Fox News Host- "You can't trust Chinamen"

[kaz]

You see anyone to the Left of Ted Cruz as a Liberal, so your opinions are dismissed.

So seriously, Walter Mondale's campaign manager on Fox you see as representing the Right and not the Left. It's on the Republicans, not the Democrats. Walter Mondale's campaign manager. And he's always on the side of Democrats.

You are so full of

See? You are incapable of honest discussion.

You start out calling him a Liberal, then when called on it, you call him a Democrat, and pretend it's the identical thing.

It is the same thing. Authoritarian leftists call yourselves "liberal" even though you are not liberal, and you are "Democrat."

You'll NEVER catch me being this dishonest - I would call Susan Collins a Republican, but I would never call her a conservative.

LOL, I wouldn't call her a conservative either. So let's play, he who would not be dishonest and tries to smear Fox based on the words of an authoritarian leftists "liberal" Democrat. So give me an example of how Walter Mondale's campaign manager who calls himself a liberal and is a Democrat is not "liberal." What are you talking about?

 

[Pogo]

That is your opinion, I disagree.

OK. By all means, show where the value judgment is in either of those as a function of race.

Even in the context of black of Presidential candidates it was a slam on race. He didn't say all, candidates, he isolated black candidates. There is a value judgement on blacks running for President, not named Obama. You can justify and spin, however, it was insensitive and stupid and racist.

The stereotyping is an insult, just as implying blacks all like chicken or watermelon, if you don't get that then, you just don't get it.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Second point first: stereotyping that "blacks like chicken or watermelon" still doesn't make a value judgment. Unless you're saying it's a bad thing to like watermelon, which is not present. Noting that Indians populate 7-11s is the same thing -- is it a bad thing to populate 7-11? From what do you infer that?

First point - so he limits the comment to black candidates -- so what? Again, where is the value judgment? The fact is at the time he's speaking the country had never elected a black candidate, and only had a couple that made a political dent at all. Since he's talking about politics, he's talking about marketability. That means an assessment of how the voting public might "buy". It makes no comment on the nature of black people, no value judgment therein.

This knee-jerk reaction to just chant "racist" at nothing more than the mere mention of race is counterproductive. Get over it.

 

[Pogo]

And there was a "value judgment" associated with the term as used in this instance, coming as it did in the middle of a diatribe against 'the Chinese.'

I did a weird thing and actually watched the video. He's ranting about what Chinese hackers are doing -- he doesn't say they do it because they're Chinese. ...

He said it in the context of a general tirade against 'the Chinese,' you disingenuous douche. He makes a point of saying "they come over here" and "they can wait." This hackneyed generalization about 'the inscrutable Chinese who can wait thousands of years to git ya' is part of a well-worn racist essentialization of an entire people. At the end of his ill-considered rant he expressly gives the '**** you' sign "to China," not "to Chinese computer hackers."

If you really "watched the video" you would have noted the reaction of his co-hosts as well as his own "oh shit, better try to take that back" realization that he had let himself go to far. If you had ever watched more than that one clip you'd know that Bobby regularly goes off on bigoted tangents - like so many emotional leftists.

Your weak attempts to spin on Bobby's behalf are pathetically ineffective.

Beckel reacted; everybody reacted. Nobody specifically spelled out exactly what they were reacting to but it's a safe guess it was the use of the word "Chinamen", which last saw the light of day before color TV came out. The reaction is understandable. They may well be reacting to the political ideas expressed as well, simultaneously. Perhaps if anyone could figure out what "the soup" means we might have an indicator for what it's worth.

But he said nothing about a Chinese race. No behaviours he posited were alleged to derive from racial roots.


Who the **** is "Bobby"? What are you, a fifteen year old reading Tiger Beat?

 

[Pogo]

So seriously, Walter Mondale's campaign manager on Fox you see as representing the Right and not the Left. It's on the Republicans, not the Democrats. Walter Mondale's campaign manager. And he's always on the side of Democrats.

You are so full of

See? You are incapable of honest discussion.

You start out calling him a Liberal, then when called on it, you call him a Democrat, and pretend it's the identical thing.

