Fonzy wrote this in another forum on this board.


With the race card being used it starts at the top in our current climate.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/3 ... 16081.html

That was during the campaign.

It has continued. So now I have given an example Fonzy I am curious what kind of example you will now give to show how the race card is over used? Is it on the same scale?

Another example of the race card being played was the Duke LaCrosse situation.

The prosecutor in that case was running for public office and basically intended to get the black vote by prosecuting an entire team for supposedly sexually assaulting a black female (who later turned out to be a liar). Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were all over the place while the accusations were flying. But they were nowhere to be found when it was revealed that not only did the female lie, but that the prosecutor behaved unethically and ruined the season for the team for his own attempts at political gain.

Not to mention the personal damage done to the players who were accused. Their names will forever be linked to that case and not in a favorable light either.

I accept the lacrosse incident as what you guys refer to as the race card. Race was certainly exploited in that example for political gain in a way that was cheap.

I dont want to make this an Obama thing because soon we will just be arguing based on political position. But since you guys are bringing up Obama, I will use the example by ANQOR to describe what I am talking about.

In your opinion (AQNOR and maybe some others) what Obama said at that rally was a cheap exploitation of race to condemn any critics of his policy (please tell me if I'm interpreting your perspective correctly). Yet, I worked for an INDEPENDENT organization during the campaign that focused on making it easier for eligible voters to get registered to vote, regardless of opinion. What I found in trying to make a case for why people should vote, is that many people (in Ohio at least) did not want to vote for Obama simply because they did not like his race/ethnicity. These comments would come voluntarily, we were not allowed to talk about specific candidates. Some made it very clear using racial slurs, others were calm and collected an presented that perspective eloquently. In other words, there are plenty of people in our country who did not vote for Obama or don't like his policies because of his race, He has received more death threats than any President ever, and many of them are undoubdetly based on race. It's a REAL issue, and although it's not your motivating factor for disliking Obama, it is for many people.

So in my opinion, for Obama to come out and raise the issue of how some people just don't like him because he is black is not a problem. You see it a a cheap political trick, I see it as a way of bringing to light an issue that REALLY exists. Not saying that your complaints or anyone on this boards complaints' are about race, and I'm sorry that some racist fanatics have made the Obama-critics camp look bad, and I certainly recognize the media's tendency to focus on these crazy people rather than on people like you guys. But the fact remains that MANY people in this country hate Obama because he is different, because he does have a funny name, because he is black etc. For him to bring up that issue to HIS supporters is not out of the question when this is considered. I do not see this as a cheap form of the "race card" because I see a real issue of race behind why a lot of people hate Obama. Again, not talking about you, but I'm sure we can agree that there thousands of people out there using their political voice to make derogatory remarks about Obama's race.

The media is allowed to talk about Obama's race? Racists are allowed to talk about his race? But when Obama addresses the issue of his own race, he is deemed a cheap political for doing so.

Not to mention, your post suggests Obama only deals with opponents under this race paradigm, which is just not true.

I guess it just comes down to a difference of opinion on how much of a role race plays in society. You see Obama's comments as misplaced and unfounded. I see a real problem where a lot of people just hate him becauae of his race, so he had to talk about it. Usually, the people who condemn the use of the race card are people who believe stuff like "hey, it's 2010, there's no racism" and things like that. In reality it exists and it should be talked about. That being said I agree people exploit it from time to time. But let's think about things before caling it the race card.

HOLY $#!+!!!

this is gettin nutty!

Then you would agree that when Republicans called people "un-American" for disagreeing with Bush they were doing the same thing.



Rich, you disagree with Obama. You are NOT racist. But, yet I'm liberal saying this. I know I'm not the only exception to your quote here.

We both know its been done before, but it is certainly not the normal response. I think you are over stating the issue. And, I don't even think you would go so far as to say that no one has attacked Obama based on his race, or that no one out there hates Obama becasue he is black.

The fact is, each side has their own way of dismissing politcal dissent without taking on the issue as a whole. You've been around long enough to know this. Like I said above, it was Republicans calling out Democracts as "un-American" who disagreed with Bush. BOTH sides have used the inane "Nazi" card. Now that we have a black President, it is certainly not surprising to see the "race card" pulled by Democrats.

