Coulter: Obama's "first big accomplishment" was "being born half-black. ... He wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black"
SUMMARY: During a speech to the Young America's Foundation, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, "Barack's really been kind of coasting on his record, since his first big accomplishment of being born half-black. ... He wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black."
On February 8, less than 12 hours after her appearance on NBC's Today show, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter delivered a speech to the Young America's Foundation in which she referred to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) as "B. Hussein Obama" and asserted, "His strongest selling point is that he is one of the least dangerous people I know named Hussein." As the blog Think Progress noted, Coulter went on to say: "Other than that, Barack's really been kind of coasting on his record, since his first big accomplishment of being born half-black. I keep hearing people say, 'Oh, Obama could never be elected because he's half-black. You know, 'cause we're just such a racist country.' What are they talking about? He wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black. He'd be [Sen.] Dick Durbin [D-IL] with less experience." The speech was broadcast live on the Townhall.com.
During the February 8 speech, Coulter also said that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "wanted 'I Am Woman' " as her campaign song, "but that was already taken by [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC]." As Media Matters for America noted, in a March 2, 2007, speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter said she could not "really talk about" Edwards because "you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.' " The CPAC audience applauded her comment. Several newspapers dropped Coulter's column following her remarks at CPAC.
From Coulter's February 8 Young America's Foundation speech:
COULTER: Thank you. Well, now I'm going to have to give you an Edwards joke for that. So my girl Hillary is really on the move now. Her recent big policy shift is they've changed the campaign song from Celine Dion's "You and I" to something like Big Head Todd and the Monsters' song "Big Sky." She wanted "I Am Woman," but that was already taken by John Edwards.
[applause]
Hillary keeps announcing to us that she wants to be judged on her full 35-year record in public service, and, you know, I'm concerned about this, now that I'm on her team. And I'm just thinking, people might ask, whoever heard of Hillary before 1992, when she foist that horny hick on the nation? Her biggest accomplishment is taking what could have been, you know, a small family's neurosis and turning it into a national neurosis. Her strong selling point, though, is almost half the population does not hate her with the hot hate -- hot hate of a thousand suns.
And the only Democrat who can stop her now is B. Hussein Obama. His strongest selling point is that he is one of the least dangerous people I know named Hussein. [applause] Other than that, Barack's really been kind of coasting on his record, since his first big accomplishment of being born half-black. I keep hearing people say, "Oh, Obama could never be elected because he's half-black. You know, 'cause we're just such a racist country." What are they talking about? He wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black. He'd be Dick Durbin with less experience.
When asked how he would respond, in one of the debates, how he would respond to simultaneous attacks on two U.S. cities, Obama said he would call ambulances. "And I'd be right there chasing them," piped in John Edwards. Yeah, of course you'd want to send bandages to the wounded; I think we knew that. You know, my answer would have been: "which two cities?"
In other words, the Democrats are trying to give away an election they ought to win in a walk.
Some more same old same old from Anne Coulter. Girlfriend needs new material.
Yep. And sure enough the media will hop on this, hype it, and increase her book sales. It works every time and it's getting quite old. Coulter should give props to Madonna for stealing such tactics to increase her bank account and name recognition.
Funny enough, I had someone tell me a few days ago that if Barack Obama becomes the nominee the Right wouldn't use racist attacks because they'll be too ashamed to be viewed as racist. I had to laugh at that because far right propagandists such as Coulter are never ashamed of being identified as racist. In fact, they embrace racism quite proudly.
Yeah I almost hate myself for reading it – especially after I read who the audience was. But then again, I sometimes watch stand-up on BET. I know I’m gonna’ be offended but it still is funny. Actually she had plenty of fresh material here.:)
Annie repeats the same schtick
A few different words is the trick
But the meme is the same
That some Dem is to blame
Such derision she heaps mighty quick
Barack Obama is a successful and viable candidate for President.
There are basically THREE ways to evaluate him.
ONE: You can view his success, and his appeal, as relating to his talents, accomplishments, competence, and character. The same as you would "size up" anyone you met; objective evaluation.
TWO: You could note that he is NOT a white man, competing in a field that has traditionally, in America, been exclusive to white males, with very few (and unsuccessful) exceptions. You might note that in order to BE a viable candidate, that there must have been obstacles to overcome, and that it reflects on his character that he not only overcame those obstacles, but has done so without bitterness and with a message of HOPE; a realistic evaluation.
THREE: Against all reality, history, and logic, you could assert that his success and Presidential viability is due ENTIRELY to his not being a white man; a RACIST evaluation.
Ann Coulter once again demonstrates that she is a RACIST and a HATER, and that she has a consumer market within the Rightwing for her racism and hate.
I contend it is far better to have Ms. Coulter IN THE PUBLIC EYE, rather than fomenting this hatred in secret, behind closed doors. In elective politics, our future is based on proper evaluation of our choices. It is good to know what lies at the root of the rightwing factions of our political landscape, and what motivates advocacy for Republicans.
It is good to know what lies at the root of the rightwing factions of our political landscape, and what motivates advocacy for Republicans.
Tex, if repubs took their cue from people like ann coulter, why then is McCain gonna be on the repub ticket? This woman's an idiot, and is successful only because of the attention given to her by liberals.
Thomp,
Why does she get gigs on morning news shows as a serious "pundit?" She has more appearances on the Today show than any other political thinker I can remember.
There are better "conservative" thinkers and authors than Ann, aren't there?
Without a doubt (pat buchanan). That's sorta what I'm gettin at. She's a flake. I've read (did not buy) one of her books and there's nothin there. She rarely even pretends to give serious analysis to an issue, and instead simply tries to use sarcasm to insult people. She's all hype and liberals encourage the hype by their predictable outrage over every dumb comment she utters.
Yet she's still your problem. Not ours. She makes us look absolutely grandly magnificent by comparison. So if your postulation is correct (still not buying it), then perhaps the looney ones shows what the looney ones think. It's a win for us and a downer for you (your side anyway).
"Liberals and the media then feign outrage over her comments"
Questions for you:
You called Coulter "dumb". Is your "outrage" (to use your word) "feigned"?
