(07-28-2015 08:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

Of course it's powerful. That's why using it incessantly is so vile and dishonest and disingenuous.

Of course those people who didn't agree with the Iraq war were labelled as unpatriotic, or "not supporting the troops", which was equally ridiculous. It's certainly not a new thing.

No disagreement there. Except none of the others seems to have gotten the traction that "racist" has.

(07-28-2015 08:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

Of course it's powerful. That's why using it incessantly is so vile and dishonest and disingenuous.

Of course those people who didn't agree with the Iraq war were labelled as unpatriotic, or "not supporting the troops", which was equally ridiculous. It's certainly not a new thing.

No disagreement there. Except none of the others seems to have gotten the traction that "racist" has.

Yes they did.

(07-28-2015 08:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

Of course it's powerful. That's why using it incessantly is so vile and dishonest and disingenuous.

Of course those people who didn't agree with the Iraq war were labelled as unpatriotic, or "not supporting the troops", which was equally ridiculous. It's certainly not a new thing.

That was unfortunate as well. Outgrouping is a powerful instrument of manipulation.

(07-28-2015 08:31 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

The problem is that eventually you are going to run into the "Little Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome and when there is an actual racial problem in this country instead of the made-up problem you leftists and your lapdog media are trying to gin up people are going to be hesitant to buy into it.

that's happening now....regardless of what the media represents as 'fact'

from a personal level, I no longer have sympathy....anyone that calls me racist can just fk off!

(07-28-2015 08:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

Of course it's powerful. That's why using it incessantly is so vile and dishonest and disingenuous.

Of course those people who didn't agree with the Iraq war were labelled as unpatriotic, or "not supporting the troops", which was equally ridiculous. It's certainly not a new thing.

That was unfortunate as well. Outgrouping is a powerful instrument of manipulation.

It sure is. Honestly, it didn't bother me since the sentiment was so ridiculous, but still. What bothered me was the sentiment and the shallowness of it.

(07-28-2015 09:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:31 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

The problem is that eventually you are going to run into the "Little Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome and when there is an actual racial problem in this country instead of the made-up problem you leftists and your lapdog media are trying to gin up people are going to be hesitant to buy into it.

that's happening now....regardless of what the media represents as 'fact'

from a personal level, I no longer have sympathy....anyone that calls me racist can just fk off!

I don't really care what words someone characterizes me as, especially someone who I do not know or whose opinion I place no value in. I've been called racist before, for no reason, and I just didn't care. Why would I? I've never said nor done anything that can be construed as legitimately racist, so that claim means nothing.

(07-28-2015 09:58 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 09:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:31 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

The problem is that eventually you are going to run into the "Little Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome and when there is an actual racial problem in this country instead of the made-up problem you leftists and your lapdog media are trying to gin up people are going to be hesitant to buy into it.

that's happening now....regardless of what the media represents as 'fact'

from a personal level, I no longer have sympathy....anyone that calls me racist can just fk off!

I don't really care what words someone characterizes me as, especially someone who I do not know or whose opinion I place no value in. I've been called racist before, for no reason, and I just didn't care. Why would I? I've never said nor done anything that can be construed as legitimately racist, so that claim means nothing.

XACLY! unfortunately, the media does not represent that....therein, lies the problem of cause/effect what people 'see'

(07-28-2015 09:58 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't really care what words someone characterizes me as, especially someone who I do not know or whose opinion I place no value in. I've been called racist before, for no reason, and I just didn't care. Why would I? I've never said nor done anything that can be construed as legitimately racist, so that claim means nothing.

Were you able to have a effective debate after being labelled a racist? Because IMO, such tags are used these days by those who wish to silence opposition to their POV. In the highly networked world of today appellations can create a multiplier effect that has credible power. It's how the Confederate Battle Flag went from being a tolerated annoyance to something that must be banned an eradicated.

(07-28-2015 10:13 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 09:58 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't really care what words someone characterizes me as, especially someone who I do not know or whose opinion I place no value in. I've been called racist before, for no reason, and I just didn't care. Why would I? I've never said nor done anything that can be construed as legitimately racist, so that claim means nothing.

