The Usual Suspects Prepare To Lynch Obama

[boloboffin]

The American Issues Project, makers of the recent smear ad lashing Obama to William Ayers, has plenty more rope (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302270.html) for the Democratic candidate.

A new group financed by a Texas billionaire and organized by some of the same political operatives and donors behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004 plans to begin running television ads attacking Barack Obama, a signal that outside groups may play a larger role than anticipated in the closing days of the presidential race.

The American Issues Project has amassed a multimillion-dollar fund, and the group is putting the final touches on an eleventh-hour campaign targeting the Democratic presidential nominee, sources said.

"We expect to be doing both issues and express advocacy between now and November and beyond," said Christian Pinkston, a spokesman for the group.

And just in time. McCain just entered public financing and Obama raised $66 million in August. Both candidates will have 527s pushing for them now, with the Post article mentioning the SEIU and MoveOn.org. However, the SEIU and MoveOn.org are organizations made up of and funded by many people. This group is primarily financed by one individual.

Expect things to get really nasty, real quickly. Yes, deride me for the title I chose, but you know as well as I that this group is going to make the Willie Horton ad look like Rockwell's painting of the little black girl going to school with her police escort.

[BenBurch]

"Lynch" is the right word. The racism at the very core of the American Right is what motivates this. They have to defeat Senator Obama, or they fear that they will have finally lost the Civil War.

No matter what they come up with, the reason is racism, the goal is racism, and they resort to this because they know they cannot get away with violence this time.

[Upchurch]

Here's my question. Slander, generally speaking, is hard to prove because you have to show actual damages. Arguably, the Swift Boat crowd did damage Kerry's presidential campaign with lies. Given that this is basically the same group and they are basically doing the same thing, would Obama have a legal case here?

[BenBurch]

Here's my question. Slander, generally speaking, is hard to prove because you have to show actual damages. Arguably, the Swift Boat crowd did damage Kerry's presidential campaign with lies. Given that this is basically the same group and they are basically doing the same thing, would Obama have a legal case here?

Yes, but one that could never be seen by a court for many years given the stalling tactics possible here. And it is VERY difficult to libel a politician given the wide latitude of NYT v Sullivan and other decisions protecting political speech.

Barring sending the goon squad out to silence these people physically, which we don't do any more in the USA, the best remedy to liars is speech spinning their lies into an embarrassment for McCain.

[Puppycow]

I disagree with the use of the word "lynch." "Smearing," "mudslinging," "swift-boating," or "slandering" are more accurate.

I'm of the opinion that sloppy and exagerrated use of the language is counterproductive.

[Drysdale]

"Lynch" is the right word. The racism at the very core of the American Right is what motivates this. They have to defeat Senator Obama, or they fear that they will have finally lost the Civil War.

No matter what they come up with, the reason is racism, the goal is racism, and they resort to this because they know they cannot get away with violence this time.


Geez, And I thought it could'nt get any more ludicrous.

[boloboffin]

I disagree with the use of the word "lynch." "Smearing," "mudslinging," "swift-boating," or "slandering" are more accurate.

I'm of the opinion that sloppy and exagerrated use of the language is counterproductive.

I want the AIP to explain the difference between what they are doing metaphorically and what generations of white people did to black people in the south.

And we haven't even seen the ads yet, Puppycow. I repeat: I predict that they will make the Horton ads look like a Tyler Perry movie. They have from now until November to prove me wrong. Would you like to get in on the opposite side of that prediction?

:)

[applecorped]

I want the AIP to explain the difference between what they are doing metaphorically and what generations of white people did to black people in the south.

And we haven't even seen the ads yet, Puppycow. I repeat: I predict that they will make the Horton ads look like a Tyler Perry movie. They have from now until November to prove me wrong. Would you like to get in on the opposite of that prediction?

:jaw-dropp

[boloboffin]

:jaw-dropp

I know. I hate it when I miss a noun.

[RandFan]

I started a thread on these idiots smearing Obama. I find this kind of politicking disgusting. It's a good thing that we are the good guys and wouldn't stoop to this. Let's all give ourselves a pat on the back.

[applecorped]

I know. I hate it when I miss a noun.

That's not all your missing.

[Brainster]

Here's my question. Slander, generally speaking, is hard to prove because you have to show actual damages. Arguably, the Swift Boat crowd did damage Kerry's presidential campaign with lies. Given that this is basically the same group and they are basically doing the same thing, would Obama have a legal case here?

There is a much higher bar to prove slander/libel against public figures than against private figures, for good reason. And if you look at the very first AIP ad, it does not appear to me to be slanderous:

m89m0pC_bpY

About the only think you could argue is that Obama and Ayers have never claimed to be friends. But Ayers did what the ad says, and Obama did refer to him on his site as "respectable", and they did serve on a left-wing board together.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"Lynch" is the right word. The racism at the very core of the American Right is what motivates this. They have to defeat Senator Obama, or they fear that they will have finally lost the Civil War.

No matter what they come up with, the reason is racism, the goal is racism, and they resort to this because they know they cannot get away with violence this time.

http://brands.kraftfoods.com/koolaid/KoolSpace/downloads/kool_wallpaper1_800x600.jpg

Hotlink removed.

[boloboffin]

That's not all your missing.

Really? A sense of perspective, you mean?

I've already seen one of their ads, the one Brainster posted here. I'm quite confident in my prediction based on that ad. Time will tell.

[Upchurch]

About the only think you could argue is that Obama and Ayers have never claimed to be friends. But Ayers did what the ad says, and Obama did refer to him on his site as "respectable", and they did serve on a left-wing board together.
I wasn't referring to any one ad. Given their previous success, I doubt they'll stop with this.

If they get as bad as they did with Kerry, would they meet that bar?

[novice skeptic]

However, the SEIU and MoveOn.org are organizations made up of and funded by many people. This group is primarily financed by one individual.



Oh and that makes such a huge difference in the moral degeneration of the smears I'm sure.

[Whiplash]

Lynch is not even remotely appropriate. It's 100% pure rhetoric.

[RandFan]

Lynch is not even remotely appropriate. It's 100% pure rhetoric. A light shines. :)

[Upchurch]

Lynch is not even remotely appropriate. It's 100% pure rhetoric.

A light shines. :)

I don't understand what you guys are getting at. Rhetoric (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric) is the art of speaking effectively. How could "lynch" not be remotely appropriate if it is 100% effective in relating boloboffin's meaning?

Do you mean that it is overly theatrical or hyperbolic?

[Bob Klase]

I don't understand what you guys are getting at. Rhetoric (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric) is the art of speaking effectively. How could "lynch" not be remotely appropriate if it is 100% effective in relating boloboffin's meaning?

Are you sure his meaning wasn't "insincere or grandiloquent language"? That's also a definition. And it's one of the definitions in your own link.

Perhaps he meant this one from

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/rhetoric;_ylt=AuIw0HERLSC4UaqMyRNwagesgMMF

Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous

[Upchurch]

Are you sure his meaning wasn't "insincere or grandiloquent language"? That's also a definition. And it's one of the definitions in your own link.
It is, but is it an appropriate definition for this case? I think it is clear from the context that boloboffin was using the term metaphorically, not insincerely. Certainly not purely 100% insincerely.

