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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering there's strong evidence Obama said the same earlier in his career -as evidenced by his book publisher et al- the argument is a little cloudy.

Is it? Is it really a little cloudy, here in 2014? We're still arguing that perhaps he's actually not an American?

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering there's strong evidence Obama said the same earlier in his career -as evidenced by his book publisher et al- the argument is a little cloudy.

Is it? Is it really a little cloudy, here in 2014? We're still arguing that perhaps he's actually not an American?

Nope its not cloudy now. We know he used it in the past. Big whup. Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.
EDIT: Personally I don't think that whole thing was racist, but it was looney. It was however stoked by the Obamas to make the teaparty look looney, and it worked wonders.

Again if thats all the poster has, the poster lost.

 Frazzled wrote:
Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.

Called it.

Called what?

 d-usa wrote:

Edit: In before "talking bad about the President is automatically racism" rant...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 10:14:00

Followed by

 Frazzled wrote:
Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.

Talking about how Obama is trying to destroy the American way of life doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about Obama being a socialist doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about Obama hanging out with known terrorists doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about how Obama is all talk and zero game doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.

Talking about how the black guy is not from here and really from Kenya...I'm going to put that in the "racially influenced" category of statements...

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Edit: In before "talking bad about the President is automatically racism" rant...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 10:14:00

Followed by

 Frazzled wrote:
Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.

Talking about how Obama is trying to destroy the American way of life doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about Obama being a socialist doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about Obama hanging out with known terrorists doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about how Obama is all talk and zero game doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.

Talking about how the black guy is not from here and really from Kenya...I'm going to put that in the "racially influenced" category of statements...

Then what do you call talking how McCain is not from here he's really from Panama?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Edit: In before "talking bad about the President is automatically racism" rant...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 10:14:00

Followed by

 Frazzled wrote:
Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.

Talking about how Obama is trying to destroy the American way of life doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about Obama being a socialist doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about Obama hanging out with known terrorists doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.
Talking about how Obama is all talk and zero game doesn't have to mean that the person is racist.

Talking about how the black guy is not from here and really from Kenya...I'm going to put that in the "racially influenced" category of statements...

Then what do you call talking how McCain is not from here he's really from Panama?

A non-issue, because it wasn't nearly as big as the whole Birther thing.

ITS THE SAME ARGUMENT.

 Frazzled wrote:
ITS THE SAME ARGUMENT.

But not in scale. The McCain thingie was just as silly/stupid/awful, but it didn't get anywhere near the same attention that the Birther "debate" did.

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Edit: In before "talking bad about the President is automatically racism" rant...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 10:14:00

Followed by

 Frazzled wrote:
Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.

But Frazz but forward a supposition, not a "rant". If it was ok to question McCain's citizenship then it should follow that his opponent should be open to the same line of questioning


And I, no I am not a birther, for anyone considering taking that avenue of argument.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that the two channels are not the exact same thing using the exact same tactics on the opposite end of the political spectrum is pretty indicative of people's own bias.

Well, if we take Pew at its word, they're not. Fox's opinion/factual reporting split is 55/45, while MSNBC's opinion/factual split 85/15.

You're going to find a lot more politically-motivated bs on MSNBC than you will on Fox. If Pew's to be taken at their word.

 Frazzled wrote:

Then what do you call talking how McCain is not from here he's really from Panama?

I would say that he was actually born in Panama, so it's not stupid and racist to question if he was born there. I would also say that citizenship laws are also pretty clear on him being born to American parents and on American soil.

We also know that Obama was born in the United States and that one of his parents is American. There is zero evidence of him being born in Kenya, so to suggest that he is not a citizen because he was born there has zero evidence going for it. You are not even questioning the citizenship laws on a possible technicality like you might with McCain, now they are just making crap up.

The two situations are not the same, even T-Bone could see that.

If you think that "hey, we know for a fact that McCain was born on a base in Panama. Does that conflict at all with the 'natural born' requirement of the Constitution? No? OK then..." and "Hey, we have zero evidence that Obama was born in Kenya but we are going to say that he is really African and can't be president" are the same thing then I have a bridge connecting Panama and Kenya to sell you.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


A non-issue, because it wasn't nearly as big as the whole Birther thing.

So you're saying McCain is Benghazi, and the Birther thing is Bridgegate?

Ba-dum ching!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Edit: In before "talking bad about the President is automatically racism" rant...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 10:14:00

Followed by

 Frazzled wrote:
Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.

But Frazz but forward a supposition, not a "rant". If it was ok to question McCain's citizenship then it should follow that his opponent should be open to the same line of questioning


And I, no I am not a birther, for anyone considering taking that avenue of argument.

How much evidence do we have that McCain was born in Panama?
How much evidence do we have that Obama was born in Kenya?

And it's not racist to question someones citizenship. It can be racist if you are questioning someones citizenship with zero evidenced to do so.

