Gibson told African-American caller: "You're sticking with Obama, because he's ... a brother"
On the April 9 broadcast of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show, host and former Fox News Channel host John Gibson told a caller, "[Y]ou are the third or fourth caller in a row who is -- has identified yourself to [associate producer] Christine as African-American. And when I talk to you, you obviously are smart, well-educated, well-read, and all that, and I think that your loyalty to [Sen. Barack] Obama here is an issue that goes beyond the issues." When the caller asserted, "No, it's not -- it's not beyond the issues," Gibson said, "It is a racial solidarity bond you have with Obama. Tell me -- I dare you to deny that." Moments later, Gibson added: "You're sticking with Obama, because he's ... he's a brother." Gibson also asserted about Obama: "He is lying to your face but he knows you are so -- you so identify with him on the basis of race, you will not even see the lies."
From the April 9 edition of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:
GIBSON: OK, OK. So I'm supposed to vote for Barack Obama because he has this exquisitely superior judgment. I know that because he's always telling me he does. And since he must be believed, I must believe it. However, if his judgment is so great, why was he sitting there listening to that America-basher in his church, and isn't Jeremiah Wright still an issue?
Chris in Georgia.
CHRIS: Hi, yeah, you know, I don't think he -- he's as big a issue as we want to make out because, you know, we've all got involved with people or went to rallies or things that we, you know, just out of curiosity or maybe we were going that way --
ANGRY RICH: Give me a break.
CHRIS: -- but --
GIBSON: For 20 years? Did --
CHRIS: Well --
GIBSON: Did you go to those demonstrations for two decades?
CHRIS: Well, you know what? I have friends that I don't like everything about them, but they still come over my house.
GIBSON: Yeah, but I'm not going to elect you president, Chris. I mean, we're talking about --
CHRIS: But you know what?
GIBSON: -- we're talking about a guy -- Chris, honestly, he says, "My judgment is what qualifies me for president."
CHRIS: People like Lanny Davis will say, "Oh, well, he wouldn't even answer the question about whether he would have voted on the war," when, in essence, he said he didn't have the intel that they had to make the decision standing in front of a camera --
GIBSON: Chris, can I -- can I be --
CHRIS: That's good judgment. He's not going to say, "Yes."
GIBSON: Can I be blunt with you?
CHRIS: Yes, you can.
GIBSON: All right, Chris, you are the third or fourth caller in a row who is -- has identified yourself to Christine as African-American. And when I talk to you, you obviously are smart, well-educated, well-read, and all that, and I think that your loyalty to Obama here is an issue that goes beyond the issues --
CHRIS: No, it's not -- it's not beyond the issues --
GIBSON: It is a racial solidarity bond you have with Obama. Tell me -- I dare you to deny that.
CHRIS: And McCain can't even remember who we're fighting half the time. He's got a buzzer in his pocket. If I say "Sunni," and you get buzzed, just automatically say "Shia."
GIBSON: Well, Chris, why won't you answer my question? You -- you're stick --
CHRIS: [unintelligible]
GIBSON: You're sticking with Obama, because he's --
CHRIS: He's the [unintelligible]
GIBSON: -- he's a brother.
CHRIS: You want a bare-faced liar in the White House or a guy that can't remember who his enemy is?
GIBSON: Well, how about -- Obama has lied right to the face of Meredith Vieira. She said, "Why do you keep misstating what John McCain said about Iraq and the hundred years?" And he said, "Well, I didn't say that." We could play it. He did say it. He said it a hundred times. He is lying to your face but he knows you are so -- you so identify with him on the basis of race, you will not even see the lies.
As an Obama supporter I'm going to have to give the reporter a pass on this one. Let's be honest, just for a minute. We have to admit that a part of the appeal for Obama in the Black community is the fact that Obama is part African. It would simply be unreasonable to suggest that the 90% support for Obama is simply "issue related".
Go Obama!
You may have a point, I mean being black worked out to be such an asset for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes in their respective candidacies.
[/sarcasm]
You don't really even try do you?
As a McCain supporter I'm going to have to give the reporter a pass on this one. Let's be honest, just for a minute. We have to admit that a part of the appeal for McCain in the Republican community is the fact that McCain is a wealthy old white geezer. It would simply be unreasonable to suggest that 90% of wealthy old white geezers support McCain because of 'the issues' alone. Heck, Gibson is even admitting, in a backhanded way, that he is voting for McCain because he is also a wealthy old white geezer. I mean, is there any other explanation for McCain's stranglehold on the wealthy old white geezer vote??
Go McCain!
How frickin' lame for a Republican hack like you to accuse anybody of blind loyalty.
Guys like you stick to Bush like white on rice, not because you believe in conservatism but for the mere fact he's a Republican.
Screw that noise. Republicans make me sick.
HEsitsaroundthehouse,
I am offended by the 'white on rice' comment. It is racist and you should know that white sticking on rice has nothing to do with color, it goes beyond that. White sticks to rice because of the molecular structure of the carbohydrates and the unique light reflection found in that grain.
It's only a matter of pigmentation and should have nothing to do with any 'sticky issues' brother.
I look forward to your sensitive response to this post and see whether or not you can carry this off. I guess the proof will be in the pudding...either vanilla or chocolate.
Gibson is a hypocrite for suggesting blind loyalty for anybody's political motivation.
Hypocricy.
