'Obama is a Racist'-Glenn Beck

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Lastly as far as I know bills retorts about dems has been nothing more than a rebuttal of your initial accusation about conservatives and the hypocrisy of the statement. And once again if you don’t want someone debating the point and your opinion, you shouldn’t post the statement to begin with.
[/quote]

To clarify:

His claim, visible in quotes of him, that I called him a Democrat is another one of his – let’s put it kindly – erroneous attributions that have absolutely littered this thread, going right back to his severe misquotation of Beck. E.g., quoting Beck as calling Obama an SOB, which simply didn’t happen in the clip.

I am sure I never called the OP a Democrat. I also never in this thread made a single statement about Democrats.

There are many Democrats who support freedom of speech and by no means call for muzzling of opinions they disagree with.

There is, however, in my observation a strong and disturbing trend, that has been developing for a long time and is now very firmly entrenched, among modern-day liberals to oppose public expression, e.g on television or radio, of opinions they don’t like. Or even questions they don’t like.

This is why I stated that the OP, though he may not consider himself a liberal (I said plainly that I did not know if he did), he would make a fine modern-day liberal in that regard.

62

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Research for yourself. It’s all facts but you can distort all you want.

Black people have an excellent talent to speaking and great oration. They are excellent at working their angle. They have now attained a level where even the Media is in handcuffs. NOONE will dare attack a black leader of questionable tactics or outright thinly hidden racism. Research it more for yourself. Noone can convince you.

Hmm…so “speaking and great oration” has to be a talent for black people?? Does that talent supersede dancing and basketball?? And you’re calling Obama a racist.[/i]Well…you might be a…[/i]I’m just fucking with you,G.

Seriously,you should really think about how you worded that post. Wouldn’t want anyone to wrongfully accuse you of having a serious dislike for black people and liken them all to tricky swindlers. I truly don’t think you are…I’m just saying,considering the topic at hand and the FACT of your own words.

Anyways…maybe your facts are distortions based on what you want to believe. Not saying with conviction that this is the case…but can you honestly say that this is not humanly possible?? Especially when there are IN FACT…no FACTS in Obama’s personal actions/words that prove he is a racist. Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the accuser?? What has Obama specifically done himself that shows he is in FACT a racist?

Yeah,he was misinformed and made an un-wise,stupid decision to say cops acted “stupidly” in Gates’ arrest. But is this worthy to be lumped in with other “burden’s of proof” to say he is in FACT a racist??

LOL, see what’s been done to our thinking? You can’t even compliment a black person on anything, neither individually or as a people. That sucks. Hope you just had an epiphany about that.

For Example, you can tell a German, they’re great engineers. Or Asians that they’re great at math or something. Black people have reached such a level of paranoia and insecurity that we literally can;t even say anything positive about them. Again sucks.

And Great Oration is a gift not to be dismissed. We all communicate with words and those who can send a message in a powerful way can often sway people to their side. It’s the most important talent for a Layer to have. And that’s what’s behind the compliment of great oration.
[/quote]

Hmm…are speaking in general about black people?..or directly at me?..or BOTH??

Anyways,I wasn’t being serious with that. However,I was being honest in saying how that might have been misconstrued. After all,that is the type of spin that is common with accusations of racism. Right? I can honestly see how a black person could spin that into something “racist”…but I also see how it would be wrong to do so.

Like I mentioned from the start,I don’t know if you were speaking directly at me or in general. Because it’s funny that you overlooked my blatant,self-admission of just “fucking around” with you to make an example out of me as a “paranoid and insecure” black person.

SEE WHATS BEEN DONE TO OUR THINKING?? :wink:

63

There was a local band that did a version of Sweet Caroline. they would sing Fucking slut during the normal dunt dunt dunt part.

Before they would sing the song they would tell a story about how a band member dated a gal named Caroline and she was, well, a slut. They started a story by giving the first rule of men can be sluts too. The second rule is that gals can be sluts. the third rule was Caroline was a slut.

What’s the point here? Black people can be assholes too. As can whites or women. But we shouldn’t always assume that we are not the assholes and that it’s racism’s fault. Sometimes it because you’re an asshole.

