Carlson, Limbaugh baselessly accused Obama of justifying and inciting riots
On the June 5 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, after playing a short excerpt of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) June 5 speech in which Obama discussed what he called "quiet riots" of despair and hopelessness in poor communities, host Tucker Carlson accused Obama of "giving a political justification to totally unacceptable, never justifiable behavior." He also stated, "[I]t seems to me that when people burn down stores, kill people because they're Korean, or beat people in the head with cinder blocks because of their race, like Reginald Denny [a white man who was injured in the 1992 Los Angeles riots], that's not a political statement." But contrary to Carlson's suggestion, Obama, referring to the 1992 riots, explicitly denounced violence in the speech, including some of the specific acts Carlson listed: "This is not to excuse the violence of bashing in a man's head or destroying someone's store and their life's work. That kind of violence is inexcusable and self-defeating."
Additionally, on the June 6 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh accused Obama of "inciting riots" in the June 5 speech: "He's talking about there's a quiet riot brewing in America today because Bush doesn't care, because Bush isn't doing enough. This guy was inciting, he was inciting riots. ... And to talk about a quiet riot that is brewing out there it is dangerous, it is reckless." Limbaugh later asked, "Can you imagine if a Republican candidate talked about something equivalent to this; there's a quiet riot brewing? It would be all over the place, headlines and so forth, about how this is irresponsible, trying to incite violence in America. What do you think Obama was doing?"
In his speech, Obama used the term "quiet riots" to describe what happens in communities "when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold, and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better."
From Obama's June 5 speech:
OBAMA: Many of the folks in this room know just where they were when the riot in Los Angeles started and tragedy struck the corner of Florence and Normandy. And most of the ministers here know that those riots didn't erupt over night; there had been a "quiet riot" building up in Los Angeles and across this country for years.
If you had gone to any street corner in Chicago or Baton Rouge or Hampton -- you would have found the same young men and women without hope, without miracles, and without a sense of destiny other than life on the edge -- the edge of the law, the edge of the economy, the edge of family structures and communities.
Those "quiet riots" that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths. They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold, and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better. You tell yourself, "My school will always be second rate." You tell yourself, "There will never be a good job waiting for me to excel at." You tell yourself, " will never be able to afford a place that I can be proud of and call my home." That despair quietly simmers and makes it impossible to build strong communities and neighborhoods. And then one afternoon a jury says, "Not guilty" -- or a hurricane hits New Orleans -- and that despair is revealed for the world to see.
Much of what we saw on our television screens 15 years ago was Los Angeles expressing a lingering, ongoing, pervasive legacy -- a tragic legacy out of the tragic history this country has never fully come to terms with. This is not to excuse the violence of bashing in a man's head or destroying someone's store and their life's work. That kind of violence is inexcusable and self-defeating. It does, however, describe the reality of many communities around this country.
Look at what happened in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast when Katrina hit. People ask me whether I thought race was the reason the response was so slow. I said, "No. This administration was colorblind in its incompetence." But everyone here knows the disaster and the poverty happened long before that hurricane hit. All the hurricane did was make bare what we ignore each and every day, which is that there are whole sets of communities that are impoverished, that don't have meaningful opportunity, that don't have hope, and they are forgotten. This disaster was a powerful metaphor for what's gone on for generations.
Of course, the federal response after Katrina was similar to the response after the riots in Los Angeles. People in Washington wake up and are surprised that there's poverty in our midst, and that others were frustrated and angry. Then there are panels and there are hearings. There are commissions. There are reports. Aid dollars are approved but they can't seem to get to the people. And then nothing really changes except the news coverage quiets down.
This isn't to diminish the extraordinary generosity of the American people at the time. Our churches and denominations were particularly generous during this time, sending millions of dollars, thousands of volunteers and countless prayers down to the Gulf Coast.
But despite this extraordinary generosity, here we are 19 months later -- or 15 years later in the case of LA -- and the homes haven't been built, the businesses haven't returned, and those same communities are still drowning and smoldering under the same hopelessness as before the tragedy hit.
From the June 6 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama, Barack Obama, let me give you this quote from a story. They mentioned this yesterday, talked about the quiet riot. Obama noted that during the riots, this is the L.A. riots, the 15 years ago, South Central riots. And he's talking about there's a quiet riot brewing in America today because Bush doesn't care, because Bush isn't doing enough. This guy is inciting, he was inciting riots. He spoke to an audience of, I think I remember it yesterday 8,000 people, and to talk about a quiet riot that is brewing out there is dangerous, it is reckless.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Can you imagine if a Republican candidate talked about something equivalent to this; there's a quiet riot brewing? It would be all over the place, headlines and so forth, about how this is irresponsible, trying to incite violence in America. What do you think Obama was doing? And this is all to establish street cred folks, as being down for the struggle. He has to show that he is down for the civil rights struggle because you know they have all these pieces the libs have written: Is he black enough? is he not black enough? He's the "Magic Negro," said the L.A. Times, all of this.
From the June 5 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Barack Obama was talking about a quiet riot today, and no, it was not a reference to a 1980s heavy metal band, unfortunately. The senator waded into the controversial waters of race during a speech at Hampton University in Virginia. He said the Bush administration has done little to quell a brewing storm among some black Americans. He compared the current tension to what fueled the L.A. riots in the wake of the Rodney King verdict.
OBAMA [video clip]: These quiet riots that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires of destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and death. They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold, and young people all across the country look at the way the world is and they believe that things are never going to get better.
CARLSON: This is not the first time Obama has sounded such an alarm, but will this kind of rhetoric help or hurt his chances to become president? We welcome back MSNBC political analyst and Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, and senior editor of The New Republic Michael Crowley. Hilary, it seems to me that when people burn down stores, kill people because they're Korean, or beat people in the head with cinder blocks because of their race, like Reginald Denny, that's not a political statement. That's just crime, and Barack Obama seems to me to be giving a political justification to totally unacceptable, never justifiable behavior. And I think it's pretty outrageous.
Carlson says
That's just crime, and Barack Obama seems to me to be giving a political justification to totally unacceptable, never justifiable behavior. And I think it's pretty outrageous. "
No that is not what Obama said. More misinformation from Conservatives. Great job MMFA!!!!!!!!!!
Great job for what?How much you want to bet Olbermann does not name Carlson worst person in the World. Yet there is a chance he will attack Rush and that will be plastered on the MMFA Web site tommorow. God what a joke.
J- I really do not want to tie Olbermann into this thread. Rush is Rush, it is what I expect. Carlson is also Carlson and he sneaks these lies in day in and day out. MSNBC gives him a forum to lie, they need to be held accountable. Considering how they gave Imus a forum for 10 years to spout hate , it is not suprising how low they go and still are.
Change the subject much?
Do you actually have a problem with this site pointing out the misinformation that was laid out by these 2 "entertainers"? If so, please post something that refutes what MMFA has posted in this story, but methinks you'll have a very hard time doing so, because the full context of their comments, along with the clips that go along with it are there.
So are they lying? If not, prove it to us. We'll listen. Don't try changing the subject, because it just makes you look ignorant as to why this site is here.
No, I have no problem with the story, it is what they do , they do not deserve a great job however they do these stories all the time.
How did I change the subject?
Well, you tried to change the subject to Olberman or did you forget what you wrote?
If you have no problem with the story, then the "tone" of your post, at least to me, sounded like you did, and then you brought up Olberman on a thread totally unrelated to him.
No, MSNBC is where Carlson works. Olbermann works for MSNBC. That is related to the story. If it were about FOX , how many posters would start discussing all the FOX talking heads? Would you be outraged if they brought up the lies of Hannity while discussing Gibson or Hume or O'Reilly? Can you spell double standard?
MSNBC is where Carlson works. Olbermann works for MSNBC. That is related to the story.
So Olbermann is related to the story because he and Carlson are on the same network?
