[OAW]

In response to numerous queries and enthusiastic feedback, the Lawson for Congress campaign confirms that its latest radio and TV ad is indeed narrated by actor Morgan Freeman. The ad with Freeman's distinctive voice, titled, "What is David Price Afraid Of?" can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFWxtUkHyXg.

The ad addresses how 22-year incumbent David Price, who votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other Congressman, has gone on the attack with his quarter-million dollar TV ad campaign instead of standing behind his voting record of bailouts and increased deficit spending. The Freeman-narrated Lawson ad is a stark contrast to the Price campaign's current TV ad, which uses exaggerations, lies and distortions in attempt to shock voters, rather than talking about the issues.

....

"Barbara Streisand wouldn't do it this, but Morgan Freeman doesn't have a problem cutting ads against Washington insiders or he wouldn't do it," said Lawson for Congress Campaign Manager Martin Avila. "People shouldn't be so shocked that someone like Mr. Freeman would think outside of the left-right red vs. blue dynamic. This election IS about regular people asking basic questions."

B.J. Lawson is a Constitutional conservative, medical doctor and small businessman running against 22-year incumbent David Price, who votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other congressman. For more information regarding B.J. Lawson's bid for North Carolina's 4th Congressional seat, please visit his website at Lawson for Congress | North Carolina's 4th District.

Lawson for Congress Confirms Morgan Freeman Narration in Latest TV and Radio... -- CARY, N.C., Nov. 1, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

But lo and behold ... Morgan Freeman, a known Democrat and supporter of President Obama ... issued a sharp denial:

Actor Morgan Freeman says a North Carolina Republican and his campaign manager are "lying" in claiming that he narrated a campaign ad for them.

B.J. Lawson touted the narration, by a voice sounding like Freeman's, and his campaign manager told Byron Tau today that Freeman had narrated the ad.

But Freeman spokesman Stan Rosenfeld sends over a sharp denial from the actor:

These people are lying. I have never recorded any campaign ads for B.J. Lawson and I do not support his candidacy. And, no one who represents me ever has ever authorized the use of my name, voice or any other likeness in support of Mr. Lawson or his candidacy.

Campaign manager Martin Avila didn't immediately respond to a question about Freeman's statement. Avila earlier told us that the campaign went to Freeman through an intermediary, and never had contact with him directly.

The campaign of incumbent David Price, whom Lawson is challenge to represent the district around Chapel Hill, jumped on Freeman's statement.

"Lawson has lied to his supporters and to the community he wants to represent," Price said in a statement calling on Lawson to pull down the ads. “This is an unfortunate and desperate attempt to fool voters in the last hours of a campaign. By using Mr. Freeman’s good name, BJ Lawson has ruined his own, and he should be ashamed. Now the voters will decide whom they trust.”

Morgan Freeman: I never recorded campaign ad - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Did this guy really think he was going to get away with a stunt like this? To go to the lengths of hiring a voice impersonator to narrate your last-minute campaign ad is pretty pathetic.

OAW

[turtle777]

Seriously ? A new thread for this ?

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Seriously ? A new thread for this ?

-t

Where's the original thread for this?

[smacintush]

Shouldn't the title be: "B.J. Lawson, Morgan Freeman, & Dishonest Campaign Ads"?

[Snow-i]

/thread

[ghporter]

I'm not so sure at the candidate's claim (which I read in an AP story this morning) that he was "fooled" into thinking the ad was done by Freeman by a political advertising agency. But going public with saying "yes it was him" when it certainly was not isn't a minor "oops." It sounds like there was some falsehood somewhere, but maybe it did not actually originate with the suit this time. Maybe it was a second tier suit, like an ad exec with an agenda. Either way, I think Mr. Freeman has a good case for suing the pants off of either this campaign, the ad agency, or both.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

/thread

Why? If this isn't being covered elsewhere in this forum, why is this not a valid topic for discussion here?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why? If this isn't being covered elsewhere in this forum, why is this not a valid topic for discussion here?

It's just not very interesting is all (IMO), unless you are trying to decide whether to vote for Price or Lawson.

[The Final Dakar]

Jesus, who gives a shit.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Shouldn't the title be: "B.J. Lawson, Morgan Freeman, & Dishonest Campaign Ads"?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why? If this isn't being covered elsewhere in this forum, why is this not a valid topic for discussion here?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jesus, who gives a shit.

