Losing On The Issues, Republicans Amp Up Their Racist Rhetoric

I seeded a link on this a couple of days ago; it's here:

http://clapsaddle6.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/18/10179128-south-carolina-the-troublemaker-2012-elections-saloncom

(I'm sure there's a smoother way to insert a link - I'll see if I can find out how.)

South Carolina does have some good people there. I have relatives there.

My grandma was Miss Spartanburg in her day. Then again, I've been told grandma was sort of racist in her day too.

Krounded,

Yes we all have those family members we hope don't come to the Family reunions. I know I have a handful, I love them they are family, but I don't LIKE THEM!

That is how I feel about the right in the USA, they are family we have to deal with them, I just don't like them very much!

They are an embarrassment to us all!

#3.1:I think that is the most disturbing aspect of these painful Tea Party Republican debates...the bloodlust and hatefulness in the audiences.

And these "audiences" are typical of the cowards that made up the KKK and rode throughout the country side, at night under darkness, arousing and causing fear with their white hoods and crosses.

These audiences are the same cowards that need a group/mob to "speak out" or to protest under the guise of {anonymity} "a face in the crowd" and they can not be singled out.

They only act when they are protected by a mob/crowd who's purpose and benefit is to protect them while they remain in numbers! They don't have the guts to speak out by themselves.

Pitiful cowards, but I don't feel sorry for any of these scum!

The foodstamps thing has ALWAYS been racist code, going back to nixon and brought to new heights by reagan in conjunction with his "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" lie. Racism has been the bread and butter of republican politics for 60 years.

This will not change.

As I remember history it was a Republican President who said this Racist mind set has to change so I am freeing the Slaves. Lincoln was correct but the South still doesn't have to like his decision.

Different set of circumstances. Lincoln would not be welcome in the republican party today. They're more at home courting the likes of nathan bedford forrest.

I was watching a special on Lincoln the other day and it brought up the fact that Lincoln grew into this decision as the 13th amendment became part of his platform in the 1864 election as the Civil War progressed. In his younger days, before the presidency he was actually supportive of freeing the slaves, but deportation to Liberia not citizenship.

Ryoshi, you do realize that gun control laws are rooted in racism. Can I now claim that Democrat's base platform is racist?

Yeah, and Social Security is racist because the average life span of black men is shorter.

We know this rhetorical ploy. This is what you're telling me- because I'm black, the "fact" that gun laws originated in racism should persuade me to be opposed to all gun laws. That is what you're telling me, right?

Really,

That is what many do not know about Lincoln and most early settlers of places like Kansas and Illinois. They were exclusionary racist, instead of exploitative racist like the Southern slave powers.

You can still see it in the difference of City lay outs around the country. Old southern cities had pockets of black areas spread throughout as they exploited black labor. Northern and Mid-Western cities tended to have African American sections isolated and separate. As they had plenty of poor white(Immigrant) labor, their racism tended toward exclusionary.

That said,

The Freeing of the Slaves in the existing States was never on the table for Lincoln prior to the start of the Civil War. His 1960s platform talked about banning the EXPANSION of Slavery WEST. This was the real reason for the Slave powers push for secession. They knew that without new territories to expand into the Plantation system would die!

The real story of interest from the Civil War for modern Americans, should be, how the small number of Plantation owners(the Slave Powers), convinced the average working class southern whites to back their cause. It is identical to the GOP strategy today, appropriately called "The Southern Strategy".

Thanks spg64; Great explaination of Southern Strategy/GOP

When Lincoln was campaigning for the presidency, he took a "states rights" approach to slavery, but he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories. Slavery would remain legal in the South, but illegal everywhere else.

The South required the expansion of slavery because cotton quickly depleted the soil, always requiring new lands, and cotton was the "King." Does anyone know what a 100 lbs. of cotton was worth prior to the Civil War? It is also interesting that Cuba was considered as a potential Southern state.

Richard,

Good to see others that have read a little History! Well Said!

Does anyone know what a 100 lbs. of cotton was worth prior to the Civil War?

About $25 in greenbacks in the South.

Thanks, DS12, if I understand the article correctly, during the war (1865), 100 lbs. of cotton sold for $25 in the South, but it sold for $125 in the New York market; obviously, Civil War shortages were driving up the price 500%. At that time, the cost of a pound of bacon was $.12/lb, in the South.

Well, the new American majority is the ethnic minorities combined. Undeniably in 2012 we are a DIVERSE nation. South Carolina is a good example of the Tea Party being a "sea of white." We need the "ocean of diversity" to show up at the ballot box. The 2010 elections were decided upon a 37 to 41 percent voter turn out. Hopefully we will have a large majority of people voting in the 2012 elections.

Obama looks like the only real choice. Romney is the candidate for the richest of the rich and can't relate to average Americans while Gingrich is still corrupt to the hard core. Santorum is a right wing fundamentalist basket case.

You will really have a way with words....Emmadadog!

mountainmike your phrase, "an ocean of diversity" says it all.

We are truly a nation of diversity. And for us to prosper once again, for us to grow great once again we must embrace and include all the diversity without condemnation or judgement.

The more these idiots spout this ugliness and hate, the more they spew their bigotry and prejudice, the more the "diverse" around us, in our communities and neighborhoods, will wake up and realize that a nation of hate and ugly bigotry is not a nation that will give prosperity to anyone.

The dodo @!$%# crazy TParty may be the "in crowd" today, but, tomorrow they may be the targets. They need to understand that wealth a/o power do not now and never have nor never will be synonymous with morality, ethics, compassion or humanity.

I pray enough see the truth of the vile hate behind these "candidates" words a/o actions.