Why would anyone have to "feign" being offended by her comments about Obama?
Why don't you point-out to everyone evidence of this so-called "outrage" being displayed by Media Matters. Is it "outrage" on their part that they recorded and played-back Coulter's own words?
How is it that "liberals" give her "free publicity", when she is a regular on Fox News, has been on the cover of Time, and shows up on morning network shows?
Should any public person who makes an offensive, degrading, or racist comment be ignored, and not held to account? Is that the right way to treat those kinds of occurences---by being apathetic?
While my comments were a 'snipe' at liberals, they're still true. Coulter's a 'shock jock,' like a howard stern but less amusing. When she writes, she likely thinks of the most insipid ways with which to offend liberals. They get offended, controversy foments, media takes interest, publicity for her books, and in the end she sparks interest among those who like her and they buy her books. As I said, her act's getting old and is no longer 'shocking,' yet she got rich in part by virtue of her ability to successfully arouse anger among the lefties . . .
You can't and/or don't have the ability to answer a single one of my questions.
Not one.
It is a way to keep her throwing red meat to her base which is OBVIOUSLY the far right and still distance yourself from her lack of basic decency. You WANT her to keep saying these putrid, ignorant, racist things. You want the benifit and dont want to be associated with them. You dont get to have it both ways. The left has no truck with ANN. She is horrible. Either denounce her or embrace her. You DONT get to have it both ways.
Usually I never reply to your posts because they're all the same, angry and deranged. I'm under the impression that your mindset is nothing further than a petulant teenager with little else to do, and thus, partly for your own benefit, I don't want to encourage your hissy-fits. But here my curiousity gets the best of me. What makes you think that I in any way WANT Ann to continue saying these putrid, ignorant, racist things? You obviously did not read the posts to which you're responding to. And I happen to agree with Julia, above, that Ann makes conservatives look bad. Nonetheless, I stick by my point that Ann's notoriety and commercial success has in large part been attributable to her ability to "shock" and "outrage" the left.
Don't bother replying, because you'll get no response. Again, you are a fool who's to be pitied, but not encouraged
Cheer up Solon! You do sound like a real pleasant chap.
Stevo, I don't blame you for not responding to Solon. He can slap you upside the head like no other poster here because he doesn't put up with unreasoned argument and fallacious talking points. You have engaged in both and he WILL call you out on it. I don't usually bother with you either, same reason I don't respond to Tommy's circular logic, word parsing and argument for the sake of it (I just don't have the time).Please stop blaming the little trust fund princess on us. IT'S NOT WORKING.
Yeah go ahead and demean us and call it teasing. It certainly doesnt bother me, just be ready for the return serve, but the WWWAAHHHHH why are you guys so mean and treat me the way I treat you is sad and pathetic. A six year old would be ashamed to whine like you do.
Hey Braniac?? Here's what she said:
"I don't usually bother with you either, same reason I don't respond to Tommy's circular logic, word parsing and argument for the sake of it (I just don't have the time). Please stop blaming the little trust fund princess on us. IT'S NOT WORKING."
That was part of her longer response to you. To which you responded that she is "ignoring" you, mastermind.
Stop putting words in people's mouths, moron.
I usually don't bother with you
Pretty busy today so I don't have much time to talk to an idiot. So just read the link and if you can't understand that "don't bother with" is akin to saying "ignore" then you're even dumber than you reveal through your comments. Enjoy your day!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignore
Lol. Anne Coulter is a "girlfriend". That's almost as funny as calling her a "woman" or a "human".
B. Hussein Obama?
Get it straight, it's J. Fitzgerald Obama.
I get confused sometimes.
LOST LOGIC:
Republican POLICY is the "what", Rightwing racists is the "why".
Yes, I agree with the above comments. It's old, musty Ann. Say the most outrageous things to get people to pay attention to you. Works every time.
Now if the media started shunning her and treating her like David Duke: *that* would be news.
"As the principal outreach organization of the Conservative Movement, the Foundation introduces thousands of American youth to these principles. We accomplish our mission by providing essential conferences, seminars, educational materials, internships and speakers to young people across the country."
Tell me again how Annie doesn't represent the thinking of the Conservative Movement. These are the people that invited her. Was this crappy stand-up routine an essential conference or was it educational material?
Anne typifies conservative thinking
They say they should "quit her" while winking
But it's the earnest truth
That they want US youth
To slurp the same kool aid they're drinking
Coulter makes "her" lving off of offending people. BET comedians are alot funnier than "she."
Coulter, an embarrassment to the GOP, was not invited to this year's CPAC. What's happening is the GOP is trying to reach out to moderates and independents and can't do it with wingnuts like Coulter. The GOP is shunning the likes like "her."
Coulter's recent comments are dispicable and insulting. I wonder how "she" would feel if someone called "her" half-man.
Annie, a new line for you.. Maybe he's running because he is half white. Try it with your next audience in BILLI BOB's HOUSE OF RIBS and YOUNG KKK FOLK. They'll love it.
Whatever the Coulters or Limbaughs say has become null and void. Hannaty is trying to talk-up the Independent Conservatives. What the hell does that mean? Seems only yesterday that these mouths were talking about the Dems imploding..now that is funny. These CRYBABIES aren't worried about McCain being their candidate, they are crying because nobody is listening to them. Congrats to the real Republans for taking your party back and welcome back to a world of reality.
Back to politics and agreements for the good of the country. And the new bumper music for Rush et al, is, as stated before "CRY ME A RIVER."
Uh, am I the only person here who thinks that Ann might actually right about her comment that Obama wouldn't be running if he weren't half black ? I found her other comments offensive (including the "I Am Woman"/Edwards crap), but really, I think one of the reasons Obama was hand-selected by the Dem party to be an up and comer is because he's (half) black. It's possible ithis is why he was chosen to be the president of the Harvard Law Review, too. Before I get flamed until I'm charred bits, I want to say that I'm a fan of affirmative action (which I consider to be fast-track and desperately needed equalization) and I expect that if color was a factor it was not the #1 criteria, his credentials were.
I feel some heat comin' on !!! Grab some weenies, everyone ! >:-) (Where's Savage when you need him ?)
At least you know it's coming.
So is Hillary only running because she was born a woman who married a cheating husband and stayed by his side in front of the whole nation? Are you saying Chris Matthews was right?
Is John McCain running because he is a retired military and a P.O.W. with military credentials?
Did George W. Bush run because his daddy was prez and he already had the 411 on what it took to get into the White House?
So what!! My point 'godless one' is this - you claim to be a liberal, but in my personal opinion, whenever someone makes disparaging remarks about Obama, you kinda see where their coming from. This is on par with the Washington Times running an ad "The Black Horse" as if the nation A. didn't already know the phrase is "Dark Horse" and B. Didn't already know Obama is black.
So in all honesty it doesn't surprise me that you understand what Helga the Witch means by "he's only running becasue he's half black."
Real progressive.
So is Hillary only running because she was born a woman who married a cheating husband and stayed by his side in front of the whole nation? Are you saying Chris Matthews was right?
Forget about all of the other stuff you dragged in there. Let's focus on her gender alone. I think if she were male she would have been lost in the mix of candidates, that the reason she stands out and the primary reason people are drawn to support her is because she's a woman.
I'm not bugged by it. It's time we had a black candidate, it's time we had a woman candidate. I often times vote for candidates because they are minorities or women. I like to help to establish equality. Am I the only person who can admit this ? I'm not going to tippy toe around race or gender and pretend like I don't notice it
you claim to be a liberal, but in my personal opinion, whenever someone makes disparaging remarks about Obama, you kinda see where their coming from.
Not always. I've been very vocal about the obnoxious Muslim/terrorist BS and the obnoxious focus on "Hussein". I did however say it was appropriate for the media to investigate Obama's ties to Tony Rezko, why should be be excluded when every other candidate, especially Hillary, would have had to endure investigation and speculation.
This is on par with the Washington Times running an ad "The Black Horse" as if the nation A. didn't already know the phrase is "Dark Horse" and B. Didn't already know Obama is black.
I didn't make any comment about that article.
So in all honesty it doesn't surprise me that you understand what Helga the Witch means by "he's only running because he's half black."
IF he were not (half) black, I highly doubt that the Democratic party would have singled him out and had him speak at the convention and hooked him up with important party officials and encouraged or supported his bid for president, and I think that many of the people endorsing him and voting for him are doing so because he's black. Clearly a large portion of the black population is. I'm really sick of hearing that this isn't about race ... it most certainly IS. But it's OK ! Maybe Ann is whining about it, I'm not. I think it's great that we have a half black candidate. I only wish both his parents had been black, to be completely honest with you. It would seem like more of a victory then if he became president.
Real progressive.
I think it is. I'm losing my fear of discussing race.
Atheist, I know that you think that you're right. But think about this for a second. Why does it matter that he's half-black or full-black? He doesn't look half black; he just looks black. Even Harold Ford looks whiter than him. So do you also think Harold Ford would be singled out by the Democratic Party because he kind of looks white?
Obama was obviously selected to be a speaker at the Democratic Convention because of his charisma and rhetorical skills. It may not be a very substantive criteria for selecting someone, but that was probably the reason. Does it help that he has an interesting background? Maybe, but then a lot of people have interesting backgrounds. I don't believe that would be the deciding factor.
Why does it matter that he's half-black or full-black?
Because, IMO, a half black president means we're not *there* yet. Like we can only handle a half black president, not a full black president ? I wouldn't want a transvestite or transgendered president because to me it wouldn't be a real full woman.
He doesn't look half black; he just looks black.
I'm not focusing on looks. I don't consider Obama black because he looks or kind of looks black. To me he's half white because his mother was white.
Even Harold Ford looks whiter than him. So do you also think Harold Ford would be singled out by the Democratic Party because he kind of looks white?
I think your contorting my line of reasoning. I'm saying that I think the Democratic party is happy to promote a black man (and I'm proud of them for doing that), and apparently half black is as good as black. I don't have a problem with this ! I just feel personally it would be a greater victory in one battle against the war on racism if he weren't half white.
Obama was obviously selected to be a speaker at the Democratic Convention because of his charisma and rhetorical skills.
And I add to that because he's black ! Again, I don't have a problem with it. I'm an AA person, if the candidate has the right credentials, then the extra boost of AA is good, IMO.
I'm not focusing on looks. I don't consider Obama black because he looks or kind of looks black. To me he's half white because his mother was white.
Of course he's technically half black, but biology has never been the key component in how blackness is defined in this country. Atheist, it's not your right to decide if Obama's black or not. He has the choice to self-identify himself however he likes, and if he wants to consider himself black because of his black father, his looks, and being TREATED as black from the larger society, that's his choice. It's no one's right to tell mixed people how they should self-identify themselves -- that's in their power, not yours or mine. And just because he has a white mother does not erase the fact that he's a black man. Obama having white genes is not something entirely unique among black people. Most black people here in this country whose descendants are traced back to the slaves have white ancestors, and while many of us acknowledge that, it doesn't erase the fact that most of us are considered black and self-identify ourselves as such. America can’t suddenly erase the conception of blackness when our race defines our experience and shapes our outlook in life. You can't suddenly change the rules of blackness when many aren't willing to do the same with whiteness. And blackness, after all, is only defined by how different it is from whiteness.
Thanks to the South's 'one drop' tradition, we have a huge percentage of African Americans with a slaveowner in their genetics--and a spectrum of skin color you don't fid in Africa.
It's only easy to say Obama is half-black because the mixing occurred in this past generation. The fractions for much of te rest of the community are harder to determine.
Singled him out? He wasn't the only speaker at the 2004 Convention. What "singled him out" from the other speakers (which included John Edwards, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy) was the power and content of his speech.
And by the way, I've definitely noticed that you're no longer afraid to voice your racist opinions. I thought there was another Atheist after your last round of defending our resident "white nationalist." Now I know it's just your true colors showing through.
She defended Finarfin? Holy crap, do you have a link to that?