...molecular structure of the carbohydrates and the unique light reflection found in that grain.---PC
I hope you meant to amuse...either way keep it up...LOL.
...either way keep it up...
Somehow I suspect that not even Viagra could help PD keep it up.
That's mighty white of you.
You don't have much faith in the willingness of Republicans to make room under that big tent for black folks, do you?
There's only room in that GOP tent for sell-out blacks like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Clarence "Dum-Dum" Thomas.
"Sell out" blacks? So now anyone that doesnt follow the black trend is a sellout? Any black person that believes in personal responsibility is now a sell out? Wow. Thanks for the info Mr. Wright.
Anybody who makes the switch to the Republican Party is a sellout of poor and middle
class folk.
Look, conservatism yesterday's bad news. Republicans have proven their ineptitude.
We get it.
You guys hate governement so you do all you can to undermine its mission of empowering people to prosper.
Freeloaders? That's such a typical jerk-wad attitude. Did you ever think these hard times for the middle class are the result of the market fundamentalist, union busting mentality that devalues labor and strips protections from the law books?
Freeloaders my a**. When a person works a full time job and still can't afford to feed his family that is unacceptable.
Look, conservatism yesterday's bad news. Republicans have proven their ineptitude.
Well, according to the polls, this would be an incorrect statement...as far as american citizens are concerned. Its neck & neck right now.
You guys hate governement so you do all you can to undermine its mission of empowering people to prosper.
Prospererity does not mean free money. That has to be earned, not through entitlement.
Freeloaders my a**. When a person works a full time job and still can't afford to feed his family that is unacceptable.
I dont see any middle class people who work full time and cannot feed their family. They may not have as much money for vacations and extra items, but they can certainly feed their family. Now, if you are referring to working at BK full time trying to feed a family of four...well thats your own fault. Should have thought about that education and had a little motivation to further yourself. Again, no ones elses cause except for the personal poor decisions each individual makes.
Well, according to the polls, this would be an incorrect statement...as far as american citizens are concerned. Its neck & neck right now.
Maybe for president right now, but the Dem's haven't even settled on a nominee yet. Republican congressmen are "retiring" at a record rate because they know that this November will be a repeat of 2006.
Prospererity does not mean free money. That has to be earned, not through entitlement.
Prosperity has to be earned? So when you get that winning lottery ticket or that inheritance, I'm sure you'll say "thanks, but no thanks".
I dont see any middle class people who work full time and cannot feed their family....
It must be nice to live in your sheltered little world. You always made the right decisions, didn't have "too many" children, got a good education etc.
You may be the most un-American and un-Christian poster on this site - one of those "I got mine, screw everyone else" type of people that makes me ill.
EXCUSE ME? When I was in Teach for America I taught the children of parents who worked three jobs so their kids could eat. The parents weren't born with the intellectual capacity to go to college. It just wasn't going to happen. What should they have done to prevent poverty? One of my little girls was in-bred and probably isn't going to college either. Other kids had severe neurological problems. Should they have thought about this?
You can't simply lump every person into the "should have thought about their educations" when some of the schools in this country provide little to no chance for children. Should they have found better parents? Poverty is a cycle, its not all choices. When the children I taught grow up, my greatest hope for them is not that they graduate college because, for most, that isn't even on their radar screen. I hope they can sustain themselves due to the impairments they never asked for, but somehow received.
Screwball, man.
Prosperity is not merely having enough money to survive. It's about well-being.
Anyway, as if education is accessible and affordable for all. You know we have more Americans holding college degrees today than at any part of our history, yet all those well paying jobs are still sent to third world countries where education is virtually nill. So don't tell me about responsibility and personal choices until you are willing to admit the problem is with the check writers, not the check cashers.
Prosperity is not merely having enough money to survive. It's about well-being.
I believe in opportunity, not entitlement. Everyone has the opportunity to go to school, and whether you like it or not, those w/o the money can go to school practically for free. All while I have $60k in school loans to pay off. On top of that, I have a mortgage and a car payment. But you know what, since i made the right choices, I should sell my house, rent a small apartment and give the rest of the money to the poor. So they can live off that, and continue to be poor looking for additional handouts. Get a life....and while you're at it....a job.
Anyway, as if education is accessible and affordable for all.
It is. Grants are need based. Therefore low income can go to school with less burden on their wallet than i can.
You know we have more Americans holding college degrees today than at any part of our history, yet all those well paying jobs are still sent to third world countries where education is virtually nill.
Not all, and not even close to all. The point is that you want to keep taxing the corporations even more with your democratic socialization policies and guess what....the corporations will move. They have one goal as a publicly traded company...to increase profit for shareholders. Well the only way to increase profit after increase tax is to cut costs. The democrats are the ones responsible that. But hey, im sure NAFTA helped.
So don't tell me about responsibility and personal choices until you are willing to admit the problem is with the check writers, not the check cashers.
There is no problem with the check writers. THey do what they are supposed to do...conduct a BUSINESS FOR PROFIT. Its not hard to understand. Increase taxes mean less profit. It has to be made up somwhere. You really think that higher taxes on the oil companies is going to decrease your price of oil? Ha. Think again. That 18billion will just go on top as a price increase.
But if you want to talk about taxes never forget that our tax money props up the profits of those candy-a** corporations who threaten to destroy American lives by leaving the country because CEO's don't want to pay the fees they owe for using the commons (our property) and redistributing our tax dollars to their shareholders. Cowards.
