|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 19:50:11 GMT -8
You speak as if my unwillingness to budge is in contrast to your willingness to budge. Have you change you mind in light of my critiques of your arguments?
First of all, if you chose to call me a racist, it says more about you then me. It would appear that instead of engaging in honest debate you prefer to label those you disagree with in order to try to silence them. Those who know me best know that I don't have a racist bone in my body. You could ask one of my closest friends, Attia who was born in Zimbabwe, and moved here about 15 years ago. He still works for Les Schwab, and you are welcome to go by and ask him about our friendship. you know this is actually sad, I thought you were open to an honest debate.
I would question their motives and look beyond their words to try and figure out why they are endorsing Obama. I already addressed this earlier, and now I feel like I'm repeating myself. I used the example of Rep. Senator Hegel already. Did you read what I wrote?
Well if anyone was to vote against Obama because he is black, that would be wrong, and there is no reason to believe that Lieberman is doing that, especially given the fact that he endorsed McCain long before Obama won his primary.
Let me ask you this. Do you recognize that there is a portion of the black population that is going to support Obama for the simple reason that he is black, and conversely there are some white people who will not vote for Obama because he is black? If you don't realize that this is a reality I'm not sure what to say. You see, there is a racial component to this election whether you and I like it or not, and ignoring that fact does no good. I believe that Obama's support among the African American community is somewhere over 95%, which is staggering. Also pollsters believe that roughly 6% of the population would never vote for a black man. Pointing these realities out doesn't make me a racist, it make me a realist.
One more question. Do you believe that there is even the slightest possibility that Powell was motivated by his desire to see a black man elected president? Even a tiny bit of doubt? Or are you so utterly convinced of your position that you could never imagine Powell would base his endorsement on race? If you don't, are you sure you can call yourself objective? I am willing to admit that I may be incorrect in my assessment, but it is what I believe given all the evidence. And no its not because I'm a racist.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 21:51:53 GMT -8
I would like to add that one other possibility crossed my mind, in trying to figure out why Powell endorsed Obama. It may simply be that Powell is up-set with the Bush administration because of the way in which they parted company, and is looking for a way to punish the republicans. However, Powell never struck me as someone who held grudges, and it would be just as unfair to hold McCain responsible for Powell's disappointment with Bush. I tend not to think this is the case because in areas where Powell and Bush disagreed, Powell and McCain actually agree, in regards to foreign policy. Neither men are particularly fond of Bush, or the way in which Bush has conducted the war in Iraq.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 24, 2008 22:15:24 GMT -8
I don't see any evidence that Nate isn't open for honest debate. He's not saying you're a racist, he's asking you to defend your position against a charge of racism. That's fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 25, 2008 6:17:55 GMT -8
Let me first address this. First of all, if you chose to call me a racist, it says more about you then me. It would appear that instead of engaging in honest debate you prefer to label those you disagree with in order to try to silence them. Those who know me best know that I don't have a racist bone in my body. You could ask one of my closest friends, Attia who was born in Zimbabwe, and moved here about 15 years ago. He still works for Les Schwab, and you are welcome to go by and ask him about our friendship. you know this is actually sad, I thought you were open to an honest debate. My intention is not in any way to label you racist. I pointed that out in an earlier post. I wanted to make that clear, since we were delving into the murky waters of discussing race. So let me reiterate it here. I'm not calling you racist nor do I think you are racist. I am taking your statements at face value.  My point was this: Based on your conclusion -- that Powell's support of Obama was "clearly little more than a racial endorsement"-- using your own rationale for coming to this conclusion, someone ***could*** accuse you of being racist. It would be very unfair, BUT that is, IMO the whole whole problem w/ your thinking on this subject. A simple example would go something like this: I think your statements about Powell were "little more than racism." It's because you, saw the situation through a racial lens when there wasn't one, moreover when Powell specifically said it wasn't about race. I don't believe your reasons for not believing Powell. You say your not a racist? Well, I just don't believe you, based on these facts. Hopefully that makes my point more clear. Senator Chuck Hegal endorsed Obama, but he is a liberal through and through, and only registered as a republican to get elected in a Republican state...Senator Hegal is a liberal and has alway agreed with Obama on these issues, making his endorsement of Obama not surprising. I did read this, but because Hegal is a liberal I didn't think it addressed the essense of my question. The question is, if the only difference was Powell had white skin and said the same things he did in his endorsement would your assessment still be the same? You speak as if my unwillingness to budge is in contrast to your willingness to budge. Have you change you mind in light of my critiques of your