Carlson also at least used to wear bow ties. So I guess the late Sen. Paul Simon, Wally Cox, and Pinky Lee are all also related to the story.
Wally Cox and Pinky Lee!? Did Curly and Moe whisper those names in your ear?
Let's see.
FoxNews claims that they are "fair and balanced" and yet have proven to be a cheerleading group for the right wing of this country.
MSNBC, whilst far from being perfect, are a little better at actually spreading news, and not shilling for the GOP that much.
Olberman and Carlson are not on the same show. They indeed, have their own shows. So they work for the same company. So what? That does not tie them in together at all as it pertains to Carlson's comment here, or his other comments in the past. Now, if they were on the same show, ala a Hannity and Colmes that purports to show balance, then you might have a point. Or is your entire point that Olberman won't call out Carlson on what he said? There is no double standard. There are plenty of people on here, and elsewhere, that will talk about how bad MSNBC is about touting conservative misinformation, as a matter of fact, almost this whole op is about that, along with other information posted on this very website against MSNBC.
I ask again; your point is??
So, your issue should be with Olbermann, not MMFA. MMFA is right to point out how Carlson and Limbaugh spin this speech so negatively.
JLyons,
You have to prioritize!! .... Carlson is a 2nd Tier piece of right-wing filth .... It's only natural that Olbermann would highlight the 1st Tier filth (as in Limbaugh).
Why are you justifying Obama's race baiting and calls for riots ("quiet" ones at that though)? While you are at it, please explain what he meant by a "quiet riot." As Rush said, this call for violence is just another way for Barack Obama to establish street cred with MS-13 and other gangs.
Yes, taken out of context, again. Ignoring what the man is actually saying (which is more or less true I think), and pick out the pieces that fit their agenda. I'm sure that neither nitwit (Carlson or Limbaugh) actually read the entire speech, I'm sure that their "producers" did it for them, and said, oh yeah, there is a nice piece in there about "quiet riots" that they can riff on, and totally blow way out of whack on what it was actually about.
I think that things like this just show their ignorance about what is really going on in America in poor African American communities, and what is going on in poor communities in general. There is a lot of seething going on and indeed, quiet riots I think, and all that it takes for something to get kicked off, is when the people have finally just had enough. The riots in LA being a good example of such a thing. Does it make it right? Of course not, but again, people fail to realize, and or look at what the root cause of the riot was, and we're pretty much in the same position as we were then, except the poverty rates are higher now.
Mag, Well Said!
Carlson looks gay in that picture.
I am sorry but are you somehow trying to make fun of gay people? I know I have no tolerance for homphobic remarks, please clarify.
Is that because he is?
Snoop & Magnolia,
I don't get you guys.
If I, or any Conservative here wrote that someone "looked Gay", we'd be called homophobes.
What gives? Double standards?
Nah, I wouldn't label you a homophobe if you said someone looked gay. And aside, it was supposed to be comedy, you know, a joke. Wait a minute, I'm starting to sound like a right wing pundit.
But seriously, I wouldn't consider anyone a homophobe who said someone "looked" gay. I apologize for my comment, and if it offended anyone.
Thanks for the statement. I did not think you were being homophobic.
Thanks Magnolia. Actually I don't think either you or Snoop would attack me if I wrote someone "looked Gay"...BUT others here would. Yeah I know I sound defensive ;-)
I knew you were being funny, but IF that were my excuse some here wouldn't buy it.
I figgered since the right is obsessed about how every candidate looks I felt it only right to apply the same standards to them. Turn about is fair play.
and by right, I meant commentators, all. I'd never say that about anyone who posts here. I was just using a little sarcasm to drive my point about the excessive amount of discussion being given about who looks what by these pundits.
Thats the way I took it ironic turnaround.
>>LIMBAUGH: Can you imagine if a Republican candidate talked about something equivalent to this; there's a quiet riot brewing? It would be all over the place, headlines and so forth, about how this is irresponsible, trying to incite violence in America.
You mean like when Cornyn suggested liberal judges bring violence on themselves, Rush?
All this fuss over a substandard hair-band from the 1980s! Why, they only had, what, one decent song that has since been overplayed. And that dreadful man in the straight jacket on the album cover! What kind of statement is that for today's youth, that insanity is cool...
Oh, he said quiet riots. Well, that's different. Never mind.
Randy
We'll get wild, wild, wild
Dude. Quiet Riot Rokks.
I guess now we know who will be playing at Obama's inauguration party.
Obama '08: Come on, feel the noise.
Quiet Riot was lame. Their one hit was a knockoff of a song by a FAR superior band. SLADE forever!
Yeah. Slade rule! Wish they'd refer to someone as an Urban Guerilla. That would channel HAWKWIND!
Well, that's different. Never mind.
Gilda lives. :-)
Just one more example of the crippling disease known as Black and White thinking. Conservatives just can't do nuance, bless their hearts. It just zips right over their heads.
I understood what Barrack was saying. Did I expect people like Rush or Carlson to get it? Of course not!
Aren't these guys always complaining about Rightwingers being taken out of context while at the same time misrepresenting peoples words when the context is in plain site?
Pathetic.
Yeah, there's really only two explanations possible here. Either Rush and Tucker are too dumb to comprehend what Obama is saying, or they're lying through their teeth.
I go with Lying.
Is turning a speech on its head by quoting out of context lying? I would say so, and so, clearly, would you. Our media mavens, however, see things differently. This is what Chris Matthews said to political consultant Bob Shrum the other night, when Shrum complained that Matthews and others were "cherry picking" his new book and thereby giving misleading impressions.
"Come on Bob, Come on Bob, let me tell you how people read books in politics. We look for interesting stuff, that causes problems for people."
It's all about gotcha, which drives ratings, I guess. Responsible discourse, which might actually enlighten the electorate? Forget it. Matthews is bad enough, but at least he seems to be somewhat evenhanded. He lists right about 66 or 70 degrees, but Rush and Tucker are submerged and blowing bubbles.
Both Carlson and Limbaugh seek out anything to twist and exploit into an issue they think will either harm a political opponent of bolster the views they espouse. This is all this is, and they’re bending themselves into contortions with this one. It's dumb... and could Carlson's show suck anymore? OMG waht an annoying arrogant ELITIST he is.
WOOOO.... QUIET RIOTS!!!! QUIET RIOTS!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!
So then what part of quiet DONT you understand?
The only reason Carlson and Limbaugh say this stuff is because the media
1) Will not air any refutation of their remarks; and
2) will not air Obama's actual speech.
I think the point that everyone is missing is that Obama seems to be justifying the riots. Yes I know he slyly provided a caveat that it is unacceptable. to me his 'disclaimer' that is like the fine print at the bottom of the ad.
It also seems to me he is leaving open the justification of further riots by his rhetoric.
All I see are platitudes, generalities, and worn-over phrases in his speech. Does he provide any answers or simply whine? We don't know by MMFA's account. It seems to me Obama is playing to his audience and embracing "victimhood". But then he's a Democrat.
AA, you along with Carlson and Rush seem to be missing the point. From the post I've seen so far you appear to be the one that doesn't get it. Poverty still exists in America. It doesn't make the news as much as Paris Hilton's short stay in county jail.
Pearlene, do you just 'feel' that or is there something else?
Of course I know there is poverty in America, but that is just a bumper sticker slogan. What exactly constitutes poverty?
Rather than provide justification for rioting like Obama did in his speech, I'd admire him a lot more if he'd tell the truth about how to eliminate it like Bill Cosby did.
It is the soft bigotry of low expectations exhibited by Obama making excuses for the inexcusable that helps perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
To me with this 'quiet racism' speech he sounds like a younger version of the race hustlers Sharpton and Jackson.
He did no such thing. He made no such excuses. He specifically condemned such actions and really there was nothing quiet about those riots. He was talking about despair pure and simple not in any way condoning riots. You are perpetuating a lie saying he did.