No ethics, no principles only gluttonous materialism. Conservatives have sold out on this. They were once the movement that rejected materialism and consumerism. Now conservatives are the greatest champions of such vice. That reeks and anyone who still believes in conservatism does too.
I got bills, too. I have a family. So don't act like you're so special, don't act so much more entitled to suck your wealth from the commons with no obligation to give back.
See, I get it. Effective government is good government, most Americans agree. Most Americans desire big government efforts that put our money to work for us. The deregulated market has failed us. We are falling apart in the CEO superhero culture.
People need jobs and putting people to work building bridges, repairing streets, building hospitals and libraries are jobs Americans can do well.
You can get on board or get out of the way but the days of hostile privatization are ending.
And I'm sure you know why those jobs got shipped overseas. IMO, the left simply made it more lucrative to manufacture products anywhere else because of their taxing policies and union backing. They priced themselves right out of the market. Its cheaper to manufacture elsewhere.
Dave,
Do you think there should be a minimum wage or do you think market forces should rule all? If the latter, what do you think of corporate welfare and the bailout of Bear Stearns?
I'm all for the market. But to answer your questions. No, I don't believe in a minimum wage, nor do I believe Bear Stearns should be bailed out. Bob Brinker is correct. And before anyone asks, I think McCain is a jackass flip flopper, Obama is spend happy, and Hillary is a bitch. Did I leave anything out? Going to be a sad election year.
- onionhead / Friday April 11, 2008 12:08:02 PM EDT
Spoken like a true Drive Thru window employee. I bow to your vast wisdom. And I want extra ketchup with that.
I didn't say that its wrong for those who produce the products to organize. But in doing so, those actions may come with a price tag of lost jobs. I advised that in doing so, the unions drive up the cost of that product, payroll, and decrease the bottom line....profits. I find no fault with the owner to move his business elsewhere, if he wishes, to garner more profits. Afterall, its why he's in business in the first place.
So the workers in the US, Japan and Europe will have to work for the kind of wages the companies in Bangalore, Ho Chi Minh City, Karachi and Chengdu are willing to pay.
It just chafes Dave's delicate corporate fascist sensibilities to acknowledge working people are more essential to the health of our economy than CEO's.
That's the failure of your worldview, Dave. It's always money first.
That's the failure of your worldview, Dave. It's always money first.
Its not a failure. Its the beauty of my world, and Conservatism. Anyone can be a success story. We exclude no one. You have the right to become rich. You have the right to start a business, the right to be your own boss. Its possible. The left, IMO, are the ones saying you can't do it. That's the failure of the Left....your world.
Your mischaracterization of liberalism is noted but I would like to set the record straight. Liberalism is about creating an economy for all. It's about removing the risk of participating in our economy by sharing the risk.
It is the views of those like yourself that keep people in the middle class. It is not hard to become wealthy. It is only your own self imposed limitations that prevent you from becoming wealthy. You simply have to have to desire to take a risk, an understanding wife, and some determination. NOBODY is keeping you in the middle class. This is the goal of Conservatism. And its possible in spite of the government.
As expected, you have distorted my statement into a personal cheap shot, despite your knowing absolutely nothing about me.
It is views of people like myself that keep people in the middle class who would otherwise be in poverty. There are those who are far more wealthier than I am who would agree with every word I said.
Name one country in the world where your economic model has yielded an entire population of rich people, which, by your admission, is the goal of conservatism. You're not going to find one.
Your ideas are either failed or unproven.
Your ideas yield an economy that is not self-sustaining.
Your ideas yield a populace that is plagued by economic vulnerability and weakness.
Your ideas yield a country that is beholden to foreign interest.
Your ideas yield foreign policies that incite military conflict.
Name one country in the world where your economic model has yielded an entire population of rich people, which, by your admission, is the goal of conservatism.
The goal of conservatism is not to MAKE people rich. The goal is to place the opportunity on table, and have each person makes choices of their own on whether they make it rich by their own self responsibility and decisions.
What is Democratic capitalism compared to just plain capitalism? As I understand it, capitalism is all about me first...everyone else is...well....second. My business is my business. And with all due respect, if everyone cared as much about me and mine as I do, there would be no need for welfare. That non sense about sharing the risk for all sounds more like socialism, and expensive. If someone fails, we all share the blame and price? Businesses fail. Fact of life. Not my problem in bailing them out. I'm all for creating the environment for business, but raising taxes and unionization are not the way to do it. Different ideologies, I guess.
"Sell out" blacks? So now anyone that doesnt follow the black trend is a sellout? Any black person that believes in personal responsibility is now a sell out? Wow. Thanks for the info Mr. Wright.
You call it "personal responsibility" - I call it "every man for himself".
I could never be selfish and self-centered enough to become a Republican... But the sell-oouts I listed above apparantly had no problem selling out their fellow man.
(BTW - I forgot one of the biggest sell-outs of all time - J.C.Watts. His own father once said "A black man voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders".
Would you not expect Obama to get 99% of the black vote? If he didn't, then there would be a problem.
The problem with that kind of thinking is it shows ignorance.
YOU ASSUME that Obama would get the black vote simply because he's black. While making such a dumb assumption you don't realize or choose to ignore that you've insulted black folks, implying that black folks operate with a tribe mentality. All black voters require is a black man, no substance needed. What you fail to realize is that if that were true Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have also received 99% of the black vote and sorry but last time I checked neither campaign had received anywhere near 99% of the black vote.
