"But in the meantime, when they make these remarks, it makes it harder for those of us who are trying to grow the base of our party."
Don't worry, kids. The bad ones are dying off. Please hang on for another 15 or 20 years, and we won't be toxic anymore. See ya then!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२१ टिप्पण्या:
The modern age is constructed entirely of tripwires.
Anyway wetbacks would be dry by the time they reach Alaska.
The Rio Grande is thousands of miles away.
Young is a part of the Murkowski crowd, the ones Sarah Palin fought.
Interesting the WaPo doesn't mention.
In Flower Drum Song the wetback is Chinese.
I think Joe Biden's multiple slurs indicate a problem with the Democratic party.
When will he be extinct? Because he's been in "public service" longer than a lot of voting adults.
I wonder if authors of that dreck, Aaron Blake and Juliet Eilperin, ever bother to wonder if Democrats ever say anything that would be considered a slur?
Or would that be too uncomfortable to think about?
But, polygamy!
Young, 79, set off a fresh round of recriminations and hand-wringing among Republican leaders while talking about the people his father employed on his California ranch years ago.
“We used to hire 50 or 60 wetbacks and — to pick tomatoes,” Young said in the interview with KRBD. “You know, it takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine.”
...
Republican consultant John Weaver said the comment “hurts us,” describing Young as “a dinosaur on the bridge of political insanity and irrelevance.”
“Republicans like him will soon be extinct, and that’s a good thing for the GOP,” Weaver said. “But in the meantime, when they make these remarks, it makes it harder for those of us who are trying to grow the base of our party.”
Indeed.
But it doesn't matter how much we grovel and distance ourselves from this formerly little well known representative. Young is now the face of the republican party!
The media are going to milk this one. Remember, Young said it so we all must pay. We are all guilty. Our punishment? One party rule, Pelosi, Reid, corruption, waste, fraud..."we have to pass it to find out what's it." and all that.
Thanks for playing.
Why is a 79 year old representing anyone in any district? The in-it-for-life representation must end.
Strange, how come the Left's unhinged extremists idiotic blatherings are NEVER held up as the face of the Democrats by the LameStream Media©?
Seems to be just a wee bit of a double standard at work here.
Shocking, I know.
How come when you utter a slur you aren't slurring your speech?
Is this anything but proof that this ancient guy should have put out to pasture a long time ago?
The GOP has excellent phone fundraisers. One of them called yesterday. I wonder how they hire them. What is their compensation? Or are they volunteers?
May 27, 2012 Sharpton suggests Republicans want to 'wipe out' black people
Feb 22, 2013 – On Thursday, President Obama spoke to Al Sharpton during his radio show, ...
Still waiting for some Democratic disavowel.
It looks like the GOP's outreach program is facing a few hiccups. Maybe it's time to get a new outreach coordinator. Perhaps they can hire Alan Keyes? He's probably available.
This is the guy that Palin tried to get primaried out. Did the article mention that?
We do need to get rid of big spending dead wood like him.
Kevin asked: "Strange, how come the Left's unhinged extremists idiotic blatherings are NEVER held up as the face of the Democrats by the LameStream Media©?"
The Media are part of the Left. And more importantly, they ARE NOT observers, the media are political participants. They have an agenda and work to promote the Left and tear down their political opponents. They will not cover the slurs and prejudices of the Left.
SOooo.....President Eisenhower was committing a racial slur in 1954 when his Administration & the INS created a plan to remove illegal immigrants and send them back called "Operation Wetback?" Or was Admiral Halsey a "racist" in WW II when he proclaimed that his overriding duty was to "kill JAPS?"
What we have her is unadulterated PC, nothing more, nothing less..
The times may change, but the facts don't. Swim across a river to illegally enter the US and the odds that someone will tag you with the name "wetback" are pretty high..
It looks like the GOP's outreach program is facing a few hiccups.
No. It's just the media's fault for transcribing what Young said. The media never would have reported the "wetback" slur if, say, Obama said it.
Still waiting for some Democratic disavowel.
When will democrats like this die ? They won't, they're different, special dispensation and all of that rubbish. I wonder, is Barry still a " clean, well spoken " individual, and are all convenience stores still owned by "Indians " ?
Ah, it doesn't matter, those "bitter, clingers" are all racists anyhow, right ?. Good grief.
Good point, Garage. I forgot that lesson from Camp Alinsky. Boy, I miss the campfire games we did there.
Why can't the Republican Party just respond to this by saying, this is not nearly as bad as what Joe Biden has said and then say nothing after that. End of story. It's the groveling that extends the story. St*u.
@Althouse, it would be nice if you really were as open-minded and cruelly neutral as you think you are.
If deep blue Madison, WI, is anything like deep blue Montgomery County, MD, then you'd hear hard core Democrat politicians offering up slurs, including racial slurs when they don't see any black skins in the room. The media gives them a pass, and so do you.
