The Washington Post article started with this sentence: “Fox News’s news-aggregation Web site, Fox Nation, made an odd and many say “race-baiting” editorial decision Friday when it splashed a story about Obama’s birthday over its homepage with the headline “Obama’s Hip-Hop BBQ Didn’t Create Jobs” and a photo of Obama next to three black celebrities who attended.”
What, no mention of all the watermelons, chitlins and cake-walking?
The unfair and unbalanced message was clearly intended to incite racial animosity. And it did. One “real American” posted, “Nice collection of the FBI's ‘Most Wanted’ mug shots.”
I may be going out on a limb here, but I strongly suspect FOX(R) is the favorite “lamestream” media choice of the Klan. Perhaps I should consider revising my FOX(R) term to FOX(K).
One would wonder what the Right’s reaction would have been a few years ago if CNN posted a headline, “Bush’s Aristocrat Tax Cuts Cotillion Didn’t Create Jobs.” Imagine the howls of indignation and shrill accusations of bias.
One person’s comment summed it nicely, “You know, if President Obama walked on water, the Fox News headline would read, “Obama can't swim.”
“Irreverence is the champion of liberty, and its only sure defense.” – Mark Twain - 1888
Blog Archive
About Me
- Dave Dubya
- History will not judge us kindly if we as a nation fail to defend and promote democracy. I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom. I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated, unidentified, and off-topic trolling will be deleted as spam.
Posts
115 comments:
Dave, you mean this race-baiting headline?
Stevie Wonder...hip hop?
JG,
Yes, that's the one. Thanks for linking to it. I develop a rash if I link to FOX(R).
That's all? Because of those few seconds, I'm feeling nausea and a throbbing headache.
And I know my IQ just dropped 50 points. ;-)
Fox(KR) works.:)
No one should be surprised to see racial stereotyping and snark from Fox. They operate under rocks for slithery fellow haters and resenters, and they do it for money.
These are the same slugs who couldn't say enough positive about G.W. Bush, who spent more time on vacation than any modern president. Never mind he had two wars, a recession or sluggish economy, Katrina, corruption rampant at the Justice Dept. and spooks torturing captives in violation of U.S. and international law going on back at work.
There is only one way to describe people like those at Fox, their viewers and their choice of leaders: perverse.
Yep, the quality of the debate has definitely been restored here now. Good job everybody!
dave w, i see you are now like hugo chavez controlling the media.
yup just let only pro nanny state comments.
lets face it, free kicked both yours and jg's ass every time lol.
go smoke some killer dope with Ellis D who is another marxist like yourself.
T. Paine, sarcasm will get you everywhere. :-)
TP,
Debate? I thought this was thoughtful commentary and discussion...Well, apart from Anonymous. But I believe even stupidity and ignorance should get at least one chance to be demonstrated.
How fair and balanced is that?
He really makes the rest of us look quite bright. I've never seen anybody so completely wrong in EVERY sentence. I wonder how much he's had to drink. At least we provide amusement for him. Apart from the contrast he provides, he would be a complete waste.
Thanks, Anon. Now back under the bridge you go.
Future,
It works well.
SW,
Perverse is a kind word. Hey, I thought Clinton was to blame for all that.
There's nothing new about Fox race-baiting. "Obama's Hip-Hop BBQ" is just the followup to "Barack the Magic Negro" and Michele Obama being "Barack's Baby Mama." And don't forget their "accidental" headline about "Obama bin Laden" being assassinated.
Once again we see the new definition of racism at work: it has nothing to do with the content of the statement, but the subject of a statement.
Following on your hypothetical, Dave, if Bush had hosted a party and invited three hip hop artists to perform, the headline would not be interpreted as racial. Since our president is half-black, the statement is evidence of racism on the part of Fox. Thus the subject, not the statement itself, determines when something is racist. Not good.
I'll have to respectfully disagree that this qualifies as "thoughtful commentary." Are we now to believe that "hip hop" is a racial slur?
HR,
The tone was obviously hostile and suggestive. Tom Hanks is a big star, yet the photos were only of black people. There were more whites than blacks there. Why would a "journalist" do such a thing?
Just what is a "hip-hop BBQ". And was it even a "hip-hop BBQ" to begin with?
We get the connotation.
Come on.
Dave, here's my issue: you guys keep calling us racists and drop in references to the Klan, but the best evidence you can muster is "hip hop," "hostile and suggestive," and connotations.
If we're as racist as you say, you should have plenty of direct evidence at hand. Not statements, suggestions, and connotations that have to be broadly interpreted. I can tell you that conservatives and the Republican Party are not racist, so stop looking for it in Fox headlines.
If it was done on something like the conservative equivalent of the Daily Show (were there one), it would not be inappropriate. Obama is black and African Americans are rightly known to listen to hip hop, and it could be construed as humorous.
Done on FOX Nation, a site I never visit, I assume it is very inappropriate.
However, I don't think it is racist, per se. I think they take jabs at the stereo types Obama has, not out of a love for those stereo types, but out of a hatred for Obama. I don't think they are saying being black is bad. Why do they hate Obama? They hate his politics. The Republican Party does not hate blacks. I am sure you are not applying otherwise, but I was at a site earlier this week where they said exactly that and probably 20 readers offered their accord, complete with selected examples.
In short, I only find it to be inappropriate because if it was posted on a news site, instead of a political satire site.
Everyone tends to be too sensitive. I once wrote an article about why I am racist. I don't really think I am. I tend to like foreign things, though, so that is a form of race distinction.
HR,
I keep calling FOX Republican for a reason. FOX and Republicans are dedicated to the demise of the Obama presidency no matter what the consequences are to the public. That agenda has been clearly admitted. Race-baiting has been a tactic all along.
This is not an isolated incident by any stretch. Obama was asked what was on his i-pod and said:
There's still a lot of Stevie Wonder, a lot of Bob Dylan, a lot of Rolling Stones, a lot of R&B, a lot of Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Those are the old standards. A lot of classical music. I'm not a big opera buff in terms of going to opera, but there are days where Maria Callas is exactly what I need. Thanks to Reggie [Love, the president's personal aide], my rap palate has greatly improved. Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert.
How did FOX(R) Nation respond? Their headline said, the President “Loves Gansta Rap". No mention of Dylan or Coltrane, let alone Maria Callas. Why would that be? Could it be the same reason as the “hip-hop BBQ” with only blacks in the photo? I see you avoided my point entirely. What about the pictures of only black men under that headline? What is a “hip-hop BBQ”, anyway? Are you afraid to go there?
Well? We’re waiting. Please translate the FOX(R) language for us if it means something other than the connotation we see. Tell us how that is journalism or news.
What happened to Beck when he called Obama a "racist who hates white people"? Nothing, he was “just doing his job”. Compare that to the “liberal” media condemnation of Kanye West when he said Bush doesn’t like black people.
What do you suppose the bone-through-the-nose teabagger's sign suggested at the FOX(R) tea party?
The race-baiting is indefensible and brings shame to our country. Obviously there's a severe fault with "conservatism" when it sees only liberals as racists.
Who do you think is naive enough to think conservatives and Republicans are not racist? You and Limbaugh do your best to portray racism as only on the left
It is called projection, and you bet your ass there are republican and conservative racists, far, far more than democrat and liberals racists. You could never admit it, but everyone not on the far Right knows it is true.
The only people I call racist are those that have proven it by their own words or actions. I never said all conservatives were racist, but if you think none are, you need to step out from the propaganda into the real world. You continue your denial of reality but don’t ask me to do the same.
Give me a break.
John,
It is fair to say Republicans hate Obama’s politics, and it is fair of them to oppose those politics. However, more than politics were associated with these FOX(R) tactics.
Many would say "jabs at the stereo types Obama has" would be racist. It is a racial stereotype. Stereotypes alone are not equal to racism, but are a cognitive foundation of racism. Does FOX(R) show contempt, disdain and anger towards Obama?
If we were to add emotional attachments like contempt and disdain and anger to stereotypes, then we see the line into prejudice has been crossed.
Dave, have you completely lost your ability to spot racism when you see it? In addition to "hip hop" you want me to believe "gangsta rap" is a racist code word?
As a rule I don't try to defend other people's words or headlines -- just my own. Just to be a pain in the ass I'll point out that the headline (Obama likes gangsta rap) is factually true. So what?
Unlike you, I cannot know their motives for headlines like that. Perhaps the headlines are interesting to the intended audience. Perhaps they're the only notable thing to come out of reporting of a party of Obama's.
But you making the leap that Fox is trying to incite their racist audience is a step to far, in my opinion.
You lumped me in with the race baiting ("You and Limbaugh do your best to portray racism as only on the left"), and that's your error. I will not defend it here, but will explain it: Republicans point out reverse racism on the part of the left because apparently only the left still sees race in everything.
You see, the right doesn't see racial hatred in words like "hip hop" and "gangsta rap" but somehow the left does. Like Dr King asked of us all, the right prefers a color blind society.
“It is called projection, and you bet your ass there are republican and conservative racists, far, far more than democrat and liberals racists. You could never admit it, but everyone not on the far Right knows it is true.”
How does even a quasi-objective observer even begin to dispute that statement? Everyone not on the right believes it, ergo it must be true. Talk about faith-based statements… Are there racists in the Republican and Tea Parties? Yep, just as there are in nearly any large group of the American populace, including Democrats and various progressive groups. Dave, I agree with your implied point that it is incumbent upon us to point out true racism and denounce it when it shows its ugly head; however, if one has a predilection towards finding it, chances are he will, even where none really exists.
I don’t know the motivations behind the photographer or editor that was responsible for President Obama’s picture with the “black rappers”, but I find it interesting that you take note of it. Maybe I am weird, but if I were to see such a picture as you described, I would think “There is our worthless president and three musicians”. I wouldn’t think, “There are a group of ‘black’ men. Why is it that the supposedly non-racist left still seems to want to identify and codify people by the color of their skin pigmentation, rather than by the content of their character?
By the way, Mr. Harper, I do not know about your other references, but the “Barack the magic negro” bit was something that the well-know “right-wing” rag called the Los Angeles Times picked up as a quote from that white racist named Al Sharpton.
HR,
Again, just what is a "hip-hop BBQ"?
(Obama likes gangsta rap) is factually true. So what?
Factually true? Then tell me, what is "gangsta rap"? Could you explain why that alone was selected for a headline, like only black faces in the photos? No connotation whatsoever, eh? Right.
Perhaps the headlines are interesting to the intended audience.
Perhaps, indeed. The pattern is clear.
("You and Limbaugh do your best to portray racism as only on the left"), and that's your error. I will not defend it here, but will explain it: Republicans point out reverse racism on the part of the left because apparently only the left still sees race in everything.
You just did it again there.
You really are utterly incapable of admitting racism exists on the right. This is why the rest of what you say is taken with extreme skepticism.
I understand your party loyalty. You cannot admit to the unpleasant truths.
TP,
Thank you for admitting racism exists on the Right. As you've seen, I admitted its existence even on the Left as well. It is a matter of degree. This is why the Right is obsessed with "reverse racism" being somehow equal to the more pervasive bigoted racism on the Right.
