Racist? Give me a break

Post by **vison** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:29 pm

feredir wrote:Few will follow Jimmy Carter because he is not respected. You need to find someone who is respected by the middle of the road Americans. Those who I noted above that have no stomach for politics but want to help make this issue a smaller one (it will never be erased). I have no idea who this person is but I still say it starts at the local level where there are fewer agendas.

freddy

Not respected? Freddy, I have news for you: Mr. Carter is hugely respected. I suppose he's a prophet without honour in his own land, though. I can tell you, he's not perceived as a weakling or a failure in most countries of the world. He's seen as a rational and humane man.

Racism is ugly and the only thing that will serve to lessen it is to keep the discussion out in the sunlight. Stuff like that shrivels in the light of day and grows in the dark. I agree with Freddy that it should start from the ground up.

But I can also say I was extremely saddened and discouraged to hear from friends of mine that he's unfit to be president because he's a n!gger, probably a Muslim, soft on terror, etc. These aren't troglodytes living in some southern abyss, these are what I thought were ordinary decent Washingtonians and Oregonians.

And I won't even bring the guys from Utah into the discussion.

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:31 pm

I have no idea who this person is but I still say it starts at the local level where there are fewer agendas.

Freddy, I understand what you're saying, after all, the civil rights movement started with individual actors, but I am perplexed as to why you seem to give a free pass to Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh say and imply about our president. Can you explain?

edit: I agree Vison. I have a coworker who had to write back to somebody to get off her email list. This somebody was sending around shocking racist rants about Obama to her large email list.

This kind of nasty hate speech is running around largely underground.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:45 pm

from Freddy

Few will follow Jimmy Carter because he is not respected. You need to find someone who is respected by the middle of the road Americans.

Jimmy Carter not respected?!?!?!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8938/histori ... dents.aspx

A 200 Gallup poll shows that 70 % of the American public has a positive approval rating of Carter while only 27% view him unfavorably. 70% covers a lot of people including that middle of the road you cited.

Post by **feredir** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:40 pm

vison, I do not see Pres. Carter as being respected when viewed as a sitting president. I personally believe he did more good when he left office than when he was in office. However, I will admit that I was under the age of ten when he was in office.

SF, using the poll you cited. Pres. Bush was only 3% lower than Pres. Carter in favorability. Pres. Carter was viewed 5% less favorable than Pres. Bush. Plus his overall job approval was 18% lower than Pres. Bush. If you read the entire thing it really points to the fact that Pres. Carter is viewed less favorably than Pres. G. W. Bush. Whom is greatly hated by the left.

El, I am not giving them a pass. They are responsible for their actions. If you venture to the thread about talk show hosts you will see that I don't really listen to Rush and often listen to Hannity. I have never heard anything, when taken completely in context, that was racial from Hannity. I have never listened to Beck.

I do not generally go to the links that are supplied here, or anywhere for that matter, because they generally don't paint the entire picture. As a cop I have learned that you cannot jump to conclusions based on a snapshot of the situation.

freddy

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:44 pm

Freddy --- I am not going to quibble about who has higher or lower numbers.... when 70% of the people say they have a favorable opinion about Jimmy Carter, that shows people respect him.

For what it is worth, I thought Carter was pretty much a failure as President. He is the only Democratic candidate for president that i did not vote for when he ran for re-election in 1980. His stance of the Olympic games on top of everything else just turned me off from him. Since the years he has left office he has probably conducted himself in a far more dignified way than any former president in the modern era. For whatever reason - in office or out of office - a 70% favorable rating is very good.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:56 pm

I also didn't vote for Carter in 1980. But he has gone on to do a lot of good work in the world, for Habitat for Humanity and promoting fair elections worldwide, among others. He seems to be widely respected.

Post by **feredir** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:30 pm

Ok, back on point and my fault. Where do we go and what do we do?

freddy

Post by **Erunáme** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:06 pm

feredir wrote:Thank you Voronwë, it always bothered me. It was simply a way to demean what the purpose was.

freddy

Except for the fact that the people identified themselves with that name. It wasn't the left-wing blogosphere that came up with that name...it was the people taking part. I specifically remember Rachel Maddow doing a segment on it, calling attention to the fact that those people had absolutely no clue what sexual connotation the word had.

Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:49 pm

Erunáme wrote:
feredir wrote:Thank you Voronwë, it always bothered me. It was simply a way to demean what the purpose was.

freddy
Except for the fact that the people identified themselves with that name. It wasn't the left-wing blogosphere that came up with that name...it was the people taking part. I specifically remember Rachel Maddow doing a segment on it, calling attention to the fact that those people had absolutely no clue what sexual connotation the word had.

That is true (so far as I know), Eru. But what is also true is that once the people in the Tea Party movement learned that it had a sexual connotation they stopped using it altogether, and since that time it has ONLY been used by the the left-wing blogosphere as an insulting term.

Post by **Erunáme** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:58 pm

I can't say I feel any sympathy whatsoever given the outrageous vitriol they've spewed.

I agree with Ax.