MSNBC reaches ridiculous new low with their race obsession.
Blinded by the white.
Freaks. No different than the "wetbacks" slur.
Lets first stipulate that calling someone a wetback isn't a good idea politically.
But lets also remember that Joe Biden made these comments about Indians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIT3jUrNTX0
And he's the VP now, for what will be 8 years. So you can say racist things and still hold a position of power (and in fact in his case get promoted)... if you're a democrat.
"I apologize for the insensitive term I used during an interview in Ketchikan, Alaska. There was no malice in my heart or intent to offend; it was a poor choice of words. That word, and the negative attitudes that come with it, should be left in the 20th century, and I’m sorry that this has shifted our focus away from comprehensive immigration reform."
That's a pretty good apology, I'm inclined to shrug and let it go. But yeah, that's part of the curse of the GOP. It's the party of self-involvement IMO.
Strange, how come the Left's unhinged extremists idiotic blatherings are NEVER held up as the face of the Democrats by the LameStream Media©?
Victim victim victim.
It's the media's fault.
Hillary Clinton's slur against Indians
Hillary Clinton's slur against Indians
Man are you guys just fucking dumb.
The reason Republicans lost had more to do with women voting against them 55-45 than any transgression of PC the other side huffs about.
Why is that? Mainly a perception by women that Democrats are free of Right to Life zealots trying to control their bodies and Democrats as the ones that will look after their economic welfare better and also help their security by avoiding all the wars Republican neocons want us to embark on.
Also..ignore the blacks ...they are pretty much a lost cause except for a 10-15% share the Republicans can woo...
Making Latinos and what used to be called "Reagan Democrats 30+ years ago but now is any hard-working group of skilled and semi-skilled working wage-earning people of any color in cities and towns where the Elites transferred the jobs to China and India vs. Japan of 30+ years ago - the most important next group the Republicans need to woo.
And for them, it is not Republicans are anti immigrant that counts most...it is that they are the Party of Tax Cuts for the Rich and Free Trade.
Not the Party for them.
Democrats pander to the Rich as well, but doesn't hold them up as people to be worshipped. And while also culpable of destroying US jobs to serve the profits of globalist elites, don't use Social Darwinist rhetoric like Republicans do. And tell all the people that do lose jobs to Republican and Dem Elites offshoring - that they can fall back on government.
Being the Party of Stupid means laughing at the people Reagan once cultivated with quotas on the Japs products, and extolling unions like the one he once headed as essential to protect workers from rapacious fatcats.
Man are you guys just fucking dumb.
Truman and Johnson called negroes "niggers" all their lives, and the two of them did more for the black people of this country than the rest of our presidents combined.
"Wetback," though now very un-PC, was half a jocular term to those of us in "wetback country" back then. There indeed need not have been any offense intended.
Back in the 70's I worked in Arizona for a couple of years with a lot of Mexican-American immigrants who had become citizens. Even they referred to the illegals (not nearly as many back then) as wetbacks.
Still waiting for some Democratic disavowal
Can Garage, somefeller or phx mention an elected Democratic politician's statement they have or would disavow?
Oddly enough, both Truman and Johnson has just about vanished from Democrat memory - much like Stalin's commissars.
Oh you found another guy to be dumb with you.
Oh you found another guy to be dumb with you.
Huh???
Why the heck doesn't the Democrat party become toxic when some dummy like Biden opens his mouth? No... he becomes VP.
You forgive foibles for whom you desire to forgive foibles.
And I can't control *you*.
(For a general "you", and stipulating that I wouldn't want to control you if I could, but I can't.)
Yes, and if Palin opposed this guy and supported a challenger, I think that's news. It's certainly *relevant* to the essential claim/implication that this guy represents Republicans.
Phil 3:14 said...
Can Garage, somefeller or phx mention an elected Democratic politician's statement they have or would disavow?
Surely you jest.
phx isn't capable of thinking of anything outside of "Republicans are dumb and politically extinct"
See, phx is a Democrat, and Democrats are good.
That makes phx good.
Isn't that swell?
Synova said...
Yes, and if Palin opposed this guy and supported a challenger, I think that's news. It's certainly *relevant* to the essential claim/implication that this guy represents Republicans.
No Synova. We're supposed to mock Palin and all she stands for. And we're supposed to cheer the blogger who attacked her and support his decency crusade. That's what I observed going on here, at least, over the years.
Here's what I think a lot you don't get.
If you're a Republican you best handle it a couple of ways. 1) "He needs to retire. He speaks for himself" 2) "I know it's unpopular but that was a good apology. I don't like what he said but I'm willing to forgive."
Some of you chose 1 - good for you, I respect that.
Others were so predictable: "It's the media's fault. Look how Dems get away with everything.
The party of personal accountability has a whole bunch of people who don't believe in personal accountability.
It seems that conservatives, or whatever it is that they are now, go through some phase of unwittingly expressing their true colors.
Just last week SC State Rep. Kris Crawford, an ER doctor, supported Medicare expansion to his state yet openly admitted he voted against it because President Obama's a black man.
Now we have Wetbackgate.
Considering their popularity among minorities runs a close second to gonorrhea, you'd think they'd have a clue.
I just want to know if Guam has tipped over yet from over population.
Has it?
Ronald Ward: "It seems that conservatives, or whatever it is that they are now, go through some phase of unwittingly expressing their true colors."
Ronald's comment demonstrates what most of our complaints are.
Every comment by any conservative/Republican/Christian etc is laid at the feet of every other conservative/Republican/Christian etc and the left positively asserts that each of these comments accurately reflect the real thinking/motivation of every conservative/Republican/Christian etc.
Whereas, with liberals/leftists/Democrats/Non-Christians that rule is never applied.
That is the complaint.
So what do the libs do when you point that out?
Well, they do what they always do: they pretend the substance of the complaint is the media simply reported what was said by the conservative/Republican/Christian etc.
It's pretty basic and transparently obvious.
Thankfully for dems, Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy died, cleaning out all their bad folks.
phx wroteOthers were so predictable: "It's the media's fault. Look how Dems get away with everything.
The party of personal accountability has a whole bunch of people who don't believe in personal accountability
what's predictable is that you would go here. This is in fact your go to point anytime there is any discusssion of how the media and dems hold republicans to a differnt standard. Why not address that point.
You'll find, for example, that in my point, I opened with the idea that calling people "wet backs" was a losing political strategy, one he might not recover from. Thats' not making excuses, that's saying it was a bone headed point.
That being said, so is telling an Indian that to go to any 7 11's you have to have an Indian accent.
And he is the VP of the country.
It didn't seem to stop him.
So, we can can have two conversations at one time. One being about the stupid comments of politicians. Two the double standard that seems to hold republicans to a different standard.
This doesn't make it ok to call people wet backs. But it does suggest that the media and the left are a bunch of hypocrites.
@Third Coast $ Hagar/
There was a Mexican-American Vietnam era fighter pilot who referred to himself as "The Supersonic Wetback" and appeared as a fictional subject based upon him in a novel about that war..
Cedarford..
Sadly most ignore the fact that the Unions have become the rapacious fatcats.
So, we can can have two conversations at one time.
No, YOU can have two conversations at one time. I don't do that. Having one conversation about a guy who spoke foolishly is enough. Trying to drag in the OTHER side who ALSO spoke foolishly is deflection; garage likes to accurately portray it as "but but but...what about...??". Classless. No character.
When the conversation turns to someone saying something really stupid who happens to be a Democrat, you will NEVER see me saying "but but but....what about???"
If I do you have a right to call me out on my lack of class and character.
It's that simple.
phx wrote
No, YOU can have two conversations at one time. I don't do that. Having one conversation about a guy who spoke foolishly is enough. Trying to drag in the OTHER side who ALSO spoke foolishly is deflection; garage likes to accurately portray it as "but but but...what about...??". Classless. No character.
When the conversation turns to someone saying something really stupid who happens to be a Democrat, you will NEVER see me saying "but but but....what about???"
Because there isn't that double standard on your side when a democrat speaks. Of course you wont have that conversation, because the media will treat the instance differently. That's the whole point.
Of course you wont have that conversation
As far as I can see, over several disagreements with you, that's the ONLY conversation you will have.
I said what I thought about that - it shows at best a lack of understanding of the rules of argumentation, at worst a lack of character and class.
I'm not discussing it with YOU anymore.
I wonder what the percentage of media time is spent exposing actual actions, and policy outcomes compared to just reporting the crap that comes out of peoples' mouths.
This obsession with words really irks us who make our living entirely by what we produce, tangible results, delivered benefit. If we don't give you what we promised, you don't pay us, and then you go to someone who will. Words alone will not fix that. Nobody wants your damned apology. Crying foul and dissing the competition is weak sauce here, but maybe I live in Bizarro World.
From the article that Althouse posted:
“There is always a market in the media for the craziest thing a Republican said today,” said GOP consultant Ed Rogers. “. . . That is why Republicans have to be extra careful.”
Do you deny that point? That's the medias game. Tie the gaffe of the day to all Republicans by the media looking to peg all republicans as racist. In fact, isnt' that the premise of the whole article. that republicans are racist and trying to escape their racist past but it's difficult because of these latest quotes.
If you weren't racist, you wouldn't need to escape your racist past.
So, this whole article is a setup.