You'll NEVER catch me being this dishonest - I would call Susan Collins a Republican, but I would never call her a conservative.

Again, name me one current Democrat that isn't a liberal.

Didn't we just do this in another thread? Or was that somebody else?

A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican or like me have no party affiliation. Ideologies are not parties.

An ideology is a philosophical belief. It's firm and fixed. A party is a machine to attain power. It's mutable and will accomodate as much diversity of belief as it can get away with. That's why you have, say, Susan Collins and Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman and David Duke in the same party. Doesn't make them the same ideology.

 

[Papageorgio]

OK. By all means, show where the value judgment is in either of those as a function of race.

Even in the context of black of Presidential candidates it was a slam on race. He didn't say all, candidates, he isolated black candidates. There is a value judgement on blacks running for President, not named Obama. You can justify and spin, however, it was insensitive and stupid and racist.

The stereotyping is an insult, just as implying blacks all like chicken or watermelon, if you don't get that then, you just don't get it.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Second point first: stereotyping that "blacks like chicken or watermelon" still doesn't make a value judgment. Unless you're saying it's a bad thing to like watermelon, which is not present. Noting that Indians populate 7-11s is the same thing -- is it a bad thing to populate 7-11? From what do you infer that?

First point - so he limits the comment to black candidates -- so what? Again, where is the value judgment? The fact is at the time he's speaking the country had never elected a black candidate, and only had a couple that made a political dent at all. Since he's talking about politics, he's talking about marketability. That means an assessment of how the voting public might "buy". It makes no comment on the nature of black people, no value judgment therein.

This knee-jerk reaction to just chant "racist" at nothing more than the mere mention of race is counterproductive. Get over it.

It is a value judgement, the fact you don't think so doesn't change an thing, you can spin all you want, you can justify all you want.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Pogo]

Even in the context of black of Presidential candidates it was a slam on race. He didn't say all, candidates, he isolated black candidates. There is a value judgement on blacks running for President, not named Obama. You can justify and spin, however, it was insensitive and stupid and racist.

The stereotyping is an insult, just as implying blacks all like chicken or watermelon, if you don't get that then, you just don't get it.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Second point first: stereotyping that "blacks like chicken or watermelon" still doesn't make a value judgment. Unless you're saying it's a bad thing to like watermelon, which is not present. Noting that Indians populate 7-11s is the same thing -- is it a bad thing to populate 7-11? From what do you infer that?

First point - so he limits the comment to black candidates -- so what? Again, where is the value judgment? The fact is at the time he's speaking the country had never elected a black candidate, and only had a couple that made a political dent at all. Since he's talking about politics, he's talking about marketability. That means an assessment of how the voting public might "buy". It makes no comment on the nature of black people, no value judgment therein.

This knee-jerk reaction to just chant "racist" at nothing more than the mere mention of race is counterproductive. Get over it.

It is a value judgement, the fact you don't think so doesn't change an thing, you can spin all you want, you can justify all you want.

The fact that you cannot demonstrate where the value judgment is kinda means it isn't there.

Again, knee-jerk spitting out the "racist" card for no more reason than that race was mentioned -- doesn't make it racism.

Is the name of the Washington NFL team "racist" just because it mentions a race?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think Beckel should be fired. FOX, of course, will disagree. The righties here too, I imagine. Fake Democrats are a precious thing to the right, to be cherished and paid well, not tossed aside lightly.

I really wish you would google Bob Beckel so you wouldn't sound so silly by calling him a fake democrat.

 

[Unkotare]

I did a weird thing and actually watched the video. He's ranting about what Chinese hackers are doing -- he doesn't say they do it because they're Chinese. ...

He said it in the context of a general tirade against 'the Chinese,' you disingenuous douche. He makes a point of saying "they come over here" and "they can wait." This hackneyed generalization about 'the inscrutable Chinese who can wait thousands of years to git ya' is part of a well-worn racist essentialization of an entire people. At the end of his ill-considered rant he expressly gives the '**** you' sign "to China," not "to Chinese computer hackers."

