Boo Hoo Hoo Barack
May 16th, 2008 at 03:38pm Matt Margolis
Egomaniac Barack Obama appears even more desperate today as he continues whine like a 5 year old child about Bush’s speech to the Knesset, which Obama thinks was an attack directly on him.
Barack Obama has called President Bush’s comments on appeasement “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”
Obama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest and divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists.Obama strongly responded Friday to the comments Bush made in Israel on Thursday and McCain’s subsequent words. Obama told a town hall meeting, “That’s the kind of hypocrisy that we’ve been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer.”
Of course, the fact that Obama, by every indication we’ve received on the campaign, would be a terrorist appeaser, but let’s face it, he’s trying to make an issue out of something that really wasn’t about him specifically. No one can deny that Obama is part of a larger group of individuals who seem to believe that we can sit down for tea and biscuits with terrorists and the world will be A-OK after that. But, Obama may just not have enough experience to have a realistic understanding of the world and our enemies.
Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: “This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”
Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama’s position was a serious error. “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”
The answer is, Obama doesn’t want to talk about anything that may hurt his candidacy. He feels he is exempt from explaining himself or his positions when such positions could hurt his candidacy.
Keep crying Barack. Waaaa… Waaaa.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, President Bush, Republicans
114 Comments Add your own
1. coulterfan | May 16th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
You guys are FUNNY! Barack EVISCERATED Bush in his speech today and made him look like the fool he is!
The fact is Americans are rejecting the warmongering foreign policies of Bush and McCain and the GOP is going to pay a HEAVY price in the fall. Look at what has happened in the 3 special elections in EXTREMELY RED districts (most recently Childers in MS-01). In a district where Bush won by 25 points in 2004, Childers WON BY 8 POINTS!!!
BTW, you guys look like idiots when you equate talking with our enemies as “appeasement”. When Reagan spoke with Gorbachev during the 80’s, was THAT appeasement? Was Isreal talking with Egypt and Syria appeasement? Is Condi Rice talking with Iran (as she currently is) appeasement?
But, hey, if you guys want to keep doing what you’re doing- go right ahead! Continue ignorantly using loaded words, but not knowing what you’re talking about. Continue following the EXACT SAME POLICIES as Pres. “27% approval” Bush, like McCain has been advocating.
We’ll see how that works out for you guys in November!
2. SEW | May 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“At the YouTube debate on July 23, 2007, when Obama was asked whether he would be willing to meet “without precondition … with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” the right answer, conventionally speaking, was a qualified “no.” But Obama answered in the affirmative. Initially, even sympathetic observers like The Nation’s David Corn called this statement a “flub” at best…
Obama’s team did not try to qualify (or, in political parlance, “clarify”) his remark, and no one said he misspoke… Soon, on the stump, he was regularly referring to his willingness to meet with foreign leaders, unlike other top presidential candidates.” Dean Barrett
We want Barry as your candidate. 49% of HRC voters will vote McCain or stay home. Thank you Dems.
3. PoohBear | May 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
This blog is officially an anti-dem blog. Not a pro-bush, not a pro-mccain, or pro-victory. I realize there aren’t many great things happening on the Right side of things but you may want to consider changing the name of your blog.
4. coulterfan | May 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Is meeting with leaders instead of bombing them first “Appeasement”?
Not according to the dictionary:
“appease |əˈpēz|
verb [ trans. ]
1 pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands : amendments have been added to appease local pressure groups. See note at pacify .
2 relieve or satisfy (a demand or a feeling) : we give to charity because it appeases our guilt.”
Again, Reagan spoke with the USSR WITHOUT precondition! Condi Rice has been talking with Iran, Bush has been talking with NORTH KOREA! Talking is not the same as giving into demands.
And it’s a little ironic that GW Bush’s grandfather, Prescott, was a banker for the NAZIS! Now THAT is REAL APPEASEMENT!