Finarfin was saying that one of the reasons he disliked mixed race people was that were unattractive and weird looking. Atheist defended him by saying that there was nothing racist in that statement. I was surprised, as I'd never seen this side of Atheist, and I noted that surprise and tried to give her/him the benefit of the bought. Atheist never responded to my response, and now she/he comes out to defend Coulter's racist comments, and caps it off by saying that she's no longer afraid to speak out on the topic.
I'll post a link when I have a few minutes to search. I can't recall what the topic of that thread was. Maybe somebody else remembers the "mixed people are ugly" thread?
Finarfin was saying that one of the reasons he disliked mixed race people was that were unattractive and weird looking. Atheist defended him by saying that there was nothing racist in that statement.
Uh, I would like to speak for myself instead of having you paraphrase my statements and take them out of context.
There is nothing inherently racist in thinking that certain ethnicities are better looking than others. It's purely personal preference. If Fin had said that blacks are not as intelligent as whites I would have been one of the first to jump on him/her. But appearance ? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My post was likely deleted because the entire sub-thread was deleted. I said nothing offensive. I DID disagree with Fin, I think blacks are some of the most beautiful people on the planet. I think Native Americans are too, as well as Asian Indians and Hispanics. My husband is Hispanic and I think he's gorgeous. I disagreed with Fin that blacks introduce an unattractive quality to the white-black mix. In fact, I think it's the black features of the black-white mix that make the person beautiful.
Now tell me exactly how I'm racist thinking this way !
Your post is still there. It was Fin's post--the one you were defending--that was deleted for being racist. It appears as though that was the only post that was deleted. The rest of the strand is still there. And again, Fin most definitely wasn't talking about personal definitions of beauty. That was your defense of him, but he clearly stated that looks were just one of his reasons for disliking mixed people. He said he disliked an entire race of people based in part on their looks. That's the very definition of racism. It's astounding to me that this even needs to be pointed out to anyone.
Here's the link. She defends our favorite white nationalist on the "81-100" page of the comments:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310003?f=s_search#comments_bottom_nav
What she said is mostly true, though. A personal preference does not constitute racism in and of itself. I happen to find Asian women prettier in general than other races, that doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against white women.
"Finfarin was saying that he/she thinks that in general the mix is unattractive, he/she wasn't saying that one particular side of the mix contributes to the unattractiveness."
This is where I can see the disagreement though, obviously. It's a pretty safe assumption that a white nationalist is blaming one particular side more than the other. In a vacuum what she's saying is true, but when practically applied to the person making the comments the meaning is hard to dispute. Just down that thread:"You could give an example of beauty in any race, the fact is that most interracials are just not generally that attractive." The word "fact" in there shows that he's making more of it than just his personal opinion. I would hope that Atheist didn't know about Fin's other posts and would now qualify her defense of him accordingly.
She could have been more careful and clear and followed up on her comments, and that would help.
I was careful and clear, but some people get really touchy when it comes to comments about race and don't want to read deeply and see that a comment about one specific thing is not a general statement.
Well, not really.
Clams:"Not only did he say that he thought mixed race people were unattractive and weird looking, but he cited that as "one of the reasons" he dislikes them. That's the definition of racism."
Atheist:"These particular comments of Finfarin were not racist."
I think that's poorly worded. The comments that Clams was referring to were all in one post, I believe. So when you say "These particular comments" it can easily be taken as meaning all of what Clams was referring to. When you say you don't defend his "other posts", that doesn't refer to the "one of the reasons" quote, because that was part of the same post. It may seem like a minor distinction, but it makes a difference in understanding.
Clams should accept your explanation, but I can understand how he thought you were talking about more than just aesthetic preferences.
The whole thing hinges on whether Atheist equated David Duke and Finarfin at that time. If you're talking about a known racist, then when people call him a racist everyone knows why. If they don't know the person is a racist, then they are looking at the specific comment in question.
If it was me, I would have specifically addressed both parts of your comment. I honestly think she was just talking about one aspect, and was talking about the rest of it when she said she wasn't defending his other posts.
The point is that it wasn't necessary to have seen Fin's other posts at all. In fact, as I said then, it was perhaps the most blatantly racist post I've ever seen here. And it was subsequently removed. Why anyone would choose to defend any aspect of it is beyond me, particularly someone who claims to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Because that one aspect is defensible. Personal preference is racist, in and of itself.
I've done this sort of thing many times myself. Nothing is black-and-white (no pun intended), and so I make observations on both sides of an issue, whether it helps my cause or not. That's just being fair and honest. "Dan Quayle was an idiot, he said he wished he knew Latin while he was visiting Latin America." Dan Quayle was an idiot, but he never said that. Similarly, just the idea of finding mixed-race people less attractive is not evidence of racism. I don't think that her focusing on that and ignoring the rest of his comment wipes out her entire posting history up to that point. None of us are perfect.
I can't stop you from continuing to believe this if you insist, but there does seem to be a plausible explanation in her defense.
Again, I merely pointed out that Fin's now-deleted post was possibly the most blatantly racist thing I've ever read in the comments section here. Atheist responded by saying, "These particular comments of Finfarin were not racist." Sorry, but they were, and clearly whomever deleted them thought they were as well.
I understand where you're coming from, and if it was some new poster I'd be more inclined to reach your conclusion. It was a dangerous argument to make, considering the complete comment by Finarfin.
I thought of the alter ego thing too. Of course Tommy would just think it was a big ruse, if he hadn't already admitted he just made that accusation because he was "bored".It isnt in itself proof as you say. However, I doubt a study has been done, in my personal experience mixed race children have been extraordinarily attractive. More so than their parents. IF to him they are ONLY less attractive because they are of mixed race that WOULD be racist.
Was this meant for Clams? I wasn't using that particular post as proof of Fin's racism.
And of course we know that is in fact the case. And we don't need his entire anti-miscegenation posting history in order to tell us that. I'm not paraphrasing him when I say that he offered that as "one of the reasons [he] dislikes mixed race people." That's an actual quote from the post in question. How else are we to interpret that? Fin was telling us very plainly that he dislikes an entire race of people, so why are we (and by "we," I don't mean me) now trying to figure out ways to make that sound as though it isn't racist?
