i forgot obama was black

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...atthews-i-forgot-obama-was-black-tonight-hour


ahahah really?

 

He raises a good point.

 

only half

 

any amount of black is "black" if it can further one's career.

 

NBC isn't a news organization, its the Obama news network. I'm sure Matthews leg was tingling again.

 

how can you forget that he's all over the place!
lol

 

Isn't this about the same as him saying there he thinks there is some reason Obama can't be black AND the president??

 

Regardless, he raises a good point.

 

you know, i forget, too. i don't care enough about the president except that he looks like dubya to me. prolly prelated.

 

I think he was suggesting: "It is a good thing his colour is irrelevant...aint it great."

 

If his color is irrelevant, then why did he bring it up at all?

 

That would have came across better if you had just left it at there being a lot of them on the extremes...

 

I think I put words into his mouth.

Take from this what you will:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iwJDAV-qZQ&feature=related"]YouTube- Chris Matthews Tries to Clarify Why He Said He Forgot Obama Was Black: "I'm Very Proud I Did It"

 

hmmm..

 

Sadly, no, you didn't odon... his words were,

If race is irrelevant to someone, it is irrelevant... If he has to point out that he forgot Obama's race (whether for an hour or not), it is not irrelevant to him.

 

I posted his clarification because I thought that's what he meant when reading the initial quote.
We can either cut the guy some slack or not.
I'm choosing to cut the guy some slack.

When I watched it I was thinking a similar thing.

He wasn't exactly saying I couldn't see he was a black man.

 

Well, I don't think he meant it to sound the way it does, but intentions do not change the words he chose, and as a person who has a paid public platform to spread his words, he should know better.

 

Well, 1 (possibly 2) out of 6 people got the gist of what he meant.
Yeah, it's kinda funny to take his words literally.
It probably isn't fair, though.

It's sad if people actually took him literally.
The article writer certainly seems to have.

 

Intentions change everything. It's what you mean to say that matters, not the way it comes out. I'm not defending people who make stupid word choices, but if someone clarifies what they mean after it's been misunderstood, that's fine. Sometimes it's just a blatant attempt to save face, but I'm not sure this is. Maybe it is; I don't really care. As a general principle, intent > delivery.

 

This is where I and a lot of people on the net disagree totally...

I will use an extreme example to illustrate...

If I run over someone with my car by accident and kill them, they are dead, regardless of whether I intended to kill them or not.

Intent, doesn't change the meaning of something. Although I try not to use cliches in some cases they convey the correct meaning... such as

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

 

I agree that good intentions don't justify doing things that it's not your place to do. Some people with all the good intentions in the world will try to fix your problems for you and just end up fucking things up worse when they should have stayed out of it to start with.

In your example though, intent makes a big difference. If you hit someone without meaning to, it's an accident; if you do it on purpose, it's murder.