You know there are other problems in this country other than terrorism. There is a different kind and some who live it every day. They aren’t worried about Osama or Iraq. They are worried about feeding their kids. Keeping them from the gangs that are alive and living in their community. They aren’t worried about airport security; they are worried that their son or daughter might die in the very school they are attending simply because they got caught in gang wars. They aren’t worried about the mismanagement of the oil for food program. They simply want to find a local market to shop in instead of the corner markets who charge 2 and 3 times what a regular market charges. Each time Republican candidates’ debate they talk fear fear fear and terrorism terrorism terrorism. You would think that this is the only problem we have in this country. You fault Obama for speaking about it. I fault Republicans for ignoring it.
Very eloquently said.
Pearlene,
Show me the markets who charge two and three times as much.
It seems to me you are wound up in liberal cliches.
Apparently you don't know what you are talking about. Small local markets or "cornerstores" which are prevalent in urban areas always have a considerable market compared to Bigger groceries stores. You won't be able to find statisitcs beause they are independantly owned and can chage what they want pretty much. People who have experienced these types of stores know what I am talking about.
Take a look at some of the worst cities in the country and then try to locate the nearest Walmart, Target ETC.....
"quiet racism?"
I think this makes it pretty clear that AA didn't understand a word that Obama said.
He isn't justifying them he's explaining them. The same thing happen in the GOP 2nd debate between Paul and Guilianni. Paul wasn't justifying 9/11 he was givining it some context other than the weak "they hate our freedom" excuse.
He not justifying future riots he's explaining that there is an issue that needs to be addressed before something like that happens again.
Whether you agree with him or not there are plenty of people in this country are the perfect examples of what he is talking about. Are you saying that there aren't people in this country displeased with their education system or there community? What's empty about that?
"You tell yourself, "My school will always be second rate." You tell yourself, "There will never be a good job waiting for me to excel at." You tell yourself, " will never be able to afford a place that I can be proud of and call my home." That despair quietly simmers and makes it impossible to build strong communities and neighborhoods. And then one afternoon a jury says, "Not guilty" -- or a hurricane hits New Orleans -- and that despair is revealed for the world to see."
Does what he speaks of not hold some merit regarding parts of this country? If not, would you mind elaborating on why his words are "platitudes, generalities, and worn-over phrases"?
There is a such thing as personal responsibilty, but do you truly belive that people don't feel this way?
Obama is talking about hopelessness and how when left to fester can turn those "quiet" riots into the other kind.
In this, the wealthiest of nations, we still have folks that are without the bare essentials..
No one chooses to be poor. The USA is the greatest nation on earth...if you can afford to live here.
There will always be those (by accident or luck of birth) who will be born into wealthy, upper-middle class or middle-class families. There will always be those destined to begin life in poverty. Some will have the added challenge of being minorities...which unfortunately does still matter. Education certainly is a way up and out for those, who through no fault of their own, were not fortunate enough to be born at the top of the rung...or at least in the middle.
I do believe in "personal responsibility", but I've learned not to make "judgments" about people without knowing some background. It's always easy to say we should each be able to succeed in this country...but too often that's easier said than done. Each situation is different. And even though I'm one of those "big bad Conservatives" I firmly believe that we who have been blessed with more should try to help those that are struggling, up the ladder.
Jeter that is one of the better comments I have seen you make so far. Thanks for posting that.
PS I don't consider you a big bad conservative, you seem to be a reasonable American with whom I do share a few differences of opinion, but I can still respect.
Very good.
Jeter you're the man!!
Jeter, BRAVO!!!
Beer and wine on Friday.
Monk, Solon, Lynn & Pearlene,
Thank you for your kind words :-)
Beer & Wine for everyone on Friday for sure...my treat ;-)
Damn, I wish we could do that for real!
I think it's not a bad idea. It would be really weird to drink with you all, but in a good way...
I dont drink, no moral thing I just dont like alcohol but if there were a grand meeting I would try to show up
Solon I'm more of just a social drinker myself. I love our cyber drinks here on Fridays.
Hey how'd you like to be the head of the committee that suggests to David Brock he should throw us a party? :-)
Yeah Val, I think it would be cool if we ever could really get together for food & drinks. Imagine us with name-tags pinned on, all meeting face to face for the first time. After a little small talk--Imagine us talking about, rather than writing about politics...
Then imagine the food fight ;-)
Wow Jeter. It's not good when you have so many liberals who agree with you.
Grow up, RINO. Jeter is a reasonable fellow. Did he write anything that was false? No.
Take a hike.
Thanks Roundhouse.
I think that's the nicest thing you've said about me in weeks ;-)
We disagree. Strongly. But we can still honor each others point of view.
Now, I don't mean that conditionally. When we agree or disagree I still think you're a stand up dude.
Back at you Roundhouse. :-)
"Did he write anything that was false"
Actually, there was one thing. Jeter claimed that "no one chooses to be poor." That isn't true. There are some people who waste all of their money on drugs and alcohol, and they would rather be poor than give up drugs and alcohol. Many welfare recipients abuse the money that is given to them. Many waste their money on things that aren't necessary and also very destructive, such as drugs and alcohol. So yes, there are some people who choose to be poor.
Many or some? Which is it?
Rino,
As someone who was fortunate enough to be born into a loving family close to the top of the rung & was given opportunities that many weren't as lucky to have, I try never to take any of it for granted or forget to be thankful. And I wish that others could have been as lucky. And I believe that each person born into a disadvantaged situation should be given the chance to be able to pull themselves out of poverty so they too could enjoy the best of what being a US citizen has to offer.
It shouldn't be just Liberals that agree. I'd think Conservatives should too
Sorry, out splitting wood for a while there. I agree with most all of you. Very nice Jeter.
I see. I was only joking about the praise that you get from liberals. I'm sorry if it seemed personal. You're a moderate Republican, and I respect your point of view. The liberals love you, and there's nothing wrong with that I guess. More power to you.
People here like Jeter because he returns respect when he gets it, even though he gives as good as he gets and doesn't mind cracking heads when people are stupid or rude or insulting.
I don't dismiss Jeter as a one-dimensional "conservative," and I get the sense he sees people as more than paper cutouts as well. It makes him an interesting interlocutor and one of the reasons I keep coming back to this site. I get the sense he is arguing with me, rather than some pre-conceived notion of what a "liberal" is.
The truth is, we are all (well, with the exception of Duncan, maybe) nuanced and complex characters, who happen to fall all along the ideological range. I am probably to the left of most everyone but RedKing, but I have notions of personal responsibility that put me on the side of AChrisPage on a lot of issues. Pretty much all of the regular posters - and a lot of the cameos - are similarly unstereotypical.
It is most interesting here when it is less like a series of remarks scrawled on the wall of the crapper, and more like last call at a good campus pub.
Jeter and Val, very nice posts.I wouldn't come here if it weren't for the disagreements and wide range of opinions.
Just last night A new poster (or one with a new name) called me closed minded, and implied that I insulted those who didn't share my opinions.I had only pointed out one point he had made, and why I thought it was weak.I had no inclination to address the other 50 or so comments he made (others did), and so got the "scared to debate, eh?" response.
Those are the ones who , while entertaining to some extent, make for the most boring days on MMFA.
The most thoughtful and courteous conservatives seem to handle themselves well here, and are treated as they deserve to be, and consequently they hang around(or have been here longer than I've been posting).Some of the lesser ones hang around through sheer delusion and hubris.
ps- Jeter is a Yankee fan f4990t. And by that, of course, I only mean one with whom I have differences of opinion. ;0D
Thanks Val, you & I went a few rounds at the start but somewhere along the way found we could disagree without being disagreeable. I've come to enjoy your intelligent reasonable posts delivered in your laid back, easy going style.
