Latent racism in the republican party?

I agree with this to a degree. What could lead to a disagreement on my part is trying to suss out what the guy meant or intended with his statement. If it was "merely" a racist attitude, then while I abhor the sentiment, he does have every right to say it. The problem is, someone can encourage, or even outright command violence without using clear, unambiguous statements to that effect.In an extreme case, if we have a conspiracy of people who are looking for an opening to cause someone harm, and have worked out a code to facilitate that goal, the lines become murkier. FOr instance, saying, "The geese are flying south," isn't, on the surface, a violent statement, but if the intention behind it is to send a message saying, "he's not protected, SHOOT!" then it is an inducement to violence. People showing up to healthcare debates with guns implies a willingness to do violence. The debate didn't even touch tangentially on the second amendment, there were more than enough security forces to forestall violence, so what was the purpose of the guns? The people who carried them said they had no violent intentions, but it is easy to see how others would get the wrong impressions and react violently to the sight.The problem is trying to figure out the intention or probable outcome of a particular instance of speech. We should err on the side of freedom, except when to do so would allow undue potential peril to others. Where emotions are high and people begin to act less rationally, the potential for violence goes way up, so the standards of protected speech should tighten up to try and forestall such violence. I don't want to stop people from believing how they wish. I want to stop people from acting in such a way that violence is the probable or intended outcome.My view on most things is "People should be free to do as they wish as long as their actions do not infringe on this right in others." Violence is a strong infringement of others' rights and as such, should be quelled before it happens.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Yes, and there are statutes for that too, like, inciting a riot. Mentioning somebody's middle name in a rather snarky way, I don't think, qualifies. Which is fine, so long as we have credible evidence pointing to the fact that "the geese are flying south" is actually code for some nefarious act and not based upon hearsay. Well, that in and on if itself is an illegal act. So based upon that it is an arrestable offense. Agreed, as long as it is done within the confines of the law. Agreed.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

Hang on there. I said rallies, I didn't say the republican party itself.McCain/Palin rallies attracted a lot of racists. In fact, some of these rallies seemed to have nothing but people yelling out vile racist speeches. The fact that neither McCain nor Palin... nor anyone else in the republican party stood up and condemned these vile outbursts.Is the republican party racist? I don't know. May be, may be not. But they certainly did encourage racism through silence and enjoyed the support that came from it. I did not make any sweeping allegations at all.Let me boil it down to you. Do you or do you not agree that people were yelling out vile racist comments at McCain/Palin rallies? Do you not agree that not once did McCain nor Palin said anything to condemn these outbursts? Well, blatant racism is certainly a lot easier to point out. But in this day and age nobody, except for rednecks, is stupid enough to make it obvious that they're racist. In this day and age, racism and other forms of bigotry primarily exist in subtle forms like micro-agressionism and silently promoting rednecks' vile outbursts.The first step toward treating a disease is recognizing that it's there. You're seriously comparing what Wright said to "white folks" yelling out death to Obama and referring to him as a monkey? Is this the twilight zone where you can't recognize the difference?If anything, Wright's attitude came from residual affects of segregation and other institutionalized racism in this country. White folks have absolutely no excuse to feel that way.

As far as I know, it wasn't illegal and no one was arrested. It took place in a state (not sure which off the top of my head) where it is legal to carry guns like that.

