Imagine Don Imus saying the same thing, and I believe that it will clear things up for you.
But all you’ve done is confirm your own bias. To advance a “double-standard” argument you need to come up with actual, real world examples, not just ones from inside your own head.
Oh I get it. You have a persecution complex.
Are you saying context should be stripped from all comments? Are you saying we should not take into account a person’s past when interpreting their comments? This is implicit in suggesting all people should be treated the same when uttering the same comment. Do you really believe that?
Gotta take a time-out and do some actual work. Carry-on.
I’m not even talking about Imus or any conservative for that matter. The race hucksters decide who to attack. It was convenient at that time to attack Biden, so he was attacked. Then Obama saw an opportunity to look magnanimous, so he let it simmer down. I think what Paleface is saying is that it seems that Democrats get a pass much more often than Republicans for the same offense. I happen to agree. Race hucksters are predominantly Democrat so that’s understandable.
It seemed like Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a grave and gathering danger to the security of the United States too. We let in crappy evidence to seal the argument that time, and look what happened; a useless conquest that’s cost us thousands of lives, hundreds of $billions, and our international reputation.
Maybe it’s time you started demanding actual evidence to advance an argument. It’s far less likely to lead you astray than hearsay or made up bullshit.
You act like this practice is not justified. If a certain group of people has a history of retarding civil rights and playing on peoples’ racial fears to win elections, why should their comments on race not be analyzed more critically? The two groups are not equal.
Yeah, make broad and sweeping generalizations about a group of individuals. That is exactly the spirit of the civil rights movement.
I didn’t offer any evidence simply because I didn’t think it was controversial. It’s hard to cull the evidence but I’ll be happy to supply it. Give me some time.
I’ll leave broad and sweeping to the broad and sweeping Southern Strategy.
Or, how about I just defer to Newt Gingrich?
Maybe the person in charge of party strategy has something to say:
Imus doesn’t have any particular right to host a talk show. The response in general, and not just Sharpton, was over the top in that it just didn’t deserve that much attention.
Assuming he was calling them lesbians or something, it might have attracted some criticism from gay groups but probably wouldn’t have turned into a huge deal.
Thank you for providing the Biden example, Anduril. It shows that if a Democrat says something that comes off as a racist, he doesn’t get a free pass. Not that Biden had a real shot at being president anyway, but that blunder killed his campaign.
No one would have cared if Imus said it either, but it should be pointed out that Reid was talking in private, not on the radio.
Sorry, I’m confused - in that link it states that more Republican senators than Democratic senators voted for the Civil Rights Act and especially lauded Everett Dirksen’s speech in favor of it. This article is a refutation of Gingrich’s quote, so I don’t know why you would choose to link to it in that particular way.
Matt Yglesias made a good point this morning:
Exactly. The whole point of the ginning up of this controversy isn’t because anyone feels blacks are being victimized. Blacks can figure out who their friends and enemies really are, and few of them are concerned. This is all about people who identify unusually strongly as white feeling victimized: as they see it, one of their own was treated much more harshly for the same offense.
All I can say is, come see the violence inherent in the system. :rolleyes:
Gingrich’s point, I believe, was that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party drove the legislation, regardless of who voted for it. I’m not sure if that makes it any better, but it’s pretty clear which of the two parties has been friendlier to African-Americans and civil rights in general since 1968.
More accurate to say that black people are predominantly Democrats, and racists are predominantly conservative.
Biden didn’t say anything offensive, so that’s another bad example. It was obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that when he said Obama was “clean,” he was talking about Obama’s background being clean of scandal, not his physical hygiene. It would have been pretty stupid for anyone to get upset about that, and I assure you nobody gives a rat’s as what Al Sharpton thinks.
These “race hucksters” are an invention by demagogues like Limbaugh to be able to villify black people through a surrogate.
Do you think that everytim there’s a large public reaction by the black community to a racially charged comment by a public figure, that none of them ever form they’re own opinions? That black people all are just morons who wait to be led around by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I don’t think most of them give two shits what those guys think. I know for a fact that white liberals don’t.
I don’t think righties really understand just how racist and insulting this “race huckster” myth really is.
I am not talking Republican or Democrat. I am well aware that parties change over time. I am talking about a particular group - the racist, nationalist, “state’s rights” group. The one that once identified as Democrats, now as Republicans.
I chose that link because it contained Gingrich’s quote. The other sources I found were blogs and I am not using the article at all. I understand the article attempts to refute his quote. Based on where it was published, of course it will try to cleanse the history of the party.
The Democratic Party at the time had a liberal wing and a right wing. Mostly the Democrats were right wing. The liberal wing had the White house, though, and they forced through the Civil Rights legislation.
fter that, all the right wingers and racists in the Democratic Party switched to the Reoublican side, and remain there still.
The whole “left/right” dynamic in the parties was almost a mirror image from what it is now, but the current conservative party doesn’t have a left wing anymore.
Not necessary, that’ll just bring on an argument over how much anecdotal it takes to constitute data. Which discussion usually ends up running around in circles. I just wanted to point out that the type of argument you’re making here is weak, not actually force you to defend it. It’d be preferable to see you come up with a different, better argument.
Uh huh. And what about the record before 1968? It isn’t as if civil rights sprang into being on that date, right?
I will freely admit that the Republican Party has not always acted well with regard to race - but I do not accept lectures from the Democratic Party on this score. Their history on racial matters is quite long, and plenty sordid despite some bright spots here and there.