US First Lady Michelle Obama visits Russian Orthodox HIV/AIDS programme in Moscow

[Gxg (G²)]

Newt really said that?! Wow! That IS terrible! It has gotten bad in the GOP, and every election year, both sides get nastier.

Santorum noted the same thing alongside some others. To see the actual videos where comments were made by them, one can go here. I find it sad that Newt Gingrich and others made very biggoted comments (IMHO).....sick as that is when they try to stereotype blacks as all being on welfare/addicted to it whenever conversation of proper safety nets comes up (including welfare reform/personal responsibility), forgetting that statistics show that there are more Caucasians on welfare than blacks ( more shared here and here ).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Santorum noted the same thing alongside some others. To see the actual videos where comments were made by them, one can go here. I find it sad that Newt Gingrich and others made very biggoted comments (IMHO).....sick as that is when they try to stereotype blacks as all being on welfare/addicted to it whenever conversation of proper safety nets comes up (including welfare reform/personal responsibility), forgetting that statistics show that there are more Caucasians on welfare than blacks ( more shared here and here ).

and Wolf Blitzer said that those affected by Katrina were "so poor, and so black." you can make any quote bigotted if you make it a soundbite. I remember Santorum coming to Penn State and talking about radical Islam, and every liberal there said that what he said about Islam was biggotted, only when probed the only thing he got wrong was that he said that Mohammed was the greatest prophet and not the final one. they quoted him as being a bigot because they wanted to.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

and Wolf Blitzer said that those affected by Katrina were "so poor, and so black." .

Indeed. Wolf, however, had no history of making commentary off the cuff that was out of context nor was it the case that his facts were inaccurate since the context he spoke in wth Katrina was a discussion on the people impacted by Katrina. Santourum was radically different for anyone seeing the full speech, as even his own people noted that it was bizzare that he'd be talking on his stance against welfare and then say "I don't want to support black people"---as such is a stereotype even for others against it and the context didn't lend itself at any point to suggest such.

you can make any quote bigotted if you make it a soundbite.

Indeed. That's why one looks at the total speech rather than soundbites and sees their history.

I remember Santorum coming to Penn State and talking about radical Islam, and every liberal there said that what he said about Islam was biggotted, only when probed the only thing he got wrong was that he said that Mohammed was the greatest prophet and not the final one. they quoted him as being a bigot because they wanted to

That doesn't equate to it being the case that there were never things said that were bigotted simply because of where others took what he said out of context in another setting. Especially when other conservatives in the camp hear something/note it as an issue and the "Well, liberals took it wrong because they want to!!" wouldn't apply.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you're right, Easy. Take Joe Biden....he's said a few off-the-cuff lame things about black folks, but look at the man's record....the NAACP loves him for a reason. He's done a lot for racial equality and improving the lives of African-Americans. That's why I think one or two stupid choices of words versus an ongoing theme AND racist remarks are two different entities. However, I look at guys like Jesse Jackson and I do think the man has some real racial issues he needs to work on....

Indeed. Wolf, however, had no history of making commentary off the cuff that was out of context nor was it the case that his facts were inaccurate since the context he spoke in wth Katrina was a discussion on the people impacted by Katrina. Santourum was radically different for anyone seeing the full speech, as even his own people noted that it was bizzare that he'd be talking on his stance against welfare and then say "I don't want to support black people"---as such is a stereotype even for others against it and the context didn't lend itself at any point to suggest such.
Indeed. That's why one looks at the total speech rather than soundbites and sees their history. That doesn't equate to it being the case that there were never things said that were bigotted simply because of where others took what he said out of context in another setting. Especially when other conservatives in the camp hear something/note it as an issue and the "Well, liberals took it wrong because they want to!!" wouldn't apply.

 

[inconsequential]

The debate would have been better if Shang Tsung had shouted, "FINISH HIM!!!" at the end.

 

[Dorothea]

The debate was kinda boring, and sometimes Romney morphed into a Democrat, and there wasn't much difference in some of what he said and Obama said in that instance. It would have been MUCH more interesting if THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES were permitted to be in the debates. Again, I find it very restrictive and not really allowing for freedom of choosing candidates when the system blocks out other candidates from other parties.

 

[Dorothea]

A friend posted this link which shows a couple of third-party candidates involved via computer or whatever it's called to respond also to the questions from last night's debate. I just started watching it now:

Expanding the Debate Exclusive: Third Party Candidates Break the Sound Barrier As Obama-Romney Spar

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A friend posted this link which shows a couple of third-party candidates involved via computer or whatever it's called to respond also to the questions from last night's debate. I just started watching it now:

Expanding the Debate Exclusive: Third Party Candidates Break the Sound Barrier As Obama-Romney Spar

Many thanks for sharing this, as it's so awesome to see people giving more information from perspectives OTHER than what has been shared....

 

[Dorothea]

A friend posted this link which shows a couple of third-party candidates involved via computer or whatever it's called to respond also to the questions from last night's debate. I just started watching it now:

Expanding the Debate Exclusive: Third Party Candidates Break the Sound Barrier As Obama-Romney Spar

This was great! I liked both Ms. Stein's and Mr. Anderson's views better than Romney's and Obama's.

