NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token”

[TheGreatGatsby]

Only liberals are racially profiling legislative seats. Conservatives are focused on the principles of the men and women they elect.

 

[RoadVirus]

Are you afraid that Jamie Foxx is going to come and try to kill you? What exactly do you mean by this?

Kill me? no but someone might take Foxx's word and do it too some innocent unarmed white liberal.
I remember a time when liberals were blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting of Giffords.

Do you honestly think that Jamie Foxx wants to kill white people, or that he's going to "inspire" someone to kill white people?

Some people seem to think Adam Lanza was inspired by Call of Duty. So isn't it fair to assume some Black guy is going to be inspired by Foxx's comments?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Don't understand why more black Americans aren't disgusted by this.



Tim Scott is a good man.

because most blacks agree with the New York Times article? which was about Republicans not Tim Scott.

 

[Stephanie]

Try the phrase, "color me stupid". Because you're stupid for thinking I would support him just because he's Black and our politics are on the opposite sides of the train tracks.

Dumb ass response trying to call me or others racists, because we won't support him or his brand of politics. He'll your already call us racists for supporting the President in big numbers.

News flash you can't have both sides of this argument.

ummmhumm..now you move the goal post...from agreeing with the article about Scott being a token, to you just don't support his policies..no problem, I'd move them too if I were you..

Not moving the goal posts, simply just laid out the facts that you keep on choosing to ignore. Plus that's a Republican move when they can't win fair and square on those same "policies and principles"

yeah sure

I'm a Black Man and most Blacks that have discussed this if appointed would be nothing less than a "Token" appointment. Hell I said it here on this board myself:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It doesn't matter who blacks vote for, the Dems who count their votes say all they voted Democrat

 

[daveman]

Not about being authentic as you claim (btw sounds so retarded), but we know that just because your my color doesn't mean your my brother.

Your words and deeds or non deeds tells US that you're not for US. Some whites need to recognize this and quit voting against your best wishes, by supporting the wealthiest's interests over your own best interests.

And his politics is on most issues the opposite of mines, but your dumb ass is now trying to tell me to ignore that and support him because he's Black.

But then turn around and whine when Blacks supported President Obama and the Democrats who we share on a majority of issues reflects ours. But that doesn't mean that we don't differ on some issues either,

I'm for AMERICANS. Maybe if you stopped defining yourself solely by your skin color, you'd realize what I want for you might be the best thing for you:

The maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.

Then I want you to tell Irish Americans, Jewish Americans, Italian Americans, etc to stop self identifying themselves as such and be just plain Americans.

I wish they would.

Here's how it should be:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YRR_bwbqE8]10th Anniversary of 9/11 - I Am An American :60 - YouTube[/ame]

What so difficult about that?

 

[Staidhup]

So if you didn't care, why did you bother responding and on top of that, whining again?

That's your fooking problem right there, you dismiss my opinion and dismiss the Professor's opinion because both of us agree that this was nothing less than a token appointment because it differs from yours?

Get over your fooking self, we are entitled to have our own opinion just as much as you are, doesn't mean your opinion is better mines or mines better than yours, but we're coming from a Black perceptive that you have no clue of.

And if you listened to Black Talk radio weeks ago, it was thoroughly discussed and for the most part an majority of callers felt the same way about this.

Goes back to the Ann Coulter's remarks from where you're coming from:

"Our Blacks are better than yours"

well color me surprised most blacks like you feel the same way..you are as big racist as anyone of other color and spit on people who don't fit your stereotype..

Try the phrase, "color me stupid". Because you're stupid for thinking I would support him just because he's Black and our politics are on the opposite sides of the train tracks.

Dumb ass response trying to call me or others racists, because we won't support him or his brand of politics. He'll your already call us racists for supporting the President in big numbers.

News flash you can't have both sides of this argument.

The fact is you are a racist, as is the liberal establishment media which includes the NYT. For if it were not the case you would agree to disagree without labeling him as a "token". Without utilizing the race card the democratic party would not exist. The fact that if one was to closely scrutinize and dissect the legislation promoted over the past 50 years it becomes very apparent that the lefts only agenda amounts to nothing better than that of English importing Opium into China, servitude, dependency, and control. The infatuation exhibited by the left in the wholesale character assassination and destruction of a man or women of color that breaks free of the reservation, that could well serve as a beacon of hope, speaks volumes as to the true colors of the party.

