CNN plays race card of excuses

[Redress]

An Excuse as to why he can't show his anger.

No, it's an explanation as to why he is not.

 

[Redress]

Redress might not bring it up often, and I would agree with that, but Leftists are the Quick-Draw McGraws with the race card.

Hell, I'm black and I've been called a racist on this forum by Libbos.

So it was a leftist who created this thread, and so many like it? I did not think so...

 

[1069]

Be careful of what you believe in political biographies.
They are heavily laden with propaganda, no matter which party the person writing it comes from.

It wasn't a political biography.
He began it at 25, and finished it before he was thirty.
There is no indication whatsoever that he had an inkling he'd one day be president at the time.
He was living in a ghetto in Chicago, working as a community organizer.

It is a memoir, and a treatise on racial identity and on growing up as an individual of mixed race.
It reminded me, in tone, of James McBride's The Color of Water: A Black Man's Tribute to His White Mother.

If you read it, you would see that much of it is potentially disadvantageous to Obama: his tales of youthful drug experimentation (up to almost using IV drugs, but chickening out at the last minute), his rants and tirades against various aspects of society, his musings on the white race, his embarrassing anecdote about having diarrhea while visiting his father's family in Kenya. His powerful feelings of connection and belonging in Kenya, where he went to find his roots as a young adult.
His refusal to downplay the fact (which he discovered posthumously, since he only met his father once) that his father was not a good man.

It reads like a young man's memoir.
It does not read like PR for a man who aspires to be president.
It's too personal, too potentially damaging.
I suspect Obama wishes he'd never written it, in fact.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It wasn't a political biography.
He began it at 25, and finished it before he was thirty.
There is no indication whatsoever that he had an inkling he'd one day be president at the time.
He was living in a ghetto in Chicago, working as a community organizer.

It is a memoir, and a treatise on racial identity and on growing up as an individual of mixed race.
It reminded me, in tone, of James McBride's The Color of Water: A Black Man's Tribute to His White Mother.

If you read it, you would see that much of it is potentially disadvantageous to Obama: his tales of youthful drug experimentation (up to almost using IV drugs, but chickening out at the last minute), his various rants and tirades against various aspects of society, his musings on the white race, his embarrassing anecdote about having diarrhea while visiting his father's family in Kenya. His powerful feelings of connection and belonging in Kenya, where he went to find his roots as a young adult.
His refusal to downplay the fact (which he discovered posthumously, since he only met his father once) that his father was not a good man.

It reads like a young man's memoir.
It does not read like PR for a man who aspires to be president.
It's too personal, too potentially damaging.
I suspect Obama wishes he'd never written it, in fact.

I'm not sniping at Obama but I'm almost always suspicious of memoirs written by any politician, while they are still pursuing a political seat.

 

[German guy]

Assuming someone is going to have specific thoughts or react in a specific manner based upon race with no evidence whatsoever is racism, or at the very least, "playing the race card".

There is no need or reason to bring this issue up, thus its playing the race card.

I'm not sure if it's that what you mean, but I think it's a no-brainer that Obama's PR team of course takes into consideration what kind of existing stereotypes have influence on the perception of a particular behavior on his side, and in which way. If, for example, an "angry black man" stereotype exists among a significant number of white voters is an empirical question, and I don't know exact numbers or according studies. But I think the general thought is obvious. So of course they will advise Obama to either enforce, or avoid a particular behavior that is perceived in a particular manner. If they are right or not, is a different question.

Just acknowledging that, and speculating about the amount and impact of such stereotypes is hardly "playing the race card" yet, IMHO.

 

[1069]

I'm not sniping at Obama but I'm almost always suspicious of memoirs written by any politician, while they are still pursuing a political seat.

Did you hear me?
It was written while he was still in his 20s, before he married Michelle, before he ever 'pursued' any "political seat".
It was first published then too, but it went into a second printing once he was running for president.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Did you hear me?
It was written while he was still in his 20s, before he married Michelle, before he ever 'pursued' any "political seat".
It was first published then too, but it went into a second printing once he was running for president.

Wait what?

I thought his books were written almost immediately before his candidacy.

Edit: Looking now, it seems to be a book of musing.
Didn't know that.

 

[Caine]

No, it's an explanation as to why he is not.

I say Excuse, you say Explanation.

Im right.

An explanation has to refer to something that someone can prove. They are speculating, being racists IMO, that people are going to hold a racist view of Obama if he reacts a certain way. What they are basing their argument on is preposterous.

Ive always held the belief that immediately making race a factor in a situation where it is not one is use of the race card. Nobody mentioned race except those that brought up, pulling it out of their ass, that racism is the reason.