How is what I said nutty?? i i reasonably stated that i understood the lacrosse case as a misuse of the race topic. then i simply stated that i dont see obama bringing up race as a bad thng considering there is a group of ppl who do in fact dislike obama bc of his race. How is that nutty? if you want to argue against it then bring it on, but dont tske the easy way out with your one liners.

No its not ok for him to bring up the race issue when it wasn't an issue with the two people he was coming out against. I can GUARANTEE you there are African-Americans who didn't vote for McCain because he was white, or who did vote for Obama because he was an African-American man. Did Obama feel the need to speak out against people who voted for him because of his skin color? Racism played a factor BOTH WAYS in this past election. To discredit someone bringing up a legitimate beef with your political views by accusing them of racism s the definition of playing the RACE CARD.

There is no denying that there was a segment of the population that voted for the other guy because of Obama's race.

Conversely, there is a segment of the population that voted for Obama because of his race.

Both sides are wrong.



But that isn't what he did. He personally named his political opponents and accused them of doing this when they did no such thing.

Yes. By the way, it is what Democrats and liberals are now doing when Republicans do not agree with their policy (i.e. financial reform and healthcare reform).

Are you condemning them for this? You were certainly vocal when Republicans did it, but I don't hear a peep from you about it now.



fonzy already tried the word twisting with me.

Here was my response.





Then I think you aren't paying attention because of your bias toward a liberal president.

LOL
I love it when people try to catch you being a hypocrite about something and instead ensnare themselves in their own trap. He nailed you on that one 84'

I never called Rich a hypocrite. I clearly said that Dems are doing it, too. My point it is that each political party does some variation of "attack the person, not the argument" when each one is in power. It will always be that way.

This is why I didn't want to start talking about this around the Obama context, now its become a liberals vs. conservatives thing.

My only point was that Obama addresses his many opponents in many ways, and only rarely does he ever bring up the issue of people being racist toward him, knowing well that he would face a lot of back lash for it. ANQOR's use of Obama's statement from that rally along with Rich's words make it seem like Obama only uses race to address his critics. Not true. I guarantee you for every qualm you have with his policies he has made a direct response to it, whether you agree with it or not is a seperate issue. But the idea that that Obama is always pulling the race card is just not founded on reality. That was one statement from one rally. And a statement that wasn't at all dramatic considering how upset and outspoken he could be about the ppl who hate him bc of his race.

Like I said, I m sorry that the racial fanatics have made the real tea party and the serious Obama critics look bad. But the fact remains that a there is a racist group of ppl out there who simply wont accept Obama because of his race and ethnicity, and those are the people he was talking about with that statement. I dont see how that is the "race card". Especially considering your other examples, like the Duke lacrosse incident. How you can compare the lacrosse incident with that one comment Obama made and put it all under the "race card" umbrella is exactly what I'm arguing against.

Rich, no one is putting words in your mouth..you made a statement making it seem like in GENERAL there is a fear of speaking out against Obama because of the race card. People started arguing against you and then you started backtracking on that generalization.

Not to mention, you admit there are in fact racists who hate Obama, so why isi t the race card for Obama to make a comment about it a rally? and how is that anything like the lacrosse incident? Yet, it all gets labeled with the "race card".

First of all, you need to stop being intellectually dishonest and putting words in people's mouths.

By using the term "makes it seem", you are the one that "makes it seem" what you want to "make it seem".

You really need to stop.



Neither is the idea that anyone said or implied that he does. One quote was pulled up. NO ONE has said he does it frequently or even sporadically.

You created that all on your own.



No. Let's deal with FACTS. John McCain and Republicans were the people he was talking about in that statement.



I did no such thing. I said that Democrats and Liberals are the ones that accuse people of racism when people disagree with Obama to squash dissent. I didn't say ALL DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS, but what I was saying was that ONLY DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS are doing this. ANd there is absolutely nothing incorrect about my statement.



Context is everything and it seems to be an elusive concept to you.

