So to speak ;) - to wit, in a short bit of an interview with Brian Williams broadcast on NBC Nightly News tonight, he publicly declared the patently obvious - that deep-seated racism is fueling much of the 'teabag' and other virulent anti-Obama rhetoric that has taken place since the election, and that "many white people... not just in the south... believe that African-Americans aren't qualified to lead this great nation." He goes on to say that this is 'abominable', and that Obama's qualities will enable him to rise above it, and while his observations may seem somewhat self-evident and/or somewhat offensive, I think it's important that someone of his age and reputation spoke out on the issue. Granted, he's a Democrat, so the wingnuts are likely to summarily dismiss him anyway, but very few people would dispute that President Carter is a *good* man of more or less unassailable character who has been vindicated by history with regard to almost every issue he stood up for. And while I doubt his speech will stimulate a discussion about race among those who could really use one, hopefully it will make a few of the less hysteria-driven folks out there stop and think a moment about what it is they're *really* objecting to with so much spin...

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. Forgot to link the video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/32867107#32867107

Anyone who thinks it's anything but racially driven is simply playing ostrich. the use of terms like "Nazi" and "socialist" are nothing more than cover words for what many of these folks really want to say wich is "F'ing Nigger!"

Yeah, disliking the man's policies is soooooooo racist. Was it racist to dislike Clinton's policies as well?

Was comparing G.W. to Hitler, racist?

"Judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin." is the famous quote. Perhaps there are people out there (I'm not one of them) who don't like the man's character.

And every time it's chalked up to racism, when it's not, diminishes the times when racism really is an issue.

Anyone who thinks it's anything but racially driven is simply playing ostrich. the use of terms like "Nazi" and "socialist" are nothing more than cover words for what many of these folks really want to say wich is "F'ing Nigger!"

Your ignorance is astounding.. Truly stupefying...

Yeah, disliking the man's policies is soooooooo racist. Was it racist to dislike Clinton's policies as well?

Was comparing G.W. to Hitler, racist?

"Judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin." is the famous quote. Perhaps there are people out there (I'm not one of them) who don't like the man's character.

And every time it's chalked up to racism, when it's not, diminishes the times when racism really is an issue.

I am sorry there is not such thing as a racist black man...:rolleyes:

Oh c'mon Sixee, are you going to tell me that the majority of folks out at those mob rallies, many of whom can't even *articulate why they're there*, and are schlepping around 'take back America' signs with *Confederate* flags on them, aren't motivated at least partially by racism, even if they're not voicing it openly? As a related corroborating example, did you not see the collective aneurism some of the congressmen were having over Justice Sotomayor's the 'wise Latina' remark during her confirmation hearings? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that there wasn't a *little* 'brown peril' scaremongering going on there, even in subtext?

Seriously, you should *see* some of the not-even-thinly-veiled crap my father emails me with regard to Obama, and he's an educated man...

I'm sure there is a subset of folks at those protests for whom their objections to Obama's policies are just that - well-thought out ideological objections - but there's a *huge* 'hate that dare not speak its name' component out there as well adding extra spin to these protests as well, and to deny that is to be willfully blind.

Clinton engendered a lot of right-wing hate even though he might as well have been the Republican Congress' sock puppet, but dare I say it the protests against his policies (including the 1993 health care push) were a lot... drier, not to mention you didn't have pundits on TV/Radio (Glen Beck, etc) making barely-euphemistic statements wishing he were dead.

I would like to think we had truly moved beyond that sort of thing, but there is a *huge*, if to a large degree denied and/or subconscious, racism component to the angst that drives the 'birthers' and teabaggers which has nothing to do with policy, and I've sat in close proximity to enough of the protests and demogoguery, both overt and covert, to know it when I see it, and Jimmy Carter, having been the target of a great deal of ideological slings and arrows during his presidential career and beyond, probably is more qualified than most to recognize the difference as well.

Regards,
Nydia

I want to see some research before writing off the majority of this nonsense as racism. While I'm sure that's one component, I think there's also a radical fear of Muslims (Oooooh, what if Obama is a double secret Muslim????!?!), plenty of held over fears of Communism, especially in the older populations, and a whole lot of ignorance and fear mongering from the major players. It's difficult to get a sense of the political climate from before my time since history books tend to be so colored by their writers, but there have been plenty of party clashes and immature behavior from senators and the like.

