[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Holy shit. This is the first I’m hearing about this, and I have to ask how this can possibly be an issue. For crying out loud, the guy says he’s the first mainstream African-American candidate, THEN THERE IS A PAUSE BIG ENOUGH TO DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH, then he says he’s articulate and bright, etc.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand why this changes things for you.
Whether it’s right or wrong, liberals can say things that conservatives will never be able to get away with. And as Celine Dion says, “That’s the way it is.”
[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
OTOH, let’s not pretend like there wouldn’t be considerably more kvetching from this board and liberals in general if a conservative Republican had said the exact same thing. It’s perfectly natural: the people who would normally tend to get most upset about Biden’s quote tend to see him as more of an ally than a foe, so they’re more likely to believe him when he says ‘No, of course I didn’t mean it like that!’
[/quote]
GWB DID say something EXACTLY like that and liberals didn’t care. That’s been pointed out like ten times in this thread.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
GWB DID say something EXACTLY like that and liberals didn’t care. That’s been pointed out like ten times in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
No, he didn’t. Biden’s not in trouble for saying that Obama is articulate. He’s in trouble because it looks like he said that Obama is the first articulate, smart, and clean mainstream black guy. Come on, you know there’s a big difference there.
[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
No, he didn’t. Biden’s not in trouble for saying that Obama is articulate. He’s in trouble because it looks like he said that Obama is the first articulate, smart, and clean mainstream black guy. Come on, you know there’s a big difference there.
[/QUOTE]
Biden didn’t say that. He said Obama is the first mainstream black candidate (meaning serious contender)
Pause
[and that] he’s articulate, etc.
No one with a brain in their head could possibly believe he meant otherwise.
Well, in all fairness, Dio, sure you can. Nothing is so susceptible to biased interpretation as pauses, gestures, minor miswordings.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Biden didn’t say that. He said Obama is the first mainstream black candidate (meaning serious contender)
Pause
[and that] he’s articulate, etc.
No one with a brain in their head could possibly believe he meant otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you’ve read my posts carefully at all. Above, you’re basically repeating what I said in my first post. In the post you just responded to, I wrote: “He’s in trouble because it looks like he said. . .”
If you just read what Biden said, it sounds a lot worse than if you listen to it.
Anyway, if you really don’t think that people are more likely to see malevolence in the statements of foes than of allies, I guess there’s nothing to talk about. I’m not willing to waste time trying to prove something so obvious.
[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
I don’t think you’ve read my posts carefully at all. Above, you’re basically repeating what I said in my first post. In the post you just responded to, I wrote: “He’s in trouble because it looks like he said. . .”
If you just read what Biden said, it sounds a lot worse than if you listen to it.
Anyway, if you really don’t think that people are more likely to see malevolence in the statements of foes than of allies, I guess there’s nothing to talk about. I’m not willing to waste time trying to prove something so obvious.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. You’re right. My bad. I think I actually agree with you.
Oh, ok. Cool. 
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I don’t understand why this changes things for you.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know why you can’t understand it. Did you read that link and listen to the sound clip? The rest of us seem to be able to understand the difference, so I suggest the difficulty must be yours.
So, keeping score here: according to DtC’s investigations ot only are spiff and Shodan wrong about:
-the reaction of this board
-the reaction of liberals in general to Biden’s quote
-the claim that liberals would attack any Republican who said anything close
-the claim that Biden really said much of anything in the end, now that we’ve heard the actual audiotape
(In fact, it’s the worst of all worlds for their knee-jerk, evidence-free position: not only did liberals jump all over Biden, but what prompted them to do so was ultimately something of a misunderstanding)
but they are also telling lies about the idea that liberals here made a huge deal out of things like Trent Lott’s statement. I for one remember defending Lott and downplaying the outrage (which I still suspect had a lot more to do with conservatives seeing a great opening to get rid of a internal foe of Bush’s policies). And as I remember it, it was conservatives that first and foremost jumped all over Lott days before most liberal commentators and blogs picked up on it: much like what happened here with liberals being all over Biden.
I think that goes to show that for some, the particulars of a particular event can never trump what they enjoy as a good partisan fantasy.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Just out of curiosity, I went back and searched for the thread on Trent Lott’s gaffe at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party to see how much outrage it fomented at the time. As it turns out, the responses from the board’s lefties are surprisingly similar to this one.