I WILL SHOUT LOUD AND PROUD, OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The GOP is now doing everything in their power to limit just how many New Voters will be allowed to show up to the polls for the main elections.

Anyone with an open primary should make sure they go vote in the Republican Primary. The GOP goons will have a far harder time banning you from the Main election if you voted in the primary. Vote for Herman Cain or John Huntsman as they are on the ballot in most states but no longer in the race!

Further if they ban you from voting in the primary it will give you a number of months to try and "legalize yourself!"

And its easy to make blanket statements like that in one or two lines.

Where were you during the Bush years. Now there's a real DOER. Lied his butt off to get war powers and invade Iraq, nearly doubled the national debt, grew the government/military payroll to gargantuan size, put the American people under unconstitutional, warrantless surveillance, re established torture, etc... Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and Ryan were all there to vote for all of that and voted 7 times in the House and 7 times in the Senate for raising the debt ceiling with no issues expressed.

Obama on track for deporting more illegal immigrants than Bush and prosecuting more of their employers. He was the one making decisions that led to Osama being killed, his like successor being killed and Gadhafi being killed. He was the one that - against Republican criticism - that closed down our multi trillion dollar Iraq quagmire. He helped to push through badly needed banking reform legislation.

I have not agreed with Obama 100 percent on all issues, but he is clearly a better choice than anyone Republicans are likely to offer.

Steve, try closing your eyes, clicking your heels together three times and say "this is a failed administration, this is a failed administration, this is a failed administration".

That makes it true.

The republicans DO have issues. They resent someone cleaning up their mess. They are hoarders of misery, revelling at the rot, stench, and sheer volume of mess all around them. Obama shows up with 1800gotjunk and started cleaning up their mess and they are standing at the door saying 'NO'.

Redsfan, here's even a better link, from an article by Andrew Sullivan, on why his fellow conservatives are foaming at the mouth - http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

And frankly, he does a good job of taking to task those in the Democratic party for believing too much in the Obama "myth" (mostly created in their own minds) and not seeing him for what he is - a moderate.

On the other hand, the Republicans took a hard right turn in 2010. While the "leadership" of the Republican Party has been pandering to the right wing Teapublicans, they have been alienating moderates, independents and cross over voters. I hope a full backlash defeat in 2012 will be a wake up call for the Republican Party.

I don't think the GOP is fully focused on moderates, a voting block that is as big or bigger than the Teapublicans.

In three years he has accomplished nothing, this is a failed administration.

Wow, I can totally see your point... I mean, it must be relatively simple to go turn around 8 (yes, eight) years worth of horrible failure in a scant two to three years... amirite? I mean, imagine what would have been accomplished had McCain and failin' made it into the whitehouse. Why, I bet we'd all be driving those aircars scientists have been talking about for decades (or was it sci-fi-entists?). Our credibility as a nation would be right back up where it was pre-bush-Iraq-Afghanistan and such. I can't believe we left it up to Obama to fix a near decade of bad republican rule over the course of one term. What were we thinking, man?!

brb, have to go throw up in my mouth...

Ok, now that that is done with, does anyone else see how asinine such a view is? One would hope to reason that republicans would have learned a lesson from the previous mis-administration but judging by the candidates they've put forward and the talking points put out each day from whatever bunker their holed up in it seems very doubtful. Given who you people put forward to run for president, why would anyone sane person ever vote for one of them? Simply because you don't want a black guy in the Whitehouse and will put up anyone you think can beat him, politics be damned? Seriously, you guys have got to go back to the drawing board and take a good hard look at what people need and then find a candidate that fits that shoe. Stop trying to legislate by your religion and your crotch and try using some logic and reason.

#5.4:The republicans DO have issues. They resent someone cleaning up their mess. They are hoarders of misery, revelling at the rot, stench, and sheer volume of mess all around them. Obama shows up with 1800gotjunk and started cleaning up their mess and they are standing at the door saying 'NO'.

Speak! Hear, hear! You tell the truth, "I". Keep speaking up.

I just wish republicans come out of their Fox echo chambers long enough to see the real world.

President Obama only kept this nation from falling into depression, which the previous administration dug out, with OUR tax dollars, on wars, one we didn't need to be in, but were lied to, into going, and another whose sole purpose was to get some guy named Bin Laden. You know, the one President Obama finally got, after seven years of "uh, I dunno....he's out there somewhere, hiding...."

Then there's that "trickle-down" bulldukey. The BTC's did nothing, but enrich those who are already rich, and made the poor poorer, and the middle class? What's that? The president's stance on fair taxation just won't do much, will it?

Among others. No this administration has done nothing. The thing is, I prefer President Obama's way of doing "nothing," rather than the GOP way. I think the rest of the country sees it that way, too.

But maybe it's too much to ask. After all, maybe they really DO want to see the rich sipping martinis, playing golf and sneering at those who defended them standing in breadlines while they laugh all the way to their banks - you know, the ones who nearly crashed the economy.

They'll have to step out of those echo-chambers, first.

In three years he has accomplished nothing, this is a failed administration.

I'm hardly the biggest Obama fan, but to say that he hasn't accomplished anything is a delusional statement, if the people making it really believe it. Bill Maher highlighted a particularly striking example of this last night. He showed a clip from Hannity's show in which Hannity starts out criticizing someone who objected to Bin Laden's assassination on the grounds of international law, due process, etc., then ends up saying that this person sounds like President Obama.

#5.7:Given who you people put forward to run for president, why would anyone sane person ever vote for one of them? Simply because you don't want a black guy in the Whitehouse and will put up anyone you think can beat him, politics be damned?

Wonderful thesis, Zen!

Who could, in their correct (not "right") mind, even consider any of the garbage that the repugs have named to run for the White House . No matter which of these bums are eliminated, it won't make a difference. All of them should be.eliminated for what it's worth. It is a disgrace to try to run any of them!