I think part of the current problem is the internet. Anyone can post anything, and it never goes away. Some of my family has made the mistake of sending me those same dumb emails, and they just keep getting spread around. If someone is a moron and too lazy to do some fact checking, they all sound pretty frightening.

Odd source, but an interesting read: http://dirk-johnson.com/twitter/?p=375

Playing a little bit of the devil's advocate here....

To say that the extremist right is not racist and that at least some of their vitriol against Obama is just flat ignorant. Of course it is, for some....but not for all. Gross generalizations always bother me. What carter was saying was generally true...but obvious. To put the racist label on all disrespect is gross generalization...Bush was many times called a fascist and worse.

But we are off the point. Carter was specifically talking about this one disrespectful incident, "I'm a dumass" Wilson saying "you lie" in the middle of the president's spech. I agree he's an rude ignorant tool republican asshole, but if it had been a black senator screaming that out when Bush was prez......sorry just threw up a little in my mouth....would we label the black senator as racist? Personally, I see little evidence, for this one stupid outburst, that would leave me to believe it was nothing more than politically motivated. Could he be racist...sure he could...but bringing race into this particular issue is, IMO, wrong and divisive. What good does it do? Does he think these knuckle dragging extreme right douches are going reconsider their stances. "Gee, hmm, I wonder if hate him so much because he's black...maybe I should take a second and consider that...hmmm" Nope, not gonna happen, it just drives another wedge of seperation between extremes.

What's next, "you didn't vote for the president's bill because you're a rascist!!" :rolleyes:

Exactly Ail. Since we have people like Nydia and former President Carter to look into our heads and read the thoughts and motivitations behind our actions, that's the next logical step.

Nydia, Confederate flags =/= racism. Many of the people you see toting those flags are advocates of States Rights. I'm not saying there aren't racists in the mix, but I think your ratios are skewed a bit.

You see what you believe to be true.

Confederate flags =/= racism.

Right these knuckle dragging, ignorant fucks are only carrying confederate flags because they are:

advocates of States Rights

Wow, just wow.

You totally missed my point. I don't think there's evidence to call the outburst racist and I don't think it's productive to call it racist...that's it.

Yeah, disliking the man's policies is soooooooo racist. Was it racist to dislike Clinton's policies as well?

Was comparing G.W. to Hitler, racist?

"Judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin." is the famous quote. Perhaps there are people out there (I'm not one of them) who don't like the man's character.

And every time it's chalked up to racism, when it's not, diminishes the times when racism really is an issue.

Doesn't happen often lately but agree with Sixee.... Velvet is way off base.... he's been watching too much mainstream news....

Playing a little bit of the devil's advocate here....

To say that the extremist right is not racist and that at least some of their vitriol against Obama is just flat ignorant. Of course it is, for some....but not for all. Gross generalizations always bother me. What carter was saying was generally true...but obvious. To put the racist label on all disrespect is gross generalization...Bush was many times called a fascist and worse.

But we are off the point. Carter was specifically talking about this one disrespectful incident, "I'm a dumass" Wilson saying "you lie" in the middle of the president's spech. I agree he's an rude ignorant tool republican asshole, but if it had been a black senator screaming that out when Bush was prez......sorry just threw up a little in my mouth....would we label the black senator as racist? Personally, I see little evidence, for this one stupid outburst, that would leave me to believe it was nothing more than politically motivated. Could he be racist...sure he could...but bringing race into this particular issue is, IMO, wrong and divisive. What good does it do? Does he think these knuckle dragging extreme right douches are going reconsider their stances. "Gee, hmm, I wonder if hate him so much because he's black...maybe I should take a second and consider that...hmmm" Nope, not gonna happen, it just drives another wedge of seperation between extremes.

What's next, "you didn't vote for the president's bill because you're a rascist!!" :rolleyes:

I am even agreeing with this bastard :)

Oh c'mon Sixee, are you going to tell me that the majority of folks out at those mob rallies, many of whom can't even *articulate why they're there*, and are schlepping around 'take back America' signs with *Confederate* flags on them, aren't motivated at least partially by racism, even if they're not voicing it openly? As a related corroborating example, did you not see the collective aneurism some of the congressmen were having over Justice Sotomayor's the 'wise Latina' remark during her confirmation hearings? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that there wasn't a *little* 'brown peril' scaremongering going on there, even in subtext?

