Nagin is Nuts

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I watched the speech and still don’t see the big issue. If New Orleans was predominantly black BEFORE Katrina, what is racist about pointing out that his goal is to return it to the way it was in terms of what gave it life to begin with? I find it hard to believe that anyone took that as “kill whitey”.[/quote]

The racist part is the focus on race. It’s not “kill whitey” racism. It’s the kind of racism that, if it was expressed , for example, by a white mayor of a city that had been more white before receiving a lot of Katrina victims, would be seen as racist, and rightly so.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am also intrigued by those who claim “christian conservativism” but then ream someone for claiming they “speak with God”. Someone needs a freaking lawyer before they speak in public anywhere today. We get it, many of you don’t like the guy. Why not just say you don’t like him? Bush has made way more verbal faux pas than this yet you all cover for him any chance you get. [/quote]

It’s not the “I was talking to God” part. It’s the second half of the message: “…and God told me that these hurricane’s are divine punishment on America because God is displeased with our foreign policy.” There’s a difference between someone saying he has a relationship with God, and talks to God, versus someone trying to invoke God in this manner. THis is pure Pat Robertson – who received so much criticism, and rightly so, from both the right and the left, that he recanted his statements that were essentially to the same effect (but claiming God for his own politics – punishing New Orleans for its idolatry and sexual depravity).

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I personally would have worded it better…MUCH better, but I see what his point was and I suspect many of you actually do as well. I don’t even know enough about the guy to respect him much at all, but aside from being an apparent poor public speaker and a “politician” with all the negatives that implies, I don’t see the need to look at this one speech as equivilent to lunacy.[/quote]

I certainly hope you would have. He’s not crazy. Neither is Pat Robertson. Both are shrewd, manipulative and calculating men. I wouldn’t vote for Pat, and I wouldn’t vote for Nagin either.

22

[quote]vroom wrote:
Doogie,

There is a huge difference between keeping people out and bringing people back.

He, Nagin, was saying the mixture of black and white in New Orleans was part of what made it a great city, and that it should return to the way it was.

If anyone out there is searching for ways to make that idea a significant racist issue, it is only showing your own leanings…

The speech itself is a non-issue, in my opinion, and probably in the opinion of most people that don’t have a huge racial chip on their shoulder.[/quote]

So vroom, what would you think of a statement like this [Note, I’m making this up - it wasn’t said to the best of my knowledge]:

“Galvaston, TX, was a whole lot whiter before all these NO refugees showed up – we should try to get some more white people in here so it’s more vanilla again.”

23

Vroom’s Canadian,anything that makes America look bad will suffice for him.Ha,just kidding buddy,but seriously,don’t turn what he said into a left wing right-wing thing.The guys nuts,and he’s embrassed himself and New Orleans;black,white,red,yellow,it doesn’t matter.I’m a christain,and I think Robertsons nuts also.Look,I’m sure Bin Laden talks to Allah and Muhommad and they say’s it’s alright to kill Americans because of our support of the illegal jewish state of Iseral.

24

Here’s some video of Nagin:

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2006/01/16/naginchocolatepeople/

25

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I watched the speech and still don’t see the big issue. If New Orleans was predominantly black BEFORE Katrina, what is racist about pointing out that his goal is to return it to the way it was in terms of what gave it life to begin with? I find it hard to believe that anyone took that as “kill whitey”.

The racist part is the focus on race. It’s not “kill whitey” racism. It’s the kind of racism that, if it was expressed , for example, by a white mayor of a city that had been more white before receiving a lot of Katrina victims, would be seen as racist, and rightly so.

Professor X wrote:

I am also intrigued by those who claim “christian conservativism” but then ream someone for claiming they “speak with God”. Someone needs a freaking lawyer before they speak in public anywhere today. We get it, many of you don’t like the guy. Why not just say you don’t like him? Bush has made way more verbal faux pas than this yet you all cover for him any chance you get.

It’s not the “I was talking to God” part. It’s the second half of the message: “…and God told me that these hurricane’s are divine punishment on America because God is displeased with our foreign policy.” There’s a difference between someone saying he has a relationship with God, and talks to God, versus someone trying to invoke God in this manner. THis is pure Pat Robertson – who received so much criticism, and rightly so, from both the right and the left, that he recanted his statements that were essentially to the same effect (but claiming God for his own politics – punishing New Orleans for its idolatry and sexual depravity).

Professor X wrote:

I personally would have worded it better…MUCH better, but I see what his point was and I suspect many of you actually do as well. I don’t even know enough about the guy to respect him much at all, but aside from being an apparent poor public speaker and a “politician” with all the negatives that implies, I don’t see the need to look at this one speech as equivilent to lunacy.

