PDA

View Full Version : Ladies and Gentlemen, your "MOR" Dem Leader - Howard Dean


KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 03:40 PM
At the Democrat Black Caucus last week

You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here

Nice. Evidently if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black.

The only thing he was missing was Robert Byrd in full white sheet behind him smiling to complete the picture.

mikey23545
02-17-2005, 04:29 PM
Massa Dean got a weird sense of humor!

Bwana
02-17-2005, 04:31 PM
Dean is going to be fun to watch in his new position. :)

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 04:32 PM
Dean is going to be fun to watch in his new position. :)
He's middle of the road, jAZ says so.

I guess as long as he keeps them southern white folk from votin' guns and trucks and keeps dem blacks in da hotel uneeeforms, everyting gonna be otay!!!

http://re2.mm-a.yimg.com/image/248088129

Taco John
02-17-2005, 10:44 PM
Does it bother you that you're more offended at that comment than any black person in that room?

BIG_DADDY
02-17-2005, 10:47 PM
I am not sure the demorats can drop any further, I can't believe they made this guy their man. This is like watching a train wreck.

alanm
02-17-2005, 10:47 PM
You should realize Russ that it's only ok for democrats to make statements like this. I thought you knew that? :)

BIG_DADDY
02-17-2005, 10:57 PM
You should realize Russ that it's only ok for democrats to make statements like this. I thought you knew that? :)

amen

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 11:03 PM
Does it bother you that you're more offended at that comment than any black person in that room?
Ahh diversion. How unusual. (pssst, this is the part where you blame me for diverting, so you don't look silly again).

Plenty of black people have complained including Lt Governor Michael Steele and J.C. Watts. Or to be offended, must blacks only be in the room?

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 11:12 PM
Does it bother you that you're more offended at that comment than any black person in that room?
Oh, and before you cry that it was only Black Republicans who were offended, Charlie Rangel also stated that if he offended anyone he should apologize.

Taco John
02-17-2005, 11:19 PM
Ahh diversion. How unusual. (pssst, this is the part where you blame me for diverting, so you don't look silly again).

Plenty of black people have complained including Lt Governor Michael Steele and J.C. Watts. Or to be offended, must blacks only be in the room?



Diversion? WTF? What am I diverting? I could care less about Dean. I'm just curious if it bothers you that you're more offended at that comment than any black person in that room?

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 11:20 PM
Diversion? WTF? What am I diverting? I could care less about Dean. I'm just curious if it bothers you that you're more offended at that comment than any black person in that room?
#1. Who said I was offended?

#2. Republicans can't be offended? Only blacks can?

Taco John
02-17-2005, 11:20 PM
Plenty of black people have complained including Lt Governor Michael Steele and J.C. Watts. Or to be offended, must blacks only be in the room?



I would suggest that Lt Governor Michael Steele and J.C. Watts not vote for Howard Dean for any public office.

Taco John
02-17-2005, 11:21 PM
#1. Who said I was offended?




You did....


He's middle of the road, jAZ says so.

I guess as long as he keeps them southern white folk from votin' guns and trucks and keeps dem blacks in da hotel uneeeforms, everyting gonna be otay!!!

http://re2.mm-a.yimg.com/image/248088129

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 11:21 PM
I would suggest that Lt Governor Michael Steele and J.C. Watts not vote for Howard Dean for any public office.
Coming from the "He called me racist names" Posterboy, your comments really don't ring true.

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 11:22 PM
You did....
Wow, thanks. I didn't see the word "offended" or "outraged" in my original post until you pointed it out.


Oh, wait, I still don't see it. Once again, stupid diversion.

Michael Michigan
02-17-2005, 11:36 PM
Wow, thanks. I didn't see the word "offended" or "outraged" in my original post until you pointed it out.


Oh, wait, I still don't see it. Once again, stupid diversion.

Perhaps he can talk you into believing you wrote it.

He talked his neighbor into voting for John Kerry.

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 11:42 PM
Perhaps he can talk you into believing you wrote it.

He talked his neighbor into voting for John Kerry.
Ahh, but luckily I wasn't in his yard of persuasion and neatly avoided that trap.

Taco John
02-17-2005, 11:42 PM
Coming from the "He called me racist names" Posterboy, your comments really don't ring true.


Actually, they do. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference and why they ring true. It's not that hard to figure out really, but to do so, you'd have to approach the subject with an ounce of empathy. ROFL

So I'll let you believe what you want and comment in your usual fat-headed way. I think I got the answer I was looking for.

Yes.

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 11:44 PM
Actually, they do. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference and why they ring true. It's not that hard to figure out really, but to do so, you'd have to approach the subject with an ounce of empathy. ROFL

So I'll let you believe what you want and comment in your usual fat-headed way. I think I got the answer I was looking for.

Yes.
Got it.


Calling you a beaner is bad, saying "the only way we get a bunch of illegal immigrants selling knock off tennis shoes and bad tortillas in this room is if we invite Taco John's family" is okay.

Taco John
02-17-2005, 11:48 PM
You don't have it. You don't have any clue. It is mind boggling to you. You think it's a double standard, but in reality, you're just can't wrap your mind around it.

It's actually quite hilarious. Like watching a fat guy do yoga.

Taco John
02-17-2005, 11:52 PM
And you know what's more.... You really don't care to get it...

Which is the point altogether.

KCWolfman
02-18-2005, 05:52 AM
You don't have it. You don't have any clue. It is mind boggling to you. You think it's a double standard, but in reality, you're just can't wrap your mind around it.

It's actually quite hilarious. Like watching a fat guy do yoga.
And here endeth the lesson. Next TJ will teach how to catch water with your fingers.


Umm, you are full of sh*t. I guess people like Charlie Rangel and Michael Steele are just to stupid to "get it" as well, eh?

Ultra Peanut
02-18-2005, 06:03 AM
He's middle of the road, jAZ says so.

I guess as long as he keeps them southern white folk from votin' guns and trucks and keeps dem blacks in da hotel uneeeforms, everyting gonna be otay!!!

http://re2.mm-a.yimg.com/image/248088129Buckwheat didn't really use "otay" as his catchphrase, though I'm sure you knew that already.

Speaking of which, I really do need a ****ing haircut.

memyselfI
02-18-2005, 07:02 AM
At the Democrat Black Caucus last week

You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here

Nice. Evidently if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black.

The only thing he was missing was Robert Byrd in full white sheet behind him smiling to complete the picture.

uh, YOU are assuming that the phrase 'people of color' means only Blacks. In reality, there are likley as many, if not more, Hispanics working in hotels than Blacks. Asians would be in high numbers as well in certain parts of the country.

mlyonsd
02-18-2005, 07:42 AM
uh, YOU are assuming that the phrase 'people of color' means only Blacks. In reality, there are likley as many, if not more, Hispanics working in hotels than Blacks. Asians would be in high numbers as well in certain parts of the country.
ROFL I see we're going with the "It depends on the definition of what the word 'is' is" defense.

Dean is going to take the democratic party straight into a train wreck. Which is exactly what it needs IMO. It's time again for the party to stand for the common man and not the elitists.

Radar Chief
02-18-2005, 08:27 AM
uh, YOU are assuming that the phrase 'people of color' means only Blacks. In reality, there are likley as many, if not more, Hispanics working in hotels than Blacks. Asians would be in high numbers as well in certain parts of the country.

:LOL: Considering the way you flipped out over Trent Lott’s words, I find it hilarious that you’d now attempt to defend Dean.

Baby Lee
02-18-2005, 09:59 AM
You don't have it. You don't have any clue. It is mind boggling to you. You think it's a double standard, but in reality, you're just can't wrap your mind around it.

It's actually quite hilarious. Like watching a fat guy do yoga.
Ironically, as I read this, I picture Ben Stiller demonstrating his Kung Fu skills.

vailpass
02-18-2005, 10:19 AM
Buckwheat didn't really use "otay" as his catchphrase, though I'm sure you knew that already.

Speaking of which, I really do need a ****ing haircut.


Huh? Not that it matters much but I used to watch "Little Rascals" re-runs every Sunday afternoon as a kid and Buckwheat most certainly said "O'tay" in many episodes. Don't know if I would classify it as a catchphrase but he sure did say it.

memyselfI
02-18-2005, 10:20 AM
:LOL: Considering the way you flipped out over Trent Lott’s words, I find it hilarious that you’d now attempt to defend Dean.


I'm not defending him. I think the remark was stupid. But to act like he was singling out BLACK people as being the only 'people of color' who are employed in the hotel industry is JUST AS STUPID. Clearly, he was referring to the industry being heavily minority populated and he wasn't talking about the CEO section... :doh!:

Radar Chief
02-18-2005, 10:24 AM
I'm not defending him. I think the remark was stupid. But to act like he was singling out BLACK people as being the only 'people of color' who are employed in the hotel industry is JUST AS STUPID. Clearly, he was referring to the industry being heavily minority populated and he wasn't talking about the CEO section... :doh!:

And “clearly” Lott was just being kind to an old man, didn’t stop you from flipp’n out over it.
Had Dean been a republican I’m sure we’d see act 2 of “Republicans are Nazi’s” opera.

memyselfI
02-18-2005, 10:33 AM
And “clearly” Lott was just being kind to an old man, didn’t stop you from flipp’n out over it.
Had Dean been a republican I’m sure we’d see act 2 of “Republicans are Nazi’s” opera.

Like I said, he said something stupid. But to make this about Blacks is even more stupid.

vailpass
02-18-2005, 10:34 AM
I'm not defending him. I think the remark was stupid. But to act like he was singling out BLACK people as being the only 'people of color' who are employed in the hotel industry is JUST AS STUPID. Clearly, he was referring to the industry being heavily minority populated and he wasn't talking about the CEO section... :doh!:


If President Bush had made the exact same statement in the exact same setting would you be offering up the exact same justification?

SBK
02-18-2005, 10:35 AM
uh, YOU are assuming that the phrase 'people of color' means only Blacks. In reality, there are likley as many, if not more, Hispanics working in hotels than Blacks. Asians would be in high numbers as well in certain parts of the country.

If George Bush went into that same room and said "I haven't seen this many people of color since I was at a hotel" he'd be forced to resign.

Since Dean is liberal this type of thing gets nowhere cause liberals get a free pass to say racist things.

MOhillbilly
02-18-2005, 10:35 AM
I am not sure the demorats can drop any further, I can't believe they made this guy their man. This is like watching a train wreck.

Over & over & over & over...........

memyselfI
02-18-2005, 10:37 AM
If George Bush went into that same room and said "I haven't seen this many people of color since I was at a hotel" he'd be forced to resign.