arguments? I didn't realize you were critiquing my arguments*, I thought you were defending your position. Which, IMO is the bolder claim, and therefore more of a defense is needed. And I did budge, all be it only a smidge, saying that you successfully defended your position. I still think you're on shaky ground, but defended none the less. Let me ask you this. Do you recognize that there is a portion of the black population that is going to support Obama for the simple reason that he is black, and conversely there are some white people who will not vote for Obama because he is black? Yes, this is certainly the case, but just not in THIS case. And out of those 95% of black folks for Obama, the ones who say it doesn't have to do w/ his race should be taken at face value. One more question. Do you believe that there is even the slightest possibility that Powell was motivated by his desire to see a black man elected president? Even a tiny bit of doubt? Or are you so utterly convinced of your position that you could never imagine Powell would base his endorsement on race? If you don't, are you sure you can call yourself objective? I am willing to admit that I may be incorrect in my assessment, but it is what I believe given all the evidence. And no its not because I'm a racist. Yes, there is that possibility. We are dealing w/ human beings here. There will always be a chance that someone isn't being straight up. PS Why would Colin Powell lie about this? I'm sure he could have come up w/ an eloquent way of saying that normally he wouldn't be endorsing a liberal candidate, but he thinks that the election of a black president would make a huge difference in X,Y,Z and he respects Obama for X,Y,Z and Obama would be a symbol of America fulfilling its promise, and so on. PPS I think part of the problem here is that you don't agree w/ Powells assessment of Obama or this race (the presidential race). That's fine, you, don't have to agree. You can think Obama has zero-point-zero-zero redeemable qualities. You can think he's going to be the worst president since...George W. Bush?  But what you shouldn't do IMO is say someone is lying and has ulterior motives, just because you disagree w/ them. *If you would like me to lay out (for your critique), why I take Colin Powell's statements at face value, and don't think there is any good reason to think that he is lying, let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 25, 2008 7:55:59 GMT -8
Josh,
Since my position isn't a racist one, why should I defend myself against the charge of racism?
The problem is, if you know that I'm not racist, and Nate said as much, then what is the point in asking me to defend myself against the accusation. I can see no reason for bringing up this charge unless you believe it to be true, or it is intended to intimidate. If someone wants to charge me with racism they should simply say it, and then ask me to defend myself.
Nate,
No need to take only my statements at face value, you are free to look at my entire life and make an informed judgment about my character. You can talk to my family, some of which are not white, and ask them. you could read through everything I have written or consider all I have ever said. This is probably the best way to determine what I am.
Well those people would be closed minded.
I would say, no. I see the situation through "human lenses" and believe that General Powell is no less than human. As I mentioned earlier about my Mormon father and his desire to see Mitt Romney be elected. He would never come right out and say that his support is base on their shared faith, but I knew that it was far more important than he was leading me to believe. This is simply natural. this is why candidates generally have such high support among those who they identify with, be it in there state, or shared religion, gender, and even race. I also believe that the selection of Gov. Palin by John McCain was base partly on gender. Does that make me a sexists? Trust me I believe she is very qualified, but McCain wanted to draw in those dis-enfranchised Hillary voters.
OK, perhaps you can give me an example. Maybe you have someone in mind with strong conservative credentials and a member of the republican party who has always endorsed conservative candidates. Let me know who you are thinking of and I will share my thoughts.
Yes, and you made some counterpoints to my arguments and I have responded to those, to little avail it seems.
If you want to take him at face value, that fine with me. It fits your agenda. However, I think something is out of place when I see any prominent conservative whoes past endorsements included Bob Dole, and President George W. Bush, and is now endorsing the most liberal member of the Senate for president. Especially when Obama and Powell disagree on Powell's area of expertise, and that is foreign policy. Powell has stated that a time table for withdrawal that is not based of success on the ground would be dangerous, and therefore he apposed Obama's plan on Iraq, and he agreed with McCain on this vital issue. Given this fact and that Powell's entire endorsement seemed rather weak, I conclude that I can't simply take his word for it. Now given the gravity of the situation and the possibility that we will have our first African American president, I think Powell wants to be part of this historical event.
OK, seems fair.
General Powell is a distinguished and respected public figure that has always been held in hight regard for his intellectual abilities. He may consider it to be beneath him to endorse any candidate simple based on race. Also it would be less effective in convincing other to vote for Obama, if Powell simply said that his endorsment was based on race.
So what you are saying is that you just prefer to ignore everything Ive said and just chalk it up to my dislike for Obama. If thats how you want to see it, I must conclude that I have wasted allot of time discussing this.
