'08 Democratic Nomination

[Simon]

I wasn't old enough to really hear him speak when he was President.  But the audio and video I have heard makes me beg to differ.  That and what some of my relatives who had heard him in person (father was a cop who did security at political events and his uncle worked at a GE plant where Reagan gave speaches before he got into politics) have to say about him also contradicts what you say.

 

Like BlueFire said, there's a reason they call him The Great Communicator

836426[/snapback]

 

The guy was an actor, so yes he knew how to stand there and give canned speeches that somebody else had written. But that doesn't make him well-spoken, it makes him a trained actor who could deliver his lines. When he had no lines to work with and had to speak his own mind, he sounded like a buffoon.

[bills_fan]

Perhaps he was an able actor, capable of properly inflecting words as he read from somebody else's script. But hearing him attempt to speak extemperaneously only proved that the man was a blithering idiot.

 

Except he had a wonderful ability to connect to the average joe and jane and make them feel important.

[Bungee Jumper]

Except he had a wonderful ability to connect to the average joe and jane and make them feel important.

836541[/snapback]

 

Uhhhh...actor.

[Chilly]

The guy was an actor, so yes he knew how to stand there and give canned speeches that somebody else had written. But that doesn't make him well-spoken, it makes him a trained actor who could deliver his lines. When he had no lines to work with and had to speak his own mind, he sounded like a buffoon.

836494[/snapback]

 

Maybe not, in order to determine this we'd have to debate the definition of "well spoken".

 

However, that is irrelevant to my original point, that there are lots of white people considered to be well spoken.

[Bill from NYC]

Maybe not, in order to determine this we'd have to debate the definition of "well spoken".

 

However, that is irrelevant to my original point, that there are lots of white people considered to be well spoken.

836770[/snapback]

 

And that was the point of what I said to you in my post. Black people (imo) are treated as exceptions.

 

Look, I am one of the least PC posters on this board. I also agree that the "well spoken" thing might apply more to sports than politics. I am trying to make the case that nobody was ever surprised in any way to hear that Clinton was articulate. With Obama (sic?), it seems to be a revelation, or news of sorts.

 

Most presidents were "well spoken," no? One would also think that senators would have to be articulate at least to some degree to withstand the election process (debates, etc.). I don't hear any white liberals running around saying that Biden is "well spoken," do you?

 

I am merely making the case that aside from president Bush, the expectation is there for white candidates.

[Chilly]

And that was the point of what I said to you in my post. Black people (imo) are treated as exceptions.

 

Look, I am one of the least PC posters on this board. I also agree that the "well spoken" thing might apply more to sports than politics. I am trying to make the case that nobody was ever surprised in any way to hear that Clinton was articulate. With Obama (sic?), it seems to be a revelation, or news of sorts.

 

Most presidents were "well spoken," no? One would also think that senators would have to be articulate at least to some degree to withstand the election process (debates, etc.). I don't hear any white liberals running around saying that Biden is "well spoken," do you?

 

I am merely making the case that aside from president Bush, the expectation is there for white candidates.

836858[/snapback]

 

I understand your point, and again I disagree.

 

When I used considered, I was talking about the people that were overtly pointed out to be well spoken. You misread what I was saying.

 

Yes, the expectation is there for candidates to be well spoken. Yet its pointed out in some particular candidates who excel above other candidates at public speaking, and its usually one of the qualities that helps propel them to the election. They might all be well-spoken, but there is a reason why they label some candidates (both white and black) well spoken and others they don't label that way.

 

Back when Clinton was running for the Presidency, it was pointed out that he was very well spoken. Thats one of the qualities that people liked about him, and that made him distinct. The news media ran stories saying that some of the biggest character traits he has is that he is a strong public speaker.

 

How is that any different then the media saying that Obama has those same qualities? You are perceiving a difference because he is black, but in reality the reason why they are emphasizing this in comparison with other candidates is for a different reason.

 

The frame that the media presents candidates in is a very competitive frame, attempting to make differences between the candidates.

 

Obama's description from the New York Press:

 

"Obama is a bright, articulate man, well-spoken, and he possesses a genuine desire to work with both sides of the aisle to get things done. To top it off, Obama is biracial, the product of a black father and a white mother. A 2008 campaign by Obama would represent a shift away from politics as usual, say the pundits. This would be a new era, an era of inclusion."

 

This is focusing on his personality and youth, showing him as a smart candidate who would change how Washington currently is.

 

They are portraying him in this way and focusing on this because he is a junior Senator without much experience or anything other then his reputation. He's a Presidential candidate because of his personality. If you attempt to leave out his personality and a description of it, you leave out the whole reason why he's a possible Presidential candidate in the first place.

 

If you don't think that this is the case, then let me pose this question to you: What other qualifications does he have for running for President? Which qualities does Obama have which set him apart from the other candidates (besides being black) which allows them to show Obama in a unique light?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Negro?  What year is it where you live?

 

I don't see why a black person couldn't win POTUS.  The whole country was hot and bothered for Colin Powell a few years ago.  And how many voters would really say "Well I mostly agree with Candidate A but he's black so I'm pulling the lever for Candidate B."

