Geraldine Ferraro (D) = Racist??? [Archive]

Mark Gambo

Mar 12th, 2008, 07:17 AM

Is Geraldine Ferraro (D), a supporter of Hillary Clinton for President, a racist? You decide:
First on April 15, 1988, she makes the following statement (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html):

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

and last week she made this statement (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080311/D8VBENK80.html):

Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Hmmm, she seems to have an issue with minorities, Yeah and I am quite sure that her gender had nothing to do with her nomination for Vice President ;-)
Oh BTW did I tell you I have a bridge for sale in New York also.

SurfDemon

Mar 12th, 2008, 11:25 AM

I don't think it's racist. I suspect she might have a point (Obama garners an awful lot of the black vote), but right or wrong, it's not racist to suggest that he's in the position he is because he is black. Have we become so poliitically correct that we can't say anything about race and just pretend that it doesn't exist?

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 12th, 2008, 07:47 PM

Technically, if you know what racism means, you are one. We all lump people into various categories, and racism is just lumping based on perceived physical characteristics (oddly, you can't quite define which ones, because there is a total blending in the world). You are only not a racist if you look at someone, and don't know that they are a member of a race (not to say that you don't know which one, you just don't know that it's a possibility).

Being color blind is only possible if you don't see races. I was like that for my first decade or so. I always said that I never met anybody but whites until I got to college, but at some point in my thirties, I was thinking back on grades 1-8, and realized that I had been in school with a gal who was very clearly african. At the time, she was just another one of the kids, and I didn't realize she was a different race until twenty years later. I could not possibly be so blind to race now, no matter what I would prefer.

Kasracer

Mar 14th, 2008, 11:25 PM

Mark Gambo

Mar 15th, 2008, 12:04 PM

He's not "racist" by popular definition. He's a realist.

We have different races, genders, etc in the world. Grow up and get used to it. Just because someone references a group of people does not make them a bad person (or "racist" by today's incorrect definition of the word).

I really don't care one way or the other but if what Ferraro was an Republican I am quite sure that this would have been front page news in most papers in the US and abroad. I once again want to highlight journalistic bias against the republicans and for the dems.

SurfDemon

Mar 15th, 2008, 04:26 PM

I really don't care one way or the other but if what Ferraro was an Republican I am quite sure that this would have been front page news in most papers in the US and abroad. I once again want to highlight journalistic bias against the republicans and for the dems.
:rolleyes: I doubt if it would have been front page news, as it's not even a scandal...... just people trying to make it sound scandalous.

I hardly think that the rest of the world's newspapers give a toss about what she says, especially not outside of the US. It may appear at times that the rest of the world is anti-Republican, but actually you will find out that they are just anti-Bush. Sorry to burst your bubble, but most foreigners won't have a clue who the republicans or democrats are.

SurfDemon

Mar 15th, 2008, 04:32 PM

Although, to add to that thought, I can't really think of many citizens of the world who are as right wing* as the Republican party, so that might be another factor.

The only two I can think of are the British National Party and the NPD in Germany.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 15th, 2008, 08:01 PM

Kasracer

Mar 17th, 2008, 02:27 PM

I really don't care one way or the other
No buts. If you really mean this statement, then there are no buts. Using a but is a way to waesel in your point of view again.

You posted it but since you really don't care, this thread should be closed... unless you really do care...

Mark Gambo

Mar 17th, 2008, 09:18 PM

No buts. If you really mean this statement, then there are no buts. Using a but is a way to waesel in your point of view again.

You posted it but since you really don't care, this thread should be closed... unless you really do care...

I was just pointing out the liberal hypocrisy of the print and TV ahem "Journalist". When it is all said and done Clinton and Obama will have destroyed any chance they had of winning the general election.

SurfDemon

Mar 18th, 2008, 08:27 AM

Why is it hypocrisy. There is no story here. This isn't racism in any shape or form and to try and twist it into such is at best abusing the English language and at worst racism itself.....

Suzzi

Mar 18th, 2008, 10:39 AM

I was just pointing out the liberal hypocrisy of the print and TV ahem "Journalist". When it is all said and done Clinton and Obama will have destroyed any chance they had of winning the general election.
Good. I vote Republican because I care about the environment.

Mark Gambo

Mar 18th, 2008, 06:02 PM

Good. I vote Republican because I care about the environment.

Vote anyway you want my friend, that is the beauty of this country :D . that is why so many people want to immigrate here. A dollar and a dream!

McCain will be sworn in as the the 44th President of the United States of America. Hilliary and Obama will be back doing in the senate. The Dems will do themselves in once again. Don't be mad and frustrated because your party is self destructing, they have brought it upon themselves. Did you know that the Dems haven't raised enough money for their Convention in Denver yet? They are about 5 Million Dollars short, they blame it mostly on the fact that they haven't selected a candidate yet.

Hey Suz, you joined VBF on April 16, 2002, but yet you only have 3 posts but you have numerous CC posts, hmmm could you be impersonating some other well know VBF Member???

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 18th, 2008, 07:17 PM

I've wondered that, too, but there are others. Xanith only hangs out in World Events, as far as I can tell.

As for the race, we shall see after the convention, lots can happen between now and then, but I am beginning to feel that you may be right. This race has gone in terrible directions for the Dems.

MaximilianMayrhofer

Mar 19th, 2008, 01:26 AM

We can only hope though, that america won't have another republican in office. Enough of those.. seriously..

Mark Gambo

Mar 19th, 2008, 06:30 AM

We can only hope though, that america won't have another republican in office. Enough of those.. seriously..

First of all John McCain is barely a Republican, he is just right of Shilliary and Obama. Second of all opinions are like a certain body orifice, everyone has one and some people are one ;-)

SurfDemon

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:10 AM

Mark Gambo: Personally I think McCainn would probably make a very good president, I don't know, but he seems like a good candidate. Yet, Bush is amongst the worst presidents the US has ever had, and to be honest the vote should be taken away from those stupid enough to re-elect him.

I suspect Obama too would make a good president. Hillary I'm not convinced about.

Once again though I can't help but notice that you seem to be supporting a party rather than a president/policies. What's up with that? Shouldn't you be looking at this objectively?

You have been given the right to vote, yet you allow people to brainwash you into wasting your vote because "hey you're a republican! You'll always be a republican!". That just makes a farce of the electorial process.

Tom Sawyer

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:22 AM

McCain would be a better president than Bush, but if you threw a dead rat into the Oval Office, it would be a better president than Bush, so that's not saying much.

I think that both he and Hillary would be competent, but neither would do much of anything to change the way that Washington works, since they're too much the children of that system. I think that Obama would try to change things, but he doesn't really have the political capital to pull it off. If he were running for President in 8 or 12 years, he'd be great, but I think he's jumping for the brass ring too early.

I can't see any way that McCain could actually win, though. His only chance is to have the Dems lose, which they're doing their best to accomplish. Bush gift-wrapped the White House for their candidate, yet they're doing everything in their power to let everyone know that they're not worthy of it.

SurfDemon

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:30 AM

Wise words Tom. I agree 100% :thumb:

Mark Gambo

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:35 AM

. . . You have been given the right to vote, yet you allow people to brainwash you into wasting your vote because "hey you're a republican! You'll always be a republican!". That just makes a farce of the electorial process.

My political views are based upon my beliefs and values which more than not align with the Republican Party more than they do with the dems. With that being said I don't based solely upon party affiliation I have voted for democrats in the past most notable was Ed Koch, the former Mayor of NYC. If he were running for president I would vote for him before I would vote for any of the current candidates. I believe in some of the dems ideas are good for the country but I believe that the remainder of their ideas are horrible for our country. For example, the Dem's believe in Big Government. Big Government equals Big Taxes to pay for it. My wife and I are considered by some democrats as being "Rich" because we make over $100k (US), being rich we need to pay more in taxes. I believe that we should do away with income taxes and we should adopt a consumption tax similar to what Steve Forbes proposed a few years back. I also believe in the right of the people to own and possess firearms, and from what I have been reading lately the US Supreme Court will be affirming that right shortly.