Seriously, you should *see* some of the not-even-thinly-veiled crap my father emails me with regard to Obama, and he's an educated man...

I'm sure there is a subset of folks at those protests for whom their objections to Obama's policies are just that - well-thought out ideological objections - but there's a *huge* 'hate that dare not speak its name' component out there as well adding extra spin to these protests as well, and to deny that is to be willfully blind.

Clinton engendered a lot of right-wing hate even though he might as well have been the Republican Congress' sock puppet, but dare I say it the protests against his policies (including the 1993 health care push) were a lot... drier, not to mention you didn't have pundits on TV/Radio (Glen Beck, etc) making barely-euphemistic statements wishing he were dead.

I would like to think we had truly moved beyond that sort of thing, but there is a *huge*, if to a large degree denied and/or subconscious, racism component to the angst that drives the 'birthers' and teabaggers which has nothing to do with policy, and I've sat in close proximity to enough of the protests and demogoguery, both overt and covert, to know it when I see it, and Jimmy Carter, having been the target of a great deal of ideological slings and arrows during his presidential career and beyond, probably is more qualified than most to recognize the difference as well.

Regards,
Nydia

And out of the usual lately, I disagree with you on this... I don't see this as being a race issue, but I do see *somebody* trying to make it one.... I think most people will see right through this.......

It's not insignificant that J.C. is an old man who grew up in Georgia before civil rights, integration, etc. While he's obviously no hayseed now, his point of view will forever be anchored by formative experiences that are not necessarily relevant anymore.

Obviously, some of those teabag types are racist, but attributing the whole thing to racism is nonsense.

I think that's a fair assessment. Though if you compound some racisism, some fearing the red menace, and some just pissed off the Republicans lost in November I think that would make up a good portion of that 70,000 people. What is ashame is the 10,000 or 20,000 who actually can articulate their concerns are drowned out (particularly by the media) by the noisy wackos.

Confederate flags =/= racism.
Right these knuckle dragging, ignorant fucks are only carrying confederate flags because they are:

advocates of States Rights

Wow, just wow.

You totally missed my point. I don't think there's evidence to call the outburst racist and I don't think it's productive to call it racist...that's it.
Nydia, Confederate flags =/= racism. Many of the people you see toting those flags are advocates of States Rights. I'm not saying there aren't racists in the mix, but I think your ratios are skewed a bit.

You see what you believe to be true.

Reading comprehension FTW.

What you don't understand is that assuming that someone carries a Confederate flag as being racist isn't much better than calling someone that yells out "You're a liar." during the President's speech a racist.

I'd say, unless the person is wearing white, hooded robes while carrying a Confederate flag, or yells out, "You're a liar, you nigger!" you can't assume they are being motivated by racism.

Remember, assume makes an ass out of you and me.

What you don't understand is that assuming that someone carries a Confederate flag as being racist isn't much better than calling someone that yells out "You're a liar." during the President's speech a racist.

Bull shit. If you were to find ONE person in that crowd toting a confed flag because they were an advocate of states rights I'd be fucking amazed.

I've never, ever, ever met someone that displayed a confederate flag be it in their truck or a flag that they had somewhere that wasn't at least a closeted racist. With the history that flag carries, displaying one now while not quite saying n*****, sure does say much about the person displaying it. It's also quite the middle finger to the black population.

I love the people that say that flag represents their proud southern heritage. No... it displays their proud southern slave owner heritage.

Confederate flags =/= racism. Many of the people you see toting those flags are advocates of States Rights.

I'm sure the same crowd is also often found protesting evolution because there is so much evidence to the contrary in peer-reviewed journals. These are sophisticated civic movements!

Which specific rights of states are they advocating?

Yeah, disliking the man's policies is soooooooo racist. Was it racist to dislike Clinton's policies as well?

Was comparing G.W. to Hitler, racist?

"Judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin." is the famous quote. Perhaps there are people out there (I'm not one of them) who don't like the man's character.

And every time it's chalked up to racism, when it's not, diminishes the times when racism really is an issue.

you utter mental child, none of these people have any idea what they are protesting, and they certainly have no clue what policies obama is proposing.

Bull shit. If you were to find ONE person in that crowd toting a confed flag because they were an advocate of states rights I'd be fucking amazed.

You have to keep a couple things in mind when you make statements like that.