No, Jessie Jackson and his like are moronic race baiters. Even the average black american can see that. Those guys wouldnt stand a chance of running a sucessful presidential campaign.
And yes, I am implying that a majority of black voters will stand behind obama because he is black. plain and simple.
Because the historical record shows that anytime the status quo is threatened the sleazy right wing will be there to destroy the character, if not end the life, of social justice leaders.
The status quo even? Please. The problem is that people dont want "equal", they want "more than equal". That goes for both sides of the political spectrum...so dont try to play that "we just want fairness" bull.
You tryin' to tell me MLK was murdered, that the civil rights meovement was so staunchly resisted because black folks in Alabama wanted more than their share of rights?
That's what I thought. No morals, no principles, no sense of common decency. Loser.
How funny. I have no deceny because you are telling me what I believe in, even though its not true. Ok. You are a race baiter, thats all it comes down to.
Until you admit your diatribes on entitlement and your mischaracterizations of liberalism are petty provocations, I ain't about to play nice.
You tryin' to tell me MLK was murdered, that the civil rights movement was so staunchly resisted because black folks in Alabama wanted more than their share of rights?
Typical.
Because he was a socialist.
These are the same kind of attacks MLK endured. Race hustler, race baiter, traitor, communist, enemy, beggar, thief. It's same crap, different day.
So to say you would stand by MLK today while you decry those currently following in his foot-steps as trouble makers rings hollow. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're on board with the labor movement and the ACLU. In which case, I guess you would support MLK's vision.
What a punk attitude. Race baiter? Screw that. Y'all conmen said the same crap about Martin Luther King up to the day he was murdered.
Some of them are still bad-mouthing Dr. King to this day....
Interesting set of floating standards you're displaying there. Blacks will naturally support Obama just because he's black. No other reason. Blacks didn't support Jackson is such high levels. Obviously blacks didn't support Jackson just because he's black. So you say there were other reasons that blacks didn't support Jackson just because he was black. But there couldn't possibly be other reasons for blacks to support Obama. They are supporting him just because he is black.
How about this concept? Blacks support the Democratic Party because it best represents the best interests of the US and the African American position in the US. With the main candidates of the Democratic Party pretty similar in positions, African Americans are seeing their realistic opportunity to see an AA elected President. In Obama they see an intersection of public policy positions and electoral viability. It becomes a situation where race is something of a tipping point, with all other factors being roughly equivalent.
Or you could go on believing that there are no other considerations and that race is the one and only factor affecting their votes. It's an idiotic opinion, but people are entitled to those as well.
How about this concept? Blacks support the Democratic Party because it best represents the best interests of the US and the African American position in the US
LOL - dont make me laugh man. Blacks support the democratic party because its best for them personally, not because its best for the US. THe majority of democrat voters are poor or low income. They vote as to what will be best for them personally, not whats best for the country. And theres nothing wrong w/ that. Dont dont pull out this "its best for everyone" speech because that will get you nowhere in my book.
However, what my main point was that Hillary & Obama's stances on issues are very similar, if not the same for many of them. With that being said, the black voters will naturally back obama because they can personally relate to him because of race.
As a white middle class person, I would rather vote for obama than hillary, but race does not play an issue with me. However, do not try and discount the fact that it does play a major role in the way many people vote.
You either stated your earlier opinion badly or you're backing down from it now. You stated that Obama should get 99% of the AA vote and the only reason you supplied for it was his race. You gave no reference to other issues until presented with the fact that Jackson came no where close to that level of support. Then you alluded to other reasons that Jackson was rejected but immediately then stated "a majority of black voters will stand behind obama because he is black. plain and simple." That sure looks like you're making race the only consideration.
But, when the illogic of that position is pointed out to you, suddenly your position morphs to become very similar to what I stated. Interesting.
I find your suggestion that AAs don't give any consideration to what is best for the country to be extremely offensive. Do you think whites vote entirely on self-interest without any consideration of national interest, or do you see that as only a black phenomenon? What about the fact I pointed out to you that the large majority of AAs receive no forms of public assistance? Why would they continue to support the Democratic Party if there were no other considerations?
Also, you're wrong about where the Democratic Party gets the majority of its support. The majority comes from a combination of the middle and working classes, with a smaller, but not insignificant portion coming from upper middle and upper classes. And I'm sure very few vote entirely in self-interest with no regard to national interest, in spite of your cynical view of voting reasons. Have you considered the possibility that you're projecting your own selfishness on others?
Blacks support the democratic party because its best for them personally, not because its best for the US.
Aren't blacks part of the US? So voting what's best for "them personally" is not voting for what's best for the rest of America? So you're saying that Blacks are un-American?
THe majority of democrat voters are poor or low income.
Comment pulled right out of your a$$. In fact, "red" states receive more in government aid then they pay into the system.
They vote as to what will be best for them personally, not whats best for the country. And theres nothing wrong w/ that. Dont dont pull out this "its best for everyone" speech because that will get you nowhere in my book.
You may be the most divisive, racist, un-American, idiotic poster to ever appear on this site. In some ways I feel sorry for you, but I feel more sorry for your family and people who have to exist in your presence.
You may be the most divisive, racist, un-American, idiotic poster to ever appear on this site. In some ways I feel sorry for you, but I feel more sorry for your family and people who have to exist in your presence.