And there you have it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And there you have it.

No, my post isn't an answer to his question.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why? If this isn't being covered elsewhere in this forum, why is this not a valid topic for discussion here?

Sure it's valid. Is it important or relevant? Certainly not to the majority of people here, and doubtful to the minority.

Unless OAW lives in North Carolina, his reasons for posting this are as plain (and old) as day.

[Snow-i]

I apologize, I didn't mean to speak for you.

Thats my answer to his question.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Shouldn't the title be: "B.J. Lawson, Morgan Freeman, & Dishonest Campaign Ads"?

Touche!

Normally I would have done something along that line. I had just read the article but I had somewhere I needed to be so I didn't take the time to think of something like that.

OAW

[Brien]

Someone in politics is lying? Stop the presses!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Unless OAW lives in North Carolina, his reasons for posting this are as plain (and old) as day.

And those would be oh mind-reading one?

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'm not so sure at the candidate's claim (which I read in an AP story this morning) that he was "fooled" into thinking the ad was done by Freeman by a political advertising agency. But going public with saying "yes it was him" when it certainly was not isn't a minor "oops." It sounds like there was some falsehood somewhere, but maybe it did not actually originate with the suit this time. Maybe it was a second tier suit, like an ad exec with an agenda. Either way, I think Mr. Freeman has a good case for suing the pants off of either this campaign, the ad agency, or both.

I'm not so sure either. Morgan Freeman is a known Democrat so even if this originated with an ad agency the Lawson campaign should have had sense enough to double check. Just as Barbara Streisand doing voiceover work for a Sarah Palin campaign commercial would obviously raise a red flag or two. In any event, it appears that Mr. Lawson got trounced 57-43% so it appears that the "impersonation" strategy didn't quite pan out for him.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And those would be oh mind-reading one?

Skin color, skin color, skin color.

You'll pardon me if I don't believe you'd post this if it was about Ted Danson.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Skin color, skin color, skin color.

You'll pardon me if I don't believe you'd post this if it was about Ted Danson.

Uhhh .... negative.

I posted it because a GOP candidate faked a campaign ad with the voice of a well-known Democrat. Which seemed like a pretty desperate move that was bound to be discovered.

But feel free to tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself. I really couldn't care less.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Uhhh .... negative.

I posted it because a GOP candidate faked a campaign ad with the voice of a well-known Democrat. Which seemed like a pretty desperate move that was bound to be discovered.

But feel free to tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself. I really couldn't care less.

I'll put it this way: Your thread history makes such a theory plausible.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'll put it this way: Your thread history makes such a theory plausible.

Actually ... it doesn't. But you wouldn't be the first person to erroneously characterize my motivations based on their perception rather than reality. So it's cool.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually ... it doesn't.

Dude, the internet is color-blind, yet I feel confident about the color of your skin based on your posting topics. If you're some white dude in Wisconsin, you're pre-occupation with the black man's plight is laudable.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dude, the internet is color-blind, yet I feel confident about the color of your skin based on your posting topics. If you're some white dude in Wisconsin, you're pre-occupation with the black man's plight is laudable.

Well the fact that I'm African-American is certainly not a secret around here. Seeing as how I've stated that explicitly on various occasions . But that begs the question ....

Since I have this supposed "pre-occupation" and all .... what exactly is this "plight" when it comes to Morgan Freeman? I mean ... seeing as how the man could easily buy you and me 100 times over combined? I'm just curious as to how you possibly see a the-white-man-is-trying-to-keep-a-brotha-down angle in all of this?

But seriously ... is it your contention that if I as an African-American start a thread that involves another African-American then there is automatically some sort of racial angle to it? If so, does this also hold true for the white people on the board who start threads that involve other white people?

Allow me to present Clue #1 for you since you obviously missed it earlier. I don't think anyone who's hung out in the PWL for any significant period of time would ever accuse me of being "shy" when it comes to discussing racial issues. If there was a racial angle that I felt was relevant ... do trust and believe I would have stated it. The fact that I didn't really should have occurred to you before you went and posted some foolishness like this:

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Unless OAW lives in North Carolina, his reasons for posting this are as plain (and old) as day.

Quite frankly, it speaks volumes more about your assumptions than it does anything about me.

