MY COMMENT: As usual, while Republicans are always accused of racism, which is a lie, the REAL racism on the Left has been displayed once again by that idiot Joe The Moron Biden. Joe Biden Uses Famously Anti-Semitic Slur in Speech http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/17/joe-biden-uses-famously-anti-semitic-slur-in-speech/ "Vice President Joe Biden has drawn criticism from a prominent Jewish group after using a well-known anti-Semitic slur during a speech Tuesday. Speaking to the Legal Services Corporation an organization that offers legal services to those who cannot afford them Biden referred to unscrupulous bankers who target military men and women as Shylocks. COMMENT: Add it to the long list of Plugs Biden gaffes. Here are just two: Jan. 31, 2007: I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, thats a storybook, man. June 17, 2006: In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Im not joking.
A literary reference from the greatest playwright in history that offends some Jews. Yep a real example of racism in action. Oh look three different dictionary definitions. shy·lock (shlk) Offensive n. A ruthless moneylender; a loan shark. intr.v. shy·locked, shy·lock·ing, shy·locks To lend money at exorbitant interest rates. Shylock (ˈʃaɪˌlɒk) n 1. (Banking & Finance) a heartless or demanding creditor Shylock (ˈʃaɪ lɒk) n. 1. a relentless, revengeful moneylender in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. 2. a cruel moneylender. v.i. 3. (l.c.) to lend money for extortionate interest. Biden even used the word in its proper context. FAIL!
You know, when people say that the GOP is racist, it's not just because they say racist stuff. It's also because the GOP doesn't seem to get it when it comes to race. So when you say that Joe Biden is a racist for saying something anti-semitic, it doesn't really help the GOP out. Sure, Jews can be a race, but in this day in age it really refers more to religion. So to say that you're disgusted by the left's racism, check your own apathy first to make sure it's not in the wrong spot.
This is another one of those attacks on Joe who says stupid things. Shylock is often used in movies and the Jew reference is sometimes lost. To think that it was some how a window on how he sees Jews is stupid on its face. Now his other comments, and others over the years, have gotten him rightfully in how water. I mean this guy doesn't know when to shut up. He thinks he is being funny. He isn't, it is offensive. The comment about Obama was pretty damning one though but unlike the stalwarts of the right, he learned from it. How many on the right used the phrase "magic negro" without knowing what it means and the context it was originally used in. They just wanted to say (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and couldn't so they used that.
Meh, this is not racist. Dont stoop to the race baiters level. However as to the last post I will say one of the biggest faults I see with the Democratic party is they try and use emotional arguments. I think for no other reason than to try to distract from the real problem and paint their "enemy" as racist. I would like to see many black people account for their lives and have some responsibility. You can try and say its education if you want, but I studied enginerring with 3 black students at college whom all came from nothing. They did it, I am tired of hearing the excuses for many many blacks out there. While there are difficulties for them to overcome they must accept the brunt of the blame. Democrats call that racism and it has nothing to do with race.
The only word that comes to my mind when I see Joe Biden is 'sleaze'. Obama needed him to carry Pennsylvania.
First off it was the media that tried to blow this comment out of joint and of course Republicans or partisan reasons. Secondly,Joe Biden is no anti-Semite. He is one of Israel's staunchest allies. This guy is as far from being a racist as he comes. He used the word in reference to high interest rates not Jews. Its a word because of the Merchant of Venice that has become associated with an insult against Jews. Thirdly, no Jew including me found it offensive. We understand the context it was used in and believe me have heard far worse. I think this need to be so politically appropriate has gone too far.As a Jew I need no protection from such words. Thank you. I am a big boy I can handle it. Biden is a blunt man. Screw anyone offended. Now let's move on to a real political issue and stop trying to create false conflicts for the fall vote to get Republicans elected. Then again I think its fair game for the Republicans. They get accused of being racist for having concerns about Obama immigration policies, why not throw this back in his face. Its politics. That was Catholic Crusader's point-its a bunch of b.s. and the Republicans are just throwing back the self righteous pretentious politically appropriate accusations the other way.
The DNC is just desperate it would appear. "DNC Boss Compares Tea Party Members to Wife Beaters" Earlier this month, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tore into Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, comparing him and other Tea Party members to wife beaters. As she attacked him, she said: Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality. What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch. It is a common liberal tactic to avoid arguing about real issues in favor of using ad hominem attacks. But even fellow Democrats felt Wasserman-Schultz’s comparison went too far. Wasserman-Schultz has a long history of public speaking gaffes. Some now believe her latest comment was the straw that broke the camel’s back and contributed to her own party turning on her."
In regards to 1, me personally I do not think the GOP is any more or less racist if we use that word than the Democrats. I think both parties have people intolerant of groups they identify by ethnicity or race or religion or gender or gender preference. Its called racism by some, but in fact its political profiling. Politicians patronize to identified groups. Its called pandering. All politicians do it. You talk to an audience full of Muslims, you don't say anything pro Israel. When you talk to an audience of Christians, you don't talk about right to choose or women's rights over their body. Who are we kidding. They all do it. In regards to 3, I respectfully disagree with you. I think in most contexts today the word Jew is used interchangeably with Israeli and in a political context not in regards to religion. I do not think non Jews for the most part have a clue as to the Jewish religion, and the Jewish state collective movement called Zionism. They think one is the other. In regards to 2, dead on but he GOP feels they have been unfairly accused of racism for their views on immigration policy and so when the press tried to create a false issue ran with it a bit. Not because they really think he was being a bigot but to make the point that its b.s. to cry racism all the time when they criticize Obama policies and if Obama does it, they will do it back.
I would agree if not for the fact that the far right has repeatedly demonstrated a racist attitude towards Obama. The birther movement is a classic example. Remember FIX fixating on the "new black panthers" - three clowns with visions of grandeur, but FIX showed that video at least a hundred times and constantly worried about a) the re-appearance of black activists and b) the conspiracy to not prosecute them because they were black like the president. Legitimate criticism is legitimate criticism. Even (regrettably) partisan misrepresentation and bullcrap is all to legitimate in politics. But many in the current republican party including the more idiotic tea partiers have many instances of crossing the line. Regardless, "shylock" is hardly a racist term despite its literary origins.
Sure, I can agree with you on that. I would say that there are plenty of times when a politican has been racist, parties or ideology has nothing to do with it. You got me there. I get what you're saying. It's more of a regional thing though. I grew up around a lot of Jews, so for me to say that a Jew is an Israeli, is a bit far stretched. But I see where you're coming from. Sure, but at this point here we have to examine the history of the GOP and racism. If we really want to get at the roots as to why the GOP doesn't seem to understand its race problem, we have to figure out why they act the way they do. - - - Updated - - - Do you have a link to the story?
K I am always fascinated and correct me if I am wrong that the GOP was anti slavery, and Teddy Roosevelt was very progressive about blacks and I believe something happened in his era after he invited Booker T Washington to dinner in the White House that saw the GOP shudder at this notion and chastise him and things went down hill after that for the GOP and black Americans.Did that fall out happen earlier with the GOP or was that the pivotal split? Some say once Lincoln was assassinated it went down hill. I always find American politics in regards to black relations very confusing. I mean we have this belief today the GOP is an elite white party for the rich but it was originally anti slavery. Then we have of course numerous Democrats in the South who were far more racist than their GOP opponents. In the 60's the congress was full of Mississip, Georgia,Alabama racist democrats. Strom Thurmond.Hell Robert Byrd was a KKK member. The US also though has a very real black presence in its Armed Forces that then goes Republican when it votes. Its a field day trying to figure it out. For me an outsider fascinated with American politics, I saw Teddy Roosevelt, FDR than LBJ as the most progressive Presidents in regards to black relations. I know black America liked Bill Clinton and genuinely respected FDR but I guess from my perspective I don't see it as much black v. white as a financial class split and any poor person black or white was more likely not to vote Republican and since so many blacks were poor they voted Democrat because of its closer relation to unions and the working class and once blacks moved into positions other than blue collar like whites they would start moving over to GOP. I confess I may be totally wrong on that take but I think sometimes you Amerks are quite hard on your GOP-Democrat split and it may be no different than say the Labour-Conservative split in Britain and not necessarily a race thing as much as an economic class thing. I defer to you Amerks on that other than to say when you read the history of both Roosevelts, and LBJ its a fascinating glimpse at politicians dealing with entrenched economic class systems and challenging them. Myself personally I think Ronald Reagan ran an America that wanted to get back to the 1950's when everything was segregated and everyone knew their place whether it be economically or by ethnicity. I always found Reagan to be a polite as can be racist. I think Bush Sr. was, but Bush Jr. was not. I genuinely think Bush Jr. was not but was surrounded by GOP old boy racists. Clinton was not but I think his wife was. This will surprise people but I think Obama detests any American who is military black or white and detests American military tradition which is a new phenomena. The closet Americans had to an isolationist anti military politician before him was Woodrow Wilson who like Obama reluctantly came into a war towards the end of his tenure.
As a catholic crusader, I am not surprised you know a lot about anti-Semitism, since your church persecuted and murdered so many Jews for some 1900 years. neologisms from literary characters can be found throughout the English language. Shylock is merely one of a long list. quixotic, scrooge, pollyanna, doubting Thomas, babbit, ugly duckling and on and on.
I'm not as familiar with Teddy Roosevelt and his race relationships but I can tell you about the GOP and race, mostly before Nixon. After reconstruction ended, Oscar Depriest was the first African American elected to Congress. He was a Republican. However Hoover was in office at that time and he wanted to make the GOP a "lily white" party. He ended up sponsoring a segregationist to the courts, but that failed. Starting with FDR the black vote went towards the Democrats. It's pretty much been the Dems solid block ever since. Odd considering that the South was also solidly Democrat but politics is weird like that. Starting I would say in the 1960's and 1970's, the GOP co-opted the racists, which gave them the south which we see today. I've been doing this for years now, I'm no closer to the answer, and I have no doubt no else is either. Yes you are right on that. But we can't go about judging time by comparing it today. We have to look at it for all it was worth back then. The army tends to be more conservative. It's an odd trend, I'll say that much. And thus we get to the new argument. What is modern day racism? Is it still the government keeping minorities down, and if so what about laws that indirectly attack them? Or is it a society that still isn't ready to deal with race? I don't think you're wrong. It just comes down to a difference in opinions as to what racism in the US is nowadays. I wouldn't say that so much, more so politics then what Reagan wanted. We can look back at Nixon and how he didn't want to desegregate schools or how the Christian right was scared at the rise of feminism and gay rights as other signs of the changing times. Truth be told, I never really got into modern politics. Always so confusing.
The main issue about Joe Biden is that he doesn't seem to use his brain properly, or at least it happens that he shows a quite mindless attitude about the connection between the brain and the mouth ...