Arizona. Not illegal.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Unlike mine, your aluminum cap must have quick release snaps for easy removal. 1. ??? Since you ALREADY have CONCEDED the BBC is NOT a paragon of non-bias, how do you flatly declare I am wrong about BBC's ethics?2. I am also sure at least SOME WWII German soldiers were just as young (ish), highly educated, middle class, articulate and relatively idealistic as your acquaintances at the BBC. Hardly a compelling argument for anything.3. Regarding the BBC world service vision statement you provided: Yeah, it's a very nice and warm and fuzzy vision statement, . . . but ultimately circular argument: "We are ethical because we say we are ethical"? Not sure why you bothered to include this filler material.4. From your link: BBC World Service | Inside BBC Journalism | Independence Oh brother, such BBC BS. The evidence shows otherwise . . .Here is a specific rebuttal about their false claim of non-bias (please read entire link for full context, too long to post here): Oil For The Killing Machine - The BBC On Iraq
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.CONCLUSION: OK, ultimately, It seems we may have a case of nuance/grey . . . Yeah, I admit, like America's New York Times who also sometimes reports honest exposes, so too does the BBC. I declare I watch the BBC on PBS everyday for its international news, something which is severely lacking in US news. But the BBC, "NOT being a paragon of non-bias", should at least make one SOMEWHAT skeptical of everything they report.Yet, from your two posts, you seem quite trusting about the BBC. I (while not quite an Oregon anarchist extremist) am less trusting. Compare yours and my levels of trust to Britney Spears quote: Finally, please read another example below to support my argument. Perhaps then, as a supposed co-wearer of aluminum cap attire, you can see both sides and declare a more reasonable stalemate of opinions instead of victory: The BBC, Afghanistan and the limits of acceptable criticism
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22316

Dronester who are you saying that the BBC is a "propaganda weapon" for exactly? I don't really see how it can be a "propaganda weapon" for the British government (as you implied in your previous post via links, title etc. etc.) or anyone else when:1) The people that produce, write and edit the programming content are blissfully unaware that this is what they are supposed to be doing. And so don't do it. I have already supplied you with a series of links detailing the vitriolic conflict between the BBC and the UK government over the Iraq war. Yet you have not even acknowledged these facts.2) It keeps pissing off, embarrassing and damaging the credibility of successive governments no matter which side of the political spectrum happens to be in power.So who exactly is the BBC a propaganda weapon for? Answer me that.
If you are simply telling me that the BBC employs and is run by slightly liberal white middle class and rather conventional Western European media types, and that it's content reflects that cultural bias to some (or even a large) extent then I really don't see what we are disagreeing about. Because that is exactly what I was telling you.
I wouldn't look to the BBC to declare the righteousness of Al-Queda any more than I would look to it to incite a communist revolution in Britain. But so what? That doesn't make it a mouthpiece for the government. There is no such thing as 100% unbiased news. Even if only the facts are reported without opinion what facts and what stories still have to be decided upon by someone. The BBC is probably about the most trusted international news source in the world. Listened to by millions, especially at times of conflict and war. Often trusted over and above more local sources of information. Is it perfect? No. But if you take into account the inevitable cultural bias that any news agency must have simply by virtue of the fact it has to be derived from and based somewhere, then the BBC is probably about as "free" and "fair" as one could realistically expect. The fact that it is both a non-government and non-commercial broadcasting entity should be celebrated by those of us in the aluminium hat wearing brigade. Not derided. All quotes taken from: BBC News - WikipediaSo what exactly is your argument? What exactly are we disagreeing on here? Who is the BBC a "propaganda weapon" for? And why do those (yes some of them people I know personally) making the programming content not seem to realise that this is their true purpose and role in life? Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and add extra link.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hey Straggler,I think your Message 29 initially confused me. You started in agreement, "I get what your saying . . . " and agreed the BBC is not completely without bias. But ended with a flat-out declaration that I was wrong. Huh? HA!!! Since Message 29, we amended/clarified our statements to include positions from both sides of the "argument". So I think we are now, evidently, somewhat in agreement (sorry). If you want to abandon our now rather flaccid "debate", that's fine with me. if not . . .I dislike when posters do not respond to my specific questions. Therefore I try my best to be as complete as possible. Yet, you believe I didn't fully and specifically answer all your questions. Maybe. Please allow me to try again:1. You're still asking the wrong question. As I paraphrased to you in another thread, the question SHOULD be "who is the BBC NOT serving?"ANSWER: Iraqi, Falujah victims of war and hegemony; Israel, Palestinian women and children of oppression and war profits; Kosovo victims of expanding NATO and the "credibility" of NATO; history's truth; etc (see below for supporting links). How I wish people would consider the victims FIRST.2. Yes, I did (indirectly). . . Err, good job supporting your argument with supporting links, Straggler.3. C'mon Straggler, . . . you know this is a loaded question based on your speculation/imagination. AND, it WAS already indirectly answered by my WWII German Soldiers hypothetical (Message 36).4. You're not using arguments from popularity, are you? Anyways, I'll now use links about BBC's complicity in the Falujah massacre to contest your "most trusted" assertion: The Tragic Blindness Of The Embedded BBC
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/...edded_BBC_Fallujah.htmlNOTE: The BBC uses embedded reporters fully ensuring a biased report. BBC Legitimises Mass Slaughter in Fallujah
BBC Legitimises Mass Slaughter in Fallujah - Occupation Woes on the World Crisis Web The BBC, Impartiality, and the Hidden Logic of Massacare
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/...of-massacare-part-i.html The BBC Rigour
Outlook India Magazine Online- Read News India, Latest News Analysis, World, Sports, Entertainment | Best Online Magazine IndiaIn addition to these supportive links to my argument, I don't believe you specifically/fully acknowleged MY previous links in Message 36:Oil For The Killing Machine - The BBC On Iraq
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.The BBC, Afghanistan and the limits of acceptable criticism
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22316Bottom line, you think the BBC is a highly trusted source, I don't. Seems like a debate hardly worthy of its time or bare fists that Oni has been scratching for.