And for the record, since you brought up my "thread history" .... the fact of the matter is that in the last decade or so I've started 35 threads in the PWL. Of those, 11 were on topics dealing with some sort of racial issue. IOW .... 70% of the threads I start have nothing whatsoever to do with race. Like I said earlier ... there's perception and then there's reality. So go ahead and think whatever you want to think. I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

I've always assumed that OAW is oriental because he's so inscrutable.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But seriously ... is it your contention that if I as an African-American start a thread that involves another African-American then there is automatically some sort of racial angle to it?

Not automatically, no. However, like I said, I don't see you caring enough to post if it was Ted Danson. But hey, I could be wrong. It could just be cheap partisan sniping.

Originally Posted by OAW 

If so, does this also hold true for the white people on the board who start threads that involve other white people?

Is white people being concerned about being a white common? Maybe to those who post a lot about immigration.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Allow me to present Clue #1 for you since you obviously missed it earlier. I don't think anyone who's hung out in the PWL for any significant period of time would ever accuse me of being "shy" when it comes to discussing racial issues.

Trust me, I've noticed. It seems like you mange to bring it out of nowhere sometimes.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Quite frankly, it speaks volumes more about your assumptions than it does anything about me.

So many volumes you can't clearly state them here?

Originally Posted by OAW 

And for the record, since you brought up my "thread history" .... the fact of the matter is that in the last decade or so I've started 35 thread in the PWL. Of those, 11 were on topics dealing with some sort of racial issue. IOW .... 70% of the threads I start have nothing whatsoever to do with race.

I'm sure there are members who have started but a scant number of threads on global warming, but you'd be hard to pressed to say they don't have a bias towards talking about it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I've always assumed that OAW is oriental because he's so inscrutable.

Is "inscrutable" some sort of codeword about squinty eyes and the "err" emoticon? I find that offensive, sir (or madame)!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Allow me to present Clue #1 for you since you obviously missed it earlier. I don't think anyone who's hung out in the PWL for any significant period of time would ever accuse me of being "shy" when it comes to discussing racial issues. If there was a racial angle that I felt was relevant ... do trust and believe I would have stated it. The fact that I didn't really should have occurred to you before you went and posted some foolishness like this:

Translation: I will turn anything into a racist issue if at all possible.

If not, I'll just post gibberish.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not automatically, no. However, like I said, I don't see you caring enough to post if it was Ted Danson. But hey, I could be wrong.

And you are.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

It could just be cheap partisan sniping.

And it was.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is white people being concerned about being a white common? Maybe to those who post a lot about immigration.

::::::swwwoooossshhhhhh::::::: That was the sound of my point just going right over your head.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Trust me, I've noticed. It seems like you mange to bring it out of nowhere sometimes.

So says the person who assumed a racial angle to my thread simply because Morgan Freeman is black.

But this little tangent here is actually pretty illuminative because this sort of thing happens fairly often around here. A discussion is going on in a thread about some topic or another ... someone makes a racially tinged comment and I respond to challenge that ... but somehow to a certain mindset around here that's indicative of OAW "bringing race into it". Pretty much like you are doing right now. With Turtle cosigning ... unsurprisingly.

It's actually pretty comical how blind (willfully or otherwise) some people can be to the action that sparked the reaction in the first place.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So many volumes you can't clearly state them here?

Well how much clearer do I need to make it? You have a perception ... not rooted in reality ... that has caused you to make a bogus assumption. But hey ... you wouldn't be the first person to convince themselves that they know my motivations better than I do. And I'm sure you won't be the last. Whatever.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm sure there are members who have started but a scant number of threads on global warming, but you'd be hard to pressed to say they don't have a bias towards talking about it.

So IOW ... little things like facts and numbers don't matter on the planet you come from. Even though 70% of my threads deal with topics other than racial issues .... I have a "bias" towards talking about them moreso than anything else in your esteemed opinion. Ok. You go ahead and roll with that*.

OAW

And some of you wonder why I say that race can cause otherwise intelligent people to say some of the most retarded sh*t at times.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Is "inscrutable" some sort of codeword about squinty eyes and the "err" emoticon? I find that offensive, sir (or madame)!

It's also a reference to his penchant for opium.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And it was.

Which is just as useless.

Originally Posted by OAW 

::::::swwwoooossshhhhhh::::::: That was the sound of my point just going right over your head.

Feel free to enlighten me.