64

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Research for yourself. It’s all facts but you can distort all you want.

Black people have an excellent talent to speaking and great oration. They are excellent at working their angle. They have now attained a level where even the Media is in handcuffs. NOONE will dare attack a black leader of questionable tactics or outright thinly hidden racism. Research it more for yourself. Noone can convince you.

Hmm…so “speaking and great oration” has to be a talent for black people?? Does that talent supersede dancing and basketball?? And you’re calling Obama a racist.[/i]Well…you might be a…[/i]I’m just fucking with you,G.

Seriously,you should really think about how you worded that post. Wouldn’t want anyone to wrongfully accuse you of having a serious dislike for black people and liken them all to tricky swindlers. I truly don’t think you are…I’m just saying,considering the topic at hand and the FACT of your own words.

Anyways…maybe your facts are distortions based on what you want to believe. Not saying with conviction that this is the case…but can you honestly say that this is not humanly possible?? Especially when there are IN FACT…no FACTS in Obama’s personal actions/words that prove he is a racist. Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the accuser?? What has Obama specifically done himself that shows he is in FACT a racist?

Yeah,he was misinformed and made an un-wise,stupid decision to say cops acted “stupidly” in Gates’ arrest. But is this worthy to be lumped in with other “burden’s of proof” to say he is in FACT a racist??

You are correct. I would not be able to prove it yet. However, if we spend a few months in Rev Wrights Church sermons, maybe we could understand a bit more.

For me, the fact that he grew up in this guys pews and stayed for 20 plus years shows enough for me the distain he MAY hold against American whites and Jews. That right there would land any Republican in hot water he can’t cool down.
[/quote]

If a republican attended a Neo Nazi church one time by accident, it would be lights out on his career.

65

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

I still think Beck was dumb for saying it on the air.

The defense of the president in the clip was in my opinion dumber than calling the sitting president a racist. Suddenly he’s “half white”. Suddenly, when it’s convenient, they start to identify him with the white race. And somehow being half white makes it impossible for him to be racist against whites.

Word on the street is that Hitler was part Jewish. I guess that means he wasn’t antisemitic after all. That is such a dumb argument.

You notice they didn’t in any way directly address the claim of racism based on his actions, because it’s pretty evident by his actions that he is. At least Beck is basing his judgments, right or wrong, on actions and facts rather than skin color.

Well, he was raised by his white mother which would have certainly made thanksgiving pretty awkward when his mom would ask him if he wanted any fried turkey.

And yeah, I agree 100% that it’s dumb to make a statement like that on the air where you can’t make a case for your statement. If he had written an essay about it at least it would open room for discussion.

[/quote]

Um, question what does fried turkey have to do anything with being awkward, I must be missing something?

66

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I didn’t see the clip. Couldn’t really care less what Glenn Beck said. What, he said Obama was a racist?

Yes, nothing like the modern day liberal and his “tolerance” for expression or even possession of opinions he doesn’t agree with.

Boo-hoo, an opinion was expressed that you don’t agree with. The person responsible should be fired.

I laughed, and I rarely laugh when reading. If I knew your address I’d send you a cold 6 pack of Pabst and some hot wings.

I laughed just as hard when I thought about how you attacked homosexuality as a crime against nature in a post. Is that an example of the tolerant republican way? Or is it an example of “treating others the way we want to be treated”? Of course in that case you can’t fire a homosexual, you send them straight to hell to burn for eternity. Am I right Brother Chris? Is this your tolerance you and your chum buddy Bill hold so dear?

Or is intolerance universal???[/quote]

It’s amazing, you have me all figured out in a little paragraph. Crime against nature, a little harsh I think, I merely suggested (give me a link where I said crime against nature) it was a sin by the Mosaic laws. How is stating that I merely believe homosexuality is unnatural, and is a sin make me intolerant?

I’m sorry how did I treat anyone that I have not stated I would not like to be treated? In my personal life I do not go around yelling out people’s sins, there is a chain of command of sorts for addressing someone that is living copious amounts of sin. Your hysteria is almost too much to understand what you are getting at.

