I think it's interesting...

[clambake]

i can only comment about the one encounter with a black man that you described.

this is very telling, yoni.

perhaps you should have provided us with more than this one instance.

this is your only encounter, isn't it?

it would, maybe, take out some of the creepiness from all of your racist threads.

you should probably address these, yoni.

[Winehole23]

[quote=Yonivore;3697390]

You've mischaracterized my statement, I said, "Nothing I've seen, so far in this presidency, can be said to have been affected by racism." That's a bit different.

I don't think so. It's like saying racism exists, but none of it applies to Obama. Whence does your dead certainty about this arise?

And, again, you make a personal attack on my motivations. And, again, I'll refrain from returning the favor.

On the contrary, it's a description of your behavior on this forum. You steer the conversation relentlessly toward race, even though you say it's a practical non-issue. You have been for some time.

I couldn't care less about your motivations, Yoni. It's your behavior that I take issue with.

[Yonivore]

[QUOTE=Winehole23;3697414]

I don't think so. It's like saying racism exists, but none of it applies to Obama. Whence does your dead certainty about this arise?

Again, you're not understanding what I said. Look, if it helps, I'll start with -- racism exists. There are people in this country who are racists and who don't like Obama being president because he is black. Now, having said that, there is nothing in the opposition to Obama -- that I've witnessed so far -- that can be attributed to racism.

On the contrary, it's a description of your behavior on this forum. You continually steer the conversation relentless toward race, even though you say it's a practical non-issue. You have been for some time.

Certainly, I do that in threads about race. Where else would I steer it?

I couldn't care less about your motivations, Yoni. It's your behavior that I take issue with.

I don't see you taking issue with others' behavior in here...why mine? There are certainly posters, in here, that have acted more -- whatever it is you don't like about my behavior -- than I have. It can't just be my behavior, I'm far from the worst.

[clambake]

yoni....pullover and get out........the wheels are coming off this baby!

[Yonivore]

yoni....pullover and get out........the wheels are coming off this baby!

I'm not driving the jalopy in which you've found yourself. Maybe after the smoke clears you'll see who. But, good luck!

[clambake]

I'm not driving the jalopy in which you've found yourself. Maybe after the smoke clears you'll see who. But, good luck!

go ahead, keep mopping.

you've missed several spots.

[Winehole23]

[quote=Yonivore;3697429]

Again, you're not understanding what I said. Look, if it helps, I'll start with -- racism exists. There are people in this country who are racists and who don't like Obama being president because he is black. Now, having said that, there is nothing in the opposition to Obama -- that I've witnessed so far -- that can be attributed to racism.

How are you so certain about this?

Certainly, I do that in threads about race. Where else would I steer it?

You start the most threads about race. Why?

I don't see you taking issue with others' behavior in here...why mine? There are certainly posters, in here, that have acted more -- whatever it is you don't like about my behavior -- than I have. It can't just be my behavior, I'm far from the worst.

Maybe that's because you're focused too narrowly on my responses to your own posts. I dish out plenty to other boorish posters.

And, you're not as far from the being worst as you seem to think.

If I pick on you too much, that goes partly to the egregiousness of your example, and partly because you're articulate enough to carry on a conversation. Most of the hyperpartisan clowns on this board aren't. Consider that a feather in your cap.

[Yonivore]

[QUOTE=Winehole23;3697448]

How are you so certain about this?

Because it can so easily be attributed to other factors and can be compared to similar levels of opposition experienced in previous administration attempting similar initiatives who weren't black.

That's how I can be certain. How can you be certain race has anything to do with the opposition?

You start the most threads about race. Why?

Because, I think it's an important topic. Particularly when you have the Democrat Congressional leaders and a former Democrat President imputing the issue where it doesn't belong.

Maybe that's because you're focused too narrowly on my responses to your own posts. I dish out plenty to other boorish posters.

Maybe, I've never claimed to pay attention to individuals in here anyway. I can't tell you how many times I've had to run back and edit a post because I responded to the wrong poster. Frankly, I rarely respond to posters but to ideas in here. Lately, you're the exception because, in my attempt to improve my presence in here, I've actually engaged you on a personal level. I may come to regret that but, so far, it's not been particularly bothersome.

And, you're not as far from the being worst as you seem to think.

And, you complain about me making personal attacks?

If I pick on you too much, that goes partly to the egregiousness of your example, and partly because you're articulate enough to carry on a conversation. Most of the hyperpartisan clowns on this board aren't. Consider that a feather in your cap.

Don't blame me if I don't accept the backhanded compliment.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, Whenever I read any of Yoni's posts I'm starting to hear Monty Python's Spam song in my head with le word replaced by the word "race."

Race, race, race, race.

Race, race, race, race....

[Yonivore]

You know, Whenever I read any of Yoni's posts I'm starting to hear Monty Python's Spam song in my head with le word replaced by the word "race."

Race, race, race, race.

Race, race, race, race....

I wonder what that says about you.

[Yonivore]

So, riddle me this batmen...

