No. The sensible reading is that you think you heard one thing, others will swear they heard something else, and everything else(the hard “k”, the gutteral sound, the hesitation, the correction, what he meant to say etc.) is mere speculation on our part unless and until official confirmation comes forth, and the only thing official we’ve got so far is Santorum saying that either he doesn’t know what he said or that he might have said it for a specified reason.. It is clear that you heard what you heard…but it is equally clear that others heard what they heard.
You previously asked me what all the deniers motives were, not just yours. Now you are asking me to speculate on your motives alone. I don’t have any special powers of mind reading, so anything I say would be speculation. I compare what you write to what I hear (and see) and I see that you are misrepresenting what was actually said and on videotape. You are lying. That is clear. You might be suggesting that because you have now convinced yourself that your heart is pure, I don’t know, but I know better than to believe your reportage, including on your own state of mind. The only two possibilities are severe mental incompetence, which clearly is not the case due to being able to form sentences and paragraphs passing the Turing Test, or lying.
Your bullshit arguments are as though you are the kind of person who if Booth said he didn’t intend to kill Lincoln would claim that it is possible it was an accidental firearms discharge of a faulty stage prop by an actor in a theater.
Here’s my cockamamie theory.
Santorum: “I don’t want to make bl*-{oh shit, I better not say that}-*aghalahah people’s lives better …”
Actually, I buy his explanation. It sounds to me like he started to say “black” and then sort of changed.
What the fuck are they already? You haven’t explained the “deniers” motives, you haven’t explained mine. Apparently your theory is that everybody who disagrees with you is lying for no reason.
What kind of official confirmation are you expecting, Czarcasm? Santorum gave a stupid and incorrect explanation to CBS, then offered a second version and the OP said it was an early nominee for ballsiest excuse of the year. There’s never going to be definitive proof here. The guy said something and the rest is an attempt to understand it. One theory makes some sense and the other is about a half-step up from tea leaf reading.
You realize that these two positions are in no way mutually exclusive:)
Why don’t we put this aside and focus on the unambiguous ways in which Rick Santorum is not fit for a leadership role in public life? These are legion.
Well, as someone who thinks he said “bly,” i concede that others might hear it differently. I also think that this need not be a case of deliberate mis-hearing by either side.
But it’s interesting that you only seem to think that one side is accusing the other of being incapable of thinking clearly. As far as i can tell, the most virulent and outspoken proponent of the “reality conforms to my perceptions” attitude in this thread is The Second Stone, who thinks that Santorum said “black.”
Not only does this dimwit and raging asshole think that reality conforms to his perceptions, and that those who perceive differently are wrong. He is also the only person in this thread who has actually accused the other side not merely of being mistaken, but of deliberately lying. That takes some serious hubris, and The Second Stone is not smart enough for that sort of self-confidence.
My take (for the little it is worth):
-
It does sound an awful lot like “black”;
-
But he was clearly starting to stumble in his speech at that point, tripping a bit over his tounge;
-
He started making his point by pointing out “all of you” in the room as those who were allegedly gonna be enchained by socialism or whatever; and
-
Therefore using the ‘Black welfare recepient’ meme makes no sense in that context.
On balance, I’d say Santorum isn’t on the hook for this one. Not that it matters.
Might I point out that Santorum is a stupid and incorrect person, and that his reasoning might indeed be only a half-step up from tea leaf reading. You say that Santorum gave a stupid and incorrect explanation to CBS, and I really don’t know how to respond to that-the man that gave the speech explains the speech, I accept that as an official explanation. Silly me.
I don’t either. I do think people are being misled by their disdain for Santorum (which I share) and by their expectations. I also think that common sense makes it pretty obvious what happened here, but I don’t think people are lying to smear Santorum.
He’s a moron, but he is capable of remaining on topic for a couple of sentences in a row, I think. He’s not Rick Perry.
He gave two explanations: one to CBS where he admitted he wasn’t sure of the context and that it might’ve had something to do with Waiting for Superman, and another where he said he’d just stumbled while speaking. The second one sounds ridiculous but was more definitive. That’s where this thread started.
“I don’t want to make bl (ah shit what’s the next word)[del]ue collar workers[/del] people’s lives better by giving them someone else’s money.”
He’d already gotten past the point where the “blue collar worker” dog whistle continued to fit and he realized it?
CMC fnord!
I only provided one example, but in terms of just the sound, it applies to either side.
Now as for those who ignore the additional evidence, like Santorum himself saying the word was ‘black’, they are just being assholes. Probably Stone is also, but I haven’t bothered reading his posts.
Are you still suggesting after half a dozen posts that I read minds? I still don’t. That you think I might is bizarre. I don’t think your explanation of what you claim to have heard is honest because it is contrary to the plain fact. Perhaps you are suggesting that it is unfair for me to not accept you lame ass justifications and call them lies. I don’t think it is unfair. They are lies. I don’t really give a shit about your motivation, what I give a shit about is that you are in a position of authority and accept some convoluted made up of whole cloth excuses to not hear the word “black” and I wonder what other damage you do and what the fuck your motivations are.
Do you imagine that you are trying to be fair? Accepting fiction to change the historical record isn’t fair.
In other words, you think people lie all the time for no reason whatsoever. And not only that, you’re not intelligent enough to stop and consider why someone might lie in a particular situation. If someone disagrees with you, they must be lying, end of story.
A wise policy, in the main.
This thread continues to astonish me. Marley is trying valiantly to be a voice of reason, though without much success.
Santorum was giving a speech about straight economics. No social policy, no morals issues, and certainly no racial issues. Straight economics. Why on earth would he, out of nowhere, throw in a statement about “black people”?
Politicians typically don’t say things like “black people,” they say “black community” or whatever.
The manufactured outrage over this speech is confirming the stereotype that left-wingers play the race card and jump on any possible opportunity to call someone they disagree with a racist.
So, I grabbed the audio, and isolated the offending utterance.
The audio
A picture of the wave form, so no one thinks I clipped it off unnaturally or anything like that.
FWIW, if that was ‘meant’ to be any sort of word at all, crowmanyclouds’s suggestion of ‘blue collar’ makes much more sense, as he’s already said the phrase numerous times in the interview. Not that he says the word ‘blue,’ but if we’re going to make things up I think that’s a much more appropriate interpretation of the text.
I don’t think he says black so I guess that makes me a fucking (liberal) liar.
Do you have audacity or something that can slow it down a bit? Maybe get a little before and after the word? If not I’ll try it after work.
I guess there are two different reasons I could be failing. 
That’s not quite right. It’s a prepared answer, but it’s not a speech, it’s a response to a question from someone in the audience. And he’s talking about both the economy and federal programs. In the longer clip he talks about Medicaid and Social Security and I think he names a few others. He says the government is trying to get more and more people into those programs, and it’s wrong. Like I said, this is one of the things that makes it obvious he isn’t talking about black people: he says the government is trying to get “you” (the audience) onto these programs so “you” depend on the government. And then for some reason apparently he slams black people because he doesn’t want to give them money, which he’s just said he doesn’t want to give to anyone else either.