[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, this is relatively easy to disprove.
The first falsehood occurs in the first few words of the above, with the implication that there was only minimal discussion of Lott’s remark. This is, obviously, false.
Examples are easy to come by. Note also the automatic dismissal of Lott’s apology, contrasted with the unthinking acceptance of Biden’s.
:shrugs:
Actually, I was going to spend more time on this, but it’s rather dull trying to prove the obvious, so you will have to content yourselves with this.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
…so you will have to content yourselves with this…
[/QUOTE]
We are, of course, bereft and inconsolable.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Fortunately, this is relatively easy to disprove.
The first falsehood occurs in the first few words of the above, with the implication that there was only minimal discussion of Lott’s remark. This is, obviously, false.
Examples are easy to come by. Note also the automatic dismissal of Lott’s apology, contrasted with the unthinking acceptance of Biden’s.
:shrugs:
Actually, I was going to spend more time on this, but it’s rather dull trying to prove the obvious, so you will have to content yourselves with this.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say there was minimal discussion, I said there was minimal outrage. Those are two different things. Yeah, there were some people who brought up Lott’s history with the CCC and previous support for segregation, but then, those ARE legitimate points of divergence from Biden’s case, are they not?
Even so, those who were really expressing outrage were a decided minority. The majority of the board, including liberals (and including me), thought it was a tempest in a teapot.
As for Lott’s apology, it wasn’t so much rejected on priniciple as it was ridiculed (at least by me) for Lott’s unnecessary attempt to try to qualify what he meant by it in literal terms (“I didn’t mean I supported the racist stuff Strom stood for, I supported the OTHER stuff”) rather than just being honest and admitting that he never actually meant any of it at all. That it was just some nice, insincere bullshit to say to an old guy at his birthday party.
The original remarks themselves were received with a minimum of outrage but the apology was noted for its weaselliness.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I didn’t say there was minimal discussion, I said there was minimal outrage.
[/quote]
You implied by use of the singular that there was one thread only, which is, as I mention, a straightforward falsehood.
Exactly. One was a Democrat; the other a Republican. Therefore, you search for something you can use as a fig leaf for excusing anything the Democrat does, and dismiss anything that might tend in the same direction for the Republican.
As I mentioned, this kind of thing is boring, but since this effort of finding examplesis so minimal, we can discuss why “Halfrican-American” is a deadly racist insult from a Republican but ignored coming from NPR.
Actually, you can discuss it - the “no, no - we here on the SDMB are completely fair-minded in our outrage” is tending away from the entertainingly goofy into distastefully delusional.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Note also the automatic dismissal of Lott’s apology, contrasted with the unthinking acceptance of Biden’s.
[/QUOTE]
Heh heh heh. He’s linking to my dismissal of Lott’s apology in that previous thread. Hmm, can anyone think of a Leftie around here who has dismissed Biden’s apology? Hmm. This is a real stumper.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Heh heh heh. He’s linking to my dismissal of Lott’s apology in that previous thread. Hmm, can anyone think of a Leftie around here who has dismissed Biden’s apology? Hmm. This is a real stumper.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it’s even worse than that. In the thread to which Shodan linked, I later read Lott’s specific apology, admit that I had not seen that specific apology, and state repeatedly that I accept Lott’s apology. It’s pretty remarkable that he links to my post in that thread as an example of a lefty giving extra slack to a liberal’s screwup. Or, it would be remarkable if it weren’t so damn predictable.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Shodan]
You implied by use of the singular that there was one thread only, which is, as I mention, a straightforward falsehood.
[/quote]
I was only able to find one thread which was specifically about the Trent Lott incident. You link to a couple of incidental posts in thread that were about other topics.
Um…no, one had a history of opposing segregation and and associations with racist organizations. The other did not. In any case, it wasn’t anything I personally brought into that conversation, so you can stop with this “you” shit.
NPR was quoting the word “Halfrican” from a teenage boy’s diary. It was not, itself, calling anyone by that name. You should hunt down some context once in awhile.
The defeaning silence on Biden today included a page-long article in the New York Times. I thought it was on the ball in describing why the word is offensive when used as Biden used it. However, the author also noted that George W. Bush described Obama as “articulate” the other day. That seems to have passed without comment.