Plantsmantx

Im not sorry he did it, but when you get right down to it, he did break international law in getting bin Laden.

That's not the point. The point is that Hannity said this person sounded like Obama, even though Obama was the one who had Bin Laden assassinated. The point is the denial of factual reality.

Im not sorry he did it, but when you get right down to it, he did break international law in getting bin Laden.

Just as we did by invading Iraq? As the right is so fond of saying, "You can't have it both ways..."

Just as we did by invading Iraq?

"There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated"

damn, another ill informed comment shot down.

Buckeye

You are quoting a sentence an amateur editor wrote on wikipedia.How do you justify a pre emptive attack based on an imagined threat to the united states, with our 10,000+ nuclear weapons, our multi trillion dollar military, by Iraq a country with no designs to attack us, who didn't even use them bio chem weapons when they had them when we invaded, had no nukes,no wmd, spent half what Kuwait did annually on their military and effectively controlled just 1/3rd of their territory?

There has never been a adequate inquriy yet...don't think it won't happen...bet Pinochet was shocked as @!$%# when he was brought to justice.

Randy,

The reality is, Iraq was in violation of several of the UN resolutions. Iraq habitually violated the "no fly zone", Iraq habitually removed UN inspectors or locked them out of facilities.

I justify an attack the same way the UN justified an attack against Libya. Saddam Hussein suppressed and murdered his own people. If for no other reason, this is enough to have the man removed. This must be true since we aided in murder of Gaddafi right?

buckeyenut,

I'm sorry but we can justify things however we want. Unless I'm mistaken it's a people's own responsibility to deteremine their government.

In other words, according to our own belief system it would be up to the peoples of Iraq to toss out their bad leaders.

Other country's freedom only becomes our job, when we want the oil they are fighting on top of.

Theres a big difference between getting congressional approval and just sending in a hit team. If Pakistan had a mind to, they could charge Obama with murder.

I think both were wrong. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq or been involved in Libya. I don't believe congress was given all of the information about Iraq. The White House had been given many warnings that there was evidence against the presence of WMDs. Was this given to congress? There is sworn testimony and memos provided by Bush cabinet member Paul O'Neill that Bush cabinet meetings were centered around trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq, starting only thirty days after Bush took office. Long before 911.

I justify an attack the same way the UN justified an attack against Libya.

Any port in a storm, amirte? Unfortunately that wasn't the reason we invaded Iraq. And at the time of the invasion Saddam was cooperating with inspectors. Bush had Blix pulled out before the job was done so that he could float his plan to the American (or should I say 'mericun) people and keep us in the dark before we knew what was going on. Willful ignorance is not very becoming.

Judging by many of the Republican replies on this discussion board, the pattern seems to be big on personal attacks and small on substance. It would be refreshing to at least see full paragraph responses, a rationale for the conclusions they reach with supporting factual evidence and sources.

It would be refreshing to at least see full paragraph responses, a rationale for the conclusions they reach with supporting factual evidence and sources.

ROTFLMAO!

That'll Be The day!

Judging by many of the Republican replies on this discussion board, the pattern seems to be big on personal attacks and small on substance. It would be refreshing to at least see full paragraph responses, a rationale for the conclusions they reach with supporting factual evidence and sources

I might not give you a full paragraph response but here goes.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum overtly accused African Americans of being lazy and stealing money from white, real Americans over the past month and Gingrich in particular ramped up the racially bigoted rhetoric during the South Carolina debate.

Overtly is the key word in the complete piece of shi. qoute from above. Neither Santorum or Gingrich said anything close to what is alleged. Below is his exact qoute

"“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,”

Now I don't see anything about African Americans stealing money from "real" white Americans. But then again, I'm not a liberal. I'll get back with you later on more of the total bullshi. posted once again on the vine. I'm going sledding with the kids now.

Buckeye, you might not be aware of how southern strategy codes work...let me give you a primer...First off There are more whites on Food Stamps then blacks, yet Newt insists on singling out African Americans, how, he says have no experience of work in their neighborhoods...legal work anyway. Language like this reaches a very specific person, who believes that African americans are lazy, have no work ethic make money illegally and would rather live on food stamps than work.

This is a strategy , a bonafide school of thought, by political spinmiesters and dirty tricksters, a way to stoke racism of the people you are trying to get to vote for you...Know doubt has been done in the past , on a retail level among southern conservative Democrats and Dixiecrats in one form or another, but nothing as contemporary and cogent as laid out by republican political operative Lee Atwater;

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*gger, n*gger, n*gger." By 1968 you can't say "n*gger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*gger, n*gger"

I'd say the GOP has gone Full Metal "Abstract"

Here's what Newt said...

“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” he insisted. “They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash, unless it is illegal.”

Gingrich: Children of poor families are lazy, should be put to work (with video)

As far as the NAACP goes, they invited him to speak to their convention multiple times when he was Speaker of the House. He never went.

They're the wrong skin tone.

Randy,

First off There are more whites on Food Stamps then blacks,

Yes there are. But as a percentage of the population, the numbers are much different. According to the US Census Bureau, Whites make up 72% of the population while 12.6% are African American. Whites get about 60% of the financial assistance while African Americans get about 33% of the financial assistance. So we have about 13% getting 33% of the financial assistance. It is reasonable to believe that whites would get more of the financial assistance because they are a much larger percentage of the overall population but it does seem odd that a significantly smaller portion of the population would take up such a large percentage of the financial assistance.

Zen,

Just go back to drinking and leave the rational conversation to those of us who are sober.