 

[Foxfyre]

I for one get very disgusted with everybody who focuses on race for political purposes. It is an orchestrated and very tightly engineered method of keeping race as a political football to further whatever agenda is promoted by the Left. I don't see those on the Right doing it nearly so much. In fact it is the very color blindness of the Right that seems to be the primary justification for calling them 'racist' or at best 'uncaring about the blacks.'

I feel real anger any more when I am accused of being racist because I treat President Obama like any other President. He is dubbed the 'food stamp' President because food stamp recipients have dramatically increased since he took office and are increasing at an unprecedented rate.

In September the food stamp program hit another record high of 47,410, 324 people making use of it. 47 is an iconic number thanks to Romney’s remark and 47 million is also 75 percent of Obama’s 62 million popular vote total. Or to put it another way, if every food stamp recipient turned out to vote, they would have made up 75 percent of Obama’s electorate.

Under Bush, food stamp use was at 30 million. It is 50 percent higher than it was four years ago and that bridge was crossed in the summer of last year. The cost of food stamp programs has also nearly doubled in that same time. If this rate of growth continues, we can look forward to as many as a 100 million people on food stamps by 2016.
Food Stamp Use 50% Higher Under Obama Than Under Bush

But we aren't allowed to say that because President Obama is black? How racist is that?

And to condemn Republicans because black people are more likely to be and vote Democrat, and when somebody strays off that reservation to label that person as token is beyond any measure of reasonableness and is about as racist as it gets.

 

[daveman]

I for one get very disgusted with everybody who focuses on race for political purposes. It is an orchestrated and very tightly engineered method of keeping race as a political football to further whatever agenda is promoted by the Left. I don't see those on the Right doing it nearly so much. In fact it is the very color blindness of the Right that seems to be the primary justification for calling them 'racist' or at best 'uncaring about the blacks.'

I feel real anger any more when I am accused of being racist because I treat President Obama like any other President. He is dubbed the 'food stamp' President because food stamp recipients have dramatically increased since he took office and are increasing at an unprecedented rate.

In September the food stamp program hit another record high of 47,410, 324 people making use of it. 47 is an iconic number thanks to Romney’s remark and 47 million is also 75 percent of Obama’s 62 million popular vote total. Or to put it another way, if every food stamp recipient turned out to vote, they would have made up 75 percent of Obama’s electorate.

Under Bush, food stamp use was at 30 million. It is 50 percent higher than it was four years ago and that bridge was crossed in the summer of last year. The cost of food stamp programs has also nearly doubled in that same time. If this rate of growth continues, we can look forward to as many as a 100 million people on food stamps by 2016.
Food Stamp Use 50% Higher Under Obama Than Under Bush

But we aren't allowed to say that because President Obama is black? How racist is that?

And to condemn Republicans because black people are more likely to be and vote Democrat, and when somebody strays off that reservation to label that person as token is beyond any measure of reasonableness and is about as racist as it gets.

We're not allowed to call Obama the Food Stamp President because those who object that that very accurate label racistly assume food stamp recipients are black.

Most of them are white, of course.

But that doesn't stop the racists on the left.

 

[Pogo]

Don't understand why more black Americans aren't disgusted by this.

By the Gateway Plunderit twist, I assume you mean?

As I just pointed out, the original editorial was written by a black American poli-sci professor. I think he's speaking on behalf of black Americans.

Who Gateway Plunderit is speaking on behalf of, that's a whole 'nother smoke.

Who says that this lame-ass proffessor [sic] speaks for blacks in this country? Who elected him to that position? No one, obviously, he is just another racist black identity academic making his living trying to make whites maintain their sense of guilt about other whites generations ago owning slaves, while never giving credit to the whole lot more other whites who gave their lives to END SLAVERY.

