• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid apologizes for 'no Negro dialect' comment

See, I'm of the belief that we want intelligent people in office, so those who can't handle the pressures and end up doing stupid **** like this are the ones we want weeded out.

So why doesn't Michael Steele get the same outrage from the right that Reid gets from the right?
 
See, I'm of the belief that we want intelligent people in office, so those who can't handle the pressures and end up doing stupid **** like this are the ones we want weeded out.

We are getting off topic, but...You have a family, true? Would you subject you and your family to the constant scrutiny of life as a national politician? Now here is the thing, you are the kind of person we should want as a national politician.

To pick on two people who I see as being portrayed the same way(and a few other similarities), let's look at Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. Both are portrayed, at least to an extent, as people who are power hungry. Palin has been portrayed as some one who quit on the state of Alaska to pursue getting ready for a national political run, and Clinton as some one who stayed with a cheating lowlife husband to stay close to power. Now yes, there are problems with both those portrayals, but let's assume they are true. Would you want some one willing to go to such lengths just to have power as the people actually with power?
 
I can't see where you used a racial slur against Reid in that post. :confused:

:roll: You're generally an intelligent guy. Why do you play stupid on this?
 
So why doesn't Michael Steele get the same outrage from the right that Reid gets from the right?

They're probably hypocrites. I have no "outrage" over either of their comments as they were both unintentionally racist.

I do, however feel that both of them are idiots for not having the wherewithal to prevent such inadvertent offense.
 
They're probably hypocrites. I have no "outrage" over either of their comments as they were both unintentionally racist.

Oh, there's plenty of outrage in this thread (against Reid only). Don't pretend you didn't see it.

I do, however feel that both of them are idiots for not having the wherewithal to prevent such inadvertent offense.

We can agree on this point.
 
They're probably hypocrites. I have no "outrage" over either of their comments as they were both unintentionally racist.

I do, however feel that both of them are idiots for not having the wherewithal to prevent such inadvertent offense.

You know what is funny? I made a comment in another thread about how I use the term "asian" and not "oriental" to refer to people of asian decent, and was labeled "PC" for it. Reid made a stupid comment about race, it's not "PC" to think so. Obama has done the same, as has most every one who has ever talked about race.
 
We are getting off topic, but...You have a family, true? Would you subject you and your family to the constant scrutiny of life as a national politician? Now here is the thing, you are the kind of person we should want as a national politician.

As long as there is a two-party system, quality people won't ever have the drive for national public office.


To pick on two people who I see as being portrayed the same way(and a few other similarities), let's look at Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. Both are portrayed, at least to an extent, as people who are power hungry. Palin has been portrayed as some one who quit on the state of Alaska to pursue getting ready for a national political run, and Clinton as some one who stayed with a cheating lowlife husband to stay close to power. Now yes, there are problems with both those portrayals, but let's assume they are true. Would you want some one willing to go to such lengths just to have power as the people actually with power?

See, I think it's all a product of the system that causes scumbags and idiots to attain higher office. In order to even reach that level, a person must be willing to forgo their ideals and acquiesce to the party dogma.

Essentially, the system is set up so that all we ever get to choose from are charismatic idiots and megalomaniacs.
 
Oh, there's plenty of outrage in this thread (against Reid only). Don't pretend you didn't see it.

I'm not pretending that. I can't speak for them, but I did say "They're probably hypocrites".

I said I have no outrage in either direction. But I'm neither right nor left wing, either. All I can accurately speak for is my own view, which did not adequately address your question.
 
You know what is funny? I made a comment in another thread about how I use the term "asian" and not "oriental" to refer to people of asian decent, and was labeled "PC" for it. Reid made a stupid comment about race, it's not "PC" to think so. Obama has done the same, as has most every one who has ever talked about race.

In all honesty, I think Reid's word choice was far dumber than his actual comment.

Had he said "He speaks as eloquently as one would expect a Harvard Grad to speak" he could have made the same point in a much more intelligent fashion.
 
A racial slur is a racial slur, regardless of the race at which it is directed. Why should one be any worse than another? They are ALL obsolete, discredited, passé and unacceptable in a modern society.