Personally I was very glad to hear President Carter's statement. We need visible, respected persons calling that sort of stuff out.

Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:24 am

Some have spewed vitriol; many have just tried to express legitimate concerns. In any event, insulting terms are not allowed here, so please don't use that one. If anyone wants to discuss that with me further, feel free to PM me, or to start a thread in Henneth Annûn. Any further discussion of the subject will be moved there or removed.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:01 am

Ok, back on point and my fault. Where do we go and what do we do?

freddy

Excellent question. Allow me to then begin with you. Are you willing to admit that there has been a long history of instititutional racism in America that has resulted in minorities being born into and living under unequal conditions in the USA which directly has negative impact upon their lives and those negative effects are still felt today in 2009?

Post by **anthriel** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:00 am

sauronsfinger wrote:
Ok, back on point and my fault. Where do we go and what do we do?

freddy
Excellent question. Allow me to then begin with you. Are you willing to admit that there has been a long history of instititutional racism in America that has resulted in minorities being born into and living under unequal conditions in the USA which directly has negative impact upon their lives and those negative effects are still felt today in 2009?

Um, I am not freddy, but if I were asked this question, I would say yes. Of course.

But I also feel a real sense of euphoria when I realize how far we have come. When we can go from "blacks in the back of the bus" to "Mr. Obama, president of the USA" in ONE generation, we need to take a moment to be proud of our country. I am.

The racist comments directed at our president sadden me a great deal. It saddens me that apparently most people feel a Muslim candidate would not be a viable possibility for president. We definitely have a long way to go.

But we really have come a long, long way. We are doing something right, as a society, even though we are still doing some things very wrong.

Post by **feredir** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:21 pm

SF, I am actually offended by your question. If you have read my posts I have said several times that I have no place for racism. Even a racist will say racism is, and has been, a problem in the country, however they will rationalize it.

Are the current laws that were put into place to counter racial hiring practices and college acceptance still needed (EEOC and Affirmative Action)?

freddy

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:13 pm

Freddy - my question to you was in no way meant to offend but to take the next step that you suggested.

It is my feeling that there is a divide here which prevents any actual discussion of this subject, let alone a resolution of it. That divide is created by two beliefs which exclude the possibility of the other as being valid.

Conservatives keep pointing to the behavior, life styles and attitudes of minorities, especially African Americans, as the reason for the poor condition of that group compared to whites.

Liberals point to the long standing practice of institutional racism and white entitlement that has a profound negative impact on the lives of African Americans.

Both want to pretend that the other is not valid or does not exist. You asked

Where do we go and what do we do?

freddy

Which is a great question and an opening to start this discussion. In direct response to that I asked you

Are you willing to admit that there has been a long history of instititutional racism in America that has resulted in minorities being born into and living under unequal conditions in the USA which directly has negative impact upon their lives and those negative effects are still felt today in 2009?

Unless we are willing to challenge basic assumptions at the core of this problem, we will go nowhere except deeper and deeper into the mud.

you asked me this question

Are the current laws that were put into place to counter racial hiring practices and college acceptance still needed (EEOC and Affirmative Action)?

If you could give me a specific example of which exact law or specific program you are talking about I will be happy to give you an honest answer.

Post by **feredir** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:33 pm

SF, something that I think will help is if we stop looking at this from a liberal/conservative point of view. There are racists on both ends of the political spectrum and everywhere in between. This is a societal issue not a political issue.

I think it starts with "you" (meaning each individual person not you, "SF"). I was raised with "mild" racial tones. An example of this was that when I referred to a black person I would say colored. I had no idea that this was offensive because that was what I had heard. Finally, someone said "Hey, that's offensive" and I immediately changed my ways. Why? Because I knew it was demeaning to the other person and really didn't think we were different. Lali and I raise our daughters in this fashion, don't judge a person based on how God created them. I take it the next step and when talking about something at work, I don't mention the race of the person as I was dealing with because it really doesn't matter.

I will point to something I have seen, not at my PD but others (we meet the quota set), is hiring of minorities. The best and most qualified person has been passed over because he/she was not a minority and the city needed to meet the quota set by the Federal Government for minority employees.

freddy

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:34 pm

Why do you think we have a system which sometimes results in this......

The best and most qualified person has been passed over because he/she was not a minority and the city needed to meet the quota set by the Federal Government for minority employees.

Post by **feredir** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:05 pm

We all know why this is in place, racism.

My questions stands unanswered because you cannot answer a question with a question because then all you are doing is asking questions and not getting answers.

freddy

Post by **axordil** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:11 pm

The best and most qualified person has been passed over because he/she was not a minority and the city needed to meet the quota set by the Federal Government for minority employees.

I'll spell it out: this policy exists to balance the previous de facto policy in many jurisdictions of NEVER hiring a minority employee, period, no matter their qualifications. That policy was in place for a century. Seems fair to me for this one to go that long.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:29 pm

Freddy ... I would love to continue this discussion and give you an honest answer .... could you please tell me what is the question you are asking of me?