chicago and being involved with politics entails engaging with certain people, just as it would in any city.

Apparently Bill Ayers is now my mentor, and Fraz is a horrible person because he has conversed with me.

Also, let's be clear, Bill Ayers is not a nice person. His extremism has moved from blowing things up to being unable to tolerate dissent with respect to his beliefs.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.

Mother of God is he a dumbass. I met him through my dad at a UCC council of ministers, and he's as much of a dick as you would expect (lots of smiling and nodding followed). Also he's a little bit corrupt.

Of course, that use of tax exemption is not uncommon among ministers, and its not uncommon for long time pastors to be given retirement gifts by the congregation. My dad does it too and I imagine you would be hard pressed to find an minister that didn't do it.

/snark on
So... Dogma... buddy... when are you running for office?
/snark off

 Frazzled wrote:
Religious Right in reality - no, not at all. They are about a 9 on Frazzled's list of groups he can't stand and can stay the hell off his lawn. About the ame level as California/Austin/Bloomberg nanny state liberals. Everyone wants to tell me what to do, like they aren't a waste of skin to begin with.

Religious RIght on TV, you betcha. Don't have a clue.

If you were aware of the religious right, then you'd be aware of some of the truly horrible, and deeply crazy claims made by many of their leaders, and you'd be aware those leaders frequently attend or even host fundraisers for various Republican candidates. These candidates survive just fine despite having much closer ties than Obama had to Ayers.

So the only sensible conclusion is that it has nothing to do with the conservative idea of the mainstream media, and everything to do with the simple fact that Americans don't really care if you happen to have know a guy who's a nutcase.

 d-usa wrote:
It always surprises me that there is less turnout for Governor races than presidential races in Oklahoma, considering that state races are going to have a much higher impact on us than presidential races.

It blows my mind that in states like California and Texas the participation rate increases in a close election. So obviously more people are motivated to vote because they might swing the election... but it's California and Texas - the state's electoral votes are comfortably going Democract and Republican respectively.

People just aren't that rational.

 dogma wrote:
I'm still sticking with my normal line that, absent MSNBC, what people call the "liberal media" is really just "not the conservative media" in much the same way my more leftist friends talk about the "conservative media" as "not the liberal media." This is why I see conservatives calling CNN liberal in roughly the same proportion that liberals call it conservative.

Whereas really everyone should just be calling CNN bad.

I've noticed in personal experience and paying attention to rhetoric that any information which does not conform to ones preconceptions is labelled as biased against those preconceptions.

Absolutely.

 dogma wrote:
Its funny, because the characteristic disunity of the Democrats actually prepared them for the advent of mass engagement with the internet. They seem to have reflexively understood how to organize and leverage a large number of vaguely assenting people. Of course, it also helps that they lost two major elections during the time in which the internet was becoming a "thing".

That was really good summary.

I've often thought the "big tent" of the Republican party was actually only three bits, corporate interests, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, and that the whole thing basically relied on the fiscal and social conservatives not noticing that the party never delivered anything they wanted.

Not that I'm getting ahead of the game here, everytime one party or the other loses a race you see plenty of calls that now we'll see the party collapse, and everytime the party stays together because, well, where else are these people going to go? The Libertarians?

 dogma wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.

Why do you repeat this kind of crap?

I have roughly the same relationships with Bill Ayers that Obama does. We've shaken hands a couple times, attended some of the same functions, and have some common "friends". We've done these things because living in Chicago and being involved with politics entails engaging with certain people, just as it would in any city.

Apparently Bill Ayers is now my mentor, and Fraz is a horrible person because he has conversed with me.

Also, let's be clear, Bill Ayers is not a nice person. His extremism has moved from blowing things up to being unable to tolerate dissent with respect to his beliefs.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.

Mother of God is he a dumbass. I met him through my dad at a UCC council of ministers, and he's as much of a dick as you would expect (lots of smiling and nodding followed). Also he's a little bit corrupt.

Of course, that use of tax exemption is not uncommon among ministers, and its not uncommon for long time pastors to be given retirement gifts by the congregation. My dad does it too and I imagine you would be hard pressed to find an minister that didn't do it.

His connection to Ayers is a little bit more then that, but you are correct that it's hardly a big thing. Sitting on 9 man boards together for several years, attending dozens of meetings, there is going to be a lot more interaction then just shaking hands. Going to retreats, working on other community projects together, and even sitting on a panel together that Michelle Obama organized. I'd call them professional acquantances. Mentor is a stretch, but they did spend 7 years continually crossing paths on many things.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I'm still sticking with my normal line that, absent MSNBC, what people call the "liberal media" is really just "not the conservative media" in much the same way my more leftist friends talk about the "conservative media" as "not the liberal media." This is why I see conservatives calling CNN liberal in roughly the same proportion that liberals call it conservative.

Whereas really everyone should just be calling CNN bad.

sebster wrote:

...
...

I've often thought the "big tent" of the Republican party was actually only three bits, corporate interests, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, and that the whole thing basically relied on the fiscal and social conservatives not noticing that the party never delivered anything they wanted.