Tom was referring to the revolting "song" played repeatedly by Limbaugh. Call it satire, but the hate was clearly there.
Who do you think is naive enough to think conservatives and Republicans are not racist Uh oh. I spoke to soon. I don’t think either party has a political agenda of racism. They are made of people. A few people are racist.
Stereotypes alone are not equal to racism, but are a cognitive foundation of racism. Completely true, and just as irrelevant. All stereotypes are the foundation of their extremes, as is all humor that targets any difference. I love the Daily show, the foundation of everything ugly if you use the cognitive extremes it could theoretically create. I find the logic to border on slippery slope reasoning.
It is true that the Republican organizations are the ones that favor racist-like things. They are the ones with the opportunity to make racist remarks toward our president. They love Clarence Thomas and they hate Obama’s politics. That, not racism, is the motivation for all things we interpret as racist. I do agree wholeheartedly that some Republicans are racist.
We should change the subject. There are so many places to target Republican ideology. Regretfully, this is not one.
I will now retreat to the safety of my curtain, sir.
Fine Dave, if you require a line-by-line rebuttal and you can't read my words fairly...
"what is a "hip-hop BBQ""
I have no idea... the work of a clever headline writer? Are we all going to start analyzing headlines for racism? Seems we could spend our time doing better things. Neither hip hop or BBQ are racist terms.
"Factually true? Then tell me, what is "gangsta rap"?"
Gangsta rap is a self-defined genre by the people who perform it. If you have a gangsta rapper on your iPod, it's reasonable to assume you like gangsta rap.
"Could you explain why that alone was selected for a headline, like only black faces in the photos?"
No, I can't. The work of another clever headline writer? I concur with T.Paine's response: "Maybe I am weird, but if I were to see such a picture as you described, I would think "There is our worthless president and three musicians". I wouldn’t think, "There are a group of ‘black’ men.""
"You just did it again there. You really are utterly incapable of admitting racism exists on the right."
You're being dishonest. To satisfy you, I will tell you that I am certain there are racists across the country across the political spectrum, including on the right. Have I passed your litmus test to continue? Unlike you, I don't assume most on the right are racists and that racism is almost exclusively on the right. I do not think Fox is emitting some dog whistle to racists with their headlines.
"Republicans point out reverse racism on the part of the left because apparently only the left still sees race in everything."
Again, I was not trying to defend the behavior, but to explain it. It seems truly foreign to you and you don't seem to be able to comprehend how conservatives can make such charges, so you were in need of an explanation.
To help you further, I will show it to you again with your own words. You assume that "gangsta rap" is a racist term, but have you considered WHY you think that? Do you associate blacks with gangsters?
If so, perhaps you are the one with the racist tendencies. I'm sure you're aware that there are Latino and Yakuza gangs, and neither are made up of blacks, so why exactly is use of the term "gangsta" evidence of white-on-black racism?
For the record, I assume you are not racist, but hopefully you see the point: you see race in everything. Isn't that closer to racism than conservatives who try to ignore race as a factor?
I wish you and your cohorts on the left would be as generous and assume conservatives are not racist. At least until you find direct evidence of racism, not just connotations and suggestions.
Heathen Republican, I expect you won't get this because you won't want to, but I'll try anyway. It's something Leonard Pitts Jr., one of the best newspaper columnists this country has ever had, related a few years ago, as best I can recall it.
Either he or a friend of his was walking down a city street one day when he approached a parked car with a white woman and a couple of kids in it. The woman hit the door locks and closed the windows. He was dressed neatly in a sport shirt and slacks, looking more like Joe College than anything else, but that didn't matter. He was a young black man, and the woman perceived him as a potential threat.
There certainly are young black men in our society whose approach would've justified that woman's response, just as their are young white men. The difference is that to elicit that response, the whites would've had to be wearing baggy shorts, a half T-shirt, chains, etc., and otherwise look like a gang banger, skinhead, outlaw biker or what have you. All a black has to do is be black.
The incident made Pitts (or his friend) feel different, "other" and unfairly lumped in with the worst of his race for no good reason. Such is the power of stereotype images and guilt by association.
(continues)
That Fox headline was clearly intended to evoke images of tough young black men, the boyz in the hood, gang-banger type, in the minds of many white Americans who, like the woman in the car, tend to react on the basis of stereotype images and very fuzzy logic powered by the notion, "They're all alike, y'know." The Fox headline writer wanted to advance the idea Obama is different, "other" and out of public view enjoys the entertainment favored by any ghetto bro'.
You can bet your last buck if the entertainment at Obama's party had been by Clint Black and Faith Hill, Fox's headline writer wouldn't have worked a musical angle into his handiwork. He intended to evoke a certain image and elicit a certain reaction. He added the dig about jobs to make it a cheap-shots twofer.
This is just one of many reasons why intelligent, well-educated and decent people regard Fox as a sewer and what it has to offer the public as sewage. That there is demand for it says something disturbing and regrettable about our society.
Race Card? Yawn. Predictable.
Anderson, I don't know what the woman's motivation for locking her doors was when Mr. Pitts walked by her car. It could very well have been an irrational fear based on racist ideology. But you don't know that, nor does he.
Maybe she was a recent victim of rape and was fearful because a man was walking towards her. Maybe she mistook him for her violent ex-boyfriend when he was further down the block. Maybe she just made a habit of locking her car doors when in the city with her kids and it just happened that Mr. Pitts coincidentally happened past at that moment.
Unless he stopped and asked her and got confirmation that she locked the door because of his skin color, it is simply a supposition on his behalf.
Again, if one goes looking for racism everywhere, one is bound to find it everywhere, even where it wasn't intended or even exists.
Next, I recall how George Bush Senior had the Oak Ridge Boys perform for him at the White House. Using your logic, I could assume that news reports of that event intended to portray Bush as some ignorant hillbilly hick because he listened to country music.
I agree absolutely with Heathen. You and Dubya are seeing boogeymen where there likely aren't any. If you have evidence that someone's intentions behind something or actions were meant to point out the differences because of race, I will be right there by your side denouncing it, even if its source is from the right.
In the meantime, Myste was right when he said that there are far better targets for your angst against the right than this largely fabricated issue, sir.
Dave, after rereading my last comment, I see that I didn't make it clear why I think you were being dishonest... I'll even soften it to "somewhat dishonest." So let me explain.
It is axiomatic that racists exist. I didn't deny that racism exists, yet you required explicit agreement and said I was part of the problem. I think that was unfair.
SW Anderson, I'm not sure what the point is of your little anecdote unless you too assumed my silence was an explicit denial that racism exists.
First, there are other reasonable interpretations besides a racist one, but let's assume you're right that the mother locked her doors because of racial fear. Is she a Republican or a Democrat? Women voted more heavily for Obama than McCain. If she's a Republican, should we extrapolate her reaction out to all Republicans? You seem to be trying to take one seemingly racist action and applying it to everyone you think is a racist, then drawing some relationship to Fox headline writers. Quite tenuous.
(Dave, as an aside, I'm not a fan of moderation since your site is so active. There's a sense of dislocation with the delay in seeing everyone's comments.)
John,
I said, ‘The unfair and unbalanced message was clearly intended to incite racial animosity.” I said nothing about conservatives or even Republicans all being racists. We have a history of FOX(R) to take into consideration. Remember “Obama is a racist who hates white people” was said on FOX(R) without apology. How can we dismiss intentions to incite racial animosity towards the president? I don’t think we can. We’re not making this stuff up to draw imagined conclusions.
HR,
Connotations and suggestions have meaning and desired effects.
Unlike you, I don't assume most on the right are racists. This is dishonest. I have never made that assumption. You want to ascribe it to me for some reason.
I don’t assume anyone is racist unless they wear something like a Klan robe or Nazi uniform. I do assume FOX(R) will say anything to negatively portray Obama as something “other” than a “real American”. They have a history of doing so.
You assume that "gangsta rap" is a racist term. There you go again. No, I don’t. Context is everything. If FOX(R) said, “The president listens to Coltrane, Dylan, Callas, and even a little gangsta rap”, it would be honest and in context. But they had no intention of being honest, fair, or balanced, did they?
Again, where has Obama declared he “loves” gangsta rap? Wouldn't that be the basis for such a headline? He said, “I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert.” You and FOX(R) translate this as “Obama loves gangsta rap”. Even if there were no sinister intentions, it is journalistically inaccurate unless Obama said, “I love gangsta rap”. Instead he said he “would not claim to be an expert”.
You and FOX(R) made the statement, not Obama. See the difference and connotation? Unless Obama admits he loves gangsta rap or otherwise demonstrates so, the FOX(R) line is a lie. And you repeat it as a loyal Republican. Happens all the time.
All I know is you and FOX(R) claim to be authorities, and this is being selectively promoted for some reason.
This reeks, but don’t take my word for it. Let a black person’s perspective be heard.
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/foxs-obama-loves-gangsta-rap-headline-continues-ghettoization-of-president.php
The Fox Nation claim that the "President of the United States Loves Gansta' Rap" is a bit far fetched and nothing but a scare tactic.
Yeah, I can definitely see that as a scare tactic. My original point stands validated. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, not to mention clearly biased in favor of FOX(R).
Same with the hip-hop BBQ. No hip hop artists performed. So what makes it a hip-hop BBQ, other than the fact they only posted pictures of black guys and wanted to associate Obama with scary urban youth?
TP,
You have further validated my point.
You mention, “President Obama’s picture with the “black rappers”. What makes you assume they are rappers? The headline, of course. Those are obviously the kind of boyz in the hood that go for hip-hop BBQ’s.
You and HR concur that, I would think “There is our worthless president and three musicians”. I wouldn’t think, “There are a group of ‘black’ men.
Are they indeed hip-hop musicians or “black rappers”? One looks like a basketball player and another looks like a comedian. Tom Hanks is an actor. He was there. Why didn't they show him, I wonder?
SW,
That Fox headline was clearly intended to evoke images of tough young black men.
Exactly.
Free,
Yes, the race card is predictable from FOX(R), home of "Obama is a racist with a deep seated hatred for white people".
HR,
I've opened the gates until I see reason to screen again.
Come on Dave, this is getting ridiculous. Even John picked up on your assignment of racism to Republicans. You brought up gangsta rap, not me.
I don't claim to be any kind of authority, but apparently you have the ability to determine racism from inocuous headlines. Your claim that Fox is racist or inciting racism in its audience does not come with any Klan robes or Nazi uniforms, so what is your basis?
HR,
This is an emotionally charged subject and I want to make it clear I do not make the blanket accusation that Republicans or conservatives, or any groups are innately racist. And I am certainly not calling anyone here a racist.
My point is FOX cares little for truth and incites negative emotions regarding the president with suggestive and racially tinged (not necessarily racist) words. See the Beck quote as proof of my point.
And FOX(R) brought up the gangsta rap, remember.
Just,
It's a free country. Of course they can.
Bottom line, it didn't create any jobs. Then again, government never does.