5. Barack Obama » Boo &hellip | May 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
[…] Kicking Ass Ann Arbor The Blog of the University of Michigan College Democrats. All opinions are tho… wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptEgomaniac Barack Obama appears even more desperate today as he continues whine like a 5 year old child about Bush’s speech to the Knesset, which […]
6. John McCain » Boo H&hellip | May 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
[…] getfreeinsurance wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest and divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic… […]
7. Pain | May 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Do you have any idea Mr. Margolis what the word appease means? And how is Obama whining when Bush aimed the comments directly at the presumptive Democratic Party nominee? This is not a talking points issue. We, ourselves, are wondering how you would have felt about Bill Clinton saying such a thing about Bush in 2000? This point We would like to make is that if America takes the lead in bringing Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Israel Saudi Arabia and Lebanon to the table with Abu Mazen then there is a chance that peace can be made.
Until all parties are offered a chance as equals for peace there will always be violence as the fallback this applies to Israel as well as Hamas.
However such an effort must be negotiate from a place of strength and the US cannot do that with troops policing the streets for the AEI in Baghdad.
We know you are afraid of the change that a Barack Obama presidency represents and We also know that many pundits and politicos on the Right will commit career seppuku and immortalize yourselves by going to that extreme of insulting Mr. Obama’s ethnicity as a last ditch effort to ensure the bigots turn out to vote.
Appeasement does not mean you negotiate Mr. Margolis it means you give something away in the hope that you will not lose a greater thing. Appeasement is what you do to a blackmailer in hope that he will go away and not ruin your lifestyle.
Here is wisdom . . .
George W Bush, since March 2003 has appeased Halliburton, Fluor, Parsons and Blackwater because he has given them Iraq in the hope that he would not have to lose his legacy. Sadly, for him We can see with clarity that he was wrong.
8. Obama » Boo Hoo Hoo&hellip | May 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
[…] Say Anything: North Dakota’s Most Popular Political Blog wrote an interesting post today on Boo Hoo Hoo BarackHere’s a quick excerpt…up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a… […]
9. Iran » Boo Hoo Hoo &hellip | May 16th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
[…] Global Voices Online wrote an interesting post today on Boo Hoo Hoo BarackHere’s a quick excerptEgomaniac Barack Obama appears even more desperate today as he continues whine like a 5 year old child about Bush’s speech to the Knesset, which […]
10. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Coulter,
You may want to revisit your Reagan talking points. Remember the “Evil Empire” connotation of the Soviet Union - that was Reagan. Remember when he walked out on Gorbachev in Iceland? Remember when he told Gorby he would bury them in armament spending and that SDI would render their missles useless?
Liberals screamed like little girls every time Reagan challenged the Soviets. Oh but now through the miraculous revision of history that liberals are famous for, Reagan used “diplomacy”.
Seriously, liberalism is a mental defect.
And I agree with an earlier post, Obama will be easy to beat and we can thank the minless minions like coulter for it.
11. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Pain,
You might want to re-listen to the speech. Obama was not mentioned once. So your dramatic hysteria re: the reference only highlights the fact that he does support, and will engage in all of the diplomatic blunders Bush mentioned.
Doth protest too much.
Think about it.
12. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“…on the Right will commit career seppuku and immortalize yourselves by going to that extreme of insulting Mr. Obama’s ethnicity as a last ditch effort to ensure the bigots turn out to vote.” - Pain
The Clintons beat us to it. LMAO.
13. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Matt, quit the paltry attempt to claim that Bush or McCain weren’t talking about Obama or the Democrats, especially when you subsequently continu their attack. It makes you look like a petulant child who can’t own up to its own actions.
It enforces the notion that Republicans are incapable of taking any responsibility or accountability.
And the failure of the cowboy-diplomacy of Bush and the Neocons are visible all over the globe. If there is one lesson to take away from their strategy, it is that bluster doesn’t work.
Had Bush been PM in ‘39, instead of Chamberlain, he would have been equally incapable of preventing WWII. It might have even started earlier and would have given the UK less time to prepare itself for the impending war. Hitler might have even been tempted to cross the Chanel and invade Britain.
14. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Willem,
Thank you for clearly demonstrating that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Hard to believe that a speech highlighting the past failures of unconditioned diplomacy is regarded as an attack on one specific opponent.
Only if the opponent endorses such actions, right?
Obama…the next Neville Chamberlain.
15. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
WVO,
Bush never used a name to identify those who are delusioned that you can reason with an animal. You can pretend all you want who he was talking about but he may as well been talking about some peaacenick sitting on a mountain-top being at one with nature.
Barak would not have been able to avoid WWII also. Your point is worthless as your logic.