I will leave that up to you.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 25, 2008 9:53:23 GMT -8
I thought I would post the technical definition of racism, and ask that Nate or Josh to support their accusation that anything I have said is racist, or could be viewed as such.
rac⋅ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Source - Dictionary.com
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 25, 2008 10:19:57 GMT -8
Margot, I think it is only human to support those that you identify with for whatever reason. For example, my father is Mormon and he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney because they share a common faith, when Mitt lost in the primaries he was considering not voting because of his disappointment. My mother became more excited about the election when Palin was chosen to run as McCain's VP. These are normal reactions. Robin Yeah, I guess personally that doesn't work for me. I want to choose who I truly think is best for the country. That means I want to look at their policies. My candidates do not have to be Christian females, with brown hair and brown eyes even though I am  WARNING: Whoa! (insert police lights and sounder here!)
I am NOT saying others don't or won't do that, I'm saying:"I guess personally that doesn't work for me."
No deep substantiation to expound on. Just my personal feelings!!As for being accusatory, Robin, my answer is an unequivocal: No. Uh-Uh. I think Not. Gee Whiz is one my friendlier expressions  ) |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 25, 2008 11:40:09 GMT -8
Margot, I think it is only human to support those that you identify with for whatever reason. For example, my father is Mormon and he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney because they share a common faith, when Mitt lost in the primaries he was considering not voting because of his disappointment. My mother became more excited about the election when Palin was chosen to run as McCain's VP. These are normal reactions. Robin Yeah, I guess personally that doesn't work for me. I want to choose who I truly think is best for the country. That means I want to look at their policies. My candidates do not have to be Christian females, with brown hair and brown eyes even though I am WARNING: Whoa! (insert police lights and sounder here!)
I am NOT saying others don't or won't do that, I'm saying:"I guess personally that doesn't work for me."
No deep substantiation to expound on. Just my personal feelings!!As for being accusatory, Robin, my answer is an unequivocal: No. Uh-Uh. I think Not. Gee Whiz is one my friendlier expressions ) Thanks Margot, I appreciate your response. whether it works for you personally is not the question. The question is, do others think that way? I pointed out earlier that the polls indicated that a segment of the population will be casting their vote based on racial attitudes. For example Howard Stern (no I'm not a fan, nor do I listen to him) sent out one of his reporters into Harlem to interview African Americans on the street. What they did was interesting. They would ask who the individual was supporting for president, and every person interviewed would say Obama, and then they would give policy positions that McCain held and apply them to Obama and ask if they agreed with those policies. Do you now what they said? Yes. They would say something along the lines of "do you as an Obama supported agree with Obama's position that abortion should be made illegal?" and they would say yes, I agree, abortion should be illegal. This scenario repeated itself on all major policy differences, from taxes to Iraq. Now, do I believe that General Powell would fall for this trick? Of course not. But I also would have expected that an endorsement by Powell would have more substance, and be somewhat in line with his political leanings. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 25, 2008 11:44:00 GMT -8
Again, neither of us said that anything you've said is racist. I don't know how else I could make that clearer. Well, for argument's sake. We live is a culture where some of the insinuations you've made might be perceived by others as racism. That doesn't mean they'd be right, but for the sake of the conversation, it might be helpful to demonstrate why such charges would be missing the mark. This line of questioning isn't meant to be personal at all. In our culture, bringing up race can be difficult period. I think it's important to tread carefully and explain ourselves thoroughly. There is no intimidation, no thinking that you are racist, no desire for you to defend yourself- I think we're just curious what you'd say to someone who said your remarks were racist. You actually bolstered your argument as the conversation progressed, which I think is part of the answer to what you would say, right? A wise man by the name of Crombie (my discussion forums consultant ) once said that the best way to resolve discussion board hot spots is to keep talking through them... I hope that will prove true here. After all, we've all got to worship together this Sunday!!!! I don't want you to be thinking that I'm thinking that you're thinking that Nate's thinking that I'm thinking that Margot's thinking you or I am a racist while we're dipping the bread. That's why we'll be greeting each other with a holy kiss Sunday morning, right  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 25, 2008 13:01:57 GMT -8
I see more clearly now what you and Nate are getting at. However the problem is that someone who truly is racist could make similar arguments in order to hide their intentions. That is why it is so important to consider the character of the person you are conversing with and determine if that person has racial motives or not. I feel as if I have repeatedly made a defense of my view, and also stated that I don't see this as a racial problem. Again these tendencies, to want to see certain people elected, go far beyond racial dividing lines into areas of gender and religion. I used Gov. Palin Who McCain said her Gender was not part of the decision to select her. I disagree. I think he was using her to tap into those Clinton votes, and it will work to some extent. McCain is Just as honorable as Powell, yet I question his motives.