[BenBurch]

"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

More rhetoric? Or when it happens to a Conservative doesn't it count?

[RandFan]

I don't understand what you guys are getting at. Rhetoric (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric) is the art of speaking effectively. How could "lynch" not be remotely appropriate if it is 100% effective in relating boloboffin's meaning? In this context the rhetoric is sophistry. "Lynch" is a loaded word. Rhetorically it is very effective as it appeals to our fears and our contempt of racists and some of our worst traditions. Clarance Thomas famously used it to his benefit during his confirmation hearings.

The nut jobs attacking Obama aren't doing anything that they didn't do to Kerry. It's wrong but it's not racist anymore than swift-boating was.

I would think the word appropriate to use (rhetorically) if they were attacking Obama because of his race.

[RandFan]

More rhetoric? Or when it happens to a Conservative doesn't it count?It was spurious then and it is spurious now.

[BenBurch]

... I would think the word appropriate to use (rhetorically) if they were attacking Obama because of his race.

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated? That the smears we have seen here about Obama wanting to get "Whitey" were absolutely isolated and represent none of those supporting and funding the attacks on Obama?

[applecorped]

More rhetoric? Or when it happens to a Conservative doesn't it count?

Yes, more rhetoric.

[Drudgewire]

LYNCHING??!! Are you :rule10ing kidding me???

See you guys after the election. Unreal.

[Upchurch]

In this context the rhetoric is sophistry.
Debatable, but still possible. I don't think that is a given in this case.

"Lynch" is a loaded word. Rhetorically it is very effective as it appeals to our fears and our contempt of racists and some of our worst traditions.
It is also a reminder of our past and our worst tendencies. Loaded terms are used because they are effective. They create imagery and are not, necessarily, intellectually vacuous or insincere. Using a loaded word does not automatically invalidate the argument.

The nut jobs attacking Obama aren't doing anything that they didn't do to Kerry. It's wrong but it's not racist anymore than swift-boating was.
You are taking the metaphor too literally. It is, after all, just a metaphor. In this case, the lynch mob (swift-boaters) are lynching (making untrue attacks on) the black people (Democratic nominees for President).

I would think the word appropriate to use (rhetorically) if they were attacking Obama because of his race.
Instead, they are attacking Obama and, previously, Kerry not because of the quality of people they are or what kind of President they would be but because they are the Democratic nominee for President and, therefore, worth attacking regardless the ethical or moral implications of the form of attack.

[RandFan]

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated? That the smears we have seen here about Obama wanting to get "Whitey" were absolutely isolated and represent none of those supporting and funding the attacks on Obama? Do you think we should paint everyone in opposition with the same brush? Do you believe that people should be guilty simply by association? Do you believe that if there is some truth to a stereotype that the stereotype is then justified?

[Upchurch]

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated? That the smears we have seen here about Obama wanting to get "Whitey" were absolutely isolated and represent none of those supporting and funding the attacks on Obama?
I have seen nothing indicating that is the case with this group. Have you?

[leftysergeant]

Do you on the right also feel that it was inappropriate for Clarence Thomas to call the efforts to block him a "high-tech lynching?"

(Just trying to determine whether we are serving gored ox for dinner.)

[RandFan]

Lefty, It was spurious then and it is spurious now.

[boloboffin]

Oh and that makes such a huge difference in the moral degeneration of the smears I'm sure.

I wasn't considering the morality of either side when I cited the size of the groups. Please curb your straw men.

All negative attack ads have to please an initial audience before anyone else sees them: the people paying for the ads to be made. When it's a large group, like MoveOn, the ads are subject to a number of people's ability to vote with their cash. Even in bubble atmospheres like MoveOn.org, that tends to temper the message to at least appeal to that large crowd. With AIP, there's only one money man that I know of. That tends to encourage a sense of excess to the final product.

Lynch is not even remotely appropriate. It's 100% pure rhetoric.

That remains to be seen.

Are you sure his meaning wasn't "insincere or grandiloquent language"? That's also a definition. And it's one of the definitions in your own link.

Perhaps he meant this one from

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/rhetoric;_ylt=AuIw0HERLSC4UaqMyRNwagesgMMF

I assure you that my language was not insincere, and if you consider lynching a reference of grandiloquence, well, there's not much I'll be able to do for you.

Let me explain the reasons why, from the already posted ad, I believe that this group is going to destroy the sleaze standard of any negative advertising in the country's history.

1. Audience size

This has two parts. One I've already mentioned above. The approval of the money guy means it's more prone to the failing of one person's worldview. The second is the end audience. Because of the substantial funding behind this group and the reach of the Internet, many more people will see this ad than have seen the negative ads of the past. They will be able to smear at will whatever heinous idea appeals to the prejudices of the funder, and lots of people are going to be exposed to it. So any sins are multipled.

2. The descent of the ad

All negative ads must reveal the heart of darkness embodied by the opponent. But there is a pacing to this. Conrad's novella makes this a slow, ponderous journey into the African wilds. The previous AIP bashes you about the head with shocking revelation after shocking revelation, all in under 30 seconds (I think, it may be a 60-second spot). The material in that ad could have been put into three different ads as a campaign, pacing the revelation and making the overall message much more effective.

This lack of proportion shows that Grand Guignol appeals to our donor here, and seeing that the first ad "did so well for them" I see no reason for them to temper their tone in the future. In fact, I expect them to get even more lurid.

3. Excessive production values

Even the composition of the visual elements of the ad speaks to this sense of excess. Compare that ad to the master ones coming from either of the campaigns (where the people funding the ads are hiring professionals trained to account for their own tastes in advertisment). The most striking thing to me are the various title cards. In the campaigns' ads, they are without exception clean, simple fonts, and usually one per ad (unless you see a newpaper article, which excuses the excess with context). And the titles are subtly flashy, but never overpowering the visual presentation of the material. The AIP ad is completely the opposite. It's being showy for the sake of being showy. Mr. Moneybags wants to know that his money is right there on the screen. So he gets overpowering fonts flying all over the frame.

All of this tells me that it's a vanity project. And when a rich person has his personal vanity on the line, there is little that can hold him back and precious few that might reason him out of his crusade. (Witness Episodes 1, 2, and 3). The premiere installment of the AIP ad gives me great confidence to say that this group is going to overshoot itself badly. The second ad will be the true test. They could show that they're learning, but I have no reason to think that they will.

Their excess is going to lead to the spotlight being on them, not on Obama, just the same as almost everyone here focused in on me and my pointed hyperbole. I could be wrong about them going for the race card in a over-the-top way, but at this stage of observation, I've got my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it. Google "Obama Waffle." Have you heard about the Obama monkey doll?

There are 50 days left in the campaign. You're not going to believe how much worse it gets. And I'm laying odds that it's this group that's going to get there. I can be wrong. Let's find out.

[RandFan]

Debatable, but still possible. I don't think that is a given in this case.

It is also a reminder of our past and our worst tendencies. Loaded terms are used because they are effective. They create imagery and are not, necessarily, intellectually vacuous or insincere. Using a loaded word does not automatically invalidate the argument.