OK, in small words, he speaks from his own perspective. He's a black man, therefore he brings that experience to his dialogue: "black", "male", "American" and "political scientist". Just as you would bring, say, "male", "shallow", "addicted to ad hominem labels" to your dialogue. As here the very next part of your post:

Of course that doesnt [sic] count to thelibtards [sic], and especially not to black race baiters who are so popular with the New York Shits [sic]. If it did count they would lose their claim to whotes [sic] being guilty as a race, a guilt that they exploit as much as possible. The New York Times editors subscribe to the notion that one cannot be authentically black if one doesnt [sic] hate whites and pound on white guilt themes24/7 like [sic] they do.

Deep.

 

[Pogo]

You should expect that from the NYT; hell, they act like Scott is blacker than Obama.

What the hell does that mean?

If one uses a person to be a token umptysquat, then you get someone who is 100% umptysquat. The point to having a token is to be able to say, see we have an umptysquat with us, and that doesnt work if the guy is half umptysquat and half poedunk.

Scott is a black American and like most he probably has some white in his ancestry like about a third of white Americans have black in their ancestry.

Obama, as we all know is half white, and if Scot is truly a token, then he would by implication be considered to be more black than Obama.

Only by racists obsessed with blood counts.

So, I was obviously being sarcastic, since how black or how white someone is really doesnt matter to most Americans anymore except for the race baiting left who persist in maintaining racial division in this country, culturally, legally and in every way one can imagine

Yeah um.... you're the one who brought up the bizarre idea of degrees of blackness, so I think it's clear who owns the obsession.

... The absolutely last thing they want to see is a disapearance of racial identity among minorities even though they are in part responsible for the deracination of whites in this country.

"Deracination of whites" huh? That tells me even more. In an Aryan sense.

But then again, it is the New York Times plopping another leftard editorial to speak for them like putting a ole shit on the porch of someone they dont like. They like running these black racist editorials to incite and provoke the few whites left in the country that have any racial identity at all. If they ever ran a similar editorial by a White nationalist, I would be in shock.

Or maybe you'd be "in the paper". Don't get yer hopes up though. Aim lower. Like XXXX. Or is that where you're already mining this tripe from?

 

[Foxfyre]

I for one get very disgusted with everybody who focuses on race for political purposes. It is an orchestrated and very tightly engineered method of keeping race as a political football to further whatever agenda is promoted by the Left. I don't see those on the Right doing it nearly so much. In fact it is the very color blindness of the Right that seems to be the primary justification for calling them 'racist' or at best 'uncaring about the blacks.'

I feel real anger any more when I am accused of being racist because I treat President Obama like any other President. He is dubbed the 'food stamp' President because food stamp recipients have dramatically increased since he took office and are increasing at an unprecedented rate.

In September the food stamp program hit another record high of 47,410, 324 people making use of it. 47 is an iconic number thanks to Romney’s remark and 47 million is also 75 percent of Obama’s 62 million popular vote total. Or to put it another way, if every food stamp recipient turned out to vote, they would have made up 75 percent of Obama’s electorate.

Under Bush, food stamp use was at 30 million. It is 50 percent higher than it was four years ago and that bridge was crossed in the summer of last year. The cost of food stamp programs has also nearly doubled in that same time. If this rate of growth continues, we can look forward to as many as a 100 million people on food stamps by 2016.
Food Stamp Use 50% Higher Under Obama Than Under Bush

But we aren't allowed to say that because President Obama is black? How racist is that?

And to condemn Republicans because black people are more likely to be and vote Democrat, and when somebody strays off that reservation to label that person as token is beyond any measure of reasonableness and is about as racist as it gets.

We're not allowed to call Obama the Food Stamp President because those who object that that very accurate label racistly assume food stamp recipients are black.

Most of them are white, of course.

But that doesn't stop the racists on the left.

That could be it. But to me, it seems most of those on the Left are so racist; i.e. focused on race, that they don't see the President as anything other than a BLACK MAN. And he therefore is fragile and in a protected class that must be coddled and subsidized and is to be held accountable for nothing because many generations ago, some of their ancestors were slaves. And if any of us should presume to treat him as a person and ignore his race, we are accused of being the racists.

 

[Pogo]

I just knew if either Gateway Plunderit or Jim Hoft were involved it would be yet another selective interpretation. And that it wouldn't include the original source, lest readers actually read it and check up on Hoft's usual bent. Here we have a Daily Double.