I'll take the guy that calls me a cracker, nigger, wetback, faggot, kike, dike, or gook, but keeps his promises, over the lying thief who "respects" me.
phx wrote:
As far as I can see, over several disagreements with you, that's the ONLY conversation you will have.
I said what I thought about that - it shows at best a lack of understanding of the rules of argumentation, at worst a lack of character and class.
Don't talk to me about saying the same thing in all your conversations. Where have you once EVER addressed the bias of the media?
Your whole shtick anytime that point was brought up is "boo hoo, stop whining republicans" Over and over and over.
Don't talk to me about saying the same thing in all your conversations. Where have you once EVER addressed the bias of the media?
Your whole shtick anytime that point was brought up is "boo hoo, stop whining republicans" Over and over and over.
I just spelled the whole thing out for you and you still don't understand it.
Less time on the internet and at Althouse for you. Go read a book. Something on "How to Think Clearly".
Then come back and we'll talk.
Lets go back to Jays initial point:
I think Joe Biden's multiple slurs indicate a problem with the Democratic party.
When will he be extinct? Because he's been in "public service" longer than a lot of voting adults.
Do you think there will ever be an article writeen about Joe Biden's ethnic slurs indicating a problem with the democratic party, not written by Red State or a right wing web site?
Because Joe Biden has made many an ethnic slur.
The point being, the media does not pose the argument that way. Yet it does for republicans. Over and over and over and over and over.
Sorry if you're too stupid or biased to notice it, phx. That's while we'll notice it for you.
If you want to talk about how calling someone a wetback is racist or bad PR, I've already agreed with you. You want me to go along with pegging republicans as the racist party? FUCK YOU.
If you're a Republican you best handle it a couple of ways. 1) "He needs to retire. He speaks for himself" 2) "I know it's unpopular but that was a good apology. I don't like what he said but I'm willing to forgive." - phx @11:23
I understand it fine PHX. You want me to accept the narrative that the left is writing and reporting about the right as the racists and the bigots. And you want republicans to answer for any statements made by republicans anywhere. And any questioning of the narrative posed by the left that suggests its a political narrative designed to assault the left's enemies and not objective in the least will be met with you saying "stop complaining and accept the narrative you bigots".
Go screw yourself.
There is absolutely no way to stop the Democrats' egalitarian war on American liberty as long as the Republican establishment remains embarrassed by its base of traditional straight white Americans. The only war that counts at this moment is the war within the party. If the party's candidate for president in 2016 is Ted Cruz or Rand Paul there will be some, not much but some hope. If the candidate is another Bush or some other squish...well, then Althouse will be in paradise.
Face it. You can't understand the concepts.
The fact is that the GOP has much more to prove (and much more room for improvement) when it comes to minority outreach. And you don’t have to look too far into the past to find instances of prominent Republicans taking pretty hard-line and often bluntly stated positions against the issues which gay people and Latinos care about most — same-sex marriage and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
That recent history isn’t going to be forgotten any time soon, which places a much greater onus on the party to watch what it says and how it says it.
Notice how in this article the non bigoted positions are a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and the legalization of gay marriage. Otherwise republicans are bigots. Excuse me, but that is the leftist position. just because lefties want such things done, doens't make you a bigot for opposing lefties positions. And yet this article is posited as some objective article about the Archie Bunkers in the republican party.
So, lets first acknowledge that the reporting is biased before we get to any apologizing republicans need to do. Assuming that a pathway to citizenship for illegal Immigrants is the only position you can have lest you be a racist, is not objective reporting but biased statement that just so happens to conform to the democratic position. ergo,those republicans who dont assume that position are racist because they don't hold the right position. It's racial politics disguised as reporting or an editorial. Why can I not point out the bias? It's so readily apparent.
in the case of the wetbacks comment, he (Young) should apologize. it was an insensitive comment. And that's it. He speaks for himself.
The larger point stands. Why not address that.
Synova says:Yes, and if Palin opposed this guy and supported a challenger, I think that's news. It's certainly *relevant* to the essential claim/implication that this guy represents Republicans.
Yes, because the most important detail in any GOP politician's life is his relationship with Sarah Palin. She is the center of the universe and all must be judged by their relationship with her. And that needs to be in the first paragraph of the story or it shows liberal media bias!
What is pretty darn clear (thank you Ronald) is that Democrats don't want to talk about ideas, they want to win. And the best way to win is to insist that any time a Republican says something stupid it's "revealing their true colors" and any time a Democrat says something stupid... make him the VP because good-will is assumed.
It's a blatant policy to appeal to the lowest possible denominator in order to win, portraying all ideas as either "good" or "bad/racist" without ever having to win in the realm of the ideas themselves.
Who gives a shit if unemployment and underemployment and the number of people who have given up entirely has remained constant since 2008, who cares if no one "gets to keep their health insurance" if they like it, who cares if the world is a less peaceful place, who cares if we've decided as a nation that depressed navel gazing is the height of virtue, who cares?
