The Biden Cabinet and Transition Thread (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
2,222
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline
Ok the rules:
  • Your post can only contain one department and guess.
  • You may post more than once for different departments.
  • Post can contain comments about previous guesses.
  • Guesses for one department can be used for other departments.
  • Minds can, of course, be changed.
I will kick things off first...

Secretary of State: Susan Rice



This is as clear a choice as there can be. She has all of the credentials and rep to begin healing as relationships with our allies.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,575
Reaction score
1,873
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
About 5 years too late...

I'm trying to decide how I feel about the 70-30 vote. Relief that 20 Republicans voted for him, or frustration that 30 voted no. Smh.
 
OP
GrandAdmiral

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
2,222
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline
OP
GrandAdmiral

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
2,222
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline
OP
GrandAdmiral

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
2,222
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,462
Location
Madisonville
Offline
i think this goes here

There isn't evidence the article she wrote was satire.

As I noted yesterday, if her contentions were Swiftian, it was certainly odd that Clarke not only invited notorious anti-Semite and black supremacist quack Anthony Martin — whose racist theories happen to comport perfectly with the ones she presented in her letter — to speak at Harvard, but also praised his intelligence and the veracity of his work. In her letter, Clarke specifically points to a doctor named Carol Barnes to claim “melanin theory” is what gives “Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” In those days, bigoted pseudo-intellectuals such as Martin and Leonard Jeffries were quite popular on campuses.

Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence that the letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter.” In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”

 

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
466
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
There isn't evidence the article she wrote was satire.

As I noted yesterday, if her contentions were Swiftian, it was certainly odd that Clarke not only invited notorious anti-Semite and black supremacist quack Anthony Martin — whose racist theories happen to comport perfectly with the ones she presented in her letter — to speak at Harvard, but also praised his intelligence and the veracity of his work. In her letter, Clarke specifically points to a doctor named Carol Barnes to claim “melanin theory” is what gives “Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” In those days, bigoted pseudo-intellectuals such as Martin and Leonard Jeffries were quite popular on campuses.

Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence that the letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter.” In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”

It's amazing how often, when someone asserts that there's "not a single shred of evidence", they really mean, "I ignored that evidence." But I'm sure that's not the case here, and that there really isn't contemporaneous evidence showing that Kristen Clarke didn't hold those views, and was using satire to expose double-standards and hypocrisy. I'll just take a few seconds to Google and check though.

Oh.


And seriously, finding people who didn't get satire in 1994 does not show that something isn't satire. It shows that satire whooshed over people's heads back then as well.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
1,771
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
It's amazing how often, when someone asserts that there's "not a single shred of evidence", they really mean, "I ignored that evidence." But I'm sure that's not the case here, and that there really isn't contemporaneous evidence showing that Kristen Clarke didn't hold those views, and was using satire to expose double-standards and hypocrisy. I'll just take a few seconds to Google and check though.

Oh.


And seriously, finding people who didn't get satire in 1994 does not show that something isn't satire. It shows that satire whooshed over people's heads back then as well.
You must be come kind of expert on googling to find that. Maybe you could give classes to conservatives.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
7,191
Location
Midwest
Online
There isn't evidence the article she wrote was satire.

As I noted yesterday, if her contentions were Swiftian, it was certainly odd that Clarke not only invited notorious anti-Semite and black supremacist quack Anthony Martin — whose racist theories happen to comport perfectly with the ones she presented in her letter — to speak at Harvard, but also praised his intelligence and the veracity of his work. In her letter, Clarke specifically points to a doctor named Carol Barnes to claim “melanin theory” is what gives “Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” In those days, bigoted pseudo-intellectuals such as Martin and Leonard Jeffries were quite popular on campuses.

Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence that the letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter.” In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”

Didn’t you argue that it was terrible to go into Kavanaugh’s past to dig up dirt on him?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
7,191
Location
Midwest
Online
Oh, and I am absolutely going to say “I told you so” about using the National Review as a source without fact checking.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
7,191
Location
Midwest
Online
what makes his statement a “crackpot conspiracy theory”?

At most, it is a slight exaggeration. Just going to the Reddit link contained in your post shows that the Branch Davidians did fire on two National Guard helicopters with the specified weapon. They hit both, both were disabled and had to land immediately. So, were they shot down? They were shot, hit and disabled and had to land.

He was actually involved in the Waco legal case, so he would be pretty familiar.

But I await your explanation.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom