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

[Pogo]

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

I've "parroted" exactly the same amount I "misspelled", i.e. nothing. You however drooled all over a bad blog from GatewayPlunderit of all sources and didn't even bother to give it the smell test.

So ... that's it? "Choke on your sandwich"? Wouldn't it be easier to admit you were wrong, that you got played?

Nah, I guess not.

 

[Stephanie]

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

I've "parroted" exactly the same amount I "misspelled", i.e. nothing. You however drooled all over a bad blog from GatewayPlunderit of all sources and didn't even bother to give it the smell test.

So ... that's it? "Choke on your sandwich"? Wouldn't it be easier to admit you were wrong, that you got played?

Nah, I guess not.

I didn't get played by you or anyone else..but if you think so that's all that matters..

 

[hazlnut]

man people need to cancel the slimes rag...
links to article at site

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

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 AM


The New York Times welcomed Republican Tim Scott to the US Senate by calling him a “token.”

snippet of the times peice at site


Republican Tim Scott is the only African American in the US Senate.
Mediaite reported, via Lucianne:


You have got to hand it to the New York Times’ editors – they’ve got moxy. A Times opinion piece on Tuesday introducing their readers to the newest Senator from the Palmetto State, former Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), speaks about him – and those with who share his political affiliation and skin color – in the terms you would describe a curious science project. In “The Puzzle of Black Republicans,” the Times summons all the subtlety of the Kool-Aid Man as they smash through the perception that the “paper of record” maintains a single shred of neutrality as they advance the notion that non-Democratic African-Americans are a curiosity to be examined like some newly discovered species of fish.

Of course, it’s OK for liberals to call blacks “tokens” as long as they are Republicans.
Disgusting.

all of it here
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token” | The Gateway Pundit

Hey, fatty. Reading comprehension. Try it.

 

[BillyV]

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

First, I don’t know why you spend so much time talking about Jim Hoft – the reason it says “Posted by” instead of “Written by” Jim Hoft is because his contribution seems to be only the title and one or two sentences.

I actually agree that the “first <insert race, gender, or sexual orientation here>” label is condescending and dated, to the extent the author tried to make that point. If he had stopped there, rather than going on to single out “black Republicans”, there would be no issue. Instead, he spent the rest of the article in a diatribe against conservative blacks that are “at odds with the preferences of most black Americans,” as if black preferences are monolithic. He spent considerable effort trying to equate the appointment of Tim Scott with racism in the Republican Party, even referencing “white supremacists like John C. Calhoun, Preston S. Brooks, Ben Tillman and Strom Thurmond” in an attempt to link past racism in the state with the selection of Scott by “the first female and first nonwhite governor of South Carolina” (apparently another “token”). He goes on to bemoan the fact that all black Republican House members “were elected from majority-white districts,” as though that made them somehow unworthy of their position (Note: President Obama was elected from a majority-white country). Did he really expect Republican voters to alter their views on taxes, abortion, unions, etc. in order to elect a black candidate? That would be hypocrisy; it should not surprise anyone that a Republican candidate espouses Republican values, regardless of skin color. That he doesn’t agree with those values does not make black Republicans “tokens.”

As for the musings of “Captain Obvious”, labeling Person X as a token demeans his selection by considering his merits to be a secondary factor in the selection process. You’re right that it also tars the actions and motives of the party, but implies that the appointee is unqualified; if it was so obvious to everyone that he was a token, he should have refused the position on those grounds, but apparently he’s too ignorant to realize it, or lacks the character to refuse to accept this gift based solely on his race. You can’t have it both ways; either there was a better candidate that should have been chosen, or he (and others) were appointed on their merits. You can’t narrow the insult to the party alone, and I don’t believe that was the author’s intention in any case.

 

[Pogo]

First, I don&#8217;t know why you spend so much time talking about Jim Hoft &#8211; the reason it says &#8220;Posted by&#8221; instead of &#8220;Written by&#8221; Jim Hoft is because his contribution seems to be only the title and one or two sentences.