So as for me being "Brain Washed", I say maybe I am but most people align themselves with people who think alike. I can say the same thing about you being "Brain Washed" about some of your beliefs but I will not resort to name calling, a common tactic of the democrats. I want to prevent the policies that you have to deal with in Canada from "coming" over the border like High Taxes and Governmental Health Care. Now I do agree that Health Care needs to be reformed but I think it should be a cooperative venture between the Government and the Health Care Industry. I believe that health care is a right not a privilege. Also I want to build a wall separating us from Mexico and Canada in order to stem the tide of illegal aliens and terrorists from entering this country. My grandparents legally immigrtated to this country in the 1920's so everyone should have to do the same. Also I would ammend the US Constitution to state that if you are born in the US you can only be a US Citizen if your mother was legally inside the country at the time of your birth.

Tom Sawyer

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:45 AM

I also want a wall between the US and Canada. If you go to Niagara Falls, you'll notice that the Canadian falls are far superior to the American ones, yet all the Yanks are able to stand on their side of the border and look at our falls without paying us a dime. That's theft, plain and simple.

If a wall would be too expensive, I would be willing to settle for a large curtain, though.

crptcblade

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:55 AM

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to simply pepperspray the tourists before they reach the falls?

Walls and curtains require maintenance, and that's not going to be cheap.

Mark Gambo

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:55 AM

"Tom Sawyer" (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/tomsawyer.html)

A modern day warrior
Mean, mean stride
Today's Tom Sawyer
Mean, mean pride

Though his mind is not for rent
Don't put him down as arrogant
His reserve, a quiet defense
Riding out the day's events
The river

What you say about his company
Is what you say about society
Catch the mist, catch the myth
Catch the mystery, catch the drift

The world is, the world is
Love and life are deep
Maybe as his skies are wide

Today's Tom Sawyer
He gets high on you
And the space he invades
He gets by on you

No his mind is not for rent
To any god or government
Always hopeful, yet discontent
He knows changes aren't permanent
But change is

What you say about his company
Is what you say about society
Catch the witness, catch the wit
Catch the spirit, catch the spit

The world is, the world is
Love and life are deep
Maybe as his eyes are wide

Exit the warrior
Today's Tom Sawyer
He gets high on you
And the energy you trade
He gets right on to the friction of the day

Mark Gambo

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:56 AM

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to simply pepperspray the tourists before they reach the falls?

Walls and curtains require maintenance, and that's not going to be cheap.

Well don't they have to buy the pepper spray when they run out??!?!?!?

crptcblade

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:58 AM

Well don't they have to buy the pepper spray when they run out??!?!?!?
Still cheaper in the long run, I would imagine. But I'm no economist.

Tom Sawyer

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:03 AM

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to simply pepperspray the tourists before they reach the falls?

Walls and curtains require maintenance, and that's not going to be cheap.

It's not meant to be up forever. It's simply a bargaining tool to put in place until you agree to give us money to look at our falls. Also, we want a bit of compensation for having to see your stupid falls while admiring our own. We'll factor the cost of the curtain into the price.

Also, despite being more cost effective, Canadians are a nice people and we really don't want to pepper spray anyone because it's impolite. Also, Americans have a lot more guns than we do.

crptcblade

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:14 AM

Also, despite being more cost effective, Canadians are a nice people and we really don't want to pepper spray anyone because it's impolite. Also, Americans have a lot more guns than we do.

Well naturally it would be the job of the american park service folks to administer the sprayings. As federal employees, they would be proud to do their civic duty. :afrog:

Tom Sawyer

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:32 AM

Well naturally it would be the job of the american park service folks to administer the sprayings. As federal employees, they would be proud to do their civic duty. :afrog:

Well, this would have been nice to know before we went and bought the curtain.

