Top Dem leader defends 'negro' remark...

Just imagine the uproar and fall-out from these same Democrats if a Republican Senator had made the exact same comment...

I am not surprised that Sen Reid used the word "negro" nor am I surprised that he thinks it's ok. I am surprised that he still gets re-elected and even promoted to "leader" when he makes it blatantly clear he is not much of one.

Prediction he will resign as majority leader this week.

Doubt it. They demanded the guy that called Obama a liar's resignation, but I don't think Reid's ego will let him humble himself to resign.

I'm not sure if it's arrogance or a disconnect from the majority of the population, but this can't play well. Whether they admit it or not, there is a double standard at play here. In this same article, Feinstein is quoted as saying, "This statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott's ability to be a credible party leader", in regards to Trent Lott's remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration. The DNC chairman said that Reid's statements were in the context of praising Obama. Well, Lott's remarks were in the context of praising Thurmond. Both instances were of smart men making stupid remarks. Reid should not have to lose his position, neither should Lott have lost his. The precedent, however, has been set. By pooh-poohing Reid's missteps while castigating Lott and other Republicans for theirs, they risk losing the independent voters who helped put them in office. This, in addition to myopically focusing on healthcare instead of doing what they can to help businesses put people back to work, will most likely result in the loss of their massive advantages in both houses.

[quote]Posted 10 January 2010 10:39 PM Hide Post
Doubt it. They demanded the guy that called Obama a liar's resignation, but I don't think Reid's ego will let him humble himself to resign.[/quote]


Who is "they" ?? Who called for Joe Wilson to resign?

Just how in the hell did the word negro become an insult? That is the major problem here.

I am tired of all this PC BS!

Obama should just invite him to the white house for a beer.

Negro is not a term of derision, it is an accurate descriptor for a race of people. I guess I am "Old School" but I can remember when the rest rooms and drinking fountains were marked COLORED and WHITE...that would be the same COLORED PEOPLE referenced in National Association for the Advancement of COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP)...But these Colored People demanded, and rightly so, to be called NEGRO. Preferential terms such as "black" or "African American" DO NOT trump the correct term Negro. In this case (H. Reid) the offensive part was the reference the senator made to Obama's selective use of Ebonics (Negro dialect). This is mostly much ado about nothing.

Answer me this: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between saying 'a person of color' and a 'colored person'?

moelarrycheez asserts:

[QUOTE]I'm not sure if it's arrogance or a disconnect from the majority of the population, but this can't play well. Whether they admit it or not, there is a double standard at play here. In this same article, Feinstein is quoted as saying, "This statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott's ability to be a credible party leader", in regards to Trent Lott's remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration. The DNC chairman said that Reid's statements were in the context of praising Obama. Well, Lott's remarks were in the context of praising Thurmond. Both instances were of smart men making stupid remarks. Reid should not have to lose his position, neither should Lott have lost his. The precedent, however, has been set. By pooh-poohing Reid's missteps while castigating Lott and other Republicans for theirs, they risk losing the independent voters who helped put them in office.{QUOTE}

When Trent Lott made his birthday tribute to Strom Thurmond, the gist of his remarks was to the effect that things would have been better in this country if Thurmond had won the Presidency in 1948.

Thurmond, in 1948, campaigned on the Dixiecrat ticket and the core of his platform was maintaining racial segregation and opposing civil rights legislaton. Linkhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dixiecrat1.html

Lott's remarks hardly could be interpreted as other than sympathetic with that which Thurmond and the Dixicrats envisioned for the nation's future in 1948, namely a continuing racially-segregated society. The Dixiecrat Party was racist. Thurmond, as its candidate, was a racist (albeit perhaps one who reformed later on). Lott, retrospectively endorsing Thurmond's candidacy, was, ipso facto, endorsing Thurmond's racism.

In the 1948 Presidential election, Thurmond ran as a segregationist on a segregationist platform. Lott said that he was proud that Mississippi went for Thurmond in that election and that the nation would now be in better shape if Thurmond had won (instead of Harry Truman). The racist core of that comment by Lott is very clear. By contrast, Harry Reid's remarks were in a wholly different context. He made those remarks while SUPPORTING the candidacy of an African-American for President. The difference between what Lott said and what Reid said is a 180-degree difference. Lott praised the candidacy of an avowed segregationist. Reid endorsed the candidacy of an African-American.