“Of course in that case you can’t fire a homosexual, you send them straight to hell to burn for eternity.” What is this sentence supposed to indicate to me, something that I already know. That I cannot fire someone for being a homosexual? Who said homosexuals go to hell, I am not sure you actually understand my faith. Obviously you have learned a bastardised faith that you place on people because they claim to be Christians.

Chum buddy? I’m sorry, obviously my English needs to be brought up to date, what is a ‘chum buddy?’ I have only wrote Bill once, maybe twice. So, unless you know of an invitation from Bill to become drinking buddies or something.

I’m about as tolerant as they come, just because I disagree with people. Does not make me intolerant. When there is a debate, and people pull low blows that is when my patience is tested. If you have not figured out, is that I am for states rights, less federal government. If it was my choice there would be a constitution, a legislation, and a judicial branch. That’s it. With very few federal laws, the rest is placed on the states shoulders.

  • Brother

P.S. I’m not a Republican, check yourself, before you wreck yourself, foo!

67

On Friday, Shelby Steele, a conservative commentator, and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, had an editorial in the WSJ about the incident at 17 Ware Street. He likened Obama to Dr Strangelove:

[i]Where race is concerned, I sometimes think of the president as the Peter Sellers character in “Dr. Strangelove.” Sellers plays a closet Nazi whose left arm, quite involuntarily, keeps springing up into the Heil Hitler salute. We see him in his wheelchair, his right arm, the good and decent arm, struggling to keep the Nazi arm down so that no one will know the truth of his inner life. These wrestling matches between the good and bad arms were hysterically funny.

When I saw Mr. Obama - with every escape route available to him - wade right into the Gates affair at the end of his health-care news conference, I knew that his demon arm had momentarily won out over his good arm. It broke completely free, into full salute, in the “acted stupidly” comment that he made in reference to the Cambridge police’s handling of the matter. Here was the implication that whites were such clumsy and incorrigible racists that even the most highly achieved blacks lived in constant peril of racial humiliation. This was a cultural narrative, a politics, and in the end it was a bigotry. It let white Americans see a president who doubted them.

Mr. Obama’s “post-racialism” was a promise to operate outside of tired cultural narratives. But he has a demon arm of reflexive racial identity politics, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and now Skip Gates. You can only put a demon like this to death by finding out what you really believe. We should hold Mr. Obama to his post-racialism, and he should get to know himself well enough to tell us what he really means by it. As for the odd triad of Messrs. Gates, Crowley and Obama, only Mr. Crowley seems to have functioned outside his cultural narrative.[/i]

68

Perhaps it will help for clarification to note that many of those within a given part of the spectrum have a Newspeak version of the meaning of the word “intolerant.” To them, it means “holding or expressing an opinion which criticizes or disagrees with politically-correct opinion.”

If the OP operates under this definition, then this would explain quite a bit.

It would explain his insistence that Beck calling Obama a racist was intolerant, that my replies were intolerant, that various other posters replying and Republicans in general are intolerant for various reasons, and that he himself is not intolerant.

69

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps it will help for clarification to note that many of those within a given part of the spectrum have a Newspeak version of the meaning of the word “intolerant.” To them, it means “holding or expressing an opinion which criticizes or disagrees with politically-correct opinion.”

If the OP operates under this definition, then this would explain quite a bit.

It would explain his insistence that Beck calling Obama a racist was intolerant, that my replies were intolerant, that various other posters replying and Republicans in general are intolerant for various reasons, and that he himself is not intolerant.[/quote]

Intolerance of conservative viewpoints is a “politically correct” form of intolerance.

70

From their viewpoint – using their cause-serving Newspeak definition – it isn’t intolerance at all.

Thus, any such persons can’t even comprehend your statement. To them it is gibberish.

71

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps it will help for clarification to note that many of those within a given part of the spectrum have a Newspeak version of the meaning of the word “intolerant.” To them, it means “holding or expressing an opinion which criticizes or disagrees with politically-correct opinion.”

