[goMac]

Originally Posted by kido331 

Obama keeps playing the age card...

I'm sorry, is McCain not old?

It's completely relevant actually. Do we trust a man who doesn't even know how to use a computer or the internet (which he doesn't) to decide the fate of the declining technology industry in the US? I don't.

[besson3c]

We can be looking for these sorts of subliminal and/or subtle card playing tricks being played by both campaigns, surrogates, etc. to great lengths, but I'm not sure what good score keeping does us?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm sorry, is McCain not old?

Old... compared to who? His mother? Old is relative.

It's completely relevant actually. Do we trust a man who doesn't even know how to use a computer or the internet (which he doesn't) to decide the fate of the declining technology industry in the US? I don't.

I've heard this before, but I don't understand the complaint. Why does he have to use a computer to understand its value in society? Think about what most people do with their machines; check email and surf the internet. Why is this skill important to running a country?

[besson3c]

I agree... Any president is only going to be as good as their technological adviser is. It's a matter of judgment in knowing who to surround yourself with.

[kido331]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We can be looking for these sorts of subliminal and/or subtle card playing tricks being played by both campaigns, surrogates, etc. to great lengths, but I'm not sure what good score keeping does us?

Obama has now played two cards, age and race. Further, he has played both of those cards multiple times. He also decried the use of these types of political attacks and warned everyone multiple times that the one player who has not resorted to this tactic will most certainly do so before too long. Score it however you like, Obama is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've heard this before, but I don't understand the complaint. Why does he have to use a computer to understand its value in society? Think about what most people do with their machines; check email and surf the internet. Why is this skill important to running a country?

Because if you look at something like Net Neutrality, it's a very specific piece of legislation that requires somewhat of a technical understanding of how the internet works, and it's going to become a larger issue.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree... Any president is only going to be as good as their technological adviser is. It's a matter of judgment in knowing who to surround yourself with.

Ah yes, the Bush approach. It's ok if the President is clueless, just surround him with advisors... His campaign advisors are already the same people Bush had. Don't be surprised if he picks up Bush's advisors as well.

I wasn't aware that McCain the "maverick" was so reliant on advisors.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kido331 

Obama has now played two cards, age and race. Further, he has played both of those cards multiple times. He also decried the use of these types of political attacks and warned everyone multiple times that the one player who has not resorted to this tactic will most certainly do so before too long. Score it however you like, Obama is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

I don't disagree, nor was I. I'm disappointed by the dirty fighting in both campaigns. However, I'm a poll nut, and know that stupid ads like the celebrity ad can be effective to create a temporary polling blip. Therefore, this temptation is tantalizing. I fault the campaigns for taking the low road, but also the people for being swayed by these sorts of idiotic ads and associations.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ah yes, the Bush approach. It's ok if the President is clueless, just surround him with advisors... His campaign advisors are already the same people Bush had. Don't be surprised if he picks up Bush's advisors as well.

I wasn't aware that McCain the "maverick" was so reliant on advisors.

Bush used Plouffe and Alexrod et all?

I wasn't referring to campaign advisers, but political advisers - the people he would work with and close to on a day-to-day basis to enact legislation once he hypothetically took office.

That being said, I do also agree with GoMac that with an important issue such as Net Neutrality, a first-hand understanding of the internet and who controls it couldn't hurt.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wasn't referring to campaign advisers, but political advisers - the people he would work with and close to on a day-to-day basis to enact legislation once he hypothetically took office.

I understand that. I'm saying that if he's already using Bush's campaign advisors, he's likely to use Bush's political advisors as well.

I just find it funny that when Obama is called inexperienced, it's a serious matter, but when McCain is called inexperienced... oh that's ok... McCain's advisors will take care of that.

It's almost as if McCain being old is an excuse.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I understand that. I'm saying that if he's already using Bush's campaign advisors, he's likely to use Bush's political advisors as well.

I just find it funny that when Obama is called inexperienced, it's a serious matter, but when McCain is called inexperienced... oh that's ok... McCain's advisors will take care of that.

It's almost as if McCain being old is an excuse.

It is a double standard, and there is a lot of these. We aren't allowed to question whether being shot down in a plane translates to political experience and skill without facing this sort of firewall of reverence for McCain's sacrifice (and this includes the Obama campaign and surrogates themselves including John Kerry who disagreed with Wes Clark for saying this). There has never been any great debate that I know of as to whether logging years in the senate/congress amounts to the only kind of valid experience worth considering as an asset, etc.

Instead, we have an abundance of political chest thumping with no real definitions offered as to what that chest thumping really entails. It's all about these brainless labels and accusations - the louder and more often they are made the more accurate they become.

I'm sure this goes both ways too, but yes, all in all it seems like the media is vetting Obama much more aggressively than they are vetting McCain. Perhaps because most Americans think that they know McCain, perhaps because he is boring, I don't know. As well, every time McCain speaks a new gaffe seems to emerge, many of which the media overlooks.

So yes, I think there are tremendous amounts of double standards that affect both candidates.

I still don't know where you get the idea that Obama would use Bush's political advisers though. I can see most of them being comprised of Democrats and other trusted surrogates with an assortment of Republicans before I can see Bush's advisers. The exception might be with the non-partisan political groups such as Homeland Security, but isn't it traditional that even these positions are replaced shortly after a change in power?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, in fact the dixiecrats remained unto their own. The gain in Republican constituency did not occur until much later upon Northerners moving South. Al Gore Sr, Byrd, and a host of others who comprise a "who's who" of racists remained democrats.

I maintain that the policies of the "right" are more conducive to equality than any ideal to date proposed by the party of choice among blacks. In fact, I think you'll find a major shift of blacks to the Republican party and I for one welcome them into the fold of common sense. After all, what on earth has the Democratic party done for blacks???

Perhaps blacks will return to the Republican party in the future. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon. You can point out Sen. Byrd et al, but the fact remains that the vast majority of Dixiecrats became Republicans at the national level. As long as the Republican party continues to utilize social issues such as crime, welfare, affirmative action, etc to stir up latent hostility among some whites toward blacks in order to win elections .... all the while pretending that such issues are being raised in a "race neutral" manner ... insulting the intelligence of the black community along the way ... then it certainly won't make any significant inroads into the black community anytime soon. I mean seriously, is there a single black Republican in office at the national level? No. There's a reason for that.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As long as the Republican party continues to utilize social issues such as crime, welfare, affirmative action, etc to stir up latent hostility among some whites toward blacks in order to win elections .... all the while pretending that such issues are being raised in a "race neutral" manner ... insulting the intelligence of the black community along the way ... then it certainly won't make any significant inroads into the black community anytime soon.

So... one cannot take a stand on any of the above ideologically without it being white activism? I disagree. What I believe is insulting to the black community is the fact that a company for example can espouse "affirmative action" and diversity, showcase a few minorities at entry-level while those at the top remain a who's who of white people. It is nothing more than hollow rhetoric seeking to exploit the minority vote. I'm not alone in this by the way, there are a great many noteworthy black activists saying the same thing. The Dems have been taking the black vote for granted while offering them nothing of substance. Your post is exhibit A of this problem. All you could mention is your perception of Republicans, but offered absolutely nothing of what the Dems have done for you.

The tired bottom line IMO is you cannot legislate fairness. Worse, there's absolutely nothing to suggest it works.

Crime and welfare are real issues today for minorities and whites which is another reason why affirmative action doesn't work. Instead of focusing on differences, it should be directed to those in a specific socio-economic condition. Why would you assume a hard stand on either of these issues is a stand against blacks? Crime and welfare are not black problems in need of white solutions and neither is affirmative action. I would think any self-respecting black person would be most offended by this notion. These are socio-economic problems. The Democratic platform has only served to exacerbate these problems by bloating the need and growing the giver. *on that note, this administration has not been much better admittedly, but let not GW Bush be the template of Republican ideology.

I mean seriously, is there a single black Republican in office at the national level? No. There's a reason for that.

You mean other than some of the most important offices in the country? If you're going to suggest that Clarence Thomas is not black for example, you'd have to avail yourself of some information on him. He's blacker on his whitest day than Obama is while speaking to the NAACP.

[vmarks]

This thread is about Obama's dollar bill comment. The net neutrality discussion has been moved to its own thread.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... one cannot take a stand on any of the above ideologically without it being white activism? I disagree.

That's not what I said. First of all I never said anything about "white activism". What I said was that the Republican party has employed a strategy of winning elections at the national level by exploiting "code words" and social issues designed to stir up the racial fears and resentments of white people. Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.

Take for instance Affirmative Action. Regardless of how one feels about the topic itself, it certainly didn't warrant the level of attention that the Republican party spent on it in the 80s and 90s. I mean let's keep it real. African-Americans make up approx. 15% of the population. About 75% of the US population is white. Now let's assume that every single black person with a job got it as the result of "reverse discrimination". Which, of course, is complete BS because many if not most blacks work in low-level jobs where this isn't even an issue. But let's just say that for the sake of discussion. That would mean that 4 out of 5 or 80% of white people would be totally unaffected by affirmative action. At worst! And then when you bring in other factors to make this more realistic the number of unaffected white people would be even higher. But yet and still, there were those in the white community who had a "sky is falling" mentality about this issue. The fact or the matter is that AA was a half-assed solution to a long-standing and systemic problem. And it's primary usefulness was stirring up "angry white men" to vote Republican rather than assisting black people for sure.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I believe is insulting to the black community is the fact that a company for example can espouse "affirmative action" and diversity, showcase a few minorities at entry-level while those at the top remain a who's who of white people. It is nothing more than hollow rhetoric seeking to exploit the minority vote. I'm not alone in this by the way, there are a great many noteworthy black activists saying the same thing. The Dems have been taking the black vote for granted while offering them nothing of substance. Your post is exhibit A of this problem. All you could mention is your perception of Republicans, but offered absolutely nothing of what the Dems have done for you.