First, "down South", a Confederate flag is just a "Rebel flag" to a lot of those people. It isn't as closely tied to racism as you might want to historically infer. None of us were alive during the Civil war, FYI. By living in Colorado, do you automatically hate Native Indians, just because your home was settled by genocidal white guys? Probably not.

Second, Federalism and racism aren't mutually exclusive. Even if someone doesn't like black, white, yellow, or purple people that doesn't mean they don't also sincerely believe, like the Founders, in states' rights.

Making such far-flung blanket statements based on a sampling of the craziest 0.001% that cameras could find is as poor a generalization as racism itself.

I think you guys are missing my (and Carter's) point - he's not blaming every single ideological or other objection to Obama, either as a person or to his actions, to his race, but specifically used the word 'deep-seated' to describe the underpinnings of what is undeniably a much more.... virulent and emotional dynamic than has been in evidence for other Democratic (and Republican) presidents early in their terms, even in difficult times.

While most people under forty-five (that is to say, those too young to remember real segregation) don't hold *overt* prejudice of the kind that was common back then with regard to issues of basic fairness, having a *President* who 'doesn't look like them' is a whole different kettle of fish as it upsets the implicit power dynamic on a very basic sucked-up-with-mothers'-milk subconscious level - and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable for reasons they can't define well but translate into ejaculations such as those made by the congressman from South Carolina this week. One of the interesting and more obvious translations of this has been the various signs/slogans/declarations that 'Obama doesn't represent *me*' :). While policy objections may be part of that, the subtext is also unmistakable.

It's also fair to say that this discomfort has been stoked within an inch of its life by those who would cynically exploit and profit from it.

Regards,
Nydia

Late for lab, but I'm aware of the 'states rights' component of the Confederate flag, and that there are some more or less 'legitimate' movements in that regard that aren't underpinned solely or primarily by racism (see our completely insane Governor Goodhair, aka Rick Perry's, weekly ravings about secession) - but generally among the general demonstrating public those issues are somewhat conflated :).

Personally, I have found that I don't really view Obama with the proper amount of "Presidential" respect. This bothered me considerably, and I spent a bit of time trying to understand why.

I think it is because of his appearance.

The implicit lesson that I've unconsciously picked up viewing the Presidents during my lifetime is that Presidents are older, wise-looking, white men. Seeing Obama as President is sort of like seeing a skinny white guy in a Sumo Wrestling match. Even if not undesired, it's unfamiliar.

However, give me President Morgan Freeman or President Colin Powell and my senses believe it in a second. So, I have a hard time believing it's based solely on race, rather several bits of the amalgamation of attributes that make up authority (http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1362).

Only took 3 posts before someone pulled out a strawman, that was fast.

It isn't as closely tied to racism as you might want to historically infer.

I didn't say anything about it being tied to racism...I just said I doubt any of them display because they are advocates of state rights. Many might display it out of some twisted sense of community, pride in being from the south, etc...but advocate of state rights...umm..no.

older, wise-looking, white men.

not trying to put words in your mouth...are you saying you don't give him the respect because he's not old, not wise....or not white?

Which specific rights of states are they advocating?

Maybe the rights of the states to have a better understanding of the needs of their citizens?
Health care needs of Floridians =/= health care needs of New Yorkers =/= health care needs of Californians, ect.

Bull shit. If you were to find ONE person in that crowd toting a confed flag because they were an advocate of states rights I'd be fucking amazed.

Reread the part of my post about seeing what you want to believe. You want to see racists? Presto, there they are! Carrying Confederate flags! ZOMG!

I love the people that say that flag represents their proud southern heritage. No... it displays their proud southern slave owner heritage. I tend to agree with you. Proud Southern Heritage of having your ass handed to you by the North? Proudly display that flag!

Velvet is way off base.... he's been watching too much mainstream news....

I dont quite think so. this vitriol was gaining steam even before the man won the nomination and way before any clear cut "policy" points were clarified. it's been pointed out that most of these protesters cant give even one clear assesment on a single policy point. ask an intelligent question and all the can do is froth and scream socialist. anyone remember all the talk of Obama and his "Black agenda"?

I remember clearly election night when i ventured forth to enjoy a drink or 2 of Makers mark. the comments from the gentleman about how he couldnt believe america elected a "Nigger for President" and how everything he ever worked for his entire life was now all gone down the drain!!!! Really?? simply electing the man ruined everything about america? but yea i'm sure those statements were made from after some deep abiding intellectual analysis.