If racism is an issue in the opposition to Obama's presidential agenda and policy initiatives, isn't that a big story worth discussing in here?

And, if racism isn't an issue but, race-baiting by leading Democrats is, isn't that a big story worth discussing in here?

If it were another formulation, it wouldn't be a topic at all. You can thank Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter for making race an issue. I had nothing to do with it.

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder what that says about you.

It says that I noticed you are obsessed with race.

[Winehole23]

[quote=Yonivore;3697462]

Because it can so easily be attributed to other factors and can be compared to similar levels of opposition experienced in previous administration attempting similar initiatives who weren't black.

That's how I can be certain. How can you be certain race has anything to do with the opposition?

I just claim it can't be ruled out. You claim it must be. That doesn't square too well with my own experience in this world.

I realize that's not an argument. It's really no more than a hunch, but in fairness, so is your own surmise.

Because, I think it's an important topic. Particularly when you have the Democrat Congressional leaders and a former Democrat President imputing the issue where it doesn't belong.

Me, not so important. It's a useless distraction IMO, but you can't stop bringing it up.

And, you complain about me making personal attacks?

Fair enough. I think your own carelessness about what you say and to whom you say it warrants the flames more than sometimes. But if you're turning over a new leaf, I'm willing to reign myself in...

...until you attack me again for claims I never made.

Don't blame me if I don't accept the backhanded compliment.

I don't. But it's not so backhanded as you might think.

[Yonivore]

I just claim it can't be ruled out. You claim it must be. That doesn't square too well with my own experience in this world.

So, you impute it by inference...and, without any evidence other than your world view. That's precisely what Dowd and Carter did.

I realize that's not an argument. It's really no more than a hunch, but in fairness, so is your own surmise.

I disagree. I can point to volumes of news stories and opinion pieces that attack his policies on their merit. Not so much on racist opposition...or, evidence to that effect.

Me, not so important. It's a useless distraction IMO, but you can't stop bringing it up.

It's a distraction but, I'm not so sure how useless it would have turned to have been if the distraction had gone unchallenged. And, that my bringing it in here is viewed as a unimportant by you, doesn't change the fact that it was a much bigger story elsewhere. I merely brought it in here for discussion. If you didn't find it interesting or important, you could have simply left it alone.

Fair enough. I think your own carelessness about what you say and to whom you say warrants the flames more than sometimes. But if you're turning over a new leaf, I'm willing to reign myself in...

...until you attack me again for claims I never made.

Fair enough.

I don't. But it's not so backhanded as you might think.

Duly noted.

[Winehole23]

I disagree. I can point to volumes of news stories and opinion pieces that attack his policies on their merit. Not so much on racist opposition...or, evidence to that effect

If the media doesn't report it, it must not be true; if the media does, it must be veracious in some degree. Media reports=evidence.

What an odd position for you to take. You're saying that because media reports back you up, your inference isn't threadbare.

You don't seem to realize that people who take Jimmy Carter's view are equally justified to say the same. *Media reports* back them up, too.

[Yonivore]

If the media doesn't report it, it must not be true.

What an odd position for you to take.

I agree, it would be odd. but, it's not the position I'm taking...

If it were happening, this media would be reporting it. The two attempts they've made have failed to get traction with the American Public; pimping Maureen Dowd's imputation of "boy" into Joe Wilson's outburst and giving any credence to that old anti-semitic racist, himself, Jimmy Carter.

It's not happening. And, unless you can demonstrate it is, I don't think it helps your argument to just "speculate" that because racists exist, racism must be playing some role in the opposition to Barack Obama and his agenda.

[Yonivore]

If the media doesn't report it, it must not be true; if the media does, it must be veracious in some degree. Media reports=evidence.

What an odd position for you to take. You're saying that because media reports back you up, your inference isn't threadbare.

You don't seem to realize that people who take Jimmy Carter's view are equally justified to say the same. *Media reports* back them up, too.

Where do media reports -- other than just repeating Jimmy Carter's assertion -- back up the proposition that racism has played a role in Obama's opposition?

[Winehole23]

Where do media reports -- other than just repeating Jimmy Carter's assertion -- back up the proposition that racism has played a role in Obama's opposition?

I don't claim they do.

I take issue your inference that because legitimate opposition to Obama exists and is do ented -- and I am in that camp -- that this somehow disproves the possibility that some of that opposition is in bad faith.

The lack of do entation or media coverage *proving* racist opposition to Obama actually proves nothing, despite your pretense that it does.

[Yonivore]

I don't claim they do.

I take issue your inference that because legitimate opposition to Obama exists and is do ented -- and I am in that camp -- that this somehow disproves the possibility that some of that opposition is in bad faith.

If the overt opposition is based on good argument such as you and I both agree, what does it matter the motivation of some forwarding the argument? Cannot a racist be right in arguing the Obama policies are ruinous without ascribing that opposition to his racism?

Because the argument exists outside the racist community would tend to marginalize and make moot, any racism that exists.