I certainly hope you would have. He’s not crazy. Neither is Pat Robertson. Both are shrewd, manipulative and calculating men. I wouldn’t vote for Pat, and I wouldn’t vote for Nagin either.[/quote]

Boston, I doubt I would vote for Nagen as well. I already said he isn’t a good public speaker. He sucks. However, for people to shine the light on this, yet apparently “conveniently” miss any times I have pointed out similar attitudes on this board sure does strike me as strange.

For the record, in truth I agree with you despite any effort to stir the pot a little. However, if you focus on this with intent, how do you miss it so many other times?

26

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Boston, I doubt I would vote for Nagen as well. I already said he isn’t a good public speaker. He sucks. However, for people to shine the light on this, yet apparently “conveniently” miss any times I have pointed out similar attitudes on this board sure does strike me as strange.

For the record, in truth I agree with you despite any effort to stir the pot a little. However, if you focus on this with intent, how do you miss it so many other times?[/quote]

I don’t miss it.

W/r/t Pat, I don’t recall anyone defending Pat Robertson - or at least not defending what he said - so there was nothing to argue with.

W/r/t race, we’ve discussed it – unfortunately those discussion seem to tend toward ugly far too quickly on the boards, so I generally try to avoid them (especially after they’ve already turned ugly).

27

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Boston, I doubt I would vote for Nagen as well. I already said he isn’t a good public speaker. He sucks. However, for people to shine the light on this, yet apparently “conveniently” miss any times I have pointed out similar attitudes on this board sure does strike me as strange.

For the record, in truth I agree with you despite any effort to stir the pot a little. However, if you focus on this with intent, how do you miss it so many other times?

I don’t miss it.

W/r/t Pat, I don’t recall anyone defending Pat Robertson - or at least not defending what he said - so there was nothing to argue with.

W/r/t race, we’ve discussed it – unfortunately those discussion seem to tend toward ugly far too quickly on the boards, so I generally try to avoid them (especially after they’ve already turned ugly). [/quote]

Well, it amazes me what some of you choose to stay silent on and what you choose to shout out your opinion for. Things that make you go, hmmmm.

28

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Well, it amazes me what some of you choose to stay silent on and what you choose to shout out your opinion for. Things that make you go, hmmmm.[/quote]

Sometimes there’s just no need to repeat what’s already been said. Sometimes it’s a busy week at work. Sometimes the thread grows so quickly it takes too much energy to keep up and contribute. And sometimes I just don’t feel like contributing to a topic – I didn’t note that you contributed to the thread on Robertson and what he said about Sharon, but I could have missed it…

29

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Well, it amazes me what some of you choose to stay silent on and what you choose to shout out your opinion for. Things that make you go, hmmmm.

Sometimes there’s just no need to repeat what’s already been said. Sometimes it’s a busy week at work. Sometimes the thread grows so quickly it takes too much energy to keep up and contribute. And sometimes I just don’t feel like contributing to a topic – I didn’t note that you contributed to the thread on Robertson and what he said about Sharon, but I could have missed it…[/quote]

I didn’t see the thread. The reason I responded late on this thread here is because I wanted to hear the speech myself before making a comment. I hadn’t until this morning. So, when topics like the Bob Sapp thread come up, no one feels like responding…but God Forbid Nagen calls New Orleans a “chocolate city” because here come the pitch forks and torches?

30

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I didn’t see the thread. The reason I responded late on this thread here is because I wanted to hear the speech myself before making a comment. I hadn’t until this morning. So, when topics like the Bob Sapp thread come up, no one feels like responding…but God Forbid Nagen calls New Orleans a “chocolate city” because here come the pitch forks and torches?[/quote]

I didn’t read the Bob Sapp thread because I’m not into MMA - or weird Japanese porn, which is what the title looks like.

31

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I didn’t see the thread. The reason I responded late on this thread here is because I wanted to hear the speech myself before making a comment. I hadn’t until this morning. So, when topics like the Bob Sapp thread come up, no one feels like responding…but God Forbid Nagen calls New Orleans a “chocolate city” because here come the pitch forks and torches?

I didn’t read the Bob Sapp thread because I’m not into MMA - or weird Japanese porn, which is what the title looks like.[/quote]

Well, perhaps you should give it a glance. The thread that Al just started ties directly into it…and this one. Let’s see where that leads.

32

Boston,

You can’t be seriously comparing the two statements.

Again, as I’ve said before, I don’t have any type of raging hard-on for Nagin, he’s no superhero in my books.

There are ways to discuss racial issues without casting a negative meaning towards any race. Do you honestly think it is appropriate to suggest that Nagin was impugning white people?

You can recast what Nagin said to make it horrible if you have an agenda to do so, but what he said is that New Orleans should be returned to the community that it was before the disaster.

I can imagine that many people thought New Orleans was a wonderful place, in some respects, and that what made it what it was may to some capacity have been the mix of inhabitants present.