So tell me something I don't already know! LOL But having said that, most blacks have chosen the "lesser of two evils" approach as is often the case when one is in the numerical minority. So it's better to roll with the party that "takes you for granted" as opposed to the party that has a decades long history of being hostile to your interests.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Crime and welfare are real issues today for minorities and whites which is another reason why affirmative action doesn't work. Instead of focusing on differences, it should be directed to those in a specific socio-economic condition. Why would you assume a hard stand on either of these issues is a stand against blacks? Crime and welfare are not black problems in need of white solutions and neither is affirmative action. I would think any self-respecting black person would be most offended by this notion. These are socio-economic problems. The Democratic platform has only served to exacerbate these problems by bloating the need and growing the giver. *on that note, this administration has not been much better admittedly, but let not GW Bush be the template of Republican ideology.

But you see that's just it. The Republican party doesn't paint the picture of crime & welfare being societal issues. It paints them as black issues. Again, it's done in a relatively subtle and sophisticated manner. No mainstream Republican would dare say "black women on welfare" directly. Instead, they'll say "inner city welfare queens living off the tax dollars of hard-working Americans". Which is simply "code words" for saying "lazy black b*tches living off white people's tax money". LOL Sometimes things are as subtle as generally showing images of black people when crime and welfare are discussed, regardless of the actual statistics. To be fair, this is a problem in the mass media in general and not just a particular political party. But when said party takes advantage of that it causes many to question its motives.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean other than some of the most important offices in the country? If you're going to suggest that Clarence Thomas is not black for example, you'd have to avail yourself of some information on him. He's blacker on his whitest day than Obama is while speaking to the NAACP.

Well if Clarence Thomas is the best you can do then that simply reinforces my point. Specifically, I meant that there is not a single African-American Republican in Congress. And there are only handfuls at the state level. Let me put it bluntly. The Republican Party National Convention will be a sea of whiteness because it is on a de-facto basis the "white party". Sure there will be some well-placed African-American and Latino delegates shown on TV, but when you actually count the number of delegates of color you will find what we always find. Their numbers will be in the very low single digits from a percentage basis. There's a reason for that. And it's not because African-American and Latino voters are too stupid to realize all these supposed benefits of voting Republican. It's because A) the party as a whole doesn't champion the issues that are most important to these constituencies, and B) it does champion issues that in many cases are against their interests.

OAW

[vmarks]

Me, I like to associate with a party that champions the interests of all Americans, not just constituencies. If you want a color-blind society, you have to start acting like it one of these days.

If you want African-Americans to be elected to Congress, you have to run good candidates. Candidates are not good candidates solely on the basis of the color of skin. We've had African-American members of Congress, of the Supreme Court, running the State Dept., and now campaigning for President. It's clearly possible to get people of any color elected, you just have to run good candidates. And sometimes, even then, good candidates aren't always elected. That, too, has little to do with race.

The civil rights war was won, and nothing evidences it better than Mr. Obama, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Marshall, General Powell, Dr. Rice, Michael Steele, Carol Mosely Braun, and many many more. And we're better for it.

Now, when can we please have a society that judges people, all people, on the content of their character? When we stop focusing on silly things like the color of skin. When we stop searching for, seeking out, subtle racism because we can no longer find overt racism exhibited in the public discourse. When we eliminate Affirmative Action programs because we know that all people are created equal.
When we act like skin color is meaningless, because it IS meaningless. I'm ready for that future. Are you?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Me, I like to associate with a party that champions the interests of all Americans, not just constituencies.

Then you certainly don't belong to either of the two major parties we have today, as they've been bought and paid for by big business.

The civil rights war was won, and nothing evidences it better than Mr. Obama, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Marshall, General Powell, Dr. Rice, Michael Steele, Carol Mosely Braun, and many many more. And we're better for it.

Those people don't prove that the civil rights war was won; they only prove that some people get further in life than others, for a multitude of reasons, some of which are not always under their control.

Now, when can we please have a society that judges people, all people, on the content of their character? When we stop focusing on silly things like the color of skin. When we stop searching for, seeking out, subtle racism because we can no longer find overt racism exhibited in the public discourse. When we eliminate Affirmative Action programs because we know that all people are created equal.
When we act like skin color is meaningless, because it IS meaningless. I'm ready for that future. Are you?

I am, and I'm sure you are, but you'd obviously be surprised at the number of people who aren't.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

What's surprising is the number of people who aren't.... who otherwise pretend to be the ones who are most for equality.

[besson3c]

I think that vmarks is right, but that people of all races are still *affected* by racism and reverse racism. Therefore, it's a little premature to consider the issue a vestige of the past. However, in order for it to become a vestige of the past we have to do what vmarks said and put it in the rear-view mirror, which is what makes it a catch-22 type of situation