If the OP operates under this definition, then this would explain quite a bit.

It would explain his insistence that Beck calling Obama a racist was intolerant, that my replies were intolerant, that various other posters replying and Republicans in general are intolerant for various reasons, and that he himself is not intolerant.[/quote]

But isn’t there a degree of this among conservative mindsets as well???

And just for the record…in case it’s not obvious…I totally understand your points on “intolerance.” I’m asking a honest question for your honest perspective. I’m trying to expand my mind.

72

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps it will help for clarification to note that many of those within a given part of the spectrum have a Newspeak version of the meaning of the word “intolerant.” To them, it means “holding or expressing an opinion which criticizes or disagrees with politically-correct opinion.”

If the OP operates under this definition, then this would explain quite a bit.

It would explain his insistence that Beck calling Obama a racist was intolerant, that my replies were intolerant, that various other posters replying and Republicans in general are intolerant for various reasons, and that he himself is not intolerant.

But isn’t there a degree of this among conservative mindsets as well??? [/quote]

I’m not going to deny that many high profile conservative commentators like Glenn Beck are intolerant, but they aren’t trying to be poster children for political correctness. In my opinion Shelby Steele is in a much better position to call Obama a racist than Beck.

73

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Allow me to be more direct with my quotation.

“if this man isn’t fired for just throwing around the term “racist”, it signifies either a general lack of mindfulness in the American population or a cultural collapse.”

I’m sorry, I took this as a call to action rather than just the anecdotal notation of an societal indicator I hope you can understand how I got the idea you wanted him silenced and hence thought you intolerant.

I would also like to note that the way you related the beck rant and his so called intolerance to the “conservative media” is what began the left vs. right nature of the thread.

“To me, this clip shows deep seeded distrust, hatred, and almost outward aggression from the conservative media rather than one mans opinion of the president.”

You pretty much accused conservatives of intolerance and “seeded distrust, hatred, and almost outward aggression”, or at least that is the way it sounded to me. If you don’t want a confrontational political ideology debate, I would start with accusations like that. I’d also like to note I never so much as commented on that part of the debate until now.

Lastly as far as I know bills retorts about dems has been nothing more than a rebuttal of your initial accusation about conservatives and the hypocrisy of the statement. And once again if you don’t want someone debating the point and your opinion, you shouldn’t post the statement to begin with.

I will admit that the first quote is a bit instigative, however I think that if katy kouric called Bush a Racist on Live t.v. without substantial proof that she should be fired. It’s irresponsible reporting and is heavily biased, nuff said.

And no, I accused the conservative media of “deep seeded mistrust”. I couldn’t possibly accuse Joe shmoe republican of being hateful, it’s not right. Fox News is about the shadiest most irresponsible reporting there is due to guys like Beck who make wild claims that are almost impossible to prove. He can think whatever he wants, but it is irresponsible to broadcast an unprovable accusation on the news.

This was not intended to be a “left vs. right” thread, but more of a “I think the aggression of left Vs. Right stems from this D bag in the clip”.
You have to remember that a lot of conservative America doesn’t interact with real Dems ever, which I think is socially harmful to America. And that’s why people like Beck have such an important role, to responsibly cast the news without bias or to at least offer other perspectives.

Personally, I think the role of a journalist should be to ask, seek out, and identify all possible answers to a topic before personally weighing in. Guys like beck or O’reilly scoff and shout off ideas different than the ones they’ve thought for years.[/quote]

I’m glad you admit you are the only one putting words in others mouths.
No, I don’t think media personalities ever labeled bush a racist, that I’m aware, however, I don’t believe there was ever any evidence to support a claim like that. There is in this case.
Further, would you like to go over some of the things media personalities DID call bush? Do you really want to make the claim that the liberal media networks wouldn’t make unsubstantiated harsh accusations about a sitting president? Really? Did you miss the last 4 years or so? Where you running around saying the left wing guys calling bush a liar, or stupid, or incompetent should be fired?

Katie happens to be one of the most biased reporters on the air by the way. Currently she is essentially and obama spokesman. The difference is that she still pretends to be an unbiased reporter for the news and people like you actually think you are getting unbiased coverage for her.