You are taking the metaphor too literally. It is, after all, just a metaphor. In this case, the lynch mob (swift-boaters) are lynching (making untrue attacks on) the black people (Democratic nominees for President).

Instead, they are attacking Obama and, previously, Kerry not because of the quality of people they are or what kind of President they would be but because they are the Democratic nominee for President and, therefore, worth attacking regardless the ethical or moral implications of the form of attack.I'm not at all persuaded by your argument. I don't see how this kind of attack can be accurately called lynching. You wouldn't use the word "lynch" to describe what happened to Kerry, right? But it is ok just because Obama is black? I find that patronizing and insulting to blacks. If Obama were a Jew you would bring in some Godwin metaphor. Call it gassing or something.

I don't see it.

[Policenaut]

Good shock title. Nothing more.

[leftysergeant]

The comparative numbers of individuals making up the financialk base of a campaign may be said to make the difference between a movement of some size or an individual with more money than wisdom trying to buy an election.

[RandFan]

The comparative numbers of individuals making up the financialk base of a campaign may be said to make the difference between a movement of some size or an individual with more money than wisdom trying to buy an election.:rolleyes:

{sigh}

[Upchurch]

You wouldn't use the word "lynch" to describe what happened to Kerry, right?
Not only would I, I did. In my last post, for example.

I'm not at all persuaded by your argument.
Well, I'm not persuaded by your argument that a lynching metaphor must necessarily impart racist connotations. It could just be implying, as I believe it does in this case, irrational hatred of.

[RandFan]

Not only would I, I did. In my last post, for example.Sorry I missed. It's nonsense. Would you use the Holocaust for the same political purpose? Don't you think you are trivializing something that is rather significant for political ends?

Then again, tu quoque.

It could just be implying, as I believe it does in this case, irrational hatred of. "Irrational hatred"? I guess when it comes to politics nothing is off limits as far as speculation goes. If that's what you "believe" then I guess that is all that matters.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated?

You are definitely racist. You obviously don't think that anyone could oppose Obama on legitimate differences in beliefs. You've made it clear that you see only the color of Obamas skin and the color of his opponents skin.

[novice skeptic]

I wasn't considering the morality of either side when I cited the size of the groups. Please curb your straw men.


Your thread title is hyperbolic, irrational and clearly states your opinion that the right wing group is unethical. You point to an article that states that outside groups on both sides are gearing up to run attack ads.

By starting your following sentence with "however" you are clearly trying to distinguish the 2 efforts from each other:

"Both candidates will have 527s pushing for them now, with the Post article mentioning the SEIU and MoveOn.org. However, the SEIU and MoveOn.org are organizations made up of and funded by many people. This group is primarily financed by one individual."

A reasonable inference from the thread title, the "however" line and the disntiction drawn from it, and from the following sentence (about it getting "nasty") is that you believe the right wing groups are more unethical than the left wing ones.

I apologize if that wasn't your belief, and if you think that the outside groups mentioned in the article are all relatively equal in their sleaziness.

But I don't think that is what you meant, and since the only distinction you've explicitly stated in your post (and one that you felt necessary to add, since the cited source wasn't letting your side's groups off the hook) was about the size of the membership, I'll stand by my original post. There is no straw man.

[boloboffin]

Your thread title is hyperbolic, irrational and clearly states your opinion that the right wing group is unethical. You point to an article that states that outside groups on both sides are gearing up to run attack ads.

By starting your following sentence with "however" you are clearly trying to distinguish the 2 efforts from each other:

"Both candidates will have 527s pushing for them now, with the Post article mentioning the SEIU and MoveOn.org. However, the SEIU and MoveOn.org are organizations made up of and funded by many people. This group is primarily financed by one individual."

A reasonable inference from the thread title, the "however" line and the disntiction drawn from it, and from the following sentence (about it getting "nasty") is that you believe the right wing groups are more unethical than the left wing ones.

I apologize if that wasn't your belief, and if you think that the outside groups mentioned in the article are all relatively equal in their sleaziness.

But I don't think that is what you meant, and since the only distinction you've explicitly stated in your post (and one that you felt necessary to add, since the cited source wasn't letting your side's groups off the hook) was about the size of the membership, I'll stand by my original post. There is no straw man.

I explained what I meant in the paragraph after the one you quoted. I don't see how you could have missed this, since I quoted three different posts and responded to each of them. Please contain your desire to attack me.

[novice skeptic]

The comparative numbers of individuals making up the financialk base of a campaign may be said to make the difference between a movement of some size or an individual with more money than wisdom trying to buy an election.


An election being bought by an oligarchy is no better than one being bought by a single person. And wasn't Moveon in trouble in the past for trying to influence US elections with funds from outside the country?

[novice skeptic]

I explained what I meant in the paragraph after the one you quoted. I don't see how you could have missed this, since I quoted three different posts and responded to each of them. Please contain your desire to attack me.

1. I have no desire to attack you, and I do not feel anything I said was an attack on you as a person or on your character.

2. I read your other post, and (not to attack you) did not find it convincing. I totally reject your premise that the larger membership numbers of moveon.org insulate it from cheap, rotten, tactics. Where is your evidence for this? It may seem to be a logical assumption, but I do not think it is supported by facts.

Moveon, like any group assembled of the most fervent hardcore disciples (be it left, right or whatever) develops a group think that not only doesn't restrain members from going overboard, but may actually encourage it.

Where was the voice of reason when moveon decided to make the Betray Us ad?

This is just 1 instance, I could point to more. I'm not letting the other group off the hook. If they add sewer tactics to the campaign I'll condemn them, and I would expect (because I do respect your intellect and integrity even when you are dead wrong) you to do the same.

[Upchurch]

Would you use the Holocaust for the same political purpose?
The Holocaust was a specific event in history. Lynching is an act used throughout history. A more appropriate question would be whether I would use genocide as a metaphor.

Yes, I would use genocide as a metaphor if the situation called for it.

Don't you think you are trivializing something that is rather significant for political ends?
What, exactly, would I, or boloboffin rather, be trivializing? Charles Lynch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lynch_(jurist))?

"Irrational hatred"?
Well, you tell me. Is there a rational reason to believe that Obama somehow agrees with or condones the actions of the Weather Underground 30 years ago because he is acquainted with Bill Ayres? If not, why are they attacking him on this when there are other, legitimate, issues to attack him on.

Yes, I would call that "irrational".

Hatred? I see no love lost there, but I can call it "dislike", if you prefer, or "having a preference against", if it makes you feel better.

[RandFan]

The Holocaust was a specific event in history. Lynching is an act used throughout history. I don't see the significance.

What, exactly, would I, or boloboffin rather, be trivializing? Charles Lynch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lynch_(jurist))? The murder of blacks due to irrational fear and emotion.

...why are they attacking him on this when there are other, legitimate, issues to attack him on. Politics. Is it irrational? Sure. Most of the threads on this particular sub fora are irrational. So are most of the posts. Do people irrationally fear Palin and McCain? Absolutely. I'm not sure that comparing those posts to lynching would have any benefit.

[BenBurch]

You are definitely racist. You obviously don't think that anyone could oppose Obama on legitimate differences in beliefs. You've made it clear that you see only the color of Obamas skin and the color of his opponents skin.