Cultural bias and propaganda are not the same thing. I note that you are still unwilling or unable to state who exactly the BBC is a propaganda weapon for?If the BBC is a propaganda weapon for the British government it is an exceptionaly inept one. As well as claims by the previous conservative administration that the BBC's reporting of overeseas conflicts was "treasonous" the present government has been embroiled in highly public and deeply damaging rows with the BBC over it's reporting of the Iraq conflict. Vitriolic exchanges that resulted in a judicial enquiry, threats of further legal action and the eventual resignations of key players on both sides. It could also be argued that this row contributed to the eventual demise of a prime-minister.You keep presenting theoretical reasons from academics or rival journalists to "prove" that the BBC must be a government propaganda weapon. In response I keep demonstrating to you that the BBC acts in ways that are completely and utterly inconsistent with this claim in any practical sense.In addition I know for an absolute fact that people with a high degree of editorial input at the BBC are not operating under the sort of restrictions that would be necessary for your claims to be true. In fact I know that they would simply refuse to accept such restrictions and would walk out of their jobs if forced to work under such conditions. Almost certainly making very public their reasons for doing so should this ever actually occur.So given that no links you can possibly supply are ever going to convince me that people I actually know are part of a government propaganda conspiracy and given that your aluminium helmet is welded to your head so tightly that you probably think that even I have some small role in your assumed conspiracy, I really am not sure that we can take this discussion any further.If you are seeking a news source that is devoid of any cultural bias at all then I wish you luck. However if you can cope with a very moderately liberal middle of the road pro-democracy, pro-free-speech, Western value dominated attempt at political impartiality within wide but fairly rigid cultural boundaries of acceptability from a source that considers it's independence from government and commercial interests as key to it's own integrity, then you could do a lot worse than tune into the BBC. Whether it is rightly trusted given it's undeniable cultural bias is a matter of opinion and context. But it is a fact that at times of war and conflict people around the world do tune into the BBC for what they apparently believe is a more trustworthy source of information than most. Independent surveys bear this out. Both with regard to Middle Eastern countries specifically and worldwide news more generally. See here for results on both: INFOSAT - Alles aus der digitalen Welt | You wrote the subtitle of this conversation "BBC=Propaganda Weapon". But you seem desperately unable to justify it. I'll ask you one last time as you still haven't answered despite me repeatedly asking - Who exactly is the BBC a propaganda weapon for? Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If bringing this up is a bad idea then sorry, I love to talk about race, racism, the crazy perception people have about it. 1. Give me a break, calling someone Dubya, has nothing to do with the letter W. If Hussein is so horrible then why does he keep the name? He obviously uses it himself.
2. saying a middle name is not emphasizing it no matter what you think. What you think about Muslims and their ability as Americans is your business, but I know and work with a few Muslims and I think you are incorrect (I prefer to refer to them by nationality as opposed to religion anyway, as they are Afghani-Americans, and Kurdish-Americans, long before I even think of their religion). You assume to much.
3. Using Hussein is not racist. What race are people named Hussein in your opinion? I think you answered your own question. Dubya sounds southern to me, yet you are the one who brings up the term redneck, and then asks if it is out of ignorance? There you go again. What exactly is a redneck rally can you provide an example? So far I keep seeing the double standard of they are bad but we are good. You want me to perceive people as rednecks, and see how bad they are, but you are the one that is using ad hominem against groups that you do not agree with. Can anyone else see the irony here!?! What was so racist about those people? Was it because they are white? What is your reasoning other than the name calling against those with an opposing view like Perdition is a fan of? Isn’t this place all about evidence? Let’s see some. Word. Sweet I am not alone. I can see you are about hypothetical claims and base assumptions. If you have a right to carry then you can. The 1st amendment is no more sacred than the 2nd, or the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. I carry at Starbuck’s, and the Grocery store, and in national parks, and all over the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is not illegal, and regardless of how you FEEL, what you continue to assume about other people not like yourself, does not make it so. I think there are only 7 states and DC that prevent open carry. Examples? I am not sure, as I did not hear much of them, but me assuming they did because you seem to think so is not going to happen. It seems obvious to me who is making blatant disparaging remarks about a group of people and who is not. This really couldn’t get any funnier than this quote above. I guess I am the only one who sees the irony here. It sure isn’t very subtle. Lulz! Interesting, the double standard of George W. Bush as a Chimp, or Colin Powell as an ape, is just humorous, yet calling Obama one (without the photo-shop) is racist, very interesting indeed? How is it not racist if the target is republican, but racist if the target is democrat? Please I would love to hear these mental gymnastics!Edited by Artemis Entreri, : poor proof reading ability