And you make a great cyber drinking buddy, whose willing to make packie runs ;-)
Anytime, dude - you buy, I'll fly. :-)
No problem Rino. And if my reply to you came across snippy, I apologize.
The Liberals don't always "love" me, I'm not bullet-proof and I do occasionally get a good tongue lashing--BUT it's not personal, it's usually just a disagreement about a particular topic. You're correct in labeling me a Moderate. I'm still traditional in many ways-- but I do keep an open mind...or try to.
I was never a huge Bush backer, and I believe he's done more harm to the Republican party & Conservatism than any Democrat or Liberal could have accomplished. This immigration Bill is just the latest of his missteps, IMO.
I thought his handling of the aftermath of 9/11 was admirable...till he detoured to Iraq.
I'm not set in a us vs them mode. My opinions vary depending on the issue.
Rino when will you grow up? It is about WHAT is said not WHO said it.
"Rino when will you grow up"
Geez Solon, you could at least come up with your own insult instead of copying from Round House. But anyway, have a nice day!
RINO,
God I hope I'm here when you express a thought that hasn't been screened and sanctioned by the RNC before hand. You keep worshipping at the RNC alter and the rest of us... Liberals, Conservatives, and all those in between will keep trying to honestly evaluate public policy and solutions to some of American problems. If I think a policy is good it makes no difference to me whether it was developed and proposed by Sam Brownback or Ted Kennedy. I'm sure it would to you.Well said Lynn. I think you speak for many of us on that point. We want what's best for America & her citizens, it honestly doesn't matter which side of the aisle good legislation comes from.
This isn't a football game where you cheer on only one side!
Monkn,
I have no doubt some people feel that way but I don't think that excuses rioting.
It drives me crazy when politicians use generalities like,"My school will always be second rate."
Who's school? Who is doing the speaking? Why?
The biggest cause of poverty in America, so I'm told, is single parenthood. Why not talk about that? Why not talk about the need for education as a means of breaking out of poverty? Why simply give excuses and 'causes'? To throw in "a jury says not guilty" and Katrina is simply race hustling. Those phrases don't even make sense except that they evoke feelings of victimhood.
"I have no doubt some people feel that way but I don't think that excuses rioting." --anotheramerican
I don't think anyone is excusing rioting. That is a moral judgement. What is being discussed is a causal argument. They are two seperate things. We can talk about the causes of disease without excusing the disease itself in moral terms.
Secondly, your discussion of "victimhood" is a generality itself. I don't know if you are being disingenuous or not, but for the majority of the time blacks as a group have been in this country, they have been victims. It seems that many conservatives have a hard time accepting that fact. Do you expect that black folks were instantly no longer victims at all when slavery was abolished 140 odd years ago?
I think it is necessary to recognize the current state of affairs by understanding and discussing the relevant historical anticedents. That is all I saw Obama doing. I don't fault him for it one bit.
Excellent post as usual. The truth is that we have allowed a whole impoverished sub-culture to develop and exist in America. People that live in those communities are completely separated from mainstream American culture and have been so now for several generations. Essentially there is this Petri dish where perpetual dysfunction (teenage out of wed-lock births, habitual criminality) has been allowed to become fixed. We can and should at leats attempt to undo what has taken decades to devolve into. I'll agree with my Conservative brethren that simply handing someone a monthly stipend of $300 -$400 a month and food stamps doesn’t address the problem. While it kept people from starving and living on the streets it was a completely insufficient resolution.We need programs that will reach the kids and modify the behavior that is fueling continual poverty and dysfunction. I stated on another thread that my employer is involved in a program and they hire welfare to work candidates. These women have been trained in computer soft-ware applications and they are now employed as clerical and administrative personnel through out the company. It's probably true that some don't want to be here and were unwillingly kicked off of the welfare rolls. Sadly some of people have become accustomed to being poor and even the some of the ones who want to change their circumstance don’t know exactly where or how to begin. But whether they want to be here or not is a non-issue. They are going to get off there butts and work and we are going to use them as an example to the children they’re rearing. These kids will see that Mommy has to go off to work every morning and understand that's what one has to do when they're an adult. I also believe that these women are being exposed to people they would have never come into contact with sitting home waiting for their monthly 400 dollars. A lot of these ladies are AA (but not all) and they are being exposed to other AAs that are highly educated professionals, came from two parent households or are apart of a two parent households. I also believe that they will eventually connect the dots and see how education is linked to advancements in life-style and these messages will be passed on to the children. Ultimately if we’re committed to do this thing correctly we will reduce this cycle of poverty.
Great post Lynn. Always enjoy reading you.
As someone that’s a proud “leftist” I can safely say there’s no way I can deny how the role of “personal responsibility” has played an important part in my life. Growing up in a poor, single-parent household, I can personally attest to what many of my brothers and sisters go through each day. And for those who think that many poor black folks are content being in poverty not only demonstrates their ignorance but their petit bourgeoisie condescension. Fortunately I had a positive mother who always stressed education and the importance of utilizing your imagination to achieve your goals. Though she worked many jobs to put food on the table, she always made time for my brother and I to help us with our homework and build our self-esteem, despite dire conditions we lived in. Therefore, this whole talk about what causes the continuous cycle of poverty in the inner cities is single parent households isn’t the case in all families. But like all things that are tragic in Black American, a few represents all, and you’ll rarely hear of success stories such as myself and others who made it out of these conditions and excelling in college.
And while I disagreed with some of the things Bill Cosby said in his infamous “Pound Cake speech,” there were many things I agreed with—who couldn’t? In fact, most black folks agreed with Cosby because this is the same type of rhetoric we hear in our churches and barbershops, from our uncles, grandfathers, etc. Even our greatest black thinkers such as Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Dubois, A Phillip Randolph, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, James Baldwin, etc., have all advocated for “personal responsibility” in the community. Hell, even despicable, self-appointed black leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have preached the Gospel of “personal responsibility.” This isn’t some new message that’s heard in the black community (the way folks painted it after Cosby’s speech), you go into any black church today and you’ll hear the same message of Cosby’s made each Sunday morning. But for some reason Right Wingers such as AA—mostly due to their ignorance of the inner-workings of the black community—act as if what Cosby’s said was something new and bold. Additionally, only reason people such as AA enjoyed Cosby’s speech so much because he, unlike the aforementioned black thinkers (except perhaps Booker T. Washington), refused to touch on the institutions that have placed these poor folks in reprehensible conditions in the first place. Also, unlike the aforementioned black thinkers, Cosby is a hardcore assimilationist. Simply put, they enjoyed Cosby’s speech because he didn’t remind them of the aftereffects of Slavery, Jim Crow and Institutionalized Racism. To do otherwise would be dismissed as “playing into victimhood,” which is so 1980s. Funny enough, when Obama “chastised” his people in his speech at Selma, Alabama, folks such as Carlson, Blizter, Hannity, Buchanan and others cheered him on, saying, “He reminds me of Bill Cosby, he’s going to change black politics forever” yet when Obama even hints at the role of classism and racism, they lose their minds. It's okay to "tell-it-like-it-is" to black folk when it assuages one’s own guilt or responsibility, but it’s “playing into victimhood” when giving the same amount of criticism to corrupt institutions that have played a huge role in placing these folks in the conditions that are inexcausable. How one soon forgets that “Personal Responsibility” is a two-way street. However, this isn't surprising since they turned on Obama the same way the turned on Colin Powell when he said he supports Affirmative Action. <a href="[link to www.wpunj.edu] style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Tahoma">Sociologist Stephen Steinberg</a> wrote an incredible article that touches on this issue.