First, thank you for a civil and tempered tone. Not much of that in the sky here today. I hadn't noticed that the verb was "posted" rather than "written" but it's appropriate since Hoft is obviously not deserving of the term "writer". I didn't even get to mention that he seems ignorant of how to spell the word "moxie".

As far as why the concentration on Jim Hoft, it's because that's what the OP did -- found a shortsighted opinion blog and posted it verbatim without a critical examination. As long as Jim Hoft was the only voice making a case, that's whose case I address, other than to chastise the OP for not bothering to come up with her own position.

Instead, he spent the rest of the article in a diatribe against conservative blacks that are &#8220;at odds with the preferences of most black Americans,&#8221; as if black preferences are monolithic.

In some cases, they are. It would be pretty difficult for example to make the case to bring back slavery, or that blacks should be disallowed to vote or use public drinking fountains.

Did he really expect Republican voters to alter their views on taxes, abortion, unions, etc. in order to elect a black candidate? That would be hypocrisy; it should not surprise anyone that a Republican candidate espouses Republican values, regardless of skin color. That he doesn&#8217;t agree with those values does not make black Republicans &#8220;tokens.&#8221;

That's not what Reed is saying as I read it; he's saying that if the RP wants blacks represented in its constituency, let alone its leadership, then it has to exhibit some appeal in its ideology to deserve that representation, and that in his opinion the RP has not done that, ergo this appointee is, he says, a "token" by virtue of a dearth of owning a basis to put him there. That of course assumes that the reason he is there is because he's black.

That's what Reed's saying anyway -- me, I'm not black so I have no opinion. Jim Hoft however got all hung up on the shiny object of the word "token" and missed all this context that came after. That's why I consider the OP a turd sandwich: deliberate bad reading.

As for the musings of &#8220;Captain Obvious&#8221;, labeling Person X as a token demeans his selection by considering his merits to be a secondary factor in the selection process. You&#8217;re right that it also tars the actions and motives of the party, but implies that the appointee is unqualified; if it was so obvious to everyone that he was a token, he should have refused the position on those grounds, but apparently he&#8217;s too ignorant to realize it, or lacks the character to refuse to accept this gift based solely on his race. You can&#8217;t have it both ways; either there was a better candidate that should have been chosen, or he (and others) were appointed on their merits. You can&#8217;t narrow the insult to the party alone, and I don&#8217;t believe that was the author&#8217;s intention in any case.

Actually I believe it was. Tim Scott is the one person who has no decision in this, except to accept the appointment (what's he gonna do, turn it down on the basis that his own party doesn't deserve him?) That's why Captain Obvious pointed out that the editorial was about the RP and its legacy, not about Tim Scott's.

And as for more qualified candidates, I did point out elsewhere (maybe tongue-in-cheek) that Nikki Haley could have appointed either herself, or Jenny Sanford, who is very popular in the state, and that she didn't do either was obviously an setback for the RP's representation of both women and Sikh-Americans.

She also could have appointed Steven Colbert, and thus taken him off the air. Just sayin'.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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



Tim Scott is a good man.

Tim Scott is a teatard.

And the Times didn't quite call him a token, did they? They said it looked less like progress for blacks and MORE LIKE tokenism.

And if you're wondering why blacks run from the GOP, please, call our first black president the "food stamp" president again and say things like he doesn't think "like an American", and have your presidential candidates suck up to birfers.

The reality is that most blacks really are conservative. They're religious.... they could be GOP "values" voters, if the party didn't tolerate such a huge degree of racial insensitivity.

But its true that blacks should be disgusted by him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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



Tim Scott is a good man.

Tim Scott is a teatard.

And the Times didn't quite call him a token, did they? They said it looked less like progress for blacks and MORE LIKE tokenism.