Imagine three politicians telling a story about someone trying to screw them at the grocery store.

The first one says "the guy gypped me."
The second one says "the guy jewed me."
The third one says "the guy niggered me."

Do you think the public reaction would be equal to all three? Do you think it should?

It would seem that certain racial slurs are acceptable to you. I think that's very sad.

If only I could be as enlightened as you. :(

And while each of these idiots was attempting to say something positive by using grossly outdated and demeaning terms (which highlights their stupidity even more), the fact remains that the use of such derogatory phrases indicates a mind that evidently keeps them handy, and uses them without the slightest thought or hesitation.

And your response indicates a mind that is incapable of recognizing important distinctions between the terms.

Do you use words/phrases like these in everyday conversation? If so, you're guilty of the same mindless continuation of demeaning racial slurs that Reid and Steele are.

No, I don't. But if I said "honest injun" at work, I doubt I'd even get a sideways glance. If I made a comment about light-skinned blacks and negro dialects, I'd be looking for new employment.

Phrases like these don't even exist my brain, let alone fall out of my mouth thoughtlessly. On the very rare occasion that I do choose to use such outdated and discredited terms, it's for the sole purpose of pointing out racism or hypocrisy, and educating the ignorant. I have to think HARD about using a racial slur...

We get it, you're enlightened.

The fact that so many here choose to partisanize their condemnation of the use of any racial slur is just completely messed up.

:sigh:

The fact that you keep pretending not to see the difference because it suits your political position is equally depressing.
 
As long as there is a two-party system, quality people won't ever have the drive for national public office.




See, I think it's all a product of the system that causes scumbags and idiots to attain higher office. In order to even reach that level, a person must be willing to forgo their ideals and acquiesce to the party dogma.

Essentially, the system is set up so that all we ever get to choose from are charismatic idiots and megalomaniacs.

Now I don't buy into this. I think quality people can and do get into politics, despite the two party system. I have dealt with Carl Levin a couple times in my life, and while I don't agree with him on everything, he strikes me as very principled, and at time willing to buck the party(sometimes wrongly, see the 2008 democratic primary).

However, I think the reason why there is such a high number of scumbags in politics and other nationally exposed jobs(pro sports athletes, movie stars) is because to be willing to do what they do requires a very pointed drive which does not allow a lot of room for other things.

I remember an awesome interview with Barbara Bush shortly after her son took office, and the topic got around to the Clinton's, and she was asked to say something nice about them. Without hesitation she said(paraphrase, my memory not that good): "I could say lots good about them, but the thing that stands out in my mind is how they insulated Chelsea from the press, and did all in their power to give her as normal a life as possible. That is so hard to do when you are in Washington." The thing that stands out was the "as normal as possible". if you have kids, to be in Washington means your kids won't have a normal life, and you have to be willing to sacrifice that. I don't think most good people will do that.

As an aside, if you can, read The Final Days by Woodward and Bernstien. Nixon's daughters and their husbands are discussed in some measure in that, and I felt strongly for them and what they went through the last year of Nixon's presidency.
 
The first one says "the guy gypped me."
The second one says "the guy jewed me."
The third one says "the guy niggered me."

I don't think most people know the origin of the word "gypped". I know I did not until I saw it in this context just now. That does make a real difference.
 
Imagine three politicians telling a story about someone trying to screw them at the grocery store.

The first one says "the guy gypped me."
The second one says "the guy jewed me."
The third one says "the guy niggered me."

Do you think the public reaction would be equal to all three?

We know in your case it is not.

Do you think it should?

Yes. A racial slur is a racial slur regardless of the minority/race being demeaned. Racial slurs are all equally outdated, derogatory, offensive and unacceptable.

If only I could be as enlightened as you. :(

What do you think I'm trying to do here? :roll:

And your response indicates a mind that is incapable of recognizing important distinctions between the terms.

Once again, there is no distinction between this racial slur or that racial slur. They're all derogatory and unacceptable.

Why don't you give us your explanation of these supposed "important distinctions?"

The fact that you keep pretending not to see the difference because it suits your political position is equally depressing.

The fact that you pretend that there is a distinction between this racial slur or that racial slur because it suits your political position merely highlights your utter ignorance and extreme intransigence.

