DescentBB

Seems even Holder can't get over peoples dislike of him and Obama as nothing more than racial hatred :


“There's a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that's directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there's a racial animus."

Yes we all hate you and your buddy because you're both black. Couldn't be other things like 90 million Americans have stopped looking for work, a porous boarder, gun running or looking the other way where the IRS and Lois Lerner are concerned. Go ahead and keep bringing up race in defense of how poorly you are perceived at doing your job.

If one did know of a porous boarder, I think it would be a good idea to have a doctor check them out.

Maybe they are porous because Rick Perry and Sean Hannity shot them full of holes with that machine gun?

I see two porous boarders right here in this thread.

It is a convenient red herring deflection to focus on any racial component when addressed with dissent. And it has the added benefit of keeping the base animated associating opposition to their leaders with racism.

'If even only one percent are racially driven to opposition, if focusing on that one percent can marginalize criticism, isn't it worth it? Think of the cause. Do it for the cause.'

Well any port in a storm to keep the racial component active. Like the Treyvon Martin case, the DOJ is sending investigative teams:

"The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama."

"A Fourth of July parade float featured at the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism when it depicted a zombie-like figure resembling Mr. Obama standing outside an outhouse, which was labeled the “Obama Presidential Library.”

Yes, Holder has the time and money to spend on a parade float caricaturing El Presidente but cannot investigate Lois Lerner. Oliphant must be wondering what the big deal is.

The huge rise in the number of White Supremacist anti-government groups since Obama was elected says different. I think that new hate is a volatile mix of racism and anti-government rhetoric. Nothing pisses off a White Supremacist more than a Black man with power.

http://news.yahoo.com/online-rants-righ ... 12920.html

woodchip wrote:Couldn't be other things like 90 million Americans have stopped looking for work...

There are only 310 million people in this country. I think you mean 9.5 million total unemployed with only 676,000 who have stopped looking for work. for there to be 90 million people both unemployed and not looking for work the entire country would have had to collapse and there would likely be widespread famine.

Guess again:

"(CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans whom the U.S. Department of Labor counted as “not in the civilian labor force” in August hit a record high of 88,921,000 "
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record- ... ugust-july

The above was for 2012. Or from the BLS:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

woodchip wrote:Guess again:

"(CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans whom the U.S. Department of Labor counted as “not in the civilian labor force” in August hit a record high of 88,921,000 "
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record- ... ugust-july

The above was for 2012. Or from the BLS:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

ummmm. Woody, that includes students over the age of 15 and retired people, along with the disabled.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Guess again:

"(CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans whom the U.S. Department of Labor counted as “not in the civilian labor force” in August hit a record high of 88,921,000 "
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record- ... ugust-july

The above was for 2012. Or from the BLS:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

ummmm. Woody, that includes students over the age of 15 and retired people, along with the disabled.

Yes and they are members of the work force. Your point?

I agree with your numbers, but to suggest that they have 'dropped out' of the workforce is erroneous. Further, the rise is FAR more due to baby boomer retirements than discouraged job seekers, so I don't see why you brought that figure into the discussion.

Yes, these kinds of things need to be presented in a more comprehensive way.

The last I heard on PBS was the non retired people dropping out of the work force was still happening at an alarming rate.

Especially middle aged men.

Exact numbers are hard to remember when you see stuff on TV, and when you try to get them on line…well, you know the story.

back to the original post topic, though.....I listened to the interview with Holder in it's entirety, and it isn't as presented above.
He was EXTREMELY reluctant to even address the racism issue, the interviewer pursued the subject. And, when he did address it, he took
extraordinary pains to state that he felt that racism only made up a very small percentage of the people who have shown disrespect, noting
that most of it comes from the extremities of ideological divides, not mere race.
However, after the whole talk filters through the right wing idiotsphere, it becomes "Holder blames racism for his detractors' or some such. I noted,
during a lull in the Home-Run Derby, that Fox is STILL harping on this interview.

worth noting how Woody quoted part of Holders very reluctant words, and then jumps to 'sure, we all hate you because you're black' or some such white boy whine. Again.

callmeslick wrote:...
He was EXTREMELY reluctant to even address the racism issue, the interviewer pursued the subject. And, when he did address it, he took
extraordinary pains to state that he felt that racism only made up a very small percentage of the people who have shown disrespect, noting
that most of it comes from the extremities of ideological divides, not mere race. ....

