View Story | 823 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
card. All you need is to be desperate and/or cynical.
We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.
by Lepanto on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
unscrupulous, etc etc
by bugscuffle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM PDT
don't forget machiavelli!!
"We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson
by mayan on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:26 AM PDT
Hillary's racism and bigotry is on the record. Eyewitness-verified and documented - except for those who prefer not to see it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:27:03 PM PDT
...during that campaign against a vicious prick LI neo-con named Rick Lazio who would stoop to nearly any level - to the point of nearly physically threatening her during a debate - to win more than his pathetic 25% of the vote. Also, the article you link to has bunches of quotes from Hilary associates who says she has never uttered an ethnic slur in her life.
I don't think you serve Obama's campaign well by imitating the tactics of Long Island neo-cons, but hey, your call.
Hand me my old guitar, Pass the whiskey 'round
by htat33 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:22:57 PM PDT
Also, the article you link to has bunches of quotes from Hilary associates who says she has never uttered an ethnic slur in her life.
There's a logical fallacy in your quote above. Are you quick enough to catch it? ;o)
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM PDT
...link to.
An uncredited/discredited source claims Clinton made an ethnic slur. And then a bunch of sources said she didn't and never has. So, um - did you want to prove your negative assertion?
Dial down the condescending tone, sweetie. I ain't one of Clinton's "lesser educated" demographic. But you sure seem to be having fun playing the part of a disingenuous neo-con, don't you?
by htat33 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM PDT
An uncredited/discredited source claims Clinton made an ethnic slur.
There are THREE eyewitnesses. All are Democrats - or were Democrats at the time of the incident.
One has offered to take a polygraph, took it, and passed.
Dial down the condescending tone, sweetie. I ain't one of Clinton's "lesser educated" demographic
When liberals seek to perpetuate the myth that "liberals can't be racist" (which is basically what you're arguing), condescension is the appropriate response.
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM PDT
I don't support the liberals can't be racists meme at all and there is nothing in my curt replies to you that support that. What I do support is that you link to a debunked story from 8 years ago, tell me that I am somehow supporting a logical fallacy etc etc.
You need to dial it down, and learn to interact with others without this hyberbole, vitriol, assumptions and aspersions.
by htat33 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM PDT
1. Also, the article you link to has bunches of quotes from Hilary associates who says she has never uttered an ethnic slur in her life.
2. I don't think you serve Obama's campaign well by imitating the tactics of Long Island neo-cons, but hey, your call.
The first comment is illogical because in the normal course of human affairs, one cannot prove a negation of a particular conduct. I can't appear in court and say "Jerry Lee Lewis has never engaged in sex with a minor - never in his entire life." It's an absurd claim I cannot credibly make.
The second comment is, to use your words, "vitriol, assumptions and aspersions." In fact, I've voted Dem my entire life, am not a neo-con from Long Island, nor have I sought to emulate one. ;o)
All I did at the beginning of our exchange is cite an article from a respectable, mainstream UK newspaper that gave eye-witness-documented accounts of bigoted behavior by Hillary.
Your response from then onward was to lamely attempt to dismiss or ridicule the source. The story stands and the 3 witnesses have made no retractions; if the claim was disproved, legal action by Hillary would've been forthcoming because this is a serious slur on the reputation of a First Lady.
Look, I've had my say and will not bother you any more.
Politics is much like religion: many among us choose to believe what is most comforting. Just take this parting thought with you - If Clinton is nominated as presidential candidate in November, the GOP will have a field day with this story!!!
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM PDT
Or are you just, you know, actually stupid?
The crux of this is not the folks defending Clinton. It is the equally impossible to prove assertion that she DID make a racist remark. Remember - a negative assertion does not need the words "not/no/non" to make it a negative assertion and thus also applies to your quaint Jerry Lee Lewis reference (is Clinton now a child molester in your eyes?) Droves of her friends, colleagues etc say she made no such remark and never has before. And don't give me this polygraph horseshit - polygraphs are used as props on FOX network gameshows. Hardly admissable. My friends and I like to get high on weekends and see who can beat the poly the most times in a row (thats what software engineers do on the weekends).
Digging up thoroughly debunked myths in foreign newspapers which publish nudie pix on page three is what venal little neo-cons from Long Island do.
Obama is winning and winning big. Why don't you get a little bit big yourself and lay off making Clinton into the Grand Wizard. Clinton hatred is so fucking 90s.
by htat33 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:14:55 AM PDT
saying that A, which is part of group x, is not part of group y is not the same as saying that all x's cannot be part of group y. Hokay?
by collegekid318 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:58:07 PM PDT
Machiavelli would be doing a lot better than Hillary.
by Tulla Flatbush Nana on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM PDT
She's looking more desperate by the day and it's showing! She's got bags under her eyes, she's looking older and worn down.
Ya know, it seems like the race baiting attacks had somehwat subsided but now with this change in managers, seems, to me at least, it's all heating up again.
Ya know, she doesn't know about this new fangled political world, nor does her husband either, the whole US society has changed since they were in power, what worked back then isn't working for them now and is, in fact, working against them. That's got to be extremely worrisome for her.
