[QUOTE=elucidator]
I’m sure you have a point. What might it be, or are we supposed to guess?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I could be wrong, but I figure it’s something like, “This is how a political organization should deal with racist assholes trying to attach themselves to your party.”
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Obama site got spammed, and they promptly scrubbed it This vendor had to get permission from the Convention to sell its buttons.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never been involved in staging a convention where the convention hosts were expected to review and approve every single item for sale or give-away. If in fact the convention had prior notice that this particular button was going to be offered and said “Sounds good to us!” I would consider that significantly more egregious. It still wouldn’t make it a matter of national concern, though, IMO.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
So, the fact that antisemitic groups post on Obama’s official site, it means that it’s official Democratic policy? Or, more likely, does every group contain wackos?
The button group was roundly chastised and have pulled the button (they said they only sold four and only made twelve…I don’t know or care if that’s true; they shouldn’t have produced any), and Obama’s people scrub his social networking site when these things are pointed out, so, I don’t see what the anger towards an entire party here is.
[/QUOTE]
The anger stems from the perception, true or false, that the Republican party is a haven for, or at least abides, racists, and will use racism to fulfill its ends, so when something like this comes out, once again linked to Republicans, it not only forms a disturbing pattern, but confirms what many already feel about the party.
I so want to spam that button to everyone I know …
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
The anger stems from the perception, true or false, that the Republican party is a haven for, or at least abides, racists, and will use racism to fulfill its ends, so when something like this comes out, once again linked to Republicans, it not only forms a disturbing pattern, but confirms what many already feel about the party.
[/QUOTE]
Surely you see that this is tautological reasoning. If your conclusion dictates the interpretation you give your evidence, then of course your evidence will support your conclusion.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
ArizonaTeach, your link lead to the claim that anti-semitic remarks were made at Obama’s website by a group, but when I clicked on the link that your site provided, there was nothing there except a blank page made to look like it might have been Obama’s website.
Can you link to the actual remarks?
[/QUOTE]
As has been pointed out, and I pointed out in my post, Obama’s people immediately scrubbed them, which I commend them for, and absolutely don’t lay antisemitic slurs made on Obama’s website to Obama or the Democratic party at all, as I wouldn’t, as the OP does, blame a smacked down button maker as representative of the GOP.
And **that ** was a lengthy sentence.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Well, I could be wrong, but I figure it’s something like, “This is how a political organization should deal with racist assholes trying to attach themselves to your party.”
[/QUOTE]
Naw, I wasn’t making any point, just confirming the facts and explaining why the original blog post could no longer be linked to.
It’s a weird concept, actually, that the simple act of confirming that something was factual is somehow a political position, or implies one. Zoe was ignorant of a situation, and I cleared up her ignorance. I didn’t expect anybody to go agenda hunting.
Although, I do admit, I got a little chuckle at Lucy’s apparent bewilderment as to what the point of stating the truth might be.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Surely you see that this is tautological reasoning. If your conclusion dictates the interpretation you give your evidence, then of course your evidence will support your conclusion.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all, since there’s a solid body of decades of evidence to support the contention sans interpretation, and that’s only if we begin with the Southern Strategy and work forward, much more if you want to start at, say, the voting rights act. Your assertion of tautology doesn’t hold here…unless of course you deny the Southern Strategy and more recent examples, in which case we have a different debate.
(Not worth it. Deleted.)
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Not at all, since there’s a solid body of decades of evidence to support the contention sans interpretation, and that’s only if we begin with the Southern Strategy and work forward, much more if you want to start at, say, the voting rights act. Your assertion of tautology doesn’t hold here…unless of course you deny the Southern Strategy and more recent examples, in which case we have a different debate.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not getting into some bullshit debate about the racist tendencies of the historical Republican Party, focusing on the South (ignoring Southern Democratic racism, of course), though as far as it goes I certainly do deny the "Southern Strategy as any concerted effort to promote racism. I was responding to your post, which said “The anger stems from the perception, true or false, that the Republican party is a haven for, or at least abides, racists, and will use racism to fulfill its ends, so when something like this comes out, once again linked to Republicans, it not only forms a disturbing pattern, but confirms what many already feel about the party.” (Bolding added.)
IOW, you said that that this one incident confirms perceptions of racism without regard to whether those perceptions are or are not actually true. If that’s not what you meant then you should have said something else. But IME if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I’m familiar with that reasoning, but you were unusually frank in acknowledging that looking for nails, hammer in hand, is what you’re doing.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Naw, I wasn’t making any point, just confirming the facts and explaining why the original blog post could no longer be linked to.