I feel damn well qualified to spot rasicm seeing as i was raised by a deep south family with ties to the KKK. saw it in the eyes and attitudes of the people i loved.

This is like watching someone go through the 12 step program from AA. Right now we're in the "displacement" step where you recognize there is a problem, but can't accept the logical consequences. On the plus side, we're past denial!

not trying to put words in your mouth...are you saying you don't give him the respect because he's not old, not wise....or not white?

No. I absolutely respect him and respect that he's the President.

Like I said right after that (and I think it's too nuanced a subject to be taking things out of context), I wouldn't have that problem at all with Colin Powell. He fits this societal norm of an authoritative image much better than Obama. Hell, Morgan Freeman as President in Deep Impact was literally the most believable part of the movie.

I don't think it's about one attribute being negative, but that any deviations from the accepted norm lessens our unconscious response. I think Hilary would've given me the same trouble, again not because I think a woman doesn't have the ability to be President, but just due to what I'm accustomed to.

See what I'm saying?

Now, you could definitely argue that a byproduct of that is an underlying societal norm of slight racism. I don't disagree. I do disagree with this broad labeling of any dissent as racism though. It's just as faulty a generalization as racism itself.

Well...the southern racist litmus test.

Was it the Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression?

I do disagree with this broad labeling of any dissent as racism though.

Who is it that's doing that?

Who is it that's doing that?

Anyone who thinks it's anything but racially driven is simply playing ostrich. the use of terms like "Nazi" and "socialist" are nothing more than cover words for what many of these folks really want to say wich is "F'ing Nigger!"

Just do a search here for "racist" and "racism" for the past year or so, and look at how often it pops up as an excuse to explain away anti-Obama opinions.

I dont quite think so. this vitriol was gaining steam even before the man won the nomination and way before any clear cut "policy" points were clarified. it's been pointed out that most of these protesters cant give even one clear assesment on a single policy point. ask an intelligent question and all the can do is froth and scream socialist. anyone remember all the talk of Obama and his "Black agenda"?

I remember clearly election night when i ventured forth to enjoy a drink or 2 of Makers mark. the comments from the gentleman about how he couldnt believe america elected a "Nigger for President" and how everything he ever worked for his entire life was now all gone down the drain!!!! Really?? simply electing the man ruined everything about america? but yea i'm sure those statements were made from after some deep abiding intellectual analysis.

I feel damn well qualified to spot rasicm seeing as i was raised by a deep south family with ties to the KKK. saw it in the eyes and attitudes of the people i loved.


I'm sure you can always find people who are going to say things like that.... I just flatly do not believe that people like that amount to anything more than a minute percentage of the population.....


Dispite your in depth analysis of the racial bias while you were drinking Makers Marks I just don't believe we are *that* racisit of a country.... :)

Who is it that's doing that?


haha ?

That Senator calls Obama a liar and he is making a racisist comment..... That is the play it is getting....

How about they just prove Obama is *not* a liar and shove that down his throat? Seems like the best way to shut him up.

But What I am hearing is he is racist ....

Well...the southern racist litmus test.

Was it the Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression?

*in a deep Southern drawl*

Sir, there is nothing Civil about war!

:p

It's not insignificant that J.C. is an old man who grew up in Georgia before civil rights, integration, etc. While he's obviously no hayseed now, his point of view will forever be anchored by formative experiences that are not necessarily relevant anymore.

Obviously, some of those teabag types are racist, but attributing the whole thing to racism is nonsense.


I think this is more likely. I actually know a few people who consider themselves part of the tea bag movement (go to the parties, etc) and none of them are racist.

This seems more like someone trying to make something out of race that just isn't there and is ignoring the fact that the dems are having a hard time passing this president's legislation too let alone trying to blame racists.

haha ?

That Senator calls Obama a liar and he is making a racisist comment..... That is the play it is getting....

How about they just prove Obama is *not* a liar and shove that down his throat? Seems like the best way to shut him up.

But What I am hearing is he is racist ....


The problem is that when Obama states that the bill does not cover illegal immigrants, it says that very clearly in the bill, and the person who screams liar knows full well that the bill clearly states that it will not cover illegal immigrants. What more proof is needed? Should we infect an illegal immigrant with a disease and use hidden cameras to catch someone treating them for free?