Do you guys want to borrow it to put down in Arizona, so that the Mexicans won't be able to see the Minutemen hiding on the US side of the border, which would make it easier to jump them?

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:33 AM

I used to favor what passed for conservative economics, but Republicans don't believe in conservative economics anymore, so what they call conservative economics is now bait and switch. Therefore, why do you still believe that Democrats are for Big Government and Republicans are for ???? (you didn't say specifically).

With the exception of the elder Bush, who raised taxes, the last two Republican presidents were Reagan and W, both of whom oversaw the largest increases in government spending in the history of the US. W implemented the largest increase in the size of the government since WWII. Meanwhile, Clinton oversaw the first reduction in the deficit in decades.

As far as I can tell, Republicans use the Big Government label because it works so well. The reality is that the Dems have very little history of fiscal prudence, but what little they have is VASTLY greater than the Reps have shown since the early 70's. If you truly like fiscal responsibility, then the Dems have to make you nervous, but the Reps have to leave you utterly appalled.

Don't listen to the slogans, look at the track record. Some conservatives want to attribute the surplus under Clinton to the Reps in congress, but even if that was the case, as soon as they got one of their own into the White House, any restraint they had ever managed to show went out the window in the most obscene orgy of overspending and fiscal irresponisibily that this country has ever seen. I don't like their social policies, but I utterly loathe their fiscal policies, and that feeling is amplified because they make such a noise about how they are one way, yet in practice they are totally the opposite.

Perhaps the best solution would be a Dem in the White House, and a Rep controlled congress. The Reps would stonewall the president, and the two would act as brakes on the excesses inherent in the other one.

Tom Sawyer

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:37 AM

But the GOP isn't going to regain Congress. Likely, the Dems are going to increase their majorities in both houses. Those races don't have the Clinton/Obama cluster**** to counteract the anti-Bush backlash.

I doubt the Dems will make it up to 60 in the Senate, so there'll be zero change from right now, but it'll be at least a decade before the GOP regains either of them.

SurfDemon

Mar 19th, 2008, 11:51 AM

My political views are based upon my beliefs and values which more than not align with the Republican Party more than they do with the dems.
Fair enough, but I still think it's silly to group all of your beliefs into one of two camps. I couldn't imagine ever calling myself a Republican or a Democrat, I'm my own person with my own set of beliefs.

For example, the Dem's believe in Big Government. Big Government equals Big Taxes to pay for it.
Er, I fail to see this. If I'm not much mistaken Bush was spending money like it was going out of fashion.

I believe that we should do away with income taxes and we should adopt a consumption tax similar to what Steve Forbes proposed a few years back.
I agree.

... but I will not resort to name calling, a common tactic of the democrats.
:ehh: This is what I mean about the brainwashing. I am an impartial observer in this, and I have seen plenty of name calling from the Republicans in the past as well. Don't fool yourself.

I want to prevent the policies that you have to deal with in Canada from "coming" over the border like High Taxes and Governmental Health Care.
Er, as pointed out in another thread, we have lower taxes than in the US. :ehh: But, this is a common lie rolled out when your political parties don't want health care for all. As for government health care, we have been over this a number of times, but the bottom line is that I strongly believe that health care must be free for all. I do agree with your option of working together between government, I think that is also a good solution, but at the end of the day, I think we agree that everyone should have health care.

Also I want to build a wall separating us from Mexico and Canada in order to stem the tide of illegal aliens and terrorists from entering this country. My grandparents legally immigrtated to this country in the 1920's so everyone should have to do the same. Also I would ammend the US Constitution to state that if you are born in the US you can only be a US Citizen if your mother was legally inside the country at the time of your birth.
Go for it. I don't think a big wall between the US and Canada is going to make an iota of difference to Canada. Of course, the 100,000 americans who live in my city might object...... :) See this whole illegal immigration actually works both ways with Canada.... it's just that we don't get so worried about it. There's more than enough money and work to go around for everyone up here. :thumb:

As for the US citizenship thing, I agree 100%. I think it's most unfair (to the people going through the legal immigration process) to provide back-door routes to legal immigration.