I think if you take his statements in the context of New Orleans, he’s stating that black people are not going to be excluded from the new New Orleans. He’s attempting to quiet concerns about discrimination and exclusion that people from the area may have.

I am concerned by how desperately some people are looking for examples of black people as racists. I am sure there are examples of this out there, but attempts to ensure the return of the previous residents of New Orleans to their homes is probably not an example of that.

As the right is so quick to point out, it is not racist to mention race, it is more so the nature and purpose of the statement that has to be examined.

Show me how Nagin is putting down whitey, or anyone else, in any real capacity and I’ll be more concerned about it. You could have something with the immigrant labor statements, I’d have to hear those in context to have a real opinion on that. However, I suspect he’d prefer that locals be given the work, so they can earn income to help them rebuild their lives.

If I wasn’t white, would I’d be called a racist for sticking up for this dufus? The fact that some people are looking so diligently to find examples of black people as racist disturbs me.

Go out and look for examples of white racist behavior as diligently… you certainly won’t have to work as hard to find it.

33

[quote]vroom wrote:

Go out and look for examples of white racist behavior as diligently… you certainly won’t have to work as hard to find it.[/quote]

Apparently, they are all too busy when those particular issues come up to become involved. However, should a black person make a statement that can even be twisted into sounding racist. it is cause for a new thread and call for the head of the speaker.

34

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

“Galvaston, TX, was a whole lot whiter before all these NO refugees showed up – we should try to get some more white people in here so it’s more vanilla again.”

vroom wrote:

Boston,

You can’t be seriously comparing the two statements.

Again, as I’ve said before, I don’t have any type of raging hard-on for Nagin, he’s no superhero in my books.

There are ways to discuss racial issues without casting a negative meaning towards any race. Do you honestly think it is appropriate to suggest that Nagin was impugning white people?[/quote]

I didn’t say that. See my initial response to Prof. X above. The rest of your post is a non sequiter.

35

[quote]
vroom wrote:

Go out and look for examples of white racist behavior as diligently… you certainly won’t have to work as hard to find it.

Professor X wrote:

Apparently, they are all too busy when those particular issues come up to become involved. However, should a black perosn make a statement that can even be twisted into sounding racist. it is cause for a new thread and call for the head of the speaker.[/quote]

Different point entirely. No one that I saw was claiming that no white people are racist. I know people on this site are probably sick of the phrase, but this is what’s known as a “straw man.”

The claim was that the particular claim by Nagin was racist. And it doesn’t have to be “lynch whitey” or whatever to be racist.

There are two definitions of racism. One focuses on beliefs of racial superiority. The other on discrimination based solely upon race. This would be an example of the second kind. It’s especially worth focusing upon as he is an elected government official.

36

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he meant one thing “racist” by it at all aside from counterpointing the issue raised by MANY that blacks are being excluded from the rebuilding of NO. You do realize this is a belief in some black communities? Do you still not understand the context? Are you still claiming he meant that whites should be excluded from the rebuilding of NO?

37

Well guys, Nagin just apoligized on Fox News for his comments yesterday about US being punished by God for invading Iraqi.I also listened to his comments about NO being a chocolate city,he said it was a mix of white milk and dark chocolate coming together to make something really great,and thats what NO was,and thats what it will be in the future.I don’t see anything racist or bigoted about that,his other statements make him sound pretty flakey though.

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he meant one thing “racist” by it at all aside from counterpointing the issue raised by MANY that blacks are being excluded from the rebuilding of NO. You do realize this is a belief in some black communities? Do you still not understand the context? Are you still claiming he meant that whites should be excluded from the rebuilding of NO?[/quote]

Not at all. I do realize it’s a belief in some black communities. But that doesn’t make it right, any more than a belief in some white communities that white communities are being ignored at the expense of NO makes that belief right.

The problem is a government official coming down and saying that the government that he runs is going to focus on the racial make-up of the city.

39

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he meant one thing “racist” by it at all aside from counterpointing the issue raised by MANY that blacks are being excluded from the rebuilding of NO. You do realize this is a belief in some black communities? Do you still not understand the context? Are you still claiming he meant that whites should be excluded from the rebuilding of NO?

Not at all. I do realize it’s a belief in some black communities. But that doesn’t make it right, any more than a belief in some white communities that white communities are being ignored at the expense of NO makes that belief right.

The problem is a government official coming down and saying that the government that he runs is going to focus on the racial make-up of the city.[/quote]

Well, I have already said that he needs a speech writer. I don’t give him any credit at all for his public speaking skills, however, to associate what he said with “racism” is utter bullshit.

40

I guess his Republican roots are showing…

He had always been a Republican. He only switched to the Democratic party just before he ran for mayor knowing that he wouldn’t have a chance as a Republican.

He may have a Democratic shell but the true ‘nut’ is still inside…