 

[Dorothea]

Many thanks for sharing this, as it's so awesome to see people giving more information from perspectives OTHER than what has been shared....

yw! It was refreshing.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think you're right, Easy. Take Joe Biden....he's said a few off-the-cuff lame things about black folks, but look at the man's record....the NAACP loves him for a reason. He's done a lot for racial equality and improving the lives of African-Americans. That's why I think one or two stupid choices of words versus an ongoing theme AND racist remarks are two different entities. However, I look at guys like Jesse Jackson and I do think the man has some real racial issues he needs to work on....

Indeed. Regardless of where it's found, inconsistency is inconsistency. I don't like what Santurom or Newt say anymore than I like Jessie Jackson who often does the same in reverse (alongside others).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This was great! I liked both Ms. Stein's and Mr. Anderson's views better than Romney's and Obama's.

Very much another reason as to why people need to get the facts rather than thinking the debates themselves are all that matter and it's a done deal.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Rev. Al Sharpton, whom I'm not really a fan of but find humorous at times, has this commercial on MSNBC where he jumps on Romney for being out of touch with working people, seniors, and the people who need help the most. He ends his litany with "It's not about Obama! It's about yo Mama!"

 

[Dorothea]

Rev. Al Sharpton, whom I'm not really a fan of but find humorous at times, has this commercial on MSNBC where he jumps on Romney for being out of touch with working people, seniors, and the people who need help the most. He ends his litany with "It's not about Obama! It's about yo Mama!"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

yw! It was refreshing.

Found something else along those lines that I thought you'd also be refreshed by:

• Third-party presidential candidates tell debate-watchers: Don't forget ...
• National debates need third party perspective - The Georgetown Voice
• As Obama, Romney Hold First Debate, Behind the Secret GOP-Dem Effort to Shut Out Third Parties- Democracy Now!

 

[Dorothea]

Found something else along those lines that I thought you'd also be refreshed by:

• Third-party presidential candidates tell debate-watchers: Don't forget ...
• National debates need third party perspective - The Georgetown Voice
• As Obama, Romney Hold First Debate, Behind the Secret GOP-Dem Effort to Shut Out Third Parties- Democracy Now!

I'd just heard about this today - the Corporate shut out. A friend wrote this on that: Does everyone know the debates used to be put on by the league of women voters? And that we used to get third party representation in the debates. But a while back they were secretly taken over by corporate sponsorship who in turn squashed the inclusion of the third party candidates. ... And preventing folks who may only watch the debates for how they vote from hearing alternative ideas and proposals.

He probably read the link you posted above.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'd just heard about this today - the Corporate shut out. A friend wrote this on that: Does everyone know the debates used to be put on by the league of women voters? And that we used to get third party representation in the debates. But a while back they were secretly taken over by corporate sponsorship who in turn squashed the inclusion of the third party candidates. ... And preventing folks who may only watch the debates for how they vote from hearing alternative ideas and proposals.

He probably read the link you posted above.

If he read the link, I'd not be surprised. But seeing what has happened really makes me even more inspired to see the reality of how much power third power voting can have...for if it was not a big deal, why go through so much trouble to keep people unaware of the significant views that differ from 2 party systems? When people really know that they---as the PEOPLE/MAJORITY who are often told "Well, your vote really isn't a majority"---can actually have ownership of their vote.....who knows what could happen.

Knowledge really is power...

 

[ArmyMatt]

A friend posted this link which shows a couple of third-party candidates involved via computer or whatever it's called to respond also to the questions from last night's debate. I just started watching it now:

Expanding the Debate Exclusive: Third Party Candidates Break the Sound Barrier As Obama-Romney Spar

thanks for posting Dot! this kinda stuff is always good to see!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Indeed. Wolf, however, had no history of making commentary off the cuff that was out of context nor was it the case that his facts were inaccurate since the context he spoke in wth Katrina was a discussion on the people impacted by Katrina. Santourum was radically different for anyone seeing the full speech, as even his own people noted that it was bizzare that he'd be talking on his stance against welfare and then say "I don't want to support black people"---as such is a stereotype even for others against it and the context didn't lend itself at any point to suggest such.
Indeed. That's why one looks at the total speech rather than soundbites and sees their history. That doesn't equate to it being the case that there were never things said that were bigotted simply because of where others took what he said out of context in another setting. Especially when other conservatives in the camp hear something/note it as an issue and the "Well, liberals took it wrong because they want to!!" wouldn't apply.

yeah, but you also can't just look at one speech. like gurney pointed out, you gotta look at the man's life. I have personally met Santorum, and while I don't agree with the man on everything, I can say that he is not a bigot at all. judging him based on a speech is just like judging him based on a soundbite, the speech is just a longer soundbite.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

yeah, but you also can't just look at one speech. like gurney pointed out, you gotta look at the man's life. I have personally met Santorum, and while I don't agree with the man on everything, I can say that he is not a bigot at all. judging him based on a speech is just like judging him based on a soundbite, the speech is just a longer soundbite.

Wasn't talking about a speech alone (as was assumed)--but on repeated history of speeches stereotyping others. There are plenty of figures you can meet in person to get one impression and yet that will never change the consistency in what they say (or choose not to say). Based on what he has often said/been called on, I don't see where the man can be given or pass...or where others can assume that those not liking him didn't listen to all of his speeches or assume that one key piece noted in a speech means that one didn't hear the entire speech. There's no basis when others have listened to the full speech and still took issue with it, especially amongst conservatives who did not agree with him.