For those of you that read the original misleading thread last week here is Robert Reich’s response to the lies being spread about what he said…
An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-letter-to-rush-limbaugh-sean.html
Be sure to read the Media Matters article too:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200901230015?f=h_latest
Aren’t sound bites wonderful Rush? You can use them to spread any lie and you will and do.
Aren’t sound bites wonderful Rush? You can use them to spread any lie and you will and do.
I think it’s funny how both sides get so “Outraged” when it finally happens to them 
The fact, as far as I can tell, Reich did say “Not ONLY to white male construction workers”. Yes he did not say “Not to white male construction workers”, but good lord the fact that a person would even say something even close to that certainly speaks to ones frame of mind, or simply he had his head up is arse. Either way, not good.
~Matt
You would think that someone who routinely (and often rightly) lambasts the “drive-by media” for sniping with snippets, he’d be a little more judicious with his use of the same weapon. But then, we all know what ultimately drives Ru$h Limbaugh.
But then, we all know what ultimately drives Ru$h Limbaugh.
Rush and many in the “Media” are the KINGS of snippets. I think The Daley show that kind of makes fun of this when they take individual words of politicians and puts them into a video. Eventual the video makes some ridiculous speech. All words spoken by the politician, but absolutely unrelated to anything based in reality. Funny though.
~Matt
I knew it was true,Robert Reich is really Dr.Lovelace!!! >>>>>>(correction Loveless)
[/img
If you are going to slam dwarves, at least get it right: Dr. Loveless.
For the record, I was first with post #16:
Note: Most people didn’t get the context of the analogy in that I was only showing how the phrase would be used in a different sentence, not whether or not the policy would be a good idea.
After reading the replies on here, I was expecting to see a video where someone was caught saying something when he didn’t know he was being recorded. When I turned the video on, I was suprised to see that this was CSPAN. I thought it would be a little odd for someone to openly talk about an economic plan that specifically excluded white male skilled labor.
After watching the video, I didn’t take it to mean that at all from the language. Yes, the language looked to imply that the money was going to targeted at poor out of work areas, but not at the specific exclusion of whites or skilled labor. The sentence that stuck out was “I am concerned as are many of you that these jobs not SIMPLY go to high skilled people or are already professionals or to white male contrusction workers…”
If I was to say, “I am concerned as are many of you that this prize money not simply go to the winner of the race…” does not mean that the winner of teh race isn’t getting any prize money. It means that the winner isn’t getting all of it, and that it will be proportioned out among other categories as well (2nd, 3rd, fastest swimmer, etc.).
You may still not like the idea that they will be targeting unskilled labor, minorities, and impoverished sections, but he was not saying that they were going to specifically exclude whites and skilled professionals. I can guarantee white contruction workers will be getting their money. The unions have too much power for them not to…which is why there was a concern that it would simply be given to them
You are right it’s Loveless and back in the sixties they were called midgets.
.
Barry- Why not just say “skilled union labor” then? Why does he have to specifically call out racial groups for inclusion or exclusion? If women and minorities represent a larger precentage of the chronically unemployed then there is no reason to go racial. And why should it matter what race is represented within the chronically unemployed? As long as there is a fair process for hiring and properly training the unqualified that’s all they need to be concerned with.
Barry- Why not just say “skilled union labor” then? Why does he have to specifically call out racial groups for inclusion or exclusion? If women and minorities represent a larger precentage of the chronically unemployed then there is no reason to go racial. And why should it matter what race is represented within the chronically unemployed? As long as there is a fair process for hiring and properly training the unqualified that’s all they need to be concerned with.
Because he was specifically making sure that minorties were included, hence the injection of race. If you have a problem with that, fine. But that’s a different topic than the claim that he specifically wanted to exclude white construction workers, which he did not.
If you are going to slam dwarves, at least get it right: Dr. Loveless.
you don’t slam dwarves, you toss them. get it right, mister!