It’s a weird concept, actually, that the simple act of confirming that something was factual is somehow a political position, or implies one. Zoe was ignorant of a situation, and I cleared up her ignorance. I didn’t expect anybody to go agenda hunting.
Although, I do admit, I got a little chuckle at Lucy’s apparent bewilderment as to what the point of stating the truth might be.
[/QUOTE]
I think the confusion came from your phrasing. You said Obama’s people “disappeared” those pages, a word which often carries an implication of hiding or concealing something.
Odd… I’d figure that since it’s standard SDMB lingo, there wouldn’t be any confusion. When posts are here, and then vanish, they were “disappeared”.
And heck, even in this case, the blog post did simply vanish. There was no notice put up saying ‘This blog post was racist, and was taken down as a result’. It just vanished. “Disappeared” perfectly describes the act of removing something with no notice or any indication that it ever existed besides a message that “ERROR: invalid page requested”.
And, further, it provides enough contextual information to let Zoe know why she couldn’t find it. (And if I’m not mistaken, any cached versions of it).
I knew we’re in an election season and all, but sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
I’m not getting into some bullshit debate about the racist tendencies of the historical Republican Party, focusing on the South (ignoring Southern Democratic racism, of course), though as far as it goes I certainly do deny the "Southern Strategy as any concerted effort to promote racism. I was responding to your post, which said “The anger stems from the perception, true or false, that the Republican party is a haven for, or at least abides, racists, and will use racism to fulfill its ends, so when something like this comes out, once again linked to Republicans, it not only forms a disturbing pattern, but confirms what many already feel about the party.” (Bolding added.)
[/QUOTE]
Jodi - the whole point of talking about the Southern Strategy doesn’t ignore Southern Democratic racism, but is rather focused on its existence. The strategy was a response to the idea that traditional Democrat voters could be brought into a new Republican voting block, and race would be one of the ways of bringing them over. The Southern Strategy was a recognition that race and racism are a major motivating forces in American politics, and aren’t tidily drawn along party lines, at least to the extent that they have not stayed as the province of any one party.
[QUOTE=villa]
Jodi - the whole point of talking about the Southern Strategy doesn’t ignore Southern Democratic racism, but is rather focused on its existence. The strategy was a response to the idea that traditional Democrat voters could be brought into a new Republican voting block, and race would be one of the ways of bringing them over. The Southern Strategy was a recognition that race and racism are a major motivating forces in American politics, and aren’t tidily drawn along party lines, at least to the extent that they have not stayed as the prvince of any one party.
[/QUOTE]
I understand the Southern Strategy. That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about the fact that historically in the South racism was endemic in both parties, so to focus on the Southern Strategy as if it somehow lays racism at the feet of the Republican party is misleading and inaccurate.
As I’ve seen commented elsewhere on the internet: this election is turning into a parody of Blazing Saddles.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
I understand the Southern Strategy. That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about the fact that historically in the South racism was endemic in both parties, so to focus on the Southern Strategy as if it somehow lays racism at the feet of the Republican party is misleading and inaccurate.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it would be inaccurate, and would show a total misunderstanding of it - absent a history of racism in the southern Democratic party, there wouldn’t have been votes to attract by such a strategy. But I don’t think anyone who talks about the Southern Strategy does so to make a claim that there was no history of racism among the Dixicrats.
I’d probably agree that the Southern Strategy did not start with a desire to encourage racism, but it was certainly a cyncial attempt to take advantage of it. Whether over the years people have found it expedient to attempt to avoid the reduction of racism to assist in the continued success of such a strategy is a different question.
N-bomb Day is just around the corner, yall. I can feel it in my knees.
[QUOTE=villa]
Of course it would be inaccurate, and would show a total misunderstanding of it - absent a history of racism in the southern Democratic party, there wouldn’t have been votes to attract by such a strategy. But I don’t think anyone who talks about the Southern Strategy does so to make a claim that there was no history of racism among the Dixicrats.
[/quote]
Onomatopoeia’s citation of the Southern Strategy as evidence of Republican racism certainly ignored the history of racism among Dixicrats, if it did not go so far as to make the claim it did not exist. That was my whole point, which you are confirming rather than refuting.
As for the rest of your post, since you seem to be agreeing with me, I’m not much interested in rehashing the Southern Strategy beyond that; certainly I have not made and am not interested in making any defense of it.
[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
Proud. Republican. American. Christian.
Fuck you, crank smokers.
[/QUOTE]
Dyslexic fuckers can’t even spell. And they need to put God first!
It’s Christian. Republican. American. Proud. CRAP for short.
Sailboat
[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
Proud. Republican. American. Christian.
Fuck you, crank smokers.
[/QUOTE]
How does this button equate to “racist hatred”?