Buckeye

Yes but whites make up the most people on food stamps, why is it important for African Americans to get off food stamps and prefer work(as if that isn't already a reality) and not whites on food stamps?Why would he call the first african american president the food stamp president, when the previous white president put 65% more Americans on foodstamps? I told you why, verbatim from Lee Atwater.. and ths southern strateg works splendidly in south carolina...

Just go back to drinking and leave the rational conversation to those of us who are sober.

Cool story, bro, lol.

Zen,

Not my story, YOURS.

LoL, you caught me. I'm still hung over and I only saw August. At any rate you must have missed the part about not mentioning the open marriage debacle.

#5.3 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:16 PM EST

Yes but whites make up the most people on food stamps, why is it important for African Americans to get off food stamps and prefer work(as if that isn't already a reality) and not whites on food stamps

Because a as a small percentage (12.6%) of the population the African American community has a very high percentage (33%) of benefits collected. I feel we must do all we can to lower the overall percentage (white, black...) of people on welfare.

Richard,

Wow.

Thanks for that! Such eloquence in stating the why's and wherefore's. It is my hope, that more whites do not, as you, feel that "racial pride" in the nationalistic sense. This country has come too far to cling to the ghosts of the past.

Thank you, resolving racial conflict is "rocket science." There is a way forward, though, through this racial morass; we just need to keep plugging away at finding its roots. Resolving the dilemma of racial conflict is the path forward for us because it is our national disorder, hindering progress. The reason why I know this? The racial conflict of today is the same problem of yesteryear. It has not disappeared in spite of intense efforts to resolve it.

redsfan

This has happened to me as well. My own brother and sister-in-law, conservative Catholics, have practically disowned me because I wont join in on Obama bashing and that I inform them that they are not being reasonable.

#14:Redsfan,I can truthful say i have lost a lot of friends because i like President Obama.Why! because of the things they say, like they wouldn't vote for him because he's black. They could care less about the issues.Its really hard to believe in 2012 that these issues still haunt our country,its really sad & narrow minded.

This goes out to redsfan, rational thought, as well as yvonne: My dad (deceased now) had a saying and it was "I got off cheap with that one; it could have cost me much more!"

These relatives/ friends/ acquaintances were never truly your friends. If they had been, political favorites would not have resulted in the loss of closeness or friendship. It is so petty when you think about it.

Just think, you really could have needed them for something serious- or life-threatening. Isn't it better to find out now- rather than later/then? Just saying...

This problem is apparantly much worse than I thought. My best man will hardly talk to me anymore, and he totally abandoned the friendship of another mutual friend. He calls Obama a socialist. The two of us that are still on friendly terms, we are both lawyers, John an assistanct attorney general. He keeps a sign on his front lawn that says "Peace," and our conservative friend surrepticiously plastered a bunch of "Bush" bumper stickers to it several years back. Eventually, he wouldn't even answer calls from John, even though they worked a couple blocks away and used to meet for lunch with some frequency.

I noticed a great deal of polarization happening among my high school class. If I have my timing right, it was after our 25 year reunion in the year 2000, at which time many of us exchanged email addresses and there was a flurry of communication amongst a number of people that had been out of touch for years. Then, when September 2011 came, the @!$%# started hitting the fan. The righties started in with their bigoted remarks about arabs, Muslims, Iraq, etc. and showed virtually total intollerance for any other point of view, accusing others of being unpatriotic, un-American, and so on. The emails were flying fast and furious before everybody finally just retreated to their own corners. At more recent class reunions, I noticed a marked shift to the right among a number of "kids" from our class, with the racist remarks about Obama being overtly made, along with the usual "socialist" remarks and generally pejorative characterizations.

My dad died in 2003, and as the US was preparing to commence war, I spoke out against it, with my usual approach, which, as a lawyer, is to employ facts and logic. My father became so passionate about the subject that when I said I didn't support the war, he said, "Well then you're not my son." Needless to say, hurtful words that I remember with anguish even to this day. I forgave his words, knowing that even though he was generally a generous and compassionate man, he had been caught up in the nationalistic fervor that included lots of anti-Muslim, anti-Iraq messaging and imagery.

The delusional thought that Barrack Obama is a closeted Muslim is one the most remarkable bases for perpetuating bigotry I've ever seen. The gullibility necessary to buy into this incredible claim shows the remarkable predisposition toward racism and hatred that exists in American society, and the rote exclamation that Obama is a socialist is one more example of that bigotry being manifested, for two reasons. One, the word socialist shouldn't be a perjorative in the first place, so it is a manufactured insult, made for a specific purpose, which is to create a "socially acceptable" form of racist speech, or "dogwhistle" as we like to say. America is largely a socialist country, so it is not without some degree of blindness, or at least myopia that the word "socialist" is a dirty one. Second, since socialist has been established as a dirty word, it is exactly the kind of tool that can be openly used in lieu of the other word, @!$%#, which has become at least socially unacceptable, and at most a totally disgusting reminder of America's embarassing past.

The Republican party embraces this alternative use of language to appeal to those elements of our society that are the ugliest vestiges of slavery, the remnants of both conscious hatred of blacks and the more unconcious fear of not just blacks, but of anyone "different." It is that segment of our society that Republicans seek to exploit for votes, and it is because of both the inadequacy of the overt platform of the GOP, and the pisspoor performance of GOP officeholders that makes them an unnacceptable choice going forward on any rational grounds.