It is absurd to equate what Reid said with Lott's glowing retrospective endorsement of Thurmond and the racist Dixicrat campaign of 1948.

Dogsoldier, here's my take on this..."colored person" is associated with the BAD OLD DAYS and wide spread use of the "N" word, while "people of Color" is a preferencial term of their own choosing and is more inclusive...Mexican, Indian...basically, anyone NOT white.

So...is a 'person of color' ever a 'colored person'?

Is a "Blue sky day" ever a "Sky blue day"...??

Of course People of Color are Colored People, unless the "POLITICALLY CORRECT" monkey on your back is the size of the mature Silver back gorilla. People call me WHITE but I am far from white...white is the absolute absence of color.

I'm the least 'politically correct' person in this forum....almost.

Like a lot of others, I am SICK of the 'PC crowd' and their ilk. NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution is anyone guaranteed the 'right' to be free from having their feelings hurt, whether it be from being called 'black, cracker, honky, redneck or negro.'

Liberal lawyers, such as those represented by the ACLU and the SPLL have royally screwed this country up....possibly beyond recovery.

You are absolutely correct sir...

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
You are absolutely correct sir...

If we still had the 'PM' function I'd invite you to a cup of coffee!

Not to stir the pot because politics is not my thing but while listening to the radio this morning a commentator noted that it is not the black community that it up in arms about his remarks. The black community doesn't appear to be upset, why should the rest of us be other than that whole dem vs repub thing? I personally don't have an opion, just curious.

It seems to me that both political parties are not above extensively monitoring what members of the other faction say; and using it if they can leverage any advantage. A logical consequence of this is to squash any extensive discussion of ideas.

Yes, there is a double standard. And both parties and the media are guilty of it.

quote:

Originally posted by JustMe:
Not to stir the pot because politics is not my thing but while listening to the radio this morning a commentator noted that it is not the black community that it up in arms about his remarks. The black community doesn't appear to be upset, why should the rest of us be other than that whole dem vs repub thing? I personally don't have an opion, just curious.

I feel the same way. Obama is not upset about the remark, why should we be?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

In the 1948 Presidential election, Thurmond ran as a segregationist on a segregationist platform. Lott said that he was proud that Mississippi went for Thurmond in that election and that the nation would now be in better shape if Thurmond had won (instead of Harry Truman). The racist core of that comment by Lott is very clear. By contrast, Harry Reid's remarks were in a wholly different context. He made those remarks while SUPPORTING the candidacy of an African-American for President. The difference between what Lott said and what Reid said is a 180-degree difference. Lott praised the candidacy of an avowed segregationist. Reid endorsed the candidacy of an African-American.

So, let me get this straight. Reid's "He's a good boy" comments are okay, but Lott's "He's a good ol' boy" comments aren't? If this is the case, then what does this say about, and to, those who's skin is darker or speak in the "negro dialect," to use Reid's words? Are they less viable and less appealing to the American public than someone who speaks well and is "light-skinned"? Again, both men, BOTH men, made extremely stupid comments. Neither should have to lose their position, but the precedent has been set. It doesn't matter which was worse, because, frankly, a majority of Americans do not attempt to discern the facts themselves, but simply parrot whatever their favorite commentators and news channels report. If Reid does not step down, which he probably will not, the Republicans can, and will, make political hay out of this in the elections later this year, and will probably gain more seats than they might have originally. If he does step down, the Democrats can neutralize the effect.

Do you remember David Howard, the Aide to the Washington D.C. Mayor, who lost his job because he used the word "*****rdly" and "*****rdly" is a legitimate, not a slang or perjorative, word. So, what we have learned is that any action that offends those in power, regardless of whether offense is reasonable, will lead to an unreasonable result.

Oh, this is even better...the TD has censored my previous post...deleting the legitimate word I used as an example of PC!
Try: November - India -Golf - Golf - Alpha - Romeo - Delta - Lima - Yankee. Look it up in your dictionary, the TD should too.