and he is us." I believe that one of the biggest problems the ignorant American public has is our own ignorance. On a daily basis I run across people who honestly believe the propaganda from whatever talk radio or FOX news pundit they are listening to. I am at times mortified at some of the things our elected officials say and do. I am convinced more and more our government is becoming increasingly feckless. So polarized that nothing of any importance or substance gets accomplished. Yes, racism is alive and well here in America. To quote a song:
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Artemis says: I'm trying to remember who called Powell an ape. Can you refresh my memory? That is not funny at all. That is racist.Now calling Bush the Chimpler is not racist, because Bush is a WM whose ears gave that exaggerated characterization without reference to his racial characteristics.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

can you please explain this double standard to me? As I have learned here on the science threads, black people and white people are basically two different colored morphs of the same species, they have the same genetics, same building blocks, and so on. Basically it has not been proven that we are seprerate races.How is it RACIST that Homo sapiens A (darker colored ones) is compared a primate philogenic cousin? Yet when Homo sapiens B (lighter colored ones) is compared to a philogenic cousin, it is not racist, but just humorous?Are you a double standardizing scientist? or are you a creationist, who does believe in the "races" of humanity?

Racists come in all walks of life, and both of the major parties in the US attract racists. It's an inevitable fact. No, like anything else, you could find racists hiding amongst Republicans and Democrats. That of course does not mean that the parties are therefore racist. You know, there are black, latino, asian, and gay Republicans. Irrelevant. You could hear racial epithets at an Obama speech and his supporters too. All that matters is what the politician believes, not what some fringe supporter believes. Spare me the white guilt. Racism is racism. Period. Again, all that matters is what the candidate believes, as far as I'm concerned.Shit, our own Vice President, Biden, the human gaffe machine, uttered some very racist comments about Indian Americans. I suggest you check it out via YouTube.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

So what, though? Yeah, it's racist. The pertinent question is what do you want do about it? That's speech; ugly speech, but speech nonetheless.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal