Yeah, that’s the problem with Doggyknees, he’s not as flexible and open to change as you and I.
In an update, Congressman Davis said he did not mean to imply that Senator Obama would recklessly start a nuclear war, “Quite frankly, those people are too shiftless and lazy to even push a button.” Davis’ office has issued a statement explaining that the Congressman’s use of the phrase “those people” was intended as a reference to people from Illinois.
[QUOTE=Lazlo]
Hold the phone!
Boy is a racist remark?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know where you are from, so ignore this if it seems patronizing: In the U.S., “boy” is considered a racial slur. In parts of Africa a “boy” is a respected occupation. It’s a cultural thing, having to do with discrimination in this country, and the history of dehumanization and denigration of the black population.
Yeah, no racism in this campaign. It’s all been about experience. Hence the repeated use of the phrase “half-one-term-ian” in refering to Obama.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Yeah, that’s the problem with Doggyknees, he’s not as flexible and open to change as you and I.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it’s his advanced age?
[QUOTE=tdn]
I’m sure that there are more than two. Consider the aformentioned good ol’ boy, as well as “you go, boy.” I’m sure I could think of more.
Being that any hint of racism in this election would be sure death to the racist, and that the entire campaign has been about experience up until now, I think that that gives us plenty of context.
[/QUOTE]
He said this at a closed fundraiser, though. Tradtionally, these have been environments where politicians pander more openly and more frankly to their audiences because (up until this year, it seems) what gets said in the room stays in the room. He didn’t expect his remarks to be made public.
Regardless of his intention (and I’m tired of arguing about it, so I’ll just let it drop and say we don’t know), it was colossally dumb, and I thank him for it.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Yeah, no racism in this campaign. It’s all been about experience. Hence the repeated use of the phrase “half-one-term-ian” in refering to Obama.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget the demonization of Jeremiah Wright as a modern day Nat Turner either.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Maybe it’s his advanced age?
[/QUOTE]
I do have arthritis.
[QUOTE=wring]
I don’t recall ever refering to some one under the age of 10 as a “boy”.
[/QUOTE]
I think you mean “over”? Although I’m in my early twenties and sometimes my friends will still refer to guys we like as “boys,” as in “Are you bringing your boy?” and so on.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
In an update, Congressman Davis said he did not mean to imply that Senator Obama would recklessly start a nuclear war, “Quite frankly, those people are too shiftless and lazy to even push a button.” Davis’ office has issued a statement explaining that the Congressman’s use of the phrase “those people” was intended as a reference to people from Illinois.
[/QUOTE]
Well, all right then.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I do have arthritis.
[/QUOTE]
Well, my goodness, I’m not surprised…if memory serves, you are nearly as old as Barack Obama. Of course, I can’t completely count on my recollection, as I’m creeping up to old age myself…
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is mythical, non-existent attitude which is entirely the invention of right wing radio talk show hosts. Liberals do not thinkor act in any such way.
[/quote]
Bullshit. I see and read it every day on these boards.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The sick irony is that everything you’ve said above fits the Bush administration to a tee.
[/quote]
When I am defending the Bush administration, this will be a germain point. As it stands it’s just a non sequitor.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Obama was talking about why people gravitate to those things as voting issues, not why they value them in the first place. Christ. It’s rather early in the day to already be frothing at the mouth, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
You can try to spin it any way you like, but you’d still be wrong. If I really felt like beating my head against your delusions I’d be doing it in your thread dedicated to the subject.
[QUOTE=wring]
I don’t recall ever refering to some one under the age of 10 as a “boy”.
[/QUOTE]
Then what do you call them? Or did you mean over the age of ten?
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Besides, what could be more elitist than to have a “no eye contact” rule in your office like Hillary has. She does not allow her staff to make eye contact with her. Talk about the height of elitism, she takes the cake.
[/QUOTE]
Several people have called you out on the bias of the article, but I read it closely enough to find this paragraph:
[QUOTE=Article Johnnie cited]
In his pivotal tell-all book “Unlimited Access,” former FBI agent Gary Aldrich relates the rules of conduct instituted in the White House and Old Executive Office Building under the Clinton regime. According to Aldrich, staff members were to clear the hallways when Hillary was out and about. If anyone did happen to meet up with her in passing, they were not to make eye contact with her.
[/QUOTE]
If accurate, that would be an appropriate cite. Has anyone read this book?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Where do conservatives get this idiotic notion that liberals are elitist snobs? Conservatives are the ones with all the money and the aristocratic social hierarchies.