It's about destruction.
And winning.
Somefeller... you're not that dumb.
So knock it off.
Hey Synova, it's you and the other Palin obsessives who brought her up in a story unrelated to her and said Young's relationship with her was an important part of The Real Story.
If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't be ridiculous.
somefeller - the point is you attempt to paint all Republicans with the racist-brush by association. Sarah Palin campaigned to oust Don Young, and she gets no credit for it? She's a racist anyways right?
Palin obsessives reside on the left, somefeller. Ever since she dared question and criticize your messiah, she moved into your heads.
Oh holy eternal Palin H8ers.
The fact that Palin wanted to primary Young is worth mentioning. Unless you think it isn't.
MSNBC uses 'Blinded by the White' graphic to paint GOP as too lily-white
Hey April, it wasn't the liberals who mentioned her here. It's her dwindling and desperate followers in a subset of the right that have her on their mind all the time. The rest of America has moved on.
And on that note, do you think Palin will get another reality TV deal? Because if there's one thing America needs, it's another reality TV show.
Anyways, between Dr. Carson's homophobia and Don Young's racist slurs, the GOP had a very bad week. The media can successfully paint them as the face of the GOP instead of Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio.
somefeller - the fact that you feel someone in this thread needs to be ridiculed shows your lack of character. Ridicule is something to be used a lats resort, once engaged in there is no going back.
phx said...
When the conversation turns to someone saying something really stupid who happens to be a Democrat, you will NEVER see me saying "but but but....what about???"
Hilarious.
Um, actually, you will never, ever, criticize any Democrat in any manner, shape, or form.
That, you nitwit, is the point.
You coming here and pretending that you somehow are interested in criticizing dumb statements, or slurs, from any elected politician is silly and obscene.
Pointing out your hypocrisy on this matter is the point.
Watching you admit you can't have 2 conversations at once is fun though.
The reason why Biden's racial slurs don't matter as much is simple: He's the VP of a President who is black. It's hard to claim that a political party that nominated a black man for President is deeply racist. It's hard to believe that a black President wouldn't discipline a racist on his staff. So gaffes are excused as slips of the tongue, not representative of policy.
The GOP, on the other hand, has done nothing to dispel the notion that bigotry is a problem with them. What Dr. Carson said is less important than the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) refusing to invite GOProud, a group of young gay conservatives.
And if you think that is just an isolated incident, conservative blogs are chock-full of commenters who routinely refer to gays as "homos," "pervs," "perverts," "deviant," "mentally ill," "disabled," "biological failures," etc.
Obama is referred to as "Nappy," "Buckwheat," etc.
I see that stuff on National Review Online and PJ Media and other blogs all the time.
And it's often gratuitous. We start out having a serious discussion about whether the Defense of Marriage Act is consistent with the principle of federalism. It doesn't take long before the discussion devolves into denouncing gays as alleged perverts and pedophiles, and describing in lurid detail how two gay men may engage in sexual relations.
My pleas to conservatives to call out these bigots fall on deaf ears.
sinz.. you are absolutely right. I see those comments on Hotair.com all the time. Long time users who say the nastiest things about gays and never get banned by Malkin.
Fundamentally conservatives can't help but cause themselves to go politically extinct. They feel in their hearts that gays are perverts, they can change that feeling.
Somefeller wrote: Yes, because the most important detail in any GOP politician's life is his relationship with Sarah Palin. She is the center of the universe and all must be judged by their relationship with her. And that needs to be in the first paragraph of the story or it shows liberal media bias!
For an arch-Sullivanist like yourself, I can understand why Palin still chafes. She reminds you of your own vile bigoted behavior which most fortunately is still out there to bring up again and again.
Would you feel better if I called you a McGinnissist?
You coming here and pretending that you somehow are interested in criticizing dumb statements, or slurs, from any elected politician is silly and obscene.
When tha fuck did I ever say that?
Knock yourself out, chickelit. I know you like to make your lists and check them twice.
And as I said, it was the obsessive Bieber, I mean Palin, fans who brought her up here and do so elsewhere. The rest of us (including Republicans who actually can do or want to do something useful with their lives) have moved on and only think of her if someone else mentions her or we want an easy punch line.
But hey, maybe she can get another reality TV gig and you can have something to look forward to!
somefeller, if you ridiculed me, I didn't notice.
Palin isn't mainstream Republican but she was a favorite speaker at CPAC (also not mainstream) and the Tea Party, or at least Tea Party sentiment, is far from waning.
Are you going to argue (or insist, because I certainly don't expect anything other than mere insistence) that Paul and Cruz are without influence? That "branch" of the Republican party... which includes Palin... is dismissed as pointless because opponents *want* to ignore them.