Quite humorous. Racist? Laughable as im dating a black woman. Un-American? Laughable again as I am tax paying citizen, without a criminal record, who volunteers 15hrs/week, and served in the Army. Idiotic? Again laughable. The mirror may be more correct for you.
Laughable as im dating a black woman.
Actually what's laughable is you again ASSUME that because your dating a black woman and she shares your views of black folks your views are acceptable and not considered racists. The fact that there are many black folks who don't like Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly should tell you that race is not a factor for black folks.
The fact that you can feel good about your opinion based on ONE black woman IS laughable.
So voting what's best for "them personally" is not voting for what's best for the rest of America?
That question pretty much answers itself. And admitting that people vote for whats best for them. So let me tell you something almighty OZ, whats best for the low income black or white family is not whats best for me. Plain and simple.
but race does not play an issue with me.
Like my dad always said, if ya have to tell them you're not one, you probably are.
No, Jessie Jackson and his like are moronic race baiters. Even the average black american can see that. Those guys wouldnt stand a chance of running a sucessful presidential campaign.
And yes, I am implying that a majority of black voters will stand behind obama because he is black. plain and simple.
You lost the argument the moment you started it with Miss Pearlene. She lived through the Civil Rights Movement, and knows more from personal experience than you will ever HOPE to know.
Tell me - did you take the name "Columbus1492" because you're some kind of white supremicist? Just curious....
Welcome back Homey.
Your ideas reflect a bigoted perspective of AA society, not a realistic one. The large majority of AAs receive no public assistance. Are the vast majority of them supporting the Democratic Party simply to protect that feature for the poorer minority of them? Doesn't the illogic of that idea jump out at you?
The idea that AAs support the Democratic Party simply because of "entitlements" (an idiotic description of assistance programs) simply doesn't stand up to close examination. There are a wide variety of reasons that AAs support Democratic candidates, not the least of which is that the Republican Party endorses policies that disregard the many interests of AA citizens.
No, its called free hand outs, not to mention this word called "entitlement".
When you consider the fact that the majority of people on welfare and food stamps are white, your ignorance shows through with each of your hideous posts, Columbus. Where are you getting your "facts" - from the John Birch Society/
I agree with Gibson's statements.
Do you really believe that 90% of blacks support Obama because they are smarter than white and hispanics when choosing the best candidate? in my opinion, Obama is the best candidate. But it would be foolish to disbelieve that a big part of this 90% support comes from the fact that he's black.
Maybe the caller was in the last 10%?
Gibson is full of crap, as usual.
Agreed. Some people do vote on race &/or gender. There will be many americans who will not vote for hillary because they are not ready for a female president, and many americans who do not vote for obama becuase they are not ready for a black president. Since that part is true, its also true that many black americans will vote obama because he is black.
This is an obvious fact.
Yeah, I bet many blacks will vote for Obama partly because he's black, just like many women will vote for Clinton partly because she's a woman, and many old men will vote for McCain partly because he's an old man.
But Gibson seems to contend that the only reason for blacks picking Obama is that he's black, and that it somehow invalidates their choice if they do. He's basically telling them that by voting for Obama, they are letting themselves be deceived. It's disgusting to hear him - although I'm sure he knows a thing or two about deception.
You claimed on the the other thread that you were NOT a Republican. Which is it?
"Actually I wouldnt know if Rush Limbaugh has said it or not since I do not listen to him. In fact, I am not even of republican partisonship. I just hold a hard stance on this issue as immigration is in my top 3 importances as to the way I will vote.
So Solon, why don't you grow up and stop the accusations since it's quite obvious that like to bring out personal attacks such as a 13yr old would."
- COLUMBUS1492 / Friday April 11, 2008 6:58:02 AM EDT
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
I didn't say I was republican here, did it? You asked if stereotyping was ok. And obviously it is, becuase anyone who writes on here that doesn't agree with you is automatically a republican. I would say thats stereotyping and generalizing.
"Look Col., not all republicans back all the of "security" concerns of the right wing politics, because I sure dont."
So, Columbus, I guess you are for racial profiling, right? Based on your statements, if I am allowed to stereotype, I would say you're a racist. Do I believe that? No. But if I took the statements you have made on this thread and fit them into a stereotype, I would say that you are ignorant on race issues, maybe a racist, and definitely someone who needs to categorize the world to make himself feel at ease.
However, since I don't believe in stereotyping, I don't think those things, but, according to you, I should, right? You have definitely given me reasons to feel these ways.
So, Columbus, I guess you are for racial profiling, right?
Sure, in fact at airports we should be doing more of it. After all, according to posters here, im a typical white man. So i'm already being racially profiled.
So, Columbus, I guess you are for racial profiling, right?
Sorry, Im a white male and dating a black female, about to get engaged in fact. Try again.
I would say that you are ignorant on race issues
Not a chance. I dont believe in giving someone something because they are a minority, and i dont believe in taking away something becuase you are a majority. Plain and simple.
since I don't believe in stereotyping, I don't think those things, but, according to you, I should, right?
You said them, not me. So its obvious you do stereotype.
Columbus,
Congrats on your pending engagement, but this is how our exchange went:
Me: So, stereotyping is ok?
You: If its relevant, yes.
I was merely saying that if someone was reading your comments and applying them to a stereotype, that person would think that your rhetoric was racist. I said I didn't believe that you were. I hope you don't dismiss the views of your soon-to-be fiancee because of her race and that you two are able to hold deeper conversations than the ones you appear willing to hold on this board.