I have no political position on racism. It's wrong no matter who does it. Did you notice that I have condemned both Steele AND Reid? :doh
 
Last edited:
Now I don't buy into this. I think quality people can and do get into politics, despite the two party system. I have dealt with Carl Levin a couple times in my life, and while I don't agree with him on everything, he strikes me as very principled, and at time willing to buck the party(sometimes wrongly, see the 2008 democratic primary).

However, I think the reason why there is such a high number of scumbags in politics and other nationally exposed jobs(pro sports athletes, movie stars) is because to be willing to do what they do requires a very pointed drive which does not allow a lot of room for other things.

I remember an awesome interview with Barbara Bush shortly after her son took office, and the topic got around to the Clinton's, and she was asked to say something nice about them. Without hesitation she said(paraphrase, my memory not that good): "I could say lots good about them, but the thing that stands out in my mind is how they insulated Chelsea from the press, and did all in their power to give her as normal a life as possible. That is so hard to do when you are in Washington." The thing that stands out was the "as normal as possible". if you have kids, to be in Washington means your kids won't have a normal life, and you have to be willing to sacrifice that. I don't think most good people will do that.

As an aside, if you can, read The Final Days by Woodward and Bernstien. Nixon's daughters and their husbands are discussed in some measure in that, and I felt strongly for them and what they went through the last year of Nixon's presidency.

What can I say, I'm extremely cynical. I think there must be a drive to power in order to even think about choosing that role in life.

And votes are won by fooling people. No politician is genuine. None.

They couldn't get elected if they were genuine because people are so pulled in by the psuedo-issue bull**** that the two-party system propagates.

I don't buy that any of them are anything more than facades.

I'd be unelectable for exactly the same traits that I feel would make me a good public servant: Brutal honesty. I wouldn't truck with the bull****, and in today's society the vast majority of the public would prefer to be lied to by their politicians.

The political divide is merely a product of what lies that portion of the public wants to hear.

But, like I said, I'm extremely cynical. Maybe that clouds my view of politics. I gotta say, though, I have not seen all that much in teh way of disconfirming evidence for my theories.
 
What can I say, I'm extremely cynical. I think there must be a drive to power in order to even think about choosing that role in life.

And votes are won by fooling people. No politician is genuine. None.

They couldn't get elected if they were genuine because people are so pulled in by the psuedo-issue bull**** that the two-party system propagates.

I don't buy that any of them are anything more than facades.

I'd be unelectable for exactly the same traits that I feel would make me a good public servant: Brutal honesty. I wouldn't truck with the bull****, and in today's society the vast majority of the public would prefer to be lied to by their politicians.

The political divide is merely a product of what lies that portion of the public wants to hear.

But, like I said, I'm extremely cynical. Maybe that clouds my view of politics. I gotta say, though, I have not seen all that much in teh way of disconfirming evidence for my theories.

There has to be a drive for power, yes. But there is only so much drive in people, and I think when you limit the normality that people can have, the drive for power itself has to be so strong that other drives don't have a chance.

In response for your cynicism, I point again to senator Levin. A good example from him is that even when the war in Iraq was popular(mostly before the actual invasion), he was still against it, even though it would potentially hurt him politically. For him it was a principle, and that was the important thing to him(supposition of course, since we never really know people's motivations).

I think cynicism leads us wrong just as often as idealism, probably moreso.
 
There has to be a drive for power, yes. But there is only so much drive in people, and I think when you limit the normality that people can have, the drive for power itself has to be so strong that other drives don't have a chance.

In response for your cynicism, I point again to senator Levin. A good example from him is that even when the war in Iraq was popular(mostly before the actual invasion), he was still against it, even though it would potentially hurt him politically. For him it was a principle, and that was the important thing to him(supposition of course, since we never really know people's motivations).

I think cynicism leads us wrong just as often as idealism, probably moreso.

As I write this I'm listening to a douchebag running for congress on my answering machine telling me, in a recording, that he's sorry he "missed me" and couldn't speak to me personally. :roll:

Cynicism is just the natural conclusion of idealism. ;)
 
We know in your case it is not.

And I wager that the vast majority of people would agree with me.

