Ad of West punching woman not racially offensive

[Don Vito Corleone]

That's garbage. The ad shows an African-american man punching different white women in the face and features the cute little grillz made notable by Trayvon Martin in a political ad intended to smear a the candidate. It's not acceptable to me, but if you think it's cool to use those types of racially charged images in political ads then you get what you deserve.

It doesn't feature any "cute little grillz." It shows a gleam from his teeth, perhaps inspired by the similar gleaming smile Mike Tyson had in the NES Punch Out video game. This is not something unique to black people, nor is it in any way racist.

You Republicans and your feigned outrage are funny to me. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the whiny party?

 

[blankslate]

That's garbage. The ad shows an African-american man punching different white women in the face and features the cute little grillz made notable by Trayvon Martin in a political ad intended to smear a the candidate. It's not acceptable to me, but if you think it's cool to use those types of racially charged images in political ads then you get what you deserve.

It's not garbage at all that some republicans are well tuned to a particular dogwhistle call in politics.

Is it in this ad? no because most people are actually tone deaf to it, including the makers of this ad it would have to be a particularly bad choice of words or images for them to have it in this ad.

 

[HomerJS]

No more racist then ad showing Romney pushing a white woman off a cliff.


If the West character had started talking in slang then racist.

 

[cybrsage]

How does showing a comic depiction of one black man stealing from a black family in any way imply "that black people cannot help but steal from others, no matter how rich and powerful they become"? If Allen West were white, and the ad depicted identical content, would it then be implying that white "people cannot help but steal from others, no matter how rich and powerful they become"?

Yes.

To be fair and honest, I was just pulling out the next line I thought people would use, to see how your reasoning skills would handle it. You handled it poorly by easily giving me the ability to invalidate your explaination with a single word. Are you sure you have been a trial lawyer? I learned that is a bad tactic to use in the movie A Civil Action. I suspect it is taught as something not to do in the schooling required.

It is a good movie, btw. If you have not seen it, you should.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yes.

To be fair and honest, I was just pulling out the next line I thought people would use, to see how your reasoning skills would handle it. You handled it poorly by easily giving me the ability to invalidate your explaination with a single word. Are you sure you have been a trial lawyer? I learned that is a bad tactic to use in the movie A Civil Action. I suspect it is taught as something not to do in the schooling required.

You (or at least your adopted Internet persona) might well be the most obtuse individual I have ever encountered, in 41 years on this planet, and despite your claims your post is neither fair nor honest. If you seriously believe this ad would be racist against white people if the boxer depicted were white, then you are simply too impervious to common sense to bother conversing with any further.

Setting aside your transparently silly attempts to deflect the discussion through irrelevant and misplaced personal attacks, do you believe this ad is racist or not? If so, why?

 

[cybrsage]

You (or at least your adopted Internet persona) might well be the most obtuse individual I have ever encountered, in 41 years on this planet.

Setting aside your transparently silly attempts to deflect the discussion through irrelevant and misplaced personal attacks, do you believe this ad is racist or not? If so, why?

Setting aside your transparently silly attempts to deflect the discussion through irrelevant and misplaced personal attacks, I will answer your question. No, I do not. I think it is a stupid ad which is full of lies and Obama should be ashamed for having anything to do with it.

Still, you did handle it very poorly, something I did not expect from you. EDIT: Though doing exactly what you just blased me for doing IS something I expect from a trial lawyer, so kudos to you for that.

 

[blankslate]

No, I do not. I think it is a stupid ad which is full of lies and Obama should be ashamed for having anything to do with it.

Demonstrate that Representative West doesn't want to change medicare for Seniors

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region...est-says-medicare-spells-end-of-united-states

"I gotta tell you something: if you support Medicare the way it is now, you can kiss the United States of America goodbye," said West.

Oh I guess you can't... that part of the ad isn't a lie.




What about women's health care?

He opposes Federal funding for planned Parenthood.

Yes Planned parenthood does help women get abortions. However as this image from factcheck.org shows

the vast majority of their funding goes toward women's health issues and they spend much more on pregnancy prevention than abortion.

So there is no outright lie from the ad on that point either.




Prove that Representative West's position on taxes wouldn't lead to an increase in taxes for members of the and lower them for the Wealthy...

Representative West supports a flat tax.

There is argument about whether or not the middle class would pay more and the rich less under such a system.

but the statement by the ad cannot be proven to be an outright lie as you suggest.


Additionally the ad was presented by a Super Pac supporting Democratic candidate Patrick Murphy.

There is no evidence that President Obama is involved in this Super Pac atm.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Setting aside your transparently silly attempts to deflect the discussion through irrelevant and misplaced personal attacks, I will answer your question. No, I do not. I think it is a stupid ad which is full of lies and Obama should be ashamed for having anything to do with it.

Still, you did handle it very poorly, something I did not expect from you. EDIT: Though doing exactly what you just blased me for doing IS something I expect from a trial lawyer, so kudos to you for that.

Obama did not have anything to do with it, did he? What is your support for the proposition that President Obama had anything to do with this ad?

 

[cybrsage]

Obama did not have anything to do with it, did he? What is your support for the proposition that President Obama had anything to do with this ad?

It comes down to whether you believe super pacs are acting without the blessing of the candidates or if they have the candidates' blessings. Not in the legal sense, for that is written in stone, but beyond that. I believe the candidates have invisible strings into the super pacs.