It is much like the birther movement, scream that he was born in Kenya and then challenge the accused to prove otherwise while invoking the constitution. From what I recall, constitutionally, the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser. Where were these people when McCain was running? I don't recall Panama, where McCain was born, being a state. Before anyone goes off I understand where and why McCain was born there and the laws concerning it, he was and is constitutionally qualified for the office.

But why call the man a liar when you know full well the bill does what you want it to do? Therein lies the potential racism.

LOL and last week I had a very angry retiree proclaim to me that illegals being given access to free healthcare is in our constitution. I politely asked for proof and was told that someone on Fox news was saying that. I again asked for proof and was given a link to http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

/forehead

I actually know a few people who consider themselves part of the tea bag movement (go to the parties, etc) ..


I don't know but I cracked up reading that, tea baging partys?!

I actually know a few people who consider themselves part of the tea bag movement (go to the parties, etc) and none of them are racist.

they may not be racist, but they're all total morons.

The Euro Muppet has spoken! No other point of view is now relivant, because he says so. Phear teh wrath of his "retard" and "moron" pooh slinging. You have been warned!

So let me get this straight.. Jimmy Carter calls millions of Americans racist just because they do not like Socialized medicine, Cap and Trade, Foreign policy? I see.

they may not be racist, but they're all total morons.

/whew thanks for a highly relative and enlightening post I was worried you'd just call anonymous people names

But why call the man a liar when you know full well the bill does what you want it to do? Therein lies the potential racism.

I disagree....it's the same old partisan crap all politicians do. Spread false information about something they don't want passed. Even if it's patently false most of the 70% slob public won't bother to listen to the facts, or believe them even if they do. Perception>truth. I still see no reason to play the race card.

So let me get this straight.. Jimmy Carter calls millions of Americans racist just because they do not like Socialized medicine, Cap and Trade, Foreign policy? I see.

Os is a great example of what I was talking about in my last post.

So let me get this straight.. Jimmy Carter calls millions of Americans racist just because they do not like Socialized medicine, Cap and Trade, Foreign policy? I see.

Carter did go over the top a bit, there are definately a majority on the right who oppose based on idealogical and policy grounds. However, it is a minority of Americans that oppose it.

Obamas numbers are slipping due to lack of forceful leadership, he was elected on the issues of health care reform with at the very least a strong public option, reforming Wall St and breaking up the big banks, getting out of Iraq, removing and or severely restricting the constitutional violation of the Patriot Act, restricting lobbying.

Unfortunately what we have seen is a bending to a very vocal yet very small minority so we get mandated donations to the insurance companies, no reform on wall street (the banks are now larger than they were with derivatives and CDS's still the norm), continuation of the patriot act and its constitutional violations and lobbying so rampant that it has even caused those in congress some eye opening epiphanies.

So, we get all of the things the right is for, corporatism/removal constitutional rights/high powered unrestricted lobbyist and nothing of substance for the majority of Americans.

Like Dick Durban said..."They own this place" and he didn't mean the majority of Americans who voted for substantive change.

/whew thanks for a highly relative and enlightening post I was worried you'd just call anonymous people names

well, im sorry if it hurts your feelings, but i think i have reality on my side when i say that people who partake in glenn becks retardation are massive morons.

If the end result of your thinking is calling people you don't even know morons, you should probably stop.

I guess that's called "tolerance" in Euro Muppet Land....

If the end result of your thinking is calling people you don't even know morons, you should probably stop.

I guess that's called "tolerance" in Euro Muppet Land....

i dont need to know them to know that they are complete idiots. it has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with reality.

So, you know for a fact that these people are of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25?

Otherwise you are biloviating your OPINION, not facts. Now fire back with something containing the words "moron" and 'retard" so you'll feel smarter than the average Euro Muppet.

So, you know for a fact that these people are of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25?

Otherwise you are biloviating your OPINION, not facts. Now fire back with something containing the words "moron" and 'retard" so you'll feel smarter than the average Euro Muppet.

as you wish...

http://i31.tinypic.com/2lunts.jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/rvvaeq.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/18dbbk.jpg



and, purestrain comedy gold

http://j.photos.cx/2d0a19743b9208283e20d319fd37ecb8-1-1a8.jpg

if you need more proof, maybe you should use teh googlez.

I think for the first time in a long time on this forum I've found someone to ignore.

Os is a great example of what I was talking about in my last post.