Since Dean is liberal this type of thing gets nowhere cause liberals get a free pass to say racist things.


And if Dean said that I think would be called on to resign as well. But that is not what he said.

Michael Michigan
02-18-2005, 10:38 AM
Like I said, he said something stupid. But to make this about Blacks is even more stupid.

You realize he was speaking to the Democratic black caucus...right?

vailpass
02-18-2005, 10:39 AM
You realize he was speaking to the Democratic black caucus...right?

:bravo: Spot on, guvna'

SBK
02-18-2005, 10:40 AM
And if Dean said that I think would be called on to resign as well. But that is not what he said.

ROFL You go ahead and tell yourself what he said was fine. We conservatives love having that guy leading your party straight to the toilet.

memyselfI
02-18-2005, 10:43 AM
ROFL You go ahead and tell yourself what he said was fine. We conservatives love having that guy leading your party straight to the toilet.


I don't think what he said was 'fine' because it was stupid. But he said 'people of color' not 'Blacks' or 'African-Americans' and his reference was the mostly white Republican party and NOT that Blacks can only get jobs at hotels...

In context, the remark was nothing more than a stupid thing to say. To claim it was racist towards Blacks is a joke.

memyselfI
02-18-2005, 10:45 AM
You realize he was speaking to the Democratic black caucus...right?

Yes, he was speaking to the various groups 'of color' during the entire day.

Lzen
02-18-2005, 10:45 AM
Like I said, he said something stupid. But to make this about Blacks is even more stupid.

Uh, this was at the Democrat BLACK CAUCUS. Are you really this stupid or are you just obstinate?

Lzen
02-18-2005, 10:46 AM
:LOL: Considering the way you flipped out over Trent Lott’s words, I find it hilarious that you’d now attempt to defend Dean.

But didn't you know? It's only conservatives that "blindly follow like sheep". At least that is one of the Dems favorite slams on Reps.
:rolleyes:

SBK
02-18-2005, 10:46 AM
I don't think what he said was 'fine' because it was stupid. But he said 'people of color' not 'Blacks' or 'African-Americans' and his reference was the mostly white Republican party and NOT that Blacks can only get jobs at hotels...

In context, the remark was nothing more than a stupid thing to say. To claim it was racist towards Blacks is a joke.

Speaking to the BLACK CAUCUS--"people of color" means "caucasian."

memyselfI
02-18-2005, 10:47 AM
Speaking to the BLACK CAUCUS--"people of color" means "caucasian."

Again, he was meeting with groups of 'people of color' the entire day.

SBK
02-18-2005, 10:50 AM
Again, he was meeting with groups of 'people of color' the entire day.

lambs

KCWolfman
02-18-2005, 05:54 PM
uh, YOU are assuming that the phrase 'people of color' means only Blacks. In reality, there are likley as many, if not more, Hispanics working in hotels than Blacks. Asians would be in high numbers as well in certain parts of the country.
Oh, since it was the BLACK caucus he met with, that would have been a logical assumption.

Thanks for your input.

KCWolfman
02-18-2005, 05:56 PM
You realize he was speaking to the Democratic black caucus...right?
No, the BLACK Caucus? Really? Damn, I must have missed that like she did.

CHIEF4EVER
02-18-2005, 09:31 PM
Howard Dean getting the DNC chair is like putting the last shovelful of dirt on a rotting casket. Couldn't have worked out better for us conservatives if WE had planned it. ROFL

stevieray
02-18-2005, 09:54 PM
Question, which President has appointed the most "people of color" during his Presidency?

Michael Michigan
02-18-2005, 10:04 PM
No, the BLACK Caucus? Really? Damn, I must have missed that like she did.

ROFL

Michael Michigan
02-18-2005, 10:05 PM
Yes, he was speaking to the various groups 'of color' during the entire day.

Did he keep telling the same joke?

DanT
02-19-2005, 12:13 AM
At the Democrat Black Caucus last week

You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here

Nice. Evidently if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black.

The only thing he was missing was Robert Byrd in full white sheet behind him smiling to complete the picture.

The quoted remark from Howard Dean does not logically imply that all members of any hotel staff are black. It implies that at least some members of the staff of that hotel (in which the remark was delivered) are people of color.

Michael Michigan
02-19-2005, 12:29 AM
The quoted remark from Howard Dean does not logically imply that all members of any hotel staff are black. It implies that at least some members of the staff of that hotel (in which the remark was delivered) are people of color.

Howard Dean---logical?

Tsk, tsk.

Joe Seahawk
02-19-2005, 12:34 AM
I know he hates Republicans and Kittens..

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/dean_kitten.jpg

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 07:34 AM
The quoted remark from Howard Dean does not logically imply that all members of any hotel staff are black. It implies that at least some members of the staff of that hotel (in which the remark was delivered) are people of color.
Dan, Then why say "hotel employees" at all? Why not say "guests" or something else? The implication was clear and those who pretend not to get it are merely being obtuse. Had a Republican said it, the implication would be crystal clear to those acting as if he said nothing untoward.

DanT
02-19-2005, 09:26 AM
Dan, Then why say "hotel employees" at all? Why not say "guests" or something else? The implication was clear and those who pretend not to get it are merely being obtuse. Had a Republican said it, the implication would be crystal clear to those acting as if he said nothing untoward.

With regard to your first two sentences:

Howard Dean said "hotel staff", not "hotel employees". There were a lot of other things he could have said instead of "hotel staff", including "hotel guests". "Hotel guests" wouldn't have been as effective from a comedy standpoint, given that the joke hinges partly on the concept of who can be gotten into a room and what their presence implies about the support they have for the agenda of the speakers in the room, but the phrase "hotel guests" would have still carried the comedic force arising from the discrepancy between how many people of color were in the room in which Howard Dean made his remarks and how many could be gotten into a room by the Republican National Committee. The fact that he said "hotel staff" and not "hotel guests" does not imply that a member of a hotel staff is automatically black, a claim you made which is not logically deducible from what he said.

With regard to your 3rd sentence:

No, the implication that you are claiming can be drawn (that "a member of a hotel staff is automatically black") is not clear from what Howard Dean said. It's not even logically deducible from what Howard Dean said. I'm not pretending that the implication isn't there. It isn't there. In my first reply on this thread, I have italicized 3 phrases from the implication that you claimed is there. Those 3 phrases are what I specifically dispute. I also italicized the 3 corresponding phrases from what I claim is a logical valid deduction. If you wish to maintain that your claimed implication is validly deducible from what Howard Dean said, please address each of those 3 phrases. In my understanding of the terms, there are "people of color" that are not "black people".

Your claim that I am merely being obtuse is, at best, a misunderstanding on your part. I always strive to act in good faith and have a long history on this board. That, coupled with documentable evidence that my ability to understand logical implications is very good (e.g. I got a 780 score (97th %-ile) on the GRE Analytical section in between my undergraduate degree in psychology and my enrollment into a graduate program in mathematical statistics, where I've earned a Masters and am currently working on my Ph.D. dissertation) ought to convince you that I'm not being obtuse.

With regard to your 4th sentence:
The speculation about how people who do not find Howard Dean's remark untoward would react to the remarks if they had been made by a Republican (presumably, after making such substitutions as "Democratic National Committee" for "Republican National Committee") does not speak to my claim that the quoted remark from Howard Dean does not logically imply that all members of any hotel staff are black. It is an example of the sort of speculation that I avoid engaging in myself, however. I try to go on what individuals have actually said or failed to say.

headsnap
02-19-2005, 09:42 AM
With regard to your first two sentences:

Howard Dean said "hotel staff", not "hotel employees". There were a lot of other things he could have said instead of "hotel staff", including "hotel guests". "Hotel guests" wouldn't have been as effective from a comedy standpoint, given that the joke hinges partly on the concept of who can be gotten into a room and what their presence implies about the support they have for the agenda of the speakers in the room, but the phrase "hotel guests" would have still carried the comedic force arising from the discrepancy between how many people of color were in the room in which Howard Dean made his remarks and how many could be gotten into a room by the Republican National Committee. The fact that he said "hotel staff" and not "hotel guests" does not imply that a member of a hotel staff is automatically black, a claim you made which is not logically deducible from what he said.

With regard to your 3rd sentence:

No, the implication that you are claiming can be drawn (that "a member of a hotel staff is automatically black") is not clear from what Howard Dean said. It's not even logically deducible from what Howard Dean said. I'm not pretending that the implication isn't there. It isn't there. In my first reply on this thread, I have italicized 3 phrases from the implication that you claimed is there. Those 3 phrases are what I specifically dispute. I also italicized the 3 corresponding phrases from what I claim is a logical valid deduction. If you wish to maintain that your claimed implication is validly deducible from what Howard Dean said, please address each of those 3 phrases. In my understanding of the terms, there are "people of color" that are not "black people".

Your claim that I am merely being obtuse is, at best, a misunderstanding on your part. I always strive to act in good faith and have a long history on this board. That, coupled with documentable evidence that my ability to understand logical implications is very good (e.g. I got a 780 score (97th %-ile) on the GRE Analytical section in between my undergraduate degree in psychology and my enrollment into a graduate program in mathematical statistics, where I've earned a Masters and am currently working on my Ph.D. dissertation) ought to convince you that I'm not being obtuse.

With regard to your 4th sentence:
The speculation about how people who do not find Howard Dean's remark untoward would react to the remarks if they had been made by a Republican (presumably, after making such substitutions as "Democratic National Committee" for "Republican National Committee") does not speak to my claim that the quoted remark from Howard Dean does not logically imply that all members of any hotel staff are black. It is an example of the sort of speculation that I avoid engaging in myself, however. I try to go on what individuals have actually said or failed to say.

Pure Comedy!!!



do you really believe what you just typed? :shake:

RINGLEADER
02-19-2005, 09:47 AM
I saw some African-American Dem on the tube last night and he was not impressed with Dean's comment.

Of course he also said "war is never the answer" so what does he know?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 10:10 AM
With regard to your first two sentences:

Howard Dean said "hotel staff", not "hotel employees". There were a lot of other things he could have said instead of "hotel staff", including "hotel guests". "Hotel guests" wouldn't have been as effective from a comedy standpoint, given that the joke hinges partly on the concept of who can be gotten into a room and what their presence implies about the support they have for the agenda of the speakers in the room, but the phrase "hotel guests" would have still carried the comedic force arising from the discrepancy between how many people of color were in the room in which Howard Dean made his remarks and how many could be gotten into a room by the Republican National Committee. The fact that he said "hotel staff" and not "hotel guests" does not imply that a member of a hotel staff is automatically black, a claim you made which is not logically deducible from what he said.