Add to it that it is an alteration of an already used DNC tactic, a video showing a republican throwing an old lady out of a wheel chair to her death, and it becomes rather obvious that Obama supports it.

No direct support, since that is illegal.

 

[cybrsage]

Demonstrate that Representative West doesn't want to change medicare for Seniors.

Far difference between changing medicare and physically attacking people. But you knew that and simply "forgot" until I just reminded you now, right?

There is no evidence that President Obama is involved in this Super Pac atm.

Of course not, but I think everyone knows super pacs have little invisible strings of control held by the candidates.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Of course not, but I think everyone knows super pacs have little invisible strings of control held by the candidates.

That is an entirely different thing from implying that he was involved in the creation of, or ever approved of, this ad. The race is one that has nothing to do with him and I see no evidence on which to conclude he was involved with this ad.

 

[blankslate]

Far difference between changing medicare and physically attacking people. But you knew that and simply "forgot" until I just reminded you now, right?

It's an attack ad from a Super Pac. Oh I'm sorry I didn't know I was supposed to take an animated ad literally.
Did I offend your sensibilities by not doing so? Oh wait I don't give a damn.

Of course not, but I think everyone knows super pacs have little invisible strings of control held by the candidates.

Pot. Kettle. Black. is essentially what you're saying there.

 

[Riparian]

I'm confused by the uproar. If people think a black man punching an elderly white woman is racist, then why not also call it out on being misogynist. This ad really should have had Allen West punching an elderly man and woman from every race to be fair and balanced.

Also, why would you bring Jan Schlichtmann from Anderson v. Cryovac into this conversation cybrsage?

 

[monovillage]

No more racist then ad showing Romney pushing a white woman off a cliff.


If the West character had started talking in slang then racist.

Glad to see that you agree with the NAALCP

 

[cybrsage]

That is an entirely different thing from implying that he was involved in the creation of, or ever approved of, this ad. The race is one that has nothing to do with him and I see no evidence on which to conclude he was involved with this ad.

Of course you will not find evidence of it - that was explained already. Short term memory problems?

 

[cybrsage]

It's an attack ad from a Super Pac. Oh I'm sorry I didn't know I was supposed to take an animated ad literally.
Did I offend your sensibilities by not doing so? Oh wait I don't give a damn.

You are so unimportant to me that you could never offend me. I am laughing that you actually think you are important. Wow.

Pot. Kettle. Black. is essentially what you're saying there.

No, what I am essentially saying is I think everyone knows super pacs have little invisible strings of control held by the candidates.

 

[cybrsage]

Also, why would you bring Jan Schlichtmann from Anderson v. Cryovac into this conversation cybrsage?

I did not. I brought up a movie in which a lesson was given that all trial lawyers should already know. It is a movie starring John Travolta (as I already said). It is a good movie, btw. If you have not seen it, you should.

 

[blankslate]

You are so unimportant to me that you could never offend me. I am laughing that you actually think you are important. Wow.

Good for me to know but essentially unsurprising considering the way you resorted to quoting me out of context and deliberately implying that I meant something quite different than what I intended in my post a few months ago.

In light of that...

No, what I am essentially saying is I think everyone knows super pacs have little invisible strings of control held by the candidates.

So what you're saying is Pot. Kettle. Black. Because if super pacs are controlled by the candidates then it's not any one candidate doing so while another abstains so that reinterpretation applies.

Furthermore you still haven't provided evidence that the ad is

is full of lies

Have a good day

 

[dali71]

Didn't stop the Army from forcing him to resign to torturing a prisoner, who ended up being innocent.

He wasn't forced to resign. The prosecutor offered him a choice of resigning or facing criminal charges for his actions. He refused to resign, went through a hearing where the end result was a fine of $5,000, then retired with full rank, honors, and benefits about 6 months later.

 

[UberNeuman]

It's all been downhill for West since Batman was cancelled.....

 

[dali71]

It's all been downhill for West since Batman was cancelled.....

:biggrin::thumbsup:

 

[cybrsage]

So what you're saying is Pot. Kettle. Black.

No, what I am essentially saying is I think everyone knows super pacs have little invisible strings of control held by the candidates.

 

[cybrsage]

It's all been downhill for West since Batman was cancelled.....

Well played.

 

[Riparian]

I did not. I brought up a movie in which a lesson was given that all trial lawyers should already know. It is a movie starring John Travolta (as I already said). It is a good movie, btw. If you have not seen it, you should.

First, not only have I had to endure the movie, I've had to read the book, along with deal with law professors who were the consultants for the book and the movie. They also wrote the legal compendium for the actual case, which was required reading as a 1L in law school. All in all, I'm not seeing your point in basing your procedural knowledge of the law on a movie that doesn't even accurately portray procedural strategy.

Anyway, I don't really see how people can see the ad as racist when two scenes later, you see him stealing from a black family. If you want to argue that it's a poorly designed ad that loses its message in sensationalism, then i would agree. Racist? Not in my humble opinion.

 

[blankslate]

Obama should be ashamed for having anything to do with it.

No, what I am essentially saying is I think everyone knows super pacs have little invisible strings of control held by the candidates.

You're so far still not even attempting to prove that the ad

is full of lies

or even that it's only half true.

Oh and still a case of the Pot calling out the Kettle.