DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: richpo64 on October 21, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
-
Congressman Says Western Pa. Was 'Really Redneck'
POSTED: 4:24 pm EDT October 20, 2008
UPDATED: 8:50 am EDT October 21, 2008
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17764334/detail.html (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17764334/detail.html)
CHARLEROI, Pa. -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha is calling many of the people who put him in office "rednecks."
The news comes one week after Murtha claimed the area is racist, then apologized for that comment.
In explaining his comments about racism, Murtha, D-Johnstown, told WTAE Channel 4 Action News on Monday it's difficult for many in the area to change. Murtha said that just five to 10 years ago the entire area was "redneck."
Now Murtha said only certain segments of the population are holding on to those racist feelings.
Just days after classifying western Pennsylvania as racist, Murtha took a step back from those comments, albeit a small one.
"What I said, that indicted everybody, that's not what I meant at all. What I mean is there's still folks that have a problem voting for someone because they are black," Murtha said.
Murtha said the history of southwestern Pennsylvania is rife with racism.
"This whole area, years ago, was really redneck," Murtha told Channel 4 Action News.
Murtha believes there is one segment of the population which is holding on to its racist beliefs and he said it's difficult for them to change. Murtha said it may be even more difficult for them to vote for Sen. Barack Obama for president.
"Particularly older people. They want change but they don't want to see things go too far," Murtha said.
Murtha's comments on Monday were made in Charleroi, Washington County, at an event to open the expansion facility of Nokomis, Inc., and to announce recent contracts the company had received from the Department of Defense.
Throughout the Mon Valley there is a mixed reaction to Murtha's comments.
"I think he made a big mistake. This valley is not racist. Not at all," said Robert Gray, of Charleroi.
Maurice Taylor, also of Charleroi, disagrees.
"I think it probably is, couple people here and there. Like not everybody, but some of them definitely. Older people mostly," Taylor said.
Murtha said he was not surprised to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton win the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania and he said he didn't think Obama had a chance to win the presidency after that. But since then, he claims many western Pennsylvania voters have come around and he believes many voters have left their racist beliefs behind.
"It's better than it was a few weeks ago. It's better than it was a few months ago," Murtha said.
Murtha said he has taken a new approach to dealing with voters who are factoring race into the equation. He said he asks them if they agree with John McCain's healthcare policy or with his desire to privatize social security.
"I'm saying to them, 'Let's not vote on whether he's black or white. Let's vote on what the issues are,'" said Murtha.
-
Voting for a black man because he is black is racist. In fact it is the antithesis of reverse discrimination. This has been an on going phenom since Vietnam and the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's.
In fact, we probably can go back to the over correction of equality in which we became hell bent on unseating the 'White European Male" power base.
The only reason to vote for anyone would be that you are of like opinion on social, moral, and economical values or at the very least closest to your opinions.
To vote for someone because the are 'different' - when you can't even put your finger on HOW they are different, or because they are Black and you have never experienced Black before is stupid.
While everyone is piling on how racist America is.... they might look at the reasons that is appears that way.... because this is a free country and people are allowed to voice their opinions. The day that we all lock step into being unable to voice our opinions is the day we really won't need to vote anymore.
-
>>To vote for someone because the are 'different' - when you can't even put your finger on HOW they are different, or because they are Black and you have never experienced Black before is stupid.<<
Do you have to BE Black to EXPERIENCE being Black? I know what you mean, but this kind of thing reminds me of of when Black "leaders" were making the claim that White's shouldn't adopt Black children because they couldn't give them a "black" enough upbringing.
We have to face the facts here. Blacks are voting for Barry for one reason. He's Black. Now, maybe that's alright, maybe it's not. Maybe it's racist, maybe it's not. historically speaking I suppose it's understandable that a group of people who have been discriminated against and worse would like to root for one of their own. Or maybe it's just racism.