I don't really recall you condemning Republicans for it, either. You admitting they did it now is enough for me. I don't need you to make a specific statement condemning them.

Also, most of this really happened during Bush's first term and such, and I wasn't even a member here then. I don't really remember going on about here on the forums, either.




Your quote was: "According to Democrats and liberals."

Could you perhaps have used an adjective there to make your meaning clear? As it stood, it certainly implied that.
You could have used "some" "most" "many" or any others to suit your fancy.

[quote= "Rich" ] Then I think you aren't paying attention because of your bias toward a liberal president.[/quote]

I don't see it as anything different than what we have had before.

I don't recall even hearing Republicans doing this. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't remember it happening.

I do remember Democrats distributing an internal memo 3 days after 9/11 discussing how they would play the issue for political gain over the coming months and years (i.e. support Bush now, wait for the opportunity if he falters to then oppose him). And obviously this played out before our very eyes as the same Democrats that wanted us to invade Iraq years before were now saying we shouldn't have done it.



I think it is very clear to the discerning reader, or at least the one that wants to make an honest attempt to discern, that I was referring to Democrat and liberal politicians as I do not have access to the comments of the 17% of the American population that falls under the liberal ideology or the 30+% of Americans that are registered Democrats.

I find it silly to even discern otherwise.

If I need to clarify my statement, the people I was referring to was liberal and Democrat politicians and pundits, not the everyday liberal or Democrat. I was not making a generalization just like I was able to discern that 1984 wasn't when he was referring to people who called those who opposed Bush's policies and un-American.

If this thread is going to turn into accusations of "I can read your mind and this is what you meant to say" then the thread is going to become a waste of time.

Use some common sense. Instead of saying what people are "making it seem", give them the benefit of the doubt and clarify first...

This started with a question asked to Dez Bryant, right???

Tangents are funny things.

Fonzy I don't think your post has addressed my post. This does not have to be about Obama. The president of the USA(then candidate) made a charge against two named political opponents. He accused them of trying to scare voters about his differences one of them being his race.

If you can't acknowledge that is playing the race card then what would you call it? I never said he did it all the time. It was not just some vague ephemeral critics of his policy he named names. I wonder if you get that?



No you are not interpreting my perspective correctly. He aimed his comments at two specific individuals and told his supporters that "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills" that is not my opinion that is what he said.



Did you find this to be true about the two people he specifically named? Any evidence at all about them using race to scare anyone about voting for the President of the USA? If not then this section really has no bearing on what I posted.




When anyone tries to use their race in an unfounded accusation against others I think that is wrong. That is what my post pointed out. It was not some people. It was two named individuals one of whom was the current President of the USA. Your responses don't bear on what I posted. You are trying to change the nature of the post into somehting that bears no resemblance of what I posted.



Again you talk about many people. This does not bear at all on my post. Two specific people were named. I see what he did as exactly playing the race card. How do you not?



I am not sure I can agree with this. I don't see thoudsands of people using their political voice making derogatory remarks about Obama's race. Could you please cite some examples for me.



It depends upon how a person talks about his race which I think has been made plain. It was not general or benign talk about his race but a political shot at two named people. You are making plenty of straw man arguments that have nothing to do with my post.

Here is another straw man that you procede to knock the stuffing out of that has nothing to do with my post.



How does my post suggest that Obama "only" deals with opponents this way?



Let's also think about things before someone totally misconstrues a post and lets also think before saying something is not playing the race card when it really is.

I am still curious about the example(s) that you can cite about the race card being over used.

Rich- no on is twisting your words. In the earlier thread that was still on the Dolphins forum, you said that this country had gone crazy with the race crap. When I asked you to clarify what you meanyby making the GENERALIZATION that the country was suffering from the race card, you stated that you feel your voice of dissent is being suppressed by media/politicians using race as a way to dismiss Obama's critics. I agreed with you on certain things, like Bill Clinton's comment being out of line. But I disagree that you can make any sort of generalization about liberals and democrats creating a consistent race card message about Obama opponents.