No, son. I see the heart of Christian Right america.

You see, I grew up with Nazis. There were Nazis in my High School. There were Nazis who were patrons of our tavern. A Nazi ran the local book store.

And I am not casting aspersions; They were real National Socialists. They hated Jews and they hated black folk more. Only, they didn't use the words "black folk" or "colored folk" which was the then-current euphemism. They had a colorful assortment of names, which I will not here repeat beginning with C and J and N and P.

My high school had had a race riot a couple of years before I attended, and one day, waiting in line for gym class the other white kids, who likely trusted me because I was blonde and blue-eyed and look every bit "Aryan," brought me in on their secret; They were gonna kill them some black kids right after class let out, they were going to bash in their brains is how they put it; They intended to start another riot and this time to chase the blacks out. Well, I managed to fake being sick and go up to the nurses office, and when I got the nurse into a closed room I told her what was up and asked to see the principle immediately, and I did. I told him and the school was locked down, all students remained in their classrooms, and every bus in the district was called to take everybody home under close police scrutiny. The promised riot and killings never happened.

But yeah, I was invited to a lynching.

And I am nearly certain these people never reformed their thinking.

And this was in the midwest, not in the deep south.

And so I am just as certain that a large number of those who are opposing Obama most vocally are cut from the same cloth as my classmates, and it disgusts me to my marrow.

The Day The Nazi Died

Chumbawamba

we're taught that after the war
the nazis vanished without a trace
but batallions of fascists
still dream of a master race
the history books they tell of their defeat in 45
why did they all come out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi died

they say the prisoner of spandau
was a symbol of defeat
whilst hess remained imprisoned
then the fascists they were beat
so the promise of an aryan world would never materialize
so why did they all come out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi died

the world is ridden by maggots
the maggots are getting fat
they're making a tasty meal
of all the bosses and bureacrats
they're taking over the board rooms
and they're fat and full of pride
and they all came out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi died

so if you meet with these historians
i'll tell you what to say
tell them that the nazis never really went away
they're out there burning houses down
and they're peddling racist lies
and we'll never rest again
until every nazi dies

[RandFan]

But yeah, I was invited to a lynching.

And I am nearly certain these people never reformed their thinking. Define irony? I'm listening to The Skeptics Guide To The Universe and they are talking about the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

My mother used homeopathic medicine and her arthritis went away. Homeopathic medicine works.

Oh, and FTR, I grew up in a conservative society and I can safely say that I'm confident that the Midwest, South and other areas of America are not populated by people just waiting to shoot hippies and lynch blacks anymore than the inner cities are just waiting to kill whites. I'd ask you for evidence but you and I both know that would be a waste of time.

You've been watching far too much TV.

[RandFan]

A skeptics forum. Right.

You know, if you are not going to even try to use skepticism and critical thinking then why the hell are you folks even here? There are plenty of poltical forums with no pretention of skepticism.

For crying in the *********** dark.

[BenBurch]

A skeptics forum. Right.

Then feel free to leave if you are quite done preaching to us.

[Pardalis]

I disagree with the use of the word "lynch." "Smearing," "mudslinging," "swift-boating," or "slandering" are more accurate.

I'm of the opinion that sloppy and exagerrated use of the language is counterproductive.

I agree 100%.

It's distasteful and shameful.

[RandFan]

Then feel free to leave if you are quite done preaching to us. I actually believe in skepticsim and critical thinking. I come here because I care about it.

Why are you here?

Dude, you are using anecdotal evidence. Do you even know what skepticism is?

[Upchurch]

I don't see the significance.
Okay, let me put it this way, just as not all genocides are the Holocaust, not all lynchings are the murder of black people in a post-Civil War era.

The murder of blacks due to irrational fear and emotion.
I disagree in the strongest of terms. That is not a trivial matter, nor do I think using "lynch" as a metaphor trivializes it.

Do you think it trivializes the murder of a great number of human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres) when someone says their favorite sports team "massacred" the other team?

I'm not sure that comparing those posts to lynching would have any benefit.
That depends on how it is done. Rhetoric and all that.

[RandFan]

Okay, let me put it this way, just as not all genocides are the Holocaust, not all lynchings are the murder of black people in a post-Civil War era. I find it hard to take you serious at the moment. Then again I'm a bit emotional at the moment. I think you should know better but I'll wait until I cool down and reassess. If I then feel I was wrong I will apologize to you. I've a great deal of respect for you.

I disagree in the strongest of terms. That is not a trivial matter, nor do I think using "lynch" as a metaphor trivializes it.
I disagree with you in the strongest of terms. It absolutely trivializes it. I don't think it is seen in that way.

Do you think it trivializes the murder of a great number of human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres) when someone says their favorite sports team "massacred" the other team? The incongruity and hyperbole is obvious. I don't think that is the case in this instance.

That depends on how it is done. Rhetoric and all that.I think that is a fair point.

[Pardalis]

Some people here think a couple of arrests at a protest in St-Paul Minnesota is equivalent to violent military suppression of protesters in Burma, and the smearing campaign against a black candidate to be equivalent to the lynching of black people in the first half of the 20th century in Mississippi.

Some people need to get a new prescription for their glasses, they seem to have a distorted view of reality.

[Upchurch]

I find it hard to take you serious at the moment. Then again I'm a bit emotional at the moment. I think you should know better but I'll wait until I cool down and reassess. If I then feel I was wrong I will apologize to you. I've a great deal of respect for you.
And I you. That's why I am so surprised at your take on this. Other than a few one more comment, I won't press this any longer until you are ready.

The incongruity and hyperbole is obvious. I don't think that is the case in this instance.
I do. That's why I referred to it as such back in Post #19.

[The Painter]

No, son. I see the heart of Christian Right america.

You see, I grew up with Nazis. There were Nazis in my High School. There were Nazis who were patrons of our tavern. A Nazi ran the local book store.

And I am not casting aspersions; They were real National Socialists. They hated Jews and they hated black folk more. Only, they didn't use the words "black folk" or "colored folk" which was the then-current euphemism. They had a colorful assortment of names, which I will not here repeat beginning with C and J and N and P.

My high school had had a race riot a couple of years before I attended, and one day, waiting in line for gym class the other white kids, who likely trusted me because I was blonde and blue-eyed and look every bit "Aryan," brought me in on their secret; They were gonna kill them some black kids right after class let out, they were going to bash in their brains is how they put it; They intended to start another riot and this time to chase the blacks out. Well, I managed to fake being sick and go up to the nurses office, and when I got the nurse into a closed room I told her what was up and asked to see the principle immediately, and I did. I told him and the school was locked down, all students remained in their classrooms, and every bus in the district was called to take everybody home under close police scrutiny. The promised riot and killings never happened.

But yeah, I was invited to a lynching.

And I am nearly certain these people never reformed their thinking.

And this was in the midwest, not in the deep south.

And so I am just as certain that a large number of those who are opposing Obama most vocally are cut from the same cloth as my classmates, and it disgusts me to my marrow.