Were you able to have a effective debate after being labelled a racist? Because IMO, such tags are used these days by those who wish to silence opposition to their POV. In the highly networked world of today appellations can create a multiplier effect that has credible power. It's how the Confederate Battle Flag went from being a tolerated annoyance to something that must be banned an eradicated.

I didn't have any interest in having an effective debate with that person, and the situation didn't warrant it. It was just a person lashing out, who was likely mentally unstable, and that's how they chose to lash out. As for the confederate battle flag issue, I don't know if that fits the bill exactly.

(07-28-2015 08:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know the racist defense is powerful though. I have contemplated that. It's sort of a Teflon. You can't attack Obama like they did Clinton. A lot of the attacks that were effective against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry would be lambasted as racist against Obama. Obama couldn't be swift boated. It would be impossible in a way. You can't play the game in the way you like to play the game with an African American as your opponent. People are sensitive and looking out for it and it's effective. As a true blue Dem I like the inoculation. If you attack Hillary hopefully women get as fired up about it but I don't think she will have the same immunization to it.

Of course it's powerful. That's why using it incessantly is so vile and dishonest and disingenuous.

Of course those people who didn't agree with the Iraq war were labelled as unpatriotic, or "not supporting the troops", which was equally ridiculous. It's certainly not a new thing.

No disagreement there. Except none of the others seems to have gotten the traction that "racist" has.

Yes they did.

No they did not, because none of the others have been as effective in chilling debate.

(07-28-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course it's powerful. That's why using it incessantly is so vile and dishonest and disingenuous.

Of course those people who didn't agree with the Iraq war were labelled as unpatriotic, or "not supporting the troops", which was equally ridiculous. It's certainly not a new thing.

No disagreement there. Except none of the others seems to have gotten the traction that "racist" has.

Yes they did.

No they did not, because none of the others have been as effective in chilling debate.

I think you might be letting recent events color your view a little too much here. I agree that the claim of racism is very chilling in this manner, but let's not act like the threat of being labeled unpatriotic during wartime doesn't have a far longer history of affecting more debates overall. Jingoism is a very dangerous and effective form of chilling debate.

(07-28-2015 12:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Of course those people who didn't agree with the Iraq war were labelled as unpatriotic, or "not supporting the troops", which was equally ridiculous. It's certainly not a new thing.

No disagreement there. Except none of the others seems to have gotten the traction that "racist" has.

Yes they did.

No they did not, because none of the others have been as effective in chilling debate.

I think you might be letting recent events color your view a little too much here. I agree that the claim of racism is very chilling in this manner, but let's not act like the threat of being labeled unpatriotic during wartime doesn't have a far longer history of affecting more debates overall. Jingoism is a very dangerous and effective form of chilling debate.

I don't think so. I don't recall that any of the people who were called unpatriotic let that stop them from continuing to speak. The allegation of racism pretty much shuts up debate. Which is exactly the intent of those who use it.

(07-28-2015 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No disagreement there. Except none of the others seems to have gotten the traction that "racist" has.

Yes they did.

No they did not, because none of the others have been as effective in chilling debate.

I think you might be letting recent events color your view a little too much here. I agree that the claim of racism is very chilling in this manner, but let's not act like the threat of being labeled unpatriotic during wartime doesn't have a far longer history of affecting more debates overall. Jingoism is a very dangerous and effective form of chilling debate.

I don't think so. I don't recall that any of the people who were called unpatriotic let that stop them from continuing to speak. The allegation of racism pretty much shuts up debate. Which is exactly the intent of those who use it.

Why does it stop them from speaking, if the allegation of racism results from comments about policies that have nothing to do with that?

(07-28-2015 01:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yes they did.

No they did not, because none of the others have been as effective in chilling debate.

I think you might be letting recent events color your view a little too much here. I agree that the claim of racism is very chilling in this manner, but let's not act like the threat of being labeled unpatriotic during wartime doesn't have a far longer history of affecting more debates overall. Jingoism is a very dangerous and effective form of chilling debate.

