Democrats playing the race card, again!

[Karl]

[...] That's the race card, period. [...]

That is your definition. We are not working from your definition, we are working on the commonly accepted definition previously posted.

That's just an outright lie. I never said anything about his guilt/innocence with the Fast & Furious stuff.

Clearly you fail to understand your own argument.

If you're referring to the "race card," again, his words are sufficient.[...]

That is your definition. We are not working from your definition, we are working on the commonly accepted definition previously posted.

Again, I must note that the above is the typical right wing approach -- accuse someone of something, and when the veracity of the accusation is challenged, change the definition of the term used to fit the facts of the matter (which often do not support the accepted use of the term).

To sum up the right wing argument yet again: if Holder is attacked for racial reasons, he is not allowed to state that he is being attacked for racial reasons -- unless he then also wants to be accused of 'playing the race card'. So by stating the facts of the matter he is guilty of some imagined fault or sin. Orwellian (only the guilty defend themselves).

And keep in mind this has nothing to do with the supposed reason for the original attack (Fast and Furious, an offshoot of a cross-border gun tracking program that was begun some five or six years ago, long before he (or Obama) arrived in office). In the world of right wing spin, Holder is no longer a mere criminal, supplying guns to the Mexican cartels -- he is now a racist to boot (or something similar).

 

[Harshaw]

That is your definition. We are not working from your definition, we are working on the commonly accepted definition previously posted.


Clearly you fail to understand your own argument.


That is your definition. We are not working from your definition, we are working on the commonly accepted definition previously posted.

Again, I must note that the above is the typical right wing approach -- accuse someone of something, and when the veracity of the accusation is challenged, change the definition of the term used to fit the facts of the matter (which often do not support the accepted use of the term).

To sum up the right wing argument yet again: if Holder is attacked for racial reasons, he is not allowed to state that he is being attacked for racial reasons -- unless he then also wants to be accused of 'playing the race card'. So by stating the facts of the matter he is guilty of some imagined fault or sin. Orwellian (only the guilty defend themselves).

And keep in mind this has nothing to do with the supposed reason for the original attack (Fast and Furious, an offshoot of a cross-border gun tracking program that was begun some five or six years ago, long before he (or Obama) arrived in office). In the world of right wing spin, Holder is no longer a mere criminal, supplying guns to the Mexican cartels -- he is now a racist to boot (or something similar).

Yeaaaaah. I've got no worries how an impartial reader will see this little exchange, so I'll leave you to bleat in your own little echo cone there, where "nuh-uh!!!" appears to be an acceptable argument.

 

[misterman]

Not having the obsession with Fox News that you have, I couldn't possibly care less.

Considering a Fox report was what the OP was based on, it's a legitimate issue. If you don't care, why are you here?

 

[Harshaw]

Considering a Fox report was what the OP was based on, it's a legitimate issue. If you don't care, why are you here?

Ummmm . . . I think my posts speak for themselves. If even one of them relied on Fox News for anything, then you might have some kind of point.

 

[pbrauer]

Not having the obsession with Fox News that you have, I couldn't possibly care less.

Of course you couldn't care less, because the disingenuous Foxnews.com report says what you want it to say. Journalism be damned, don't you have interest in the truth? In my opinion Holder should not have mentioned race even though what he said was true. But if you read the New York Times piece linked below which the Fox report was written from, I think you'll see he wasn't using race for his problems. You must like it when people's words are taken out-of-context when it serves your purpose, so carry on. :roll:

A Partisan Lightning Rod Is Undeterred

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Mr. Holder, however, attributed most of the hostility to underlying ideological differences. “I think that people, despite my law enforcement background, view me as taking these consistently progressive stands, and I think that, philosophically, there is a desire to get at that person,” he said. “But I think the stands I have taken are totally consistent with a person who is looking at things realistically, factually.”

 

[Harshaw]

Of course you couldn't care less, because the disingenuous Foxnews.com report says what you want it to say. Journalism be damned, don't you have interest in the truth? In my opinion Holder should not have mentioned race even though what he said was true. But if you read the New York Times piece linked below which the Fox report was written from, I think you'll see he wasn't using race for his problems. You must like it when people's words are taken out-of-context when it serves your purpose, so carry on. :roll:

A Partisan Lightning Rod Is Undeterred

Heh. Keep on swingin' for the cheap seats there, pard.

 

[Dickieboy]

…I think you'll see he wasn't using race for his problems.

After reading the article I am having trouble connecting the dots, maybe you can help. In the NYT article the discussion is about ‘In the interview, Mr. Holder offered a glimpse of how he viewed the criticism’. Holder then states that his critics are ‘expressing “good faith” arguments about their policy disagreements’ then ‘were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games’ and then ‘were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him’ which continues into the race comment. While I agree he does not claim race is the ONLY issue for his problems he DOES represent it is part of it. How can this article be read in another way?