I would think that the simple, and obvious, point is that the Republican Party is not homogeneous. And that, as I said, if the implication is (and assertion is) that this individual or that individual "reveals the true nature" of the Republican party, that the existence of opposition is a legitimate part of the story.
Except it's not the story you want to hear.
I thought more of you.
sinz52 wrote:
The reason why Biden's racial slurs don't matter as much is simple: He's the VP of a President who is black. It's hard to claim that a political party that nominated a black man for President is deeply racist. It's hard to believe that a black President wouldn't discipline a racist on his staff. So gaffes are excused as slips of the tongue, not representative of policy.
That's dumb. Just because Romney became the guy that was nominated doens't mean that there were non white people in the running who could have won but didn't. Herman Cain had support for a while until he was undone by his foot in his mouth faux pas on his affairs. And Mccain nominated what would have been the first female vp would he have won.So it would have been almost as historic as "the first black president"
Circumstances determined the winner not intent to only put up white guys on the part of repubs.
And Palin's opposition to this particular candidate shows pretty clearly that he is on the "reasonable" old-school side of non-radicals in the Republican Party.
The sort we're supposed to LIKE while we scoff and scorn the Tea Party, Palin, Rand or Cruz.
On the democratic side, most of the candidates were white who ran against Obama.
Also Palin keeps her mouth shut on homosexuals. She does talk up traditional marriage, but doesn't feel the need to engage in hate speech. She's smarter then people give her credit for.
I love the way you jumped over to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz there, Synova. Even more of a tangent.
But I see your point. Any time a story mentions a GOP politician, his relationship with Sarah Palin must be mentioned, regardless of the topic of the story. Because of Ted Cruz. And the Tea Party. Or something.
Anyway, keep up the good work. That fan club won't continue without your support!
sinz52 wrote:
And if you think that is just an isolated incident, conservative blogs are chock-full of commenters who routinely refer to gays as "homos," "pervs," "perverts," "deviant," "mentally ill," "disabled," "biological failures," etc.
Obama is referred to as "Nappy," "Buckwheat," etc.
I see that stuff on National Review Online and PJ Media and other blogs all the time.
You're talking about commentors on websites, not words of politicians. And two can play that game. Have you read some of the comments on democratic underground, for instance? If we're talking about the internet you will have people who say crazy outlandish things that they probably wouldnt say.
And they are often plants. Look at Alex, on these boards. You can't tell what he is becuase he keeps rotating his commentary to be left and right. People will often say things on internet sites as a member of the other side who are there simply to stoke outrage.
My pleas to conservatives to call out these bigots fall on deaf ears.
They do get "called out"; I do it in the comments here all the time. But it fits the narrative better to pretend that political conservatism is hopelessly tainted with bigotry, so have at it.
Palladian - given CPAC snubbed GOProud, why do you stick with this party that hates you and equates homosexuality with bestiality? Do you have no self-respect?
Alex wrote:
Also Palin keeps her mouth shut on homosexuals. She does talk up traditional marriage, but doesn't feel the need to engage in hate speech. She's smarter then people give her credit for.
That's because you can have a principled objection to gay marriage and not "hate fags". Those that are saying they hate fags are bigots.
But even here there is some room to play with. if you say you think that homosexuality is deviant behavior it's technically true depenindg on how you use the word "deviant". But if you make that statement as simply differentiating gayness from heterosexuality which is the norm (.ie. deviates from the norm) , it's not necessarily hating gays. If you say you hate fags and wish people would kill them, that's bigoted speech.
A lot of times words that are not hate speech are conflated as hate speech and its the issue of the person who is outraged at the speech that is the problem and not the speech itself. Because language is so politicized.
Alex, your routine is almost... touching at this point.
Oh I get it.
If I so much as *mention* Sarah Palin I'm a fan club member to be ignored.
When all I said was that it was important to the implication that this guy represented the Republican party as a whole... that he DOESN'T.
I don't have to even LIKE her to understand that what she represents in the Republican party OPPOSES what this other guy represents.
And the ideology that Palin represents, no matter how unimportant she might be personally, is the ideology Cruz and Rand represent.
When you go on about fan clubs you are projecting a left-political love affair with personalities.
I don't have to be a fan girl in order to notice that Palin exists.
The opposite of hating her with the blazing fire of a thousand suns is not being president of her fan club. Oh... and just in case you weren't clear on reality... thinking it ought to be mentioned that this guy faced opposition within the party is not "And that needs to be in the first paragraph of the story or it shows liberal media bias!" nor anything resembling what I actually said.
I believe there is a term for the logical fallacy of making sh*t up in an argument.
I think that term is "lying."
Palladian said...
Alex, your routine is almost... touching at this point.
If J were here he'd call Alex a wichsen perp.
Anyone who has been around this blog knows I'm no plant. I've been posting here since 2007.