Personally, and from personal experience I think Blacks are more racist than White's. This election is shining a spotlight on that fact. Which is just one of the reasons I don't trust Barry. You can bank on the fact that if he's elected he and other Black leaders will use the club of racism against his opponents. Hell, he's doing it now.
God Damn America ... America of KKK ... White Folks Greed ...
-
There are some pills you could take that would turn your skin black, Richie, then you could decide you is the most racist. I think they are named in a book called "Black Like Me", which you could read. IT might just make you a tad more knowledgeable.
Obama inspires confidence in Black people. They respect his success and his professionalism. I can't imagine why they would not. Lots of Catholics and Irish voted for Kennedy (and Reagan as well) because of his ancestry, and in the case of Kennedy, his religion. That is because they identified with him.
Just like you seem to identify with Palin.
-
LOL.... key word being that lots of Catholics voted for Kennedy.... and Reagan.... but.... what we have here are a bunch of flaming paler than pale liberals stating proudly that they are going to vote for Obama because he is black. That is NOT a reason to vote for a person.
Read the book, Black Like Me when I was a kid. Funny how we drag out antiquated crap like the same standards hold today as they did 20 years ago. Time is not static...I challenge anyone in this club to tell me that the life they lived 20 years ago is JUST the same today.
There are some pills you could take that would turn your skin black, Richie, then you could decide you is the most racist. I think they are named in a book called "Black Like Me", which you could read. IT might just make you a tad more knowledgeable.
Obama inspires confidence in Black people. They respect his success and his professionalism. I can't imagine why they would not. Lots of Catholics and Irish voted for Kennedy (and Reagan as well) because of his ancestry, and in the case of Kennedy, his religion. That is because they identified with him.
Just like you seem to identify with Palin.
-
>>There are some pills you could take that would turn your skin black, Richie, then you could decide you is the most racist. I think they are named in a book called "Black Like Me", which you could read. IT might just make you a tad more knowledgeable.<<
<chuckle>
Yeah, this from the white guy living in his mothers basement.
I read the book ... how many years ago? This is another example of how out of touch your average libtard is. I'm to look back 47 years for insight into Blacks in 2008. Now 1961 was a very good year (I was born), but it hardly equates to the Black experience today. Except it seems to our local libtard XO. Apparently they see no progress in America at all. Once again, to the libtard nation, this is a bad, bad, racist country. Same as it was in 1961.
>>Just like you seem to identify with Palin.<<
Much more than to Barry. Barry is a racist at the least and a Communist at worst. Governor Palin loves her country. Barry thinks it's mean and his wife has never been proud of it. Palin has run a business. Like me. She's played sports. Like me and my children. She hasn't worshiped in a racist church. She likes plumbers and wants them to succeed regardless of whom they vote for. Like me. She's regular folk. Like me.
Yeah, I relate to a woman who's smart, funny, like the outdoors, is athletic, and beautiful. She reminds me of my wife and most of my friends wives. Barry doesn't measure up to Sarah at all.
-
Time is not static
And the award for the most obvious statement ever uttered goes to... ;)
they might look at the reasons that is appears that way.... because this is a free country and people are allowed to voice their opinions.
The only reason to vote for anyone would be that you are of like opinion on social, moral, and economical values or at the very least closest to your opinions.
Cro...your thoughts don't conjoin. If this is a free country, as you state, then there is no such thing as "the only reason to vote for anyone." If you are so hellbent on freedom and democracy then you must accept the fact that people cast their ballots for a myriad of reasons. Some people choose one issue (abortion is the most common modern example) and don't really care if they agree with the candidate on anything else. Some people are only concerned with their wallets. Who knows why some people vote the way they do? They may like a candidate's hair, clothes, marriage, spouse, pet, accent, name, or they may get to the ballot box with a game of chance in mind to select their person.
If you love democracy, then you cannot impose your decision-making tree on everyone else even if you disagree with how they arrive at their vote. Sorry. Democracy is not a pretty lady, but you've got to accept her - warts and all.