The Day The Nazi Died

Chumbawamba

we're taught that after the war
the nazis vanished without a trace
but batallions of fascists
still dream of a master race
the history books they tell of their defeat in 45
why did they all come out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi died

they say the prisoner of spandau
was a symbol of defeat
whilst hess remained imprisoned
then the fascists they were beat
so the promise of an aryan world would never materialize
so why did they all come out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi died

the world is ridden by maggots
the maggots are getting fat
they're making a tasty meal
of all the bosses and bureacrats
they're taking over the board rooms
and they're fat and full of pride
and they all came out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi died

so if you meet with these historians
i'll tell you what to say
tell them that the nazis never really went away
they're out there burning houses down
and they're peddling racist lies
and we'll never rest again
until every nazi dies



:dl:

[BenBurch]

:dl:

So you think a race riot is funny?

I suppose you think a Klavern is bloody Hilarious then.

[The Painter]

No. I just don't believe one word of it. Document it, please.

[gtc]

Okay, let me put it this way, just as not all genocides are the Holocaust, not all lynchings are the murder of black people in a post-Civil War era.

I agree that not all lynchings were racially motivated but I think that it is reasonable to assume that the use of the term will conjure up the image of the murder of a black person in the post-Civil war era. I think this would be a stronger connection than that between the term genocide and the Holocaust.

In the context of American politics and in the context of Obama's ethnicity, I think the use of the term 'lynching' would almost certainly create the link in question. More importantly, I think that was the image intended by the original poster.

I certainly think it exagerates what is being done to Obama and seems disrespectful to the victims of actual lynchings (as it strikes me that it is minimising what was done to them, that is, they would probably have been happy to have suffered an attack ad rather than a real attack).

It also creates the impression that the people attacking Obama are doing so because of his colour, which doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.

[RandFan]

And I you. That's why I am so surprised at your take on this. Other than a few one more comment, I won't press this any longer until you are ready.

I do. That's why I referred to it as such back in Post #19. I missed that part of that post. I get on my soapbox once in awhile and I just need a break.

Sorry.

Hey, we aren't likely to agree on everything. We're both for Obama and we both agree this group and their attacks are BS so that's the important point.

Thanks.

[boloboffin]

Anyone here who believes that racially motivated lies and smears are not going to be manufactured to stir up racial animosity against Barack Obama when they are already being manufactured must immediately forswear citing Pauline Kael to any discussion opponent.

[Cleon]

Geez, And I thought it could'nt get any more ludicrous.

Yeah, never make the mistake of thinking that. You're only setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, son. I see the heart of Christian Right america.

You see, I grew up with Nazis. There were Nazis in my High School. There were Nazis who were patrons of our tavern. A Nazi ran the local book store.

And I am not casting aspersions; They were real National Socialists. They hated Jews and they hated black folk more. Only, they didn't use the words "black folk" or "colored folk" which was the then-current euphemism. They had a colorful assortment of names, which I will not here repeat beginning with C and J and N and P.

My high school had had a race riot a couple of years before I attended, and one day, waiting in line for gym class the other white kids, who likely trusted me because I was blonde and blue-eyed and look every bit "Aryan," brought me in on their secret; They were gonna kill them some black kids right after class let out, they were going to bash in their brains is how they put it; They intended to start another riot and this time to chase the blacks out. Well, I managed to fake being sick and go up to the nurses office, and when I got the nurse into a closed room I told her what was up and asked to see the principle immediately, and I did. I told him and the school was locked down, all students remained in their classrooms, and every bus in the district was called to take everybody home under close police scrutiny. The promised riot and killings never happened.

But yeah, I was invited to a lynching.

And I am nearly certain these people never reformed their thinking.

And this was in the midwest, not in the deep south.

And so I am just as certain that a large number of those who are opposing Obama most vocally are cut from the same cloth as my classmates, and it disgusts me to my marrow.

I may be making a mistake taking all this at face value, but so what if you had a traumatic experience involving nazis? That doesn't justify your own racism.

And yes, when you define your opponents by the color of your candidates skin, that is racist. You are effectively saying that african-american candidates are immune from criticism.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anyone here who believes that racially motivated lies and smears...

See what I just said to Ben above.

You and Ben are quickly turning into the boys who cried "NAZI". Not only have you become what you have beheld, you are making it bloody unlikely that any tru critical thinker will take you seriously when real racism rears it's head.

[boloboffin]

See what I just said to Ben above.

You and Ben are quickly turning into the boys who cried "NAZI". Not only have you become what you have beheld, you are making it bloody unlikely that any tru critical thinker will take you seriously when real racism rears it's head.

I see. So pointing out that this well-funded smear group beholden to one operating in a climate where racial attacks are already being generated is my calling "NAZI" somehow. I missed where I did that -- could someone point it out to me?

It's so bad that you've pulled out the True Scotsman fallacy to banish me some place where I no longer matter. I guess Linus had all sorts of reasons to hang onto his blanket.

Time will tell.

[Foolmewunz]

Those expecting Swift-Boat type campaigns based on race may be surprised. I know that if I was running any sort of campaign against Obama, the last thing I'd need to do is to appeal to the racists. Why waste the money? Every time Obama's face appears on TV or he walks onto a podium it's quite obvious he's got those chromosomes going for him. The man is black (or half-black or however many percent black).

Why would you spend millions appealing to the out-and-out racists or neo-nazis? If they're paying attention at all, they've probably noticed that he's black. Anyone with any sort of underlying racial concerns is going to vote against him, anyway.

I'd look for more subtle crap... like the famed darkening of OJ's picture sort of thing... but only as a sub-theme to their main message which will, IMHO, be that he's a dangerous radical who's pretending to be mainstream.

That's where I think the money will go... to paint him as a radical. Mere blackness doesn't scare the fence-sitters and middle-grounders. They've had Clarence Thomas and Condie and Powell, and don't think a thing's wrong with those individuals being one of them.

I do not think race is not going to be a part of the voting in November. I still have a very dark view of some of my countryment, based, I'll admit, on my own political history. And I think there are yet a number of people who just won't be able to vote for a black person, regardless of his/her politics. But I don't think anyone needs to spend money playing up to those primeval fears - they're going to be there, regardless.

[leftysergeant]

The Slime Boaters will not bother bringing up Obama's race. They have Stormfront and National Vanguard to do that.

And anybody who discounts the reality of the Nazi movement in America today is letting his guard down at a bad time. Where do you think the twoofers have been getting most of their material?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I see. So pointing out that this well-funded smear group beholden to one operating in a climate where racial attacks are already being generated is my calling "NAZI" somehow. I missed where I did that -- could someone point it out to me?

It's so bad that you've pulled out the True Scotsman fallacy to banish me some place where I no longer matter. I guess Linus had all sorts of reasons to hang onto his blanket.

Time will tell.

You have offered no proof of racism aside from the color of Obamas skin.

Your implication that because some criticisms of Obama have been racially motivated then all opposition to Obama is racist is utterly devoid of logic.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Slime Boaters will not bother bringing up Obama's race. They have Stormfront and National Vanguard to do that.

And anybody who discounts the reality of the Nazi movement in America today is letting his guard down at a bad time. Where do you think the twoofers have been getting most of their material?

Explain to me the difference between seeing nazis hiding behind every tree stump and lamppost and seeing jews?