...

The Tea Party is the symptom of the fiscal and social conservatives noticing that the traditional Republicans did not deliver what they wanted.

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
As hard as I find it to believe that any black person would vote for Romney, I'm sure a few of them will. No, it isn't. They aren't voting for Obama because Romney is a "mean ol' white cracka man"; they're voting for Obama because Romney is a fething nightmare.

It's not racism, at least how I see it. It's a bunch of inadvertent cleverness.

I'm not as convinced. I think any large demographic voting in such a monolithic fashion should raise an eyebrow or two.

The only time people questioned 90%+ of a demographic voting for the same party that they have been voting for was when they followed the established pattern when a black guy was running.

They are voting the way they have always votes, questioning it now is more racist than the actual vote.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not as convinced. I think any large demographic voting in such a monolithic fashion should raise an eyebrow or two.

I agree. It shows either that the group in question is all biased in some way, or that they are all making a rational choice.

I think it's a combination.

 Jihadin wrote:
Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.

Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.

 Polonius wrote:


To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.

I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?

HBMC wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.

Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.

Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.

 Luco wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.

I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?

He clearly explained it. Being "white" is not a culture. Being of Irish descent, or Swedish descent, or Italian descent, or Ashkenazi descent; those are cultural heritages.

 Mannahnin wrote:

HBMC wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.

Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.

Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.

Obama being black doesn't make him immune to caricature and humor. I think that you and many others are quick to jump up and call racism in defense of Obama. It's a prejudice of your own to find offense where none exists.

 AustonT wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

HBMC wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.

Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.

Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.

Obama being black doesn't make him immune to caricature and humor. I think that you and many others are quick to jump up and call racism in defense of Obama. It's a prejudice of your own to find offense where none exists.

It's called cultural sensitivity. If you don't know about the cultural and historical racism between that picture then there is nothing I can do. But there is a difference between pointing out that Bush looks like a chimp, and a historical fact that monkeys were used as a caricature by racists to point out that blacks are sub-humans and nothing more than apes and wild animals.

It cuts both ways, of course. A cartoon showing Obama with a big nose, counting money isn't particularly offensive. The same thing with Joe Lieberman would be.

Just becaue there is no shortage of fiegned offense does not meant that some things aren't actually offensive.

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

HBMC wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.

Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.

Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.

Obama being black doesn't make him immune to caricature and humor. I think that you and many others are quick to jump up and call racism in defense of Obama. It's a prejudice of your own to find offense where none exists.

It's called cultural sensitivity. If you don't know about the cultural and historical racism between that picture then there is nothing I can do. But there is a difference between pointing out that Bush looks like a chimp, and a historical fact that monkeys were used as a caricature by racists to point out that blacks are sub-humans and nothing more than apes and wild animals.

Really you want to pretend its about historical racism? You are welcome to it, its a stretch to find offense. Like the hung chair. That must be racist, but this guy; he's cool.

Because it's only racist when it's Obama right? The are almost literally countless examples of the inconsistency between what is suddenly "Racist" with Obama that was just legitimate expression before. The only racism is what your own prejudices read into it.

 AustonT wrote:
Because it's only racist when it's Obama right?

Well, I guess it was possible for there to be racism against Bush, but I can't think of anybody that hated him because he was white. No doubt they existed, just pretty far from the mainstream.

The are almost literally countless examples of the inconsistency between what is suddenly "Racist" with Obama that was just legitimate expression before. The only racism is what your own prejudices read into it.

What you probably mean is that there are things that are offensive now, that weren't before. It's really, really hard to show that a white guy is racist against another white guy, which is the paradigm for nearly all presidential satire prior to 2008.

I think when big chunks of the American people doubt that Obama was born in the US, or is a Christian, and he happens to be black, it's reasonable to assume that some of the satire is tinged with racism.

Even if not, though, you should be able to understand that some things are more offensive than others. You can do them, nobody is banning anything. I think you're going to have a hard time explaining to people that are offended, "you're prejudiced here" rather than trying to understand why tehy are offended.

The common response here is that it's unfair for a person to be judged based on stereotypes. Not all right wingers are racists, why should a person that is mocking Obama be painted with that brush. I agree that it's not fair. I'm usually not offended by much, and I try to see the actual intent and motivation behind an act. The flip side is that unlike many other presidents, Obama has to watch his actions very, very closely. America isn't nearly as racist as we were 50 years ago. I mean, we elected a black guy president, and if anything his detractors tagged him as "elitist!" Still, it's been documented that he has to be careful not to appear as "the angry black man," because while americans are ok with cuddly, cool black guys, we tighten up around black male anger.

There are pictures of Obama as Hitler as well, and no one is calling those racist, just stupid, just as most reasonable people called making Bush Hitler was stupid as well. They aren't really analogous to the problem either, as part of the issues is that there really is no apt comparison. There is no real historical or cultural word for white people with the same power and hatred as [Forum Rules]. Calling a white guy a monkey doesn't have the same context or history as calling a black man a monkey.

Saying someone is rich and out of touch is not like saying someone is a sub-human and prone to criminal behavior due to their ethnicity.