The reason I believe that Obama's comments were not out of line is because in my opinion, McCain and Palin knowingly and quietly benefited from a large group of people who just hated Obama on account of race, perceived religion, ethnicity etc.

While I agree that McCain and Palin did not say these things themselves, they benefited from this support and stayed quiet about it until the whole thing blew over and culminated in one of the most embarrassing moments of the McCain campaign, when he had to tell a crazy lady at a rally that she was off base for her belief that Obama was a radical Muslim. They finally had to put a stop to it but they definitely benefited from a group of hateful ppl hell bent on preventing Obama's election. I'm not saying this is the majority, I know there are plenty of those that have real criticisms about Obama, but Obama had to say something to account for the fact that there were smear campaigns dedicated toward hating him for his race.

Could he have more accurately stated that it was not McCain and Palin DIRECTLY doing this? Sure, I will grant you that AQNOR. But to dismiss his whole statement as non-factual and as a cheap political ploy is a way of dismissing reality.

AQNOR-Maybe I was wrong in assuming that you think Obama only plays the race card for his critics. But since you singled him out as an example, I thought you were making a general statement. If that's not what you meant, then I recognize that. But the fact remains that not only did you post that quote, but you say "it continues" and I took that as a you stating this is a consistent trend in Obama's line of argument against critics.

McCain and Palin certainly benefited from the crowd of people who hated Obama because of race/religion/ethnicity. Obviously I don't have hard evidence to prove that they benefited now, but I'm sure with a little work I can put it together. But one thing we can say for sure, they certainly didn't come out publicly and criticize those who hated Obama on his race, even when comments were made to them directly at their rallies. I know there is video footage of what I'm talking about and I will put it up shortly. The point is they stayed quiet and let these people do work for them until it culminated in a crazy lady forcing McCain to denounce her statement about Obama's religion at one of his final rallies.

You could see the defeated and frustrated look on McCain's face as he had to tell the lady that her concerns about Obama being a crazy Muslim were false. I think this is what Obama meant in his statement when he said "they're going to try to do is make you scared of me,". He was referring to the racists but also to the complacency of the McCain campaign and their reluctance to shut these people up until the very end.

Either way, if you are saying that the lacrosse incident at Duke and the Obama incident you talk about fall under the same "race card" umbrella, then I disagree. the lacrosse incident is a cheap exploitation of race while the Obama issue merits a real conversation about race, yet both issues get lumped together because, as my original point says, we are too quick to label any conversation dealing with race as a cheap political tool, or as the "race card".

Nothing new here. Just keep steering the subject a little more off course until you get it to where your argument has more clout.
I think most of us understood what you were saying Aqnor. Obviously those with an opposing agenda chose not to.

Sorry Phin, but your "off topic" argument was nixed when this topic was moved to the political page. Now that we are discussing this as a political/social issue rather than a football one, you have no grounds for that argument.

Plus, Im not steering anything of course, I've stuck to my original point all along. For those of who are having trouble reading, I'll make it clear:

Not all conversations of race should be stamped with the dreaded race card. That trivializes situations in which race might actually play a hurtful role. While there are situations where race is exploited, like the Duke lacrosse incident, there are others where race plays a serious role.

That was my original point and the point that I stick to now. You accuse only me by saying that I'm the one who took this whole thing off course. In reality, Rich's first reply to the initial thread made a generalization about how the race card "crap" was going crazy in this country. That made the conversation about more than just football or Dez Bryant, and I answered honestly. I also was not the one who brought the whole Obama/Democrats vs. Republicans thing into the convo. Yet I dont see you accusing Rich AQNOR of steering things off course. The thing is you dont have a problem with conversations that take a different course, you have a problem with my perspective. Just own it and stop hiding behind your "off topic" argument.

Agenda? Im just another Dolphins fan posting on a thread someone else started. So save it.

And Obama didnt? You've got to be kidding me. There were videos on youtube showing people exit the polling stations saying that they voted for Obama because he was black. I can guarantee for every person who voted against Obama because of his skin color there was AT LEAST one person voting for him because of his skin color.