 

[Karl]

[...] While I agree he does not claim race is the ONLY issue for his problems he DOES represent it is part of it. [...]

Are you saying that race is NOT a part of "his problems"? (basis for right wing attacks).

If you are NOT saying that, then are you saying he is NOT ALLOWED to state that race is part of his problems? (at least not allowed without being attacked for stating the truth).

If not, then just exactly what is the issue?

 

[Dickieboy]

Are you saying that race is NOT a part of "his problems"? (basis for right wing attacks).

If you are NOT saying that, then are you saying he is NOT ALLOWED to state that race is part of his problems? (at least not allowed without being attacked for stating the truth).

If not, then just exactly what is the issue?

Please re-read post #155, including the link, completely then my post and maybe you will understand.

 

[haymarket]

Not having the obsession with Fox News that you have, I couldn't possibly care less.

So you do not care when a viewed mass media outlet possible is presenting skewed versions of news for their own personal purposes?

That seems like a very devil-may-care attitude to take if you really care about the nation and its policies for the people.

 

[Karl]

Please re-read post #155, including the link, completely then my post and maybe you will understand.

I understand post #155 (I only had to read it once)

I understand the NY Times article at the link (I only had to read it once).

Your post -- #157 -- is giving me some difficulty. Since you avoided my questions about your post, I think I can safely assume that you have been boxed into a corner, and that you realize that, and have therefore embarked on a personal attack upon my cognitive abilities in order to provide cover for your tactical error.

'sokay. These things happen :2razz:

 

[Dickieboy]

Your post -- #157 -- is giving me some difficulty. Since you avoided my questions about your post, I think I can safely assume that you have been boxed into a corner, and that you realize that,

First in Pete’s post #155 he stated ‘I think you'll see he wasn't using race for his problems’.

My point was that Holder was not using race SOLELY, as Pete inferred, but partially.

As to your question:
Are you saying that race is NOT a part of "his problems"? (basis for right wing attacks).

Ambiguous, please explain. Are you saying Holder thinks his race is his problem? And in your question who are you presuming ‘his problems’? ‘Right wing’ attackers?

If you are NOT saying that, then are you saying he is NOT ALLOWED to state that race is part of his problems? (at least not allowed without being attacked for stating the truth).

I don’t know what Holder thinks about his race, if that is your question.

…have therefore embarked on a personal attack upon my cognitive abilities in order to provide cover for your tactical error.

Please point out where I attacked you personally.

 

[pbrauer]

After reading the article I am having trouble connecting the dots, maybe you can help. In the NYT article the discussion is about ‘In the interview, Mr. Holder offered a glimpse of how he viewed the criticism’. Holder then states that his critics are ‘expressing “good faith” arguments about their policy disagreements’ then ‘were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games’ and then ‘were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him’ which continues into the race comment. While I agree he does not claim race is the ONLY issue for his problems he DOES represent it is part of it. How can this article be read in another way?

You can derive whatever you want from the New York Times piece, I couldn't care less. My beef is with the Foxnews.com report which is written to make the reader come up to the conclusion that its all about race - which it isn't. They arn't news nor are the "fair & balanced." The report is biased as hell.

I have no doubt that racist part is true, however as I've said above, he should not have said anything. It gets you nowhere to claim racism, so why do it? If President Obama claimed racism during the 2008 election, he would not be president today.

 

[Misterveritis]

2008. A black man of mixed heritage began preparing to run for president.

Fox Anchor Calls [Barack-Michelle] Obama Fist Pound A "Terrorist Fist Jab" (6/17/2008)

(AP) Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck said he believes President Barack Obama is a racist (7/29/2009)

And what happened in 2009? A red man became president. Didn't he?
And then he began to fundamentally transform the nation from capitalist to socialist. His Attorney General, may very well be racist. Did he bring the Black Panthers to trial for suppressing the white vote?

I could go on. I won't. I believe you have shown yourself. That is enough.

 

[Misterveritis]

Herman Cain

Brent Bozell

Rush Limbaugh

Those were three good stories. Thank you. I see the difference between making a case and making a charge.

 

[Misterveritis]

So-called conservatives have a habit of making up definitions to existing words. For example, if you call someone a racist, that means you are a racist (according to some on the right); or, if you simply note that some is black (or white, for that matter), you are a racist (again, according to some on the right).

I suppose Conservatives are surprised by racism. I see none in my daily life. Perhaps I live a sheltered life. I am an engineering manager with about 70 engineers. Some are black. Some are brown. Some are white. They are all good. Some are better than others in terms of their performance. All of the engineers range from very good to very acceptable. Those who are black and brown are above the middle of the pack. And all of the lowest rated in my particular group are white.