And I, no I am not a birther, for anyone considering taking that avenue of argument.

Nor am I. I am however an "eater." I will be rabidly eating red beans and rice with sausage and cheese from Treebeards in about five minutes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Edit: In before "talking bad about the President is automatically racism" rant...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 10:14:00

Followed by

 Frazzled wrote:
Others questioning him at the time doesn't make them racist, unless to question Obama is racist.

But Frazz but forward a supposition, not a "rant". If it was ok to question McCain's citizenship then it should follow that his opponent should be open to the same line of questioning


And I, no I am not a birther, for anyone considering taking that avenue of argument.

How much evidence do we have that McCain was born in Panama?
How much evidence do we have that Obama was born in Kenya?

And it's not racist to question someones citizenship. It can be racist if you are questioning someones citizenship with zero evidenced to do so.

Its more likely xenocist or some such (fear of foreign devils). If it were racist the questioning would have been a lot different.

And just because:



The news suck...

And just because...
http://twitchy.com/2014/01/30/you-fcking-borrowed-a-black-family-rep-huelskamps-photo-draws-out-hate/

‘You fething borrowed a black family?’ Rep. Huelskamp’s photo draws out hate

@michellemalkin Have you seen the comments on @CongHuelskamp post accusing him of borrowing a black family for his post?

—

C. Irwin (@Bookwormdearlor) January 30, 2014
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), responding to the #MyRightWingBiracialFamily hashtag that exploded after MSNBC’s hateful tweet about the Right and biracial families, tweeted this wonderful photo of his family:

It’s official–my ‘right-wing’ kids like the ad @MSNBC I think we know who the real bigots are. goo.gl/npIAt1 http://t.co/mi5cGyc1kP—
Cong. Tim Huelskamp (@CongHuelskamp) January 30, 2014

[whembly: here's and older pic... can't grab that one above for some reason]


Many of the comments about Huelskamp’s photo were complimentary, but one vile respondent accused him of “borrowing” a black family:

@CongHuelskamp you fething borrowed a black family for a photo op? What a dick!—
Sarah (@ojc1234) January 30, 2014

Though that was the most hateful and idiotic comment, it didn’t stop there:

@CongHuelskamp @msnbc Huelskamp is an ignorant bigot—
John R. (@JrebstockR) January 30, 2014

@CongHuelskamp ur a pathetic person using your children as shields..I put up videos everyday how racist+bigoted your party is+we are attacked—
(@blubarycroc) January 30, 2014

So now you’re bigoted for simply showing a picture of your family? If it contributes to destroying a bogus lib stereotype of the Right, absolutely.

@CongHuelskamp @msnbc Seriously? Why bring your family into this? What are you trying to prove? No reason for this. It wasn't about you.—
Letzy Etienne (@Letzyetienne) January 30, 2014

A tweet from MSNBC claims the Right doesn’t like biracial families, and Rep. Huelskamp (and many others) had to go ruin the lie with pictures. How dare they!

 d-usa wrote:
And just because:

]https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8028812544/h5B7DEFD6/

The news suck...

I'm sorry, what point are you trying to make with this?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And just because:

]https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8028812544/h5B7DEFD6/

The news suck...

I'm sorry, what point are you trying to make with this?

Just systematic racial bias across all news channels with these particular stories.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-word-thug-was-uttered-625-times-on-tv-yesterday-1506098319

 whembly wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They already apologized, and fired the guy responsible.

It took them less then 24 hours this time. I think the heads are starting to smarten up a bit about this.

And yet when someone writes a book calling all liberals treasonous, they get a regular show on Fox News.

I seriously disagree with the fact that MSNBC apologised for that, and the fact that Fox News et al. like to get all offended at tiny little statements like this is a massive hypocrisy.

You disagree with MSNBC calling right-wringers racist?

I disagree with the fact that they apologised for it.

They've done this massive overblown apology, with somone losing their livelihood over a tweet that probably took less than a minute to write, due to an overwhelming outrage at the mere notion that someone from the left might possibly be insulting the right wing, because the fact that a small social media worker for MSNBC made a slightly insulting tweet is unforgiveable, and she should be fired for insulting us because HOW DARE SHE!!

Ann Coulter writes a book, (over the course of months, one would assume) with the basic premise "all Liberals are, and have been for many years, treasonous and unpatriotic towards the US".

There is no backlash.
There are no calls for her to be fired.
There is no written apology from Fox News over the fact that she just called the entirety of the left treasonous.
Absolutely. Nothing. Happens.

Why? Does the right wing somehow have a monopoly on being allowed to insult their idealogical opponents? Do they have some sort of monopoly on being outraged? Because this crap happensfairly often, and it's ridiculous; somehow people like Fox News are allowed to get away with making statements or accusations that, had they been made by someone on the left such as MSNBC, they would be calling for firings or removals from public office.