Sorry about that, here it goes: http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue17/steinb17.htm
"Funny enough, when Obama “chastised” his people in his speech at Selma, Alabama, folks such as Carlson, Blizter, Hannity, Buchanan and others cheered him on, saying, “He reminds me of Bill Cosby, he’s going to change black politics forever” yet when Obama even hints at the role of classism and racism, they lose their minds. It's okay to "tell-it-like-it-is" to black folk when it assuages one’s own guilt or responsibility, but it’s “playing into victimhood” when giving the same amount of criticism to corrupt institutions that have played a huge role in placing these folks in the conditions that are inexcausable. "
Perfect observation! Thanks for bringing this up.
How one soon forgets that “Personal Responsibility” is a two-way street." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Absolutely! You were fortunate to have a mother who could pass on positive lessons to you that have provided you with essential life skills. Lots of kids don't have this and there is no one in their immediate environs to teach them personal responsibility. They don't hear it and the examples they see are directly in contrast to this. For instance my mother was the financial manager in the household. She sat me down and showed me how to balance a check book when I was eighteen and had opened my first checking account. My parents lectured me on the value of education all my life and there were even lots of lectures on the value of maintaining good credit. My Mom told me having bad credit is not only irresponsible but it's expensive because you end up paying multiple times over the value of something because of an exorbent interest rate. I believe if there are parents that WILL not parent or have NO clue how to parent than as a community-society we should intervene; we certainly have the means but the will? I believe it's a irresponsible for us as a society to leave young minds at the mercy of people who don't know what to do with them. I know a lot of Conservatives like AA and RINO hate the it takes a village to raise a child philosophy, but what do you do when parents can't parent. Yes it's going to take a couple of our tax dollars, but we are going to have to pay for leaving these kids to the detrimental elements of their world one way or another. You can pay for poverty prevention and intervention programs or you can pay for more prisons later, and housing criminals is expensive. Moreover, except for the rare aberration, no child is born destined to be irresponsible and there is no genetetic predisposition to criminality. These behaviors are directly attributable to being reared in abominable environments.
I agree with much of what Preston wrote.
I am well aware of the history of slavery and the effects of Jim Crow and segregation and prejudice that has been a sad part of the history of this country.
There may have been in the past but I do not believe that there is institutionalized racism in our country.
I disagree with Obama that the 90's riots in LA were based on dispair and hopelessness. I believe there were other factors involved. I got the impression that Obama, by trying to make a link to actual institutalionalized racism of 30-40-50-100 years ago was trying to put this anarchy on the same plane as the riots in the 60s. To say there still exists 'quiet riots' is to say that we should understand any future lawlessness and rioting because of the reasons he gave. That is what I meant by his excusing of it. I know others are free to disagree. However it seems to me that the supposed underpinnings of the riots mentioned by Obma is the single-note tune still being played by the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.
AA, I don’t quite understand your conclusion in this: on the one hand you recognize the racist acts of Slavery, Jim Crow and Institutionalized Racism, and the detrimental effects White Supremacy has had on blacks in this country, yet on the other hand you dismiss all of this as something in the past—a moment in history—as if it has nothing to do with current conditions. This tends to be the core part of what makes so many Conservatives—not all but many of them—so acrimonious and smug when people do bring up history and the legacy of racism when explaining certain conditions if Black America. You, like so many of your brethrens, believe the moment when Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, all racism suddenly disappeared after that. And whatever problems blacks face from then on is solely their fault and no one else is to blame but their own self-destructive pathology. This is Blame The Victim 101.
You don’t see Institutionalized Racism and White Privilege because you—as a white male—is part of the system and too oblivious and conditioned to see how it effects others that are non-white and non-male. Institutionalized Racism and White Privilege is the racist foundation which has set the benchmark for the hidden social racist hierarchy—a hierarchy in which White Men are subconsciously put on the highest pedestal by conditioned people everywhere, seemingly omnipresent today. That foundation is most likely Colonialism; for without it, there wouldn't be this “White Male Christian Power Structure” that Bill O’Reilly and Pat Buchanan are so afraid will be completely dismantled when to many Others outnumber the status quo.
Racism today is a product of elitism—elitism maintained by a White-run system of control; a system that is traceable back to centuries of Colonialism. With Colonialism came the incremental establishment of a dominant culture—the culture of Whiteness. Through the standardization of Whiteness culture, the oppressed cultures have become assimilated into it. Cultural assimilation is an effect of Colonialism and Expansionism. This is precisely what the Elites had in mind. It was their agenda, a "Manifest Destiny" as they used to say. They believed they had the "divine right" to expand and control other cultures because they thought of themselves as "superior".
Colonialism is irrefutably the central factor in the conditioning of the masses today. People today are so conditioned now that they aren't even slightly aware that they are continuing to be conditioned. Cultural assimilation is happening all the time. The media feeds the masses with the same ideas of beauty, protagonism, hero-worship, all usually centered around the White Man as the hero, as the sexual partner for both white and non-white women, and the victor in most storylines. This is not always the case, but it is MOSTLY the case - which makes it the most influential. All of these factors are part of the Elite's agenda to standardize Whiteness Culture in order to assimilate people everywhere into subconsciously perceiving Whiteness as the standard for Humanity. It is a big deception, and people are unknowingly allowing themselves to be conditioned by it. As a result of these mass deceptions, Internalized Racism and Externalized Racism are formed. With the standardization of Whiteness comes White Privilege - another facet of the underlying racist paradigm that seeks to reinforce the social hierarchy that conditions people today.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/whiteness_and_privilege/whiteness_defining.cfm http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/colorbli.htmhttp://canopyweb.com/racism/http://www.gcc.mass.edu/library/pathfinders/WPInternet.htm http://www.uwm.edu/~gjay/Whiteness/index.html http://www.whiteprivilege.com/definition/ http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/white11.htm http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html http://whiteprivilege.hampshire.edu/index.phphttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15719843/
As time moves on, these forms of racism become more covert. It becomes covert all the more when people become ignorant of history. Ignorance is what leads people to avoid real discussions about racism. Ignorance is what leads people to downplay history, giving them the desensitized mentality to repeat it."The media feeds the masses with the same ideas of beauty, protagonism, hero-worship, all usually centered around the White Man as the hero, as the sexual partner for both white and non-white women[...]"
It's a very minor point, but I question part of that assertion. While white males are almost always shown to be the hero to other cultures, media depictions of white men as a sexual partner to non-white women are virtually non-existent. Oddly, and unexpectedly, it seems that media depictions of interracial relationships between white women and black men are far more widely accepted. Films, television and even advertising seem to be open to this image, while the image of a white man with a black or Hispanic woman is still taboo.
Preston and Lynn, thanks for those well thought out and intelligent posts.
Thanks for the kind words, Julia. I also want to say that I'm a big fan of your poems, too. You rhymes and prose are so stylish and unique you may gave rappers Queen Latifah and MC Lite a run for their money. ;)
I love how you respond to a post that begins saying "he's not justifying it..." by talking about how riots shouldn't be excused. He's not excusing them. He's not justifying them. He's not approving them.
Also can it be noted that you talk about how you hate the generality of talking about second-rate schools...and then ask why he didn't talk about the need for education?
I'm worried for you and your child, I honestly don't think you should be driving in this condition.
brab, You miss my point completely regarding the schools. Obama's comments were not about the need for education. They were simply stoking the fire of victimhood. Why else would he say that they will always be 'second rate'.
But nice try on the putdown at the end. Unfortunately it needs lots of work. I give it about 3.5. ;-)
The point that they'll always be "second-rate" clearly points to the hopelessness involved in an inferior school system! Pointing that concern out is a call for better education, unless you think Obaba considers hopelessness a good thing.
No doubt, AA is a fan of Ronny "Morning in America" Reagan. God, talk about the King of generalities. Talk about Mr. Emotional Appeal (yeah, I caught that jab at Pearlene, AA). Welfare queen anyone? Like that wasn't some generalized emotional appeal to the nimrod purchasers of emotional politics.