"Not mere race" ?!? A little freudian hedging on your part there perhaps?

And if that is his position why do so many of you loyal leftists constantly attribute all opposition to the Obama team to race?

they don't, I don't, and I have no clue what could be Freudian about using the phrase 'mere race' in the context I did.

Deja Moo

callmeslick wrote:they don't, I don't, and I have no clue what could be Freudian about using the phrase 'mere race' in the context I did.

You said Holder claimed race was a factor for a small percentage but then you characterized it as those who show disrespect are from one of two groups.... the racist group and those who have ideological contempt as well as racist motives.

The freudian slip would be that perhaps your bias made you type "not mere race"...as in citing a duality to their motive..ideological as well as race. Instead of typing "not merely race" which could imply a motive different from those who are only moved by their racism.

I'm just picking on you.
You and I both know you have no compunction about calling your opposition racist even when you don't believe it or genuinely care anyway.

I'm quite certain, and far less diplomatic about it, than Holder. A certain percentage of the opposition(small) and a LARGE amount of the increase level of disrespect and vitriol is, to my mind, fueled(at least in part) by racial hatred.

callmeslick wrote:I'm quite certain, and far less diplomatic about it, than Holder. A certain percentage of the opposition(small) and a LARGE amount of the increase level of disrespect and vitriol is, to my mind, fueled(at least in part) by racial hatred.

That is all well and good but the sum of all that is a tiny fraction compared to the volume of opposition he has from purely non racial perspective. That is the distinction that is always avoided. Highlighting the evil nature of the few earns him diversion and rallies the base etc.
Putting it in the proper perspective dampens those forces because they are trained to respond to the battle cry not introspective musings.

All the people that voted Obama in? Most of them white.
All the people that fought slavery? Most of them white
So, based on the history and recent actions of all the white people in america today, are a majority of them likely to be racist? No? Good.
Is the number you would say who are not racist a small enough tally that the remainder can encompass the number of all-who-oppose-Obama/Holder under the umbrella of racists?

You see, reality and rhetoric collide.

But in this culture of dogmatically supporting the leadership of the two sides, ignoring the flaws for the sake of a team win, we perpetuate collisions that aren't just in the arena of ideas. We have real world collisions like Martin and Zimmerman that are manifested largely by the results of those two sides 'leadership' tactics. Polarization taken to the extreme and we willingly use it to identify who we are?!? We celebrate and strut around wearing our manipulated 'choice' on our sleeve daring someone to question us?!?

I'm asking people to abandon the demagogues/pimps as well as call out the media for abandoning their integrity who instead made an industry out of pouring fuel on the fire and marketing it as journalism.
I believe we have reached a tipping point so severe that it isn't hyperbole when I say you are either with me on that or you are one of the ones who doomed us all.

woodchip wrote:The above was for 2012. Or from the BLS:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

Category: Reason

Do not want a job now: Obama's fault
Not available to work now: Obama's fault
Family responsibilities: Obama's fault
In school or training: Obama's fault
Ill health or disability: Obama's fault

Thanks, Obama!

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:The above was for 2012. Or from the BLS:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

Category: Reason

Do not want a job now: Obama's fault
Not available to work now: Obama's fault
Family responsibilities: Obama's fault
In school or training: Obama's fault
Ill health or disability: Obama's fault

Thanks, Obama!

Are you trying to imply that all those reasons that people are out of work have changed or surfaced since after Obama was elected thus the statistics during his term can't be compared to the stats for previous terms?
What a convenient (or unfortunate, depending on your loyalties) turn of events!