Originally Posted by OAW 

So says the person who assumed a racial angle to my thread simply because Morgan Freeman is black.

Not to the thread, to the motivation in posting it.

Originally Posted by OAW 

But this little tangent here is actually pretty illuminative because this sort of thing happens fairly often around here. A discussion is going on in a thread about some topic or another ... someone makes a racially tinged comment and I respond to challenge that ... but somehow to a certain mindset around here that's indicative of OAW "bringing race into it". Pretty much like you are doing right now. With Turtle cosigning ... unsurprisingly.

Maybe your perception of racially tinged commentary isn't rooted in reality, causing you to respond on a bogus assumption.

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's actually pretty comical how blind (willfully or otherwise) some people can be to the action that sparked the reaction in the first place.

You're doing it too. You're pretending its unfair that you get pinged as being racially motivated when you have admitted you aren't shy on brigning up the subject.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well how much clearer do I need to make it? You have a perception ... not rooted in reality ... that has caused you to make a bogus assumption. But hey ... you wouldn't be the first person to convince themselves that they know my motivations better than I do. And I'm sure you won't be the last. Whatever.

My perception that this was a worthless thread turned out to be rooted in reality. Wrong theory, right conclusion.

Originally Posted by OAW 

So IOW ... little things like facts and numbers don't matter on the planet you come from. Even though 70% of my threads deal with topics other than racial issues .... I have a "bias" towards talking about them moreso than anything else in your esteemed opinion. Ok. You go ahead and roll with that*.

Well let's look at it another way. Let's say (and I think I'm being generous here) the average PL denizens threads deal with racial issues 3% of time. You said you're batting 30%. That makes you 10x more likely to bring up race than the average denizen (I'm sorry, 10x). How is that not biased?

[OAW]

Dakar,

Look we can go around about this all day long. The fact of the matter is that I talk about whatever I want to talk about. Just like everybody else around here does. Liberal, conservative, Dem, GOP, Tea Party, race, gender, rural, urban ... regardless of the topic I stake out a position and defend it. Well. I'm not "shy" about any of them. I don't need your or anybody else's approval to talk about anything. And I certainly don't have to refrain from starting a thread about race or responding to someone else's racial comments because some white person (or whatever) doesn't want to hear it. If a topic doesn't interest you ... you can easily ignore it. How about that?

The bottom line here is that YOU brought race into this discussion. Not me. Even Stevie Wonder can see that! Veering it off onto the very tangent that you claim is "old". The funny thing is that most who tangle with me on the topic talk a lot of sh*t. They're very dismissive of whatever point I'm making. But they generally come up rather short when it comes to proving me wrong. Guess you want to join the club.

So like I said earlier, tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself about my motivations. And I'll just remember to think twice about starting anymore threads that happen to involve black people because you might get an attitude about it. Not!

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Dakar,

Look we can go around about this all day long. The fact of the matter is that I talk about whatever I want to talk about. Just like everybody else around here does. Liberal, conservative, Dem, GOP, Tea Party, race, gender, rural, urban ... regardless of the topic I stake out a position and defend it. Well. I'm not "shy" about any of them. I don't need your or anybody else's approval to talk about anything. And I certainly don't have to refrain from starting a thread about race or responding to someone else's racial comments because some white person (or whatever) doesn't want to hear it. If a topic doesn't interest you ... you can easily ignore it. How about that?

OAW,

I'm not telling you you need my approval. And I certainly don't have to refrain from calling you on a perceived bias just because you don't like it. You also, can easily ignore it. BLAH BLAH BLAH : lame-ass emoticon :

Originally Posted by OAW 

The bottom line here is that YOU brought race into this discussion. Not me. Even Stevie Wonder can see that! Veering it off onto the very tangent that you claim is "old".

Like I said, your topics are 10x more likely to involve some aspect of race than the average PL thread. It's not my fault you don't like the perception you've created.

Originally Posted by OAW 

The funny thing is that most who tangle with me on the topic talk a lot of sh*t. They're very dismissive of whatever point I'm making. But they generally come up rather short when it comes to proving me wrong. Guess you want to join the club.

You certainly can talk a big game, OAW, but in the end you just state your opinion as fact.

Originally Posted by OAW 

So like I said earlier, tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself about my motivations. And I'll just remember to think twice about starting anymore threads that happen to involve black people because you might get an attitude about it. Not!