 

[1069]

Wait what?

I thought his books were written almost immediately before his candidacy.

He wrote a memoir in his 20s, called "Dreams From My Father".
It was basically a coming-of-age, racial-identity memoir.
It was not about politics.
It was about Obama, his family, his childhood, his teens, and his young adult life.

He wrote another book later, called "The Audacity of Hope". I haven't read that one.
I don't know if it was published before or after he announced his candidacy.
It was certainly written after he already had political aspirations.
I'm not very interested in reading it, frankly.

Please read my posts, as i dislike repeating myself.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

He wrote a memoir in his 20s, called "Dreams From My Father".
It was basically a coming-of-age, racial-identity memoir.
It was not about politics.
It was about Obama, his family, his childhood, his teens, and his young adult life.

He wrote another book later, called "The Audacity of Hope". I haven't read that one.
I don't know if it was written/ published before or after he announced his candidacy.
It was certainly written after he already had political aspirations.
I'm, not very interested in reading it, frankly.

Please read my posts, as i dislike repeating myself.

I wasn't aware that it was actually published then, I though it was a collection of thoughts he had then brought forward in a book published these past few years.

 

[1069]

I wasn't aware that it was actually published then, I though it was a collection of thoughts he had then brought forward in a book published these past few years.

It was published in July of 1995.

 

[Caine]

I'm not sure if it's that what you mean, but I think it's a no-brainer that Obama's PR team of course takes into consideration what kind of existing stereotypes have influence on the perception of a particular behavior on his side, and in which way. If, for example, an "angry black man" stereotype exists among a significant number of white voters is an empirical question, and I don't know exact numbers or according studies. But I think the general thought is obvious. So of course they will advise Obama to either enforce, or avoid a particular behavior that is perceived in a particular manner. If they are right or not, is a different question.

Just acknowledging that, and speculating about the amount and impact of such stereotypes is hardly "playing the race card" yet, IMHO.

Thanks for reiterating that CNN is a part of Obama's PR Team.

The topic is the CNN article which plays the race card.
My point is that there was no reason for CNN to run this story, period.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It was published in July of 1995.

It actually may be worth a read through then.

Sorry, I was skimming posts.
Being a bit lazy today.

 

[Caine]

I also think its funny that CNN continues to negatively report, ie, the section of this article that talks about Henry Louis Gates arrested "in his home" which is not true. Gates was not arrested in his home, yet CNN continues to push that claim to make the story look negative, to support Obama's statements of officers acting stupidly. All to minimize the negative image of the angry black man angry about race relations. Funny how the facts always have to get distorted when folks get angry about race relations (Duke Lacrosse for another example).

 

[1069]

It actually may be worth a read through then.

Sorry, I was skimming posts.
Being a bit lazy today.

I would recommend it, if you like memoirs.
He's a good memoirist.
And he had an interesting early life.

Nobody who reads that book will ever again question why he married Michelle (yes, women often do question it; they're catty).
The book makes it clear that he was a sitting duck for someone like Michelle: a strong and ferociously intellectual proud Black woman. :lol:

 

[German guy]

Thanks for reiterating that CNN is a part of Obama's PR Team.

The topic is the CNN article which plays the race card.
My point is that there was no reason for CNN to run this story, period.

So CNN is quoting people who make such obvious observations about Obama and his public perception. Judging from the excerpt of the CNN article that was posted, I don't see CNN did jump to a definite conclusion based on these quotes. They are merely acknowledging that there are people who believe certain racial stereotypes do play a role in Obama's PR appearance by quoting them. They inform the readers these kind of thoughts play a role for particular people and suggest they do even for Obama and his PR team.

You imply that is "playing the race card". I can't quite follow you.

Do you mean it is illigetimate "playing the race card" when a news outlet quotes people who express their belief that racism does exist?

What should a "fair and balanced" news source so? Pretend that there is no racism, and silence those to death who believe there is?

 

[1069]

Do you mean it is illigetimate "playing the race card" when a news outlet quotes people who express their belief that racism does exist?

Of course it exists.
Let's face it: nobody wants to see a goddamned pissed off, ranting black man sitting up in the White House.
White people don't trust blacks to be able to control themselves when they're pissed.
When Bush- or better yet, Palin- expresses these emotions, whites- at least conservative ones- find it admirable.
"Yeah! Stick it to em, baby!"

These whites would not approve of Obama acting the same way.
I say this in all sincerity.
If I know anything at all, I know, from the bottom of my heart, that this is the truth.

 

[German guy]

Of course it exists.
Let's face it: nobody wants to see a goddamned pissed off, ranting black man sitting up in the White House.
White people don't trust blacks to be able to control themselves when they're pissed.
When Bush- or better yet, Palin- expresses these emotions, whites- at least conservative ones- find it admirable.
"Yeah! Stick it to em, baby!"

These whites would not approve of Obama acting the same way.
I say this in all sincerity.
If I know anything at all, I know, from the bottom of my heart, that this is the truth.

Exactly my point.

Of course racism does exist. And since that is the case, I don't see why the mere acknowledgment of that fact by some news source should be "playing the race card", illegitimate, or a sign of bias.

 

[1069]

Exactly my point.

Of course racism does exist. And since that is the case, I don't see why the mere acknowledgment of that fact by some news source should be "playing the race card", illegitimate, or a sign of bias.

I agree.
I think it's because white people don't like to be confronted with their own biases.
In fact, I'll wager that no people do. Who the hell would?

 

[German guy]

I agree.
I think it's because white people don't like to be confronted with their own biases.
In fact, I'll wager that no people do. Who the hell would?

Agreed. It's never fun to face the own shortcomings.

It may be rude "playing the race card" if you accuse someone personally of racism, without backing that with hard fact. But I think a general acknowledgment of the fact racism does exist, and that a particular form of it has influence on the way the black President is perceived, hardly qualifies.

 

[Caine]

So CNN is quoting people who make such obvious observations about Obama and his public perception. Judging from the excerpt of the CNN article that was posted, I don't see CNN did jump to a definite conclusion based on these quotes. They are merely acknowledging that there are people who believe certain racial stereotypes do play a role in Obama's PR appearance by quoting them. They inform the readers these kind of thoughts play a role for particular people and suggest they do even for Obama and his PR team.

You imply that is "playing the race card". I can't quite follow you.

Do you mean it is illigetimate "playing the race card" when a news outlet quotes people who express their belief that racism does exist?

What should a "fair and balanced" news source so? Pretend that there is no racism, and silence those to death who believe there is?

I don't see where they even attempted to get the other side of the issue.
Can you point this out to me?

 

[Caine]

Of course it exists.
Let's face it: nobody wants to see a goddamned pissed off, ranting black man sitting up in the White House.
White people don't trust blacks to be able to control themselves when they're pissed.
When Bush- or better yet, Palin- expresses these emotions, whites- at least conservative ones- find it admirable.
"Yeah! Stick it to em, baby!"

These whites would not approve of Obama acting the same way.
I say this in all sincerity.
If I know anything at all, I know, from the bottom of my heart, that this is the truth.

Wrong. Coming from a self hating white person like yourself Im not surprised.

As long as its not an issue of race, because anyone who has historically been the victim of racism tends to jump to conclusions on these matters (which Obama evidenced earlier with the officers acting "stupidly" while not knowing the facts). But I don't see why anyone would jump to the conclusion that a black man reacting angrily over an issue that effects all of us, and the rest of us are reacting angrily about as well would make us all view him in a negative "angry black man" stereotype.

Nobody has bothered to address this yet.

Besides, you are self-admittedly not "one of these whites" that you speak of, so just how are you an expert on how they would react?

 

[Caine]

Exactly my point.

Of course racism does exist. And since that is the case, I don't see why the mere acknowledgment of that fact by some news source should be "playing the race card", illegitimate, or a sign of bias.

Show me the purpose of CNN stirring up the race relations pot by writing this article please......

 

[German guy]

I don't see where they even attempted to get the other side of the issue.
Can you point this out to me?

What "other side"?

You mean the claim that there is no racism?

No, that they didn't show, that's true. They are biased. The other day, they even quoted someone who said the earth is not flat. They didn't give equal time to the flat earther side of the issue. Clearly a bias. Also, they claimed the moon is not out of cheese, without giving those equal time and telling the other side of the story: That the moon is indeed made of cheese.

Because, you know, to every claim, there is an opposing claim, and it has just the same merit by default, regardless of factual or logical soundness.

CNN's horrible anti-flat earther, anti-cheesemooner bias is a shame. Especially since my favorite party embraces that side.

 

[Caine]

I agree.
I think it's because white people don't like to be confronted with their own biases.
In fact, I'll wager that no people do. Who the hell would?

You'd have to show that a vast majority of white people would instantly think of the "angry black man" that this stupid article speaks of first.
This article is basically calling the majority of white people racists, based upon their own racist conclusion that white = racist. And several of you here are shallow enough to legitimize this.