Check yourself, son. Republicans are the undisputed heavyweight champions of Cro Magnon pandering. That, in fact, is a huge reason why conservatism took hold of everyday people. Libs were stuck in policy speak while Repubs were talking directly to the pre-frontal lobe.
Think about it. Tough on terrorism vs. international cooperation. Gay marriage vs. individual rights. Abortion is murder vs. privacy rights.
Disingenuous.
AA, do you think that single parenthood could conceivably be described as an effect of poverty, as well as a cause?
And depending on your answer to that, do you think there are some deeper, less tangible causes of poverty?
HBL,
I think single parenthood is a result of well intentioned people making a drastic mistake by diminishing the legal and moral aspects of marriage and parenthood. Releasing the father from the equation of parenthood through liberalized divorce laws. The almost universal praise for unwed motherhood. The breakdown of social proscription against pre-marital sex. The welfare state. All these I think are causes. Feel free to disagree.
You forget that a lot of single mothers out there are single mothers because of the partner's abusive actions towards the mother. I never did buy into the stay married so you can have a nice normal family. Screw that I refuse to stay married to or be in a relationship with an abusive man and endanger my son nor would I choose for him to be raised in that type of environment and possiby learn that that is the normal way to treat a woman.
Obama seems to be justifying the riots
Hardly. Rather, he was echoing the noteworthy words of Mr. Spock: "I do not approve. I understand."
I really can't imagine that distinction is too subtle for you to grasp.
Larrye, Perhaps a rejection of that argument is too subtle for you to understand?
Do doctors need to approve of cancer in order to understand what causes it?
"That kind of violence is inexcusable and self-defeating. It does, however, describe the reality of many communities around this country."(Obama)
Now read Larrye's comment.
If you "reject that argument", you are rejecting reality.I'm sorry, AA, this one's not a subjective difference of opinion that you can squirm around.
I understood the comment from Obama and commented about it elsewhere. To me it was a simply a disclaimer. If Obama really felt that way he should have made his speech about that instead of trying to give cliche' and soundbites regarding the cause of the riots.
Truly absurd. So now nobody can mean anything unless they devote the entire speech to that aspect. Obama made valid comments, but they're just soundbites. Right.
So Obama can't discuss this at all, is what you're saying. Because what else are you supposed to do but "slyly" add a caveat about how rioting is wrong?
On the recent Edwards thread I pointed out that if he hadn't mentioned that fighting terrorism was important, right-wingers would take that to mean that he didn't care or wanted to appease them or some such. Here's a perfect demonstration. Even after Obama denounces violence, he's still justifying riots. It's "fine print", as far as you're concerned. One can only imagine your reaction if he hadn't made that caveat.
Thanks for proving my point.
Meanwhile, you don't grasp the difference between understanding something and accepting it. This also has strong parallels to terrorism, where efforts to understand the causes of it are stupidly perceived to be justification for it. For a simple comparison, think about the "three strikes" law that Clinton pushed, something I strongly disagreed with. The more people you put in jail for life without possibility of parole, the more people you have who have absolutely nothing to lose. By magnifying that dynamic, you can expect to see more in-prison murders, more riots, etc, because there's no difference to the prisoners, they have no reason to care. Understanding that is quite different from justifying the behavior, just as it is here.
I don't know what your point is, but you're welcome. :-)
I don't know what it takes for you to comprehend it, then. What part of it is unclear?
AA,
Do you honestly believe that a respected Senator would call for riots? Whether you like Obama or not, (and your past posts leads me to believe there are few if any Liberals you actually like), Obama like the vast mahority of Senators imports himself in a manner befitting his office. He has shown that he believes in honest debate and advocates that we across the political spectrum unify around the issues that are common ground for us. There’s a lot of common ground that we can agree on if everyone would approach it honestly and seek it out. Limbaugh and Carlson are what Bush would call dividers and this may sound corny but that isn’t being a good American in my opinion. These guys enjoy stirring up political acrimony and that’s what they’re doing here. They are trying desperately to create an issue where there is none."mahority of Senators" !!
Lynn, your subconscious mind is better than most peoples every day drivin' around brain. Load - Mouths and this, your typos are poetry!
In addition to my bad typing and poor spelling, I'm subconsciously a comedic genius.
Lynn, I didn't say Obama was calling for riots. I don't know where you got that idea.
I have a great idea for you as far as your desire for uniting.
Simply believe as I do. Problem solved.
Obama said:
Those "quiet riots" that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths. They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold, and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better.
What explanation would you be satisfied with exactly? he does a fantastic job of communicating the kind of hopelessness that exists in certain spaces in urban America.
I'm curious to know what your "answer" is, beyond parroting what you've heard on right wing blogs.
Fatty,
Just a quick comment. You are not the first to use the lame and intellectually lazy proposition that I and others who reject much of the left-wing agenda driven silliness that MMFA spews daily are simply repeating the right-wing blogs.
It means nothing to me when I read that except that people who use it have nothing of substance to write.
Think about it, does not everyone who day after day repeats the tired laments against Bush and conservatives parrot left-wing blogs? It is a silly phrase that means nothing.
So lets get on with it and leave the parroting to aviaries.
"Just a quick comment. You are not the first to use the lame and intellectually lazy proposition that I and others who reject much of the left-wing agenda driven silliness that MMFA spews daily are simply repeating the right-wing blogs." AA
AA, I have to agree with you. MMFA repeats what idiot righty talkers say in context and it is indeed lame and intelectually lazy, not to mention dishonest. But they highlight right wing driven silliness not left wing as you assert. And MMFA doesn't spew anything. It states righty talk liers in context in a rather dry and pro forma manner. Any hyperbole you project on MMFA is your own.
JuliaJayne,
Touche'.
JJ,
Forgive the non sequitur (attention Mitt, here's a real one), but my computer was belly up for a couple of days, and I ran across the Limerick jam too late to participate. This one occurred to me:
A poster called Julia plus Jayne
From Limericks just could not abstain.
She crafted them daily,
Most libs countered gaily,
But wingnut retorts were inane.
I apologize for intruding on a serious matter, but I wanted to get it out there before it joined the last part of Xanadu.
Conchabar, sorry but I've been gone for the most part for the past couple of days and just now saw your limerick. I liked it very much. Thanks. That limerick fest was fun.
Let it be known AA, that rather than answer my question, you chose to attack me and then attack Media Matters.
To a conservative, an explanation is the same as an excuse, unless you're talking about a conservative. In which case it's some liberal's fault.
Fatty want an answer. Fatty want an answer? Squawk.
If my response is consdered by you to be attacking you then let me be the first to give you a kleenex. You must be new around here.
It is the height of conceit that just because you pose a question and declare you want an answer that I jump. I only now got back to you because I was replying to others. Next time please include a deadline and I'll put you on a pedestal so you won't get your feelings hurt.
Regardless you have decided to go with your over-generalized and somewhat familar-bird like critique regarding conservatives. (Here is another kleenex.)
Oh. You'll find my answer in other replies. Consider it a treasure hunt. Squawk!
Wow, what a prize-winning jackass you are. Does it not occur to you that your previous response was a "kleenex" moment, where you wailed about Fatty's comment about right-wing blogs. You must be new here!
As for your answer, I've read the thread, and I haven't seen it. That's what discourse is supposed to be about, where you explain your relative positions and evaluate them. When someone asks you a question to understand your position, then if you don't answer you are saying you can't explain your comments. Dodging the question by acting offended to part of his post, and then offering a kleenex when he asks again doesn't make you look like you're interested in discourse at all.
And you wonder why people call you a troll?
So you dodged the question, twice, and then you attacked me again instead of answering it, because you don't have a real answer.
You're not interested in a discussion curtailing poverty or urban violence, as long as neither affects you. So rather than discuss the issue with any depth, you'd rather demonize those whom you don't understand or whom you fear. Obama seems to fit both criteria for you.