Some people seem to confuse making fun of Obama as being racist. It's not racist to make fun of him, or make jokes about him.

It's racist to be racist.

This is not racist either, same as with Bush.

 Mannahnin wrote:

HBMC wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.

Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.

Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.

 Luco wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.

I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?

He clearly explained it. Being "white" is not a culture. Being of Irish descent, or Swedish descent, or Italian descent, or Ashkenazi descent; those are cultural heritages.

Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.

How we celebrate being an "American"?

Or "British"?

Or "Australian"?

Sometime I think we create our own problems...

 Luco wrote:

Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.

If you have a hard time distinguishing between Italian-americans, and Irish-Americans, I'm not sure you're horribly interested in celebrating European culture.

I'm not sure how celebrating "white American" culture will differ in any meaningful way from any other celebration of American culture.

I mean, this is the point. Look at major US holidays. One celebrates the birth of a Jew, one civic holidy celebrates the birth of a black civil rights leader. The rest are pretty focused on the achievements of White people. Most notably the 4th, where all the principles where white guys. Veterans and Memorial Day are theoretically color blind, and I'm really not sure white veterans or war dead get shortchanged. The Labor movement was nearly all white. The presidents from president's day: white. Thanksgiving is about white pilgrims. St. Patrick's day is about drunk white people. Halloween is a very european holiday.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/479208.page
/thread.

How 'bout this?

 d-usa wrote:

The best part of this is that its from LaRouche, which means it probably centers on Obama's inaction with respect to some environmental conspiracies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:

Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.

There isn't a ton to distinguish my exceedingly white family from a black family of equivalent income either, at least if you discount skin tone.

Or "British"?

By drinking tea and crumpets with a British accent while wearing a monocle and top hat Wot Wot!

Or celebrating Horatio, Watterloo, Queen Elizabeth the First, Robin Hood, Richard the Lionheart, being a monarchist, fondly viewing the Pax Brittania of yesteryear, arguing over liverpool and manchester, umbrellas, spelling things with ou instead of the lazy o... All kinds of stuff really. But at it's core you have to be from the British Isles at some point in your history. Generally recent, though that occasionally differs depending on your current nation of residence. Heck my family on my dad's side is from the English refuge of Westmount in Quebec, who see it as a manner of pride not to know anything about French popular culture and our occasional luncheons with the Queen.

Forgot to mention that we've been here for over 250 years and we're still as english as the dickens.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Or "British"?

By drinking tea and crumpets with a British accent while wearing a monocle and top hat Wot Wot!

Or celebrating Horatio, Watterloo, Queen Elizabeth the First, Robin Hood, Richard the Lionheart, being a monarchist, fondly viewing the Pax Brittania of yesteryear, arguing over liverpool and manchester, umbrellas, spelling things with ou instead of the lazy o... All kinds of stuff really. But at it's core you have to be from the British Isles at some point in your history. Generally recent, though that occasionally differs depending on your current nation of residence. Heck my family on my dad's side is from the English refuge of Westmount in Quebec, who see it as a manner of pride not to know anything about French popular culture and our occasional luncheons with the Queen.

Forgot to mention that we've been here for over 250 years and we're still as english as the dickens.

Dat wuz funnys.

It's not difficult.

Calling Obama Hitler = stupid, not automatically racist.
Calling Obama a socialist = not racist.
Calling Obama a liar = not racist.

Calling Obama a monkey = racist.
Portraying Obama as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose = racist.
Putting the following image in your newsletter, like the Chaffey Community Republican Women did - real fething racist.



You can't just pretend this stuff is equivalent to mocking Mitt for being rich and out of touch. Well, you can, but if you do it becomes obvious that you've got your head firmly planted in the sand.

Ironically, my coworkers and I at Social Security refer to our salaries in general, and any overtime in specific, as "Obama dollars." Then we found out that we were all hired out of stimulus money, and the joke got even funnier.

 Polonius wrote:

 Luco wrote:

Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.

If you have a hard time distinguishing between Italian-americans, and Irish-Americans, I'm not sure you're horribly interested in celebrating European culture.

I'm not sure how celebrating "white American" culture will differ in any meaningful way from any other celebration of American culture.

I mean, this is the point. Look at major US holidays. One celebrates the birth of a Jew, one civic holidy celebrates the birth of a black civil rights leader. The rest are pretty focused on the achievements of White people. Most notably the 4th, where all the principles where white guys. Veterans and Memorial Day are theoretically color blind, and I'm really not sure white veterans or war dead get shortchanged. The Labor movement was nearly all white. The presidents from president's day: white. Thanksgiving is about white pilgrims. St. Patrick's day is about drunk white people. Halloween is a very european holiday.

In the modern day and age there is very little difference. There were worlds of difference when both groups were new to the place, but now? Its roughly the same. There are no white ethnic neighborhoods here at any rate, maybe in the northeast or something. I'm probably mixed up at this point, but you can't celebrate white culture because its the celebration of having a stranglehold on power, yet we do it all the time but can't acknowledge them as white cultural celebrations?