More recently, I saw an interview with Duane "Dog" Chapman's son, who defended his father by explicitly stating that logic. He claimed that dad didn't have swastika tattoos and go around beating up black people, so he couldn't be a racist, because that's what "racist" meant to him.
So here we have Finarfin stating as plainly as he can without being deleted (although he clearly crossed the line with this post) that he's a racist, and people are STILL trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, or they're bending over backwards to find one element of one racist rant that can be defended or justified. I guess I'm just asking, what's up with that?
What's up with it is your incredible transparency, and the inflammatory racist charges you haul out on nearly every thread concerning race that is posted here.
Just look at this thread alone, you have called three different people, that I have counted, racists - typical of a race-baiter. You throw out the racist accusation to try and invalidate one's opinion, effectively cutting off their argument at the knees. It is common and often used tactic in a race-baiter's sleazy arsenal, and you have mastered it quite skillfully, except that many of us are not fooled, certainly not me.
It is the reason you spend time on a liberal blog where your views have far less chance to be challenged, so when an opposing viewpoint on racism or race related issues is put forth, you can call the one who disagrees with you a racist, boom, done - that's it for you. For any subsequent disagreements by that "dirty racist" isn't worth a damn because you have just stifled it, or so you think.
I got a little news for you, not everyone who disagrees with you on racial issues is a racist. If you can't argue the topic intellectually and honestly without resorting to a horribly offensive accusation in the process, perhaps you should steer clear of these topics and let those who don't feel the need to sink to that level discuss it like adults.
Actually, I did think that for awhile, but Brab challenges me with far more intellect and honesty than you do, he does infuriate me at times, but at least with him I know I get a fair shot at discussing my point, and he doesn't resort to offensive name calling, like you do.
No, you're not the same person, you couldn't possibly fake respectability.
So when you say "These particular comments" it can easily be taken as meaning all of what Clams was referring to.
If I meant to say that ALL of what Fin said wasn't racist I would have said "Fin didn't say anything that was racist". What I DID say was that particular statements that Fin made were not inherently racist, i.e., his/her personal opinions about what is beautiful.
If someone didn't like Asian women's looks, you would be wrong to call them racist because of that.
"If I meant to say that ALL of what Fin said wasn't racist I would have said "Fin didn't say anything that was racist". What I DID say was that particular statements that Fin made were not inherently racist, i.e., his/her personal opinions about what is beautiful."
That would be mind-reading. You said "these comments" when Clams was talking about more than one thing Fin said, and somehow it's obvious that you meant just one thing that Fin said. That distinction is simply not clear.
"If someone didn't like Asian women's looks, you would be wrong to call them racist because of that."
I made the same point. Have you not read all my posts here?
Brabantio wrote: I would hope that Atheist didn't know about Fin's other posts
I didn't ! I had no idea until Pearlene or someone else wrote about Fin's continual racist rants. But I felt like everyone was intelligent enough to distinguish my comments pertaining to personal preference in looks to overall racism.
LOOK AT THE FREAKING TIMESTAMPS ! That post by Fin was the first I'd ever seen by him/her. I responded to it.
As hard as you are trying, you are not going to turn me into a racist. I'm sorry you are so overly sensitive to all comments about race that you cannot accept even one comment that might possibly maybe perhaps be construed as not complimentary. I have explained the situation to you throughout this thread and you continue to bash me. That is YOUR problem, not mine. In fact, I say YOU are a racist. You are not allowing a white person to make comments about race. Thanks a lot, racist.
But perhaps even more important, I think you hate me because I'm an atheist. That bugs you, doesn't it. Too bad.
Now you're just being ridiculous. I'm an atheist as well, and in my entire 40 years on this planet the only people who've ever accused me of racism are you and Tommy, so you can keep your theories and accusations about why I'm picking on you to yourself. If you can't stand to be held accountable for your own words, then stop typing. Lashing out at me with silly unsubstantiated accusations doesn't help you.
As far as the timestamps go, it looked to me like you had an exchange with Fin earlier in the thread, but if I'm wrong about that, I'm sorry.
Yes, you have called me a racist, a race-baiter and bigot. I don't even feel the need to defend myself from your silly accusations any more.
For cryin out loud Clams don't you ever get tired of calling folks racists? You're like the boy that cried wolf. Atheist is no racist for simply being unafraid to be willing to talk openly about race. Seems to me you're the uptight one here.
And NO, I will not get into an off-topic debate about this with you.
All I care about is trying to figure out why the post I wanted to reply to Atheist with won't go through. There's no profanity as MMFA keeps insisting there is. Now if you can help me with that, I'd love a reply...if not, don't bother.
Question: Do you think that Coulter's comment was racist? If, like me, you do, then you will recognize that Atheist is saying the exact same thing, which you would then also have to consider to be racist.
I'm not the boy who cried wolf if there actually is a wolf in the room.
Atheist is no racist for simply being unafraid to be willing to talk openly about race. Seems to me you're the uptight one here.
Athesit may not be a racist but she is ignorant to issues involving race. Obama is not HALF BLACK!!!! Both Atheist and skinny Annie say that but if you know your history each and every African American is half SOMETHING!! Due to slavery black folks are mixed with a little of everything. Each time Atheist makes that stupid remark like Obama TRYING to align himself with black folks I see RED cause it's a stupid statement but that has not stopped her from continuing to repeat the same sh*t over and over again. I tell her in post after post and does she get it? HE** NO! cause she doesn't like Obama and that's one of her beefs with him, never mind that it is stupid cause it's not true. ALL BLACK FOLKS ARE HALF SOMETHING!!!!!
"IF he were not (half) black, I highly doubt that the Democratic party would have singled him out and had him speak at the convention[...]"
I should add I also found this quote rather Tommy-esque. The man is a great speaker, but he's only chosen because he's black. That's an assumption seemingly based on nothing. I think the case for "racist" still needs support though. She happens to support Hillary, from what I've seen. Suggesting that Obama is undeserving doesn't mean it's because he's black, it could just be that she doesn't care for him personally. I don't see the suggestion that Obama is inferior because he's black, or anything of the sort.