With regard to your 3rd sentence:

No, the implication that you are claiming can be drawn (that "a member of a hotel staff is automatically black") is not clear from what Howard Dean said. It's not even logically deducible from what Howard Dean said. I'm not pretending that the implication isn't there. It isn't there. In my first reply on this thread, I have italicized 3 phrases from the implication that you claimed is there. Those 3 phrases are what I specifically dispute. I also italicized the 3 corresponding phrases from what I claim is a logical valid deduction. If you wish to maintain that your claimed implication is validly deducible from what Howard Dean said, please address each of those 3 phrases. In my understanding of the terms, there are "people of color" that are not "black people".

Your claim that I am merely being obtuse is, at best, a misunderstanding on your part. I always strive to act in good faith and have a long history on this board. That, coupled with documentable evidence that my ability to understand logical implications is very good (e.g. I got a 780 score (97th %-ile) on the GRE Analytical section in between my undergraduate degree in psychology and my enrollment into a graduate program in mathematical statistics, where I've earned a Masters and am currently working on my Ph.D. dissertation) ought to convince you that I'm not being obtuse.

With regard to your 4th sentence:
The speculation about how people who do not find Howard Dean's remark untoward would react to the remarks if they had been made by a Republican (presumably, after making such substitutions as "Democratic National Committee" for "Republican National Committee") does not speak to my claim that the quoted remark from Howard Dean does not logically imply that all members of any hotel staff are black. It is an example of the sort of speculation that I avoid engaging in myself, however. I try to go on what individuals have actually said or failed to say.
IF we break down the material to individual sounds, then no one will notice the distorted total message.

Nice job.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 10:11 AM
I saw some African-American Dem on the tube last night and he was not impressed with Dean's comment.

Of course he also said "war is never the answer" so what does he know?
Charlie Rangel said if he offended anyone, he should apologize. Of course, Charlie probably didn't score a 780 on his GRE

DanT
02-19-2005, 11:12 AM
Pure Comedy!!!



do you really believe what you just typed? :shake:

Yes.

DanT
02-19-2005, 11:16 AM
IF we break down the material to individual sounds, then no one will notice the distorted total message.

Nice job.

Where is there a distortion in anything I've posted here?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 11:22 AM
Where is there a distortion in anything I've posted here?
I never stated you distorted anything. I stated you parsed individual portions of the message to totally disregard the statement that you need hotel employees to increase the black population in a room(or "colored" people to keep Duhnise happy) and the Republicans just don't have black people in their party.

It was a racist statement, it was also a slam at the Rep Party which currently holds the highest minority employment rate of cabinet employees in the history of the United States. It was a stupid thing for Dean to say.

It also was not the first prejudicial statement made by Dean in a public format. See [sic] "southern people voting for guns and trucks". Even his own party has a joke that Dean thinks of New York City as "the deep south". I will thoroughly enjoy the defense of Dean over the next several years. Eventually it will be an automatic and hopefully during a key moment he will do it on a national scale.

DanT
02-19-2005, 11:23 AM
My posts in this thread have to do with your claim that what Howard Dean said implies that

"Evidently if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black."

My comments have been confined to challenging your claim and good-faith responses to your replies to my challenge.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 11:24 AM
My posts in this thread have to do with your claim that what Howard Dean said implies that

"Evidently if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black."

My comments have been confined to challenging your claim and good-faith responses to your replies to my challenge.
As I stated, you are focused on individual sounds to detract from the original distorted total message.

DanT
02-19-2005, 11:30 AM
I never stated you distorted anything. I stated you parsed individual portions of the message to totally disregard the statement that you need hotel employees to increase the black population in a room(or "colored" people to keep Duhnise happy) and the Republicans just don't have black people in their party.


The implication that "you need hotel employees to increase the ... population (of people of color) in a room" is logically deducible from Howard Dean's comment.

The implication that "the Republicans just don't have black people in their party" is not.

Nor is the implication that "if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black".

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 11:32 AM
The quoted remark from Howard Dean does not logically imply that all members of any hotel staff are black. It implies that at least some members of the staff of that hotel (in which the remark was delivered) are people of color.

Thank you.

I knew there must be someone else out there who understood the jist of his remark.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 11:35 AM
The implication that "you need hotel employees to increase the ... population (of people of color) in a room" is logically deducible from Howard Dean's comment.

The implication that "the Republicans just don't have black people in their party" is not.

Nor is the implication that "if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black".
Let's play logical then.

A Black caucus is in a room, I am assuming the majority of the people in the room are black. I am assuming the population of the room is at least a couple of hundred people. I am also assuming that Dean means the Black Caucus won't meet with Republicans (else why make the statement?). So finally, it means that to get a couple of hundred blacks into a room, you must order the hotel staff per Howard Dean.


Otherwise, please explain to me exactly what Dean did mean.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 11:58 AM
Playing devil's advocate here, it is reasonable to infer that Dean meant that no one who was at a Republican function voluntarily would be 'of color,' and the only way to get any people of color to attend would be if they were part of the staff who was required to be there due to their job.
So it'd be a matter of people of color attending because they were part of a group of people had to, rather than people of color being overwhelmingly represented in the service industry.
But that is an overly generous reading of the statement, a level of generosity that would not be afforded a Republican. They'd be Zellered in a heartbeat.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:10 PM
Playing devil's advocate here, it is reasonable to infer that Dean meant that no one who was at a Republican function voluntarily would be 'of color,' and the only way to get any people of color to attend would be if they were part of the staff who was required to be there due to their job.
So it'd be a matter of people of color attending because they were part of a group of people had to, rather than people of color being overwhelmingly represented in the service industry.
But that is an overly generous reading of the statement, a level of generosity that would not be afforded a Republican. They'd be Zellered in a heartbeat.


Sorry BL, but it's a far cry from 'no one' (your words) to Dean's 'this many people'.

I think the statement is what it is, Dean's less than diplomatic way of pointing out that large numbers of people of color are not routinely a part of Republican functions without a concerted effort to make them such...

I know my family had a fun time during the CON Con locating and noting the POC faces in the crowd...meanwhile the CONS were slapping each others backs at the 'record number' of minorities they had included. :hmmm:

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:14 PM
Sorry BL, but it's a far cry from 'no one' (your words) to Dean's 'this many people'.

I think the statement is what it is, Dean's less than diplomatic way of pointing out that large numbers of people of color are not routinely a part of Republican functions without a concerted effort to make them such...

I know my family had a fun time during the CON Con locating and noting the POC faces in the crowd...meanwhile the CONS were slapping each others backs at the 'record number' of minorities they had included. :hmmm:
Once again, Mememe and The Point are in no danger of collision. ;)

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:16 PM
Once again, Mememe and The Point are in no danger of collision. ;)

Aww, Counselor, I'm just pointing out that 'none' and 'this many' are quite a different quantity and your valiant efforts at being the devil are appreciated but slightly off the mark... :p

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:20 PM
Playing devil's advocate here, it is reasonable to infer that Dean meant that no one who was at a Republican function voluntarily would be 'of color,' and the only way to get any people of color to attend would be if they were part of the staff who was required to be there due to their job.
So it'd be a matter of people of color attending because they were part of a group of people had to, rather than people of color being overwhelmingly represented in the service industry.
But that is an overly generous reading of the statement, a level of generosity that would not be afforded a Republican. They'd be Zellered in a heartbeat.
Gee, I bet you did well on your GRE, too.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:23 PM
Sorry BL, but it's a far cry from 'no one' (your words) to Dean's 'this many people'.

I think the statement is what it is, Dean's less than diplomatic way of pointing out that large numbers of people of color are not routinely a part of Republican functions without a concerted effort to make them such...

I know my family had a fun time during the CON Con locating and noting the POC faces in the crowd...meanwhile the CONS were slapping each others backs at the 'record number' of minorities they had included. :hmmm:
So you were guilty of trying to numerate the "people of color" while watching the Rep party numerate the "people of color" :hmmm:

Furthermore, I thought we could no longer use "people we know" as legitimate sources? Or is that just during polls of Iraqi nature?

DanT
02-19-2005, 12:25 PM
Let's play logical then.

A Black caucus is in a room, I am assuming the majority of the people in the room are black. I am assuming the population of the room is at least a couple of hundred people. I am also assuming that Dean means the Black Caucus won't meet with Republicans (else why make the statement?). So finally, it means that to get a couple of hundred blacks into a room, you must order the hotel staff per Howard Dean.


Otherwise, please explain to me exactly what Dean did mean.


You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here

Let Y be the number of people of color in the room where Dean made his remark.

Let X be the maximum number of people of color that the Republican National Committee could get into a room (at that hotel) without having to invite the hotel staff.

Let Z be the number of people of color on the hotel staff that would go into a RNC room if invited as a member of the hotel staff but not otherwise.

It is logically deducible from Howard Dean's remark that

Y > X and that
Y <= X + Z.

For example, let Y = 200, X = 150, Z=75.

Howard Dean's remarks do not imply that X=0 (i.e. that the RNC could not get any people of color into a room without having to invite the hotel staff). Nor do they imply that all members of any hotel staff are people of color.

Howard Dean's remarks do imply that the black caucus (there in that room) would not meet with the Republican National Committeee, but they do not imply that the black caucus would not meet with Republicans.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:25 PM
Gee, I bet you did well on your GRE, too.
And that, folks, is how Woofie won CP Ms. Congeniality 2005. ROFL

DanT
02-19-2005, 12:28 PM
Let Y be the number of people of color in the room where Dean made his remark.

Let X be the maximum number of people of color that the Republican National Committee could get into a room (at that hotel) without having to invite the hotel staff.

Let Z be the number of people of color on the hotel staff that would go into a RNC room if invited as a member of the hotel staff but not otherwise.

It is logically deducible from Howard Dean's remark that

Y > X and that
Y <= X + Z.

For example, let Y = 200, X = 150, Z=75.

Howard Dean's remarks do not imply that X=0 (i.e. that the RNC could not get any people of color into a room without having to invite the hotel staff). Nor do they imply that all members of any hotel staff are people of color.

Howard Dean's remarks do imply that the black caucus (there in that room) would not meet with the Republican National Committeee, but they do not imply that the black caucus would not meet with Republicans. (I'm assuming that the RNC is a proper subset of the set of all Republicans.)

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:28 PM
Howard Dean's remarks do imply that the black caucus (there in that room) would not meet with the Republican National Committeee, but they do not imply that the black caucus would not meet with Republicans.

Well, that is the first step, isn't it?

