Minnesota Sports Forum

apollotsg wrote:Despite the veracity of the interview not being in question, you feel it's not right so it's not true - that pretty neat fact-checking.

I'm not saying he didn't, but if he did why sit on it for more than a decade, until long after the man quoted died? The interview in which it's claimed he said it was for a book on the topic and yet it wasn't worthy of inclusion? There are plenty of reasons to think it's a lie, and given Nixon was clearly racist there are reasons to think even if it wasn't said, it may well have been intended. Either way stating it as a fact is inaccurate.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Why is SP so upset about one quote ... possibly accurate... or inaccurate... about a known racist and mostly despicable human being.

Of all the hills to die on... "Yes, Nixon was racist... but not in that one quote." seems like an odd one.

TheSP wrote:
No, not held until after Nixon died, held up until after the person being quoted died. It's convenient that the man never said it to anybody else and is no longer around to rebut or confirm it. As for Nixon, yes he was racist and we have actual evidence, but we don't for that quote.

As for why would someone claim it was said, political gain. It's much like the unproven claim that LBJ said he'd "Have all those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years", unproven but used because most people just accept these things as fact when they're not. It's like women who come out of the woodwork after decades to claim someone raped them and can offer zero evidence, it's dirty politics.

I'm not saying he didn't, but if he did why sit on it for more than a decade, until long after the man quoted died? The interview in which it's claimed he said it was for a book on the topic and yet it wasn't worthy of inclusion? There are plenty of reasons to think it's a lie, and given Nixon was clearly racist there are reasons to think even if it wasn't said, it may well have been intended. Either way stating it as a fact is inaccurate.

TheGrey08 wrote:

TheSP wrote:
No, not held until after Nixon died, held up until after the person being quoted died. It's convenient that the man never said it to anybody else and is no longer around to rebut or confirm it. As for Nixon, yes he was racist and we have actual evidence, but we don't for that quote.

As for why would someone claim it was said, political gain. It's much like the unproven claim that LBJ said he'd "Have all those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years", unproven but used because most people just accept these things as fact when they're not. It's like women who come out of the woodwork after decades to claim someone raped them and can offer zero evidence, it's dirty politics.

I'm not saying he didn't, but if he did why sit on it for more than a decade, until long after the man quoted died? The interview in which it's claimed he said it was for a book on the topic and yet it wasn't worthy of inclusion? There are plenty of reasons to think it's a lie, and given Nixon was clearly racist there are reasons to think even if it wasn't said, it may well have been intended. Either way stating it as a fact is inaccurate.

What political gain does the author have to gain by it?

Yes, obviously it may not be able to be proven without a shadow of doubt, but I'm more likely to believe it based on surrounding information, who the quote came from and who published the quote. Did he continue to spin some narrative based on it or make a huge deal of it in attempts to make money?

OOF... equating it to women with sexual assault claims... bad look dude.
I'm sure most women who come forward just LOVE speaking out and staring public judgement and scrutiny in the face. Lets not paint with broad strokes here. There are liars in every group of people, but to make it all out to be "dirty politics" is beyond insensitive.

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

bleedspeed177 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
We've come a long way as a society. An incredibly long way. But racial issues remain a common problem in our country... that continues to divide us to this day.

Hopefully, someday we don't think about race and color.

A few months ago my 10-year-old adopted daughter asked me if she was American. Her sister (my step daughter) who is half Caucasian and half Korean said no you are Korean. I corrected her and said no she is American. She might have been born in Korea and lived their until she was 3, but she wouldn't be considered Korean in Korea. It is a moment I go back to and ponder often.

I think it would be a shame if we didn't pay any attention to race or culture. It would be great if we as a society actually had respect for each other regardless of those things that make us unique. We should also be able to tell any part of our story when we feel fit not have to answer a question like "Where are you really from?"

Culture, yes. Race....would love us to get beyond pure physical traits. Two people who are black may come from COMPLETELY different backgrounds and cultures. Same with two people who are light-skinned and everything in between. Same thing with two females, two short people, two fat people, etc. It is virtually meaningless in terms of capabilities, personality, beliefs, etc.

mrhockey89 wrote:

Culture, yes. Race....would love us to get beyond pure physical traits. Two people who are black may come from COMPLETELY different backgrounds and cultures. Same with two people who are light-skinned and everything in between. Same thing with two females, two short people, two fat people, etc. It is virtually meaningless in terms of capabilities, personality, beliefs, etc.