Yes.

Maybe. He may also have been trying to explain the mindset of bigoted voters by using the language they would use. Republicans are crowing about a third possibility, that he's an ignoramus or a racist who thought it was OK to call black people Negroes in 2008. If that were the case, though, he would surely have revealed it before then. People who are that ignorant stick their feet in their mouths all the time, not once in 40 years.
________
Aromed Vaporizer Reviews

And you've made our point. No matter what party you are, no one will stand up for you as a out and out racist.

Opposing healthcare may be racist if you are opposing it because you don't want to use taxpayer money to help black people. I don't really care who Reid accuses of being racist. That is NOT what we have been discussing. As for what party Strom Thurmond ran under for president, it was a REPUBLICAN (ie Lott) who waxed poetically about the fact that he lost. In actuality, he ran as a Dixiecrat, anyway. Harry Truman was the Democratic candidate. Check your facts. Thank you.

I don't think the first explanation is that plausible because "Negro Dialect" would be very unlikely to be the term used by bigoted voters today. I'm not saying that they would use something more racist, just that I don't think most Americans use "Negro" period today. And when the term would have been popular and acceptable, a bigoted voter would have used something worse.

I think the Republicans trying to equate this with Trent Lott, etc, are way overplaying this, but I don't have complete confidence that every ignorant thing said by influential Democrats in the last 40 years has been widely reported.

And Reid isn't from a state where race would have loomed particularly large the way it does in the south for it to have come up that much. Sure, race comes up in DC too, but how frequently has Harry Reid had to comment in any kind of unscripted way?

I certainly am not trying to claim he's a bigot or way out of the loop, just that I'm not sure a complete pass makes sense either, based on the assumption that he would have tipped his hand before.

It was a weird choice of words.

Party lines means nothing.

Is this really the null hypothesis?

This is demonstrably false, either way, and a terrible basis for conclusion.

Haha. Leave it up to KSigRC to break it down like that.

How ironic...:rolleyes:

I guess the Census Bureau thought it was OK too.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6814629.html

What a strange world we live in. It would be nice if people could just agree to what is offensive and what's not, and then help us all keep up with the changes. :)

I'm sure everyone who watches the news knows about this.

That does not mean that it is "OK."



:)

People can just get their heads out of their asses and think before they speak more often than not. I don't know about you all but I know when I'm about to say something that is potentially offensive and I know when I've just said something that I shouldn't have said/that can be interpreted a certain way. And I'm not talking about offending members of certain GLOs, sports fans, and other things so socially insignificant and inconsequential.

We should understand that things can and will be misinterpreted and taken out of context. So we need to be careful. And if people are offended by what we say but we feel no need to void everything we said for the sake of being too PC--just say something like: "I don't apologize for the point I was making--I apologize for the poor wording. Let me express my point more appropriate and more adequately."

That's my point though, in the case of the census bureau, they researched what words to use, checked with their advisory counsel, and based on the respondents from the last census used the word Negro in order to reach out to the people who identified themselves that way. Yet, by trying to accomodate those people's self identifications, they stepped in it and insulted others.

It seems like there is no way to win. They were not trying to be offensive, in fact, they were trying to be sensitive, yet they are being raked over the coals for their insensitivity.

Like the thread a while back about "differently abled" or "handicapped" or whatever the proper term is now, it is constantly changing, and even though a person or organization is just trying to make a point or say something, they can be accused of insensitivity even when that was not their intention at all.

I wish people would A) be let in on what is appropriate and what is not, so to not offend, and B) that those offended would be less sensitive and over reactive to those who intended no slight. Sensitivity and just plain sense can go both ways.

Why would census information change the plain meaning ("He doesn't speak like a Negro") and whether it is 'offensive'?

Seriously, what is/isn't offensive is not some great context-based conspiracy to mess with white folks. Inane or stupid comments exist free of context. Those that are contextually stupid are not hard to parse on their own, either. I promise.

Hear, Hear!! Dr. Phil

Wonderfully stated.

When all is said and done both Reid and Lott should have known better then to say what they did. I don't believe what either said should result or have resulted in their having to step down from their position. However, the fact that Lott was forced to by the Dems and Reid is given a pass by essentially the same people is what rankles me. Blatant hypocrisy!

I guess since it takes one to know one we should just listen to the Republicans then and trust that Reid is a racist....right?