Ok, is it racism when blacks attack only whites at the WI state fair? Or in Philly or at parks in Chicago? Or is that a hate crime?
Free,
What about those hip-hop jobs? I bet they got paid.
JTF,
Are trying to make a point, or make an excuse for some of your own hate?
Heathen Republican, saying of any people that "they're all alike" is wrong. No one is suggesting all Republicans or conservatives are racist. I will say there is a clear, strong and long-running correlation.
Republicans' Southern Strategy initiated during the Nixon years was designed from the ground up to flip the South from majority Democrat (Dixiecrat, really) to majority Republican, and it worked. The core message was, "We're not going to go all over the country promoting segregation, but we're not going to come down here and change your Southern way of life either."
It's no coincidence Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where a few years earlier three civil rights advocates from the North had been murdered in cold blood.
Tea party ranks are shot through with racism. I spent quite a bit of time last fall following links someone else provided to three Web sites full of photos taken at tea party rallies in different cities. Two of the sites belonged to tea partyers, one belonged to a progressive blogger. Photo after photo showed ugly racist signs, posters, T-shirts, banners, license plate frames, even tattoos. There were also videos showing tea party speakers and rallygoers uttering racist tirades and slurs.
Are all Republicans racist? No, but virtually all of them active in politics have no problem pandering to and accepting support from people who are. Tea party ranks are shot through with people who are openly and proactively racist.
Is it any surprise Fox propaganda operations deliberately pander to racists and exploit their racism? Fox hacks not only do this, it's SOP.
SW Anderson, for your evidence of Republican racism, you had to go to Nixon, Reagan, and progressive blogger photos of signs at Tea Party rallies?
You then make the leap to Fox deliberately pandering to racists and exploiting racism, still without demonstrating direct racism on the part of Fox. I'm sorry, but "hip hop," "BBQ," and "gangsta" do not qualify as clear evidence of racism.
First, I have to say that the Tea Party rallies are not racist gatherings. As I said before, there were probably some racists in attendance, as I'm sure there are racists in attendance at union rallies, pro-choice rallies, and Code Pink rallies.
Since next you'll probably point to more photos of racist signs, I'm compelled to inform you that opponents of the Tea Party regularly infiltrated the rallies with racist signs in order to discredit them using the media. Naturally, the unbiased media complied.
Seriously, with all the liberals commenting here, surely one of you can provide clear, unambiguous evidence of racism on the right... in this decade. Or perhaps, as John suggested, we could just drop this and move onto substantive issues.
"What evidence do you have of opponents of the Tea Party regularly infiltrating the rallies with racist signs?"
My evidence is no better than progressive blogger photos... I have conservative bloggers and conservative columns documenting accounts at actual Tea Party rallies. Since you will no doubt discount my sources, I expect you will discount SWA's sources as well. (Here's one example for your condemnation.)
"That sounds like a desperate attempt at denial of racism within the tea cult."
So now the tea party is guilty until it proves its innocence? Very liberal of you. I've asked for concrete unambiguous evidence of racism and it hasn't been provided. I confess, I cannot prove the tea party is not racist when confronted by no evidence.
"Fox and other organizers never condemned the signs is troubling enough..."
In fact, I have personally seen condemnation while watching the Fox News Channel from no less than O'Reilly, Hannity, Krauthammer, Kristol, and Hume. It is difficult to locate transcripts or video evidence for you because the search terms are too broad, but since I've probably watched more FNC than you have, you'll just have to take my word.
"Your Republican voters are truly a dim lot to begin with, seeing how many cling to their falsehoods of Obama's citizenship, birth, and faith. That would surely be a symptom of at least ignorance and hate, if not outright racism."
Fringe beliefs, all of them. None are or were official Republican positions, and mainstream Republicans do not believe them. Shall I start quoting left fringe beliefs and attribute them to all Democrats? Rumor is trees cry out when you cut them...
As for ignorance, Democrat voters still cling to their belief in Keynesian economics, affirmative action, extended unemployment benefits, and global warming, all of which are more dangerous falsehoods, in my opinion.
I tire of the race conversation, and I don't want any more of your readers to drop off because the radical right has taken over the comments. I'll let the Fox hate-fest continue without me.
Hmm... It's akin to them asking when you stopped beating your wife.
I am incredulous that progressives claim the mantle of "tolerance".
Heathen Republican, are these recent enough for you?
Tea Party, GOP Groups, Target Minorities for Voter Suppression Schemes
In Harris County, Texas, early voting has begun, and, as the Houston Chronicle reports, there are complaints that a Tea Party group has been hovering over voters, interfering with election workers, and disrupting lines of voters waiting to vote in minority neighborhoods. The Justice Department is investigating and interviewing witnesses.
----
The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 25, 2007
Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.
----
Lamont, Jackson, Sharpton — get the picture? Huh? Huh?
----
From 2004
Caging
Shortly before the 2004 election, Palast also obtained a caging list for Jacksonville, Florida, which contained a high number of African Americans and registered Democrats. The caging list was attached to an email which a Florida Republican party official was sending to RNC headquarters official Tim Griffin.[7][8][9]
----
2004
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/3/amy_goodman_questions_john_mccain_on
AMY GOODMAN: I’m looking at a piece by Joe Connesin at salon.com, who writes, "Watching her husband embrace the president in the new commercial must be distressing to Cindy McCain whose former dependence to prescription drugs was highlighted in an anonymous campaign leaflets the night before the South Carolina primary. Before anyone knew that Rush Limbaugh would make addiction fashionable on the far right. According to _Newsweek_’s inside account of the campaign, she began sobbing loudly while watching the returns that sank McCain’s campaign. Trying to soothe her, her husband said, 'Think of how the Bushes felt two weeks ago in New Hampshire,' where Bush had unexpectedly lost the primary. Between her sobs, she replied, 'We never called his wife a weirdo.' The assault on McCain’s family didn’t spare Bridget, the litte girl they’d adopted from a Mother Theresa orphanage in Bangladesh. In the mouths of anonymous quote 'push pollers,' who called Republican voters across South Carolina to smear the maverick reformer, Bridget was transformed into an illegitimate black baby, a variation on Bill Clinton’s mythical black son. Christian conservatives eagerly spread baseless rumors that McCain had consorted with prostitutes, another old Clinton-bashing smear, and that he was also homosexual." So very interesting, now insiders saying that McCain’s dislike of Bush is legendary and of course going back to this time 2000.
Yeah, I get it the only time democrats lose is when the other side cheated, spent more money or the voters were stupid.
Interesting is how I am starting to see that those who claimed they were liberal on this blog are now starting to identify with the Democratic Party. Has the DNC become the front for liberalism and socialism, and taken it over with their radical agenda? An agenda that Harry S. Truman or JFK would not call an agenda of the Democrat Party but one of the far left Communists Party of America.
Think I am making that up?
Take a walk on the wild side and go to the CPUSA's website (http://www.cpusa.org)
and tell me what the difference with their stated goals and those who post here and call themsleves liberals or progressives.
We will be waiting.
Predictably, seeing the facts aren't helpful so it's time to change the subject, Just the Facts tries to take the discussion completely off topic.
This is standard operating procedure for conservatives/Republicans/libertarians/tea partyers when their arguments get nailed with facts, and they can't bring themselves to admit things are not as they claimed.
SWA, you posted about elections correct IE the reason democrats lose elections? So how did my post go off topic except you didn't like what was said?
If democrats lose it's because the other side, cheated, spent more money or the voters were stupid, what else could it be?
Here's a new idea, check the liberal/progressive agenda to that which can be found on the website I provided and maybe just maybe you'll see the truth. It's the agenda that was rejected, not GOP cheating that caused the defeat.
I gotta be careful or Dave will moderate posting again if I seem to be attacking, but check it out for yourself and tell me what the differences are.
SW,
We didn't have to wait long.
Like clockwork they go from distracting to playing their favorite card, the commie card. Pay no attention to the race-baiting FOX(R). We're not talking about FOX(R). That is not the subject we are discussing.
Quick everybody! look! Commies!!Commies, I tell ya, Commies!!
Happens all the time. Just The FOX(R) is right on schedule again.
What about those hip-hop jobs? I bet they got paid.
I'm sure that will fix the economy. Puff Daddy Economics? Well, at least he made money, better than Paul Krugman can claim.
Anyway, the race question is booooriiing. It's irrelevant except to a handful of black flash mob participants and overly sensitive white liberals with grey ponytails. Liberals love the race card, too bad you can't listen to your little patrol saint when he tells you the race card is maxed out. You kids have played it so much, it's lost all it's punch. Everyone just yawns when it's played... since about 1988.
Yeah, didn't you kids get the memo?
Just the Facts wrote, "Yeah, I get it the only time democrats lose is when the other side cheated, spent more money or the voters were stupid."
No, that wasn't the point of my preceding comment at all. This is just your attempt to put words in my mouth and turn the discussion to what you want to talk about, not what the post and ensuing comments are about.
Since you either didn't bother to follow the thread or have difficulty with reading comprehension, I will explain.
Heathen Republican tried to brush off evidence I provided of Republican racism as somehow being too far back in time to count. I think that's lame, but I came back with a list of more-recent examples of Republican and tea party racism.
I didn't say anything about that being a reason Democrats fail to win elections, you did. It's off topic and beside the point of Dave's post and this discussion.
Dave, SWA, JG,
All you have to do to prove the liberal/progressive agenda is not the same as the Communist Party's is go to their website (http://www.cpusa.org)and list your differences. Tell me where you disagree. Instead of being offended by the question ,I would think you would happy to express the differences, so this issue could be taken off the table.
I'll even help you out a bit, here are some of the major issues for progressives, tell me how your position is different from those on the web site.
HEALTH CARE
TAXATION
MIDDLE EAST WARS
JOB CREATION BY GOVT.
DEBT CEILING
TEA PARTY
ENVIRONMENT ISSUES
Look, I'm not calling you anything, I'm just asking you SHOW ME the differences.
Free,
The thing that's boring is the Right's denials of the race card, no matter what FOX(R), Beck and Limbaugh tell the true believers of their cult.
As long as there's Limbaugh, Beck, and FOX(R) there will always be race-baiting. And I will call them on it.
The Right will always pretend there's nothing there, and then play the card again.
Flash! Obama loves gangsta rap and hip-hop BBQ's.
Nothing to see here folks. Just a black president who love gangsta rap and hip-hop BBQ's with all those black rapper guys pictured.
No race card flashed there, right? Connotations? What do they look like? I've never seen one. Just fair and balanced truth in journalism.
Like when Rush says liberals are the racists. Nope. No race card at all. Never. Nosireee.
Quick!
Look everybody!! There goes a Commie!!
Speaking of commies, there goes Just The FOX(R) playing the favorite card in the fascist deck...again.
Now THAT is boring.
No race card flashed there, right?
Wrong. After all, he IS black. What's he supposed to like, iced tea and finger sandwiches? The only people who are upset that Barak Obama had rappers and BBQ at his birthday party are white liberals who are worried Republicans who could care less are racist over it. Anyone with a shred of common sense takes it as a matter of course that a black guy would want to eat black food and listen to black music on his birthday. What Republicans (and myself for that matter)actually care about is that while Barry sets a record for golf outings, vacations and lavish parties the country is falling into the toilet. Perhaps you've noticed.