OAW

I'll continue to judge your future posts on your past content. Sick burn at the end, dude.

<3

Dakarsies

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

OAW,

I'm not telling you you need my approval.

Well I'm glad we got that straight.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And I certainly don't have to refrain from calling you on a perceived bias just because you don't like it.

Indeed. I would never begrudge you the opportunity to make an ignorant comment.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Like I said, your topics are 10x more likely to involve some aspect of race than the average PL thread.

Well let's just put aside the fact that you pulled that 10x number out of your ass. Because we both know you haven't quantified that. I will simply say .... and? Certain people are more likely to start a topic about the size of government. Others are more likely to start a topic about healthcare. Still others are more likely to start a topic about entitlements. Or marijuana legalization. Or government spending. Some people don't start topics at all. People address those topics that are important to them. Those topics that impact them in some way. I'm no different in that regard. And if you don't like it ... oh well.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not my fault you don't like the perception you've created.

And when exactly did I say that I didn't like it? I mean seriously ... do tell. Produce the quote.

Of course, we both know that you won't because you can't. I said that I could care less. Specifically. So you start out claiming to know my motivations better than I do and now you resort to putting words in my mouth. Real good form dude.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You certainly can talk a big game, OAW, but in the end you just state your opinion as fact.

No actually I deliver. Case in point .....

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Unless OAW lives in North Carolina, his reasons for posting this are as plain (and old) as day.

Is it an "opinion" or a "fact" that this was the comment that started this little tangent?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Skin color, skin color, skin color.

Is it an "opinion" or a "fact" that this was the very first comment that brought up race in this discussion?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

You'll pardon me if I don't believe you'd post this if it was about Ted Danson.

Oh I suppose this was my "opinion" too?

Originally Posted by OAW

But feel free to tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself. I really couldn't care less

You claimed I didn't like the "perception" that I've created. Yet this is what I actually said. So in addition to knowing my motivations you now presume to know my likes and dislikes. But I'm the one "stating opinion as fact"?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

My perception that this was a worthless thread turned out to be rooted in reality. Wrong theory, right conclusion.

Right there you admitted you were in error. Which is what I said from jump street. So is that my "opinion"? Or is that a "fact"?

You see when you can actually back up what you say on that level then I might be impressed. Until then ... you're just yakking. And oh BTW ... thanks for this.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I'll continue to judge your future posts on your past content.

Be my guest. And when you are wrong I certainly won't hesitate to check you.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Sick burn at the end, dude.

<3

Dakarsies

I must admit I have absolutely no idea what that means. Damn ... I must be getting old.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well I'm glad we got that straight.

I'm glad we corrected your misperception too.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. I would never begrudge you the opportunity to make an ignorant comment.

Likewise.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well let's just put aside the fact that you pulled that 10x number out of your ass. Because we both know you haven't quantified that.

And I'm not going to bother, as I'm not that psychotic. The point is, you are more prone to brining up race than everyone else around here, and that colors all of your posts (pun unintended).

Originally Posted by OAW 

I will simply say .... and? Certain people are more likely to start a topic about the size of government. Others are more likely to start a topic about healthcare. Still others are more likely to start a topic about entitlements. Or marijuana legalization. Or government spending. Some people don't start topics at all. People address those topics that are important to them. Those topics that impact them in some way. I'm no different in that regard. And if you don't like it ... oh well.

Because the problem with focusing on race is it perpetuates racism. Just like focusing on D and Rs promotes partisanism. I call out people for that, too.

Originally Posted by OAW 

And when exactly did I say that I didn't like it? I mean seriously ... do tell. Produce the quote. Of course, we both know that you won't because you can't. I said that I could care less.

Your actions speak louder than your words. If you didn't care, you wouldn't still be in here responding to me, now would you?

Originally Posted by OAW 

Specifically. So you start out claiming to know my motivations better than I do and now you resort to putting words in my mouth. Real good form dude.

Quite frankly OAW, you could be lying thorough your teeth and I would have no recourse but to take you at your word. Which is why I reference your posting habits instead.

No actually I deliver. Case in point .....
Is it an "opinion" or a "fact" that this was the comment that started this little tangent?
Is it an "opinion" or a "fact" that this was the very first comment that brought up race in this discussion?
Oh I suppose this was my "opinion" too?

Actually that comment was referring to the text quoted preceding it, as would be logical.