In other words, his policies are opposed by a whole wide spectrum of Americans. Yes, there may be racists in the mix but, because a vast majority of others have made sound arguments in opposition discounts the notion that racism has anything to do with it.

You seem to be implying that a racist cannot disagree except on racist grounds. If that were the case, and if it were due to racism alone they object, I doubt you'd see many people aligning themselves with that argument.

If there are racists that have coopted a legitimate criticism and are silently relishing the idea they're opposing Obama and they're racists. So what?

The lack of do entation or media coverage *proving* racist opposition to Obama actually proves nothing, despite your pretense that it does.

I disagree. I think if racism were a significant part of the equation, it'd be 24-7 on, at least, CNN.

Do you remember the MSNBC story that tried to impute race into the incident over the guy taking a gun to a town hall rally?

The media is trying to make it a racial issue. To their credit, the American people aren't buying it.

[Winehole23]

If the overt opposition is based on good argument such as you and I both agree, what does it matter the motivation of some forwarding the argument? Cannot a racist be right in arguing the Obama policies are ruinous without ascribing that opposition to his racism?

Sure.

Because the argument exists outside the racist community would tend to marginalize and make moot, any racism that exists.

I disagree about the mooting, but you have a point bout marginalization. I do think racism is a marginal issue wrt the topic.

In other words, his policies are opposed by a whole wide spectrum of Americans. Yes, there may be racists in the mix but, because a vast majority of others have made sound arguments in opposition discounts the notion that racism has anything to do with it.

The devil can cite scripture too, or use it as a fig leaf. Undoubtedly.

You seem to be implying that a racist cannot disagree except on racist grounds. If that were the case, and if it were due to racism alone they object, I doubt you'd see many people aligning themselves with that argument.

I don't think I implied any such thing. See above

If there are racists that have coopted a legitimate criticism and are silently relishing the idea they're opposing Obama and they're racists. So what?

I have no problem with this. But we are very far now from the proposition that racism axiomatically doesn't attach to Obama.

I disagree. I think if racism were a significant part of the equation, it'd be 24-7 on, at least, CNN.

Bad faith is unfalsifiable, and therefore unprovable. It's unsurprising that it receives no media coverage.

Do you remember the MSNBC story that tried to impute race into the incident over the guy taking a gun to a town hall rally?

I don't watch much MSNBC. That said, there would seem to be inherent security issues with carrying firearms in the vicinity of the President.

The media is trying to make it a racial issue. To their credit, the American people aren't buying it.

I agree. But you seem to give little credit to the majority of posters who've said as much here. And none whatsoever to Obama, who's said as much himself.

It seems to me that you've been the ST poster -- bar none -- most insistent on reducing political controversies to race. It's disingenuous. And disrespectful to posters who have legitimate grounds for disagreement with you.

[hope4dopes]

I think Whinehole must be a spin doctor for the Soros DNC.He's got the same hollow logic, the same narssistic blind spots, and the same moral confussion.

[mogrovejo]

All this racist stuff is immaterial. In the realm of political conversation, who makes the claim is irrelevant, what matters is the quality and validity of the claim. If a racist states "A", what matters is if "A" is true, valid, wise, bad, nonsensical, racist, etc. The ulterior motivations, characteristics or beliefs of the person advocating "A" don't matter. It's "A" that must be challenged or sustained, not its author. Following a different standard is adopting a fallacious behaviour and only serves to poison the debate.

People like Jimmy Carter, Chris Matthews et all are a disgrace to a civilized society.

[LnGrrrR]

Nope but, since everyone was so quick to jump on the "you're a racist if you oppose Obama" and since everyone is bending into pretzels to defend ACORN, I thought it would be a knee-jerk reaction to pimp Pelosi's "opponents are going to get someone killed" rhetoric.

I'm glad it's not selling.

How many people on this board defended ACORN's actions Yoni, regarding that pros ution thing? Not a one. A minority defended the organization itself, but not their actions.

The same goes for painting Obama opponents as racist. They're a small minority on the board.

Using the actions of a few to paint every liberal with the same brush is deceptive.

[LnGrrrR]

Granted, he's only one poster but...I don't see anyone opposing the proposition raised by the left, in the media, either.

I don't feel I have to defend views that aren't mine. Why should I? Do you defend right wingers who think that we should just nuke Afghanistan?

[LnGrrrR]

I think whinehole, and Lngrr. view themselves as the more polished of these clones and evaporate when the whitehouse's more clumsy and brutal repressions unfold. The chumps, and clams, and shastas are more the graffitti spraying brownshirt types who'll defend any and all,from the "it's patriotic to turn in your neighbor hotlines" to the "underage latina sex slave traffic is good for the American economy."

Yes, the people who are against torture, and for habeas corpus, are the ones supporting "brutal repressions".

Yes, the people who are against warrantless wiretapping are the same ones supporting "turn in your neighbor hotlines".

And of course, Winehole and I have long been a fan of the Latina sex slave traffic.

It's amazing how your mind works Micca.