That is what I'm annoyed with.

 d-usa wrote:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-word-thug-was-uttered-625-times-on-tv-yesterday-1506098319

I don't follow sports, but the issue seems to be that people are upset because an athlete declared he was the best he was at what he does?

I don't get the outrage, Wolverine's been doing that since the mid 70s, bub.

 Goliath wrote:
Ann Coulter writes a book, (over the course of months, one would assume) with the basic premise "all Liberals are, and have been for many years, treasonous and unpatriotic towards the US".

There is no backlash.
There are no calls for her to be fired.

You might want to fact check yourself a bit.

You just made me cut my finger while making a screamer from laughing. I must begrudgingly give you an exalt.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-word-thug-was-uttered-625-times-on-tv-yesterday-1506098319

I don't follow sports, but the issue seems to be that people are upset because an athlete declared he was the best he was at what he does?

I don't get the outrage, Wolverine's been doing that since the mid 70s, bub.

I don't understand the outrage either...

This interview happened seconds after the game ended, and you wanna interview a player on his own turf after their victory?

How could they not be amped up? o.O

 Ouze wrote:


I don't get the outrage, Wolverine's been doing that since the mid 70s, bub.

I wouldn't hold Wolverine up as a shining example of anything. Some of us don't have a very high opinion of him.

Meh, the way Sherman was called "thug" in the aftermath of the NFC Championship might have some racial connotations for some people (I'm sure some people were using it racially), but I think trying to turn thug into purely a racist term is too far.

For example I have a feeling people would, for example use a**, or sh*t****, fethinga-hole, to describe Sherman, but those aren't acceptable on TV, radio, or in print.

I know of plenty of people who called Sherman (and many other football players of all races) thugs because of how they acted on the football field towards other players. I called Sherman a thug well over a year ago, and it had nothing to do with skin color, and had everything to do with the fact that, from the moment the game started, he would:

- push and shove players after the play was over
- talk smack constantly
- then back off and pretend he was an innocent little angel when the receivers would start responding and pushing back
- oh and then there's the whole thing where he was taking adderall, escaped getting suspended because someone mishandled his pee, and yet the whole time he tells everyone who would listen that he was the best corner in the game, ALL WHILE EVERYONE KNEW HE WAS USING ADDERALL.

Sherman IS a dirty player on the field (he sounds like a nice person off the field though). Luckily for him, the man is ridiculously skilled too, so many people turn a blind eye to his antics.

And no one would call Bieber a thug because he's more often called something related to female genetalia and cats. Which in of itself is fairly sexist.

 Goliath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They already apologized, and fired the guy responsible.

It took them less then 24 hours this time. I think the heads are starting to smarten up a bit about this.

And yet when someone writes a book calling all liberals treasonous, they get a regular show on Fox News.

I seriously disagree with the fact that MSNBC apologised for that, and the fact that Fox News et al. like to get all offended at tiny little statements like this is a massive hypocrisy.

You disagree with MSNBC calling right-wringers racist?

I disagree with the fact that they apologised for it.

They've done this massive overblown apology, with somone losing their livelihood over a tweet that probably took less than a minute to write, due to an overwhelming outrage at the mere notion that someone from the left might possibly be insulting the right wing, because the fact that a small social media worker for MSNBC made a slightly insulting tweet is unforgiveable, and she should be fired for insulting us because HOW DARE SHE!!

Ann Coulter writes a book, (over the course of months, one would assume) with the basic premise "all Liberals are, and have been for many years, treasonous and unpatriotic towards the US".

There is no backlash.
There are no calls for her to be fired.
There is no written apology from Fox News over the fact that she just called the entirety of the left treasonous.
Absolutely. Nothing. Happens.

Why? Does the right wing somehow have a monopoly on being allowed to insult their idealogical opponents? Do they have some sort of monopoly on being outraged? Because this crap happensfairly often, and it's ridiculous; somehow people like Fox News are allowed to get away with making statements or accusations that, had they been made by someone on the left such as MSNBC, they would be calling for firings or removals from public office.

That is what I'm annoyed with.

So its ok to be racist? Like I said MSNBC is the bar where the lefty reporters hang out and get drunk at.

 Seaward wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Ann Coulter writes a book, (over the course of months, one would assume) with the basic premise "all Liberals are, and have been for many years, treasonous and unpatriotic towards the US".

There is no backlash.
There are no calls for her to be fired.

You might want to fact check yourself a bit.

Well unfortunately my google search didn't find anything at all critical of her book, and I'm fairly moderate so don't really hang out on overly liberal sites, so didn't see any.

That doesn't change the fact that she still has a job...

So in your world if you disagree with someone, its ok to be racist. Gotcha.

 Frazzled wrote:
So its ok to be racist? Like I said MSNBC is the bar where the lefty reporters hang out and get drunk at.

How is that in any way what I wrote? I'm not saying it's okay to be racist. I'm saying that maybe there should be a bit more backlash when the right does something.