This is propaganda at its worst. You honestly expect intelligent posters here to buy this BS? Why is it McCain's job to go around and protect Obama? Why should McCain go around sticking up for Obama? Had he done that he would have been labled a bigot for trying to 'protect the poor black man'.
That is an ignorant statement at its finest.


Why? Racists comments about skin color usually have a way of discrediting the author all on their own. Either your going to be for or against the comment.
Here again though you attempt to blurr reality from truth. Obama wasn't defending himself against some unknown group of bigots. He came out and accused two named individuals of racist sentiments. BIG BIG difference there.



Thats because your mind is made up and your only reading what you want to. Your assuming intent and meaning where there is none.


Again, why would McCain spend his time trying to defend Obama. Its not his job to silent Obama's critics. I'm sure there were some slurs and derogatory comments made at Obama rallies towards McCain that were ignored as well.


Again, ridiculous assumptions and propaganda. I thought when this conversation started on Dez Bryant that you might be somewhat intellectually honest. You have proved me wrong beyond doubt.

OMG, your doing it again. Taking remarks out of context so they fit your argument. Try to follow along. Your steering Aqnor's statement off topic so that your argument holds more clout. He made a specific reference to Obama hacking on two ACTUAL people, implying that they were racist. You go and start arguing about Obama standing up to the racist masses out there. YOu steered the comments off topic so that your argument made more sense.
My comments about you being off topic were pertaining to Aqnor's discussion with you, not football topics. I am well aware of which forum this topic is situated under. You still following along here?

Propaganda? Im not trying to convince you of anything dealing with Obama. I really want to make it clear that I wasnt the one bringing Obama into this.

If you seriously believe that with there are as many people who voted for Obama strictly bc of his color than those who voted against him for his color or fear of him being a radical Muslim, then you need to wake up. So Obama shouldnt have adressed the comments by prominent public figures liek Patt Robertson that claimed he had a secret Muslim agenda? He was supposed to stay quiet on that? Would you? I dont think so.

Maybe you dont see it because you dont think that way or because you dont know many people who do. But Obama's racist critics picked up a lot of support during the campaign and as a result the McCain campaign benefited from this. To the extent that they knowingly depended on this is debatable, I grant you that. But it was there and it was real and it makes sense that Obama would talk about it.



You're obviously not following along, so try and pay attention. I stated in my earlier post that Obama could have been more clear in stating that McCain and Bush didnt directly say those remarks, rather he was referring to "they" as his opposition. He could have been more clear certainly, but politicians from both sides often use "they" as a way to lump the entire opposition together, and his statement obviously didnt refer to JUST TWO PEOPLE, as AQNOR keeps saying to try and make the statement fit what he is saying.. Just look at the quote.

""Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"

Did he say that McCain and Bush are directly the ones making statements about his race and religion, no. So I dont see why you guys are acting like he made the comment about just those two people. You claim that Im making things fit my argument, but look at the way that quote was distorted so that AQNOR could say Obama is wrong in singling out just two people, when he in fact didnt do that.

Again, you have a problem with my specific perspective, not the fact that the conversation is going off course. Just own it.

Sure you are, your trying to convince us that Obama's statement has nothing to do with pulling 'the race card'.


There you go again, pulling the subject off topic to better suit your argument. I never said one thing about Pat Robertson.


You sure sounded convinced that big bad McCain was at fault for not silencing the Obama's critics.



I'm not following along? LOL, that gave me a good laugh

I never said that you said anything about Pat Robertson. Im using that as an example to illustrate how mainstream some of this unreasonable bigotry actually got. Believe it or not, people actually listen to that guy and many others who made comments like the one he made. They are powerful comments that resonates stringly with many of Obama's supporters. I wasn't saying you said that, I was just using Robertson's comments as evidence that Obama has merit in talking about race as it pertained to his opponents.



I also didn't say anything about McCain being 'big and bad'. If you look closely, you'll see that you guys are generalizing about me as much as you claim Im doing to you. i wasnt saying he was at fault, just that they silently benefited from this group of bigots, and that they didnt speak out against these people at all until it became completely ridiculous.