NOBODY CARES about Obama's race... well except you. What does that say?
So what if Obama has gangsta rap on his I-pod and posed for a picture with some rappers.
I have known quite a few lily white kids that also like gangsta rap and would love to get a picture posting with famous rappers.
Hell, their idea of a great birthday party would be a Hip Hop BBQ!
If this is your worst complaint of racism from Fox (R) and the Republicans, you really don't have much of a complaint, Dubya.
How about we discuss some real issues like the implosion of our economy as congress and the president go on vacation again?
Just the Facts, if you want to compare your understanding of what liberals want with communists' agenda, start a blog, write a post and deal with any comments you get.
This is Dave Dubya's blog and his post. He gets to set the topic. You're off topic and trying your best to take the discussion off topic. At this point it's clear your problem isn't reading comprehension, it's lack of manners and self-discipline.
T. Paine wrote, "If this is your worst complaint of racism from Fox (R) and the Republicans, you really don't have much of a complaint, Dubya."
If the hip-hop BBQ headline was the only example of racism, of pandering to racists, to ever come out of Fox (R) it might not rate a mention. You know very well it's part of a pattern that's been going on since Obama launched his presidential campaign.
This is a free country. People can be racists, express racist sentiments and pander to other racists. The First Amendment ensures that.
But freedom of expression cuts both ways, and people who disapprove of racism and pandering to racists are free to condemn those things and call out racists, panderers and manipulators. That's what Dave has done, and rightly so.
Heathen Republican wrote: "Seriously, with all the liberals commenting here, surely one of you can provide clear, unambiguous evidence of racism on the right... in this decade."
HR had said my previous examples of Republican racism are too old to matter. I mentioned those examples because they are longterm strategies begun in the 1960s that continue today.
Nevertheless, I came back here with a list of recent examples, with links, of right-wing racism extending from 2004 to 2010. This is standard operating procedure for the political right, for the Republican party and its ancillary groups.
It's interesting that neither Heathen Republican nor anyone else on the right has mentioned even one of the recent examples I provided. Not one.
Racism on the right is real, palpable, despicable and it's ongoing. As Dave said, the whole lot of you jump to deny it whenever your pols and "operatives" like Breitbart pull this crap. When confronted with solid, documented examples, you try to change the subject.
Either call out and deal with the racists in your ranks, or accept that your side accepts, even depends, on racists and racism. If you go on denying there are racists in your ranks, deny the things they say and do, don't be shocked and annoyed when those on the left shine a light on it and criticize.
The truth is, if you disapprove of racism and of appealing to racists, you should be writing Fox (R) to criticize things like the hip-hop BBQ headline instead of coming here and claiming Dave is just imagining things.
Once, or twice, again Mr. Free is exactly wrong. But then, I suppose he has more info than Factcheck.org.
President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, CA.
President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001.
Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, spent less time "on vacation" during his first year than his son, but spent more days than President Obama. According to travel records provided to FactCheck.org by the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, the former president took six trips — spanning all or part of 40 days — to the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1989.
But at least two recent presidents — by Knoller’s count — took less "vacation" time during their first year than President Obama — Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
He says we’re “upset that Barak Obama had rappers and BBQ at his birthday party”. Back to his favorite trick of mischaracterizing again. What else is new?
More dishonesty from Mr. Free? Yawn. Boring.
TP,
SW is correct; I wouldn’t mention the “hip-hop BBQ” had there not been such a record of race-baiting from FOX(R). We have documented the history as you can plainly see, Beck most prominently. No apology, no suspension, no nothing, but more money and cover from FOX(R). And the FOX(R) hate continues. Stay tuned.
Just who are those famous rappers, anyway? I recognize basketball star Charles Barkley and comedian Chris Rock. I guess if they’re pictured at the “hip-hop BBQ” that makes them rappers. Gangstas too, I bet.
SW,
Just The FOX(R) is itching to call us commies. I welcome the foolish parroting. Others have the sense to refrain from the false accusations, but many hold on to that cult indoctrination like Moonies. We all know who the Moonies are. They are the cult followers of Bush family friend, Washington Times propaganda rag owner, and good Republican Sun Myung Moon. They never acknowledge that. I wonder why...cults are such good business, after all.
Must have something to do with Republican “values”...or is it indoctrination? It’s hard to tell them apart.
Dave SWA,
I am not calling you anything, I know better than that. Even though I am called names, I have promise to rise above that behavior and focus on the issues.
So, in order to figure out why my question has got some people so upset and since I do not know the answer, I'll dig it up my self and post it here.
The question is
What is the difference between the positions liberals/progressives have on the issues and the positions of the Communist Party,USA?
For the record:
Anonymous Just the Facts! said...
Sorry Dave, I did not mean it personal
I can see now how it was personal and do apologize to you.
August 10, 2011 10:16 AM
Blogger Dave Dubya said...
JTF,
Thank you. I hope you understand my point that we can have better discussions without resorting to ad hominem personal attacks.
My purpose is not censorship, but civility and continuity of conversation. Name calling is immature and a dead end. I know it's not easy, for me and most others, but I think it is worth trying to maintain.
August 10, 2011 10:54 AM
I have not broken my word to you Dave with my question.
We just can't catch a break from you guys. I tried to be polite and withdraw quietly because I thought I was dominating too much of the conversation. As we've all learned, some here on the left have delicate sensibilities and leave when there are too many conservative voices in the comment thread. I didn't want to give Dave a new reason to moderate comments.
But apparently, if a charge from SW Anderson goes unanswered, he believes he automatically wins the argument. That's simply unacceptable.
"Tea Party, GOP Groups, Target Minorities for Voter Suppression Schemes"
Since you probably only read mainstream and liberal media sources, you're probably unaware of 2008 voter intimidation in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate.
...You know what, SW, I went through your so-called list of evidence, and it's just annoying. All you have are anecdotal examples compiled by left-wing organizations. Your examples are just like what I described earlier: the act itself isn't racist; it's racist because it occurs in a minority/black/African American neighborhood.
Where are your examples of Republicans using racial epithets, proposing segregationist legislation, banning blacks from white facilities, or refusing to hire black employees?
"HR had said my previous examples of Republican racism are too old to matter. I mentioned those examples because they are longterm strategies begun in the 1960s that continue today."
Do you really want to go back to the '60s? Perhaps you're unaware that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally held up in the House by a Democrat (Smith); skipped the Senate Judiciary Committee because of opposition from a Democrat (Eastland); was filibustered by 18 Democrats and 1 Republican; and was passed by 80%/81% of Republicans and 61%/69% of Democrats (House/Senate respectively).
Let me conclude with this: I'm a conservative. Race is irrelevant to me personally. When I read Fox headlines, I do not see anything racial, either implicit or explicit. I maintain that you have to squint really hard and want very badly to see racism as "real, palpable, despicable and... ongoing." You clearly want to, and you are not willing to entertain contrary evidence.
Once again, I depart this particular thread. My future silence should in no way be construed as agreement with or an inability to refute SW Anderson's lies.
JTF,
Since you're doing your best to politiely change the subject, I'll give you something.
Communists oppose capitalism completely. Liberals and progressives rightfully understand the advantages and benefits of regulated capitalism under a democratic republic.
The Right wants zero regulation and no rules what-so-ever to limit Big Money's consolidation of wealth, and power over our political process.
We want more democracy, while the Right wants less democracy.
Great Dave,
Now we are getting some where with polite civil discussion about things that concern us all.
Out of respect to you the Blog Master, I will not post any more about this issue on this string.
Thanks for opening the door to a free dialog.
Till Next time,
Heathen Republican, you're living proof of the adage, "None are so blind as those who will not see."
You can dismiss any evidence you want. The Houston Chronicle, a respected longtime Washington Post columnist, Wikipedia and an award-winning syndicated columnist and author aren't all making things up. Voter suppression efforts were directly aimed at racial and ethnic minorities; that's documented. Shirley Sherrod's help for a low-income, older white couple was deviouswly turned into something ugly by a racist right-wing "operative," Breitbartm to pander to racists and ignoramuses. Fox ran with that story and got burned when the truth came out. Are you going to try to deny that?
Clearly, the three monkeys symbol applies to more than generic evil.
I have known quite a few lily white kids that also like gangsta rap
I would say I was one of them but I'm not lily white being half Latino - and having both Arab and Jewish relatives (talk about a mixed family right!) I will say this, I like rap a lot more than I like the Mexican Polka, and salsa music sucks.
If this is your worst complaint of racism from Fox (R) and the Republicans, you really don't have much of a complaint
Agreed 100%. I'd rather move on to some real issues also... and get off this terribly boring subject.
Racism on the right is real
Oh really? Please explain then why the two biggest rock stars in the Republican Party are Marco Rubio (Latino) and Allen West (Black) not to mention my own experience in the Republican Party the chairman of which is... drum roll please... Michael Steel who is... BLACK. I was a Republican from September 11th 2001 until about the time George Bush signed TARP and was very active in the party. I saw a lot of screwed up things there, racism just wasn't one of them.
But then again we know that in Progressive circles "Racist" is code for "Not Socialist" so if that's what you mean then you're 100% correct.
Oh, and about Obama taking a lot of vacations, I should clarify my views on that. I'm happy whenever he goes on vacation, as he's not around to screw up the country. In fact, I'd be over joyed if he'd take a vacation till around January of 2013. I think the country would be much better off that way.
Communists oppose capitalism completely. Liberals and progressives rightfully understand the advantages and benefits of regulated capitalism under a democratic republic.
There is a difference between Communism and Socialism. Socialism has many forms. You're a "Democratic" socialist. I know the breed well, I lived in Europe for a number of years after all and the place is rife with them. When you talk about regulation, I laugh. In one breath you complain about corporate interest interfering with government and in the very next advocate the two become closer yet. What is wrong with this picture? If you want more "corporate influence" over government dubya, by all means "regulate" it more.
And speaking of regulations, I'm currently trying to incorporate a small LCC to start my own business when I retire from the Army next year and man... if I have to deal with any more "regulations" I'm going to shoot someone. It's frankly insane there are so many stupid rules. I suggest you try it, just once. It might open your eyes.
free,
The following is from Senator McGovern. Certainly not a supporter of conservative small govt, as well as a Democrat.
"I learned first of all that over the past 20 years America has become the most litigious society in the world."
"The second lesson I learned by owning the Stratford Inn is that legislators and government regulators must more carefully consider the economic and management burdens we have been imposing on U.S. business."
"I'm for protecting the health and well-being of both workers and consumers. I'm for a clean environment and economic justice. But I'm convinced we can pursue those worthy goals and still cut down vastly on the incredible paperwork, the complicated tax forms, the number of minute regulations, and the seemingly endless reporting requirements that afflict American business. Many businesses, especially small independents such as the Stratford Inn, simply can't pass such costs on to their customers and remain competitive or profitable."