Explain to me how such a mindset could result in tyranny and atrocities only in the latter but not the former?

[Foolmewunz]

Explain to me the difference between seeing nazis hiding behind every tree stump and lamppost and seeing jews?

Explain to me how such a mindset could result in tyranny and atrocities only in the latter but not the former?

Well, let's not attack everything Lefty says just because you disagree with him, politically. Oh, wait... we're in politics. I hate you, RandFan!:spjimlad:

Let's see.... Seeing as to how the latter (nazism) is a repugnant political philosophy and the former is a race or religion(depending on your interpretation), I think the difference would be pretty clear. One is a political movement with definite goals and attributes, and the other is not.

I don't agree that we need to be manning the watchtowers, but Lefty's point is based in fact. There are several very disgusting ultra right organizations out there (none of whom will be voting for Obama except for the ones who want to bring on a Turner Diaries style war), and they'll cater quite nicely to the racist elements.

[leftysergeant]

Explain to me how such a mindset could result in tyranny and atrocities only in the latter but not the former?

The Jews have not blown up a Federal court house in the last 18 years, but the Nazis have.

(You don't really believe OKC was about Waco, do you?)

[boloboffin]

You have offered no proof of racism aside from the color of Obamas skin.

A material misrepresentation on your part. I distinctly brought up the Obama monkey dolls/t-shirts and asked everyone here to search for "Obama waffles". Have you done that yet?

Your implication that because some criticisms of Obama have been racially motivated then all opposition to Obama is racist is utterly devoid of logic.

"Your implication that" = Sword of Truth's verbal tic when introducing a straw man. I've made no such implication. Please judge me by the content of my posts and not the political prejudices you hold in your mind.

[RandFan]

I don't agree that we need to be manning the watchtowers, but Lefty's point is based in fact. There are several very disgusting ultra right organizations out there (none of whom will be voting for Obama except for the ones who want to bring on a Turner Diaries style war), and they'll cater quite nicely to the racist elements. There will always be extremists and racists on both sides of the aisle. Let's not paint with a broad brush. Just because someone opposes Obama doesn't make that person a racist.

Lefty might have a point based in fact but that doesn't excuse his race baiting. And I might add I've seen no evidence or justification for boloboffin's either.

[RandFan]

I distinctly brought up the Obama monkey dolls/t-shirts and asked everyone here to search for "Obama waffles". After Bush was elected it became popular to compare him to a chimp. Had Bush been black that would have automatically been seen as racist. I'm not defending Obama monkey dolls/t-shirts but I don't think that proves racism. It's certainly, in the least, ignorant and I would not dismiss racism as a serious possibility.

Even so, that there are bad Republicans doesn't make every Republican a racist and it doesn't excuse your using racism to tar the Republican party. By your logic Democrats are the equivalent of ALF and ELF and any other fringe group we can dig up.

That is beneath this forum.

[boloboffin]

After Bush was elected it became popular to compare him to a chimp. Had Bush been black that would have automatically been seen as racist.

Which means that Bush wouldn't have been compared to a chimp.

I'm not defending Obama monkey dolls/t-shirts but I don't think that proves racism. It's certainly, in the least, ignorant and I would not dismiss racism as a serious possibility.

:dl:

What an innocent little world you live in.

Even so, that there are bad Republicans doesn't make every Republican a racist and it doesn't excuse your using racism to tar the Republican party. By your logic Democrats are the equivalent of ALF and ELF and any other fringe group we can dig up.

That is beneath this forum.

Again with the straw man? Wow. It's just so tempting to tell me what I said so you can beat me with it.

Careful with that tar analogy, Rand.

[RandFan]

Which means that Bush wouldn't have been compared to a chimp. That's not responsive. It's demonstrable that people compare other people to other primates in a non racist way. Why should we assume every comparison of a black person is racsist?

What an innocent little world you live in.This is rhetorical. It's not argument. Why should this be compelling? Are you really positing that any and every comparison of a person to another primate is automatically racist if that person is a person of color?

Again with the straw man? What straw man? If you are going to accuse someone of a fallacy it would be helpful if you would identify the argument and explain why it is fallacious.

[RandFan]

I see. So pointing out that this well-funded smear group beholden to one operating in a climate where racial attacks are already being generated...
You have offered no proof of racism aside from the color of Obamas skin.

What is the link between this well-funded smear group and racism?

How does waffles, dolls and t-shirts prove racism? Is this all wink wink nudge nudge connect the dots CT?

Do you honestly think that a laughing dog and accusations of naiveté prove your thesis in any logically valid way?

[boloboffin]

That's not responsive. It's demonstrable that people compare other people to other primates in a non racist way. Why should we assume every comparison of a black person is racsist?

Seeking to defend comparing a black person to a monkey. Wow. And I'm demeaning the forum?

This is rhetorical. It's not argument. Why should this be compelling? Are you really positing that any and every comparison of a person to another primate is automatically racist if that person is a person of color?

More defense of comparing black people to monkeys. It's really astounding, RandFan.

What straw man? If you are going to accuse someone of a fallacy it would be helpful if you would identify the argument and explain why it is fallacious.

I said "again" with the straw man. Meaning, I've been accused of a similar position before in this thread. Again means, you know, again. Simple English. An easy way to find an identification of the straw man is to go find me using the term before this post.

But let me save you the effort. You said:

Even so, that there are bad Republicans doesn't make every Republican a racist and it doesn't excuse your using racism to tar the Republican party. By your logic Democrats are the equivalent of ALF and ELF and any other fringe group we can dig up.

I never said that bad Republicans makes every Republican a racist. Never said it. I defy you to find the quote. It's your assertion that I have -- produce the quote.

You further rhapsodized that "by my logic" Democrats are the equivalent of any fringe group you could dig up. Again, you will produce the quote where I made any such assertion.

You will not be able to, because I haven't. You and Sword of Truth have ascribed to me a position which I have not espoused and then maligned me for holding such a position. That is the fallacy of the straw man precisely.

And since you're happy to toss around phrases like "tarring" in this context and defend the comparison of black people to monkeys, I won't stand for this slander from you. Apologize immediately.

[RandFan]

Seeking to defend comparing a black person to a monkey. Wow. And I'm demeaning the forum? This is called race baiting. It's ad hominem.

I never said that bad Republicans makes every Republican a racist. Never said it. No, but you ARE accusing the "well funded group" of racism without evidence.

And since you're happy to toss around phrases like "tarring" in this context and defending the comparison of black people to monkeys, I won't stand for this slander from you. Apologize immediately. What slander? How is the use of the word "tarring" slander? You are race baiting and engaging in ad hominem.

[boloboffin]

...you ARE accusing the "well funded group" of racism without evidence.

AGAIN, I tell you to produce a quote or apologize.

What slander? How is the use of the word "tarring" slander? You are race baiting and engaging in ad hominem.

It really is a small world that you live in, isn't it? I suggest you do some research on that term and get back to me.

[RandFan]

AGAIN, I tell you to produce a quote or apologize.There are none so blind as they who will not see.

I see. So pointing out that this well-funded smear group beholden to one operating in a climate where racial attacks are already being generated...
Well funded smear group = A.
Climate of racial attacks = B.