Columbus,
Its women like your fiancee that shouuld make you AGAINST thinking that Obama is gathering the black vote because of race. You wouldn't want people to immediately think that she thinks a certain way because of the color of her skin, would you? Its women like her that should make you hate Gibson's comment, not let him have a pass, right?
The two of you sound great for each other.
And when your children come up against racists like Gibson, I'm sure you'll be telling your kids how wrong they are and how right the person making the racist comments is.
Columbus,
Gibson would assume your wife was voting for Obama if he saw her. Does that bother you?
Actually it isnt that is about the same percentage of the black vote CLINTON got so you aret making sense.
Do you really believe that 90% of blacks support Obama because they are smarter than white and hispanics when choosing the best candidate? in my opinion, Obama is the best candidate. But it would be foolish to disbelieve that a big part of this 90% support comes from the fact that he's black.
I bolded the part that made your statement especially absurd and insulting. When you're dealing with a large voting block, there are countless reasons for why an individual votes for a specific person. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that a segment of the black population will support Obama solely because he is black. Big deal. But when you baselessly assert that most or a big part are motivated by the same thing, it becomes a silly generalization.
Furthermore, the majority of blacks typically vote Democrat, so that further narrows their choice down. So, is it possible that many blacks vote for Obama because first, he is a Democrat whose views are in line with theirs, and second, because he is black? Possibly, and I see nothing wrong with that. The color of his skin isn't what determines the vote, it only It isn't racist either. Whites have never been in a position to consider the race of a candidate and closet racists have had the advantage of hiding behind that fact.
I think it's worth noting that several black Americans have recently complained about how much intense pressure and hostility they are undergoing from other blacks because they continue to support Hillary. There is no explanation for that, except one--for a lot of black Democrats it's racially necesary to support Obama, and you're some kind of traaitor if you don't.
Gibson is a horror in every way, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
That's a ridiculous assumption given Obama has demonstrated a more enlightened view of race relations in America than Hillary.
I think it's worth noting that several black Americans have recently complained about how much intense pressure and hostility they are undergoing from other blacks because they continue to support Hillary. There is no explanation for that, except one--for a lot of black Democrats it's racially necesary to support Obama, and you're some kind of traaitor if you don't.
PROOF?
there's nothing inherently wrong for voting for someone because you identify with them, be it because of race, gender or perhaps sexual orientaion. millions of irish catholics voted for john kennedy in 1960, solely because they identified with his irish catholicness.
that a good chunk of AA's vote for sen. obama solely because he's black surprises me not in the least. i'd be more surprised if they didn't. again, nothing inherently wrong with that. where the gibson train wheels start falling off is when he assumes, absent any supporting evidence, that all AA's vote for sen. obama, solely due to his blackness.
that might be true, but gibson (as usual) provides no factual data to support his assertion, we're just supposed to accept it as fact, because he says so.
gibson's core audience probably does accept it as fact, just because he says so. his core audience isn't too bright, so i wouldn't get awfully worked up over it.
I accidentally hit post instead of preivew, so the last part is a little messed up. Sorry.
The color of his skin isn't what determines the vote, it is only "icing on the cake" and takes a back seat to the issues. It isn't racist either. Whites have never been in a position to consider the race of a candidate and closet racists have had the advantage of hiding behind that fact.
I thought Obama wasn't black enough for "the brothers"? Or is he not white enough again? Or is he a Muslim? I forget what line this week the GOP surrogates in the media are trotting out this week about Obama.
Gibson, as per usual, shows us why he, well, sucks. Mostly at life, but definitely in the radio business.
I thought Obama wasn't black enough for "the brothers"?
You know, I think Obama is a smart educated man. I may not agree with him on issues, but it does not take away the fact that he is very bright and successful. However, anyone who says the whole "my brothers and sisters" street slang b.s absolutely turns me off. Bill Cosby has it right when his point is to get rid of the divisive speech rhetoric that turns many people away.
You have amply demonstrated you are morally vacant.
Let us not forget these facts:
An ABC News/Washington Post poll in January 2008 had Clinton ahead of Obama among African-American voters 60 percent to 20 percent. A Gallup poll released last month showed Clinton leading Obama among African-Americans 43 percent to 42 percent, a statistical dead heat.
Thank you
Who will pasty white Gibson be voting for? Probably the white guy..but he'll proclaim it isn't because McBush is white but because he is the best man to be President..who happens to be white. And he is Repulban..now if Obama were a Republan and the blacks voted for him I guess it would be because he is the best man for the job. Right, Whitey.
Gibson..jagoff of the day #2
Jagoff Supreme... and these are the same clueless wingnuts, like Bill O'Reilly, who insist they won't talk about race anymore because evrything is all right.
I was laughing at the item, thinking nobody but Gibson could fail to see through the feeble logic of his words, but then more than one poster chimed in to prove that Gibson isn't totally alone in the dumb zone.
Look at the transcript of the discussion MMFA provided. They were talking issues and ideas. The caller, when he wasn't being talked over and cut off, was giving reasons and explanations for his opinions. Race was never introduced until Gibson used it as a blanket reason to disregard everything else the caller had stated. What reason did Gibson have to bring it into the discussion? Gibson pretty much stated that he didn't believe the issues the caller cited were the reason for his support of Obama. Gibson, in effect, called the caller a liar and said that race was the reason he supported Obama.