"I do know that if I were back in the U.S. Senate or in the White House, I would ask a lot of questions before I voted for any more burdens on the thousands of struggling businesses across the nation."
free,I know McGovern, felt your pain.
"Oh, and about Obama taking a lot of vacations, I should clarify my views on that. I'm happy whenever he goes on vacation, as he's not around to screw up the country. In fact, I'd be over joyed if he'd take a vacation till around January of 2013. I think the country would be much better off that way."
AMEN, Free! But of course my agreeing that our president should stay on vacation instead of doing more harm to our economy will probably be construed as "racist" by some folks.
Ya know what I have determined? It seems that the definition of a "racist" is someone that is winning an argument with a progressive.
"The Right wants zero regulation and no rules what-so-ever to limit Big Money's consolidation of wealth, and power over our political process.
We want more democracy, while the Right wants less democracy."
Oh by the way Dubya, I am definitely solidly on the right. I am also very much for democracy in our representative republic and I am for certain necessary and constitutional regulations. I just didn't want your erroneous generalized statement to the contrary to go unchallenged, sir.
A few authoritarian tokens in the GOP prove nothing. Righties love to lie about Soros being a Jewish "collaborator" with Nazis. No doubt there were a few Jews in the German Army and even the Nazi Party hiding their heritage to survive, or profit.
Rubio is part of a vanishing Right Wing Cuban exile fringe.
If a Latino or Black is authoritarian, war loving, and greedy enough he will be a Republican. They would share the primary GOP "values".
Don't conflate the need for the rule of law and sensible regulations for big corporations with bureaucratic hoops and hurdles for small business.
I'm all for trimming and streamlining the process to grow a small business. Bring the problems to light and let's deal with them.
The problems with corporate personhood, money as free speech, de-regulation of Wall Street, as well as the repeal of Glass/Steagall are the real issues we are contending with.
TP,
I’m happy you are pro-democracy. Voting for Republicans is not exactly the best way to show it. The Republican Party has proven itself repeatedly to oppose democracy. I’m not just talking about the GOP crony Justices stepping on the majority of American voters to give their friends Bush/Cheney the White House. The Republicans push for disenfranchisement of thousands of voters in democratic districts. They have purged eligible voters and stripped their rights. They have trumped up a fake “voter fraud” crisis that would deprive thousands of voters their rights in order to prevent the comparatively microscopic incidence of real vote fraud. Bush even went so far as to fire a US Attorney for refusing to prosecute a groundless case of “vote fraud”. Look at what the corporate criminal governor in Florida is doing to suppress voter registration. The cases are far too numerous to mention here,
Conservative Republicans do not want large voter turnouts and suppress the districts they are vulnerable in with limited numbers of voting machines, which have been rigged by Diebold (R) to further corrupt democracy. History shows all this to be true.
But don’t take my word for it.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” – Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
Dave,
As I am unable to find an email address to request this of you privately, I respectfully ask this of you publicly.
As you, I have asked questions on this string that really did not follow the theme you had started. For that I publicly apologize.
Having said that could you start a sting with the question something like this.
How is the Communism agenda different from the Progressive/Liberal agenda?
How is Socialism different from Communism?
Just an idea, I thought there would be no harm in asking.
Just,
Are you implying that you
A. Don't know the answer to these questions?
B. Do understand communism?
C. Don't understand liberalism?
D. Think if you can link the term communism to the term liberalism that link will prove that liberalism is bad by association with something else you think is bad?
If Dave knows the false assumption that is prompting the question, it may be easier for him to assist you in your search for education.
TP,
Once again you fit the mold with "It seems that the definition of a "racist" is someone that is winning an argument with a progressive."
That is very funny, but from an absurd perspective.
First:
Nobody is calling you, or anyone here, a racist.
Second,
The "winning" of the argument is only in your biased thinking.
Third:
There you go again with the classic Right Wing tactic of unilateral re-definition.
Fourth:
There you go again with the classic Right Wing tactic of distraction, even avoiding your own misinterpretation of the FOX(R) "hip-hop BBQ" photos.
Back to reality.
There is clear connotation of race, and intent to marginalize the president, with the deliberate and selective use of words like “loves Gansta rap” and “hip-hop BBQs”. Neither phrase was actually said by the president. If they said, “The president has a little rap in his i-pod along with Coltrane, Dylan and Callas,” that would be true. If they said, “Obama’s birthday BBQ did not create jobs,” that would have been truthful. Instead of being truthful, their words were intended to frame Obama as being “other” than most Americans, and not to inform. For FOX(R) has a job to do, and it is nothing to do with telling the truth.
It is propaganda and it is false. FOX(R) is a shameless, dishonest, unprincipled propaganda organization.
Shame on you for defending them for such behavior, it is corporate media at its worst.
None of the above, John.
I simply would like to know from those who call them selves Liberals/Progressives what they beleive and how they think their beliefs are different from the beliefs as found on the website CPUSA.org.
Not a trick at all. Should be a walk in the park for the superior IQ's of those who call themselves liberal/progressive.
JTF,
Here's that troll thing again. I answered your question and told you the significant difference. You said you'd drop it, and then went and asked again.
That seems to indicate either disrespect or a lack of comprehension.
Communism, as practiced by the Soviets and Chinese, is opposed to democracy. Liberals and progressives are very pro-democracy.
Now you have two very significant differences. Do you understand?
Just,
I have learned that I should not speak for all liberals. I can speak for a good many, and though I consider your request to be quite trollish, I am intrigued.
So do this. Create a bullet-pointed and documented (links) list of everything that those people stand for, or the main things listed on their site, and post it, either on your own site, or here if Dave is OK with it, or elsewhere if not, and I will be more than happy to go over each of the points on the list and do my best to assist you.
I stand for principles, not labels. A Nazi can help his grandmother cross the street, and I will not flinch. I will be a like a Nazi and help my grandmother across the street.
I don't mind being called socialist, which happens regularly, and now something you consider worse, communist, so long as these labels stand on for American Democracy.
If you have found a communist group that supports democracy, social justice and equality, and separation of church and state, that reject oligarchy and plutocracy and theocracy, then I want to be labeled one of those, so hop to it.
Let's get this show on the road.
The Heathen Republican, you stated...
"Seriously, with all the liberals commenting here, surely one of you can provide clear, unambiguous evidence of racism on the right... in this decade. Or perhaps, as John suggested, we could just drop this and move onto substantive issues.
It appears George Allen's political gaffe, while on the campaign trail in 2006, could only be construed to be a racist attack, wouldn't you say? Contrary to Mr. Allen's assertion that he didn't know what the word meant (yeah, sure!), and that he made it up (yeah, sure, again!), it's obvious that he was directing a racial slur toward James Webb aide, S.R. Sidarth, a man of Indian ancestry.
In Mr. Allen's own words:
"This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent... Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."
Does this qualify as "clear, unambiguous evidence of racism" to you? Because the second condition you requested, "in this decade", is unquestionably a fact.
This isn't a "substantive issue"? In my mind, it seems to be the additive in the fuel that drives the conservative movement engine.
JG,
Allen repeated the "Macaca" slur and laughed while boasting about his not being in the "real world". But that's not racism either, acccording to the Right. No, Joe Biden is the racist for his "Indian at the 7-11" comment. Just ask them.
Funny how none of the Indians at the YouTube posting of Biden were offended. Not so at the Allen clip.
But I suppose the GOP/Right Wing answer would be, "What do a bunch of "Macacas" know, anyway?"
With that unfortunate comparison, I believe I will soon post some nonracial, but similarly hateful and divisive behavior, by the Right.
Lord knows it is unending.
Dubya, you constantly claim that you are for democracy. Indeed you restated it to JTF, “Liberals and progressives are very pro-democracy.” While I think this is typically true, your party is not always consistent with this stance. Your single-minded obsession with the “Bush stole the election” fallacy is proof.
The law was strictly followed in the determination of the presidency. Gore and the Democrats kept wanting to do recounts until they got their “desired” results. The Florida Secretary of State certified the election results after the single legal recount as per their state constitution. The Democrats were livid and falsely claimed fraud because that idiot extraordinaire Gore lost Florida. The SCOTUS certified that the Florida election law was properly followed and thus the result were valid.
Your Diebold conspiracy sounds akin to a 9/11 truther or birther nut-job conspiracy. The fact that Bush did not win the national popular vote but did win the electoral college vote is what put him in the White House as per the dictates of our Constitution. To claim this was “stealing the election” is to show a disregard for the rule of law and Democracy accordingly.
I would frankly be far more suspect about Al Franken’s finding enough votes to put that ass into the senate.
As for the Weyrich quotation, I acknowledge the accuracy of it. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” The past presidential election is proof of this statement. You had people that had NO idea what Obama stood for or anything about him or his record but voted for him because it was cool, trendy, historical, and the hip thing to do. It came down to the equivalent of an American Idol contest. When KNOWLEDGEABLE and politically aware voters make up the majority of those casting ballots, you end up with the 2010 mid-term election results. That said, I too don’t want the politically un-educated or those that are ignorant of current events to vote either. They have every right to do so and I would fight for their right to do so, but I prefer those people just stay home if they aren’t going to take the time to find out what and who they are voting for accordingly. That is far different than actively suppressing voters.
As for the “hip hop” photo, well I admittedly never saw the picture. I made the erroneous assumption that it was of Obama and some musicians because of the context of the debate. I am a huge NBA fan and would have definitely recognized Sir Charles otherwise. It makes no difference though in the overall context of the discussion. Who cares? I don’t think the typical Fox (R) viewer is all that different from myself and therefore would also miss the “racist propaganda” undertones you found in that hip hop BBQ headline.
I find it amazing the disparity between words and actions on the left in this regard. I recall watching one of the Sunday morning talks shows a few years back. I think it was “This Week” and they had the former KKK Senator Robert Byrd as a guest. I recall him talking about “niggers” and that he “didn’t mean anything racial by it because there were also such thing as white niggers” too. I remember the Republicans were outraged by it but the story disappeared after a day buried in the papers of the statist media.
Lastly, JTF, if Dubya would rather not host your links as Myste suggested, I would be more than happy for you to do a guest posting on my site with this information. Indeed, I would be very interested in seeing your questions and Myste’s responses accordingly, sir. It would also have the added benefit of not upsetting our fellow liberal friends here on Dubya’s site that would be annoyed by the inevitable comparisons thereof. Finally, I respect Myste and despite his satire at times I think he is as honest, fair, and objective as a progressive can possibly be. He would give you a great response accordingly, I suspect.
Cool!
I'll do it Mr. Paine.
So long for a little while Dave.
@Everyone (and especially T. Paine, who made the ill-fated comment):
Your single-minded obsession with the “Bush stole the election” fallacy is proof.
You remind me of my favorite Bill Maher piece. You have to remember the fine details of the election to fully appreciate this. I am not saying that election was stolen, as that is an unsettled question. I am merely saying that this is what happened:
The Grinch Who Stole the Election
I believe we can now finally lay this issue to rest.
Good fight, Mr. Paine.
Jefferson's Guardian, you brought up an excellent example of Republican racism in this decade, and made a excellent comment. I tip my cap. I'm surprised I didn't think of it.
Myste, I used to kind of like Maher until he decided to take a turn for the nasty. Now he is nothing more than a hateful progressive that thinks everyone that doesn't think just like he does is an inbred idiot.
Further, if I were to channel my inner liberal (it is REALLY deep inside me) I would be screaming that Maher's clip that you provided had all of the hallmarks of anti-semitism. While he was simply trying to be clever, I don't think this was the case.
His "charming" little ditty is probably the best defense of the "Bush stole the election" debate that I have seen though. (Which is to say that my original assertion stands unrefuted by the facts.)
The silence was deafening about the real racism of the respected former Democratic historian of the senate Robert Byrd though.
I agree that Bill Maher went from a humorist to a political commentator. I am completely OK with that. He has become kind of angry and aggressive. I am not OK with that.
Nevertheless, I like Bill Maher. Even if you don't like his politics, I am sure you will agree that his ideas about God are very good, right?
Oh yes, his ideas about God are exactly right. NOT! I hope he likes warm dry climates.
TP,
Your “erroneous assumption” fits in nicely with the FOX(R) wording and photos we discussed. Erroneous assumption was the entire purpose of the propaganda.
Here we go again. Byrd’s Klan days were well known and not hidden by “the media” and the deafening charges from the Right were always there. People change. Byrd’s words:
"It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career, and reputation. My only explanation for the entire episode is that I was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision -- a jejune and immature outlook -- seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions," conceding that he reflected "the fears and prejudices I had heard throughout my boyhood."
Byrd’s Klan days were long ago in the Dixiecrat era. He became an Obama supporter, didn’t he? What if your standards of judgment, applied only to a person’s younger days, are used to decide your eternal fate, Mr. one-time Atheist? Judge not lest ye be judged.
The case of Bush v Gore reeked of cronyism and conflict of interest. It was devoid of precedent, law, and justice. You say your original assertion stands unrefuted by the facts. Here are some facts to chew on.
As a dark omen of the cronyism to come, we know the friendship between Justice Scalia and Dick Cheney went back over a quarter of a century. Of course the Scalia/Cheney cronyism was not the only influence. Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor all had issues of conflict of interest as well. Rehnquist and O’Connor both spoke of retiring only when a Republican would be in power to replace them.
From The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Spring 2003 by Neumann, Richard K Jr:
During the time Bush v. Gore was being litigated, Justice Scalia's son John worked at the law firm that represented the Bush campaign in the Florida courts, and Justice Scalia's son Eugene was a partner at the law firm that represented the Bush campaign in the Supreme Court.
On December 4, 2000-while Bush v. Gore was pending before the Supreme Court-Virginia Lamb Thomas, Justice Thomas' wife, sent an email to 194 Congressional aides, suggesting that if they wanted assistance in being considered for positions in the next administration, they could forward their resumes to one of Mrs. Thomas' coworkers at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that collaborates with the Republican Party. In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, during her previous employment with a Republican leader in House of Representatives, Mrs. Thomas "spearheaded a leadership effort to gather embarrassing information about the Clinton-Gore administration.
TP, (Continue)
You and HR have political beliefs that contradict the overwhelming evidence of science and investigative research. Your climate science authority is Rush Limbaugh and energy company shills. You think flawed voting machines and climate change are conspiracy theories.
From the conclusion from a Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute Technical Report TR-2003-19, July 23, 2003:
Using publicly available source code, we performed an analysis of the April 2002 snapshot of Diebold’s AccuVote-TS 4.3.1 electronic voting system. We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater. Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.
The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate. We owe it to ourselves and to our future to have robust, well-designed election systems to preserve the bedrock of our democracy.
And Maher is a half Jewish comedian whose censored show was called Politically Incorrect, for Pete’s sake. The hypocrisy of your side was quite evident when those who were always whining about political correctness, pushed to silence Maher.
None of this matters to you, of course. Your prejudiced beliefs are all you need to be politically correct on the Right, the real home of the nut-job conspiracies.
Maher like myself is an atheist, unlike me he crosses into the anti-christian camp.
If anyone is prejudice, it's Bill Maher, at least when it comes to Christians. Another example of the "tolerant" left.
I guess if Bill Maher wants to hate Christians, he can. Its a free country.
But it does demonstrate his ignorance too.
T. Paine, among other opinions, you stated...
"Your Diebold conspiracy sounds akin to a 9/11 truther or birther nut-job conspiracy."
Please, enlighten me, what's your opinion as to why Building 7 collapsed? While you're at it, please elaborate as to why there's no mention, at all, about it in The 9/11 Commission Report. A simple, and explainable oversight, perhaps?
You also mentioned...
"I don’t think the typical Fox (R) viewer is all that different from myself and therefore would also miss the “racist propaganda” undertones you found in that hip hop BBQ headline."
I'm not sure whether that speaks more derogatorily of typical Fox(R) viewers...or you.
“What if your standards of judgment, applied only to a person’s younger days, are used to decide your eternal fate, Mr. one-time Atheist?” Dubya, you make an excellent point and I am indeed humbled some by the comment accordingly. I do sincerely appreciate you pointing this out to me, as sometimes I do indeed forget myself.
As for Senator Byrd, I suspect he did indeed have a conversion of heart regarding his past reprehensible racism. That said, why in the world would he say what he did decades later, and only a few short years ago, on a Sunday talk show? Someone with his past in particular should be absolutely scrupulous in his deeds and words. The fact that he wasn’t and the fact that all of his Democratic colleagues gave him a pass for his inexcusable language was my point and is actually quite telling. It seems politics trumped principles here, and yes I absolutely acknowledge that the Republicans are equally guilty of this charge.
“The case of Bush v Gore reeked of cronyism and conflict of interest. It was devoid of precedent, law, and justice.” First, national politics are an incestuous business and ANYONE vying for the presidency is going to have political connections throughout the country. Gore was no exception either. As for precedent, yes you are right there. There has never been a contentious voter outcome quite like the Bush/Gore one, hence no precedent. Law and justice were absolutely followed, as I said. The Florida state law on the recount was quite clear. It was Gore that wanted to change the rules there. When the recount was finished and he was still short, he wanted to adjust the methodology and jurisdictions to recount again in violation of that state law. The vote was legally and justly certified by Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris accordingly. The only reason the SCOTUS stepped in was to affirm that Florida law was the proper legal authority for this situation and had been administered appropriately; therefore, no other additional recounts would be allowed.
All of your other conflicts of interest are amusing, but indeed such conflicts again are often found in national politics as I already said. Further, your statement that Rehnquist and O’Conner would only retire when a Republican was in to name their replacement is hilarious. Do you not think that Ginsburg and all of the liberal active Justices will hold on until a Democrat is in power to name their replacement? That is human nature. The foolish thing is that O’Connor and Rehnquist verbalized publically what they all privately intended to do.
As for climate change, I have expert scientists that poke all sorts of holes in the theory that are far more reputable than many of the lefts’ and certainly more so than the largely debunked Al Gore and his “I can’t tell an Inconvenient Truth” movie. Piers Corbyn, Fred Singer and hundreds of other experts in their fields are my sources; not Limbaugh, although again he would be more accurate of a source than Gore.
Next, as per your John Hopkins Diebold diatribe, all of those things are indeed concerns. They are issues that I hope have since been addressed and corrected accordingly. By the way, are there any credible allegations of vote tampering because of this, sir? I certainly am not aware of any, and if there were, then they should have absolutely been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As it turned out, it didn’t matter. We got a Democrat big-spender with Bush, just like we would have with Gore.
As for Maher, I am against censoring even that idiot. He has a right to say whatever he pleases. I just don’t have to listen to his nonsense and hate.
Lastly, the ONLY prejudiced beliefs I have and indeed foster are against progressives in governing positions. Even then, I am typically only against their policies and not them personally, unless they have shown a remarkable lack of integrity like Pelosi, Obama, Frank, and Dodd all have done.
Jeff's Guard, well I now understand your point. It must have been Colonel Mustard in the library of Building 7 that brought it down with the candlestick holder! I am not even going to entertain the looniness of going down this conspiracy path.
Next, as to your last snide comment, my intent was simply to mean that I don't see a person as a "black person" or a "white person" like some of you tolerant liberal folk do. I wouldn't have recognized the racism because I don't associate hip hop and rappers only with black Americans. Again, as we conservatives/libertarians have all pointed out, it seems to be you folks that are obsessed with race. Not us.
TP,
False equivalency again.
Gore did not have a personal friendship with a justice. He did not have sons of justices working for him.
Those are clear conflicts of interest, cronyism and, therefore, injustice.
The Supremes could have allowed the last recount to finish, but they chose to be activists instead and didn't. Why? Because they had personal interests in a Bush win.
Bottom line.
Jeff Guard,
I was gonna say something in response to your question/comment about building # 7 until I recalled, it's a waste of time to argue on the internet.
Sorry, can't let this one go by.
Robert Byrd was listed as an example on the left. A former leader in the Klan, just so there's no misunderstanding. According to Dave, Byrd renounced his entire history, backed up by quotes. So his entire history is washed away by, basically, an apology, and the right is unfair to say there is racism on the left. Hopefully we're all on the same page so far.
Jefferson's Guardian provides another (ambiguous) example using George Allen and the word macaca. Applying the Byrd precedent, is it safe to say everyone here will agree that if Allen subsequently apologized for his statement, his record will be similarly cleansed? In which case, it would be unfair for anyone to use the macaca incident as evidence of racism on the right.
While I have not done so, does anyone doubt that a simple web search will turn up just such an apology? Instead of me spending those 30 seconds on a search, can we all just stipulate and move on?
“The Supremes could have allowed the last recount to finish, but they chose to be activists instead and didn't. Why? Because they had personal interests in a Bush win.”
No Dubya. It is because they were following the LAW. They affirmed Florida state law, which was followed adamantly in the recount, because that was the governing legal authority. When Gore and the Democrats knew that they had lost and wanted to try another recount, and God knows how many others, it was appealed to SCOTUS who stepped in and confirmed that the state law was followed and the election results were legally certified. I have no doubts that some of the Justices may have been pleased by the outcome, but regardless of their personal opinions, the letter and spirit of the law were followed. If they had chosen to allow the last recount to finish and be certified, in violation of existing Florida law on the books at that time, THEN they would have been activists. The fact that they didn’t means that they upheld the law. THAT is the true bottom line, Dave, whether you choose to acknowledge and accept it or not.
H.R. I recall Allen apologizing for his statement, but the damage was done. I remember the “right wing corporate media” also went against their own interests and broadcasted and printed the story for days, unlike the Byrd fiasco. I am sure that was an oversight though and no double standard really exists.
Truth, as for your question, I can deny it because there is no evidence whatsoever to support your ludicrous assertion. I imagine Michael Steele, Alan West, Alan Keyes, and other Republicans of color would be as surprised as I would be if you were to produce real evidence of this instead of malicious DNC talking points and slanderous and libelous allegations lacking any credibility whatsoever. If I am mistaken, please give me specifics of how the Republican party panders to racists so I too can denounce it. What’s that statement about repeating a lie long enough so that everyone begins to believe it? (At least on the left, that is.)