In fact, for all your rhetoric about personal responsibility on this thread, you'd pretty much spent your time blaming other people for things you don't like. More importantly, you're engaged in shifting the focus of the item from Tucker and Limbaugh very clearly distorting what Obama said into a discussion of whether or not Obama was endorsing or justifying violence, which he clearly wasn't.
Lighten up fatty.
Where's your sense of humor? (I thought it mildly funny.) My apologies to you and someone called 'fatty'.
Just the handle makes me giggle.
Oh, I'll take your words of wisdom to heart when you respond to all your enlightened brethren who daily attempt ad hominum attacks at the conservative posters here, conservatives in general, and our President. Wait that is asking too much. Anyone of the three will do.
Oh and about people calling me troll, tell them it trolls for thee. ;-)
I didn't say anything about anyone's handle.
What does your comment about ad hominem attacks mean? The point was about discourse. I'm interested in it, and I think that's obvious from my behavior. I've criticized people like Coop in the past who don't make actual arguments, but just insult.
So, I guess you can officially take my words of wisdom to heart, then.
Har! A "treasure hunt" for AnotherAmerican's answer. Let's see, ten paces to the kitty litter box, and dig straight down.Aaaaargh, Matey!
Argh!
Or maybe we're just paying attention to the poor job the supposed "liberal media" is doing and actually have some facts. Then we have to deal with folks like you who don't want facts. You prefer talking points and exposing our "agenda". Then you assume our motives and put words in our mouths and erecting straw man arguments. You'll cling to an absurd notion to justify an irrational dislike of a particular Democrat or liberal. See, believe it or not, the "agenda" that is liberal involves not trusting misleading information. I tend to read transcripts of actual testimony. Conservatives will believe something Rush Limbaugh says without checking it out. I know this because I listen to conservatives. They confuse opinion with fact and trust untrustworthy sources of information. I don't. I don't claim to know everything every day but I can tell a pile of bs and when I'm hearing what I might want to hear. Most of my liberal friends are the same way. They look it up and present it and you try to explain it away.
Good thing you don't generalize.
Social inequality and poverty is the greatest cause of immorality. Our cities and suburbs are products of technology run rampant without the benefit of political or sociological direction. Builders, developers, entrepreneurs, etc., seeking short-term profits, create an anarchy of private interests unregulated by political or philosophical purpose. Defining our priorities should be a matter of moral accounting not cost accounting. Unless we recognize that we are what we do the “quiet riot” brewing nationally and internationally may not remain quiet for long.
Spoken like a true Communist.
Spoken like a true idiot.
Ass.
Spoken like a true....
I wouldn't worry about it, RO. I figure when someone has gotten so desperate that they pull the moldy "he's a communist" chestnut from the bottom of the barrel, they're admitting that the debate's over and the judges have given the trophy to the winner - while they sit spluttering in an emptying theater.
Now there is an intellectual. I hope you feel better.
He did exactly what YOU did. I hope he feels better too. I also think he was right.
Spoken like a person who likes to call everyone he disagrees with a 'liar'. ;-)
Read up on the definition of communism and then lets talk.
First of all, your initial "Communist" statement was an ad hominem argument against Easymike, so it has no merit and puts your argumentation skills in question. Second, you are the one that needs comprehend what communism is. Whether you agree or not, Easymike's post was a rational statement of opinion, but it in no way advocated a Communist system. Given your support of Republicans, you might want to vet your statements with your friends, as I've heard some very right-wing Christian activists say virtually the same thing as Easymike's "Defining our priorities should be a matter of moral accounting not cost accounting."
Personally I read the Communist Manifesto when I was 16 so I dont need to check the definition. Have YOU read it? Do YOU really know what it is or are you working off of a dictionary definition or a Rush Limborg type working definition?
You read it last year?
Hahaha... Yes I read it. Required reading in Political Theory class.
I don't believe it was an ad hominum attack because he is basically adovcating classic communism.
jdc - As for your last statement, you make a good point. However everything needs to be taken in context.
I wondered what the responses might be to my comment. What is truly a hoot is that I paraphrased comments made by Senator James William Fulbright in a 1968 Playboy Magazine article and added "quiet riot". LMFAO ANOTHERAMERICAN, Communist indeed!
I guess China doesn't have many riots.
I guess China doesn't have many riots.
I assume that was sarcasm that you thought would go over most folks' heads.
However, there have indeed been riots in China, especially recently. And the driving force behind, the complaints surrounding, those outbreaks? Increasing social and economic inequality.
Point to EM, albeit with a two-tenths deduction for appearing to tie inequality per se too narrowly to capitalism as practiced in the US.
Roters? China even runs their protestors over with tanks. Somehow I bet you would do the same if you had you're way.
Personally, I was absolutely dismayed at all the riots that broke out in many US cities after Obama's speech. Oh wait! There weren't any!
They were vewwwwy quieeet.
Don't ever do that again when my mouth is full.
I think your Wrong AA. Your reply to Easy Mike is everything you complain about in your posting above it.
Probably there's complaint about the sources or conservative coment here in part because alot of those talking points have been debunked many times over. And here they are again. My ability to cheerfully bring one down for the umpteenth time gets a little strained.
Riots have roots. You look at the ugly surface of them. You don't appear to look any further than that. This approach means that the causes are not addressed and the cycle is not broken.
It seems to me that you overestimate yourself. However be that as it may, see my reply to Monknj if you want to get beyond the surface.
Gutless, pocket-sized, simpering piece of crud: That's Tucker Carlson!!
Brab, any comment here?
It's unsubstantive, certainly ad hominem. However, I think the earlier point was more relevant to discussions here. There aren't many people who talk about other posters in insulting terms without making substantive arguments as well. Anyone who does has no place on this board, in my opinion.
This sort of thing is so typical of the conservative mindset. To them any attempt at understanding the root cause of a problem so that preventative measures can be taken is somehow endorsing the problem. The only solutions they believe in are punitive.
Typical liberal mindset. What preventive measures were offered?
Did it occur to you that the very COMMENT was a preventative measure? Ever comfort a friend? Sometimes you say nothing and let them cry. Sometimes you just let them know that you understand. You dont ALWAYS jump in with advise. Saying you hear the problem and feel the dispair itself can be like the petcock on a pressure cooker it doesnt let out all the steam but it lets out some. Surely you understand that it lessens the very frustration he is talking about that someone in realy authority recognizes at least that there IS a plight they are experiencing.
On a personal level I agree with you. However if someone came up to me and lamented the fact that they had just rioted and bashed an innocent man in the head with concrete, I think I would be calling the police.
I think most of the speech was a criticism of the current state of affairs. I take it that Obama was suggesting that he would make rebuilding NO and inner cities more of an economic priority than what is currently happening in order to prevent the expression of discontent (rioting) in areas where hopelessness is seemingly pervasive.
Open,
Funny, I guess I just missed it in the speech.
The implication was subtle and not explicit.
You can't find solutions to problems without talking about them first. The problem with the conservative mind set is they assume to much. In this case they are assuming that Obama wants riots or is warning that riots are coming because he thinks that's just swell. He merely appears to be campaigning. Echoing the sentiments of his constituents. There is no reason to assume what Tucker and Rush are assuming. Another example is when conservatives claim liberals hate America because they dare to point out mistakes our government has made. It's all radical assumptions and the audacity to think that they know what liberals intentions are. No wonder Democrats only speak from carefully worded scripts. They have to second guess themselves all the time because they know Republicans will parse and twist, assume and imply anything to make Democrats look bad.
Fatty,
Just so you don't get your shorts in a bunch. I've got to run and take my kids to t-ball.
Thanks everyone for the discussion! Have a good evening.
Fatty,
Just so you don't get your shorts in a bunch. I've got to run and take my kids to t-ball.
Thanks everyone for the discussion! Have a good evening....AA
=============================================
Poof! And with that, another wingnut cuts and runs ...