-
LOL.... key word being that lots of Catholics voted for Kennedy.... and Reagan.... but.... what we have here are a bunch of flaming paler than pale liberals stating proudly that they are going to vote for Obama because he is black. That is NOT a reason to vote for a person.
Read the book, Black Like Me when I was a kid. Funny how we drag out antiquated crap like the same standards hold today as they did 20 years ago. Time is not static...I challenge anyone in this club to tell me that the life they lived 20 years ago is JUST the same today.
There are some pills you could take that would turn your skin black, Richie, then you could decide you is the most racist. I think they are named in a book called "Black Like Me", which you could read. IT might just make you a tad more knowledgeable.
Obama inspires confidence in Black people. They respect his success and his professionalism. I can't imagine why they would not. Lots of Catholics and Irish voted for Kennedy (and Reagan as well) because of his ancestry, and in the case of Kennedy, his religion. That is because they identified with him.
Just like you seem to identify with Palin.
"Black like me " and "Native Son " are worth the time because they mark history and are a watermark , without such classics rooted in their era one could not measure the diffrence time has made , and one might not notice the trend of history to repeat itself.
Shakespere is rooted in an era severely diffrent , but in "Othello" Shakes pere chastizes Iago and his ilk , in "Merchant of Venice" the venality of its "heros" makes the villan look more human.
These times are diffrent because we have communally changed but the situation of our society is still dynamic and will change again untill we learn better to see the future we need use our best hind sight to know if we are on the right track.
-
Shakespeare was not arguing for better treatment for Blackamoors in England when he wrote Othello. He made the main character black because most of the audience had never seen a Black man, and this was intended to draw them to his play. There were perhaps not even a dozen Black people in England in the 1500's, perhaps none at all. The play was set in Venice, a much more cosmopolitan city. He made Othello a moral person and Iago a villain to get people talking and draw more people to future performances.
-
Time is not static
And the award for the most obvious statement ever uttered goes to... ;)
they might look at the reasons that is appears that way.... because this is a free country and people are allowed to voice their opinions.
The only reason to vote for anyone would be that you are of like opinion on social, moral, and economical values or at the very least closest to your opinions.
Cro...your thoughts don't conjoin. If this is a free country, as you state, then there is no such thing as "the only reason to vote for anyone." If you are so hellbent on freedom and democracy then you must accept the fact that people cast their ballots for a myriad of reasons. Some people choose one issue (abortion is the most common modern example) and don't really care if they agree with the candidate on anything else. Some people are only concerned with their wallets. Who knows why some people vote the way they do? They may like a candidate's hair, clothes, marriage, spouse, pet, accent, name, or they may get to the ballot box with a game of chance in mind to select their person.
If you love democracy, then you cannot impose your decision-making tree on everyone else even if you disagree with how they arrive at their vote. Sorry. Democracy is not a pretty lady, but you've got to accept her - warts and all.
usually anything conjoined undergoes surgery to repair the lack of self. However that is not the point. I didn't say that people could not vote (nor would I) for a person based on their blackness... what I said is that it is a stupid reason to vote for such.
JS... I know you are bleeding liberal and have known it for years... I don't judge you or your decisions because ( and I go out on a limb here) I hope you make educated decision that are based on your moral core.
But then... I am a conservative and thus would allow you to arrive at your decision to vote any way you would like. Maybe democracy is not a pretty lady and I will definately accept her warts and all... to do otherwise might impede my right to call anyone that votes for a person based on the color that person's skin a fucking idiot that deserves to be at the low end of the socio lagess of this country.
-
Shakespeare was not arguing for better treatment for Blackamoors in England when he wrote Othello. He made the main character black because most of the audience had never seen a Black man, and this was intended to draw them to his play. There were perhaps not even a dozen Black people in England in the 1500's, perhaps none at all. The play was set in Venice, a much more cosmopolitan city. He made Othello a moral person and Iago a villain to get people talking and draw more people to future performances.