Face it, we've got a whole different electorate now a generation that DID NOT grow up either during segregation or HIGHLY racially charged America and the political lines are much different.
One can't cling to the past for ever, we've going to celibrate the new and move forward into the future.
"People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"
by Wary on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM PDT
like this. Bags under her ol', witchy eyes. Brilliant politcal analysis.
Here, have some pandas.
by Little on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM PDT
donate to a shelter box please http://www.shelterboxusa.org/
by TexMex on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:48:50 AM PDT
people have said this about every President. I especially remember it being said about Bill Clinton when he was going through the impeachment bullshit. He got old looking really fast...
~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~
by jennybravo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM PDT
...much the same was said about Kerry, till he got his botox.
by Free Spirit on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM PDT
'sexist?"
for heavens sake people are always looking at the candidates or political figures as to their 'body language'--
Why should referring to Hilary be seen as 'sexist?" in this respect, geeze, I said the same thing about Bush last week.
by Wary on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:21:10 PM PDT
You know, the one whose leaving as stopped the "race baiting", was Hispanic American. You did know that, right?
Edwards Democrat voting for Obama would like to remind you, "Concentration Moon, over the camp in the valley" Frank Zappa knew.
by high uintas on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:39:09 PM PDT
but that was read into the record by Little and then declared sexist by Tex-mex, so bascially, its not sexist, its people not reading your full comment
by KLRinLA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM PDT
Everybody knows that only Chuck Norris is capable of defining presidential years vs. human years.
There has to be an invisible sun / That gives us hope when the whole day's done -Police
by rightiswrong on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:45:21 PM PDT
intended to be. I have bags under my eyes and I am a man. Are you going to call me a witch?
Your defensiveness is pretty silly and you reinforce Rush Limbaugh's stereotype of feminists. Great job giving that fat slob ammo!
by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM PDT
"celibrate?" (your term)
Doesn't sound like much fun, is all I'm sayin'.....
by MyOwnClone on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM PDT
celibrate?" (your term)
Sorry typo, CELEBRATE
by Wary on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM PDT
by not having sex and being really, really happy about it?
"I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD
by SingularExistence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM PDT
maybe a campaign like this is tiring no matter were you are in it?
by Osiris on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM PDT
by Little on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:10:46 PM PDT
FISA and lack of civil liberties, untrammelled spy powers on Americans here at home as well as abroad are gifted to GWB by all those "modern" Senators,and we get panegyrics and lifting cadences of praise for a guy who wants to "partially" privatize Social Security and proposes a 500 dollar grant to people about to lose their homes.
Where is the progressive Democratic politics or even rock steady basic Democratic principles?
Oh, and the economy is tanking (38 billion loss for GM) and the discussion is about not extending unemployment benefits but it is about more "tax cuts"? and job losses and the bankruptcies are up 75%?
Who are this guys' economic advisors? On loan from Heritage and Cato?
The delusional bubbles are not only in CDO's melting and housing markets,it is right here at this website.
Ya know, she doesn't know about this new fangled political world, nor does her husband either, the whole US society has changed since they were in power, what worked back then isn't working for them now and is, in fact, working against them.
Ya know there are 2 L's in Hillary. "The hell ya say!" I do, ya know.
John McCain: a survivor, not a hero. Just ask his first wife. He had his chance to be a hero and blew it.
by Pete Rock on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:23:59 PM PDT
she looks young, has more energy than young people I know
by nicki37 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:32:44 PM PDT
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
by moose67 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:51:28 PM PDT
let's see, she's working long hours, day after day, traveling all over, giving endless speeches, and.... she's tired! Well sheesh!
I am an Obama supporter, but this sort of comment is just ridiculous. Clinton's tired, Obama's tired. The point is to support Democrats so that McCain will be REtired.
Now up: What are you reading? Top ten!
by plf515 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:32:54 PM PDT
You don't need to be a racist to play the race card. All you need is to be desperate and/or cynical.
It's appalling that this logic receives this much support here.
Are you a parent? What happens when you unexpectedly find your under-13 child engaged in heavy petting with a previously trusted, adult "family friend?"
Do you accept his/her frantic, bullshit explanation that, "Really, I'm not a child molester. Honest - I was just playing around. Really stressed out. Blowing off steam."
Are you then reassured enough to relax, leave them alone and wander away thinking "Gee, it's probably okay - You don't need to be a pedophile to play the pedo card; Maybe John/Joan is just desperate and cynical."??
Somehow, I think not.
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM PDT
In your example, for the pedophile, sex with a child is the goal. As Granny Doc explicates the Hillary campaign's use of anti-African-Americanism -- racism is not the goal -- winning the election is.
They seem to be willing to play the role of racists, which is in a subtle and important way distinct from being racists.
Two war crimes make 'the right', not 'a right'. Defeat the liar John McCain.
by Yellow Canary on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:33:42 PM PDT
With all due respect Yellow (because I don't think you are purposefully malicious), you are shoveling out utter nonsense.