Again, its just a difference of opinion on how much of a role race plays in our day to day lives. I obviously think it plays a bigger role. Lets just leave it at that instead of going over this election 08 thing. I didnt bring Obama up and the reason we are going on a different course now is bc AQNOR brought up that example, yet you dont criticize him for steering the convo off course because in that case you were in agreement, so its all good.

You're not even addressing the comment I have had to clarify several times for you anymore. I don't like playing hopskotch. It's a game for girls.

And I never said I felt my voice of dissent was being suppressed. I say what I want and many Americans continue to do so despite a widespread attempt by the media and politicians to use the race card to suppress that voice of dissent.

And your last sentence in this paragraph demonstrates that you are great at pontificating and jabbering, but not very good at taking in what the other person is saying. I've clarified what I meant several times even though I shouldn't have to. I'm not going to waste my time doing so again. If you don't get it by now, you simply are going to continue refusing to get it.



*sigh* You don't even have your facts straight.

The article was written on 7/31/08. Palin was selected by the McCain campaign on 8/24/08.

Also, Obama benefitted from people who were tired of white presidents and wanted to see a black man in office. If McCain would have said similar comments to Obama's but under the opposite premise, he would have had to drop out in less than a day. Obama benefitted just as much, if not more, from the race factor as McCain.

I didn't hear Obama taking up a stance against some of the ludicrous things that Rev. Wright was saying, or Al Sharpten, or Jess Jackson. Those men benefited Obama with their rhetoric. They riled up African Americans to vote for Obama with rhetoric and good old fashioned racist comments. Did McCain feel the need to jump to his own defense and tell America how race should not determine whether or not you voted for a white man? I mean whats good for the goose is good for the gander right?
I think what irks me more than anything is the one sided fashion of the discussion of racism. It also irks me how liberals get to write the rules on what is racist and what is not. Its so hypocritical !!

Anyone remember when Obama threw his own grandmother under the bus?



http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2 ... aides.html
What if McCain had made a comment about a "typical black person"?

What? Obama BENEFITED from the Rev. Wright thing?!! In what alternate universe? Obama faced an immense amount of criticism and backlash for his connections with Wright and had to publicly come out and denounce both him and Farrakhan. He certainly did not benefit from that.

I never said discrimination couldn't go both ways, I promise Im not one of the original posters who said that. Im not one of the liberals who writes any rules either. i also noticed that you didn't address my point about how AQNOR misinterpreted that quote about Obama to make it seem like Obama was singling out McCain and Bush when he in fact wasn't, thus using the quote to fit his argument, an accusation you have used on me throughout this entire conversation. I agree that there are double standards and problems with sneaky politicians using race as a tool for personal gain. But how does this Obama case comppare at all with the Duke lacrosse incident? That, to me, is a real misuse of the topic of race, not Obama talking about some real stuff at his rally.

Dude, seriously...stop trying to make this an Obama vs. McCain, democrat vs. republican thing.

Look at the first line of the quote you just posted "Obama is drawing a new round of criticism for his comments on a Philadelphia radio sports program yesterday in which he said his grandmother is a "typical white person"." He obviously got criticized for it so what is your point?

Pat Robertson and people that were very connected to the McCain campiagn did make these types of comments about Obama, and they got about the same amount of criticism. Since then, Robertson has been forced to make a 360 turn on his perspective on Obama much like Obama was hel accountable for some of his comments about white people.

I never said Palin was was already involved, just that their campaign benefited from the support of a racist crowd.

I don't know, its hard to say who "they're" is. Is it people talking about McCain and Bush saying that they have no answer and then making racist comments? Or is he referring to Bush and McCain making funny and racist comments? One could read an ambiguous statement like that and come up with either interpretation. The point is, Obama introduced race into a campaign where race wasn't an issue being brought up be his opponent. Its not like the McCain campaign was out there telling people not to vote for Obama because he is black. And for those bigots who were saying racist comments about Obama, they aren't running against him. Keep the issue on the campaign and your opponent; don't drag racism into the conversation to shame people into voting for you.