I don't think so. I don't recall that any of the people who were called unpatriotic let that stop them from continuing to speak. The allegation of racism pretty much shuts up debate. Which is exactly the intent of those who use it.

Why does it stop them from speaking, if the allegation of racism results from comments about policies that have nothing to do with that?

Oh, come on. Be serious.

(07-28-2015 01:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yes they did.

No they did not, because none of the others have been as effective in chilling debate.

I think you might be letting recent events color your view a little too much here. I agree that the claim of racism is very chilling in this manner, but let's not act like the threat of being labeled unpatriotic during wartime doesn't have a far longer history of affecting more debates overall. Jingoism is a very dangerous and effective form of chilling debate.

I don't think so. I don't recall that any of the people who were called unpatriotic let that stop them from continuing to speak. The allegation of racism pretty much shuts up debate. Which is exactly the intent of those who use it.

Why does it stop them from speaking, if the allegation of racism results from comments about policies that have nothing to do with that?

It's an issue of transference.

(07-28-2015 01:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No they did not, because none of the others have been as effective in chilling debate.

I think you might be letting recent events color your view a little too much here. I agree that the claim of racism is very chilling in this manner, but let's not act like the threat of being labeled unpatriotic during wartime doesn't have a far longer history of affecting more debates overall. Jingoism is a very dangerous and effective form of chilling debate.

I don't think so. I don't recall that any of the people who were called unpatriotic let that stop them from continuing to speak. The allegation of racism pretty much shuts up debate. Which is exactly the intent of those who use it.

Why does it stop them from speaking, if the allegation of racism results from comments about policies that have nothing to do with that?

Oh, come on. Be serious.

If I disagreed with Obama's policies and someone called me a racist as a result, it wouldn't stop me from speaking.

(07-28-2015 02:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 12:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think you might be letting recent events color your view a little too much here. I agree that the claim of racism is very chilling in this manner, but let's not act like the threat of being labeled unpatriotic during wartime doesn't have a far longer history of affecting more debates overall. Jingoism is a very dangerous and effective form of chilling debate.

I don't think so. I don't recall that any of the people who were called unpatriotic let that stop them from continuing to speak. The allegation of racism pretty much shuts up debate. Which is exactly the intent of those who use it.

Why does it stop them from speaking, if the allegation of racism results from comments about policies that have nothing to do with that?

Oh, come on. Be serious.

If I disagreed with Obama's policies and someone called me a racist as a result, it wouldn't stop me from speaking.

I don't imagine there are many members of the Republican leadership who haven't been called a racist at some point in the past few years, with most being called it wholly undeservedly so, yet they aren't silenced in any way, shape, or form. There has to be some ostensibly valid impetus to make that claim, even then it's often not an issue that legitimately limits them (Think Rick Perry and N*ggerhead Ranch).

Racism can be a serious claim, but it's not the instant shut down of discussion that's being portrayed here.

(07-28-2015 07:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Racism can be a serious claim, but it's not the instant shut down of discussion that's being portrayed here.

Make all of the self-righteous and self-serving claims you want, but when the fact is that one of your own (Mach, post #37) has already posted disagreeing with you, you lose some of your credibility.

I'm saying it stops the bull**** claims. The swift boat stuff was nonsense but it was effective. The birther stuff was racist and it damaged anyone who took the mantle. I don't look at it as silencing the debate. It takes out a lot of the unseemly stuff the other side uses.

(07-28-2015 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Racism can be a serious claim, but it's not the instant shut down of discussion that's being portrayed here.

Make all of the self-righteous and self-serving claims you want, but when the fact is that one of your own (Mach, post #37) has already posted disagreeing with you, you lose some of your credibility.

The fact you lumped me in with Mach makes you lose even more credibility. You clearly have never read one of his or my posts if you think he's 'one of my own'.

But again, I've actually pointed out a specific example which occurred relatively recently, and in which the claim of racism was loudly proclaimed and factually valid, that in no way significantly affected the politicians career or ability to speak on the subject matter (Perry and his lovely N*ggerhead Ranch).