Looking at the specifics of this discussion, it looks like a racist conclusion to me.
[Gibson's]not exactly being "politically correct"....however i could care less about political correctness. (Colubus)
Actually, Gibson's being very politically correct. He's telling the far right exactly what they want to hear, that black people are not very bright.And you're eating it up, because you care very much about political correctness.Conservative PC.
I dont think all do, but a majority sure do.
PROOF?
Beyond your opinion and your black girlfriend that is.
Columbus,
Are you saying that race overrides intellectual reasoning in this case? If so, why?
PROOF that 90% of Black folks voted for Obama based on race alone?
AGAIN, PROOF?
Oh god! you people calling him a rascist, it's pathetic. you've learned from the media to instantly attack anyone who says anything about another race. You pinko pascifists will scream "hate talk" and have somone fired for the most idiotic reasons. You've learned it from the media, your trying to make everyone look like this awful person. The Black population DOES side with obama because of his ethnicity. I have several friends who side with him for that very reason, he isn't being rascist, he has a valid point that some people don't even care about the issues, only about the way he looks or if he is a good speaker with a booming voice, blah blah blah , you people are clueless.
Jackson L, by your same logic I can deduce white America has voted for every president because they were white males. Is that fair? Of course people are going to side with who they identify with, but if Obama has a controversy that causes him to lose face in the black community, do you think he'd still garner the black vote? Of course he wouldn't. Look at what's happening to Hillary Clinton. If we put on our wayback caps we see that Hillary actually had the black female vote earlier on. I guess all those black females were going for her because she's black huh? You come here calling people pinkofascist and tell us about the media teaching us this and that. Who the hell uses the term pinkofascist. Sounds like Rush Numbnuts or "Doctor" Michael Savage talk to me.
Buy a clue.
sorry, pinko pacifist. Still sounds Weinerish to me.
ps. I'll loan you the money to buy that new clue.
Look at the transcript of the discussion MMFA provided. They were talking issues and ideas. The caller, when he wasn't being talked over and cut off, was giving reasons and explanations for his opinions.
Exactly. The caller was giving reasons why he supported Obama that were not racial, but Gibson--and some here--will have none of that. In their minds, blacks are obligated to mindlessly stick behind a black candidate regardless of their stance on important issues. They also largely support the Democratic Party for selfish reasons (i.e. welfare, the "black" agenda), not because it will benefit the country as a whole. Never mind
It's funny how people can have such contempt for a group of people and still deny they're racists.
No, I've realized I was wrong. I've seen the light. Gibson's incredible mind-reading abilities enabled him to see that none of the reasons the caller stated were true. There wasn't any other possible reason to support Obama than race.
I don't know why I couldn't see that earlier when it was so obvious to HotWings, Columbus1492, Deeyoulaylowmowchowchi, Truthseeker77, Doc5467 and Zamfir273114. They knew that Gibson has the gift to see through the caller's apparently well thought out list of reasons and penetrate through to his subconscious and realize that it was all race, race and more race. The caller clearly had no other considerations.
How could I have been so blind?
Just because someone beleives there inherently better than someone else due to their race doesn't make them racist.
At least not in neo con fantasy land.
I think it's worth noting that several black Americans have recently complained about how much intense pressure and hostility they are undergoing from other blacks because they continue to support Hillary.
Were these "several black Americans" highlighted in the media or is this anecdotal evidence? Either way, all it proves is that some in the black community support Obama only because he's black, just like some whites will never vote for a black person. Gibson did more than say that: he claimed that this is a widespread trend in the black community. where nearly all vote based on skin color alone. He even tried to pin that label on an individual, even when they gave valid reasons.
Seeing as how he has 90% of the black vote now, and the similarities between Obama & Hillary's stances, I would say its a safe bet to assume that the "majority" are backing him because of race.
Basically you're saying there are two candidates with essentially the same stance on issues, and blacks decide to the go with the one who is black. I see nothing wrong with that. It's not racist if you put it into proper context. Whites have never been in a position to think about race with regard to presidential candidates because they were all white. It's easy to assume colorblindness when you're the majority.
Blacks now have an opportunity to support a candidate whose views align with theirs, and who is very appealing to non-blacks. Why the hell shouldn't they support him in large numbers? By voting for Obama, they aren't saying that Hillary or McCain are unqualified\less intelligent simply because they're white.
Show proof that African Americans are only behind him based on race, Columbus.
Hey, righties!!
C'mon HotWings, Columbus1492, Deeyoulaylowmowchowchi, Truthseeker77, Doc5467, NAC and Zamfir273114. You've all said that Gibson is right. The only way for Gibson to be right is if the caller is a liar.
Please tell us why you are sure the caller was a liar.
Please tell me how you know for certain the caller was not a liar. Oh I forgot...because everyone tells the truth.
Now you're really looking desparate. What reason does Gibson have to make his accusation? What reason does he have to label the caller a liar? Everything the caller said was reasonable and non-race-based. Yet Gibson took it on himself to decide that the caller really didn't mean anything he said. Gibson decided on the basis of nothing more than his own mind-reading ability that the ONLY reason the caller supported Obama was race.
And now you're trying to shift the responisbility to us to prove the caller isn't a liar? Do you have any concept of logic? Have you ever heard the term "proving an negative?" Can you prove to me that you're not a liar? Of course not. Still, I wouldn't assume you were a liar unless I had good reason to do so. That crap about everone telling the truth is just dishonest idiotic distraction.