Othello is the hero?
I suppose in the strictest definition of the term he is.
What is Desdimona?
At any rate I think you are right that "Othello" includes foreighn settings and exotic caricters mostly for its commercial success , but Shakespere did have people hissing Iago .
I read an Issac Asimov short article once about "The Merchant of Venice" in which he says that he made the villan the most sympathetic and human caricter , he might not have been able to make a modern Jew the hero but he instead made the "hero" vapid and the "villan " tragic.
-
Murtha sounds like he is minmzing expectations for PA, in case Obama loses it.
Rendell said basically the sam ething during the primaries.
-
>>Murtha sounds like he is minimizing expectations for PA, in case Obama loses it. Rendell said basically the sam ething during the primaries.<<
It's funny watching the liberal talking heads dissemble this stuff. They throw out numbers like a ten percent lead for Barry in PA. Others people, less partisan, say it's closer to 3 percent. Based on that buffoon Murtha and Rendell's request, who knows, maybe Brass will have his riots.
-
Othello is the hero?
I suppose in the strictest definition of the term he is.
What is Desdimona?
At any rate I think you are right that "Othello" includes foreighn settings and exotic caricters mostly for its commercial success , but Shakespere did have people hissing Iago .
I read an Issac Asimov short article once about "The Merchant of Venice" in which he says that he made the villan the most sympathetic and human caricter , he might not have been able to make a modern Jew the hero but he instead made the "hero" vapid and the "villan " tragic.
=============================================================
Othello is the protagonist, because it is HIS decision how the plot progresses. Other characters do not make up their minds to do one thing or another. They make no moral choices.
Shakespeare set many of his plays in other countries and places, because it was dangerous to suggest that the actions in the plays were dependent on Her Majesty of her government.
-
>>Murtha sounds like he is minimizing expectations for PA, in case Obama loses it. Rendell said basically the sam ething during the primaries.<<
It's funny watching the liberal talking heads dissemble this stuff. They throw out numbers like a ten percent lead for Barry in PA. Others people, less partisan, say it's closer to 3 percent. Based on that buffoon Murtha and Rendell's request, who knows, maybe Brass will have his riots.
Just to be fair , it was I that first mentioned riots.
-
Othello is the hero?
I suppose in the strictest definition of the term he is.
What is Desdimona?
At any rate I think you are right that "Othello" includes foreighn settings and exotic caricters mostly for its commercial success , but Shakespere did have people hissing Iago .
I read an Issac Asimov short article once about "The Merchant of Venice" in which he says that he made the villan the most sympathetic and human caricter , he might not have been able to make a modern Jew the hero but he instead made the "hero" vapid and the "villan " tragic.
=============================================================
Othello is the protagonist, because it is HIS decision how the plot progresses. Other characters do not make up their minds to do one thing or another. They make no moral choices.
Shakespeare set many of his plays in other countries and places, because it was dangerous to suggest that the actions in the plays were dependent on Her Majesty of her government.
Protagonist is a better term for Othello , as it would be for McBeth ,I suppose that to qualify as "hero" they would have to be shown makeing correct and moral choices.
-
Protagonist is a better term for Othello , as it would be for McBeth ,I suppose that to qualify as "hero" they would have to be shown makeing correct and moral choices.
==========================================
No, a hero is a main character that starts out perfect or nearly so, always makes the right decisions and wins triumphantly in the end. Epic poems like the El Cid, the Chanson de Rolande, and the Kalavala have heroes, as do kiddie lit tales.
A protagonist is someone with a moral dilemma that the reader can identify with and come to a realization of some greater truth about, called the catharsis.
This indicates more juvenile works from more mature ones. Luke Skywalker always knows he must stay with the Light, Bright and Right Side of the Force, but he does have this minor temptation from Darth Vader, his "Dark Father", so Star Wars has a more juvenile plot than most of the Star Trek films, where the crew has to choose between violating the Prime Directive again. It seems that they always violate the Prime Directive, but the agonize more about it, so Star Trek is somewhat less juvenile.