And conversely it's the reverse for Carter.. Perception>truth... It's a two way street Ail...

as you wish...

if you need more proof, maybe you should use teh googlez.

Yeah, if I put "Euro" and "Muppet" into Google, I get...http://ayonae.com/image.php?u=58&dateline=1097852734 (http://ayonae.com/member.php?u=58)

I'm sure you just picked random pictures, and not the ones that only had misspellings in the signs.

And Osg, you can't expect things like that to apply in both directions. That would be fairness, or something.....:eek:

And conversely it's the reverse for Carter.. Perception>truth... It's a two way street Ail...

Agreed...and I realize most of the crap you post here is to get a rise out of evile liberals. ;)

The confederate flag is not flown by pothead Californian states rights advocates.

Deep seated racism is why Republicans don't assimilate a natural new voting block of people who think like them: Latinos.

Ummm, weren't they responsible for getting GW into the White House, on his first run?

I remember hearing about how he courted the Latino vote and it helped boost him in during that election.

Presidential candidates paid little heed to Latino voters until 2000, when George W. Bush spent more to reach them than did his Democratic challenger, Al Gore, Barreto says. That election was the "turning point when both campaigns and candidates did major and aggressive Latino outreach," he says. "Before, it was sporadic. It would happen here and there."



http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0714/p01s05-uspo.html

It apparently didn't work well enough for George since he lost the election in 2000 so that's a pretty poor argument.

It apparently didn't work well enough for George since he lost the election in 2000 so that's a pretty poor argument.


Jesus Christ.

"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."Just for fun, and before we turn to name calling, without using Google or Wiki, can you explain the basic principles of Marxism? For the bonus round, point out direct connections unique to Obama and not to any of his Republican predecessors.

NO thank you.. I know what it is an do not need to in anyway shape or form explain it to you.. You are incapapble of rational thought...

That's a good answer. Sounds like every other rabid right winger these days using communism, Marxism, and fascism in the same breath without ever having to define them or being able to actually point them out in President Obama's policies. Or a better way to phrase it - you started the name calling, the burden of intellectual proof is on you.

NO thank you.. I know what it is an do not need to in anyway shape or form explain it to you.. You are incapapble of rational thought...


Translation: I really have no clue and don't want to embarrass myself by posting it.

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:

I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.

I will complain about the destruction of my 2nd Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.

I will foreswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls. Also.

I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:

* Social Security

* Medicare/Medicaid

* State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

* Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

* US Postal Service

* Roads and Highways

* Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

* The US Railway System

* Public Subways and Metro Systems

* Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

* Rest Areas on Highways

* Sidewalks

* All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009 federal senate appropriations)

* Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

* Public and State Universities and Colleges

* Public Primary and Secondary Schools

* Sesame Street

* Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

* Public Museums

* Libraries

* Public Parks and Beaches

* State and National Parks

* Public Zoos

* Unemployment Insurance

* Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services

* Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)

* Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)

* Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)

* Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking

* Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies

* Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies

If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forego my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care

I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist locations, including but not limited to:

* Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History

* The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments

* The government-operated Statue of Liberty

* The Grand Canyon

* The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials

* The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery

* All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC

I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forego their government salary and government-provided healthcare.

I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.

I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.

I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.

Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.

Upon reaching age 65, I will forego Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF __________ IN THE YEAR ___.

_____________ _________________________

Signed Printed Name/Town and State

Sounds like every other rabid right winger these days using communism, Marxism, and fascism in the same breath without ever having to define them or being able to actually point them out in President Obama's policies.


Was it not common practice in communist, Marxist and fascist regimes to spy on the citizens, require the carrying of proper identification papers, and imprison people without charges for indefinite lengths of time?

Where were all the protests during the last administration by these wing-nuts?

Was it not common practice in communist, Marxist and fascist regimes to spy on the citizens, require the carrying of proper identification papers, and imprison people without charges for indefinite lengths of time?

Where were all the protests during the last administration by these wing-nuts?Fascism is fascism, but Marxism and communism would need to be divided between the actual ideal/philosophy and the label applied to communities or nations which can often be different from the ideal. I would say that in the case of actual implementation of those ideals, you're on the right track - although I'd still like to here Osi or any other current protester demonstrate the difference between Obama and previous administrations, with a particular eye towards those of President Bush.