And if you're wondering why blacks run from the GOP, please, call our first black president the "food stamp" president again and say things like he doesn't think "like an American", and have your presidential candidates suck up to birfers.

The reality is that most blacks really are conservative. They're religious.... they could be GOP "values" voters, if the party didn't tolerate such a huge degree of racial insensitivity.

But its true that blacks should be disgusted by him.

Because no authentic black could possibly be conservative?

You fucking racist shitforbrains.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.



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?

Hillarious, I point out the Democtatic left's hypocrisy in playing off racial divisons and amplifying them, so in response you play the race card!

ROFLMAO

Fuck you you lying stupid-ass bastard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

man people need to cancel the slimes rag...
links to article at site

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

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 AM


The New York Times welcomed Republican Tim Scott to the US Senate by calling him a “token.”

snippet of the times peice at site


Republican Tim Scott is the only African American in the US Senate.
Mediaite reported, via Lucianne:


You have got to hand it to the New York Times’ editors – they’ve got moxy. A Times opinion piece on Tuesday introducing their readers to the newest Senator from the Palmetto State, former Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), speaks about him – and those with who share his political affiliation and skin color – in the terms you would describe a curious science project. In “The Puzzle of Black Republicans,” the Times summons all the subtlety of the Kool-Aid Man as they smash through the perception that the “paper of record” maintains a single shred of neutrality as they advance the notion that non-Democratic African-Americans are a curiosity to be examined like some newly discovered species of fish.

Of course, it’s OK for liberals to call blacks “tokens” as long as they are Republicans.
Disgusting.

all of it here
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token” | The Gateway Pundit

Hey, fatty. Reading comprehension. Try it.

Hey! Coxucker, eat shit and piss off. Try that, bitch.

 

[Pogo]

So to sum up in a single post, here's your entire position:

You fucking racist shitforbrains. Fuck you you lying stupid-ass bastard. Hey! Coxucker, eat shit and piss off. Try that, bitch.

Deep.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So to sum up in a single post, here's your entire position:

You fucking racist shitforbrains. Fuck you you lying stupid-ass bastard. Hey! Coxucker, eat shit and piss off. Try that, bitch.

Deep.

Yeah, like I havent posted anything else on the topic.

Responding to fascist coxuckers like you is just another way to piss away valuable time.

 

[squeeze berry]

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



Tim Scott is a good man.

Because for the most part, a great deal of us see this as nothing but a "Token" appointment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/266293-sen-demint-r-sc-to-quit-in-january-3.html

Because for the most part, a great deal of us see this as nothing but " damned if you do and damned if you dont"

 

[JimBowie1958]

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



Tim Scott is a good man.

Because for the most part, a great deal of us see this as nothing but a "Token" appointment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/266293-sen-demint-r-sc-to-quit-in-january-3.html

Because for the most part, a great deal of us see this as nothing but " damned if you do and damned if you dont"

Does anyone really think that a GOP govenor could ever possibly do anything with black appointments that would appease or placate the leftist retards that currently constitute the black communities 'leaders'?

I like this appointment not because of anything to do with race, but because this man has excellent ideas and a good record to fix problems in this country.

The Jacksons and Sharptons are just race hustling whores. Why should anyon give a shit what these jerk-offs try to think?

 

[Stephanie]

What gets me is how Blatant they are becoming in calling a Republican black man nothing but a token

NYslimes should be ashamed for running this but we know that is how they and most like them feel as we saw in this thread

right off the bat he was called a, TeaTard by someone who clames they are the rational one on this board..

 

[JimBowie1958]

What gets me is how Blatant they are becoming in calling a Republican black man nothing but a token

NYslimes should be ashamed for running this but we know that is how they and most like them feel as we saw in this thread

right off the bat he was called a, TeaTard by someone who clames they are the rational one on this board..

With more blacks rising up through economic endeavor and self-discipline, they dont have to eat shit from the Democrats chamber pots any more, and that just scares the Dems to no end. Thus the howels of 'Uncle Tom' and other race baiting will continue to raise in volume and pitch till the sounds become inaudible to normal people.