Synova - don't let one twerp make you feel bad. All you need to know is that his media outlet MSNBC is swirling the drain and can only survive with infusion payments from George Soros. That tells you far left-wing ideas have failed in the marketplace.
Now that I think about it, every article about a GOP politician needs to discuss his relationship with another important Tea Party celebrity - Ted Nugent. Does the Nuge like him? Has he gone bowhunting with the Nuge? These questions must be addressed to properly frame the story in a Tea Party / internal GOP machinations context, or else you aren't getting The Real Story. Context, people!
When all I said was that it was important to the implication that this guy represented the Republican party as a whole... that he DOESN'T.
I don't think any grownups are disagreeing. I don't think anyone in this thread said he represented the Republican party.
Expect that your opponents are grownups and maybe they will be. You won't have to be arguing shit that isn't relevant.
somefeller - no it's douchebags like you that would have us believe the GOP is all about a few washed up celebs like Nugent. Yeah let's forget that Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Nicki Haley exist.
phx - just wait until Ritmo shows up.
"Expect that your opponents are grownups and maybe they will be."
How about people act like grown ups simply for their own personal self respect?
Synova - agreed. But then again you get the Titus-types.
Gook is the Korean word for people. They call themselves Hangooks, meaning people of the Han River. They Call Americans Migooks. There is nothing derogatory about that word in Korea.
Expect that your opponents are grownups and maybe they will be.
Not hardly likely, sonny. Not hardly likely.
lol. And the race war against Straight White Christian Males and their culture continues. Note the language: "they will be extinct." Dehumanizing, as if preparing others to murder them as if they weren't human.
These days, the Klan is looking less and less like the "greatest evil in America" and more like a sensible idea for white people to join.
Perhaps the Turner Diaries were on to something.
"Expect that your opponents are grownups and maybe they will be."
Tried it. Didn't work.
I'm not talking to people who don't want to accept the responsibility for their own evolution - you know, people who want to blame others for the childish way they argue. "Dems made me do it." "It's not my fault, it's the Rethugs."
Phx,
A lot of us notice a bias in the media when these types of stories are reported and want to talk about that, in addition to, or as a separate conversation from the initial topic.
You can ingore others bringing up the point, or you can weigh in on whether you think the point is wrong.
But us bringing up an ancillary topic relevant to the initial topic doesnt make us childish. You seem to be having a tantrum trying to derail the conversation.
So, to reiterate.The guy calling people wetbacks was wrong and should apologize and doesnt' reflect, except to lefties, the whole republican party. Done.
Next topic. Media bias and the double standard that the media and dems seem to place on repubs but not on dems that we seem to notice, even if you don't. care to talk about it?
I don't think any grownups are disagreeing. I don't think anyone in this thread said he represented the Republican party.
The article in question seems to be making the implication. Are you saying that they aren't in fact grownups?
By the way, I had heard the term wetback and assumed it was an insult but I wasn't sure what it meant.
Here's the definition: Jump to: navigation, search Wetback is a derogatory term used in the United States, for a non-American foreigner, commonly a Mexican citizen, especially one who is an illegal immigrant in the U.S.[1]
Generally used as an ethnic slur,[2] the term was originally coined and applied only to Mexicans who entered Texas by crossing the Rio Grande river, which is located at the Mexican border,[3] presumably by swimming or wading across and getting wet in the process.
So basically it's caling someone an illegal immigrant who crosedd the Rio Grande River on the way here and got their backs wet swimming across the water.
I'm not arguing that it's not a derogatory slur. Is it a racist slur though? not sure. But lets stipulate, (as I already have) That you shouldn't call people wetbacks.
Is it ok to call dumb whites rednecks? That strikes me as a very similar type of derogatory term. It describes an uneducated white farm laborer who's neck is red from being outdoors farming all the time. and hes Ingorant and DUMB! and white. and did I mention, dumb!
So, can we call white people rednecks? Do we call any other farm workers who aren't white rednecks? That sounds like a racial term.
Now, I know PLENTY of people that have called white people rednecks including me. But I have to rethink my position on this. That is a racial slur agianst white people!
SO, anyone who has ever uttered that word including Jeff Foxworthy should be forced to apologize.
"a racial slur agianst white people!"
You can try to jump on that bandwagon, jr, but (a) I don't think it's a good idea, and (b) you're not going to get a good seat.
There are three problems with illegal alien activists and their American patrons. First, they do not acknowledge that they displace American men, women, and children at work, school, and throughout society. Second, they do not acknowledge that a selective rule of law causes corruption. Finally, as they conspire with Democrats to exploit democratic leverage, they ignore crime, corruption, and exploitation in their home nations. Both the illegal alien activists and their American patrons are sponsors of corruption in America and their home nations.
phx: "I don't think anyone in this thread said he represented the Republican party."