Please to tell us sir what A has to do with B?

It really is a small world that you live in, isn't it? This isn't argument. You are debating in bad faith sir. Innuendo and race baiting are bad form in a skeptics forum.

[boloboffin]

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Incredible. You can't see the quote because it's not there. You ascribe to me a position and attack me because of it. THAT'S bad faith in a skeptic's forum.

...this well-funded smear group ...operating in a climate where racial attacks...Well funded smear group = A.
Climate of racial attacks = B.

Please to tell us sir what A has to do with B?

What are the words in between those two phrases, Rand? "None so blind as they who will not see," indeed. You QUOTE MY WORDS and pretend they aren't there. Bad faith again, egregious bad faith on your part. Truther-level bad faith.

ETA: And oh, wow, is that a common slur against Asians speaking English in your post? "Please to tell us"? Are you kidding me?

[RandFan]

Incredible. You can't see the quote because it's not there. Fact: You conflated one group with racism. Why? How is that not race baiting?

You QUOTE MY WORDS and pretend they aren't there.What words do I pretend aren't there and how is bringing up racism relevant in this context? You did bring up racism. Why?

ETA: And oh, wow, is that a common slur against Asians speaking English in your post? What are you talking about?

ETA: Beyond wink wink nudge nudge, how are monkey dolls proof of racism? I find them questionable and ignorant at best and possibly racist at worst. Why must I assume that they can only be evidence of racism? Why do you?

[applecorped]

This whole thread equals one big - :jaw-dropp

[corplinx]

I agree 100%.

It's distasteful and shameful.

I'll add my disapproval.

Unfortunately, as the dwindling days until election day go on we will hear more that tries to paint opponents of Obama as racists or the opponents of Palin as sexists.

[RandFan]

Fact: You conflated one group with racism. Why? How is that not race baiting?

What words do I pretend aren't there and how is bringing up racism relevant in this context? You did bring up racism. Why?

What are you talking about?

ETA: Beyond wink wink nudge nudge, how are monkey dolls proof of racism? I find them questionable and ignorant at best and possibly racist at worst. Why must I assume that they can only be evidence of racism? Why do you? Bumped for boloboffin.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Jews have not blown up a Federal court house in the last 18 years, but the Nazis have.

In our society, radical racist groups are generally regarded as evil by pretty much everyone (mostly because they actually are evil). In Hitlers europe, his propaganda was successful creating the same impression in the public regarding the jews and other "undesirables".

Whether you are scapegoating an innocent minority or hyper-inflating a real threat far beyond its true severity, and you get significant numbers of people to see <Insert Target Group Name Here> behind every lamppost and tree stump, you can get them to do almost anything.

If anything, this is even more dangerous when it's nazis being targetedbecause it blinds you to recognizing the same thought patterns at work.

By all means, you should oppose racism and naziism. But if a bill comes up in congress to establish a race police with legal authority to arrest, interrogate, search and seize without warrant to ensure that people aren't thinking racist thoughts and you have not objected to this hysteria before then, then you have crossed a line.

We are not special. We are not better than germany or russia or any other society where these exact same tactics have been used by by tyrants to create public approval for their shenanigans.

(You don't really believe OKC was about Waco, do you?)

I used to. But not anymore.

As I described in the 9/11 CT forum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3992588&postcount=26), I had my own run in with the "master race" which precipitated my abandoning that worldview.

I've seen the face of evil and I feel as strongly about it as you do.

[RandFan]

In our society, radical racist groups are generally regarded as evil by pretty much everyone (mostly because they actually are evil). In Hitlers europe, his propaganda was successful creating the same impression in the public regarding the jews and other "undesirables".

Whether you are scapegoating an innocent minority or hyper-inflating a real threat far beyond its true severity, and you get significant numbers of people to see <Insert Target Group Name Here> behind every lamppost and tree stump, you can get them to do almost anything.

If anything, this is even more dangerous when it's nazis being targetedbecause it blinds you to recognizing the same thought patterns at work.

By all means, you should oppose racism and naziism. But if a bill comes up in congress to establish a race police with legal authority to arrest, interrogate, search and seize without warrant to ensure that people aren't thinking racist thoughts and you have not objected to this hysteria before then, then you have crossed a line.

We are not special. We are not better than germany or russia or any other society where these exact same tactics have been used by by tyrants to create public approval for their shenanigans.



I used to. But not anymore.

As I described in the 9/11 CT forum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3992588&postcount=26), I had my own run in with the "master race" which precipitated my abandoning that worldview.

I've seen the face of evil and I feel as strongly about it as you do. Good post. Thank you.

[SezMe]

deleted

[RandFan]

deleted:D I'm only laughing because I wish I could go back and delete a few posts I made today. Too late.

[novice skeptic]

Monkey dolls I do find racist. The waffle box? I need that explained to me. To me this is a reference to the diner waffle gaffe from a couple of months ago. Obama had complained the night before during a debate how silly it was to be spending time answering trivial questions, instead of being asked questions about middle east foreign policy. So at a photo op at a diner he was asked a foreign policy question. His response? "Can't I just eat my waffles?"

This box refers to that. I also find on the Obama Waffles website a cartoon drawing of John Kerry saying, "I know something about wafflin'". Waffle on this site is being used as a synonym for flip flop and it is lampooning white politicians of it as well.

The only possible "racist" content I can see would be the traditional portrayal of an African American on Aunt Jemima pancake mixes. But this cartoon doesn't have Barack dressed up as the archetype Mammy figure. And that's pancake anway (I assume the Aunt Jemima company also makes waffles, but pancakes are clearly the one associated with them).

The cartoon image isn't flattering, but most cartoons aren't. I've certainly seen charicatures of McCain or Bush that are drawn to belittle them. Certainly Obama has to be lampoonable too without cries of racism.

Again, I see this as a jibe centered around his rather dumb "let me eat my waffles" gaffe, and not racist, but if you have other evidence I'd be willing to look at it.

Here's the site: http://www.obamawaffles.com/index.html

[applecorped]

Monkey dolls I do find racist. The waffle box? I need that explained to me. To me this is a reference to the diner waffle gaffe from a couple of months ago. Obama had complained the night before during a debate how silly it was to be spending time answering trivial questions, instead of being asked questions about middle east foreign policy. So at a photo op at a diner he was asked a foreign policy question. His response? "Can't I just eat my waffles?"

This box refers to that. I also find on the Obama Waffles website a cartoon drawing of John Kerry saying, "I know something about wafflin'". Waffle on this site is being used as a synonym for flip flop and it is lampooning white politicians of it as well.

The only possible "racist" content I can see would be the traditional portrayal of an African American on Aunt Jemima pancake mixes. But this cartoon doesn't have Barack dressed up as the archetype Mammy figure. And that's pancake anway (I assume the Aunt Jemima company also makes waffles, but pancakes are clearly the one associated with them).

The cartoon image isn't flattering, but most cartoons aren't. I've certainly seen charicatures of McCain or Bush that are drawn to belittle them. Certainly Obama has to be lampoonable too without cries of racism.

Again, I see this as a jibe centered around his rather dumb "let me eat my waffles" gaffe, and not racist, but if you have other evidence I'd be willing to look at it.

