You did not read it properly. Remember the "real" American Palin rallies, where Obama was called a terrorist, the N-word, and someone shouted "Kill him!" They were distinguishing themselves as "real" Americans as compared to...Obama? You think they were expressing their views on the merits? Please don't take my earlier post out of context. Read it again if necessary. Why are you so quick to obfuscate? As I had noted, racism and bigotry exist everywhere. The way to root it out is to identify it in its tracks wherever it may be. How can you not acknowledge that racism is a lot more open now than it has been before Obama emerged and prevailed on the political stage? Even the dog-whistle stuff is rather thinly veiled. I'm just taken aback by the casual business-as-usual attitude that prevails in the face of such primitive behavior.
Has anyone noticed...
- Thread starter Gabfly1
- Start date
Come on, you aren't being reasonable. You are acting like most disdain for BO is because he isn't white which is fucking absurd. The truth is that a myopic minority of his disdain is due to the fact that he isn't white. The fact is that he wouldn't have ever been elected if he WERE white. You are trying to stand reality on it's head here. The fact that he's black is why he was elected in the first place.
You further display your ignorance when constantly referencing Palin. Palin is a neocon in Libertarian drag, to borrow another users term.
You further display your ignorance when constantly referencing Palin. Palin is a neocon in Libertarian drag, to borrow another users term.
Actually, where I live it is probably 60/40 ratio and people seem to get along reasonably well. Of course you will always have problems here and there. The media and selected leaders play this issue like a violin repeatedly stirring up discontent for less than honorable motive. The US has come a long way in the issue of fairness and civil rights and most folks are preoccupied with just keeping their jobs and surviving today.
Taking it to a new level huh?
1)Govt is responsible for promoting racism.
Instead of the colorblind society MLK promoted we have a govt sanctioned and demanded identification of racial differences in nearly all information provided to the gubbermint on every aspect of our lives.
a) census , school, work, lending, etc etc
b) govt contracts, affirmative action,college admissions discrimination, even a movement to spread ownership of broadcasters based on race.
2) Now we have a cottage industry both private and public who's base of power is racially oriented.
Playing the race card is an effective extortion method of the race baiters jessie jackson, sharpton, wright etc.
Now (democrat) politicians and their political machines are using manufactured or trumped up incidents as an excuse to use racism charges as their primary political tool.
Basically democrats are addicted to the racism issue real or imagined and will foster it's divisiveness as a means to political power.
You're obfuscating again. Yes, the majority voted for Obama. I do not refer to them.
I do not even refer to those people who did not vote for Obama because of his political goals and principles. I may disagree with those people, however, I do not refer to them.
Rather, I refer to ALL of the remaining birthers. Every last one.
I refer to most of the Tea Partyers. Where were they when Bush was mortgaging their children's future with a voluntary war (Iraq) and simultaneous tax cuts for the rich? It's outright hypocrisy on the part of those Tea Partyers who are Republican and who praised Bush. And whenever I encounter hypocrisy, my spidey senses start tingling.
I refer to the surge in "open carry" heroes, who are essentially thumbing their noses at every thinking person. Where were they in such numbers when pro-gun Bush was at the helm? Why now? I think we both know why. If memory serves, they weren't as vocal during the Clinton years.
Despite my low opinion of her, I refer to Palin because she is the Tea Party's cupcake. And I once again refer you to those earlier hate-filled Palin rallies. Very little has changed. Fred can put on a different hat, but he's still Fred.
+1
And it's not the least bit surprising that Lucrum and his ilk would call for censorship of your posts. Once again, I never see them call for censorship of non-American conservatives. Which tells me two things: they wallow in hypocrisy, and they can't handle the truth.
Yes it is. Mainstream opposers to Bush were calling for his impeachment. Opposers to Obama, until recently, were hinting at assassination; even some commentators on TV like Glenn Beck were hinting at armed rebellion. Go ahead, show the "same thing" during the Bush years. Good luck.
"Nixon-disgraced the Presidency." Very true.
"Carter-ruined the Nation." How? He screwed up on Iran; that hardly "ruined" the USA.
"Reagan-destroyed the poor with Reaganomics." No, he destroyed the middle class and increased the poor.
"Bush I--did not finish the job in Iraq" Among other things (like doubling the debt, going back on his no-new-taxes pledge, etc.)
"Clinton--blow job in the oval office" Yeah this is the worst thing that can be said about Clinton from the right. Oh lordy lordy. Clinton was a damn fine Republican president. Too bad he couldn't act like a damn fine Democratic president.
"Bush II--well, you name it, he did it." If by "it" you mean "something awful", I couldn't agree more.
"This President will do no worse than the last." That's a given. Even my dog could do a better job than Bush/Cheney. For starters, my dog doesn't start unnecessary wars.
Ignorance is bliss. You know almost nothing about other democratic countries yet you automatically assume that their electoral systems are substandard to the USA.
Fact: our Electoral College is an absolute abomination. It bears approximately the same relationship to a truly democratically elected President that Frankenstein's monster bears to an actual human being. All you have to do is look at 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote outright (ala Obama) but did not become the President.
Trying to have it both ways? If you are not a birther then why bring up an analogy where some hypothetical French candidate "refused to show a birth certificate?"
Obama has shown his birth certificate. Repeatedly. So your analogy completely falls apart. Or were you trying to have it both ways (plant the idea that Obama's birth is suspect, but don't call you a birther for saying so)?
1) Are you equally disgusted by those that voted for o just because he had the right skin tone?
2) Your spidey senses are more likely either DM or heavy metal poisoning. Bush had lots of criticism from conservative pundits and public sentiment.
3) Why would supporters of the 2nd amendment demonstrate an administration viewed as pro 2nd amendment? Evidently common sense eludes your grasp and confuses you.