#62.4:The delusional thought that Barrack Obama is a closeted Muslim is one the most remarkable bases for perpetuating bigotry I've ever seen. The gullibility necessary to buy into this incredible claim shows the remarkable predisposition toward racism and hatred that exists in American society, and the rote exclamation that Obama is a socialist is one more example of that bigotry being manifested, for two reasons. One, the word socialist shouldn't be a perjorative in the first place, so it is a manufactured insult, made for a specific purpose, which is to create a "socially acceptable" form of racist speech, or "dogwhistle" as we like to say. America is largely a socialist country, so it is not without some degree of blindness, or at least myopia that the word "socialist" is a dirty one. Second, since socialist has been established as a dirty word, it is exactly the kind of tool that can be openly used in lieu of the other word, @!$%#, which has become at least socially unacceptable, and at most a totally disgusting reminder of America's embarassing past.

First of all, I am sorry to hear about you losing your Dad; my condolence's to you and your family on this great loss. There seems to be a "special bond between boys and their Dad". I know you had one and am glad that you had the opportunity to experience it.

Everything that you have said is correct and I am so happy that you have expressed your thoughts here on Newsvine.

I can not say or add anything to your thesis; you seem to have it down pat. It is unfortunate that others do not feel the way that you do and express it as well.

It is also unfortunate that your "club of friends/acquaintances" has diminished but again, perhaps it is better that the true colors come out now rather than later- when you would have been in an awkward position where "no" would have really been more detrimental to you.

Finally, if you have read my posts you are aware that I say it is no need to attempt to sway or convince the opponents into another way of thinking; they do not want to hear it and usually resort to targeting YOU as the enemy.

It thus becomes an ad hominem attack (the messenger) and all is lost from that point, including feelings.

It is no use from thereon in! The battle is lost; but of course, NOT the war. But this way-with you taking the high road, you live to fight another day.

What is really freaking out the right wing racists is the recent reports based on census data indicate that "minorities" will outnumber "white" people before long. Panic has set in and the rhetoric shows it. They are desparate to gain control and write the rules they need to disenfranchise the "others" before it's too late.

#15.1:What is really freaking out the right wing racists is the recent reports based on census data indicate that "minorities" will outnumber "white" people before long. Panic has set in and the rhetoric shows it. They are desparate to gain control and write the rules they need to disenfranchise the "others" before it's too late

Pardon me for laughing so hard, but don't these right wing racists realize that there is NOTHING that they can do to stop, alter, or postpone Mother Nature or Father Time? What these nincompoops do not realize is that it happens to ALL of us-whether we want it to or not.

It was just a matter of time before Barack Hussein Obama - or another minority- was elected President of the United States of America.

btw, I think that President Obama is a darned good President, if I have to say so myself; we could have done much worse!

They better get used to the idea- and pretty damn quick- or they will always be miserable! And will die that way.

It was just a matter of time before Barack Hussein Obama - or another minority- was elected President of the United States of America.

I guess thats why the Pubs allowed and elected minorities to office in 2010, because they hate anyone who is not white. Marco Rubio is close enough to white i guess.

Obama and the Dems are guilty in dividing the country...Rich vs. Poor. But that's ok. Because damn the wealthy. When you have nothing else to run on...spew hatred and fear that the rich are going to turn you into a slave and make you work for pennies. As long as the people you hate aren't of a certain color...that's not racism, that kind of hate is purely moral. perfectly fine..cuz Hey, your just looking out for the little guy, right? I'm so sick of the "racism" BS. Hell, the Obama camp used the race card against the Clinton's in 2008. I guess DEEP DOWN old Bill and Hill are really RACISTS in disguise, using their "code words" of lets fix the economy and try to balance the budget...WE ALL SEE THROUGH THOSE RACIST CODE WORDS! jeesh.

My question is :do you see an answer? I do! My answer is to eliminate "the irritant". In this case it is the REPUBLICANS;

WOW! Hail! Hitler!...Should we start building the camps?? for those irritants, those pesky Americans that happen to think differently than we do?

Party of tolerance my ass! Party of progressive thinking my ass! Party of just as bad as the Republicans but, but, but it's justified because those "others" that don't agree with me are stupid, racists, that should just be eliminated.

Geez, blindsided. How embarrassing. I write this long-winded post to make a point, and then I get the the very next post, which is yours, and you say in one sentence what it took me several paragaphs to say. Good job!

George Bush lite?

I'm actually stunned by the concept...

LOL...it's a fact because you said so...sheeze.

.it's a fact because you said so

Come on Vol, you do that all the time.

Oh really? How about the economy, unemployment, strangling Americas supplies of energy, encouraging and even supporting with US Airpower Islamic revolution all while insulting traditional American values and Obamacare? I guess you must be correct there is absolutely nothing at all to seek a change in policies about.

Is that you Rush?

The economy has been steadily inproving from the chit sammich that cowboy handed President Obama, unemployment has decreased 21 straight months, fewer people applied for unemployment in December than in any month since mid 2008. ObamaCare was the Republicans idea. Obama got in and out of Libya, out of Iraq and is winding down Afghanistan.

I'd say he's doing just fine...since all of the above (except for Libya) were cleanup jobs from the mess what's his name left behind!

You mean 'he who's name can't be spoken'?

Riiiight. (I did not get the memo on the new seed).☺☻☺☻

That's him!

Sure, spin1, what else ya got? 'Ya got nuthin'.

Nothing else is needed as the dems keep repeating "racism".

Tell a lie long enough and you will believe it yourself.

Can we say WMD's?

He must have had a teleprompter when he visited Congressional Republicans at their retreat that time...yes, he must have had one:).

You keep dreamin there Mr. Ranger.

The only way Newt will beat Obama in a debate is if facts don't count.

Ranger you can't see the Newt uses the teleprompter too?

if Newt wants to see a buffoon all he has to is look in the glass. the only way Newt can win a debate with anyone is if facts are not taken into acount.