Mark Gambo

Mar 19th, 2008, 01:15 PM

Tom Sawyer

Mar 19th, 2008, 01:33 PM

Not surprising. They're both doing whatever they can to overcome the Dem's fundraising advantage over the GOP by using their own cash to destroy the electability of the other rather than have McCain use his own resources for that. Additionally, the GOP can now see what tactics are working against each of them and be able to target their spending towards that from the beginning of the general campaign, rather than waste money on trying to find out what smears register with the voters.

MCain seems to be doing the sensible thing and just sitting back and hoarding his resources while his enemies destroy each other.

I've said jokingly in the past that the Dems may actually be talented enough to blow an unlosable election, but they actually may be able to pull it off and miss getting into the White House. It would be a stunning victory on behalf of incompetent twits everywhere.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 19th, 2008, 02:13 PM

Lead, what lead???? (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1824791220080319?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true) Both Clinton and Obama now trail McCain in the Reuters/Zogby poll released today (3/19/2008).

This is a minor point. Nobody is running against McCain at the moment. Hillary lead in practically every state by large margins well before the primaries, yet she ended up losing a majority of them. Rudy was the prohibitive frontrunner for the GOP before anybody actually started campaigning. A poll under these circumstances has to be regarded with a very high degree of skepticism. It may be the best info we have, but it still isn't very good.

Suzzi

Mar 19th, 2008, 03:20 PM

Hey Suz, you joined VBF on April 16, 2002, but yet you only have 3 posts but you have numerous CC posts, hmmm could you be impersonating some other well know VBF Member???
I do a pretty passable immitation of the Queen, but I don't think she's a big fan of Visual Basic (probably more of a Linux head herself).

If truth be told, CC is a lot more fun than those techy parts of the forum.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 19th, 2008, 04:25 PM

I doubt the Queen is into Linux, that would be too new. She's probably more of an APL fan.

Suzzi

Mar 19th, 2008, 04:52 PM

Do you think if she releases her work as Open Source it would be royalty-free?

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 19th, 2008, 05:36 PM

Congratulations, that pun will cover your membership fees for the next year.

Mark Gambo

Mar 20th, 2008, 07:34 AM

This is a minor point. Nobody is running against McCain at the moment. Hillary lead in practically every state by large margins well before the primaries, yet she ended up losing a majority of them. Rudy was the prohibitive frontrunner for the GOP before anybody actually started campaigning. A poll under these circumstances has to be regarded with a very high degree of skepticism. It may be the best info we have, but it still isn't very good.

I don't think so, when Guiliani was the "Front Runner" people didn't care about the election. Now the general election is only eight months away. people are starting to form the opinions.

Xanith

Mar 20th, 2008, 07:42 AM

I don't think so, when Guiliani was the "Front Runner" people didn't care about the election. Now the general election is only eight months away. people are starting to form the opinions.

I can't believe I am going to say this but I agree with Shaggy. Polls at this early stage, especially when the Democrat nominee hasn’t even been decided yet really don’t mean a whole lot. A lot can happen between now and election day that can shift people one way or the other. However it is interesting to look at trends, even if they don't mean too much.

X

Tom Sawyer

Mar 20th, 2008, 10:42 AM

People are starting to pay attention now and what they see are two Dem candidates doing all they can to undercut the other and working hard to destroy their party's chance of winning. Then they see a GOP guy sitting back and not doing anything idiotic.

You have a choice of forming an initial opinion towards someone who's acting like an idiot or someone who's not acting like an idiot. That puts the advantage in McCain's field.

Now, it's possible that McCain may go ahead and do something irretrievably stupid like campaigning for President or something and blow this opportunity, but as long as the only actions that his team takes is phoning news channels and reminding them that they have to give the GOP guy coverage too, so he's shown wandering around calmly doing his job, he should be able to solidify his lead by the time a battered and bruised Dem nominee tries to drag his or her shattered corpse after him.