If you really "watched the video" you would have noted the reaction of his co-hosts as well as his own "oh shit, better try to take that back" realization that he had let himself go to far. If you had ever watched more than that one clip you'd know that Bobby regularly goes off on bigoted tangents - like so many emotional leftists.

Your weak attempts to spin on Bobby's behalf are pathetically ineffective.

Beckel reacted; everybody reacted. Nobody specifically spelled out exactly what they were reacting to but it's a safe guess it was the use of the word "Chinamen", which last saw the light of day before color TV came out. The reaction is understandable. They may well be reacting to the political ideas expressed as well, simultaneously. Perhaps if anyone could figure out what "the soup" means we might have an indicator for what it's worth.

But he said nothing about a Chinese race. No behaviours [sic] he posited were alleged to derive from racial roots.

You really are a dishonest piece of shit.

I've already explained to you that they were specifically "about a Chinese race," you idiot. The more you try and fail at playing the shameless apologist, the more of a disingenuous douchebag you make yourself look.

That you haven't heard a particular term in a long time is irrelevant. That it may not be commonly used in decent public discourse is irrelevant. A smart gambler would bet the farm that ol' Bobby has used the term more than a few times since after "color TV came out." If a conservative pundit went on a political round-table on CNN and issued a diatribe against "coloreds" or "the negroes" you know damn well there would be a shit storm of biblical proportions, and rightly so. Some racist douchebags on this site try to use that term as often as possible because they obviously get a little racist thrill out of doing so. They demur their true intentions in a fashion not unlike how you are trying to play spinmaster for Bobby. He didn't ask for your 'help' and you would be failing him miserably this way if he had. It is rare to find a person as utterly lacking in character or reason as you.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact that you cannot demonstrate where the value judgment is kinda means it isn't there.

It has been demonstrated, idiot. The fact that you are trying to ignore it goes to show what a dishonest piece of shit you are.

 

[Slyhunter]

See? You are incapable of honest discussion.

You start out calling him a Liberal, then when called on it, you call him a Democrat, and pretend it's the identical thing.

You'll NEVER catch me being this dishonest - I would call Susan Collins a Republican, but I would never call her a conservative.

Again, name me one current Democrat that isn't a liberal.

Didn't we just do this in another thread? Or was that somebody else?

A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican or like me have no party affiliation. Ideologies are not parties.

An ideology is a philosophical belief. It's firm and fixed. A party is a machine to attain power. It's mutable and will accomodate as much diversity of belief as it can get away with. That's why you have, say, Susan Collins and Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman and David Duke in the same party. Doesn't make them the same ideology.

But in the current list of politicians name me one Democrat who isn't a Liberal.

 

[Pogo]

Again, name me one current Democrat that isn't a liberal.

Didn't we just do this in another thread? Or was that somebody else?

A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican or like me have no party affiliation. Ideologies are not parties.

An ideology is a philosophical belief. It's firm and fixed. A party is a machine to attain power. It's mutable and will accomodate as much diversity of belief as it can get away with. That's why you have, say, Susan Collins and Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman and David Duke in the same party. Doesn't make them the same ideology.

But in the current list of politicians name me one Democrat who isn't a Liberal.

Are you the same poster who asked me that the other day? Because that's been asked and answered. Seeing as how you didn't bother to read the post above I'm disinclined to repeat myself.

 

[Papageorgio]

Second point first: stereotyping that "blacks like chicken or watermelon" still doesn't make a value judgment. Unless you're saying it's a bad thing to like watermelon, which is not present. Noting that Indians populate 7-11s is the same thing -- is it a bad thing to populate 7-11? From what do you infer that?

First point - so he limits the comment to black candidates -- so what? Again, where is the value judgment? The fact is at the time he's speaking the country had never elected a black candidate, and only had a couple that made a political dent at all. Since he's talking about politics, he's talking about marketability. That means an assessment of how the voting public might "buy". It makes no comment on the nature of black people, no value judgment therein.

This knee-jerk reaction to just chant "racist" at nothing more than the mere mention of race is counterproductive. Get over it.