Most of the major action films like all the Swartzenegger, Die Hard, Chuck Norris films are clearly juvenile: there is so much action, there is no time to consider moral alternatives. It's always pure good against satanic evil.
-
Murtha sounds like he is minmzing expectations for PA, in case Obama loses it.
Rendell said basically the sam ething during the primaries.
It could also be a head fake. Bush did this with New Jersey in 2004. Clearly a state the Democrats would win, but some polls showed it close enough that Bush made an appearance in Southern NJ late in the election. The Kerry campaign sent Edwards to NJ to play defense. This consumed valuable resources from the Kerry campaign.
McCain has all but given up on Colorado, a state where he polls far closer than Pennsylvania. Plus the GOP won Colorado in 2004 and lost Pennsylvania. Yet, McCain is focused on PA (which means he has to also win Ohio, Florida, and Virginia). Could be a nice head fake by the Obama campaign.
-
usually anything conjoined undergoes surgery to repair the lack of self. However that is not the point. I didn't say that people could not vote (nor would I) for a person based on their blackness... what I said is that it is a stupid reason to vote for such.
JS... I know you are bleeding liberal and have known it for years... I don't judge you or your decisions because ( and I go out on a limb here) I hope you make educated decision that are based on your moral core.
But then... I am a conservative and thus would allow you to arrive at your decision to vote any way you would like. Maybe democracy is not a pretty lady and I will definately accept her warts and all... to do otherwise might impede my right to call anyone that votes for a person based on the color that person's skin a fucking idiot that deserves to be at the low end of the socio lagess of this country.
Conjoin: To unite or be united in a relationship
I think I used it effectively. That is absolutely not what you said. You said: "the only reason to vote for anyone would be that you are of like opinion on social, moral, and economical values or at the very least closest to your opinions." That is a definitive statement, whether you meant it that way or not - that is what you wrote.
What you think of me is irrelevant. I've been called worse, by far better.
-
.
What you think of me is irrelevant. I've been called worse, by far better.
Why thank you !
Though ,I don't feel that I really deserve such extreme flattery.
-
usually anything conjoined undergoes surgery to repair the lack of self. However that is not the point. I didn't say that people could not vote (nor would I) for a person based on their blackness... what I said is that it is a stupid reason to vote for such.
JS... I know you are bleeding liberal and have known it for years... I don't judge you or your decisions because ( and I go out on a limb here) I hope you make educated decision that are based on your moral core.
But then... I am a conservative and thus would allow you to arrive at your decision to vote any way you would like. Maybe democracy is not a pretty lady and I will definately accept her warts and all... to do otherwise might impede my right to call anyone that votes for a person based on the color that person's skin a fucking idiot that deserves to be at the low end of the socio lagess of this country.
Conjoin: To unite or be united in a relationship
I think I used it effectively. That is absolutely not what you said. You said: "the only reason to vote for anyone would be that you are of like opinion on social, moral, and economical values or at the very least closest to your opinions." That is a definitive statement, whether you meant it that way or not - that is what you wrote.
What you think of me is irrelevant. I've been called worse, by far better.
Wow.... gotten pretty snippy eh? Actually, I do not think you irrelevant and actually have admired you for being rational and presenting your arguements well.
As for people being far better than me. I am disappointed that you would be so quick to sling insults. Maybe I should reassess my opinion.
I really don't think that I am one to be personally offensive to any one in this forum with maybe the exception being Michael Tee, and he knows that much of the time that is born of frustration and that I like him.
-
Why thank you !
Though ,I don't feel that I really deserve such extreme flattery.
[/quote]
so you are the one that got him all pre-menstrual....
-
Why thank you !
Though ,I don't feel that I really deserve such extreme flattery.
so you are the one that got him all pre-menstrual....
[/quote]
I expect so , I have been trying since waybackwhen and I hate to think all that effort was wasted.