Will Robinson wrote:Are you trying to imply that all those reasons that people are out of work have changed or surfaced since after Obama was elected thus the statistics during his term can't be compared to the stats for previous terms?

No, I'm saying there is more to the story than "that darn president of ours put everyone out of work." Callmeslick mentioned a few, technology is another, there are more.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Are you trying to imply that all those reasons that people are out of work have changed or surfaced since after Obama was elected thus the statistics during his term can't be compared to the stats for previous terms?

No, I'm saying there is more to the story than "that darn president of ours put everyone out of work." Callmeslick mentioned a few, technology is another, there are more.

So all those factors didn't exist prior to Obama's reign or have changed drastically enough to make using the statistics to compare previous administrations problematic? Or is this just smoke you are blowing?

given the time lag, if you're going to pin those effects to actual employment numbers, Bush's effect lasted until at least 2012. There is quite a lag between cause and effect. For the record, I think most of those factors are beyond the scope of ANY President or even Congress to affect, unless they swing for the fences and completely re-write trade policy, the tax code and mandatory minimum wages.

callmeslick wrote:given the time lag, if you're going to pin those effects to actual employment numbers, Bush's effect lasted until at least 2012. There is quite a lag between cause and effect. For the record, I think most of those factors are beyond the scope of ANY President or even Congress to affect, unless they swing for the fences and completely re-write trade policy, the tax code and mandatory minimum wages.

So you guys owe Bush a bunch of apologies for forgetting about this 'lag' thing when he was blamed for destroying the economy the minute the bubble burst huh?

You know, sometimes I do not lose the feeling, that the United States will cease to be the United States if they cease to hate Russia. In my opinion, the U.S. will still be forced to play this role in the world puppet theater, to at least as something to rally the American nation, constantly creating an image of an enemy to be fought. Otherwise, the American world order just fall apart like a house of cards

Sigma you are delusional if you believe most Americans spend anytime thinking about Russia. Our leaders and media hardly ever mention Russia and when they do it is a minor concern.
Russia could magically disapear and it would be years before most Americans ever heard about it, and even then It would still be a non event...

Sigma, a large group of Americans are called "Low Information Voters". They know next to nothing about the person they vote for president. What makes you think they know anything about Russia other than what they may have seen in a re-run of Dr Zhivago

Will Robinson wrote:So you guys owe Bush a bunch of apologies for forgetting about this 'lag' thing when he was blamed for destroying the economy the minute the bubble burst huh?

If you are talking about the bubble, then no, corrupt banking is the problem. However, the economy is more than a bubble. It's also two major conflicts in the Middle East and and a host of other bad policies made by both the Bush administration and the terrible Congress we have had for decades. Of course, many economic factors are outside of everyone's control, so it doesn't do any good to blame one man for a everything -- something people on this board can't seem to grasp.

well put, vision, and might I take the opportunity to note that the whole technology/efficiency thing is by far the largest component of long-term unemployment in this country. Mix that in with a gradual flow of menial assembly jobs overseas for cheap labor costs and a 30 year denigration of the importance of education(which is seen as much within popular culture as it is with the political players) and you have the recipe for extremely long term reduction in employment, from which we could well never truly recover. I guess we could keep blaming each President or his/her party in turn, but that isn't going to get us, as a nation, any damned place.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So you guys owe Bush a bunch of apologies for forgetting about this 'lag' thing when he was blamed for destroying the economy the minute the bubble burst huh?