Okay, we agree that the Black Caucus wouldn't meet with the Republicans. So are you in agreement with Dean that the Reps could invite the hotel employees up and have more people of color than were attending the Black Caucus meeting?

DanT
02-19-2005, 12:35 PM
Well, that is the first step, isn't it?

Okay, we agree that the Black Caucus wouldn't meet with the Republicans. So are you in agreement with Dean that the Reps could invite the hotel employees up and have more people of color than were attending the Black Caucus meeting?

We agree that what Dean said implies that the Black Caucus wouldn't meet with the Republican National Committee.

We are not in agreement that what Dean said implies that (in the notation of my previous post) Z > Y.
What Dean said does imply that Z > 0.

I think you, me and Baby Lee might be reading Dean's adjective "only" differently. I take it to modify the noun "way"; are you taking it to modify the implied invitation? In my thinking, a "way" of filling up a room can consist of multiple invitations. I take Dean to mean that the invitations that the RNC would have to offer in order to get more than Y people of color into a room would have to include one to the members of the hotel staff.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:36 PM
Let Y be the number of people of color in the room where Dean made his remark.

Let X be the maximum number of people of color that the Republican National Committee could get into a room (at that hotel) without having to invite the hotel staff.

Let Z be the number of people of color on the hotel staff that would go into a RNC room if invited as a member of the hotel staff but not otherwise.

It is logically deducible from Howard Dean's remark that

Y > X and that
Y <= X + Z.

For example, let Y = 200, X = 150, Z=75.

Howard Dean's remarks do not imply that X=0 (i.e. that the RNC could not get any people of color into a room without having to invite the hotel staff). Nor do they imply that all members of any hotel staff are people of color.

Howard Dean's remarks do imply that the black caucus (there in that room) would not meet with the Republican National Committeee, but they do not imply that the black caucus would not meet with Republicans.


:shake:

Please, don't confuse them. They need to project their ridiculousness onto Howard Dean vs. allowing his remarks to be ridiculous in their own right...

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:38 PM
I think you, me and Baby Lee might be reading Dean's adjective "only" differently.

Next step reached.


Now, what is the legal definition of harrassment and prejudism? Is it the statement itself or the PERCEPTION of the statement by other parties?

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:40 PM
We agree that what Dean said implies that the Black Caucus wouldn't meet with the Republican National Committee.

We are not in agreement that what Dean said implies that (in the notation of my previous post) Z > Y.
What Dean said does imply that Z > 0.

I think you, me and Baby Lee might be reading Dean's adjective "only" differently. I take it to modify the noun "way"; are you taking it to modify the implied invitation? In my thinking, a "way" of filling up a room can consist of multiple invitations. I take Dean to mean that the invitations that the RNC would have to offer in order would have to include one to the members of the hotel staff.
Absolute numbers are irrelevant, the critical point is whether Dean is saying that the RNC would get minorities to attend by counting the hotel staff because;
a) people of color are generally service industry people.
or
b) service industry people [some of whom happen to be people of color] would be obliged to be there because their job was at stake.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:41 PM
Next step reached.


Now, what is the legal definition of harrassment and prejudism? Is it the statement itself or the PERCEPTION of the statement by other parties?
Define prejudism however you want, seeing as it's not a word. ;)

DanT
02-19-2005, 12:43 PM
Next step reached.


Now, what is the legal definition of harrassment and prejudism? Is it the statement itself or the PERCEPTION of the statement by other parties?

What of what I've said in this post do you not understand or accept? I'm perfectly happy to talk to you about what I have challenged about what you said or anything that I've said.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:44 PM
Absolute numbers are irrelevant, the critical point is whether Dean is saying that the RNC would get minorities to attend by counting the hotel staff because;
a) people of color are generally service industry people.
or
b) service industry people [some of whom happen to be people of color] would be obliged to be there because their job was at stake.

or how about

c) service industry people are disproportionately POC and as such their mere presence (no job 'at stake' necessary) in a room would likely increase the total number of POC at a CON function.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:44 PM
Define prejudism however you want, seeing as it's not a word. ;)
Dammit. Okay, how about prejudice statement?

I know for a fact that legally it is not the person who makes the statement but rather the people who are affected by the statement and THEIR perception.

2 courses a year in harrasment, sexual harrasment, and cultural sensitivity are required by my job and we are beaten down with the above.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:45 PM
or how about

c) service industry people are disproportionately POC and as such their mere presence (no job 'at stake' necessary) in a room would likely increase the total number of POC at a CON function.
That is not what he said. He stated the only way they could get MORE people of color, not a significantly higher number.

Nice try, but that is just "ridiculousness".

DanT
02-19-2005, 12:46 PM
Absolute numbers are irrelevant, the critical point is whether Dean is saying that the RNC would get minorities to attend by counting the hotel staff because;
a) people of color are generally service industry people.
or
b) service industry people [some of whom happen to be people of color] would be obliged to be there because their job was at stake.


The critical point for what?

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:47 PM
That is not what he said. He stated the only way they could get MORE people of color, not a significantly higher number.

Nice try, but that is just "ridiculousness".

Where did *I* say significantly higher number????? :hmmm:

It is YOU putting words in Dean's mouth, not I.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:47 PM
or how about

c) service industry people are disproportionately POC and as such their mere presence (no job 'at stake' necessary) in a room would likely increase the total number of POC at a CON function.
That is the same as A, and would not reflect favorably on Dean.
It's a step removed from saying 'You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they served fried chicken and strawberry soda."

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:47 PM
What of what I've said in this post do you not understand or accept? I'm perfectly happy to talk to you about what I have challenged about what you said or anything that I've said.
Again, you stated that the PERCEPTION that BLee and I have taken are different than your own.

Now, once more, is the legal definition of a prejudiced statement the statement itself or the perception? Once you answer that question honestly, we have finally reached the point I originally made that the statement was one of a prejudiced nature.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:48 PM
Where did *I* say significantly higher number????? :hmmm:

It is YOU putting words in Dean's mouth, not I.
really?

service industry people are disproportionately POC and as such their mere presence (no job 'at stake' necessary) in a room would likely increase the total number of POC at a CON function.

Dean said that, or you put "words in his mouth"?

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:48 PM
The critical point for what?
Whether or not his statement is racially insensitive.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:50 PM
That is the same as A, and would not reflect favorably on Dean.
It's a step removed from saying 'You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they served fried chicken and strawberry soda."
ie, little difference between saying;
a) service industry people are disproportionately POC
or
b) POC disproportionately like fried chicken and strawberry soda.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:50 PM
That is the same as A, and would not reflect favorably on Dean.
It's a step removed from saying 'You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they served fried chicken and strawberry soda."

That is not true.

Because the service industry is comprised of people of color of all colors (most POCs actually know this) and your racial inference is geared towards Blacks in particular.

Again, the point in dispute here is if Dean is absolutely equating POC=black=service industry. I'm saying he's not making that absolute equation. Those who seem to indicate he was are also stating his remark is racial in nature.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:52 PM
really?



Dean said that, or you put "words in his mouth"?


Likely increase the number does not equate to 'significantly increase'. Nice try.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:53 PM
That is not true.

Because the service industry is comprised of people of color of all colors and your racial inference is geared towards Blacks in particular.

Again, the point in dispute here is if Dean is absolutely equating POC=black=service industry. I'm saying he's not making that absolute equation. Those who seem to indicate he was are also stating his remark is racial in nature.
And once more, is Dean's statement or the PERCEPTION of his statement the make or break decision here? That is all that matters. The fact that his statement CAN BE PERCEIVED as racially insensitive and HAS BEEN PERCEIVED by blacks as racially insensitive is all that matters.

Funny how the left don't like the rules when it applies to them, isn't it?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:54 PM
likely increase the number does not equate to 'significantly increase'. Nice try.
So Dean said "likely to increase" or did you put words in his mouth?

You really set yourself up on that one.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:54 PM
That is not true.

Because the service industry is comprised of people of color of all colors and your racial inference is geared towards Blacks in particular.

Again, the point in dispute here is if Dean is absolutely equating POC=black=service industry. I'm saying he's not making that absolute equation. Those who seem to indicate he was are also stating his remark is racial in nature.
Again, it's not about a rock solid equation, it's about perception and inference.
Going back to Trent Lott, when he said America would be 'better off" if Strom had been elected, there wasn't an 'absolute equation' that he was talking about the segregationist platform. But it did appear that way.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 12:55 PM
And once more, is Dean's statement or the PERCEPTION of his statement the make or break decision here? That is all that matters. The fact that his statement CAN BE PERCEIVED as racially insensitive and HAS BEEN PERCEIVED by blacks as racially insensitive is all that matters.

Funny how the left don't like the rules when it applies to them, isn't it?

I AM a person of color, I was not offended by the context of his statement but merely that he left himself open to hypocrites who would try to manipulate his words.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:57 PM
I AM a person of color, I was not offended by the context of his statement but merely that he left himself open to hypocrites who would try to maniupulate his words.
But you were offended by Lott's, as I recall. Explain how the processes of inference were different in that situation than they were in this one.

Particularly as you seem to have accepted that his remarks intone that he believes that POC are highly represented in the service industry.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:58 PM
I AM a person of color, I was not offended by the context of his statement but merely that he left himself open to hypocrites who would try to maniupulate his words.
Oh, I didn't realize you are the only hispanic who got to decide what is and is not racially insensitive. Please call Michael Steele, Charlie Rangel, and other blacks and tell them they don't have a right to be insulted as YOU have decide it is not racially insensitive.

Your single perception doesn't mean squat, until you speak for every black, brown, and yellow person, it doesn't matter whether you were offended or not, does it?


So is Charlie Rangel a "hypocrite" or are you going to dance around that one as well?

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:02 PM
Again, it's not about a rock solid equation, it's about perception and inference.
Going back to Trent Lott, when he said America would be 'better off" if Strom had been elected, there wasn't an 'absolute equation' that he was talking about the segregationist platform. But it did appear that way.

yes, it did appear that way. And off of this board I have not read or heard much outcry about Dean's statement. White guys here seem to have their panties in a twist though... :hmmm:

That being said, I think the difference in the two statements is that Lott's was speculating on the past. Lott and Thurman both having had racial controversies in their past left little else to infer from the remark. And, I'm sure for their ilk the statement was of some truth so I'm not going to deny that what he said was not 'right' for SOME people.

Here, you have Dean making a statement relative to NOW or recent history. He also does have a history of making remarks that can be construed in more than one fashion and that is where I find fault with him but I also see it as hysterical CON white guys conveniently claiming implied racism. Again, Dean's bad for falling into the trap.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:03 PM
Oh, I didn't realize you are the only hispanic who got to decide what is and is not racially insensitive. Please call Michael Steele, Charlie Rangel, and other blacks and tell them they don't have a right to be insulted as YOU have decide it is not racially insensitive.