AA, as usual, your reading is somewhat selective. Here's the part of Obama's speech, highlighted by MMFA, that you seem to have not gotten...
This is not to excuse the violence of bashing in a man's head or destroying someone's store and their life's work. That kind of violence is inexcusable and self-defeating.
Enjoy the T-ball game.
You're wrong, Dave. AA is well aware of the "slyly" inserted "caveat" that Obama put in there, he called it "fine print".
His reading wasn't selective, he just thinks that Obama is denouncing violence, but apparently doesn't really mean it. Where he gets this, only his proctologist knows for sure.
Hahaha... Unlike you, I cannot do self exams. ;-)
We all know you're inflexible, yes.
Do you have a defense of your ridiculous assertions? I didn't think so.
Carlson and Limbaugh are justifying stupidity and ignorance by opening their mouths. How dare they!
I find it funny that someone like Limbaugh...
who constantly accuses MMFA of taking him out of context... which it doesn't... continually (along with the other kooky-con hacks) pull some words out of a speech and totally blast on it... out of context.
It happened with Harry Reid's "the war is lost" comment, and Senator Reid was spot on with the context in which he said that. Now it's happening with Obama, and he's spot on in the context of his speech. And they did the same thing with Hillary's reading of a passage of African-American literature when she made a southern visit.
And as Bob Somerby continues to say, our so-called liberal commentators continue to let this go, while pseudo liberals in fact lead such BS on.
The fact is MMFA dares to post the context within which speech occurs. Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, et al don't dare broadcast the context around what they cherry-pick and distort.
"And even though I'm one of those "big bad Conservatives" I firmly believe that we who have been blessed with more should try to help those that are struggling, up the ladder." Jeter2 (earlier today).
This dilemma has perplexed me for awhile. Would I (and those who are struggling) be better off if I (as an example) set up a scholarship fund with $5000 at the local high school, community college, vocational school, college, university, etc geared to those who need the help to further education or if I sent $1750 (taxes) to the government and let what trickles back help with higher education? Personally, I think its better off to go the first route, not only with education issues, but with related issues that give a hand up to those who need it. Will society as a whole be better served by people like Bill/Melinda Gates and their foundations or by high tax rates (and the inevitable loopholes in the code)?
Not living in a large metropolitan area, I don't see close up the scenario expressed by Mr. Obama, although I am sure it is there. At the same time, I see opportunities in this country for those who are willing to take some risks. The CEO of the company where I am employed mentioned in a meeting the other day that over 70% of our workforce is over 40 years old. I see opportunities there as those of us in the the mentioned demographic retire over the next 5-20 years. But the work takes some skills, which apparently some are unable or unwilling to garner.
I have to say I didn't follow all of your points, but they seem intriguing, so I hope you develop them further.
I don't think anyone would argue that $5000 for a scholarship would have less of an impact than $1750 in the Federal budget. Even dollar for dollar, your $1750 would have more direct impact at your local school than lost in the billions the U.S. takes in. I am not sure how one relates to the other, though.
The issue is how does society pay for the things we all agree we want - schools, good roads, some degree of safety in our homes, etc. If it were all voluntary, does anyone think we would have a fraction of the infrastructure we have now? I certainly don't.
I would personally like to see the decision making at a much lower level, as close to where the money is to be spent. However, I just don't see a way around the compulsory tax. I would really love to be like those Northern Europeans who say they like paying txes, but I am far from that place now...
I think the biggest bone of contention between the progressive and conservative sides in fiscal matters would be the definition of the level of government involvement in the infrastructure of the country. I have no problem in paying taxes to support roads, police, fire, military, basic social services, basic eduction (and there are some I have left out). And I would contend that those that have been given much should be willing to share their abundance with those that have less, but I don't know that the government should be the final arbitor (if you will) of defining who has much and who needs much. I would rather see the affluent follow the example of people like Bill/Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet (and others) who have set up foundations with their $$ to do "good". As an American, we have responsibilities that I will not list at this time (due to a lack of time at this time, work calls), perhaps later. I see those among us that appear to be "greedy" (for the lack of a better word), that are unwilling to share in their abundance and this is reported and helps create (at least in my mind) situations that lead to "quiet riots." Too seldom is the good reported and lauded.
Ithink I am probably pretty much with you there. I have a problem with big business and big government - and especially the evil of both of them working in concert - for pretty much the same reasons. Large organisations have their own agendas and people inside them can avoid personal responsibility for making choices they would never make if they had to look into the eyes of those who have to suffer the consequences.
I fell in love with the libertarian socialist ideals of the 19th Century because they stressed small groups taking action in their local areas, organisations no larger than the number of people who could realistically be at the same meeting. I still don't think they were far off the mark.
Everyday people, left and right, have a lot more in common with each other than any of us do with big businessmen or Federal bureaucrats.
I'M INCREDULOUS THAT A WHINING LITTLE TWIT LIKE TUCKER CARLSON HAS A POLITICAL DISCUSSION SHOW. I REALLY CAN'T STAND TO SEE OR LISTEN TO HIM FOR MORE THAN A MINUTE AND A HALF NO MATTER HOW INTERESTED I AM IN HIS GUESTS. HE GOES OFF ON THESE TIRELESS RANTS AND RAVES AND SAYS THE MOST INSULTING AND LIBELOUS THINGS ABOUT ANYONE WHO ISN'T A REPUBLICAN, A RIGHT WINGER, OR AN RIGHT WING EXTREMIST. WHY ANY PERSON WITH ANY INTELLIGENCE OR ANY KIND OF A RATIONAL THOUGHT WOULD SIT THROUGH HIS ENTIRE PROGRAM AMAZES ME. ALL I CAN THINK ABOUT IT IS THAT HE GETS THE RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS AND THE RED NECKS AND RELIGIOUS FANATICS FROM THE DEEP SOUTH (YOU KNOW, THE KIND NAMED BILLY BOB AND JIM BOB AND WHO HAVE SEX WITH THEIR RELATIVES AND SIT OUTSIDE THE TRAILOR PARK IN GROUPS AND DRINK BEER AND SMOKE). I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN OUR COUNTRY WILL REGAIN SOME SEMBLANCE OF SANITY AND DECENCY WHEN REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN ENGAGE IN INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE WITHOUT TRASHING EACH OTHER, A TIME AFTER SUCH LOONIES AS TUCKER CARLSON, JOE SCARBOROUGH AND WHACKO BILLO O'REILLEY-0 HAVE BEEN ABANDONED BY A MORE SANE, SOPHISTICATED, SPIRITUAL AND REASONABLE AMERICA. I GUESS THAT WILL BE AFTER GEORGE, "THE DECIDER", MAKE THAT "THE DIVIDER" IS NO LONGER PERPETRATING HIS DAMAGE UPON OUR GREAT COUNTRY AND OUR BELOVED CONSTITUTION.
I pretty much agree with you, but the caps are hard to read. Please, if you're not big on the shift key, just use lowercase.
thanks
VALENTINIAN IS A SHIFT KEY NAZI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's true man, I am an anti-capslock bigot, I hang my head in shame...
Welcome to my world. ;-)
there were reasons the riots happened, and there still are issues... I think that's what Obama's saying... but he opposed the violence... consternatives don't understand this, but saying there are reasons something happens and condoning it are separate things... just like saying the US DOES need to reexamine its foreign policy doesn't mean you support the 9/11 hijackers...
looters (of the LA Riots kind) are sheer opportunists... there's nothing noble or revolutionary about stealing VCRs...Katrina victims stealing food is yet another matter...
PS: Carlson should have listened to Obama more carefully... he was really warning people to be wary of Quiet Riot, because of their sucky music...
"quiet riots"
Come on now. Everybody sing. "come on feel the noise. Girls rock your boys."
Quiet Riot got their best material from a British band called Slade. But i must admit I did bang my head because metal health drove me mad.