If you are talking about the bubble, then no, corrupt banking is the problem. However, the economy is more than a bubble. It's also two major conflicts in the Middle East and and a host of other bad policies made by both the Bush administration and the terrible Congress we have had for decades. Of course, many economic factors are outside of everyone's control, so it doesn't do any good to blame one man for a everything -- something people on this board can't seem to grasp.

tell that to this administration and the leading Democrats, plus several members of this board. Seems everything that has happened since 2008 is Bush's fault

The only one I see regularly attacking Bush is TC. Slick smartly hedges his Bush comments because slick seems to have a wider understanding Slick's remarks are usually hedged with some comment that restricts the scope of blame, usually because it's true. I voted for Bush. I thought he was terrible. But I can't blame one man who is one part of 1/3rd of our government for the failures of the whole system, and for the same reason it looks like I defend Obama, who has done some pretty horrible stuff.

callmeslick wrote: and a 30 year denigration of the importance of education(which is seen as much within popular culture as it is with the political players)

Wait, what? I could of swore we gave the educators all the money they asked for and then some. You saying the NEA really sucked at its job and all it wanted was to give teachers higher pay so the NEA could get more dues money and thus have more money to donate to democratic candidates. So just who squandered the importance of education? The taxpayers who voted in higher school taxes or the people who handled the money?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: and a 30 year denigration of the importance of education(which is seen as much within popular culture as it is with the political players)

Wait, what? I could of swore we gave the educators all the money they asked for and then some. You saying the NEA really sucked at its job and all it wanted was to give teachers higher pay so the NEA could get more dues money and thus have more money to donate to democratic candidates. So just who squandered the importance of education? The taxpayers who voted in higher school taxes or the people who handled the money?

not at ALL meant as a knock on educators. I thought I clearly conveyed the DENIGRATION, or to put it more simply for you, tendency to belittle education and those who are intellectual. This has come largely from societal/entertainment sources, although a lot of right wing pols do likewise, in the interest of forwarding stupidity like the quoted crap above.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: and a 30 year denigration of the importance of education(which is seen as much within popular culture as it is with the political players)

Wait, what? I could of swore we gave the educators all the money they asked for and then some. You saying the NEA really sucked at its job and all it wanted was to give teachers higher pay so the NEA could get more dues money and thus have more money to donate to democratic candidates. So just who squandered the importance of education? The taxpayers who voted in higher school taxes or the people who handled the money?

not at ALL meant as a knock on educators. I thought I clearly conveyed the DENIGRATION, or to put it more simply for you, tendency to belittle education and those who are intellectual. This has come largely from societal/entertainment sources, although a lot of right wing pols do likewise, in the interest of forwarding stupidity like the quoted crap above.

Do try and link some sources as all I see is another "brilliant" slick opinion piece. Did you ever think, maybe, you should become a comedian?

sources? For which part? Do you really need statistics or 'sources' to detect the denigration of education in the popular culture since 1980? Have you not noted politicians belittling education/educators/intellectuals when it serves their purpose? Do you really disagree that there has been a campaign to denigrate science knowledge? Come on.....of course I wrote my opinion of the trend. That's what you do one discussion boards, but really, sources?

See for someone like me who avoids pop culture like a plague, and doesn’t listen to what many politicians have to say anymore, this is problematic, because the news sources I do listen to have been promoting the notion that the country has been trying to improve education, via race to the top, no child, the core etc.

Although I am aware of the so called war on science, but that has been going on forever.

So I have to take your opinion for it…maybe just a few movie quotes…

Spidey wrote:See for someone like me who avoids pop culture like a plague, and doesn’t listen to what many politicians have to say anymore, this is problematic, because the news sources I do listen to have been promoting the notion that the country has been trying to improve education, via race to the top, no child, the core etc.

your perception is just fine. Just utilize patience and realize that a lot has to be reversed, overcome and improved before we change the overall trajectory.

Although I am aware of the so called war on science, but that has been going on forever.

So I have to take your opinion for it…maybe just a few movie quotes…

no movie quotes, but I will cite one of the most succinct examples. A couple of years back, they did a survey of 16-18 year olds, regarding career/life goals. Only a handful chose a professional goal(lawyer, doctor, scientist, etc). The leading career choice was to be part of a celebrity's entourage. This isn't like a little boy wishing to become a fireman, or little girls wanting to be princesses. These were young people on the verge of starting down an adult life path(presumably). Sums up the outcome of decades of denigration of real knowledge, real contribution and real work.