Sure enough, what the story actually says is:

But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress.

That's a general statement about most "modern black Republicans" rather than specifically about Tim Scott. It includes him but it's not directed at him. And the rationale for that judgement is spelled out in the ensuing paragraphs, which is kind of the idea of making a point; you don't stop reading because you see the word tokens... you go on to see why it's there. Unless of course your real goal is to dumb-down the article into something it's not. The race hustling from Gateway Plunderit is shameless if not flameless.

Point 2, this article is an editorial, not "The New York Times". It's one person's opinion. You can kind of get a clue about that by his use of the first-person singular ("I"). It's a guest op-ed, written by a political science professor at Penn, not an editor at the Times (and he's black, if it matters).

But for point 3, let's go to Captain Obvious--
Ahem, thank you, at the risk of stating the obvious, to label Person X a "token" is a statement not about Person X, but about the action of the entity that put them there. In this case the acting entity would be the Republican Party. I can't believe you guys are so swimming in your own echo chamber of ideological swill that you can't see thi--Thank you Captain, that'll do for now.

I can see why Jim Hoft didn't go into law. He'd be laughed out of court every day. But nooooo, let's cancel the paper and call it the "Slimes" rather than read what it actually says. Let's take our cues from a hair-on-fire blog site that tells us about what the article said, rather than actually read it directly where we can judge for ourselves. Yeah there's a good plan. What could go wrong?

I'll never understand why some people want to outsource their political logic to the Blogs of the Bubble rather than DIY. Gateway Plunderit... a reliable source

oh that's right, the editors at the slimes don't have the discretion of what "opinions" they run in their rag..
I'd love to see the comments here if he had been a Democrat..maybe he would of [sic] been called a , TeaTard
and your long winded response doesn't make it any less of a disgusting article, but it's nice to know you AGREE with it too

I never stated whether I AGREE or DISAGREE with Reed, and if you actually read my post instead of whining "oh too many words, long winded" you could have seen that. Par for this coarse I suppose. All I laid out was how fallacious your original article was, and some of the many reasons why it is so fallacious.

Btw your own title is "NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a 'Token'". That's declaring that the NYT made a statement. Now you're trying to move the goalposts. Ain't gonna work.

That's what you get when you go to the well of GatewayPlunderit for your thinking -- screwed. And when you post that kind of illogic, you're going to be called on it. Deal with it, or find better sources.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just a reminder, as BillyV posted earlier, the last line of the NY Times article is this:

". . . .No number of Tim Scotts — or other cynical tokens — will change that."

The purpose of the article is to suggest that if the Republicans recruit a 'token black' for anything, it is for the purpose of hurting black people.

But everywhere else, the usual drumbeat of the left is that the Republicans are too racist to recruit somebody who is black.

 

[Pogo]

Just a reminder, as BillyV posted earlier, the last line of the NY Times article is this:

". . . .No number of Tim Scotts — or other cynical tokens — will change that."

The purpose of the article is to suggest that if the Republicans recruit a 'token black' for anything, it is for the purpose of hurting black people.

But everywhere else, the usual drumbeat of the left is that the Republicans are too racist to recruit somebody who is black.

Not sure what article you're reading but the purpose of the editorial that Jim Hoft was penning his wet dreams about (which is here) is clearly that the Republican Party that produces such tokens, fails to back them up with policies. That's what makes them "tokens". You can't have a token without a basis of contrast. They're not produced out of thin air sans context; so your selective analysis is inoperative. In effect you've put the cart before the horse.

If there's any lingering doubt about those policies of hypocrisy that serve the mixed message to produce what the author maintains are meaningless "tokens", I refer you to two words: "Southern strategy".

 

[Stephanie]

I just knew if either Gateway Plunderit or Jim Hoft were involved it would be yet another selective interpretation. And that it wouldn't include the original source, lest readers actually read it and check up on Hoft's usual bent. Here we have a Daily Double.