In no way am I defending the protesters of the last administration. I have several friends who were arrested during protests against Bush in New York, and their actions were anything but excusable. The big difference I see idealistically was that Bush was only called a fascist, not a Marxist or communist. Certainly some of his actions bent that direction, and sadly Obama has started to do the same with some policies. But the communism/Marxism lines are little more than fearmongering, and babble from the uneducated or uniformed. All this type of fearmongering does is prevent any rational discussion of real issues.

there is wisdom with the fair skinned one!

It apparently didn't work well enough for George since he lost the election in 2000 so that's a pretty poor argument.

Al Gore lost in 2000, revise much?

Al Gore lost in 2000, revise much?

I think the issue is and will always remain that Gore received a clear majority of the popular vote and with the unfinished recount of the Florida vote which was moving him ahead in the ballots. Gore did lose the election but won the vote of the people. Bush was made President by the Supreme Court and was clearly not elected by the people.

See, that's why I didn't want to address that statement. Now we are gonna get into an Electoral College vs Will of the People discussion.

See, that's why I didn't want to address that statement. Now we are gonna get into an Electoral College vs Will of the People discussion.

Uh... no

He would have even won the electoral college vote if not for all the shenanigans.

LOL! Koolaid, much?

In the context of the original statement, pandering to the Hispanic vote wasn't enough to let GWB win the popular vote regardless of the electoral college decision.

LOL! Koolaid, much?

I would think with your "libertarian" leanings that you would be on the side of a full and fair recount vs the court ordered stop the recount and let the judges decide.

I would agree, if I though it would have changed the outcome. The man was gonna get into office, even if he had to sue to do so. Would the country had been better off it it would have been settled in a trial? Or a Civil War part deux?

He got into office, Did some good things (shock of shocks!) and he messed some things up. Just like I'm sure Obama will. Difference is, when Obama 'messes up' only the 'right-wing nutjobs' will be the ones to point them out.

Plenty of people are pointing out problems with Obama's policies. The right wing nutjobs haven't managed to leave the carefully manicured lawns of their own imagination and aren't even at the grown up table, much less invited to talk with the adults.

I would agree, if I though it would have changed the outcome. The man was gonna get into office, even if he had to sue to do so. Would the country had been better off it it would have been settled in a trial? Or a Civil War part deux?

He got into office, Did some good things (shock of shocks!) and he messed some things up. Just like I'm sure Obama will. Difference is, when Obama 'messes up' only the 'right-wing nutjobs' will be the ones to point them out.

You are an idiot.. Gore was gaining major ground in the recount.

I would agree, if I though it would have changed the outcome. The man was gonna get into office, even if he had to sue to do so. Would the country had been better off it it would have been settled in a trial? Or a Civil War part deux?

He got into office, Did some good things (shock of shocks!) and he messed some things up. Just like I'm sure Obama will. Difference is, when Obama 'messes up' only the 'right-wing nutjobs' will be the ones to point them out.


I am confused then as to why the republicans were calling for a stop to the recount, surely it would have been in the best interest of the country and remove all doubts as to the fairness of the outcome.

As far as the Bush sucked or did good argument I'll let history speak for that.

You are an idiot.. Gore was gaining major ground in the recount.

I don't know which makes me more amused; your 'intelligent discourse', or your claim of psychic abilities.

Rover, perhaps the fact that the recounts were not done in a timely enough manner is the reason they were asking for the Supreme Court for intervention. We could still be counting to this day. Would that have been in the best interest of the country?

Don't get me wrong, I for one think the ballots should have all been counted. However, if they were so successful in 'stealing the 2000 election' Why didn't they simply do the same thing during the McCain/Obama election?

Malse, you may want to re-read my post with parts in the single quotation meant in a sarcastic manner.

Since when does anyone read before replying.

Rover, perhaps the fact that the recounts were not done in a timely enough manner is the reason they were asking for the Supreme Court for intervention. We could still be counting to this day. Would that have been in the best interest of the country?

Don't get me wrong, I for one think the ballots should have all been counted. However, if they were so successful in 'stealing the 2000 election' Why didn't they simply do the same thing during the McCain/Obama election?


The recounts were being steadily done, the timeliness of it had nothing to do with it. The recounts were stopped by an order of the supreme court from what I remember. As far as "we could be counting to this day" well, there's a lot of things we could be doing to this day like say...we could still be mired in Afghanistan or Iraq or we could be in a financial jam and pumping trillions of dollars into a failed system. But hey, who are we to speculate what the outcome would have been.