The Heathen Republican, you stated...
"Jefferson's Guardian provides another (ambiguous) example using George Allen and the word macaca."
Ambiguous? I hardly think so.
...and you continued...
"...is it safe to say everyone here will agree that if Allen subsequently apologized for his statement, his record will be similarly cleansed? In which case, it would be unfair for anyone to use the macaca incident as evidence of racism on the right."
No, sorry, it's not safe to assume that an apology is equal to an expungement of the incident. Absolutely not! For clarification, you requested: "...surely one of you can provide clear, unambiguous evidence of racism on the right... in this decade." I did.
By the way, I'm sure Mr. Allen apologized after his racial slur. Undoubtedly, he did, but Virginia voters obviously didn't accept it. His opponent, James Webb, won the senatorial seat, which before the "Macaca incident" was considered Mr. Allen's race to lose (which, amazingly, he managed to do).
T. Paine, you sarcastically said...
"Jeff's Guard, well I now understand your point. It must have been Colonel Mustard in the library of Building 7 that brought it down with the candlestick holder! I am not even going to entertain the looniness of going down this conspiracy path."
Why not, you brought it up? I didn't.
So, it's conspiratorial because...why? Because it doesn't jibe with the official 9/11 Commission Report? Or is it because it leaves way too many questions unanswered...too many loose ends...that besides not being answered, aren't even questioned?
I know I'm curious as to how a 47-story building, not struck by an airplane as the North and South Towers were, manages to implode upon itself and fall down just like the other two. Three buildings came crashing down in NYC that day. We've heard, and read, the official account as to why two did. We haven't received an official accounting for the third. Aren't you even a little bit curious?
Michael Steele wa warmly received by the republican party as a whole? I must have missed something.
Alan Keyes says all the right republican things but can't get elected. He was given the spot against Obama in the Illinois US Senate election mostly because it wa an opportunity for republicans to say look how open we are that we'll sacrifice a black candidate instead of a white one.
Herman Cain says the right republican stuff and he'll be gone soon.
Face Tom. The republican party is the party of bigots and thr republicans are experts at exploiting that.
HR,
Nice try.
The man was standing there among Allen's supporters, not a very friendly crowd to begin with, while Allen laughingly mocked and repeatedly called him macaca.
False equivalency, my friend. Maybe when Allen supports a "macaca" for president you can make the comparison. Racist or not, he was being a jerk.
Also false is your statement, "So his entire history is washed away by, basically, an apology, and the right is unfair to say there is racism on the left."
Nobody here said anything remotely like that.
TP,
The SCOTUS was not following the law, they were making it. And they did so with a clear conflict of interest, under a phony Orwellian twist of "equal protection".
You mean "legally certified" by Bush Republicans under a Bush governor, after purging qualified voters from rolls. Democracy needed to play out and the Right stopped it. Sorry, it still reeks.
Besides, it is only one example of countless that indicates the Right's antipathy towards democracy. That is also the obvious bottom line.
Dave and Jefferson, it does fascinate me how those on the left can rationalize away their own hypocrisy, yet are so quick to denounce others for theirs.
You had the choice of being openly hypocritical or simply acknowledging that the Republican Party is no more racist than the Democrat Party, and something in you wouldn't let you make even that small concession. Your hate for Republicans must be very deep-seated.
Ya know, I am fairly well read and have a better-than-average vocabulary. That said, I did not know what “macaca” meant until the George Allen incident. It is not a common expression, to my knowledge, even as a racial slur. I am not defending Allen’s use of the word at all, but perhaps he really did not know the connotations or meaning of the word. That hardly excuses his foolishness in using a word of which he was unsure of the meaning thereof, but in context I am not aware of any other racially charged issues or allegations against Allen throughout his career. It is conceivably possible that his explanation was correct, although still stupid.
Jeff’s Guard, as for building 7, it was in the compound of the World Trade Center. Any number of things could have been responsible for it, from jet fuel and plane wreckage to large pieces of one of the twin towers falling upon it from the initial plane impact. Perhaps that wreckage crashed through the roof of building 7 and ruptured a gas line within it. The falling debris and jet fuel could have caused the explosion consequently. I don’t really know and have not seen footage of this building’s collapse. That said, the landing gear from one of the planes fell and hit the building where the controversial mosque was to be built a block or so away, which technically makes it part of ground zero too. God knows what caused this collapse.
I think there are all sorts of possibilities for why that building collapsed without assuming that Bush/Cheney were responsible for it. (Or the Jews, or tri-lateralist commission, or the Rothchilds, or space aliens etc.) And I brought it up as a foot note for silliness; not as an excuse to dive into that silliness in depth. This is far more of a diversion from the topic at hand then the questions asked by JTF that annoy Dubya so much.
Truth, keep pushing this fallacy and you will have to change your moniker, my friend. The Democratic party has inexplicably been the home for blacks, including politicians for a generation now. While it was seemingly monolithic, that is not the case any longer. Indeed some of the best and brightest stars of the Republican Party happen to be black. The fact that I have to stop and take note of the color of their skin to rebut your false assertion really annoys the crap out of me, which may very well be the whole purpose of you tolerant leftists from the beginning.
Now and in recent years more and more black Americans are realizing the false hope that the Democratic Party has become. More and more are becoming outspoken Republicans accordingly. Some of these good folk have either been elected or appointed to some of the highest positions in the land. A short list will find the amazingly successful former congressman J.C. Watts, Secretary of State Colin Powell, followed by Secretary of State Condi Rice. We have former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes and Tea Party rock star Alan West. Clarence Thomas sits on the highest court in the land and does an excellent job as a Justice accordingly. The leader of the entire RNC was Michael Steele, for crying out loud. Another excellent conservative elected last cycle was Congressman Tim Scott. While you dismiss Herman Cain, he is a serious contender for the G.O.P. nomination for president and would do several orders of magnitude better at governing and leading than our current president, but then so would my 12 year old grand-daughter in comparison.
Did you know that the first blacks ever elected to congress were all Republicans? There were two senators and 21 congressman elected during the reconstruction era and ALL were Republicans. It has been the Republicans that have stood up for people of color and treated them as ordinary Americans. I would submit to you, Truth 101, that it is the Democratic Party that is the bigoted party. They exploit people of color in order to solidify their power base. They tell them that they are victims and that they cannot make it without governmental assistance. It’s interesting how often times the good folk that don’t buy into that line of crap and become successful and proud of their conservatism are often referred to as Uncle Tom’s or worse.
Identity politics is stupid and divisive. Rather than focus on what we have in common and bringing all Americans together, you and the left want to celebrate our “diversity” and what makes us all different. When conservatives don’t focus on those differences, you tout this as racism, but the real racists are the ones that seem to be exploiting that for their own political gains, and they are the Democrats, my friend.
Dubya, it seems pointless for me to try and convince you with facts what you have taken to be a matter of faith with the Bush/Gore election. I give you inarguable facts and you claim that because there were Republicans duly elected to office overseeing the process that there must have been malfeasance committed by them on behalf of Bush. You have no proof, but it sure does make for a good story. I think you should write a screen play and sell it to the hypocritical blowhard ass-hat Michael Moore. Perhaps he can do another “documentary” movie on this fallacious story next. Sorry for the vehemence, but you seem to have stoked some passion in me regarding this silliness.
H.R. your analysis of the situation is spot on accurate, sir! Kudos!
HR,
I wish there was no racism in either party. It exists everywhere.
FOX(R) is Republican.
Again, What happened to Beck when he called Obama a "racist who hates white people"? Nothing, he was “just doing his job”.
Where's the equivalency to that outrage?
Ah, my dear TP,
Now we see the Limbaugh line, it is the Democratic Party that is the bigoted party.
Yes, as long as we trust and believe without question the words of Limbaugh and Beck and FOX(R) and Savage and Coulter, ad nauseum.
And yes, of course, as long as we ignore the history of ACORN demonization, voter disenfranchisement, caging, purges from voter rolls, and the famous "Southern Strategy". And as long as we ignore fear mongering and dog whistles like "Ground Zero Mosque", "Kenyan", "anti-colonialist", "real Americans" Muslims everywhere, and "Gangsta Rap at hip-hop BBQ's"...yes, TP, you can say that.
Now you're on to something Thomas. The democratic party has been taken over by corporatists just as surely as the republican. The effect of this is both parties using race or racism to garner votes.
That Blacks may be abandoning the democratic party is not because of economic or theories about the role of government. They're tired of smoke being blown up their asses. Sadly their choice is either the republicans who exploit the myth of welfare mothers driving cadillacs to the store to buy steak with food stamps, or not vote.
My personal experience from GOTV efforts is they just give up since they rightly believe neither party cares.
I find it amazing that most progressives seem to be genetically incapable of admitting to the possibility that they might have misspoken, let alone admit that they are EVER wrong. I have no problem admitting when my fellow political travelers are not right, but anytime a Democrat is in trouble it seems that the left always circles the wagons to cover for them regardless. That is how you have idiots and integrity challenged folks like Conyers, Hastings, Pelosi, Frank, and Edward Kennedy remain in office despite egregious lapses in integrity and violations of the public trust.
As for your repeated comment about Beck, I guess it deserves an answer. Beck was wrong and over the top in saying this. That said, I can follow the logic he used to reach that conclusion. He made that statement, as I recall, right after the “beer summit” incident where the President of the United States took note of an inconsequential regional story about a decorated diversity-class-teaching cop that had the audacity to question an arrogant man of color that refused to initially provide identification and proof that the house he was “breaking into” was his own. Obama said the cop acted “stupidly” without knowing any of the facts of the case, by his own admission, prior to his statement. He simply assumed that his black professor friend was being hassled by whitey.
He also has done repeatedly questionable things such as instructing his pernicious Attorney General to ignore civil rights or voting fraud cases if submitted by Caucasians but to prosecute those brought up by blacks. His administration even threw out the case against the militant black panther intimidation case against white voters in Philadelphia.
Further, Obama sat in a church that preached a decidedly bigoted black-liberation theology for twenty years. Even in his own words in his book, Obama claimed that his white grandma that helped raised him was bigoted like white folks tended to be.
Obama might not be racist against white folks, and I don’t think that he is, but I can understand how someone looking at the evidence in good faith could make such a leap.
I don’t know about the others, but as for Limbaugh, he is not a racist. He takes people as they are. One of his best friends, employees, and long-time call screener is Bo Snerdly, a black man. He has numerous friends of color in the NFL and from his time working with the Kansas City Royals. He was married previously by his good friend Justice Clarence Thomas. I guess he doesn’t really count as being black though, since he is a conservative, huh?
As for ACORN demonization, nearly all of the allegations were TRUE and ACORN itself fired employees accordingly when the videos came to light. These weren’t simply trumped up charges for political points, Dave. There was indeed egregious wrong-doing on the behalf of ACORN employees that was discovered.