Your single perception doesn't mean squat, until you speak for every black, brown, and yellow person, it doesn't matter whether you were offended or not, does it?


So is Charlie Rangel a "hypocrite" or are you going to dance around that one as well?

Link to Rangel's remarks. I'd like to read them myself vs. trust your characterization (mis?) with all due respect...I have our history as a reason to want to see for myself.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:06 PM
yes, it did appear that way. And off of this board I have not read or heard much outcry about Dean's statement. White guys here seem to have their panties in a twist though... :hmmm:

That being said, I think the difference in the two statements is that Lott's was speculating on the past. Lott and Thurman both having had racial controversies in their past left little else to infer from the remark. And, I'm sure for their ilk the statement was of some truth so I'm not going to deny that what he said was not 'right' for SOME people.

Here, you have Dean making a statement relative to NOW or recent history. He also does have a history of making remarks that can be construed in more than one fashion and that is where I find fault with him but I also see it as hysterical CON white guys conveniently claiming implied racism. Again, Dean's bad for falling into the trap.
So it's perception of the person, not perception of the statement?
And I don't have my 'panties in a bunch,' just observing the double standard. If people hadn't been Zellered and Lotted and Campanised in the past, it'd be a total non-issue with me.

Cochise
02-19-2005, 01:08 PM
I don't really see why the comment would be offensive. And, if you get down to it, it's true. I mean, is it or is it not a fact that minorities are significantly more represented in service industry jobs like those at a hotel? Not a slam on any ethnic group, just saying, it is probably true.

I am not the easily offended type anyway, I guess. I have a hispanic surname, and my friends frequently joke around about me coming over here on a raft or swimming the Rio Grande or calling the INS on me, but it's good fun to them, they know they aren't going to offend me. But, I've not been the subject of racism my whole life. To look at me you wouldn't think "hispanic" and I don't really consider myself to be it either.

DanT
02-19-2005, 01:11 PM
Again, you stated that the PERCEPTION that BLee and I have taken are different than your own.

Now, once more, is the legal definition of a prejudiced statement the statement itself or the perception? Once you answer that question honestly, we have finally reached the point I originally made that the statement was one of a prejudiced nature.

Please quote my posts when you make claims about what I've stated. I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you are claiming that I said something, quote what I said so that I'll at least know what words of mine you are referring to.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:12 PM
yes, it did appear that way. And off of this board I have not read or heard much outcry about Dean's statement. White guys here seem to have their panties in a twist though... :hmmm:

That being said, I think the difference in the two statements is that Lott's was speculating on the past. Lott and Thurman both having had racial controversies in their past left little else to infer from the remark. And, I'm sure for their ilk the statement was of some truth so I'm not going to deny that what he said was not 'right' for SOME people.'

Here, you have Dean making a statement relative to NOW or recent history. He also does have a history of making remarks that can be construed in more than one fashion and that is where I find fault with him but I also see it as hysterical CON white guys conveniently claiming implied racism. Again, Dean's bad for falling into the trap.


Off this board, really? I guess NBC is working on a new document and you missed it?

Steele Asks For Apology from Howard Dean (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/4205922/detail.html)

BIG_DADDY
02-19-2005, 01:12 PM
Sure wish the Dem's would do a better job of picking their leaders this is like watching a train wreck. Speaking of potential leaders of the left I watched a C-SPAN special last night on the Swift Boat Vets and POW's for truth last night. The effort and ridicule they took from the left was amazing with some of them losing their jobs and having their families threatened. These guys totally despised his punk ass. They were talking about situations they had been in and what a coward he really was. There were tons of them. ALmost every single person above him, below him and at his level that he had contact with in his short 4 month stay in Vietnam despised him about as much as anyone could. Quite an impression he left on his brothers in arms.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:12 PM
I don't really see why the comment would be offensive. And, if you get down to it, it's true. I mean, is it or is it not a fact that minorities are significantly more represented in service industry jobs like those at a hotel? Not a slam on any ethnic group, just saying, it is probably true.

I am not the easily offended type anyway, I guess. I have a hispanic surname, and my friends frequently joke around about me coming over here on a raft or swimming the Rio Grande or calling the INS on me, but it's good fun to them, they know they aren't going to offend me. But, I've not been the subject of racism my whole life. To look at me you wouldn't think "hispanic" and I don't really consider myself to be it either.
By way of barometer, what did you think of Zoeller's off-the-cuff commentary about Tiger Woods winning the tournament?

''That little boy is driving well, and he's putting well. He's doing everything it takes to win. So, you know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year. Got it?. . . 'Or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve.''
All stereotypes carry a kernal of truth, otherwise they'd make no sense whatsoever. What needs to be gauged is the level of malice or dismissal contained in the statement.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:14 PM
So it's perception of the person, not perception of the statement?
And I don't have my 'panties in a bunch,' just observing the double standard. If people hadn't been Zellered and Lotted and Campanised in the past, it'd be a total non-issue with me.

Your panties were not ones I had in mind... :p Rather, those executing marching orders.

RNC Chief and Sean Hannity as civil rights leaders. ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/16/63616.shtml

Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2005 6:35 a.m. EST
RNC Chief: Dean Joke Was 'Racist'

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman blasted newly elected DNC chief Howard Dean on Tuesday for telling what he said was a "racist" joke to the Congressional Black Caucus.

"It's pretty offensive," Mehlman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity. "It's pretty racist, if you ask me."

During a meeting with the CBC on Friday, Dean joked: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
Beyond being offensive to minorities, Dean's characterization of Republicans was just wrong, Mehlman said.

"I wish Governor Dean had joined me last Monday when I, along with Lieutenant Governor Mike Steele of Maryland, who's African-American, had an event at Prince Georges Community College where 250 mostly African-Americans and I met to talk about our party and our agenda."

The flap over Dean's "hotel staff" remark isn't the first time critics say he has crossed the line on race.

During the primary campaign last year, the former Vermont governor repeatedly told audiences that he wanted to be the candidate of "white folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals."

He also came under fire for not having a single black in a senior position on his gubernatorial staff.

Dean defenders said that was because only 4,000 African-Americans live in Vermont.

DanT
02-19-2005, 01:14 PM
Whether or not his statement is racially insensitive.

Thanks for the clarification.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:17 PM
Off this board, really? I guess NBC is working on a new document and you missed it?

Steele Asks For Apology from Howard Dean (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/4205922/detail.html)

You mean a REPUBLICAN Black was 'offended' and now he speaks for the Black masses????

I see. :hmmm:


http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921.html

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:22 PM
RNC Chief and Sean Hannity as civil rights leaders. ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL
Care to explain what about Mehlman and Hannity have done to lose their right to express their opinions on racially insensitive statements?

I really am at a loss here. You have taken the tact that, when saying this, Dean is intoning that POC of color are highly represented in the service sector. It is objectively feasible to view that as a racially insensitive observation, certainly much more feasible than any other interpretation of the remarks. Yet you laugh off people who take this clear inference.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:22 PM
You mean a REPUBLICAN Black was 'offended' and now he speaks for the Black masses????

I see. :hmmm:


http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921.html
Are black republicans somehow not black?

Cochise
02-19-2005, 01:23 PM
By way of barometer, what did you think of Zoeller's off-the-cuff commentary about Tiger Woods winning the tournament?

All stereotypes carry a kernal of truth, otherwise they'd make no sense whatsoever. What needs to be gauged is the level of malice or dismissal contained in the statement.

I think that what Zoeller said (about the watermelon and fried chicken?) is not really the same thing. I think he meant to demean a whole class of people with the comment, whereas Dean - while being insensitive - was using them to bash a non-ethnic group. I guess it just seems a little different. Dean meant to make fun of Republicans, Zoeller meant to make fun of the ethnic group.

Zoeller's comment does carry a kernel of truth too, I mean, if you drive through the ghetto, do you or do you not see a lot of chicken joints?

I guess what I mean is that if something is true, it's true. Someone shouldn't be lambasted for making an observation that is true, but some sort of decorum should be used.

I'd be more likely to be annoyed by Dean's comment about people in the south driving pickups with rebel flags on them, because it betrays the disdain that he apparently harbors for all of us morons out here in flyover country.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:24 PM
You mean a REPUBLICAN Black was 'offended' and now he speaks for the Black masses????

I see. :hmmm:


http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921.html
Ahh, so his perception is not germaine to the issue because he is a Republican? He made a comment about Blacks and Republicans, Steele is both and his opinion doesn't count?

Do you really see the farce of your own comments?


How do you get more people of color on the Howard Dean gubenatorial staff? Invite a few in to do his laundry and shine his shoes!

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:27 PM
Care to explain what about Mehlman and Hannity have done to lose their right to express their opinions on racially insensitive statements?

I really am at a loss here. You have taken the tact that, when saying this, Dean is intoning that POC of color are highly represented in the service sector. It is objectively feasible to view that as a racially insensitive observation, certainly much more feasible than any other interpretation of the remarks. Yet you laugh off people who take this clear inference.

It is not a racially insensitive observation. Anyone who has stayed at a hotel would likely make the same observation and that would not make them racially insensitive or racist.

And yes, Mehlmann and Hannity are within their rights to become civil rights activists and point out the way Dean's words are keeping the POC 'down'...

I guess it might distract and deflect from any policy or actual political means or measures exercised by those in power that are in reality accomplishing the same thing.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:28 PM
I guess it might distract and deflect from any policy or actual political means or measures exercised by those in power that are in reality accomplishing the same thing.

Kind of like Dean's original statement on the issue, right?

These next four years are going to be a blast.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:29 PM
I think that what Zoeller said (about the watermelon and fried chicken?) is not really the same thing. I think he meant to demean a whole class of people with the comment, whereas Dean - while being insensitive - was using them to bash a non-ethnic group. I guess it just seems a little different. Dean meant to make fun of Republicans, Zoeller meant to make fun of the ethnic group.

Zoeller's comment does carry a kernel of truth too, I mean, if you drive through the ghetto, do you or do you not see a lot of chicken joints?

I guess what I mean is that if something is true, it's true. Someone shouldn't be lambasted for making an observation that is true, but some sort of decorum should be used.
Where do you get that Zoeller MEANT TO DEMEAN? Solely from my perspective, I'd rather be characterized as someone who likes fried chicken and collard greens than someone destined to work a service sector job.
And while I agree that the main thrust of Dean's remarks was to bash Republicans, his choice of words [and the thrust of this controversy] could be read to belittle minorities as predominantly service sector drones.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:29 PM
I think that what Zoeller said (about the watermelon and fried chicken?) is not really the same thing. I think he meant to demean a whole class of people with the comment, whereas Dean - while being insensitive - was using them to bash a non-ethnic group. I guess it just seems a little different. Dean meant to make fun of Republicans, Zoeller meant to make fun of the ethnic group.

