Comments on: Joe Lieberman: “John McCain Doesn’t Have A Racist Bone In His Body”, Well… Except When Calling Vietnamese “Gook[s]“

By: Zython

Zython — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:09:27 +0000

How is he responsible for what other people said or meant by a word almost 40 years after the word was originated?

In other words: “Sure, I said ‘n*****’, but it’s not my fault that word is racist.”

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:43:46 +0000

Huh. Cubans are “gooks” now? Learn something new every day.

By: Southern Quaker

Southern Quaker — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:42:20 +0000

Grendel plenty of people didn’t think that divestment was the best way to change apartheid.

Except, oddly enough, for the black South Africans.

By: Grendel72

Grendel72 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:42:02 +0000

Those of us who have some history with actually supporting civil rights have heard the “we don’t like outsiders coming in and telling us what to do” line repeatedly and know exactly what it means.
1987 wasn’t that long ago, pretty much all of us remember what it was like so you can’t use the Strom Thurmond defense “Oh, it was a different time…” We remember 1987, and a lot of us remember where McCain stood at the time.
He lies about it now, pretending he always supported the holiday. The truth is we can’t really know his position on racism any more than we can know if he really feels the religious right are agents of extremism, because he changes his policies depending on who he’s talking to and what the prevailing attitude is at the time.

By: duh

duh — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:39:49 +0000

Well said as usual parth.

Then let us also agree that simply disagreeing with a policy of straight divestiture with regard to south africa is also not prima facie evidence of racism.

I am pragmatic enough to recognize that when it comes down to “our” sons of bitches dictators and “their” sons of bitches dictators, I will always be more supportive our ours.

By: duh

duh — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:27:48 +0000

Grendel, read my damn link Mecham rescinded Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday, saying it had been established through an illegal executive order by his Democratic predecessor. You pig-eyed, bigoted jerk.(I figure I need to get in on the ad hominem attacks, it seems like it de rigeur here.

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:18:24 +0000

**If it was unclear, I was not suggesting that Chavez or Ahmedinejad directly replaced American-supported clients. But both are from regions (or in Ahmedinjad’s case, a country) where America has exercised a heavy hand.**

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:15:01 +0000

If just taking your toys and going home is such a great policy, why is The Obama so interested in talking, unconditionally, with enemy states?

Duh – I generally give you more credit (and thus the benefit of the doubt) than this sir. South Africa was not leaned on only diplomatically, but also economically, something vetoed in the 1980s, btw, by the Reagan and Thatcher Administrations in the United Nations, because South Africa was – you guessed it, a bulwark against commie influence.

Senator Obama has advocated diplomatic contact with states where the United States State Department currently has no or little presence. I imagine he has done so because it has not de-legitimized them for the United States to cover our eyes and scream ‘LA LA LA,’ and good information can only help us, not hurt us. Diplomatic black holes are deadly, for they leave us ignorant of a region’s domestic politics.

It will not lend them our legitimacy, such as it is, to have their people meet our people. And I can only assume that the phrase ‘enemy states’ refers to countries run by dictators not already allied to us, or maybe dictators and democratically elected leaders (such as Ahmedinejad and Chavez) that replaced our dictators.

And since I’m certain attacks on patriotism are beyond the pale for any poster in this forum, I feel pretty comfortable that we can all grasp the nuanced position of pointing out that America has and currently does support allied dictators, but that that does mean one hates the United States.

In other words, shorter me – economic v. diplomatic contacts. Apples n’ oranges.

By: Grendel72

Grendel72 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:08:09 +0000

Mccain didn’t think it should a FEDERAL holiday, but encouraged it as a state holiday.
1987: McCain Supports AZ Governor’s Effort to Rescind Martin Luther King Day
as State Holiday. In 1987, Arizona Governor Evan Mecham rescinded “what he
termed an illegal executive order by his predecessor, Democrat Bruce Babbitt,
to establish a state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.”
Speaking to the Arizona Teenage Republican Convention, when asked about
Mecham’s decision to rescind the holiday, “McCain said that he felt Mecham was
correct in rescinding the holiday.” [Washington Post, 1/14/1987; Phoenix
Gazette, 4/13/1987]
This is McCain opposing a state holiday, never mind the federal holiday.
So McCain favored profiting off of apartheid and opposed recognizing Martin Luther King, jr.
You fucking lying racist apologist.

By: duh

duh — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:58:24 +0000

aah yes, I see it now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/01/mccains-memphis-visit-ra_n_94531.html

Mccain didn’t think it should a FEDERAL holiday, but encouraged it as a state holiday. And since then has had a change of opinion, like, I don’t know, Obama and offshore oil drilling.

Now grendel, where would you like to move the goalpost to next?

By: duh

duh — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:53:06 +0000

reference please?

By: Grendel72

Grendel72 — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:36:31 +0000

And of course McCain’s opposition to the holiday honoring Martin Luther King, jr. (which he has repeatedly lied about) was just because he didn’t want an extra day off, right?

By: duh

duh — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:26:50 +0000

Grendel plenty of people didn’t think that divestment was the best way to change apartheid. They argued that by maintaining a seat on the board as it were, they were better able to affect the companies policy.

But man, you guys are really on message and wired into the DNC talking points!

If just taking your toys and going home is such a great policy, why is The Obama so interested in talking, unconditionally, with enemy states? I thought this two way communication was a good idea?

Oh and WTN? Read my post above and google mccain normalizing relations Vietnam. As I pointed out, McCain has been one of the driving forces behind opening up relations with Vietnam, to the point of making various trips to that country.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:06:18 +0000

It’s Lieberman with whom we should have the problem. McCain is not a traitor to the Democratic Party. He is a right-wing tool and an hypocrite, but not a traitor.

By: WTN

WTN — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:16:28 +0000

Speaking as a half Vietnamese OIF veteran, I think John McCain has too much pent-up anger to hold a position of great responsibility (like President). Especially if he can’t control himself enough not to use racial slurs directed toward ANYONE. I don’t give a damn who he was talking about, it was just as irresponsible as calling a group of people porch monkeys.

His anger stemming from his ordeal as a POW was not his fault at all, of course, but it is what it is.

By: August J. Pollak

August J. Pollak — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:51:09 +0000

Answer the question, duh.

By: Grendel72

Grendel72 — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:25:00 +0000

So how do those who make excuses for McCain’s racism deal with the fact he opposed divestment from apartheid era South Africa?

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:10:30 +0000

McCain doesn’t have any racist bones in his body. I guess we’ll have to look at his other tissues and organs. Like his spleen or his skin.

By: duh

duh — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:07:13 +0000

Riddle me this August J.: How can it be a racial slur if race isn’t involved?

If you call a white guy a “gook” is that a racial slur against the white guy?

If a rapper says “hey, n….r whats up?” is THAT a racial slur

Seems like your internal contradictions would just make a persons head explode, well, a thinking person’s anyway.

By: Southern Quaker

Southern Quaker — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:40:09 +0000

My point, dunderhead, is that McCain is running for the president of the United States, that he should have some idea of the implication of the words he uses, and that he should be mature enough at this point to put that word away – no matter how much he may still hate his captors – and understand that it is as patently offensive as the n-word.

And the word “gooks” was as racist in the 60s as it was in the 70s – in fact the origins of the word trace as far back as the late 1800s. It has a long history as a racist way to refer to southeast Asians in general.