It is a value judgement, the fact you don't think so doesn't change an thing, you can spin all you want, you can justify all you want.

The fact that you cannot demonstrate where the value judgment is kinda means it isn't there.

Again, knee-jerk spitting out the "racist" card for no more reason than that race was mentioned -- doesn't make it racism.

Is the name of the Washington NFL team "racist" just because it mentions a race?

He insinuated that other African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton were inarticulate. He implied they weren't bright. He single them out because of race. He judged them as lesser candidates.

 

[Pogo]

He said it in the context of a general tirade against 'the Chinese,' you disingenuous douche. He makes a point of saying "they come over here" and "they can wait." This hackneyed generalization about 'the inscrutable Chinese who can wait thousands of years to git ya' is part of a well-worn racist essentialization of an entire people. At the end of his ill-considered rant he expressly gives the '**** you' sign "to China," not "to Chinese computer hackers."

If you really "watched the video" you would have noted the reaction of his co-hosts as well as his own "oh shit, better try to take that back" realization that he had let himself go to far. If you had ever watched more than that one clip you'd know that Bobby regularly goes off on bigoted tangents - like so many emotional leftists.

Your weak attempts to spin on Bobby's behalf are pathetically ineffective.

Beckel reacted; everybody reacted. Nobody specifically spelled out exactly what they were reacting to but it's a safe guess it was the use of the word "Chinamen", which last saw the light of day before color TV came out. The reaction is understandable. They may well be reacting to the political ideas expressed as well, simultaneously. Perhaps if anyone could figure out what "the soup" means we might have an indicator for what it's worth.

But he said nothing about a Chinese race. No behaviours [sic] he posited were alleged to derive from racial roots.

You really are a dishonest piece of shit.

I've already explained to you that they were specifically "about a Chinese race," you idiot.

Who the **** is "they"? The pundit in question, whose name is Bob "not Bobby" Beckel, is a singular entity. They is plural.

DUH.

And get this, moron:

>> Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box. << (USMB sitewide rules)
​

That you haven't heard a particular term in a long time is irrelevant.

That it's been out of common parlance for several generations, however, is. I am not on the panel. Dumbass.

That it may not be commonly used in decent public discourse is irrelevant.

It's absolutely relevant if one's goal is to honestly assess the reaction of the panel. Which I understand is not your goal here because of that pesky H-word.

A smart gambler would bet the farm that ol' Bobby has used the term more than a few times since after "color TV came out."

You might, but you're a blithering idiot. A smart observer knows he or she doesn't have the background to judge that. Again, we all understand that's not your goal here.

If a conservative pundit went on a political round-table on CNN and issued a diatribe against "coloreds" or "the negroes" you know damn well there would be a shit storm of biblical proportions, and rightly so.

Another speculation fallacy, but it would depend on what the diatribe said. If there were a value judgment therein on a racial basis, then it would deserve condemnation. But on the basis of the term alone, no. Not proven. I remind you that in a recent year US Census forms were including "colored" as a choice to self-identify race. It was put there because in some subcultures of some communities, that term is still a neutral for "black". Possibly still is. The word itself does not racism make. And I'll put the same question to your wangly ass that I put to somebody else: is the name of the Washington NFL team "racist"-- by itself?

Some racist douchebags on this site try to use that term as often as possible because they obviously get a little racist thrill out of doing so.

Abjectly irrelevant here. Neither you nor I nor Bob "not Bobby" Beckel are among them.

They demure their true intentions in a fashion not unlike how you are trying to play spinmaster for Bobby.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Are you trying to say demur? I could edit it for you but that would be AGAINST THE RULES. Me, I'm not "spinning" jack shit. I know nothing about Bob Beckel save that "Bob" isn't "Bobby". As is my custom I discuss the merits of the case, based on what is or is not in the video. Not speculation fallacies or strawmen or any other kind of bullshit. I leave that emotional basket weaving to unhinged trolls such as yourself.

He didn't ask for your 'help' and you would be failing him miserably this way if he had. It is rare to find a person as utterly lacking in character or reason as you.

Like that. Exactly.