I think I've made it pretty clear over the years that I have no tolerance for racist comments, but there is a distinction between those and racial comments. Coulter's comments are stupid, and I'm definitely not a fan of hers, but what I'm seeing is she's saying that Obama's not qualified and therefore he's being propped up because he's black. That's not a commentary on superiority or inferiority of either race. There's no stereotype in play. It's specific to one person, without anything demeaning regarding his race.
I could argue that Clarence Thomas was only nominated to be on the Supreme Court because he was black. Really, he was the absolute best candidate, and just a coincidence that Thurgood Marshall was leaving the bench? Laughable. Is that racist of me to say? I'm not saying that black people can't be on the Supreme Court, especially since I believe Marshall was a great man.
If I'm missing something in her commentary, I'm willing to listen. As I said, I'm not a fan.
I guess the problem I have with her comment is that she's implying Obama is giving special privileges because of his blackness. She's basically saying, in so many words, that Barack Obama is an "Affirmative Action" candidate, and his rise as a front runner owes more to his blackness than his merit. Now, as I noted before, I'm not a big fan of Obama because his domestic agenda tends to be too conservative-lite for my taste, but he's just as qualified as Hillary Clinton -- more so since he's been in public office longer than her if one includes his stint as an Illinois state legislator. And had that been a white candidate who made that speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, I’m sure that white candidate would receive the same amount of praise as Obama. So it's not like Obama is some quota-hire that doesn't have the credentials to back up his merit. Coulter's comment exemplifies the Right's entire misconception of Affirmative Action: minorities are giving special privileges over the majority because of their race and gender, even when minorities aren't qualified to join the ranks of the majority. She’s basically making the same argument as Mickey Kaus and Pat Buchanan: Obama is only a media star because of his race. I find that fundamentally flawed since I’m sure if a white candidate had the same skills as an orator as Obama, opposed the war from the beginning, possessed matinee-idol looks, that white candidate would be the toast of the town and celebrated as "new" and "fresh."
Perhaps calling Coulter's comment "racist" is inaccurate; maybe "race-bating" is more like it since there is a difference between the two. I oppose her comments because she's pushing this meme that minorities are giving an easier time than the rest, and they don't have to work twice as hard to achieve the same success as a whites. It's the bait-and-switch tactic that conservatives often play with groups who've been historically disadvantage for quite some time. The meme is minorities aren't victims of discrimination anymore; in fact, they have more power and special rights over the majority, thus, these "special rights" gives minorities an easier ride in terms of upper mobility than the majority.
I guess the problem I have with her comment is that she's implying Obama is giving special privileges because of his blackness. She's basically saying, in so many words, that Barack Obama is an "Affirmative Action" candidate, and his rise as a front runner owes more to his blackness than his merit.
I did say that I think he's been promoted because he's black, but not ONLY because he's black. I wrote that I expect that his credentials were the #1 factor. So if there were 10 equally great people eligible to give that keynote speech or be primed for high political office and 9 of them were white males and the 10th were black, I would be happy if the black would be chosen. I feel like his blackness sets him apart, and it's a good thing. I feel the same way about Hillary. I think if Obama and Clinton were both white males, Edwards might have been the front runner.
Why is it so bad to acknowledge that someone might have gotten an extra boost by being a minority or a woman ? To me, AA is a good thing because, as I mentioned before, it's a fast-track (or faster track, at least) to equality. Our country has made a lot of progress but inequality and discrimination still occur. AA helps to overcome it. Is this bad ??
Why is it so bad to acknowledge that someone might have gotten an extra boost by being a minority or a woman ? To me, AA is a good thing because, as I mentioned before, it's a fast-track (or faster track, at least) to equality. Our country has made a lot of progress but inequality and discrimination still occur. AA helps to overcome it. Is this bad ??
I'm not sure it's "bad" to acknowledge that someone gets an extra boost for being a minority or woman. I just think it falls into the hands of the right who has misconstrued the concept of Affirmative Action over the years. Sure, it's fine to acknowledge that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are making history with their campaigns, but when one focuses entirely on their race and gender, then that focus tends to ignore both of their merits and expertise. One can promote diversity while also highlighting their merit at the same time. I think some tend to focus more on the former and not so much on the latter, which again, falls right into the trap of the Right who has besmirched the concept and goodness of Affirmative Action.
Clams wrote: Singled him out? He wasn't the only speaker at the 2004 Convention. What "singled him out" from the other speakers (which included John Edwards, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy) was the power and content of his speech.
How did Obama get selected to give that keynote speech in the first place ?
And by the way, I've definitely noticed that you're no longer afraid to voice your racist opinions. I thought there was another Atheist after your last round of defending our resident "white nationalist." Now I know it's just your true colors showing through.
I'm sick of your racist BS ! I want equality, you seem to want to continue the black-white war of the 60's. I also want objective discussion, that means cutting through generalizations and stereotypes and looking at individual issues with a critical eye. I only defended Fin's right to have a personal opinion about what is attractive, again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you had carefully read my posts instead of reading the first line and then blowing up, you would have seen that I only defended that one right of Fin's, I did not defend his/her general hatred of an entire race. In fact, I remember writing an anti-Fin post, that was probably one that was removed when the sub-thread was excised.
I am not the problem. Go focus your hate on someone else.
Thank you, Clams, for making this point. Atheist has tried this argument before. It goes something like, "I wish Obama were not 'half-black' because then it would be a real victory for America." It's a thinly disguised racial attack.
Atheist, race does not even exist as a genetically descriptive term. Your argument about Obama being "only half-black" is analgous to arguing that it would be great to elect someone who has two blonde parents to prove that blondes aren't vapid.
Well Atheist I keep trying to respond to your post but MMFA keeps asking me not to use PROFANITY. The thing is, I'm haven't!! I've checked & re-checked.
Any monitors from MMFA working today? What's the story here? This has happen before to me, & I've read other posters complaints about the same thing.
Is it a glitch that needs fixing???