But enough about Obama.
Back to the origins of this conversation..... 'the race card'. I agree with your point about dismissing racism as an issue when in fact it is. However, there are those who cry racism at the drop of a hat. Both are two extremes and both happen on a daily basis. There are those who see racist motivation in everything, and there are those who refuse to see that racism (all racism) is real and prevalent in our society. I think most people are fairly reasonable and see that the argument isn't absolutely one way or the other. Unfortunately when we feel that our opinion is up against the wall, we all tend to resort towards the extremes of an issue in order to defend our position. We will nitpick and attack each and every example the opposition brings up until we've lost all focus on what the reality of the issue is. Yes racism exists and when it is an issue it should be discussed. However it is not always an issue and therefore when it is introduced into a situation or comment where it is not a factor, this is what is known as 'the race card'; an attempt to silent opposition by crying 'racism' where it doesn't exist. It is an attempt to demonize the opposition and put aside all logical discussion.

And on that note, I think I have said enough on this topic.

In an ideal situation the candidates would be able to just focus on each other, but our elections are influenced greatly by interest groups and campaign funders. The population of people hating Obama because of race had an impact on the election. Obviously those people arent the majority, but I dont think its bad for Obama to talk about that.



I agree with all of what you said. And I agree that we've exhausted the topic. Let's make peace and go back to talking about the Phins.

You ridicule my argument and then bring Pat Robertson, a nobody, in to compare to the POTUS? Seriously?

The Anatomy of a Losing Argument #373

1. Misinterpret everything everyone else says and base all your points on straw men
2. Refuse to listen to clarifications of the things people said that were misinterpretted
3. Add non-pertinent points
4. Continue to misinterpret
5. Add more non-pertinent points

End result - utter failure to get any worthy point across

Ok..because you never misinterpret and reduce people's comments to your cheesy, stupid one-liners...

If you actually read my posts youll see I conceded several points and dealt with people straight up, if people dont agree with me end well that's up to you. Again, next time you take somebody's entire post and reduce it some stupid one-liner, I'll be sure to laugh to myself. But until then , rest assured that YOU have won this argument, and that YOU alone have convinced me of why am I wrong. CONGRATULATIONS!

I only return the same level of quality I am provided with.



Must have been on another forum.

So I want to understand what you are saying. You make assumptions not in evidence and you generalize my comments to fit your line of thought? Is that right? I said it "contiues" which is not an "only" statement or even a "consistent" statement. As others have noticed you put words in others mouths. As I said you make up straw men that consist of your own imaginations and not my words and then attack them. Please stick to what I posted as I have asked numerous times. The fact remains that you are projecting your thoughts onto my statements.

There are other incidents of the President playing the race card. I choose the Presidential incident of playing the race card because he is the most powerful person in the USA. He is going to set the tone for much political discourse by his statements and actions.




What has this to do with anything in my post? This is your thoughts, fine post them, back them up with facts. But please explain what this has to do with the President (then Presidential candidate) playing the race card? Why are you introducing this? Are you trying to get things off topic? Even if McCain's campaign did all that you say what does that have to do with the specific example I gave of a person playing the race card? The answer is nothing. Please give evidence of these race, not religion, things you are talking about? Why are you bringing religion into a race discussion?



Again you are projecting your thoughts instead of sticking to the specifics. If you can change what a person said just by what you think then how can we have a reasonable conversation? It does not come down to what I or you think. It is about what was said.

Again ""Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." this is not what you or I think this is what was said. It is not ambiguous. He was referring to Bush and McCain not some unkown racists. That is the purpose and function of pronouns.

Example: "We all know that Fred and Bob have no money. They're going to try and take something without paying from my store." OK how would you normally understand this statement? Would the "they're" be referring to anyone, to criminals in general, to Sally and Sue? Or would people normally understand the "they're" to be referring to Fred and Bob.



I see that you disagree but you don't use specific facts for your disagreement. You use your own thoughts about what you think someone might have ment by what that person said instead of what the person actually said. The Obama issue does not merit a real conversation about race untill you can point out a specific race scare tactic that Bush or McCain used against Obama. That was the accusation. It seems like you are to quick to dismiss a playing of the race card when it does not fit your preconceived ideas.