Second, Oâ??rielly really isnâ??t that biased. He is ruff with everyone on his show. Iâ??m sure you didnâ??t realize it, but he actually holds a good many liberal positions. Iâ??m sure you donâ??t know because you already made up your mind about him. He certainly isnâ??t as bad as olberman or Mathews or even couric or rosenburg.

The other problem with your logic is that being partisan requires 2 sides. You repeatedly are laying the blame on conservatives for the divide. by definition that isn’t even possible. Maybe itâ??s the liberal America doesnâ??t ever interact with any real republicans.

You certainly have a one sided view of these situations.

74

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps it will help for clarification to note that many of those within a given part of the spectrum have a Newspeak version of the meaning of the word “intolerant.” To them, it means “holding or expressing an opinion which criticizes or disagrees with politically-correct opinion.”

If the OP operates under this definition, then this would explain quite a bit.

It would explain his insistence that Beck calling Obama a racist was intolerant, that my replies were intolerant, that various other posters replying and Republicans in general are intolerant for various reasons, and that he himself is not intolerant.

But isn’t there a degree of this among conservative mindsets as well???

I’m not going to deny that many high profile conservative commentators like Glenn Beck are intolerant, but they aren’t trying to be poster children for political correctness. In my opinion Shelby Steele is in a much better position to call Obama a racist than Beck.

[/quote]

I see your point…but to me…and to Bill…this is bigger than Beck’s comments. I’m more into the issue of intolerance in people expressing their opinions. However,I feel that Steele is really seeking the truth…whereas,Beck,was trying to be facetious for his own intents and purposes. I like this guy Steele…good honest thought and perspective.

76

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps it will help for clarification to note that many of those within a given part of the spectrum have a Newspeak version of the meaning of the word “intolerant.” To them, it means “holding or expressing an opinion which criticizes or disagrees with politically-correct opinion.”

If the OP operates under this definition, then this would explain quite a bit.

It would explain his insistence that Beck calling Obama a racist was intolerant, that my replies were intolerant, that various other posters replying and Republicans in general are intolerant for various reasons, and that he himself is not intolerant.

But isn’t there a degree of this among conservative mindsets as well???

And just for the record…in case it’s not obvious…I totally understand your points on “intolerance.” I’m asking a honest question for your honest perspective. I’m trying to expand my mind. [/quote]

Well, if you can (I have no knowledge whether you can or can’t) think of a person known as a conservative who is opposed to others being allowed to express or even hold the opinions they do, then that person would be intolerant in that regard, most definitely.

Who you might have in mind, I don’t know.

If you refer to the sense of not being willing to share social, political, or professional rights: If some given person categorized as a conservative has it that a single Constitutional or other right granted by law should be denied members of any other group, or that that should be so regarding political rights or access or ability to enter or do equally well in professions, then most certainly they’d be intolerant.

Who you might have in mind, I don’t know.

It can be an arguable point for some who operate from the viewpoint that not wanting special new “rights” to be created, tailored for and provided just for other groups constitutes denying them a right. But it’s not denying a right that anyone else now has. It’s just saying no new “right” has to, or should in their opinion, be created for that group.

For example, everyone already has the right to not be assaulted. There is already in place harsh legal penalty for those who assault anyone. But one or more groups want a special extra legal emphasis on them not being assaulted, and extra penalties for anyone who assaults them. There are conservatives – and non-conservatives – who are opposed to any such extra new right.

The same sort of person that would categorize as “intolerant” Beck’s calling Obama a racist would quite likely categorize the above as intolerant. They find the word, used their way, to make a nice weapon and a very effective means of moving any evaluation of ideas from the rational to the emotional.

Which is quite a sidetrack from whether Beck should be fired, or the general question of opposition by the politically-correct to expression or even the holding of opinions that they don’t like; but certainly a fair-enough question in its own right.

77

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps it will help for clarification to note that many of those within a given part of the spectrum have a Newspeak version of the meaning of the word “intolerant.” To them, it means “holding or expressing an opinion which criticizes or disagrees with politically-correct opinion.”