[/QUOTE]
Dio, let me introduce you to the 21st century:
The Democratic party isn’t about the little people anymore, just like the Republican party isn’t about small government anymore. Are you honestly saying that families like the Kennedys or Kerrys aren’t about “money and aristocratic social hierarchies”? That the wealthiest people in the entertainment and high-tech industries aren’t overwhelmingly Democrats?
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Then what do you call them? Or did you mean over the age of ten?
Several people have called you out on the bias of the article, but I read it closely enough to find this paragraph:If accurate, that would be an appropriate cite. Has anyone read this book?
Dio, let me introduce you to the 21st century:
The Democratic party isn’t about the little people anymore, just like the Republican party isn’t about small government anymore. Are you honestly saying that families like the Kennedys or Kerrys aren’t about “money and aristocratic social hierarchies”? That the wealthiest people in the entertainment and high-tech industries aren’t overwhelmingly Democrats?
[/QUOTE]
Well, some Democrats might own mansions in Beverly Hills, but Republicans own corporations. Movie star money is a joke compared to oil company money.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Well, some Democrats might own mansions in Beverly Hills, but Republicans own corporations. Movie star money is a joke compared to oil company money.
[/QUOTE]
Tell it to Oprah and Babs. But your point seems to be that rich Democrats are only really, really, really rich while rich Republicans are really, really, really, really, really rich. A distinction without a difference.
As to the OP… well, I find it hard to believe that it wasn’t at least a racist fruedian slip. I don’t think even Congressmen aren’t that stupid as to be unaware of the connotation. Does he have a record of calling grown men “boy” regardless of their age?
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Several people have called you out on the bias of the article, but I read it closely enough to find this paragraph:If accurate, that would be an appropriate cite. Has anyone read this book?
[/quote]
I’m enough of an obsessive political junkie to remeber Aldrich’s book. It was published by the right wing Regnery press and it contained a number oallegations about the Clintons which ranged from dubious to outright false. Aldrich claimed, for instance, that Bill used a secret, underground tunnel under the White House to go on dates with Sharon Stone (something the Secret Service had to deny as false, and the tunnel Aldrich described does not exist) and that the White House Christmas tree was decorated with sex toys and drug paraphernalia. Aldrich is now a contributer to websites like World Nut Dail and Townhall. He is not a credible source.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Tell it to Oprah and Babs. But your point seems to be that rich Democrats are only really, really, really rich while rich Republicans are really, really, really, really, really rich. A distinction without a difference.
As to the OP… well, I find it hard to believe that it wasn’t at least a racist fruedian slip. I don’t think even Congressmen aren’t that stupid as to be unaware of the connotation. Does he have a record of calling grown men “boy” regardless of their age?
[/QUOTE]
I just think it’s hypocritical for conservatives to pretend that elitism is the province of liberals. I think it’s more prevalent on the right. The Bush family is about as snobbish as it gets, yet righties are calling Obama (someone’s who’s barely a millionaire) an elitist?
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
When I am defending the Bush administration, this will be a germain point. As it stands it’s just a non sequitor.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, you were claiming to describe Liberals with your previous post. Every point you listed could be easily used to describe the Bush administration.
That’s not a non sequitur, whether you’re defending the Bush admin or not- that’s a refutation of your supposed description of Liberals. If what you posted could easily describe the Bush administration, either the Bush admin is liberal, or what you posted doesn’t describe Liberals. Which is it?
I, for one, am getting really sick of the demonization of the other party that many people are doing in this (and previous) elections. “Liberal” is bandied about as if it’s an insult, and I’m tired of it. "Party uber alles"isn’t a good way to run a country.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
…Besides, what could be more elitist than to have a “no eye contact” rule in your office like Hillary has. She does not allow her staff to make eye contact with her. Talk about the height of elitism, she takes the cake.
[/QUOTE]
Holy shit! Is that really true?! 'cause it goes beyond elitist in mind. More like D/s power-games. IOW, that’s some serious kinky shit going on in her office.
What’s next? Her staffers bending over for “inspection”?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I just think it’s hypocritical for conservatives to pretend that elitism is the province of liberals. I think it’s more prevalent on the right. The Bush family is about as snobbish as it gets, yet righties are calling Obama (someone’s who’s barely a millionaire) an elitist?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that it’s more prevalent on the right or the left, but I agree that it’s hypocritical for some righties to call Dems elitists. Both sides want government to make lots of decisions for people, even if the things they want decided fall in different categories.
Keep in mind, though, that elitism is often leveled at academia, which is very much a left-leaning stronghold.