I coach the engineers. My very best is very black. I enjoy every minute spent with him.

So then I see liberal-progressives, such as yourself, crying racism and I think you see it because racism is part of your mindset. It is not part of mine.

 

[Dickieboy]

You can derive whatever you want from the New York Times piece, I couldn't care less. My beef is with the Foxnews.com report which is written to make the reader come up to the conclusion that its all about race - which it isn't. They arn't news nor are the "fair & balanced." The report is biased as hell.

I agree with all this. Who cares what Fox, NYT, etal say as they all have agenda's to promote.

I have no doubt that racist part is true, however as I've said above, he should not have said anything. It gets you nowhere to claim racism, so why do it? If President Obama claimed racism during the 2008 election, he would not be president today.

I agree wholly with this. Holder’s reference was uncalled for and only inflamed some who have an agenda, the 'extremist' that Hay spoke of.

 

[Karl]

I suppose Conservatives are surprised by racism. [...]

:lamo

I see none in my daily life. Perhaps I live a sheltered life. I am an engineering manager with about 70 engineers. Some are black. Some are brown. Some are white. They are all good. Some are better than others in terms of their performance. All of the engineers range from very good to very acceptable. Those who are black and brown are above the middle of the pack. And all of the lowest rated in my particular group are white.

I coach the engineers. My very best is very black. I enjoy every minute spent with him. [...]

It's the internet... you can be whatever you want to be. Including a Norman Rockwell painting :2razz:

 

[Misterveritis]

:lamo
It's the internet... you can be whatever you want to be. Including a Norman Rockwell painting :2razz:

And you have revealed yourself. The worst part is that you do not see how small you actually are.

 

[Harshaw]

So you do not care when a viewed mass media outlet possible is presenting skewed versions of news for their own personal purposes?

That seems like a very devil-may-care attitude to take if you really care about the nation and its policies for the people.

Bet you feel really good about yourself after having posted this.

But Fox News still had not one thing to do with anything I said, so I have absolutely no reason to comment on them one way or the other. You and Pete can go on about your red herring at your leisure, though.

 

[RedAkston]

You can derive whatever you want from the New York Times piece, I couldn't care less. My beef is with the Foxnews.com report which is written to make the reader come up to the conclusion that its all about race - which it isn't. They arn't news nor are the "fair & balanced." The report is biased as hell.

I have no doubt that racist part is true, however as I've said above, he should not have said anything. It gets you nowhere to claim racism, so why do it? If President Obama claimed racism during the 2008 election, he would not be president today.

From the OP via FOX News:

The attorney general cited race in explaining why a "more extreme segment" of his critics were going after him. "This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American," Holder said in an interview with The New York Times.

Not sure how this can be written any other way than how it was - they used his own words where he did say "a more extreme segment". What you and the other apologists are failing to grasp here is that he said this in defense of his actions. He didn't name any names, he just blatantly pulled out the race card and laid it on the table in an attempt to deflect from his own ineptness (and Obama's as well). The fact that's he's black and "a more extreme segment" may or may not be opposed to him solely based on skin color is completely irrelevant as to why he ****ed up Fast and the Furious, why he has failed to prosecute voter intimidation, why they are not defending the law of the land (DOM act) and other **** ups by his DOJ and this administration.

We all realize that you hate everything FOX News and your obsession with it is something you should seek help for (disclaimer: I am not a doctor and my observation is based solely on pete's own words). Holder played the race card here plain as day. Watching you and other apologists doing everything you can to divert this thread away from the fact that Holder played the race card, has nothing to do with FOX News, the NYT, Media Matters, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or any other news organization or pundit, and is completely laughable, even if expected (you are following your playbook after all). The fact that Holder isn't the only democrat to pull the race card out of their back pocket ever since Obama began running for office, is completely ignored by you and your ilk because "by god, FOX News must be stopped" even though they simply reported a story and used Holder's own words in doing so.

Your schtick does get old pete, but it does give us something to laugh at every time you post. Keep up the good work!

:lamo

 

[misterman]

Ummmm . . . I think my posts speak for themselves. If even one of them relied on Fox News for anything, then you might have some kind of point.

So you're admitting you're completely off topic.

 

[misterman]

Heh. Keep on swingin' for the cheap seats there, pard.

What a pathetic dodge.

 

[Harshaw]

So you're admitting you're completely off topic.

That's "completely" idiotic. I was as on-topic as it gets (ask the OP, who "liked" my posts). It's the attempt to make it about Fox News which is off-topic.

 

[Harshaw]

What a pathetic dodge.

Heh. Whatever you say.