Sure enough, what the story actually says is:



That's a general statement about most "modern black Republicans" rather than specifically about Tim Scott. It includes him but it's not directed at him. And the rationale for that judgement is spelled out in the ensuing paragraphs, which is kind of the idea of making a point; you don't stop reading because you see the word tokens... you go on to see why it's there. Unless of course your real goal is to dumb-down the article into something it's not. The race hustling from Gateway Plunderit is shameless if not flameless.

Point 2, this article is an editorial, not "The New York Times". It's one person's opinion. You can kind of get a clue about that by his use of the first-person singular ("I"). It's a guest op-ed, written by a political science professor at Penn, not an editor at the Times (and he's black, if it matters).

But for point 3, let's go to Captain Obvious--
Ahem, thank you, at the risk of stating the obvious, to label Person X a "token" is a statement not about Person X, but about the action of the entity that put them there. In this case the acting entity would be the Republican Party. I can't believe you guys are so swimming in your own echo chamber of ideological swill that you can't see thi--Thank you Captain, that'll do for now.

I can see why Jim Hoft didn't go into law. He'd be laughed out of court every day. But nooooo, let's cancel the paper and call it the "Slimes" rather than read what it actually says. Let's take our cues from a hair-on-fire blog site that tells us about what the article said, rather than actually read it directly where we can judge for ourselves. Yeah there's a good plan. What could go wrong?

I'll never understand why some people want to outsource their political logic to the Blogs of the Bubble rather than DIY. Gateway Plunderit... a reliable source

oh that's right, the editors at the slimes don't have the discretion of what "opinions" they run in their rag..
I'd love to see the comments here if he had been a Democrat..maybe he would of [sic] been called a , TeaTard
and your long winded response doesn't make it any less of a disgusting article, but it's nice to know you AGREE with it too

I never stated whether I AGREE or DISAGREE with Reed, and if you actually read my post instead of whining "oh too many words, long winded" you could have seen that. Par for this coarse I suppose. All I laid out was how fallacious your original article was, and some of the many reasons why it is so fallacious.

Btw your own title is "NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a 'Token'". That's declaring that the NYT made a statement. Now you're trying to move the goalposts. Ain't gonna work.

That's what you get when you go to the well of GatewayPlunderit for your thinking -- screwed. And when you post that kind of illogic, you're going to be called on it. Deal with it, or find better sources.

now who's whining..
going to get called on it?...ok but when you do could at least spell everything right...Sort of makes it look bad you being one who is on a, calling
Still nothing about the article all about Gatewaypundit so we'll just assume you do agree with it..hey, no shame in you admitting it

 

[Foxfyre]

Just a reminder, as BillyV posted earlier, the last line of the NY Times article is this:

". . . .No number of Tim Scotts — or other cynical tokens — will change that."

The purpose of the article is to suggest that if the Republicans recruit a 'token black' for anything, it is for the purpose of hurting black people.

But everywhere else, the usual drumbeat of the left is that the Republicans are too racist to recruit somebody who is black.

Not sure what article you're reading but the purpose of the editorial that Jim Hoft was penning his wet dreams about (which is here) is clearly that the Republican Party that produces such tokens, fails to back them up with policies. That's what makes them "tokens". You can't have a token without a basis of contrast. They're not produced out of thin air sans context; so your selective analysis is inoperative. In effect you've put the cart before the horse.

If there's any lingering doubt about those policies of hypocrisy that serve the mixed message to produce what the author maintains are meaningless "tokens", I refer you to two words: "Southern strategy".

Nice try but not even close.

 

[Pogo]

now who's whining..
going to get called on it?...ok but when you do could at least spell everything right...Sort of makes it look bad you being one who is on a, calling
Still nothing about the article all about Gatewaypundit so we'll just assume you do agree with it..hey, no shame in you admitting it

Uh -- you are.
"ok but when you do could at least spell everything right...Sort of makes it look bad you being one who is on a, calling" ... and then you want to talk spelling? You sure? There's not a thing misspelled up there.

What I did was demolish the credibility of your OP (I mean, it wasn't hard considering the source). And what that means is you don't have a point. Your thread has no basis because it's counterfeit. I just showed you why.

So I don't need to agree or disagree with the original source. All I had to do was read it. Which is all you and Jim Hoft had to do too, without pausing to get all ADD on the shiny object of the word "token". You didn't even link it. I had to look it up.