Gingrich would make obama look like a buffoon in a public debate. Without a teleprompter, BO is worthless

Gingrich wouldn't have a hope in hell against Obama. And the teleprompter thing? debunked in May 2010. Try to keep up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/obama-goes-to-the-gop-lio_n_442331.html

President Obama traveled to a House Republican retreat in Baltimore on Friday and delivered a performance that was at once defiant, substantive and engaging. For roughly an hour and a half, Obama lectured GOP leaders and, in a protracted, nationally-televised question-and-answer session, deflected their policy critiques, corrected their misstatements and scolded them for playing petty politics. (Full video and transcript available HERE.)

White House officials told the Huffington Post they were absolutely ecstatic. MSNBC's Luke Russert, who was on the scene in Baltimore, relayed that a Republican official and other GOP aides had confided to him that allowing the "cameras to roll like that" was a "mistake."

Debunked by the Huffington Post. That is a hoot

Debunked by the Huffington Post. That is a hoot

Perhaps but the content of the article is historical fact.

Racism is against the law. The article is innuendo which is not fact. If it were fact there would be prosecutions.

The Huffington Post article regarding President Obama's fleecing of House repubs at their retreat is on record, there is video, audio, and live witnesses, it's available on Google, Wiki and Fox News. That is the article I was referring to. No innuendo. I'd say "nice try" but actually it was rather weak.

Racism is against the law. The article is innuendo which is not fact. If it were fact there would be prosecutions.

Funny, I thought discrimination was against the law... If racism were against the law... well let us just say that a certain section of the country would be locked up full time...

But seriously, as the teabaggers and GnOPers are showing us being a racist is in style these days...

Racism is against the law? That's just more psychotalk. It is not.

And the debunking wasn't by the Huffington post, it is by the video and transcript of what occurred. The Huffington post just reported the pain. Hahhahahahh

Some people don't get it about what the GOP is saying Obama using a teleprompter. Its another way the GOP is calling President Obama stupid. Think about it?

Corruption and corporate cronyism will be the 'headstone'.

Noot's little stint with Freddie Mac neutralizes any attack he might make along those lines:).

As several commentators have pointed out independently, Gingrich is the stupid person's idea of a smart person. He gives the right impression- the tone of his voice, the way he looks downward in a "thoughtful" manner, etc.- if someone doesn't actually think about much of what he says, he seems brilliant. In debates with other conservative candidates, the other candidates can only go so toward saying "Wait a minute...what in the hell are you talking about?" Obama would feel no such inhibition.

There's that and the fact that the other GnOPer candidates are imbeciles.

Plant, isn't there a homily about a one eyed man is king in the land of the blind?

I believe so:).

Oops, I meant "...so far toward...".

Elitism and socialism are incompatible. You can't be both.

Pick the political whore you like, but pick one that is going to help America and it's energy needs, not the needs of communist countries and Big Labor.

I caught a bit of Noot's victory speech. You're behind- he's already moved away from decrying the stymieing of the XL pipeline on the basis that it "helps our energy needs". He talked about it only in terms of Americans making money off Canadians transporting oil through the pipeline to sell to other countries.

and do not appreciate BO's elitism and love affair with Socialism.

...as opposed to the "non-elitism" of the guy with the half a million line of credit at Tiffany's?

He talked about it only in terms of Americans making money off Canadians transporting oil through the pipeline to sell to other countries.

Plants I find it interesting the republicans talk about jobs created....anywhere form 6K to 20K... but what those that promote the high side of the number is that once the or IF the pipeline is built just how many jobs will be created.....I have heard about 50...thats right Fifty jobs to maintain jobs that will help the Canadians transport their oil across AMERICA to the TX refineries so that hmmmmmmmm so they along with their partners...ie oil companies....sell it on the international market at an international price....hmmm I would venture to guess that AMERICA will buy it at the international prices.....again ultimately what jobs will be gained.....Please stop the shortsidedness thinking!!!

Of course America will buy it at the same price everyone else has to. And of course, he mentioned nothing about the number of jobs that will be created.

they would destroy as many of our best working programs as they can.

Naw....just the bloated corrupt Union programs. The real 'working class' and competitive manufacturing would and will thrive and return to our shores, once we get the labor folks to actually contribute to there own stupid pensions, and not put that burdon on the tax payers and job creators. I don't expect you to ever GET that, but that is the bottom line.

Jealous of pension plans,eh, ranger?

Why should he be jealous of pension plans, since they are so mismanaged by the Unions that they are almost all broke and have to be bailed out, Yellow Dog D.?

They still have them, Tom. Even when Bain stole the one in K.C.

and not put that burdon on the tax payers and job creators

Well said, FreedomRanger.

I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing unions and public employees! We pay premium wages, benefits, pensions to this segment, yet it isn't enough for them....and they expect the TAXPAYERS to continually bail them out with NON UNION tax dollars to fund their utopian compensation packages. Unions are a liability to taxpayers. The demise of our education system is the result of union implementation. Steve Jobs saw the destruction the unions caused in this country. He told Obama to his face that there will never be education reform in this country until you get unions out of the workplace.

wavesofgrain,

"I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing unions and public employees!"

Why is it okay for your tax dollars to subsidize oil companies and agri-business?

I would MUCH rather have my tax dollars attracting private industries that create millions of jobs that contribute to the GDP. And, (unless you are a crony of a politician, like GE) private industry pays billions in taxes that are used to create services from the government. Unions suck the life out of the taxpayer, resulting in less services provided by our municipal, state, federal government. Unions should NEVER have been allowed in public/government employment.

wavesofgrain,

When did unions get started in this country and why?

Yes, I know all about the exploited workers decades and decades ago. This government now has laws for those policies identified as their reasons. That is why the unions are no longer needed. Unions do nothing but practice bullying to get what they want. They've chased away job-providing corporations. They have long out-lived their usefulness. And pay is not the issue.They decided to dictate their own work rules that hinder efficiency...like demanding entire group breaks instead of staggered breaks. Ridiculus.

FreedomRanger, tomwcraig, and wavesofgrain, how do you folks feel about professional sports unions?

#25.7:I would MUCH rather have my tax dollars attracting private industries that create millions of jobs that contribute to the GDP. And, (unless you are a crony of a politician, like GE) private industry pays billions in taxes that are used to create services from the government. Unions suck the life out of the taxpayer, resulting in less services provided by our municipal, state, federal government. Unions should NEVER have been allowed in public/government employment.

What JOBS???? Where are they? Where can I find one?

CuriousG,

The ONLY professional sports union that I actually somewhat like is the NFLPA, and the reason for that is that they work WITH owners to improve the league in terms of safety, pensions, and most other items. All the other unions are about getting as much money as possible for the current players without thought to anything else, although the NHL's union does seem to be acting more like the NFLPA than the rest.

My thoughts on unions in general is that the state and national levels of them are the problems. Those two levels work for gaining as much power as possible without thought to their members. Local Unions have oftentimes been overruled by the National and State Unions when it comes to contract agreements and the Locals tend to lose a lot more than they gain at those times. For example, let's take the UPS/Teamsters Strike in the 1990s. UPS offered them a deal and the Union rejected it at the behest of the then Teamsters President, who was trying to run for reelection. They went through several weeks of striking, before actually accepting the original deal offered by UPS for the most part, having their President who run reelection kicked out of office by the Feds, and losing all that pay they could have had had the original deal been accepted right off the bat by the Teamsters President.

What JOBS???? Where are they? Where can I find one?

Well, I see you've noticed the effects of this admins promoting Union Power and anti-business policies!

wavesofgrain,

"Yes, I know all about the exploited workers decades and decades ago."

What happened to those exploited workers though, exactly? That's a pretty important piece to consider before you get rid of the group who's sole job it is to stop further bad behavior.

Did workers just not get as much money as they wanted or did they die? And what about the companies themselves, what did they lose? Money? Opportunity? In your mind, how do those past busines opportunities balance against the workers who were murdered to protect a company's further fortunes?

Then again, concerning laws regulating corporations, please explain how those laws worked in the folloing cases: Enron, Bernie, Housing bubble.

Finally I must ask, do you consider yourself a Republican?

, how do you folks feel about professional sports unions

I don't watch sports, but I feel that all entertainment unions have outpriced themselves. I hear friends and neighbors griping about the cost of games, tickets and they are getting tired of the elite power they've attained, flaunting their wealth, and the media canonizing a lot of the "stars" with drug problems, arrests. For instance, they can make 2 movies, and pocket 40 million...and it is the fans of this country who helped them achieve this. And what do they create for their loyal American fans with their wealth? Why they start rallying around politicians who want to destroy the very policies that made them so wealthy. They attack corporations, that would provide more jobs than they ever dreamed of creating (that's IF they "shared" their wealth) with just one year's salary! What hypocrites. They have the Union Power mentality.

This entire country should be a "Right to Work" nation.

My reason for asking if you are a Republican is that, I always find it surpising when a small government, free market, Republican wants to toss the answer provided by the market place, as represented by the unions. They then always seem to want to grow government by passing a raft of laws and instituting the bureaucracy to support those laws. Which oddly enough often fail to prevent the behavior they are supposed to regulate.

All this to do the job of the unions, the group you just fired.

I guess small government, and free market are not core Republican values.

However, it sure looks like getting rich with inpunity is..

wavesofgrain,

Wait a minute! Obscene displays of wealth disgust you?

[keeps reading]

Oh! Unless it's corporations who are obscenely rich.

That doesn't strike you as inconsistent?

Do you understand what a corporation is, flameaway? They are a person or a group of people that have come together to form a business and can be any size from a single person operation to mutiple locations employing thousands of people. The difference between a corporation and any other business is that the owner(s) own stock in that company. This stock represents the amount they invested in the company and how much interest (dividends) that stockholder will get from the profits of the company after employees and all other expenses are paid.

The difference between say Nicholas Cage getting millions of dollars for a film and a corporation getting those same millions of dollars for the same film is that the corporation has to spread those millions of dollars amongst all the actors, the crew, the director, the screenwriters, the casting company, costs for props, camera equipment, location rentals, etc. All Nicholas Cage does is pay a percentage of his millions of dollars to his agent, pays any staff he hires, and pockets the rest. In truth, all of Nicholas Cage's money came from the corporation that made the movie in the first place. But, since he is a big time star, they almost have to pay him before anyone else or else be sued for breach of contract.

And yet without Nicholas Cage or someone like him. No one would want to see the movie...

I think I'll come down on the side of the person with the idea, not the grabber who wants to exploit it till it bleeds... And who will then tell talent, you are too old, too ugly, to slow. So you can't make us money anymore. Goodbye thanks for making us richer...

Isn't that pretty much how it works?

I don't care much for shareholder, they contribute nothing but money. That is they only are a means to getting the product produced. The talent is the product and thus deserves a far greater share than those who don't posses it.

It's the marketplace. Supply and demand. Money is easy. Talent is rare.

flame....you are wishing to have succes on both ends of this argument. It typically doesn't work that way.

Unions had a great and noble place in American labor and manufacturing, but that was 65+ years ago.

