• 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!

Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

This isn't really news. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that the racism is on the left and being played for political gain. These people are tearing this country apart and they should be punished for it.
 
This isn't really news. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that the racism is on the left and being played for political gain. These people are tearing this country apart and they should be punished for it.

My god this entire racism thing is ridiculous!

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would realize that there was, is and will be some in all walks of life that are racist.

This 4th grade game of throwing racism back and forth in each others face is worse than the quiet undercurrent of racism itself.


"you're racist"

"nu-uh, Im not the racist you are"

"no, you are"

"im rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you"

give it a rest.
 
Last edited:
This isn't really news. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that the racism is on the left and being played for political gain. These people are tearing this country apart and they should be punished for it.

And what sort of punishments do you suggest for these naughty liberals?
 
Shunning of racists and race baiters, particularly in the political arena. Vote them out or impeach them. I'll send a letter to Pelosi today to take care of that. Oooops, she's one of them!
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to *BN* - Blogs
 
It's offensive that there even *is* a study on this crap as though it had any credence in the first place. :roll:
 
Ah yes, the old "you are a [fill in the blank], you just won't admit it to yourself" canard.

Oddly, I use this approach in a modified fashion to label Obama supporters as lunatics. I modify the approach by allowing that most of them, deep down, actually suspect that they're deranged.
 
Last edited:
It's offensive that there even *is* a study on this crap as though it had any credence in the first place. :roll:


A study about what is important to swing voters and conservative base voters isn't offensive. This was not a study about the importance of race, but rather what is important to these two groups of voters. The race finding is only one of the findings of the study, and ironically, despite the study saying this issue isn't important and the press needs to get over it, this article only focuses on the race element.

From one of the pages of the study:

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.
 
A study about what is important to swing voters and conservative base voters isn't offensive. This was not a study about the importance of race, but rather what is important to these two groups of voters. The race finding is only one of the findings of the study, and ironically, despite the study saying this issue isn't important and the press needs to get over it, this article only focuses on the race element.

From one of the pages of the study:

How does Garbage Wilson calling the president a liar make his concerns racist? You guys keep bringing race into this, when it really is no more of a factor than people not liking George Bush because of his accent. IOW, there are really reasons to oppose either man.
 
How does Garbage Wilson calling the president a liar make his concerns racist? You guys keep bringing race into this, when it really is no more of a factor than people not liking George Bush because of his accent. IOW, there are really reasons to oppose either man.


They are saying the voters do not see Garbage's comments as having to do with racism.


btw, neither did I. I didn't start calling him Garbage until after I found out other stuff about him.
 
Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven - Michael Falcone - POLITICO.com

Not that this will stop the card from being slithered out from the bottom of the deck at every turn.

.

I dunno what's moer sad... having some talking heads simply claim the race card, or that so many Obama supporters have BOUGHT INTO this idea that it requires a STUDY to determine the truth.

Whether racism is or isn't, in all reality, a factor, how accurate could such a study really be?

Granted... racists would tend to avoid labelling themselves racist, just as someone who cares not about race, would be offended by the very question.

Most conscious racists won't admit they're racist in a survey.
And many people are driven by subconscious racism.

So you go ahead and jump over the survey results and state that it's because people are 'subconsciously racist'?!?!?!

*takes deep breath and bites tongue*

So, are the black people that oppose Obama... are they racist too, in your opinion??

Does that mean that the white people that opposed Bush are also racist???

These comments are of the callibre that I would raise the question on missing chromosomes if it weren't so apparent.
 
I thought that was really interesting too ! I didn't post it when I read it tho, b/c when I mentioned this study on Thursday night (I'd read a preview of it on Thurs night) some conservatives in a tea party thread told me it was a POS study b/c it was put out by a Dem pollster :rolleyes: :bs

Well, since you think that conservatives are always wrong, then we can come to the conclusion that you think the pollster is right and therefore, prives in your mind, that racism is not part of the opposition. Am I correct? or do you hold that racism is part of the opposition camp?
 
Well, since you think that conservatives are always wrong, then we can come to the conclusion that you think the pollster is right and therefore, prives in your mind, that racism is not part of the opposition. Am I correct? or do you hold that racism is part of the opposition camp?


I think no such thing about conservatives and the conclusion does not follow from the ridiculous assertion in any case.

What a silly post.
 
I think obama's race has affected politics in a way that is not easily comprehended by anyone. I think theres an effect, except its nearly inexplicable.
 
I think obama's race has affected politics in a way that is not easily comprehended by anyone. I think theres an effect, except its nearly inexplicable.

Yes, there's an effect... no matter WHAT kind of opposition to Obama can be attributed to racism and summarily dismissed.

THAT is the ONLY way in which Obama's race has affected politics, reducing thought to 'support' for Obama and 'racist' thought.

My point about this being retarted stands.
 
Yes, there's an effect... no matter WHAT kind of opposition to Obama can be attributed to racism and summarily dismissed.

THAT is the ONLY way in which Obama's race has affected politics, reducing thought to 'support' for Obama and 'racist' thought.

My point about this being retarted stands.



Birthers

Osamacare?


Maybe there are actual racists out there just ruining your name and since you tend to be homogenized they just confuse you all?
 

Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure Mccain would have gone through the same grief... what with him being born in Panama on a millitary base that suppsedly does not exist.

So, it's NOT an issue of race, no matter how much the liberals seem intent on making it seem, as much as it's a constitutional issue of being CERTAIN that he is a natural born citizen.

Osamacare?