Here's the site: http://www.obamawaffles.com/index.html

My mother had Sambo dolls when she was a girl (1930's England). She doesn't consider herself racist (devote Democrat). Things do change. Depends on your perspective.

[SezMe]

The waffle box? I need that explained to me.
I'm not sure I can offer a great deal of insight but what the hell.....

You make a good point about political cartoons using exaggeration for effect. But in this case the exact exaggeration used on the box has been used to belittle and demean a whole class of people - blacks. In this context, the cartoon carries a lot more baggage than otherwise might be the case.

I suppose one has to look behind the cartoon at the people who drew, printed and promoted it to try to discern their real motives. Doing so suggests a sinister motive.

[Gurdur]

This is called race baiting. It's ad hominem.


Wrong. The poster whom you attack was actually commenting on the use of the waffles etc. against Obama, which is pretty clearly hidden racism on the offenders' part, and the poster whom you attack was actually commenting on the racist baiting used.


You are race baiting and engaging in ad hominem.


You're being absolutely ridiculous again. Accusing a poster who comments on hidden racism of attack campaigns as being indulging in race-baiting himself? Wow. Physcian, heal thyself; get off your soapbox and deal with reality honestly.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Wrong. The poster whom you attack was actually commenting on the use of the waffles etc. against Obama, which is pretty clearly hidden racism on the offenders' part,

So it's both clear and hidden?

What? :confused:

[applecorped]

Wrong. The poster whom you attack was actually commenting on the use of the waffles etc. against Obama, which is pretty clearly hidden racism on the offenders' part, and the poster whom you attack was actually commenting on the racist baiting used.





You're being absolutely ridiculous again. Accusing a poster who comments on hidden racism of attack campaigns as being indulging in race-baiting himself? Wow. Physcian, heal thyself; get off your soapbox and deal with reality honestly.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2391548cf0837418f3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13806)

[Coffee]

So it's both clear and hidden?

What? :confused:

You know; hiding in plain sight.

[RandFan]

But in this case the exact exaggeration used on the box has been used to belittle and demean a whole class of people... So you are saying that caricature is out when it comes to blacks? Really?

Darat, great example. SezMe, I'm sorry but I'm going to offend you and I want to get the apology out up front.

That is complete PC BS. We can't draw cartoons of Mohammad and now we can't draw cartoons of Obama. **** that!

This is the problem with PC. It's very effective at silencing speech. Political caricature goes back more than a hundred years and now it's not acceptable for this candidate. In fact, the character of anyone who draws such a character is impugned with typical CT connect the dots BS.

In this context, the cartoon carries a lot more baggage than otherwise might be the case. And Bush was behind 9/11.

I suppose one has to look behind the cartoon at the people who drew, printed and promoted it to try to discern their real motives. Doing so suggests a sinister motive. No. Skepticism doesn't assume malicious intent without evidence. It doesn't assume that the face in the grilled cheese sandwich is the virgin Mary.

Just because you see evil doesn't mean there is evil.

[RandFan]

Wrong. The poster whom you attack was actually commenting on the use of the waffles etc. against Obama, which is pretty clearly hidden racism on the offenders' part... "Clearly"? Really? BS.

Accusing a poster who comments on hidden racism... "Hidden"? Is that like the hidden squibs at the World Trade Center?

Take it to the CT forum.

You don't really get to accuse anyone you want of racism without questioning. You have no evidence of racist intent. Waffling isn't code word for racism. It means that Obama changes his mind and political cartoons are over a hundred years old.

Isn't it nice that you have an effective means of silencing dissent? Just accuse those that are your opposite of racism. Even if you DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE.

There's a term for that Gurdur. It's called race baiting.

[SezMe]

So you are saying that caricature is out when it comes to blacks? Really?

No, that is NOT what I am saying. Really. :)

I am not advocating that cartoonists self-censor themselves when it comes to political cartooning. If Obama wins the election, we can look forward to several years of, for example, Obama Ears sticking way out to here. And I'll chuckle at them.

Good political carictures use exaggeration to more effectively make their point. Racist cartoonists use exaggeration to more effectively carry their racist message. How to tell the difference? I have no rosetta stone.

But it may be somewhat like pornography; I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Examples I would look for include large lips, wide eyes with lots of white showing, and flared nostrils.

But, as I noted, a clear determination might not be possible without looking at how the cartoon is made and distributed.

SezMe, I'm sorry but I'm going to offend you and I want to get the apology out up front.

Absolutely no offense taken. If I cannot take some pointed criticism, then I don't belong here.

That is complete PC BS. We can't draw cartoons of Mohammad and now we can't draw cartoons of Obama. **** that!

This is the problem with PC. It's very effective at silencing speech. Political caricature goes back more than a hundred years and now it's not acceptable for this candidate. In fact, the character of anyone who draws such a character is impugned with typical CT connect the dots BS.

And Bush was behind 9/11.

No. Skepticism doesn't assume malicious intent without evidence. It doesn't assume that the face in the grilled cheese sandwich is the virgin Mary.

Just because you see evil doesn't mean there is evil.
Yes. And if I see evil it doesn't mean there is benign intent either. A good skeptic will look at context, author, alternative interpretations and any number of other factors to come to his/her final determination. And reasonable people can come to different conclusions. People such as you and me. :)

But, to conclude, I did not and do not endorse censorship of Obama cartooning in any shape or form.

[SezMe]

Apparently I am not the only one to sniff a nasty odor. The Values Voters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080913/ap_on_el_pr/obama_waffles):

Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material."

[RandFan]

SezMe,

I've had a chip on my shoulder the last couple of days. I get hot under the collar when it comes to politics and PC in particular. Thanks for your patience with me. I appreciate your post. I'll respond later to it.

RandFan

[SezMe]

Holy ****, RandFan is human. Call out the dogs. Where are the mods when you need them? Aren't there internet police to deal with such a horrible revelation?

I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!









:) :)

[RandFan]

Holy ****, RandFan is human. Call out the dogs. Where are the mods when you need them? Aren't there internet police to deal with such a horrible revelation?

I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!









:) :)I still drown puppies. :)

[Cobalt]

Seeking to defend comparing a black person to a monkey.

Y'know, I'll go on record and defend that. I personally feel that freedom of speech should mean you can say anything that comes to mind, no matter how stupid, idiotic, hate filled, racist, or ignorant it may be.

I always liked George Carlin's take on language, that there are no bad words, just bad thoughts and intentions.

If the monkey idea was meant to convey the idea that Obama's intelligence and/or mannerisms were similar to monkeys, without actually taking into account his skin color, then what's the big deal? It may have been racially motivated, and it may not have. If it was racially motivated, then in my opinion it was an ignorant and vile thing to do. I would argue to automatically assume it's a racially motivated idea is incorrect, especially if you don't know the thought patterns of the person who made it. I'd say its not possible to say for sure one way or another.

Either way, nobody's forcing you to agree with, or partake in the sale or promotion of anything.

If you think that I, personally, am a racist because of this, that's fine. If you want to say it, go ahead. I won't have to agree with you about it. I'll probably laugh and ignore you in the end.

Would anyone consider someone selling boxes of saltines with McCain's picture on them to be just as potentially racist?