Collective bargaining is extortion, pure and simple. Mediocrity being promoted equally along with exceptional-ism is simply poor management. Hollywood and sports orgs are cash machines, which, ironically are held hostage to talent. Supply and demand will ensure the success of sports clubs and film groups.....some, might call that dreaded balance 'free market'. The Unions within those respective industries are well rooted in the ways of public extortion, but they are dealing with the one thing that the fat and lazy American is less likely to give up, and therefor usually succeed in their will. The one thing Americans hate to give up, even over the mail being delivered on time, of the road sign being repaired, is 'entertainment'. We are a culture of entertainment and escape, in spite of the ridiculous unemployment numbers, we continue to buy TV's, go to movies, eat, drink and generally mask our social sorrow in entertainment. Hollywood loves it, and it's unions flourish.

Freedom Ranger,

Tell me, if the need for unions has passed, why are miners still dying in unsafe mines...?

It's the marketplace. Supply and demand. Money is easy. Talent is rare.

Had to laugh at the "talent is rare" comment. It reminds me that with enough money, exposure, and niche anyone can become a star....ie...Snookie, Kardisians, Hilton, etc. etc.. In sports I would agree their are some with more talent but that doesn't necessarily mean they will make it in their desired sport due to other issues ie Jamarcus Russell (3 year career of #1 draft pick in football)

flameaway,

How can EVERY mine be 100% safe? You're dealing with the EARTH which will constantly move and change so what might work 100 years ago in a mine shaft may be unsafe today due to normal movement. What might work today, may not work tomorrow or next week, let alone 10 years from now. It's that unknown shifting of the earth above the mine that makes mining unsafe. The best you can do is prepare for disaster and hope it never happens.

Tell me, if the need for unions has passed, why are miners still dying in unsafe mines...?

Flame....you again attempt to twist all things in favor of Unions. By your warped logic, I gather it is safe to assume that every airline disaster is Union caused...correct? After all, the airline industry is HEAVILY union. Oh, and while you are considering that answer, I would ask you, is every postal employee who has gone as they say..."postal', the fault of the Unions? You see how this works?

FreedomRanger, tomwcraig, and wavesofgrain, how do you folks feel about professional sports unions?

I can't speak for them, but I will for myself. I don't care for them...at all. Some guy makes a hundred million dollars over 10 years for 16 games a year...and gripin' cause he doesn't make enough?? That is why I like college sports - they play for the love of the game (mainly, as very few of them can and will go pro).

Freedom Ranger and tomwcraig,

Me twisty? :)

Seriously, mines can't be 100% safe? No, well can they make sure that workers have enough oxygen so that when the earth collapses the miners don't die? Can we make sure to follow safety procedures and test the air in the mines using the agreed upon schedule and thus avoid explosions? Can we expect that once companies have such violations on record that they will really try to change their record instead of just factoring that cost into the bottom line?

Alot of these things to appear to be happening. Yet the only thing you see is that there are a bunch of lazy workers who don't want to go do their jobs.

So, which mine do you work in?

DS12,

So because sufficeint amounts of money, (and behind the scenes talent), can create a faux star, you devalue true talent?

That seems like Rush reasoning to me.

Tell you what I'll get together 10 billion dollars for you to spend creating the next Michael Jordan. I need him next month cause I want to start the promotional tour.

You'll go over budget.

flameaway

So because sufficeint amounts of money, (and behind the scenes talent), can create a faux star, you devalue true talent?

Are you saying Paris Hilton has true talent....she has the money part so why isn't he television show still on? Talent will keep you working...having enough money to keep promoting bad talent will ultimately make you broke.

Tell you what I'll get together 10 billion dollars for you to spend creating the next Michael Jordan. I need him next month cause I want to start the promotional tour.

You'll go over budget.

LOL you would be broke...a good example of your scenario would have been Lebron James so you would lose your money and I would probably triple my money easy barring injuries and with the proper promotion.

flameaway,

They do that already. If they aren't they are already in violation of the laws and rules as set down by OSHA, MSHA, and probably a few other state and Federal laws and regulatory agencies. If they are in violation, then they should be punished; we don't need the Unions to bring this information to the proper agencies; we just need workers that do the right things when they see violations. Truthfully, I can make the argument that the Unions are part of the problem; because from my understanding is that if a worker sees a violation, they have to report to their Union rep or supervisor. So, what is happening is that there is a delay caused by an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Also, some violations get lost because of that extra level of bureaucracy.

DS12

Paris Hilton? No that would be the very definiton of faux talent. Like the difference between Fox News and, er... news. And her show isn't on because she's obnoxious. That and she seems to like having sex on camera which is a whole different market than television and upsets their sponsors.

You can't use Lebron James that would just be using real talent.

Tell you what, make me in to the next Michael Jordan. How much money would that take? I'm fifty by the way.

tom,

Oh, so the worker just has to bring the complaint? Do you think a bunch of complaints might piss off the owners who are cutting corners in order to make more money?

I don't know, I think it might be better to let the workers who are taking the risks decide whether they think their union is protecting them. That's why I asked which mine you work in.

flameaway my point being given time there is a next Jordan, James, ??? it is only a matter of time. As for you hold on let me collect all the money in the world and print some more so I can put you in a league all by yourself...lol

Sports allow the best of the best to make millions for the most part as their are the role players who make more than the average person. Actors well for me it depends as an example...I will never see a Tyler Perry movie as of today....that will be tested when he is tasked to be the star of a book to movie in the near future...I like the author I do not like Perry. Acting requires believability and if you have the money you would want the best for your money and that makes some better than others. In the end we could argue good vs. average vs. bad actors based on are on beliefs what makes a good movie, tv, etc..and each will be paid based on past performances and the need of those with the most money.

DS12,

I thought you were saying that given enough money talent could be created. Like Snookie.

Concerning your second paragraph; people really aren't allowed to like or dislike great art. This is because great art changes everyone for good or ill. Our opinions in the matter are scholastic at best...