Yes. A racial slur is a racial slur regardless of the minority/race being demeaned. Racial slurs are all equally outdated, derogatory, offensive and unacceptable.

And I don't think that everything that could conceivably be viewed as racially derogatory is equally bad.

What do you think I'm trying to do here? :roll:

Brag about how enlightened and progressive you are? Cover for Harry Reid by shifting the focus to entirely unrelated comments made by Republicans? Am I getting warmer?

Once again, there is no distinction between this racial slur or that racial slur. They're all derogatory and unacceptable.

According to wiki, all of the following are ethnic slurs:

Guido
Gringo
Cracker
Albino
Eskimo
Ginger
Hun
Limey
Paddy
Redneck
Wigger

You're arguing that they're all equivalent to dropping the n-bomb. I think that's plainly ridiculous.

Do you show equivalent outrage when people refer to police trucks as paddywagons or someone dumb acting like a redneck? If you don't, you're a hypocrite. If you do, I can't imagine how much time you must spend being offended.
 
Let us try to get back on track, has anyone thought of why Reid would apologize?
First of all he is a lying scheming self serving BA****D in the guise of a public serving representative.
He is to have a book published as though he had written it (what a laugh).
He knows that the majority of such books either ghost written or written by the politico themselves rarely make money.
So in order to beef up the sales he has somehow to make HIS tome interesting, hence his apology.
Personally I could care less what he thinks about Obama, probably what he thinks about suckers who voted his miserable ass into office in first place.
Bottom line is, I will never buy his book.
 
Originally Posted by RightinNYC
Imagine three politicians telling a story about someone trying to screw them at the grocery store.

The first one says "the guy gypped me."
The second one says "the guy jewed me."
The third one says "the guy niggered me."

Do you think the public reaction would be equal to all three?
Hard to say as they mean three different things.......;)
 
I can find no reference to reporters in the story. Nor do we know if he was talking on the record, or just chatting.
He made the comment to the authors of the book, who are both reporters (John Heilemann and Mark Halperin).

Do you think they should have ignored it? As in:

Reid: "I think Mr. Obama is an exciting and intriguing political figure who is destined to do great things for our party. But just between us, part of his appeal comes from the fact that he's light skinned and has no Negro-dialect, unless he wants one."
 
And I wager that the vast majority of people would agree with me.

If that is true, then they're all just as myopic, biased, and intransigent as you are. Great appeal to populism! :doh

And I don't think that everything that could conceivably be viewed as racially derogatory is equally bad.

You're welcome to think whatever you wish. Don't expect to not be called on it, though.

Cover for Harry Reid by shifting the focus to entirely unrelated comments made by Republicans? Am I getting warmer?

If you were an honest debater, you'd know that this is simply not true. I suppose I shouldn't expect better, but I'll leave the door open for you to get back to me when you actually understand what's being discussed here.

According to wiki, all of the following are ethnic slurs:

Guido
Gringo
Cracker
Albino
Eskimo
Ginger
Hun
Limey
Paddy
Redneck
Wigger

Wiki is right. They're all ethnic slurs. Do you disagree?

You're arguing that they're all equivalent to dropping the n-bomb.

I'm going to spell this out for you again, reallllyyyy slowwwwlllyyyy, in hopes that you may be able to grasp the reality here:

A racial slur is a racial slur regardless of the minority/race being demeaned. Racial slurs are all equally outdated, derogatory, offensive and unacceptable.


I think that's plainly ridiculous.

Of course you do. :roll:

Do you show equivalent outrage when people refer to police trucks as paddywagons or someone dumb acting like a redneck?

"Outrage?" :rofl No. I both pity such people and feel terribly ashamed for them. If I think they're reasonably non-partisan or of moderate intelligence, I try to educate them. If they're folks who habitually wear partisan blinders and who have demonstrated the ability to ignore/excuse the racial slurs of those who share the same political ideology (while rabidly condemning the same behavior of those who do not), I do my best to avoid them.
 
Has anyone linked to the NAACP leadership demanding Reid's immediate resignation?

No?

You mean the NAACP hasn't asked for that yet?

Hmmmm.....
 
Back
Top Bottom