If the OP operates under this definition, then this would explain quite a bit.

It would explain his insistence that Beck calling Obama a racist was intolerant, that my replies were intolerant, that various other posters replying and Republicans in general are intolerant for various reasons, and that he himself is not intolerant.

But isn’t there a degree of this among conservative mindsets as well???

I’m not going to deny that many high profile conservative commentators like Glenn Beck are intolerant, but they aren’t trying to be poster children for political correctness. In my opinion Shelby Steele is in a much better position to call Obama a racist than Beck.

I see your point…but to me…and to Bill…this is bigger than Beck’s comments. I’m more into the issue of intolerance in people expressing their opinions. However,I feel that Steele is really seeking the truth…whereas,Beck,was trying to be facetious for his own intents and purposes. I like this guy Steele…good honest thought and perspective. [/quote]

It took Steele over a week to weigh in on the Gates incident, but his Opinion piece in the WSJ shows that he took his time formulating his thoughts. I’m reluctant to simply his point of view, but his contribution to the conversation about race is that minorities have learned to leverage “white guilt” to get themselves into a position of moral superiority. Unfortunately for Gates, Crowley didn’t neatly fall into that paradigm.

I first read an article by Steele in Harpers in the late 1980s. If you pm me with your email, I can forward you some interesting reading from the Harpers archives.

78

Let’s get this outta the way once and for all.

One of the very first posts I ever made in this PWI board was to declare right off the bat that I make absolutely no pretense to being broad minded and tolerant in the sense that those things are defined as today.

Everybody is intolerant… EVERYBODY… of something.

It is neither enlightened nor even possible to be universally tolerant and pretending to be so is the most nauseating demonstration of intellectual and moral dishonesty.

Everybody defines tolerance and intolerance largely as agreeing and disagreeing with them respectively. Anybody who denies this is an idiot or a liar or both. All this stumbling over one another in a meaningless competition for the gold medal in “tolerance” is a fruitless exercise for a prize that nobody can win.

I am tolerant of anybody expressing any opinion imaginable on any topic while I simultaneously reserve the right to express my utter intolerance for that opinion becoming policy.

There is plenty going on in this country of which I am utterly intolerant. Same with anybody else and it’s ridiculous to claim otherwise. BTW, this isn’t aimed at anybody in particular. I’m just getting whiplash looking back and forth, “you’re intolerant, no… you are” on and on. Every frickin body is.

79

Yes, the usage of “intolerant” as a weapon (by those who do so) in the manner that they do it has severe logical problems. Of course, really they use it so as to turn any consideration of a matter to the emotional.

So logic has nothing to do with it.

But let’s say that someone is so soft on criminals that they not only don’t want a death penalty for murder, and don’t want life sentences, but think there should be no imprisonment at all. Rather there should be therapy, care, and understanding for the murderer.

Now, I’m intolerant of murder. (I’m not intolerant of someone having or expressing an opinion such as the above, but of murder itself being practiced or not punished, I’m “intolerant.”)

They can just as validly – which is to say, not at all – argue, “Oh, he’s intolerant! Intolerance is always bad! Wanting murderers to be imprisoned is intolerant! Therefore they should not be imprisoned! That would be intolerant and we can’t have that!”

Emotionalizing issues in that manner is useful for those whose positions can’t stand up to rational discussion.

Thus, someone who doesn’t want to rationally discuss whether Obama is a racist but wants to condemn any expression of that idea will release and emotional satisfaction in just calling it “intolerant,” and therefore bad, for anyone to say that of Obama. Oooo, case closed!

(For them, and being Newspeak-programmed, they actually cannot understand why it isn’t now case-closed for everyone else as well. No problem: they just decide that to be “hate” and feel glad that they hold the positions they do and therefore are not haters. They are safe in their bubble which cannot be penetrated.)

There are reasons why those of a given part of the spectrum argue the way that they do. They may seem incomprehensible if not understanding the hows and whys of their, let us say, unique use of words.

80

I think the driving force behind Obama’s political career is black racial advancement.