Hopefully this helps clear things up. See you all tomorrow.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 25, 2008 13:26:02 GMT -8
Unfortunately I won't be there to smooch  . Off to sunny LA then to sunny Phoenix. Just a suggestion too, that many of these types of debates are probably best left to the pub or the board. I don't see much constructive coming of it at the church. The few times things of a directly political nature have been brought up, I got the sense it was heading nowhere fast. So I propose we leave our swords on the battle field (to be brought out again I'm sure) and bring only love and goodwill to our meeting place. This was probably already assumed. Keep us playaz in your prayaz. n |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 25, 2008 14:56:29 GMT -8
Jolly good, 'ol chaps. Jolly good.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 25, 2008 16:26:17 GMT -8
Cool....I'm a consultant? Where do I send my bill? |
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 25, 2008 23:12:59 GMT -8
quote] I don't want you to be thinking that I'm thinking that you're thinking that Nate's thinking that I'm thinking that Margot's thinking you or I am a racist while we're dipping the bread. That's why we'll be greeting each other with a holy kiss Sunday morning, right [/quote] I'll be there! |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 28, 2008 22:56:33 GMT -8
Okay, so this topic is almost exhausted, but two last things...maybe. 1. The question is, if the only difference was Powell had white skin and said the same things he did in his endorsement would your assessment still be the same? OK, perhaps you can give me an example. Maybe you have someone in mind with strong conservative credentials and a member of the republican party who has always endorsed conservative candidates. Let me know who you are thinking of and I will share my thoughts. here's a link of some conservatives/republican's to endorse Obama. conservationreport.com/2008/10/27/politics-10-conservativerepublican-endorsements-for-obama/ Your thoughts on their endorsements? 2. What could Colin Powell have said in his endorsement of Obama that would have made it legitimate/honest/not obviously racial to you? |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 29, 2008 7:26:17 GMT -8
Of all of those only has any real prominence, that being Scott McClellan. I wouldn't being so thrilled about having his endorsement if I were Obama. McClellan is a know liar, and back stabber. All one would need to do is look at his interview with O'Rielly to see that McClellan is nothing more than a liar, and willing to say anything in order for a little attention. Including throwing those who trusted him under a bus. the man's character and intellect is suspect to say the least.
As for the others, I don't know enough about their conservative credentials. However I suspect that they have some ulterior motive for endorsing Obama. If they are conservatives, and hold such conservative positions as, strong national defense, low taxes, cutting spending, pro life, then it is obvious that McCain would be the natural choice. Lets face it Obama is the most liberal Candidate to ever get a major parties nomination. So it would lead me to believe that their endorsements are based on something other that there conservative principles. For each person it is probably different. I could spend time and look into each one, but frankly I don't care about obscure, so called conservatives, endorsing Obama.
He could have explained how Obama's positions are consistent with his own conservative principles. However he didn't. He spent is time trying to discredit the Republicans and John McCain. Also, the one thing he said about Obama, and that was in regards to his handling of the financial crisis made no sense. The fact is, Obama did nothing. If Powell is basing his endorsement on Obama doing nothing during this financial crisis, so be it. But it certainly leaves questions in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 29, 2008 7:43:19 GMT -8
By the way Nate, what do you think of these recent developments concerning the LA times holding on to a tape that show Obama toasting former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Apparently some vial and disgusting anti-Semitic speeches were given at this dinner include the reciting of a poem that included some of the worst anti-Semitic slurs. Barak Obama attended this meeting/dinner and even spoke giving praise to this horrible person, Rashid Khalidi who is a known anti Semite. This happened in 2003, and the LA times is refusing to release the video tape.
Now whether this tape consists of these things or not I don't know, I haven't seen the tape, but it is rather suspicious that the LA times will not release it. We all know that the media is in the tank for Obama so it would seem that something on the tape is damaging. My question to you is this. Should the LA time release the tape? And, if this tape is what people say it is, would it have any effect on your support for Obama? I'm curios, because you have seemed rather up-set about any perceived racism here on this form, yet the man you support for president seems to have no problem surrounding him self with racists, and referring to them as his friends. I can't help but feel that if the tables were turned and McCain was friends with David Duke, and lavished praise on him, you would see it as a reason not to support him. Am I wrong? I hope we can count on some consistency here.
Robin
|
|
But what you shouldn't do IMO is say someone is lying and has ulterior motives, just because you disagree w/ them.
)
. Off to sunny LA then to sunny Phoenix. 