So for that alone we should do mor eof such appointments.

 

[blastoff]

It's standard operating procedure. A Republican or conservative black is anything but authentic to the lefty pukes.

So, New York Times, how's that circulation and ad revenue working out for you these days? At least your red ink fits your ideology.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because for the most part, a great deal of us see this as nothing but a "Token" appointment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/266293-sen-demint-r-sc-to-quit-in-january-3.html

Because for the most part, a great deal of us see this as nothing but " damned if you do and damned if you dont"

Does anyone really think that a GOP govenor could ever possibly do anything with black appointments that would appease or placate the leftist retards that currently constitute the black communities 'leaders'?

I like this appointment not because of anything to do with race, but because this man has excellent ideas and a good record to fix problems in this country.

The Jacksons and Sharptons are just race hustling whores. Why should anyon give a shit what these jerk-offs try to think?

This is the whole point. As long as the racists in this country count the number of black faces and consider that more important than anything else,
- insist that black people "act black" instead of just being people,
- insist on excusing any errant black person because he is justified by maybe descending from slaves,
- insist on demonizing any black person who dares to stray off the liberal plantation,
- shrug if the NYT characterizes an intelligent, capable, and qualified conservative black person as a 'token',
- and label anybody racist who dares criticize a liberal who happens to be black.

racism will remain alive and well in this country.

The only non racists are those who see and deem skin color as being no more important than hair color or eye color or whether a person has freckles.

We are all racists if we consider a person's skin color as being important or require somebody to be treated differently due to the color of their skin.

 

[daveman]

So to sum up in a single post, here's your entire position:

You fucking racist shitforbrains. Fuck you you lying stupid-ass bastard. Hey! Coxucker, eat shit and piss off. Try that, bitch.

Deep.

Because no authentic black could possibly be conservative?

You fucking racist shitforbrains.

Why did you alter his quote?

Oh, yes...because you can't answer his question: "Because no authentic black could possibly be conservative?"

 

[Pogo]

So to sum up in a single post, here's your entire position:

You fucking racist shitforbrains. Fuck you you lying stupid-ass bastard. Hey! Coxucker, eat shit and piss off. Try that, bitch.

Deep.

Because no authentic black could possibly be conservative?

You fucking racist shitforbrains.

Why did you alter his quote?

Oh, yes...because you can't answer his question: "Because no authentic black could possibly be conservative?"

I didn't alter squat; that's exactly what he wrote. I just pointed out the depth of his diatribes.
(It seems to have worked too, as he's cleaned up his act from what I've read today. You're welcome)

That question wasn't even asked of me anyway. I wasn't even part of that exchange at all. Reading is fun-duh-mental. You don't have to be the target of ad hominem in order to see it in action.

 

[Truthmatters]

man people need to cancel the slimes rag...
links to article at site

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

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 AM


The New York Times welcomed Republican Tim Scott to the US Senate by calling him a “token.”

snippet of the times peice at site


Republican Tim Scott is the only African American in the US Senate.
Mediaite reported, via Lucianne:


You have got to hand it to the New York Times’ editors – they’ve got moxy. A Times opinion piece on Tuesday introducing their readers to the newest Senator from the Palmetto State, former Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), speaks about him – and those with who share his political affiliation and skin color – in the terms you would describe a curious science project. In “The Puzzle of Black Republicans,” the Times summons all the subtlety of the Kool-Aid Man as they smash through the perception that the “paper of record” maintains a single shred of neutrality as they advance the notion that non-Democratic African-Americans are a curiosity to be examined like some newly discovered species of fish.

Of course, it’s OK for liberals to call blacks “tokens” as long as they are Republicans.
Disgusting.

all of it here
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token” | The Gateway Pundit

The right has been saying for YEARS Obama only got elected because hes black