And that's what I mean by "outsourcing your thinking". People like Jim Hoft have agendas-- they're not reporting anything (Jim Hoft seems to have an obsession on this, actually collecting people's twits, which is kind of creepy). Any publication even loosely associated with real journalism would have laughed this piece right into the circular file. If they didn't just up and fire him on the spot.

So again, try to sell a turd sandwich as a cheeseburger and you'll get the appropriate analysis. As long as you're parroting the Jim Hofts of the world, your shovel ain't big enough.

 

[Stephanie]

another view on it
Links in article at site with video

SNIP:
NYT op-ed: Tim Scott’s just a token for the GOP
posted at 9:21 pm on December 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

Jim Treacher’s right. Publishing this bilge is really just the Times’s way of calling him a cornball brother.

Of the offense of Disagreeing With The Left While Black, Tim Scott stands guilty as charged:

But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress…

Even if the Republicans managed to distance themselves from the thinly veiled racism of the Tea Party adherents who have moved the party rightward, they wouldn’t do much better among black voters than they do now. I suspect that appointments like Mr. Scott’s are directed less at blacks — whom they know they aren’t going to win in any significant numbers — than at whites who are inclined to vote Republican but don’t want to have to think of themselves, or be thought of by others, as racist…

For Mr. Scott, the true test will come in 2014, when he will presumably run for a full six-year term. As Mr. Obama has shown, the question is not whether whites are willing to vote for a black candidate, but whether black candidates can put together winning coalitions (no matter their racial makeup) and around what policies. I suspect black South Carolinians will not be drawn to Mr. Scott.

The acid test of whether a staunch conservative like Scott is a token is whether black voters, who are overwhelmingly liberal, will vote for him? I thought, per the excerpt above, the point of his alleged tokenism was to attract more centrist but Republican-leaning voters to the party, not black Democrats. In that case, even if he wins with 60 percent of the vote in 2014, he’ll still be a token, right? He’ll have won conservatives and centrists, just as the supposed token strategy imagines. Smoking-gun proof.

None of you needs me to explain the point of this. You’ve seen it before, most vividly with Clarence Thomas and more recently with Allen West. The left needs a near-monopoly on the black vote to win elections (at least until there’s a bigger pool of Latino voters) and questioning the integrity and racial authenticity of minority conservatives is one way to shore up that monopoly. That an attack this nasty can slip easily onto the op-ed page of the country’s most esteemed newspaper (whose editorial board is itself nearly lily white) tells you all you need to know about how mainstream the tactic is among liberals. As an antidote, let me recommend two pieces on the wires yesterday.


All of it here
NYT op-ed: Tim Scott’s just a token for the GOP « Hot Air

 

[Stephanie]

now who's whining..
going to get called on it?...ok but when you do could at least spell everything right...Sort of makes it look bad you being one who is on a, calling
Still nothing about the article all about Gatewaypundit so we'll just assume you do agree with it..hey, no shame in you admitting it

Uh -- you are.
"ok but when you do could at least spell everything right...Sort of makes it look bad you being one who is on a, calling" ... and then you want to talk spelling? You sure? There's not a thing misspelled up there.

What I did was demolish the credibility of your OP (I mean, it wasn't hard considering the source). And what that means is you don't have a point. Your thread has no basis because it's counterfeit. I just showed you why.

So I don't need to agree or disagree with the original source. All I had to do was read it. Which is all you and Jim Hoft had to do too, without pausing to get all ADD on the shiny object of the word "token". You didn't even link it. I had to look it up.

And that's what I mean by "outsourcing your thinking". People like Jim Hoft have agendas-- they're not reporting anything (Jim Hoft seems to have an obsession on this, actually collecting people's twits, which is kind of creepy). Any publication even loosely associated with real journalism would have laughed this piece right into the circular file. If they didn't just up and fire him on the spot.

So again, try to sell a turd sandwich as a cheeseburger and you'll get the appropriate analysis. As long as you're parroting the Jim Hofts of the world, your shovel ain't big enough.

you should talk about parroting.. that's all you've done in this thread
You can analize it to death for all I care and choke on that turd sandwich