831230[/snapback]

 

 

Are you joking or just naive?

 

Behind the protection of the Australian ballot?

 

My guess...

 

Many... Too many...

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yes, but you rarely hear about a white politician being "well spoken." You also rarely hear about a white athlete being "well spoken." The implication is that a black person being articulate is a rarity.

I can't remember any black player being described as "high motor," even those (such as London Fletcher) who fit that description, which seems to be reserved for white people. Schobel is referred to this way, and his major asset is really his speed.

Have you ever heard of any white person being described as "well dressed?"

 

I am only trying to make the point that there are still stereotypical cliches being used.

835559[/snapback]

 

Maybe. Racism goes hand in hand with sexism in this case.

 

Now are you willing to apply this idea towards Hillary and the sexism that people feel toward her?

 

"She sure ain't pretty."

"Who'll do her? Would you do her?"

"She is too driven."

"She is an evil witch."

 

... And so on...

 

I think you get my point...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Isn't that just a term used by U.S. black folk against one of their own? Still looking for the white denigration...

835859[/snapback]

 

Boy

 

???

 

Is that what you are looking for?

[Bungee Jumper]

Boy

 

???

 

Is that what you are looking for?

837604[/snapback]

 

 

He's looking for "!@#$".

 

 

 

Now let the panty bunching commence...

[EC-Bills]

 

He's looking for "!@#$".

Now let the panty bunching commence...

837707[/snapback]

 

1. How could you say such a thing?

2. I am shocked!

3. You are racist!

 

There, I got the panty bunching started. It's up to the rest of you to go from there.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

I now have a reason to dislike Obama. He has teamed up with some of the anti-Walmart groups. I can't stand all the crying about Walmart paying low wages and poor benefits. Nobody has ever been forced to work for them. Most people who work there appreciate their job. Let's try to destroy one of the biggest employers in the country because they are a big bad business! I can almost remember when it was a good thing when a business succeeded and produced great profits. If you are working an entry level job at Walmart and you are not a kid or retiree, you most likely made some bad choices in life. I don't know too many people who worked hard in school, went to college or work after high school and again worked hard, and ended up making minimum wage for a retailer as an adult!

 

wakeupobama

[RuntheDamnBall]

I now have a reason to dislike Obama.  He has teamed up with some of the anti-Walmart groups.  I can't stand all the crying about Walmart paying low wages and poor benefits.  Nobody has ever been forced to work for them.  Most people who work there appreciate their job.  Let's try to destroy one of the biggest employers in the country because they are a big bad business!  I can almost remember when it was a good thing when a business succeeded and produced great profits.  If you are working an entry level job at Walmart and you are not a kid or retiree, you most likely made some bad choices in life.  I don't know too many people who worked hard in school, went to college or work after high school and again worked hard, and ended up making minimum wage for a retailer as an adult!

 

wakeupobama

837923[/snapback]

If Wal Mart doesn't support its employees, though, it's likely the government will with your money through tax dollars. This means food stamps, health care, etc. etc. etc. at an almost certainly less efficient cost than could be provided through Wal Mart.

 

Think about it.

 

And unless you want people to die or just be completely put on the squeeze, there has to be a solution. It's certainly not indicative of a very Christian nation to say to these people, "you made bad choices, therefore you must suffer for the rest of your life." You know, forgiveness, all that stuff.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

If Wal Mart doesn't support its employees, though, it's likely the government will with your money through tax dollars.  This means food stamps, health care, etc. etc. etc. at an almost certainly less efficient cost than could be provided through Wal Mart.

 

Think about it.

 

And unless you want people to die or just be completely put on the squeeze, there has to be a solution.  It's certainly not indicative of a very Christian nation to say to these people, "you made bad choices, therefore you must suffer for the rest of your life."  You know, forgiveness, all that stuff.

838005[/snapback]

 

 

I am against most welfare programs. They often times fail to help the people that they were set up to assist. If someone simply refuses to work (2 jobs if necessary), I see nothing wrong with letting them starve while providing food and shelter to their children only. If you are incapable of supporting yourself, that is when public assistance should step in. I realize that there will always be people taking advantage of the system. I see many people in the stores purchase food with their food stamps and tobacco and beer with their own money.

 

It is not fair to force a company to provide higher wages and more benefits than the market demands simply because it makes a large profit. It is not Walmart's job to provide welfare programs.

 

We all "suffer" to some degree for the choices we make in life. I should not have to pay for someone elses poor decisions. If you feel the need to help them, by all means be "christian" and give money to a charity.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I am against most welfare programs.  They often times fail to help the people that they were set up to assist.  If someone simply refuses to work (2 jobs if necessary), I see nothing wrong with letting them starve while providing food and shelter to their children only.  If you are incapable of supporting yourself, that is when public assistance should step in.  I realize that there will always be people taking advantage of the system.  I see many people in the stores purchase food with their food stamps and tobacco and beer with their own money.

 

It is not fair to force a company to provide higher wages and more benefits than the market demands simply because it makes a large profit.  It is not Walmart's job to provide welfare programs. 