Gibson (and you) have absolutely no reason to believe the caller is lying. Because of that, I can only see one reason for levelling the charge that the caller only supported Obama because of race. That reason is racism.
and scroll down to the program for April 1. It lasts about nine minutes.
My wife and I are white; we have attended Obama's church, and it is not racist. If you don't believe me, come to Chicago and see for yourself.
Funny. I guess blacks also stuck with Bill Clinton because he was a "brother" Guess blacks also stuck with John Kennedy because he was a "brother". Guess blacks stuck with Clarence Thomas because he's a . . . Bad example. Guess blacks stuck with Michael Jackson because he's a . . Another bad example.
My point is it's easy to simplify and categorize why people vote for someone. The same can be done for every president we've ever had. I guess Gibson voted for whatever republican cu$t throughout his life because they were white brothers huh?!?
If its ok for AA to stand behind a candidate because he is also AA, then its fine for me not to stand behind him just because hes AA. Racism works both ways....you dont have to come out and attack someone to show your racial tendencies.
It doesn't "work both ways" because whites (including myself) have never been in a position to consider race as a factor since all past candidates have been white. It's easier to be colorblind about eveything when you're the dominate majority.
The difference between the two groups lies in the motivation. Are blacks voting for Obama because they don't like whites or feel they are inherently less qualified than blacks? That would be racist but I seriously doubt that's the case with most. They have a strong desire to see a qualified person of color (not just because he's black) become President, and finally here comes a person who they feel is both qualified and appeals to non-blacks as well.
Now what would be the motivation for a white person not to support a candidate simply because they're black? Either they don't like black people, think they are inherently inferior, or they want to maintain the status quo. It's not the same thing. Sorry, but I don't have to pretend racism is some egalitarian concept that evenly cuts both ways.
Please tell me how you know for certain the caller was not a liar. Oh I forgot...because everyone tells the truth.
You don't really have a black girlfriend. What's my proof, you ask? Nothing, so I have to take you by your word. The same logic applies to the caller. Of course we don't know for certain whether he was telling the truth or not, but it is a reasonable assumption. If you're going to assert that he is lying, the burden of proof rests on you, not us. In other words, what evidence is there that he's lying? Besides mind reading of course.
Gibson is absolutely right! I have heard many AA say they are voting because he is black. And yes obama lies all the times and no one says a word. Rezko, Exelon, how his parents met in Selma, how the Kennedy's brought his father over, the NAFTA and Iraq campaign rhetoric vs. his advisors telling government officials and international media something else.
You are too dumb to breathe. My proof? I don't need any, it's just my opinion.
90% is my proof. You dont achieve 90% by splitting the hairs of two candidates who's stances are almost the same. Sorry girl, doesnt happen. Deny all you want, but you'd be lying to yourself if you actually think that more than 50% of the 90% of black voters backing Obama do becuase they agree with his stance on issues.
90% only proves that 90% of blacks support Obama. It does not explain the reason why. You took that single piece of evidence and made the hasty generalization that they only support him because he is black. I don't deny that race is a factor, but you're conflating its importance. No doubt blacks have a strong desire to see a qualified person of color (not just because he's black) become President, and finally here comes a person who they feel is both qualified and appeals to non-blacks as well. But the fact still remains that they took the issues into consideration.
90% of the black vote will go to Obama nationally if he is the Democratic nominee but that is because he would be the democratic candidate and essentially 90% of the black population is democratic. However he has yet to get 90% of the black vote in any state primary or caucus and only came close to that high in one state. So this twisted assumption on the black support of him just because he is black is false on the face of it! If your going to try and defend such a stupid point of view at least try to be intellectually honest about it!!
I have heard many AA say they are voting because he is black.
I have heard that many whites won't vote for him because he is black. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless when discussing voting blocks.
Thank you for your imput.
Who hates the working class? Any employer knows he needs them to make a profit. They are free to leave if they wish, they are free to stay. But what employer would want a union telling him/her how much to pay them or how many benefits they get. Greed may not be the word I would use, but self preservation and self interest maybe. Profit is not a dirty word. Any employee is free to seek the dream of self ownership. They just have to quit listening to the D's who tell them they can't do it.
And just out of curiosity, do you get to drive Thomas the Train, or just sell the tickets at the carnival? My grandkids would love you. I still can't believe there's a union for that, but God bless the USA.
Where on earth do the Dems tell anyone they can't do anything? There is a union for all of those occupations so that employees won't have to file for bankruptcy in a health emergency. There are unions so people can maximize their earning power and receive benefits. I know you probably are in a job that is white-collar and doesn't need union representation, but, believe it or not, some do.
Please provide backup for your ridiculous assertions about Dems telling them they can't do something.
By the way, loved your characterizations of the candidates, Dave. I guess you will be voting for Hillary because you couldn't attack her policies, just her personality, right?
Gibson is mostly a fool. The implication that Gibson is pushing is that blacks are voting exclusively on his being black, the way that interest groups like the NRA and pro-life groups vote as a single bloc.
There is overwhelming black support for Obama, but is better explained if put into this context. If you are of Irish heritage and you have have two candidates who you percieve as similar on issues and competentcy, but one has Irish heritage, who would you vote for?
Has John Gibson ever supported anyone who wasn't a white male for president? No.
He's in no position to accuse anybody of playing identity politics.