The funny thing is that most who tangle with me on the topic talk a lot of sh*t. They're very dismissive of whatever point I'm making. But they generally come up rather short when it comes to proving me wrong. Guess you want to join the club.

So, who's deciding if they come up short or you're right or wrong?

You claimed I didn't like the "perception" that I've created. Yet this is what I actually said. So in addition to knowing my motivations you now presume to know my likes and dislikes. But I'm the one "stating opinion as fact"?

Speaking of putting words in mouths, where did I state my opinions and perceptions were anything but?

Originally Posted by OAW 

You see when you can actually back up what you say on that level then I might be impressed. Until then ... you are just yakking.

Yes, you're just a master of concise discussion here.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Be my guest. And when you are wrong I certainly won't hesitate to check you.

Be my guest, I won't hesitate to point out when you mistakenly check me.

Originally Posted by OAW 

I must admit I have absolutely no idea what that means. Damn ... I must be getting old.

OAW

Oh gnoes, I'm teh youngs!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because the problem with focusing on race is it perpetuates racism. Just like focusing on D and Rs promotes partisanism. I call out people for that, too.

And I suppose discussing sexual orientation perpetuates homophobia. Guess all the gays around here should stay in the freaking closet according to this logic huh? Don't bring up DADT. Don't bring up gay marriage. Don't bring up adoption by gays. A female starting more threads than a male about the glass ceiling in the workplace must perpetuate sexism. Can't talk about pay equity. Can't talk about experiencing career limitations after taking maternity leave. Just like I guess if we were in a thread about the foreclosure crisis I could never mention how African-American mortgage seekers with identical income and credit scores as their white counterparts were disproportionately and systematically steered into subprime mortgages by mortgage brokers/lenders. Even though I could back it up with facts. Because "focusing" on or even mentioning the existence of such discriminatory practices would be perpetuating discrimination. Wow. Denial really does run deeper than the mind of Minolta on this topic. So I guess it's just best that we all either pretend it doesn't exist ... or gloss over it at best. Because the people unaffected by it are more "comfortable" that way.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Your actions speak louder than your words. If you didn't care, you wouldn't still be in here responding to me, now would you?

Actually my actions speak to the fact that as I'm going about my daily grind, I find multitasking and jousting with you somewhat amusing.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Quite frankly OAW, you could be lying thorough your teeth and I would have no recourse but to take you at your word. Which is why I reference your posting habits instead.

Perhaps. But I would contend that in general it's better to simply deal with a person's posts for what they actually say and leave the speculation about motives out of it. And as for me in particular you don't have to simply take me at my word. I'd ask you to just take your own thought process to its logical conclusion. You say based on my "thread history" that you have a "perception" that I have a "bias" for discussing race moreso than other PWL members. Ok. So the million dollar question then becomes ... if that were my intent with this particular thread then why on earth wouldn't I have said something along that line in the OP? After all you yourself acknowledge that I'm by no means "shy" about it .... right? You are an obviously intelligent individual Dakar. An author of some of the more thoughtful posts around here actually. So quite frankly, I'm honestly surprised that this didn't occur to you.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, who's deciding if they come up short or you're right or wrong?

Ultimately people can decide for themselves who's presented the better case. This is a debate forum after all. One thing I will say is that people can agree with me or disagree ... but an honest assessment of my post history is that I'm not given to simply making assertions. Generally any position I take is supplemented with facts, documentation, and logical argument. And if I'm simply spouting off an opinion you will see "IMO" somewhere in the post. So I'm content to let my words speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Speaking of putting words in mouths, where did I state my opinions and perceptions were anything but?

Nice comeback. My point stands though. You deliberately took an opinion in direct contradiction to the evidence at hand in the thread. So for future reference, if there is a racial angle to a topic I'm discussing .... I'll state it explicitly. During a "townhall" style employee meeting, I once asked the CEO of a billion dollar corporation I worked for at the time why the company was still doing business in South Africa during the apartheid era. Point blank. I was most definitely not "subtle" about it at all. I think you can rest assured that I'm just as "direct" around here. There truly is no need for you to make assumptions about my motives. I'll simply ask you to respect that.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, you're just a master of concise discussion here.

I'll just have to ask you to forgive me for not aspiring to the "Libs and dems!" level of commentary around here.

OAW

[ghporter]

I think this one has managed to wind up at the end of the line...