Health-care is NOT a racial issue in spite of you exchanging the 'b' for an 's'... MANY people oppose Obama's health care plan because of WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN the plan, AND NOT because Obama has brown skin.


Maybe there are actual racists out there just ruining your name and since you tend to be homogenized they just confuse you all?

Yes, there are definately racists out there... I don't live in some fantasy land. HOWEVER, the real racists are in the SMALL minority, and the continual insistance by liberals that EVERY BIT of opposition to Obama is racially motivated IS ONLY a means to stifle debate.

There is no confusion... the liberals position DEPENDS on stifling debate, because if there was a legitimate debate ON THE ISSUES (rather then the race card) the MAJORITY of people would stand in opposition.
 
This liberal study done in part by James Carville is just another example of the liberal bias so prevalent today. We should discount it immediately just as all liberal media claims are automatically wrong.

No, but its very reasonable to consider the source when looking at anything. A source with a known bias or agenda isn't automatically wrong or false, but they deserve more scrutiny, particularly when making claims that support their established bias.

To use an extreme example, you wouldn't consider a neo-nazi web site likely to be a accurate source on the history of the holocaust, would you? The fact is there are a lot of sources out there, on both sides, that are more interested in producing propaganda than in accurate studies and providing factual content. Not all of them, but a lot. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, now more than ever, given that the internet has made it incredibly easy to spread both information and disinformation.
 
No, but its very reasonable to consider the source when looking at anything. A source with a known bias or agenda isn't automatically wrong or false, but they deserve more scrutiny, particularly when making claims that support their established bias.

To use an extreme example, you wouldn't consider a neo-nazi web site likely to be a accurate source on the history of the holocaust, would you? The fact is there are a lot of sources out there, on both sides, that are more interested in producing propaganda than in accurate studies and providing factual content. Not all of them, but a lot. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, now more than ever, given that the internet has made it incredibly easy to spread both information and disinformation.

The only source I throw out immediately just because of the source is WorldNutDaily. Everything else, you should at least check what they are saying. Usually, any time I link to say, Factcheck or Politifact, or CNN, some one just says they are liberally biased without ever arguing against the information presented. That is what I was making fun of in my post.
 
The only source I throw out immediately just because of the source is WorldNutDaily. Everything else, you should at least check what they are saying. Usually, any time I link to say, Factcheck or Politifact, or CNN, some one just says they are liberally biased without ever arguing against the information presented. That is what I was making fun of in my post.

If your source can be affilliated with any of the 'big 6' media companies (controlling 98% of all print, internet, radio, television, and movies), then it's actually a safe bet that there is some form of bias or spin to the information presented.

Sometimes it's hard to sort out the fact from the fiction, that much is true... but it's an equal opportunity thing.
 
I haven't actually seen many, if any, liberals saying that the bulk of opposition to Obama's policies is driven by racism. That's sort of a straw man the right created and attributed to liberals. What we've been saying, and what I absolutely still believe to be true, is that a portion of the folks opposing Obama, especially amongst the most foaming at the mouth opposition, are motivated by racism. A Republican on another board estimated that it is "no more than 10% of Republicans" who are racist. I think that's probably about right, and I think most folks in both parties would probably put out a number somewhere in that ballpark.

Where I think the parties differ is around how big of a deal 10% is and what should be done about it. From where I'm sitting, 10% is a huge number. That means almost half of the juries have a racist sitting on them. Think what that means for equality before the law. When somebody gets a job usually there are somewhere around 5 people involved in the decision of who to hire. If 10% of one of the major party are racist, that means 1/4 of the times a black guy applies for a job, he's getting denied because of his race. That goes a long ways towards explaining why a white applicant is 2 and a half times as likely to get called in for an interview with the same resume as a black candidate. That's a huge problem.

What's more alarming is that it wasn't 10% a year ago. The number is growing. Membership in militant white supremacist groups has reportedly trippled since Obama won the election. That's a serious problem. In 2007 3,500 black people were the victims of hate crimes. I'm not looking forward to seeing how many there are in 2008 or 2009, but it's a safe bet that as membership in white supremacist organizations rises, so will those numbers. The FBI has foiled a shocking 75 domestic terrorist plots by white supremacist organizations since the Oklaholma City bombing. These groups are no joke. They're violent, they're active, they're dangerous, and they're growing.

At the same time, racism is appearing more and more often in relatively mainstream media pundits. The racism is being legitimized by it's association with the Republican party. A kid that goes to a teabagging event with his republican parents is being exposed to the full fledged white supremacists and is learning that it is ok to march with folks like that- that they're on the same side. To go from there to becoming a white supremacist himself is not a huge leap.

What really has me puzzled is that the solution is simple and pain free. All we need is for a number of very high profile white Republicans to speak out against white supremacy. The ideals of white supremacy and the ideals of conservatism are completely opposed. So why aren't we hearing that message being shouted from the top of the party? Why aren't any of the speakers at teabagging events expressing their disagreement with the folks in the crowd with racist signs? Sure, they'd risk losing some of the votes from white supremacists, but they'd gain at least that many moderate and minority votes wouldn't they? I don't think most Republicans are racists. Not at all. But I do see an alarming tendency emerging for Republicans tolerating racism, denying that it exists, even defending it. Doing that creates a safe haven for white supremacy to grow under the protection of a major political party. We Democrats made that mistake once and millions of lives were ruined for generations. Republicans, we need you to show us up and cast out the white supremacists in months instead of the decades it took us to denounce the dixiecrats.
 
Back
Top Bottom