Zoeller's comment does carry a kernel of truth too, I mean, if you drive through the ghetto, do you or do you not see a lot of chicken joints?

I guess what I mean is that if something is true, it's true. Someone shouldn't be lambasted for making an observation that is true, but some sort of decorum should be used.

I'd be more likely to be annoyed by Dean's comment about people in the south driving pickups with rebel flags on them, because it betrays the disdain that he apparently harbors for all of us morons out here in flyover country.

There is something really strange when Cochise and I are on the same side of an argument for obviously very different reasons...

thus, those who will not listen to me, or Dan's reason, should at least consider Cochise because he shares your political views but obviously not your desire to create a controversy where none exists. I think he knows Dean will f*ck up plenty and might as well choose your battles and save your energy for the real ones to come.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:30 PM
Where do you get that Zoeller MEANT TO DEMEAN? Solely from my perspective, I'd rather be characterized as someone who likes fried chicken and collard greens than someone destined to work a service sector job.
And while I agree that the main thrust of Dean's remarks was to bash Republicans, his choice of words [and the thrust of this controversy] could be read to belittle minorities as predominantly service sector drones.
I like fried chicken and watermelon. I ain't much on collard greens, but I like grits.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:31 PM
Ahh, so his perception is not germaine to the issue because he is a Republican? He made a comment about Blacks and Republicans, Steele is both and his opinion doesn't count?

Do you really see the farce of your own comments?


How do you get more people of color on the Howard Dean gubenatorial staff? Invite a few in to do his laundry and shine his shoes!

Sure Steele counts but his motives, like yours, are suspect. He WANT to be offended. As do you...

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:32 PM
How do you get more hispanics in a country club?

Tell D-enise's family they can pick all the fruit they want from the tables.



Not racially insensitive at all, is it?

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:33 PM
It is not a racially insensitive observation. Anyone who has stayed at a hotel would likely make the same observation and that would not make them racially insensitive or racist.
So;
20 mexicans in a pickup truck
black dudes with 5 baby mommas
big lips and broad noses
fat asses on Latinas
Koreans who drive like sh!t
Polacks of suboptimal intelligence

So long as you've actually observed it, it's not racially insensitive to proclaim it?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:33 PM
Sure Steele counts but his motives, like yours, are suspect. He WANT to be offended. As do you...
Again, I never stated I was offended.


And where is your proof that he "wants to be offended" other than your own perception?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:33 PM
So;
20 mexicans in a pickup truck
black dudes with 5 baby mommas
big lips and broad noses
fat asses on Latinas
Koreans who drive like sh!t
Polacks of suboptimal intelligence

So long as you've actually observed it, it's not racially insensitive to proclaim it?
I beat you to it

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:34 PM
How do you get more hispanics in a country club?

Tell Denise's family they can pick all the fruit they want from the tables.



Not racially insensitive at all, is it?

Well now YOU are targeting a particular race using a particular racial stereotype limited to that race...

so yes, you are succeeding in making yourself look quite the bigot by pointing out how Dean's remarks do not measure up to the same standard. KUDOS. :thumb:

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:36 PM
So;
20 mexicans in a pickup truck
black dudes with 5 baby mommas
big lips and broad noses
fat asses on Latinas
Koreans who drive like sh!t
Polacks of suboptimal intelligence

So long as you've actually observed it, it's not racially insensitive to proclaim it?

You are much smarter than this....

you know the difference is in the specific stereotypes being mentioned and specific races being singled out.

The DAY you can prove the term 'people of color' means ONLY Black people is the day you will succeed in proving Dean's remarks are racist towards Blacks and being employed in the hotel industry.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:36 PM
Well now YOU are targeting a particular race using a particular racial stereotype limited to that race...

so yes, you are succeeding in making yourself look quite the bigot by pointing out how Dean's remarks do not measure up to the same standard. KUDOS. :thumb:
LMAO!!!!

So if I say "how do i get more people of color in a country club parking lot?

Tell D-enise's and Al Sharpton's family there are plenty of cadillacs and lincolns to look at."

Is okay?

What a freakin' hypocrite.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:38 PM
LMAO!!!!

So if I say "how do i get more people of color in a country club parking lot?

Tell D-enise's and Al Sharpton's family there are plenty of cadillacs and lincolns to look at."

Is okay?

What a freakin' hypocrite.


Keep trying. Your specific remarks further highlight the vague references in Dean's remarks...thereby further pointing out how much YOU have projected onto his remarks. :thumb:

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:39 PM
You are much smarter than this....

you know the difference is in the specific stereotypes being mentioned and specific races being singled out.

The DAY you can prove the term 'people of color' means ONLY Black people is the day you will succeed in proving Dean's remarks are racist towards Blacks and being employed in the hotel industry.
Honestly, how would you react if a white guidance counselor at your kid's school told your son or daughter to start preparing to work laundry or wash dishes?

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:41 PM
Honestly, how would you react if a white guidance counselor at your kid's school told your son or daughter to start preparing to work laundry or wash dishes?

I actually heard that a teacher at my son's school told one of the white kids he's going to end up in prison...I was disgusted and plan on filing a complaint about the teacher.

White kid, trouble maker, inappropriate comment.


White Dean, stupid remark, politically motivated outrage masked as racial sensitivity...

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:41 PM
you know the difference is in the specific stereotypes being mentioned and specific races being singled out.
You're the one who said if it can be observed, it isn't insensitive.
Tell me what's objectively racially insentive about my observations.
Is there something WRONG with big noses or fat asses or packing into a truck?

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:43 PM
White Dean, stupid remark, politically motivated outrage masked as racial sensitivity...
I strongly sense that you realize that the racial insensitivity is there, but simply dismiss it because you don't like the people who are pointing it out.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:43 PM
Keep trying. Your specific remarks further highlight the vague references in Dean's remarks...thereby further pointing out how much YOU have projected onto his remarks. :thumb:
How many races must I insult in a single statement before it is no longer an insult? I didn't realize there was an exact figure. Where do you derive that figure?

How many minorities can you fit in a government building? It depends on the current racial quota hire statistics.

I avoided mentioning any specific race and I stated a fact, so it must not be racial, right?

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:45 PM
Tell me what's objectively racially insentive about my observations.
Is there something WRONG with big noses or fat asses or packing into a truck?

You are making specific racial stereotypes that Dean did not make. He made a stereotypical observation about minorities, POC, in general. (Which is NOT what Russ was arguing...he maintains it was geared TOWARDS blacks. Had his feigned outrage been about it being an offensive remark to POC in general then there might be a hint of honesty and integrity in his outrage...alas there's not)

But they were not the aim of his remark, the Republicans were. Yes, his remark was stupid because it left itself open to interpretation (which yours does not) and Dean needs to be careful about giving the CONS free material to :holdman: over.

Cochise
02-19-2005, 01:46 PM
thus, those who will not listen to me, or Dan's reason, should at least consider Cochise because he shares your political views but obviously not your desire to create a controversy where none exists. I think he knows Dean will f*ck up plenty and might as well choose your battles and save your energy for the real ones to come.

I may somewhat agree with you on this incident, but don't think that means I consider your usual mock outrage over a marginally offensive comment from a republican to be legitimate.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:47 PM
You are making specific racial stereotypes that Dean did not make. He made a stereotypical observation about minorities, POC, in general. But they were not the aim of his remark, the Republicans were. Yes, his remark was stupid because it left itself open to interpretation (which yours does not) and Dean needs to be careful about giving the CONS free material to :holdman: over.
So it is not if you make a racially motivated statement, but if you use that statement to insult someone else, it is okay?

Cochise
02-19-2005, 01:48 PM
Where do you get that Zoeller MEANT TO DEMEAN? Solely from my perspective, I'd rather be characterized as someone who likes fried chicken and collard greens than someone destined to work a service sector job.
And while I agree that the main thrust of Dean's remarks was to bash Republicans, his choice of words [and the thrust of this controversy] could be read to belittle minorities as predominantly service sector drones.

I dunno, I guess it just came across that way. I think it would be more likely that I would get punched in the mouth if I said to a black man "So, I bet you want some fried chicken huh?" than if I said to a hispanic "There sure are a lot of mexicans working at this hotel".

It's arbitrary to some extent, you're right.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:48 PM
You are making specific racial stereotypes that Dean did not make. He made a stereotypical observation about minorities, POC, in general. (Which is NOT what Russ was arguing...he maintains it was geared TOWARDS blacks. Had his feigned outrage been about it being an offensive remark to POC in general then there might be a hint of honesty and integrity in his outrage...alas there's not)

But they were not the aim of his remark, the Republicans were. Yes, his remark was stupid because it left itself open to interpretation (which yours does not) and Dean needs to be careful about giving the CONS free material to :holdman: over.
Whether or not minorities were the central focus of the remark is not relevant. Whether or not characterizing minorities as service sector people is insensitive, whatever the rest of his point may be, is.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:49 PM
I may somewhat agree with you on this incident, but don't think that means I consider your usual mock outrage over a marginally offensive comment from a republican to be legitimate.

And I'm sure you point that out....

Again, on THIS instance we seem to agree. I think it's only because you are giving Dean time and more rope to hang himself and not because you think he's a nice dude.

I see you have more sense than to jump on his first lil goof like it's something worthy of getting all upset over. Rather, you know there are bigger fish to fry...you are just waiting till they are reeled in.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:49 PM
How many races must I insult in a single statement before it is no longer an insult? I didn't realize there was an exact figure. Where do you derive that figure?

How many minorities can you fit in a government building? It depends on the current racial quota hire statistics.

I avoided mentioning any specific race and I stated a fact, so it must not be racial, right?
No reply to this one?

I finally found the right formula to insult a people and not be considered racist and I get no praise for doing so?

DAMN!

Cochise
02-19-2005, 01:50 PM
Again, on THIS instance we seem to agree. I think it's only because you are giving Dean time and more rope to hang himself and not because you think he's a nice dude.

A good summary of my opinion on this is to never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:52 PM
Whether or not minorities were the central focus of the remark is not relevant. Whether or not characterizing minorities as service sector people is insensitive, whatever the rest of his point may be, is.

He was not characterizing ALL minorities as service sector people. Nor was he saying all black people are hotel workers. Nor was he saying that anyone was going to lose their job if they are POC and did not attend the caucus.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:52 PM
A good summary of my opinion on this is to never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
And my point is that; Zoeller was probably just stupid. Dean was probably just stupid. One is excoriated. One is blithely forgiven.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:53 PM
He was not characterizing ALL minorities as service sector people. Nor was he saying all black people are hotel workers. Nor was he saying that anyone was going to lose their job if they are POC and did not attend the caucus.
Not ALL black men have a passel of baby mommas either. Another irrelevant distinction.

Like I said, and I've now gone from suspecting to convinced, you KNOW this was insensitive, but dismiss it because you dislike those who have observed it's insensitivity.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:53 PM
A good summary of my opinion on this is to never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.


AGREED!!!!

I think he was more stupid than anything else. Which was my problem with him being the President nominee...of course then there was Kerry to save the day. :rolleyes: ROFL

Cochise
02-19-2005, 01:54 PM
No reply to this one?

I finally found the right formula to insult a people and not be considered racist and I get no praise for doing so?

DAMN!

You know, this reminds me of something.

When I was in college, I worked at a mental hospital downtown on hospital hill one summer, doing computer upgrades for the Year 2000 stuff, and general help desk kind of stuff.

There was a woman who worked there, she was probably in her 30s, and black. When she saw me, she used to call me things like 'college boy' and other things, basically called me a pretty boy or something because I usually wore dress attire. She was in an area where they permitted jeans and such.

Eventually though, she nicknamed me "cracker". I guess I gave her too much lattitude. She didn't mean anything by it, she was just kidding with me.

I couldn't help but think to myself that if I complained nothing would happen, but if I broke off an N-bomb on her, I'd be fired before I had even finished saying it.

Cochise
02-19-2005, 01:56 PM
And my point is that; Zoeller was probably just stupid. Dean was probably just stupid. One is excoriated. One is blithely forgiven.

Fair enough. I guess I consider it more likely that Zoeller harbors racist feelings than Dean. But, I admitedly don't have any evidence to back that up.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:57 PM
Not ALL black men have a passel of baby mommas either. Another irrelevant distinction.

Like I said, and I've now gone from suspecting to convinced, you KNOW this was insensitive, but dismiss it because you dislike those who have observed it's insensitivity.


I think it was insensitive because it was stupid and open to distortion and manipulation and not because it was playing on a particular race stereotype as was the initial charge of this thread.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:59 PM
Fair enough. I guess I consider it more likely that Zoeller harbors racist feelings than Dean. But, I admitedly don't have any evidence to back that up.

Well Zealot's remarks were certainly more racially specific and stereotypical than Dean's vague reference to people of color and hotel staff.

For all we know, the only people he had seen on staff were POC and that doesn't necessarily mean he'd been cavorting with the maid or butler.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:59 PM
You know, this reminds me of something.

When I was in college, I worked at a mental hospital downtown on hospital hill one summer, doing computer upgrades for the Year 2000 stuff, and general help desk kind of stuff.

There was a woman who worked there, she was probably in her 30s, and black. When she saw me, she used to call me things like 'college boy' and other things, basically called me a pretty boy or something because I usually wore dress attire. She was in an area where they permitted jeans and such.

Eventually though, she nicknamed me "cracker". I guess I gave her too much lattitude. She didn't mean anything by it, she was just kidding with me.

I couldn't help but think to myself that if I complained nothing would happen, but if I broke of an N-bomb on her, I'd be fired before I had even finished saying it.
I worked several years as a security guard at the JCPenney distribution center in Lenexa, while I was in undergrad. For the last couple of years there was a black lady who worked security there too. Despite being unfailingly cordial, towards the end she developed open hostility towards me. Figured she was just a bitch. Then learned from the captain that she was offended that I talked to others about my plans to go to law school. Thought I was too uppity and bougie.

DanT
02-19-2005, 02:00 PM
-----quoted from DanT---------------------
What of what I've said in this post do you not understand or accept? I'm perfectly happy to talk to you about what I have challenged about what you said or anything that I've said.
--------------------------------------------

Again, you stated that the PERCEPTION that BLee and I have taken are different than your own.

Now, once more, is the legal definition of a prejudiced statement the statement itself or the perception? Once you answer that question honestly, we have finally reached the point I originally made that the statement was one of a prejudiced nature.



I don't understand your answer to my question. I asked you to tell me what I've said in this post that you do not understand or accept. Please quote whatever remark I've made that you do not understand or accept and let me know if it's a remark that you do not understand or if it's a remark that you do not accept.

In this post, you asked me, "is the legal definition of a prejudiced statement the statement itself or the perception?" I do not know the legal definition of "a prejudiced statement". I am sure that it is not the same as either "a statement itself" or "the perception (of the statment)", as that would be recursive and syntactically nonsensical. I would guess that at least some definers of law would consider the "perception" of a statement to be meaningful in determining whether or not a statement contains prejudicial remarks, although I don't see how that has anything to do with what I've said. Suppose I were to grant that Howard Dean's statement is prejudiced. Does that mean that the statement implies that any member of a hotel staff is black? Of course it doesn't.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 02:00 PM
I worked several years as a security guard at the JCPenney distribution center in Lenexa, while I was in undergrad. For the last couple of years there was a black lady who worked security there too. Despite being unfailingly cordial, towards the end she developed open hostility towards me. Figured she was just a bitch. Then learned from the captain that she was offended that I talked to others about my plans to go to law school. Thought I was too uppity and bougie.

Small world. One of my relatives has worked there almost since it opened.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 02:01 PM
Fair enough. I guess I consider it more likely that Zoeller harbors racist feelings than Dean. But, I admitedly don't have any evidence to back that up.
Why?

DanT
02-19-2005, 02:14 PM
A good summary of my opinion on this is to never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

:)

That's close to my opinion on such matters too. I look for a charitable interpretation of what people said. I sure don't pretend that people said stuff they didn't say.

Here's an excerpt from a news story about an incident a few years back in which there was an uncharitable perception of what someone said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

D.C. Mayor Acted 'Hastily,' Will Rehire Aide

David Howard (By Gerald Martineau/The Washington Post)

By Yolanda Woodlee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 4, 1999; Page A1

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams said yesterday that he will rehire a former top aide who resigned last month because some city employees were offended that the aide used the word "niggardly" in describing how he would have to manage a fund's tight budget.

Williams, whose quick acceptance of David Howard's resignation last month led to a national debate over racial sensitivity and political correctness, indicated in a statement yesterday that he had made a mistake and "acted too hastily" in allowing Howard to resign as head of the city's constituent services office.

The mayor said that an internal review had "confirmed for me that Mr. Howard did use the word 'niggardly,' but did not use a racial epithet" during a Jan. 15 discussion with two employees of the Office of the Public Advocate. "Niggardly" means miserly and has no racial connotation.

Williams said that one of the employees, identified by Howard as Marshall Brown, interpreted Howard's remark as a racial slur. Brown has declined to comment on the incident.

Cochise
02-19-2005, 02:21 PM
Good lord, all these libs are humping my leg. I'm going to go take a shower now.

headsnap
02-19-2005, 02:34 PM
Context, setting, circumstance, etc... all count!

This inane parsing of words and selective outrage by the left is a large part why the Dems are becoming irrelevant. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! :thumb:

In the context, you KNOW what Dean was saying, and it was a stupid comment. One can spin and parse the coment 'til they are blue in the face, but without the context surrounding the comment, all you are left with are words with definitions that in themselves mean absolutely nothing.

What did Trent Lott really mean by his comments? Was he trying to say something nice about Thurmond, or was his statement racist? Without the context of the setting, one cannot know.


did he really mean it?

it depends on what 'it' is...






then we are back to what the definition of is is..

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 02:35 PM
You mean a REPUBLICAN Black was 'offended' and now he speaks for the Black masses????

I see. :hmmm:


http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921.html
Now replace Republican with Liberal and Black for Hispanic and put your comment on the Trent Lott thread regarding yourself.

Is it racist to say you are a black kettle?

BigMeatballDave
02-19-2005, 02:57 PM
Republicans are so racist and sexist, you'll never see a black woman as, say Secretary of State...

DanT
02-19-2005, 03:12 PM
In the context, you KNOW what Dean was saying, and it was a stupid comment.

What context, that most if not all of the people sitting in the room probably encounted members of the hotel staff in order to even get to their room and had to have enough of an idea of the composition of the staff to respond the way they did to the remark, by laughing?

As I said in my very first post on this thread, Dean's remark implies that at least some members of the hotel staff are people of color. Are you outraged by Dean's comment or what it implied? If so, what in it causes you outrage, what he said or what you think we all supposedly know what Dean was saying? If it's the latter, please tell me what you think it is that we all know Dean was saying with his joke.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 03:33 PM
Now replace Republican with Liberal and Black for Hispanic and put your comment on the Trent Lott thread regarding yourself.

Is it racist to say you are a black kettle?

I guess not, coming from hypocrite bigot.... (who still has not proven his original point of Dean meaning black =hotel staff) :thumb:

DanT
02-19-2005, 03:53 PM
I guess not, coming from hypocrite bigot.... (who still has not proven his original point of Dean meaning black =hotel staff) :thumb:

Let H be the set of members of a hotel staff,
B be the set of black people, and
C be the set of people of color.

All three sets are nonempty, of course.

KCWolfman's point was that Howard Dean's remarks implied that

(*) if hotel staff then black, which is the same as
H is inside B.

That's different from "black =hotel staff". For that, you'd need proposition (*) as well as the following:

(**) if black then hotel staff,
which is the same as B is inside H.

Of course, neither proposition (*) nor proposition (**) can be deduced from Howard Dean's remark. One can only deduce the following

(s) Some hotel staff are people of color ,
which is the same as saying H and C have a nonempty intersection.

headsnap
02-19-2005, 04:04 PM
Are you outraged by Dean's comment or what it implied? If so, what in it causes you outrage, what he said or what you think we all supposedly know what Dean was saying? If it's the latter, please tell me what you think it is that we all know Dean was saying with his joke.I'm not outraged at all. I just find it pathetically funny to see who it is that is actually defending the comments, and the dizzying twists and turns they are taking doing so.



the left are the ones who have perfected the fart of faux outrage...

headsnap
02-19-2005, 04:06 PM
I just find it pathetically funny to see who it is that is actually defending the comments, and the dizzying twists and turns they are taking doing so.see post #165 ROFL

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 04:06 PM
As I said in my very first post on this thread, Dean's remark implies that at least some members of the hotel staff are people of color.

No, Dean's remarks imply there are more people of color in that hotel employed by the hotel combined with any Republican meeting than in the black caucus.