That it? Good.

Now LEAVE MY POSTS THE **** ALONE.

 

[Unkotare]

Who the **** is "they"? The pundit in question, whose name is Bob "not Bobby" Beckel, is a singular entity. They is plural.

"They" refers to the 'behaviors' (you really need to learn how to spell that word - or were you pretending to be British?) you mentioned in your post trying to play the apologist for big mouth Bobby. You won't be able to follow along if you don't improve your reading comprehension skills, idiot.

 

[Unkotare]

That it's been out of common parlance for several generations, however, is.

The frequency with which the term is used by racists like Bobby is assumption on your part, champ. Or are you claiming some strong familiarity with the racist crowd? In any case, the intent and result of offense does not rely on your assumption regarding the aforementioned, idiot.

 

[Pogo]

It is a value judgement, the fact you don't think so doesn't change an thing, you can spin all you want, you can justify all you want.

The fact that you cannot demonstrate where the value judgment is kinda means it isn't there.

Again, knee-jerk spitting out the "racist" card for no more reason than that race was mentioned -- doesn't make it racism.

Is the name of the Washington NFL team "racist" just because it mentions a race?

He insinuated that other African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton were inarticulate. He implied they weren't bright. He single them out because of race. He judged them as lesser candidates.

Yes, by elimination he did. I agree with that, I said so earlier. When he says "the first", he IS saying the previous ones were not blah blah blah, "marketable". That still doesn't attach to race.

If one held that being articulate, good looking, whatever were traits that the black race does not possess, then it would be impossible for Barack O'bama, who is a black man, to possess them. Obviously that's not what he was saying. That tells you it's not based on race. If you believe a race is inferior because of trait X, Y, Z, then you cannot trot out a member of that race who clearly possesses X, Y and Z. It's a contradiction. What the statement is saying is that here's the first black candidate who will sell. Lots of wannabes come up from the minor leagues; they don't all make it to the Show.

And besides -- Al Sharpton IS inarticulate. Gods help us if he ever got elected. But he won't -- because he doesn't sell.

That's got nothing to do with his being black. It has to do with him being a buffoon.

 

[Unkotare]

it would depend on what the diatribe said. ...

Remember when I called you a disingenuous douche? This is why.

 

[Pogo]

Who the **** is "they"? The pundit in question, whose name is Bob "not Bobby" Beckel, is a singular entity. They is plural.

"They" refers to the 'behaviors' (you really need to learn how to spell that word - or were you pretending to be British?) you mentioned in your post trying to play the apologist for big mouth Bobby. You won't be able to follow along if you don't improve your reading comprehension skills, idiot.

Then no, the behaviours he posited were not about the Chinese race.

You're actually suggesting that this "Bobby" character was saying certain people come here, learn computers and go home to hack us, because they're genetically Chinese??

Wacko.

 

[Pogo]

That it's been out of common parlance for several generations, however, is.

The frequency with which the term is used by racists like Bobby is assumption on your part, champ. Or are you claiming some strong familiarity with the racist crowd? In any case, the intent and result of offense does not rely on your assumption regarding the aforementioned, idiot.

I do not purport to have any knowledge of how often the term is used by "Bobby", "Davy", "Mickey", "Peter", "Paul" or "Ringo", K? I'm going by the one video we're supplied with. Again, learn the **** what a speculation fallacy is. Dumbass.

 

[Unkotare]

Who the **** is "they"? The pundit in question, whose name is Bob "not Bobby" Beckel, is a singular entity. They is plural.

"They" refers to the 'behaviors' (you really need to learn how to spell that word - or were you pretending to be British?) you mentioned in your post trying to play the apologist for big mouth Bobby. You won't be able to follow along if you don't improve your reading comprehension skills, idiot.

Then no, the behaviours [sic] he posited were not about the Chinese race...

They most certainly were, as I generously explained to you in a previous post. You seem to be laboring under the false impression that your mere denial carries any legitimacy. If you remain true to form, you will now carry on as if your denial is established fact. It's not.

I'm sure Bobby can afford a better spinmaster than you.

By the way, are you British?