As for you litany of other non-sensical things, they don’t even really warrant a response. Yes, there are fringe right wingers that believe some of those things, but they are not mainstream Republicans and they certainly don’t speak for the party. Further, by Obama’s father’s own writings and politics, he was absolutely and even understandably an anti-colonialist. Just because someone makes an accusation that others might consider unpleasant doesn’t necessarily mean it is not true. Again, the left sure seems quick to defend its own, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Just ask John Conyers and Barney Frank!
T. Paine,
I find it amazing that most progressives seem to be genetically incapable of admitting to the possibility that they might have misspoken, let alone admit that they are EVER wrong.
If anyone else had made this comment I would ignore, but in your case I will make an exception.
Don't you think you are describing most people? Not most liberals? Do you actually think this psychological phenomenon is a liberal one specifically? (Not to imply that anyone here is guilty of that charge. Whether there are those here who are guilty does not interest me). Your type-casting of liberals with this human, not liberal, attribute, does.
TP,
Oh, so the ACORN “pimp video” was journalistic integrity, correct? Give me a break. That was pure smear.
He also has done repeatedly questionable things such as instructing his pernicious Attorney General to ignore civil rights or voting fraud cases if submitted by Caucasians but to prosecute those brought up by blacks. His administration even threw out the case against the militant black panther intimidation case against white voters in Philadelphia.
This is pure Right Wing propaganda, and racial in nature to boot. Where’s your evidence? The Bush Justice Dept. couldn’t find evidence of anyone being intimidated from voting. But you have the evidence? Ok, let’s see it.
You’re not making it any easier to end the case for Right Wing race-baiting.
And there you go again with the poor “victimized” cop thing. You obviously don’t know the real story. I read the police report and wrote a post on it. Remember this all happened after the 911 caller reported the men had luggage and she thought they might live there. What you phrase as “he simply assumed that his black professor friend was being hassled by whitey” was the fact a black man was arrested in his home after the cop had no more business being there.
The items in quotation marks are directly from the police report. From “Gates Gate”:
http://www.davedubya.com/2009/07/gates-gate.html
I read the officers’ report and learned that Gates presented ID after the officer had entered the house. Crowley stated Gates “appeared to be a resident but was uncooperative”. Gates was indignant and annoyed about the cop’s intrusiveness. Crowley asked Gates to “step out onto the porch and speak to me”. That’s a smart way to calm someone down, right?
Crowley reported he was “led to believe Gates was lawfully in the residence”. Then as Crowley was leaving the residence he told Gates he would, “speak with him outside.” So Crowley was followed out onto the porch.
Professor Gates was then arrested for “exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior.”
I have 25 years of experience in a maximum security environment. I have been in many situations that required an even temperament to prevent people from getting hurt. After reading the cops' report, I see this could be a good teaching case for officers to learn about unnecessary escalation of an incident.
Crowley certainly could have been more professional about this. It was obvious that these were not young thugs attempting a B and E. The “step outside” line could have been regarded as over-reaching and even threatening. The situation could have been de-escalated if the cop had a cooler head. After the cop knew Gates lived there, it was the officers’ presence that escalated the situation. Crowley should have left the scene. His business was finished. By his staying, the situation became a contest of egos, not a public safety matter.
Cops are not paid to win a shouting match at a person’s home.
I agree Obama should have kept his mouth shut on this, but he was right the first time. Crowley acted stupidly and let the situation blow up out of proportion.
I believe I have given you this information once before.
Just finished re reading the posts on this string.
Several things became very apparent.
Liberals believe whole heartily that Republicans/conservatives are racists.
Liberals believe with all their heart that liberals are never racists, never.
Liberals believe that it is completely possible that 9-11 was "an inside job"regardless of the evidence proving otherwise.
Liberals do not believe that conservatives have a heart for their fellow man kind, only liberals do.
Liberals feel, stated or unconsciously, that if only more money were spend all social programs they support would be successful.
Liberals believe that only larger government can solve social problems of injustice, that if left alone, man kind will not take care of their neighbors, much less themselves.
I can say with out too much doubt, that liberals as a group really are concerned for man kind. I can also say with out much doubt they do not believe conservatives share that same concern.
So, what has all this taught me? It is a waste of my time and life to argue on the internet.
Just,
I do not fully agree with your assessment of liberals, but that is not relevant to my point.
Each side argues by providing counter points to points the other side made, which gives a false appearance of greater negativity than the other side actually feels when not on the battlefield.
I can say with out too much doubt, that liberals as a group really are concerned for man kind. I can also say with out much doubt they do not believe conservatives share that same concern.
Liberals are people and so are conservatives. The integrity and intentions of each side is not a product of their ideology. There are those on both sides that want what's fair for Americans and for humankind. Each sides disagrees about that that is, that's all.
Typical discussions on the internet do not address the core values that each side has and uses to form an opinion. The discussions are about positions on specific issues, or specific transgression the other side commits; and you are right in that neither side will see the other’s position on specific issues as anything, but crazy.
Why? Because each side has incompatible core values and incompatible core concepts of fairness. It does not make one side better than the either and there is more than enough data to “prove” how corrupt the other side is to go around. We see the bad examples on whatever side we perceive to be wrong. It is called confirmation bias, and it is the primary ingredient in the fuel that drives human opinion.
If he helps, each side is sincere in thinking the other side is nuts.
T. Paine, you replied with...
"I am not defending Allen’s use of the word at all..."
Looks like you are to me.
And as far as Building 7 goes, you discounted it by writing...
"Any number of things could have been responsible for it..."
But those "things" weren't. You admitted that you haven't seen video of the fall (which a preponderance of Americans haven't). None of those factors you described could bring a building down, other than a controlled demolition. This isn't me saying this -- it's the opinion of experts in this field. C'mon, you're a engineer by education, aren't you? Even if you're not a structural or civil engineer, your education and background should cause you to have some curiosity about this, right?
I won't provide a link showing the building collapsing upon itself. I feel if there's any interest on your part in wanting to understand this very curious and "unexplained" phenomenon, you'll seek it out on your own.
...and you continued with this line of thought...
"I think there are all sorts of possibilities for why that building collapsed without assuming that Bush/Cheney were responsible for it."
Then why didn't the 9/11 Commission investigate those possibilities? Seems odd, doesn't it? As far as Bush/Cheney, I don't recall mentioning them. You just did, however.
Just The FOX(R),
The only things apparent to us are your false, radical "Right" minded, prejudiced ideas about liberals.
As I’ve noted, your beliefs are not facts, but they are the same as FOX(R).
Since I have answered your latest questions, I have two questions for you. And I will even answer one of them for you.
Who hates union workers, and wants to strip their rights, the most? Fascists, dictators, Soviet and Chinese Communists, or... Republicans?
And, what are they all afraid of most?
The answer to the second question would be democracy. Although I’m a bit curious about how you’d respond, you don’t have to strain your brain trying to answer the first question. Just let the fact sink in that Republicans share those “values” with the other forms of antidemocratic tyranny on the list.
And we liberals are the most pro-democracy of all.
Just the Facts said...
"Just finished re reading the posts on this string. Several things became very apparent.
"Liberals believe whole heartily that Republicans/conservatives are racists."
". . . Liberals believe with all their heart that liberals are never racists, never."
Oh really? But Dave Dubya wrote,
"HR,
This is an emotionally charged subject and I want to make it clear I do not make the blanket accusation that Republicans or conservatives, or any groups are innately racist. And I am certainly not calling anyone here a racist."
And in another comment he wrote:
"HR,
I wish there was no racism in either party. It exists everywhere."
Farther along, I wrote:
"Heathen Republican, saying of any people that 'they're all alike' is wrong. No one is suggesting all Republicans or conservatives are racist. I will say there is a clear, strong and long-running correlation."
That comment also bears on your contention, JTF, that, "Liberals believe with all their heart that liberals are never racists, never."
No, because to believe that would be to hold that liberals are all alike, and as I said, that's wrong.
You claim "Liberals believe that it is completely possible that 9-11 was 'an inside job' regardless of the evidence proving otherwise." You, JTF, presume to know what all liberals believe because of something one of them said here, or at least how you interpret what one said. It's wrong to do that, too. I'm liberal and don't think 9-11 was an inside job.
In light of the above, JTF, you either told a whopper about re-reading the posts in this thread, have a serious reading comprehension problem or are engaging in the all-too-common right-wing tactic of putting words in other people's mouths and then seeking to define them on that basis, extrapolating anecdotal evidence to make universal judgments, and pulling wild assertions out of your butt and presenting them as established facts.
Like Fox, you can do those things. Just don't expect people to put much stock in what you have to say.
Soviet and Chinese Communists, why? Because of what happened in Poland when the Unions over threw their communist government. On paper the communists talked a good talk about unions. In reality they were afraid of any organization that could threaten the political hold of the leaders. Be it a Union, chess club or church. It is no secret that union leadership was only allowed to rule under the thumb of the Party. That the outcome Union elections were controlled by the Party.
I suspect that the Communist Party's hatred or fear of unions is no different than any dictator, be they Fascists, Communists or socialists. Any organization they do not control is a threat to the leadership of the Party/ruling class.
To assume the Republicans "hate unions" is to assume they have complete power like the they institutions listed above. They do not have that power. Would I be correct in guessing that your question stems from the changes put into place by Gov Walker in WI?
Just,
I wanted to stay out of this debate, as I find it pointless. You can accuse anyone you know very well of being a racist and often support that idea with guilt by association and/or “examples.” I am not a racist, except for the fact that I am bit of a xenophile. I am married to an African American. I wrote an essay once explaining why I am a racist. You can make anyone out to be a racist if you need to do that.
However, Anderson's quotes need repeating:
He quoted these statements:
"Liberals believe whole heartily that Republicans/conservatives are racists."
". . . Liberals believe with all their heart that liberals are never racists, never."
I, Dave, and now Anderson, have all said we don't believe this. I even posted whole articles refuting the very idea that conservatives are full of hate or are racist.
I am a liberal. Dave is a liberal. Anderson is a liberal.
Not only do most liberals not believe this way, but these liberals right here do not. Everyone points out examples of the opposite party being racist or hateful. That does not prove your case.
“Liberals believe with all their heart that liberals are never racists, never." What a silly statement! OMG. That statement is utterly irrational.
Anderson says: You claim "Liberals believe that it is completely possible that 9-11 was 'an inside job' regardless of the evidence proving otherwise." You, JTF, presume to know what all liberals believe because of something one of them said here, or at least how you interpret what one said. It's wrong do that, too. I'm liberal and don't think 9-11 was an inside job. I don’t think it was an inside job either. So far as I know the majority of liberals would not commit to that position.
I want to say this to you, Just, and you also Heathen, though I am sure you know this already: Just because you found a liberal who believes something, it does not define what liberals believe. To declare that it does is to commit a composition fallacy.
Everyone should move on to a new topic.
Why don’t we discuss why there will be only dreadful choices in the Republican primary or something like that? You know, something we can all agree upon?
WOW. I don't have a tin foil hat big enough to be in on this one.
Post a Comment