As I said in a previous post race doesn't define a human being. Gender does not define a human being. What really kills me about some of the racist liberals here at mediamatters for america is that you cannot even see your own hypocrisy. How does the pot call the kettle black and then turn around and say, "why you playing the race card?" when the kettle responds to the unfair criticism? That was going on for a while in the Clinton campaign and I read nothing but Clinton apologist claiming black people are too sensitive, black people aren't the only people that deal with discrimination and my personal favorite, Obama is the Affirmative Action president. There were liberals here that actually said they understood where Limbaugh was coming from when he said that. So I really don't care at this point. If you call yourself a liberal and you are judging candidates, or just people you meet in your everyday life on race, gender, sexual orientation or just anything that doesn't agree with your personal utopia, you're no liberal!!
And I didn't right the book, but I do believe every citizen is entitled to rewards of our great nation!
EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVING IN AMERICA IS..... HALF BLACK!!!!!!
DUE TO HISTORY AND SLAVERY& EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN IS .....HALF SOMETHING!!!!!!
You know, I'm really worried about Ann Colder. While it's generally true that liberals are non-violent folks (especially if they're also atheists, who must go out of their way to be civil and compassionate lest the Christer horde condemn them as "godless communists" or worse), there is the occasional oddball who slips through the seams of the social fabric, tracks down Colder types, and whacks them deader'n road kill.
If you've ever seen video of Ms. Colder's collegiate speaking engagements, you know that not only are the audiences full of hecklers, she makes a point of doing some fancy footwork to avoid tossed cream pies. Why pies and not rotten tomatoes, wilted lettuce, putrid gametes, or some other, less sanitary salvo? I think because, since the days of Max Sennett's silent slapstick, those zany one-reel wonders with Keystone Cops getting pasted with pies scene after scene, we've come to associate tart-tossing as a comedic act and one singularly befitting clowns.
Yes, you and I know Ann Colder is a clown. She only lacks the bulbous proboscis painted fire engine red a la Bozo, whom she resembles, if not in appearance then in pronouncements. But without the scarlet nose and Pagliacci outfit, some demented soul with genuinely leftist (or at least anarchist) leanings might think she is a threat to freedom (and common decency) and single her out for violent eradication. Someone like Oswald, or at least like Mark Chapman, might just get it into his mixed up head that the world would be a lot better off without its Ann Colders.
So, I'm really doing Ann a favor when I suggest that she tone things down; that she chill out; that she become more reserved and less prone to pronouncements that incite, excite, and enrage. The next victim of her rants could be herself. There is a better, more blunt way of suggesting it. To put it country simple, Ann Colder should simply shut the F**K up!
"we've come to associate tart-tossing as a comedic act" - JMMartin3402
Yes, "tart-tossing". I think you are onto something there. Ann Coulter should be tossed into pies.
What a ridiculous story by MMFHRC. Everyone knows this is a Hillary front, so they don't really care about Obama. They just want to remind all of us that he's half-black, because we all know that liberals are the real racists. Just watch, they'll keep pointing out his race all the way to August.
[/troll]
Obama is running for President based on his solid accomplishments and his commitment to working hard for Change.
Obama was a neighborhood organizer for almost fifteen minutes before running for the State Legislature.
Obama was in the State Legislature for almost fifteen minutes before running (Unsuccessfully) for Congress.
About fifteen minutes later, Obama launched his bid for the US Senate.
Having successfully won a Senate Seat, Obama waited almost fifteen minutes before launching a bid for the Presidency.
I don't think it's fair to disparage Obama's accomplishments. His attention span, yes. His accomplishments, no.
By your "logic," we should just pull someone off the street and make that person president.
And as for the war vote (the ONLY piece of ammunition Obama supporters have against Hillary,) how many times has Obama voted to end the occupation? ZERO.
Obama's main argument for becoming President is that he was lucky enough not to be in the Senate when it came time to make a tough vote. Since he's been in the Senate of course, he's managed to avoid tough votes anyway by running for President or just voting "Present." Profiles in Courage, indeed.
Obama's main argument for becoming President is that he was lucky enough not to be in the Senate when it came time to make a tough vote.
And Hillary was UNLUCKY? All that experience should have told Senator Clinton that IRAQ has NOTHING, NOTHING to do with 9/11. It wasn't brain surgery but she along with many other Democratic senators didn't have the ba**s to stand up to Junior and she STILL doesn't have the ba**s to admit it was a MISTAKE! LUCK had NOTHING to do with her position on this war! And the death of almost 4,000 Americans is NOT A SMALL THING!
I caught about 2 minutes of her speech on c-span. One 20-ish audience member asked her if she ever dated a liberal.
Her answer: They weren't (liberal) for very long.
Now that's the ONLY true comedy gold to ever come out of this woman's mouth.
especially if they're also atheists, who must go out of their way to be civil and compassionate
Huh???
This stands to reason. Circumstances of your birth do help to decide one's future. For example, if Ann had been born to a manual laborer instead of to a lawyer, if she had grown up in Mississippi instead of in CT, if she had the resources to go only to high school and not Cornell, then she would have some idea what it's like to live in the real world and wouldn't be prone to make such asinine comments.
By the way, what does the phrase "half-black" mean? Which half? He's a person, for God's sake, not a mixed breed dog.
Check out all the disgusting things Ann's been saying about America's Maverick as well.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Uh, here I have to chime in. A half white man who chose to align himself with blacks is the first to play the race card.
Are you familiar with the one drop rule regarding blacks? Is it in the MSM's interest to have the headline "Is America ready for the first biracial President?". There is no real historical significance there and it doesn't generate the same amount of hype.
REPUBLICANS promote POLICY which addresses the issue of Race, and have for decades.
To take one example, Affirmative Action. Republicans are AGAINST it, vehemently.
WHY are they against it? Over the years, various Republicans have formulated a variety of "rationales" to explain their opposition. None are very convincing.
"Occam's Razor" as a theory informs us that the simplest, least convoluted explanation is most likely to be correct.
Ann Coulter offers the explanation for Rightwing/Republican POLICY which answers all questions about motivation and without any weaseling around.
She is a RACIST. Republican POLICY is RACIST policy. She is a HATER. Republican POLICY is hateful policy.