 

We all "suffer" to some degree for the choices we make in life.  I should not have to pay for someone elses poor decisions.  If you feel the need to help them, by all means be "christian" and give money to a charity.

838059[/snapback]

First off, this is not a referendum on my charitable giving. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of anyone who might call this a Christian country while espousing a decidedly un-Christian mindset and social policy. If this is not you, certainly don't self-apply it.

 

But the idea behind most social programs, misguided or not, is that ultimately, it's for the good of society. Because people don't just fade into the distance when they're poor. They beg, borrow and steal. And as much as you'd like for the problems to go away they are somehow going to be governmentally supported until they can earn a fair wage for a job, whether that's through prison, through social programs that I'll agree are inadequate and don't solve all the problems, through educational funding to perhaps better themselves. You can't execute people for being poor so there has to be another solution, unless you're one of the statistics masters on this board.

 

At what point do you cease to simply cede to the market and realize that paying people below poverty level wages while recording record profits borders on exploitation? If the market eliminated your job you might feel differently. I feel that there is a cost of doing business in this country, always has been, and part of that cost is a living wage for full-time workers. Otherwise the buck will be passed to someone -- usually the taxpayer.

[GG]

If Wal Mart doesn't support its employees, though, it's likely the government will with your money through tax dollars.  This means food stamps, health care, etc. etc. etc. at an almost certainly less efficient cost than could be provided through Wal Mart.

 

Think about it.

 

And unless you want people to die or just be completely put on the squeeze, there has to be a solution.  It's certainly not indicative of a very Christian nation to say to these people, "you made bad choices, therefore you must suffer for the rest of your life."  You know, forgiveness, all that stuff.

838005[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but what if Walmart pays its employees MORE than the prevailing wages in the area for similar jobs?

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

First off, this is not a referendum on my charitable giving.  I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of anyone who might call this a Christian country while espousing a decidedly un-Christian mindset and social policy.  If this is not you, certainly don't self-apply it.

 

But the idea behind most social programs, misguided or not, is that ultimately, it's for the good of society.  Because people don't just fade into the distance when they're poor.  They beg, borrow and steal.  And as much as you'd like for the problems to go away they are somehow going to be governmentally supported until they can earn a fair wage for a job, whether that's through prison, through social programs that I'll agree are inadequate and don't solve all the problems, through educational funding to perhaps better themselves.  You can't execute people for being poor so there has to be another solution, unless you're one of the statistics masters on this board.

 

At what point do you cease to simply cede to the market and realize that paying people below poverty level wages while recording record profits borders on exploitation?  If the market eliminated your job you might feel differently.  I feel that  there is a cost of doing business in this country, always has been, and part of that cost is a living wage for full-time workers.  Otherwise the buck will be passed to someone -- usually the taxpayer.

838079[/snapback]

 

 

I am not a religious person, and don't find this topic to be about religion. I know many non-religious people who I would consider very caring and compassionate, and some religious people who are not. I am also an Economics major, so I place more value on the laws of supply and demand than a made up number such as the poverty level.

 

There is an article in todays Rochester paper on Medicaid fraud. NY State has paid at least $3.6 million in Medicaid payments for dead people. It sums up the incompetence of the people running these welfare programs.

 

If the market eliminated my job, I would have the skills and education to find a new job. It may be tough for a while, but that is what many years of hard work and fiscal responsibility prepare you for.

 

As I said before, there are certain people that need and deserve the Government handouts, but the majority of the people collecting these handouts do not fall into this catagory.

[Orton's Arm]

I wasn't old enough to really hear him speak when he was President.  But the audio and video I have heard makes me beg to differ.  That and what some of my relatives who had heard him in person (father was a cop who did security at political events and his uncle worked at a GE plant where Reagan gave speaches before he got into politics) have to say about him also contradicts what you say.

 

Like BlueFire said, there's a reason they call him The Great Communicator

836426[/snapback]

An excellent post. I've read Reagan's autobiography An American Life and he writes with clarity and grace. It's a good read, if you're interested in politics and in Reagan's life. Reagan was an intelligent man who liked to communicate in simple ways. This simplicity gave his opponents an excuse to call him stupid; an accusation that was wholly undeserved.

[bills_fan]

There is an article in todays Rochester paper on Medicaid fraud. NY State has paid at least $3.6 million in Medicaid payments for dead people. It sums up the incompetence of the people running these welfare programs.

 

A similar article ran in the NY Post today. I question its veracity. The premise of the article is that Medicaid still paid out claims after the person died. It did not say that new claims were submitted post-death (except with regard sto the nursing home example in the article).

 

Yes, it is possible for Medicaid to pay claims to a provider after death, paperwork submission and repayment takes time. Yes, there is fraud (as with the nursing home portion), but I am very skeptical of that article.

 

Article...

 

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11162006/news/...rrespondent.htm

[X. Benedict]

An excellent post. I've read Reagan's autobiography An American Life and he writes with clarity and grace. It's a good read, if you're interested in politics and in Reagan's life. Reagan was an intelligent man who liked to communicate in simple ways. This simplicity gave his opponents an excuse to call him stupid; an accusation that was wholly undeserved.

838750[/snapback]

More often than not, the charge was senility.