3/30/13, 3:13 PM
Ronald Ward at 3/30/13, 11:27 AM
said..."It seems that conservatives, or whatever it is that they are now, go through some phase of unwittingly expressing their true colors.
Just last week SC State Rep. Kris Crawford, an ER doctor, supported Medicare expansion to his state yet openly admitted he voted against it because President Obama's a black man.
Now we have Wetbackgate.
Considering their popularity among minorities runs a close second to gonorrhea, you'd think they'd have a clue."
When a commenter chooses to comment on other commenters comments, perhaps the commenter should actually read the commenters comments.
You know.
In an effort to make an informed analysis.
Or perhaps it's a retention issue.
Fine Drago. One commenter said he represented the Republican Party. Over 100+ said no such thing.
I guess that makes you and your party a victim.
Sorry I missed his comment.
QED
Ronald Ward at 3/30/13, 11:27 AM
said..."It seems that conservatives, or whatever it is that they are now, go through some phase of unwittingly expressing their true colors.
Why argue with me? He's the one apparently who thinks you're all alike.
It's only because he isn't a Democrat, like Harry Reid:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Meanwhile, it's not the word, it's the intent behind the word. Reid here is talking about how Obama's attributes are a benefit to Democrat racist tendencies. 79 year old Young's comment was clearly about replacing workers. Would it be a slur if he had said "60 government union workers?" I bet that becomes a slur in the future.
Interesting thread.
For Republicans who still don't get it, who whine about how wrong it is that publicity of this works against them, who equivocate about a much milder comment by a Democrat, who believe in public reaction conspiracies, just remember this:
The issue is fundamentally one of respect. Conservatives don't respect the public at large, or anyone for that matter on the basis of their basic human qualities. They feel that their job is to divide up the electorate into "good" and "important" groups or people and the supposedly inferior others, and reward accordingly. Basic respect, just like decency and compassion, just don't play into it.
Now ask yourself, did Joe Biden say or imply that there was anything bad or inferior about the people running 7-11s?
Of course not. It might have shown bemusement, but in no way did his comment betray a sense of blatant disrespect. He didn't use a term that reduced Indians to some mere position of occupation, either. In what way did he use any language that said widespread 7-11 ownership by any immigrant group was a "bad" thing? He didn't.
Not so with the use of the term "wetback". Inherently disrespectful. A thoughtless mistake perhaps, moreso than the active malice and bigotry that sinz52 and Ronald Ward kindly reminds us is alive and well in the party of polarization. But part and parcel of the very disrespect that makes such negligence as Don Young's commonplace in his party.
Now go complain that people aren't taking you seriously as adults. Or something.
And Palladian, it would be nice to see you show some self-respect every now and then.
The funny thing is, I don't see why Republicans complain about this. They say that want to represent and retain the past, and Don Young's words are a great way to show that the attitudes and behaviors of the past are things that he just doesn't have much time or inclination to come to terms with.
"Now ask yourself, did Joe Biden say or imply that there was anything bad or inferior about the people running 7-11s?"
Did this guy imply there was anything bad or inferior about wetbacks?
The difference in equivalency is inside your own head where you assume a bigoted motivation for the people not on your side and you assume an innocent motivation for the people who are on your own side.
There used to be rock on Rick Perry's family's land and Sen. Byrd used to be a Klan big-wig.
Democrats reelect Byrd until he dies, and try to portray Perry as a racist for something he had nothing to do with.
Equivalency!
Did this guy imply there was anything bad or inferior about wetbacks?
Do any Althousians possess the presence of mind to identify what is wrong with this sentence?
Wow.
Keep expressing your concern for the voters and the dignity which you indignantly insist that they are being treated with by Republicans, Synova. Also, make sure to casually and directly use derogatory names for them while doing it.
This would be a hilarious example of why the Republicans are so screwed, if it wasn't so astoundingly offensive.
Ritmo retorts: Keep expressing your concern for the voters and the dignity which you indignantly insist that they are being treated with by Republicans, Synova. Also, make sure to casually and directly use derogatory names for them while doing it.
I see Ritmo's objection. Heshe is upset that Synova used Young's pejorative term without attribution as if it were her own. In doing so, she owns the slur as much as anyone.
I'll rewrite Synova's sentence in a more a Ritmo sensitive style:
Did this guy imply there was anything bad or inferior about migrant workers in his time?
That was the meaning of synova's sentence which I understood perfectly. Ritmo would have us believe that even the best Althouse commenters should be labelled bigots merely because of his construal of meaning, according to his terms and meaning--and nothing less. For Ritmo, it's never about straight communication in context--rather, it's about addressing 2014 political sentiments.
Ritmo has joined Althouse's verbal "intimidafada." (intimidate + intifada). He/she is like The Grand Inquisitor.
"Tomorrow synova, I shall burn thee at the stake"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा