I don’t get past ‘white’ because of your ugly insertion of it into this matter.

You have not given a single piece of specific evidence that Kristol is on TV because he’s white, rich or whatever. Criticize his opinions all you want, not his skin color.

Dugger

There’s a lot more to it than just that. It’s clearly laid out in my first post. Funny, I’m the “race baiter” but you can’t get past the word “white”.

One problem you ve got, at the onset, is that the majority of people in this country are white. They would all be qualified to be on TV per your fevered imagination.

If you think that’s what I was saying, I suggest you are the one with the fevered imagination. As I said, either you can’t read or you want to change the subject.

The majority of people in this country are not wealthy white men who are paid good money to defend the power structure and put themselves out as “experts” on foreign policy despite their crap track record. The majority of people in this country are not scam artists wrapped in a “respectable” package of being A Serious Person, said package relying greatly on this country’s inherent deference to powerful white guys in suits.

I’ve been more than clear on these points – what’s curious to me is your fevered defense of people who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire, unless of course, I’m mistaken and you are in fact a “somebody” in this society (e.g. a rich white male who is plugged into the DC “think tank” system). In that case I can see why you’re upset that anyone would question the source of your daily bread.

Ugly race baiting it is. Your contention is that Kristol in on TV because of skin color. Do you have a single hard fact to back that up. Your believing it to be true doesn’t count. One problem you’ve got, at the onset, is that the majority of people in this country are white. They would all be qualified to be on TV per your fevered imagination. The second is that Fox, the most prominent ‘Kristol’ network, has several non whites, non males etc on the air. Now you may want to argue that Fox’s black people think like whitey, but unfortunately for you, you made a claim based on skin color – not thought.

You’d do a lot better to put aside the racial animosity and judge on content rather than skin color.

Dugger

This is a strawman. No one ever said such a thing. Either you have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are being dishonest here.

To inject either into a discussion where neither was present is ugly race baiting.

“Ugly race baiting?” That’s a funny way to describe a rather simple and truthful observation of how things work in this country. A statement that is so undeniably true, in fact, that no one so far has been able to challenge it directly, relying instead on diversionary tactics to change the subject.

Bill Kristol is neither right nor wrong because of his skin color or wealth. To inject either into a discussion where neither was present is ugly race baiting.

Dugger

Really? This thread didn’t open with a question as to why people like Bill Kristol are granted a platform and are considered credible experts despite their track record of failed analysis? Go figure. I wonder how his name showed up in the first place.

we were talking about a  rich white man in a a suit& . Could be bill clinton& .Anyone want to argue that slick willy didn t work hard to get where he did? Not me& .I would guess that guy worked his a@@ off& .

It seems you’ve conceded my original point about the automatic deference given to the opinions of rich white men in our society and now wish to discuss their work ethic in general and Bill Clinton’s in particular. Maybe on another thread.

And he s extra special guilty in your eyes because of skin color?

Not what the man wrote, Dugs.

He said whiteness is what makes Kristol believable as a spokesman on the teevee. You made up that other thing.

If you want to make the argument that Bill Kristol, son of Irving, and George Bush, son of George, are self-made men who came into their positions of prominence on their own, you can certainly give it a shot, though I would think that your own sense of self-respect would inhibit you from taking such a foolish (and toolish) position.

On a side note, I never said that the black character in my analogy was poor. Somehow, that idea occurred to you, and I’m positing that it’s not because of any innate tendency on your part to make such assumptions. It’s because you are as much a product of this culture as the rest of the viewing audience, which was my point at the outset about why it is that privileged clowns like Kristol are given a second, third and fourth bite at the apple.

Check up on affirmative action now and then if you want to see institutionalized racism in action…..

drpedro!!! Goodness, it’s rare hear such victimized words coming from your keyboard. What an interesting glimpse into who you are.

In our culture, being a rich white male in a suit who speaks in favor of the status quo automatically confers upon that person a level of credibility and respectability that is not made available to people outside that mold without a great deal of effort.

Am I reading the progressives right here?

If you’re referring to my post, the answer is no, you’re not reading it correctly. Maybe the following example will help:

Take two scam artists. One a black man in business casual clothes, one a white man in a suit. Both want you to hand over $10,000 so they can “manage” it. Which of the two is more likely to be successful in getting people to part with their money? I think we all know the answer to that one.

If that doesn’t help, try this: Look over the list of usual suspects on the cable TV gabfests. Notice any similarities in how they look or how they comport themselves? Ever wonder why the hell they are given so much credibility? Don’t you find it absurd that we have an “expert” talking about public opinion wihtin Iran who doesn’t speak Farsi and has never been there?

And with one of the same goddamned lies, no less.

Because he’s a rich white male who wears a nice suit on television and whose job it is to tell to the viewers at home that the powerful people who run this country are justified in being so powerful, and that they should have more power because of their inherent benevolence and their completely altruisitc desire to spread freedom-pixie dust about the globe. Just don’t ask him about who ultimately benefits and whether that’s worth the price. That’s none of your concern.

In addition, he adopts the proper tone of gravitas in expressing his views, and no matter how crappy his logic or how wrong he has been in the past, he will be taken seriously, because he is A Serious Person. Harumph. Harumph.

A powerful white man in a suit will always be deferred to. It’s part of our culture.