That's what they mean by "classy" and "eloquent"?
Posted by aogFriday, 24 July 2009 at 13:04
TrackBack Ping URL
Gosh, how is that “post-racial” thing with President Obama working out?
Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 20:05|
Hmmm… Well, when I read 1., 2., 3. I think “nutjob”. Obama Derangement Syndrome.
It reveals a anit-american [sic], far left, knee jerk, anti-establishment and anti white hostility. […] That is [sic] comes so effortlessly from his mouth tells us all we need know about the inappropriateness of Obama holding his office. He has racial contempt for 70% of the population. He has no intention at all of representing them. THey are to be used and humiliated.
That an American adult thinks “that was stupid,” upon hearing that a black man was arrested in his own home for supposedly being a burglar, is not anti-: American, establishment, or especially white. Nor is it far left. It means that said American adult has been paying attention.
Police ineptness and abuse happen ALL THE TIME, in part because police officers are human and make mistakes. YouTube has a hundred videos purporting to demonstrate examples of such.
Obama made a mistake to comment at all, but to say that such a comment demonstrates that Obama is unfit to hold office displays a childish lack of historical and social knowledge. ALL Presidents say stupid or inappropriate things occasionally, because they too are human.
Obama probably does have contempt for 70% of the population, but so do I, and in neither case is it based on race. To suggest that it IS based on race in Obama’s case is in and of itself racist, in that it asserts that Obama’s self-identity is simply and solely “black”. It isn’t, any more than most sane white people base their self-identity around “not being colored”. In fact, the “white supremacist” stereotype is an object of ridicule.
To further assert that Obama intends to “use and humiliate” 70% of the population while having “no intention at all of representing them” displays a deep ignorance of how politics works in a democracy, as well as an astounding misread of actual politicians’ behavior. ALMOST ALL politicians well-represent large blocs of voters for whom they have contempt, because A) most politicians consider themselves to be superior humans and elite, and B) large voter blocs have the power to end careers, even if they do so rarely, and so need to be at least adequately-served.
|Annoying Old Guy
Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 20:48|
upon hearing that a black man was arrested in his own home for supposedly being a burglar
The only people hearing that are people who are listening to the confused and the fabricators. Gates wasn’t arrested in his home, he wasn’t arrested in the house (which he rents), and he wasn’t arrested for being (or suspected of being) a burglar.
But of course Obama, by his own admission, did not know that. Beyond the error of promoting some local incident to national prominence solely on the basis of Gates being a friend, there is the self admitted error of jumping in without knowing the facts. Yes, all Presidents mispeak. But this is well beyond that.
That said, I would agree that some of the comment is a bit over the top, but I think it’s less over the top than Obama’s original statement or any of his “attempts to calibrate” afterwards.
Obama probably does have contempt for 70% of the population, but so do I, and in neither case is it based on race. To suggest that it IS based on race in Obama’s case is in and of itself racist
Regardless of whether Obama is, in fact, a racist? It is not permitted to accuse him of it, regardless of evidence or facts? How would you say one should call out actual racists, if it’s racist to call them racist? I think it just shows how utterly divorced from reality the very term has become, which is a reason I try to avoid it. I don’t know if Obama is or not, but surely that is possible and I don’t see how your view handles that case.
To further assert that Obama intends to “use and humiliate” 70% of the population while having “no intention at all of representing them” displays a deep ignorance of how politics works in a democracy
On whose part? I think the JOM commentor is keenly aware of how politics works, he just doesn’t think Obama works that way. I suspect that if you told him “using and humiliating 70% of the population while not representing them” is stupid, he would say “yes it is”. Personally, I think it’s unclear whether Obama is going to do that or not, but I would say the evidence is in favor of the hypothesis, as one need merely look at his attempted legislative efforts.