I see: the qualified person won. Clearly. LOL

Wasn't it the left criticizing her for keeping her newest son, even though the Palins knew he was going to be born with Down Syndrome? Ya know, right to govern her own body and all that.

But this is the reason I replied. For one, that insinuation is insulting. Second, why is it so difficult to believe that a fair number of right-leaning voters would appreciate Cain's message?

Oops, I didn't actually direct that at you, although it could easily come across that way. I should have used the word 'one' instead of 'you' in that sentence: "I suppose if one doesn't...". I apologize if you thought I was singling you out personally.

In the U.S. the term 'hate crime' is usually only used to describe crimes done to minorities by Caucasians. I think the term itself can be used for any racially motivated crime, but, at least in my experience, it is rarely used to describe crimes done to Caucasians by minorities. That is mainly what I was making reference to with my comment, not you directly.

Confirming that the people voting are citizens legally qualified to vote in that particular election. Unions insist on IDs for their votes...

If you mean upholding the existing federal immigration laws, I'd say it's about upholding the federal immigration laws. Come on in, but please do it legally. Nothing more complicated than that.

What's so wrong about hiring the best person for the job, or admitting the most qualified student? Is it right to pass over the best applicants for someone else, based solely on skin color? If we're talking things like housing equality and such, then yeah, those laws are a good thing to have. But if we're talking about subsidizing rent, based on race, for that housing, then that's a bad thing.

Has a little something to do with 9/11, which has something to do with centuries of religion and global politics. And while you'll hear this or that dimwit griping about Muslims in general, most folks are simply concerned about what happens when that religion gets twisted in such a way that violent acts are perpetrated against innocent people. Sure, it's hardly limited to Islam, but that's the freshest wound so it's the one getting the attention. I think it's natural that people don't want to believe (kinda like the OP) that those similar to them (say, from the same religious background) could participate in those same behaviors so they turn a blind eye to those actions that occur from those who are like them.

That's precisely what I think. Should I be applying some racist reasoning to those issues just because the left says I'm supposed to be racist?

Well, there are those that will always interpret whatever you say with that 'racism-avenger' lens. If you say something that certain liberals disagree with, they will label you a racist as a knee-jerk reaction to shut you down. So, in that case, even voicing an opinion honestly might make them brand you a racist. Thus, in their mind you would be using racist reasoning, de facto.

Remember what happened to Juan Williams a year or so back. He mentioned that he feels uneasy when he sees people wearing turbans board the same airplane as he. NPR fired him for this statement because they deemed it 'racially insensitive' or whatever. Firstly, I think that many people would feel the same emotion and that it is perfectly justified given 9/11. Secondly, it was Juan Williams! Good grief, calling him any sort of racist is just patently absurd, at least in my mind.

Exactly, Krypsyn.

I was trying to make the point to the OP, in the original thread, that it comes down to the words and the behavior of individual people, and not the perceptions foisted upon them simply by the label they receive based on their position on the ideological scale.

And no matter what we give for our reasoning for this or that position, it seems that the left wants to say that it's just a cover story for our true feelings. Hooey. That's what I'm reading from hedwards' comments about Cain (like Cain was supposed to be the cover candidate for our supposed hidden guilt) and those other things that he posits as coming from the "party of racism" and suppression of women. Let's face it, I can give whatever valid reasons I want but there is going to be some portion of the opposing ideology that will say I'm lying to cover up bigotry. It's annoying to the right in the same way the left are annoyed by the label of "socialists".

..sigh...
GOG.com

It's all good :) You didn't come across the wrong way and I got what you meant. I just wasn't sure if you were directing that at me or not, thanks for clarifying!
-Cym

Heh, I think this response proves my point about knee-jerk reactions quite nicely. ;)

Anyway.. he actually said 'Muslim garb' not 'turbans'. I went to his wiki after posting and brushed up on the facts, just to make sure I got the general gist of the story correct; I did, but didn't remember all the quotes and paraphrasing correctly.

Go visit the wiki for the man before commenting further. He has received an Emmy Award for his work on documenting the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, for instance. He is really not the man to try to paint with the racist brush. I don't think, even 1.5 years later, that NPR has gotten over the black eye they got by firing him.

I just noticed I've been using these blanket terms myself: "the left", liberal, right, etc., and doing so in a general way that lumps people together with some negative connotations.