So, a Republican Politician might explain his or her opposition to Affirmative Action by saying it is imperfect, or that it might catch a white person somewhere in an unfair "reverse discrimination", or that AA "assumes" that black people or women are incapable of doing anything for themselves, or that AA will place a "stigma" on any who benefit from it, ON AND ON with the rationalizations. But Occam's Razor tells us the most BASIC and UNCOMPLICATED reason is the CORRECT one: RACISM.
Bless Ann's black heart. She cuts through all the obfuscation and rhetorical gymnastics and lays it right on the table.
How many mothers have been mortified when their innocent, naive and honest child has told their best friend, "You're too fat!" Oh My God! How embarrassing, the unvarnished TRUTH can be brutal, and the mother wishes the earth to swallow her up. She would NEVER hurt her friend's feelings in such a direct manner. But guess what? The mother KNEW her friend was too fat. She just couldn't bring herself to SAY it.
Ann is just that little kid, willing to speak the unspeakable, and mortifying those who wish for the TRUTH to remain unspoken. The TRUTH makes them squirm, makes them uncomfortable, they wish to DISTANCE themselves from it.
But Occam's Razor tells us, the most simple answer is the correct one.
So, a Republican Politician might explain his or her opposition to Affirmative Action by saying it is imperfect, or that it might catch a white person somewhere in an unfair "reverse discrimination", or that AA "assumes" that black people or women are incapable of doing anything for themselves, or that AA will place a "stigma" on any who benefit from it, ON AND ON with the rationalizations. But Occam's Razor tells us the most BASIC and UNCOMPLICATED reason is the CORRECT one: RACISM.
Tex, so the long and short of what you wrote is that the reason underlying anybody's opposition to the policy of AA is racism? Does that sum it up? I'm unsure as to the logic theory you cite, but do you not think that people can share similar goals but for different reasons?
Take the death penalty as an example, I'm against it as are many others. A colleague I know is against it for the principle reason that they think taking someone's life is morally wrong. So they are against it even for perpetrators of the most heinous crimes. I, however, am against it for a different reason. If we lived in a world where only the most heinous criminals were executed, then that would be fine by me. However, I'm anti capital punishment because I think its now indisputable that the criminal justice system has fatal flaws, and that too many innocent people have been executed or almost executed. Thus, I think any risk of executing an innocent person is too high. So, I and my friend have different reasons for supporting the same end.
Conceding that the reason that some who oppose AA is racism, you don't think that many others could oppose it for the reasons you mention above? That strikes me as quite shallow.
That you claim to have debunked Tommy's reasons for opposing AA doesn't debunk the reasons referenced by Tex, much less does it establish that those reasons are simply a sham within to couch one's racism. Some, including me, are against AA because it's wrong to give preferences to anyone according to their race or gender, whether white, black, man, woman, or whatever. Perhaps racial preferences directed in favor of minorities and women were necessary 20 or 30 years ago, to reach the goal of "equal opportunity." But presently I think such a race/gender-based policy is outdated and unneccessarily discriminatory. There's anti-discrimination laws and eeoc laws that strongly prohibit discrimination and protect one's right to "equal opportunity." After all, it's a "color blind" and gender-neutral constitution to which we strive to enforce, right?
My view that racial preferences are wrong, while misguided to you, does not make me racist, and it's a knee-jerk reaction to accuse someone of racial bigotry because he/she thinks AA preferences are wrong. Of course my position on the matter is open to critique, but to glibly claim that racism is what underpins my views is nonsense.
But enough of that. You're claiming that Tex's hypothetical reasons are valid, so let's look at them:
"Affirmative Action[...]is imperfect.
Show me something--anything--that works perfectly and then we might be able to look at that reason seriously...or at least look at it without laughing.
"[AA] might catch a white person somewhere in an unfair 'reverse discrimination'"
This falls under the "imperfect" argument, but it's akin to your death penalty opposition. As you pointed out, you aren't actually against the death penalty, you just don't want innocent people to be executed. Well, the stakes aren't quite so high with AA, so this argument basically says that those handful of cases where a white person is unfairly looked over are too high a price to pay for the thousands and thousands of deserving people who might benefit from AA.
"AA 'assumes' that black people or women are incapable of doing anything for themselves."
Much like your argument against AA, this reason requires that the person denouncing AA either doesn't understand the reason for the program in the first place, or they think that those reasons are no longer valid in today's utopian discrimination-free environment. And now I'm laughing again.
Again, that you disagree with my views of AA is fine. You strenuously think mine are wrong. Fine. I'm probably not as opposed to it as you are for it, but still I object to the policy.
That aside, my response to Tex was that holding an opposing view on this issue is not necessarily instigated by racism. Are you in agreement with Tex, and if so, I think accusing someone of racial bigotry because they don't agree with AA is itself insulting hate speech.
And that's not because I'm so gung ho for AA that I can't tolerate an opposing viewpoint. It's because AA opponents are so often completely incoherent and/or ignorant in their arguments. Semi-rational conservatives become completely unhinged about this topic, and they either throw out the scattershot nonsense that Tex listed, or like you, they ignore all reality-based evidence to claim that racial discrimination in the workplace is in the distant past ("20 or 30 years"!?), and that the under-funded, under-staffed, overloaded EEOC is all we need.
And there are instances where private companies are affected by AA. Off the top of my head, in some cities AA policies affect the decision of who to grant gov't contracts to construction co's.
I believe my Liberal credentials are as strong as anyone's in here, but I very much favor the death penalty. People who have proven they have no respect or regard for others, and have behaved in brutal and violent manner, have forfeited their right to live among others.
I'm all for "humane" treatment for those who will be released back into society. We should do all we can to ensure that they have training, therapy, and some kindness so that when they're released, they will not be bitter and vengeful.
But if they deserve a LIFE sentence, then they deserve to be put to death. We shouldn't be warehousing these people forever. And I say this, realizing that in SOME instances, our justice system might have gotten it wrong, and an innocent might be wrongly executed. We should work hard to make our justice system better, more fair, and free of bias of any sort. In the meantime, I believe it to be of sound reason and Constitutional to exact a final sentence on those who should not ever again be loose in our society.
A Liberal, FOR the death penalty.