DanT
02-19-2005, 04:08 PM
I'm not outraged at all. I just find it pathetically funny to see who it is that is actually defending the comments, and the dizzying twosts and turns they are taking doing so.



the left are the ones who have perfected the fart of faux outrage...

I am not outraged by it either. I am a Chrisitian who lives by the Golden Rule. If I can't see being outraged by something, I don't go around acting like anybody else should be outraged by it. I don't see any moral force in your criticism that the left is practicing "selective outrage" in this instance. Anybody's that is not outraged by Howard Dean's comments is behaving in a manner that is consistent with what I think is reasonable, whatever their political orientation.

headsnap
02-19-2005, 04:12 PM
I am not outraged by it either. I am a Chrisitian who lives by the Golden Rule. If I can't see being outraged by something, I don't go around acting like anybody else should be outraged by it. I don't see any moral force in your criticism that the left is practicing "selective outrage" in this instance. Anybody's that is not outraged by Howard Dean's comments is behaving in a manner that is consistent with what I think is reasonable, whatever their political orientation.

what are your thoughts on Trent Lott and the Thurmond comments?

DanT
02-19-2005, 04:12 PM
No, Dean's remarks imply there are more people of color in that hotel employed by the hotel combined with any Republican meeting than in the black caucus.

Almost, but not quite. Not "any Republican meeting", a nonempty subset of them.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 04:15 PM
Almost, but not quite. Not "any Republican meeting", a nonempty subset of them.
Nonetheless, and distractions of "nonempty subsets" aside, your asseration was false and mine was accurate.

Dean was stating that there are more people of color as hotel employees at a specific hotel along with a "non-empty" subset of ANY Republican meeting than there is in the Black Caucus that assembled.

Dean's remark did not merely imply there are "some people of color", it implied there are a multitude therein.

DanT
02-19-2005, 04:16 PM
what are your thoughts on Trent Lott and the Thurmond comments?

I thought it was an unfair overreaction that was partly the result of the abhorrence that newcomers to the Republican Party with leftist backgrounds have for traditional interpretations of the Constitution, especially with regard to the role of the Federal Government vs. the rights of the States.

DanT
02-19-2005, 04:22 PM
Nonetheless, and distractions of "nonempty subsets" aside, your asseration was false and mine was accurate.

Dean was stating that there are more people of color as hotel employees at a specific hotel along with a "non-empty" subset of ANY Republican meeting than there is in the Black Caucus that assembled.

Dean's remark did not merely imply there are "some people of color", it implied there are a multitude therein.

You misunderstood me.

Suppose there were 100 people of color in the room with the Democratic Black Caucus.

75 people of color on the hotel staff,

and two Republican meetings,

R1 which has 2 people of color and
R2 which has 50 people of color.

Dean's remarks are not inconsistent with this configuration. The R2 meeting plus the 75 people on the hotel staff has more than the 100 people of color. The only meeting configurations whose sum exceeds 100 are those in which the hotel staff are invited. There are Republican meetings in which the invititation of the hotel staff would not exceed 100 (e.g. R1).

If you say that the only way you're going to hit a two-run outside-the-park homerun is by swinging at the ball, you're not saying that every swing is a homerun or that every homerun drives in a person already on the bases.

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 04:22 PM
No, Dean's remarks imply there are more people of color in that hotel employed by the hotel combined with any Republican meeting than in the black caucus.


At the Democrat Black Caucus last week

Nice. Evidently if you are part of a hotel staff, you are automatically black.




Ah, so now you are arguing with yourself about what he said? :hmmm: ROFL

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 04:24 PM
You misunderstood me.

Suppose there were 100 people of color in the room with the Democratic Black Caucus.

75 people of color on the hotel staff,

and two Republican meetings,

R1 which has 2 people of color and
R2 which has 50 people of color.

Dean's remarks are not inconsistent with this configuration. The R2 meeting plus the 75 people on the hotel staff has more than the 100 people of color. The only meeting configurations whose sum exceeds 100 are those in which the hotel staff are invited. There are Republican meetings in which the invititation of the hotel staff would not exceed 100 (e.g. R1).

If you say that the only way you're going to hit a homerun is by swinging at the ball, you're not saying that every swing is a homerun.

Again, Dean implied there are a multitude of people of color on the hotel staff, not some. That is all that is germaine to the point.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 04:25 PM
Ah, so now you are arguing with yourself about what he said? :hmmm: ROFL
Damn, I was overzealous in my description? Funny how you give Dean a free pass for that and stab me, Lott, and Steele for the same thing.

I am surprised you didn't take me to task on the Robert Byrd imagery as well. After all, only the right side of the aisle must be exact under your watch.

headsnap
02-19-2005, 04:28 PM
I thought it was an unfair overreaction that was partly the result of the abhorrence that newcomers to the Republican Party with leftist backgrounds have for traditional interpretations of the Constitution, especially with regard to the role of the Federal Government vs. the rights of the States.

WOW, how do you know that that is exactly what Trent was talking about! It could just as easily been that he thought Strom would have been a good President. Could you also tell me exactly what mess Trent was alluding to?

DanT
02-19-2005, 04:30 PM
Again, Dean implied there are a multitude of people of color on the hotel staff, not some. That is all that is germaine to the point.

I don't get you. You're saying that there's a logical or practical distinction between

some of the hotel staff are people of color

and

a multitude of the hotel staff are people of color?

I'd be interested to know how you'd define a multitude and some and why you'd think that Howard Dean's remark implies a multitude without implying some.

some is a necessary condition for a multitude.

DanT
02-19-2005, 04:32 PM
WOW, how do you know that that is exactly what Trent was talking about! It could just as easily been that he thought Strom would have been a good President. Could you also tell me exactly what mess Trent was alluding to?

No. That's my point.
It is exactly because I can not tell exactly what Trent was talking about that I consider his treatment to be an unfair overreaction.

headsnap
02-19-2005, 04:38 PM
No. That's my point.
It is exactly because I can not tell exactly what Trent was talking about that I consider his treatment to be an unfair overreaction.
Well now that we agree on that point, lets now watch Dean advance to GO and collect his $200 and remember how Lott, et al, got raked over the coals for similar offenses. ;)

stevieray
02-19-2005, 04:38 PM
It's pretty obvious what he meant. The only way you would see that many people of color would be because said people would be SERVING Republicans, therefore catagorizing them as SUBSERVIANT.

It implies racism. End of story.

DanT
02-19-2005, 04:43 PM
Well now that we agree on that point, lets now watch Dean advance to GO and collect his $200 and remember how Lott, et al, got raked over the coals for similar offenses. ;)

Here's the beginning of an old article on the Trent Lott incident from www.lewrockwell.com, a libertarian, anti-state, anti-war website that I read regularly and whose sampling of viewpoints I find interesting and largely compatible with my own.



Trent Lott’s Missed Opportunities

by Steven Yates


I’ll begin with a confession. Mississippi’s Trent Lott was never one of my favorite politicians – not that I have many of those, anyway. He’s no rocket scientist, but he is a Republican and a Southerner, and occasionally, resentment about matters pertaining to his state being dictated from outside emerges. So none of the current events really surprise me that much.

What Lott said, referring to the 1948 States’ Rights Party, was, "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."

One possible response is that in today’s era of political correctness, saying something like that was just plain dumb – even if it was at a birthday gathering honoring the now 100-year-old, wheelchair-bound Strom. Lott said it on national television, no less. He should have known how it would be taken, and that it would probably derail his career.

Needless to say, it’s been another high-tech lynching of an uppity Southerner. Interestingly, most of the lynching has come not from Democrats but from his fellow Republicans – very likely due to the shrill neocon element that now dominates the Republican Party.

A tacit cultural Marxism now prevails in our political discourse, however, and the neocons have reveled in it. Cultural Marxism divides the world into oppressors and victims. It also divides the political establishment, at least by implication, into those who help the victims (the good guys, i.e., Democrats) and those who defend the oppressors (the bad guys, i.e., Republicans). The former can do no wrong; the latter are suspect no matter what they do. This explains how Robert Byrd, a Democrat, could utter the n-word three times, not to mention other aspects of his – shall we say – shady past, and you don’t hear a peep, while Lott, a Republican (from the South, no less!), says something comparatively tame, and might as well take early retirement.

This explains, too, why Republicans excel at just three things: making promises they don’t keep, expanding the central government, and throwing their own to the wolves. On the collectivist-individualist spectrum, the Democrats know where they stand. Most Republicans (except for super-elites like the Bushies) are clueless. This is why the country continued drifting leftward during the 1990s even though Republicans controlled Congress. And why the drift deeper into statism continues with Republicans controlling Congress and the White House. And why the neocons are now worse than the affirmative action hires when it comes to standing in line behind whatever is politically correct (or sometimes just convenient).

Lott, in the process of weaseling and uttering mealy-mouthed apologies, has passed on what might have been a good opportunity to educate anyone willing to listen on just what "states’ rights" was about – beginning with where the concept originated. No, it wasn’t invented out of thin air by Confederates.

Contrary to collectivists and affirmative action hires, "states’ rights" was not about race. It was written into the late, lamented Bill of Rights – specifically, the Tenth Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." A dead letter, of course – but surely of historical interest for anyone who wants to understand the Framers’ unique contribution to Western political thought: federalism as originally conceived. The federal government was the creation of the states; its purpose was to serve the states. The locus of political control was to be the states.

Federalism was thus to be a decentralized system of government – not the centralized behemoth the US government gradually became when Americans started ignoring Thomas Jefferson’s warning about vigilance being the price of liberty. Today, of course, the term federal government is a misnomer. The term should be central government – because centralist-minded politicians stopped heeding the Tenth Amendment long ago. Arguably it was thrown out when Lincoln forcibly prevented a group of states from seceding and forming a new republic. A federalist system is, by definition, a voluntary association. In a voluntary association, one or more of those associating can pull out. A right of secession is therefore implied in our founding principles, as a check on centralizing tendencies the Framers rightly feared.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates67.html

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 04:47 PM
It's pretty obvious what he meant. The only way you would see that many people of color would be because said people would be SERVING Republicans, therefore catergorizing them as SUBSERVIANT.

It implies racism. End of story.
That is exactly it.

Reading Dan try to explain Dean's supposed humorous comments in a scientific and logical manner is like watching Dr. Phil explain the esoteric balances in the humor of Richard Pryor.

No matter how he or D-enise try to explain away Dean's comment, the fact is that it could and HAS been taken as a racially insensitive statement.

I have a feeling we are going to be reading a great deal more "explanations" over the next few years regarding Screamin' Dean.