Hypocritical? Yup.

My apologies.

No, but he works for NPR and NPR has to keep significantly more clean than other outlets because of the tarring and feathering that they get from conservatives over perceived hypocrisy and failing to sufficiently praise their bigoted policies.

In this case it's not a particularly important point, he still made a pretty serious racist comment on the air. All you've done is demonstrated that he should have known better.

As for the black eye, they long since got over that one. Perhaps not to conservatives or the more small minded out there, but he of all people should have known better than to say something so overtly racist on the air.
Except that it's not about verifying that people are legally allowed to vote. It's about disenfranchising voters. Taking away the right of people to vote, requires evidence that there's a problem.

In the case of unions, that's a completely different matter as the unions know that their members have access to photo IDs, whereas the general populous may or may not have one.


Which explains why it is that they're going for ever more extreme forms of enforcement? I'm sorry, but randomly carding people throughout the state is not something which presently is called for by immigration laws as far as I can tell. Which is why these things come into being through new laws.

The problem is that affirmative action doesn't prevent you from doing that. Nor does it prevent you from admitting the most qualified students. It does prevent you from hiring without advertising or engaging in practices which tend to discourage minority applicants.

I have myself benefited on occasion from affirmative action and likely will again in the future as men are an under represented minority in education.

You're not supposed to be racist, but if you're rationalizing what is clearly racist behavior, then yes, you probably are racist. We all are to an extent, but some of us actually take the time to deal with it rather than pretend like it's something that others falsely claim.

The term isn't usually used for crimes against caucasians because racism isn't usually the motivating factor in the crime. But, yes, it does happen and it does get prosecuted as a hate crime just the same as it would for other groups.

Just because a white person goes out and beats the crap out of a black person doesn't automatically make it a hate crime, there has to be evidence that the motivation was racism.

I still don't think what he said was racist in the slightest. The planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 were piloted by Muslims. Every plane hijacking I can think of off the top of my head has been perpetrated by a Muslim group or the IRA (and the IRA one was over 30 years ago). I don't think admitting unease at obvious Muslims boarding his plane is tantamount to racism; it isn't as if he is acting on the information or asking anyone else to either.

If a woman admits that she is uneasy when a large man is walking behind her on a sidewalk at night, does this make her sexist? To me it is the same thing. She doesn't really think that man is out to get her, but she still feels uneasy. Many women I know have admitted to feeling this way, and I don't blame them for this emotion any more than I blame Williams for his. I think it is human nature; part of our fight-or-flight evolutionary programming.

Or, is it just that he admitted these politically incorrect feelings that makes him racist?
Links please. I need some supporting evidence to this claim.

I have never seen mention of a hate crime in national news where the assailant was not Caucasian. I just ran a couple quick Google Searches and couldn't find a single one. Perhaps you'll fare better. Please post a link of one when you find it.

Maybe not, but there is usually someone that tries to say it is. For stories that reach national attention, it is invariably someone like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Whether true or not, they will try to spin it as a hate crime.

EDIT:
I did run across this link while trying to find mention of a hate crime with a black assailant: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2867074/posts

It sums up my point quite nicely. Here is a crime that nobody with authority will seem to admit is a hate crime by African-americans toward a Caucasian and it never made national news. I apologize for the formatting of the page, that is the link Google brought up and I didn't bother to look for a shinier version.

EDIT2:
Here is another: http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-norfolk/why-hasn-t-hampton-assailant-been-charged-with-a-hate-crime

Oh give me a break... I have to believe that you have read a newspaper or watched a news program or a political speech at least once in your life. So, therefore, you must know that people have a rather extensive list of reasons for supporting/opposing these items mentioned.

Thus I'm left to conclude that you think these people are all secret racists, and lying or unaware of their hidden intentions. I reckon that's a pretty hefty claim to leave so unsubstantiated.

I mean, I believe in some pretty radical stuff too - I could *guess* at what motives someone *might* have to support a particular political stance, but I would never take a group consisting of tens of millions of people and claim that I have the ability to read their minds.

He was fired because Muslim garb has no connection with Islam? He was fired because the words "Islam", "terrorism" and "planes" are in no way connected?


He was fired because NPR was afraid that conservatives would "tar and feather" the network for not firing a guy whose comments were, in your view, conservative?

It's all coming together now.