Look at what you wrote:
As Granny Doc explicates the Hillary campaign's use of anti-African-Americanism -- racism is not the goal -- winning the election is
The implied corollary is that:
One is not a racist unless one has an explicit goal of furthering racism. A person who acts in a racist fashion but does not really have racism as a goal is not really a racist.
Aren't you basically arguing the above?? If so, it sounds like Alice-in-Wonderland craziness.
If I've read you wrong, what ARE you trying to say??
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM PDT
but it's not the same thing, and portends different sorts of bad behavior in the future.
Lobbyists are just the piano players in the whorehouse; you could abolish them and the girls upstairs would still be doing business.--al Fubar -6.50 -5.69
by Dvd Avins on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM PDT
Encouraging racism in others may be even worse but it's not the same thing...
A statement with no support offered. Nice try.
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM PDT
I think it's self-apparent that demagogues can be guilty of encouraging all sorts of sins in others that they themselves do not possess. Do you dispute that?
by Dvd Avins on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM PDT
What support are you lookng for? I think it's self-apparent that demagogues can be guilty of encouraging all sorts of sins in others that they themselves do not possess. Do you dispute that?
It's possible in a theoretical way - I just don't see where you've offered any support showing the Clintons are those type of people.
When totalitarian dictators or their subordinates are rounded up for trial, they typically invoke sketchy theories of "plausible deniability" for the sins they're accused of:
Well, I obviously signed this document, but I can't recall what it meant. I sign hundreds of documents in a given year - it's impossible to know exactly what each one means....
Well, yes - it's true helicopter gunships massacred many hundreds of the Yamanari Indians but I had no knowledge of it. I gave no orders - I'm 100% sure of that. I love Indians and would never personally harm them.
One could go on, but you get the idea. Personally, I think it's a scam: If you're a Commander-in-Chief, top boss, military commander, etc. -- your ideology influences your followers or subordinates. You don't get to later exonerate yourself of the hate/racism/human rights violations that follow.
If you're the leader, the ideology or sentiment you espouse is a reflection of YOUR CHARACTER!
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM PDT
I was arguing against your overly broad statements, which may have been only about the Clintons in your mind, but not in your words.
In fact, I'm pretty sure Bill isn't racist in any personal way, and I doubt Hillary is, either. You could argue that they should be defined as racists regardless of their personal feelings, so long as they intentionally fuel racism in others, but I don't buy that definition.
But all that's beside the point that you originally stated and that I took exception to.
by Dvd Avins on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:45:05 PM PDT
In fact, I'm pretty sure Bill isn't racist in any personal way, and I doubt Hillary is, either.
This is one of those "Believe what ya wanna believe" angles.
Since I've seen reputable eyewitness testimony to the contrary of what you believe, I'll go with the "Clintons are racist" perspective.
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:36:28 PM PDT
because being racist is as simple as pointing out genetic differences in people based on their race. Black people have black skin while white people have white skin. That is technically a racist statement because I am classifying people into different groups by their race. But is this "racist" as we know it? No. Racist as we know it would mean that after one separates the people into groups, then you disenfranchise, discriminate, rape, beat, not hire, not associate with, etc., someone for being in one of the particular groups. That is racist and yes, there is a difference. You really have to add the prejudice in their to be what we mean in America as "racist"
by KLRinLA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM PDT
Jackson mean to say when he said that Hillary didn't cry after Katrina.?
And how did fairy tale turn into a racial slur?
I like Obama, but he's not Caesar's wife.
by collegekid318 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:02:45 PM PDT
as much as we play race. Race is embedded in our language and in our assumptions so deeply that we (we white folk) rarely even notice it. (Why else would "consciousness raising" workshops be so effective?)
One can call out racism without necessarily laying blame; racism isn't just an attitude carried around by individuals. It's systemic. That's why these people "get away with" using these categories; they seem to confirm what we all think we know.
It might be more effective, ultimately, to address the racism implicit in speech acts without pointing fingers. You can do this compassionately: look, I know you don't intend what you're saying to be racist, but sometimes racism creeps into what we say, unintentionally.
It might not be as satisfying as laying blame, but it might work a little better.
I've rec'd the diary because I think it's good to call attention to the racism implicit in these unthinkingly repeated categories. But I take issue with the immediate assumption that the use of these categories is part of a cynical attempt to exploit either candidate's "weakness" of race or gender.
And I voted for Obama, so don't make assumptions, either, about my being partisan in this.
by unwillingsuburbanite on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM PDT
To use race to win votes is not necessarily racist, but which is worse - being racist or using racism?
Seriously, which is worse?
by attydave on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:52:43 PM PDT
means of suppressing support for your opponent IS racist. The Clinton campaign has been doing exactly this since Obama's unexpected win in Iowa. They were desparate for a way to attack Obama, so they went negative by using his race. "Crack dealer" "Jessie Jackson" etc etc
"Using" racism and "being" racist are indistinguishable. When someone employs racist ideas, they are, in fact, racists by definition. Thus, the Clintons are racists. I hope they apologze for their racism, but until then, I consider them racists.
by sean oliver on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 823 comments