You libs are bent out of shape because you and your ilk were correctly identified for what you truly are. When people react with false outrage as you have then the truth has been revealed.
I love it when libs lose their lunch over the truth.
16. Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I’ve been in L.A. all week. Last evening I had a very disturbing conversation with a liberal and black co-worker. His vision for America?
Why can’t we just get along with other countries? Why can’t we make friends?
But then he savagely attacked Republicans and conservatives as evil bad people. So, Hamas is OK to talk to, but Republicans are not? Thats the way it seemed.
Taxes bordering on, heck passing over to socialism. I asked him how much more he paid each year than required - nothing, of course. He claimed that (again) Republicans were greedy evil people. I pointed out the public service my two Eagle Scouts had done. They did it for selfish reasons he replied. I pointed out that studies show that conservatives give more in time and money to charities than liberals do. Called me a liar. I pointed out that I had actually paid several summers so my kids could go to Church Work Camp to rebuild houses in slum areas of Louisville and Philadelphia. They did it for selfish reasons he said. For their own benefit (yah, I guess because public service and me paying their way makes them happy). I guess doing something for someone else is only good if you are forced to do it as part of some socialist agenda.
Pull out of Iraq now. I have no proof that there would be chaos and a regional war. I said, but history shows… “Who’s history? Your history?”
Gun control, even forced confiscation? Definitely. Abortion? Definitely. Liberal bias in Hollywood, the press, and TV? No! Fox Fox Fox!!!
And the non-Fox journalists have taken an oath.
He would shout me down. Change subjects wildly from one incoherent argument and statement to the next. It was very very interesting. It was actually based on little or no facts and was quite ludicrous.
And here’s the thing, I had a conversation with a retirement age white liberal coworker a few weeks ago that closely paralleled this conversation. It is very difficult to craft a coherent and logical argument against a bunch of incoherent and muddled accusations, misstatements, and pie-in-the-sky assumptions.
One thing my co-worker said last night. Just as he had this evil look asking me what I would do when “we” came for my guns… He said “this next election is the most important in history. It will decide the future of the country.” And in THAT he was absolutely 100% correct. Is McCain perfect? No. But the extreme liberal agenda as personified in Barack Obama is more frightening and frankly evil than even we have realized. These people MUST be stopped.
17. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
OUTRAGEOUS!
Interpol Confirms: US Democrat Was Secretly Working With FARC To Undermine Colombian Government - GatewayPundit.com
18. Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
WVO - Well, Bush may have been referring to Jimmy Carter for going to visit Hamas. Or to Nancy Peolosi for her visit to Syria. But well, actually he acurately described Obamas views didn’t he?
Obama says “talk to them”. Yet, he doesn’t talk to…. Republicans. He’s never reached across the aisle in Illinois or in Washington to make friends and work together HERE. And just what will he say to Hamas and Iran and Al Queada? Just what is this clever argument that will make them relize how wrong they’ve been? Or, will he conced point. Which is appeasment.
Please, tell us what Nancy P. had to say to Syria that helped? What did Jimmy C. contribute to the Palestinian/Isreal problem? And just what does Obama plan to do. The soft shoe?
19. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
In reality, Bush’s speech was a godsend for Obama. It gave him the chance to campaign against Bush, while linking McCain to Bush and his policies. In doing so, it allows him to dominate the news cycle. It even had the added plus of uniting the Democratic party behind him.
20. middlefinger | May 16th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Squirm toadies squirm.
I love it.
It stinks in here. It smells like…fear.
21. coulterfan | May 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
>>You may want to revisit your Reagan talking points. Remember the “Evil Empire” connotation of the Soviet Union - that was Reagan. Remember when he walked out on Gorbachev in Iceland? Remember when he told Gorby he would bury them in armament spending and that SDI would render their missles useless?
Are you suggesting that Reagan WASN’T TALKING to Gorbechev? Obama has suggested ‘tough negotiations through strength’ and has actually PRAISED Reagan on more than one occasion. . .
How does NOT TALKING to enemies (aka the Bush policy) better than what Reagan and other Presidents have done? Even if talking means sometimes walking out of the meeting, at least the policy isn’t “bomb first and ask questions later” (aka ‘more wars’ and ‘100 years in Iraq’ McCain)!
If you think Obama will be easy to beat, you haven’t been paying attention to the special elections!
22. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a terrorist appeaser and a liar. From his official campaign web site:
Iran is the world’s leading state-sponsor of terrorism. Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq. Iran funds and controls the genocidal Hezbollah terrorists and funds the equally genocidal Hamas terrorists. Obama is a weak, terrorist appeaser and it would be extraordinarily dangerous for America and the world if he got the presidency.
23. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
coulter,
Do you honestly think that the US is NOT TALKING with our enemies? Really?
There are constant on-going low level diplomatic efforts and always have been. History has taught us, however that high level, unconditioned dialogue achieves nothing and to suggest Reagan engaged in this type of dialogue with the Soviets that Obama is suggesting is just astonishingly dishonest. Also, comparing the governments of Syria & Iran to the Soviet Union is ridiculous. The Soviets at least were sane people.
And Obama PRAISING Reagan is just another example of his pandering. He’ll say just about anything at this point.
24. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
middlefinger delights us with his wit. Obviously schooled at the DailyKos.
So original and refreshing.
25. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Casper,
I heard two women from the Womens League of Voters say yesterday that if Hillary is not the nominee, they’ll vote for McCain.
26. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
And on top of that, Obama calls a female reporter the other day sweetie.
That’s rich.
27. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“I heard two women from the Womens League of Voters say yesterday that if Hillary is not the nominee, they’ll vote for McCain.”
Wonder what those women would say if they were given a choice between Obama and four more years of Bush, because that’s the choice Obama is trying to make it.
28. Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
coulter, well yes. Technically threatening is talking. Thank doctor whackjob. “Surrender or Die” is technically talking to your enemy.
So THAT’s what you think Obama has in store for Iran? He’ll threaten them? Get tough with them? That’s REALLY what you think?
Well, I guess thats how liberals think of conservatives, so maybe so. It’s how you treat US.
What do you suppose he’ll do? Tell Canada and Mexico to stuff NAFTA where the Sun don’t shine and make nice nice with Iran, Hamas, Syria, and Al-Queda? Hmmm, maybe he’ll offer to destroy Israel for them? But, well AGAIN ceding points to them would actually be appeasing them woudn’t it?
UNLESS (Again, again) YOU can tell us whith your enormous liberal brain what this cleaver argument is that he will make that will make them realize how wrong they’ve been to use terror. Really, what IS this uber-argument?
29. Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
middlefinger, wash that finger off, it has brown on it. OH! not with you mouth! Yikes.
30. Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
sorry for the typos, long travel day.
31. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
McCain is nothing like Bush, and is actually the only GOP candidate that has a chance against the Democrats in the current political climate. His speach the other day was a clear contrast between his and the Bush Admin.
And ironically, the Democrats are the ones that practically gave him the nomination by crossing over and voting for him in NH and Iowa. So that will be a tough sell. Especially to the independants.
32. SEW | May 16th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Kahn, he’s a liberal so he uses both middle fingers simultaneously. Learned it in SanFran.
33. SEW | May 16th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
“In reality, Bush’s speech was a godsend for Obama. It gave him the chance to campaign against Bush, while linking McCain to Bush and his policies.” Casper.
You’re correct Casper. I’ll take it another step, Hussein also gets to link himself to Jimmy Carter, George McGovern and Dukakis! Win win for Hussein!
34. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“McCain is nothing like Bush, and is actually the only GOP candidate that has a chance against the Democrats in the current political climate. His speach the other day was a clear contrast between his and the Bush Admin.”
I agree. However, if Obama can link him to Bush, Obama wins.
“You’re correct Casper. I’ll take it another step, Hussein also gets to link himself to Jimmy Carter, George McGovern and Dukakis! Win win for Hussein!”
I’m guessing that any of those three could beat Bush right now.
35. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Casper,
Liberals have constantly misunderestimated Bush. John Kerry was suppose to be a sure thing on 04 and he has defeated Pelosi and Reid at every opportunity.
And now the Democrats are soon to nominate a flawed candidate in a can’t-miss year and they’re starting to circle the wagons to defend him.
How many times has Obama apologized about something?
36. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
McCain is a nice guy, but he has a very tough road ahead of him. If he embraces Bush and his policies, he loses the middle. If he throws Bush under the bus, he loses the base. So far he’s done a pretty good job of hanging on to both groups. However, every he defends Bush he helps Obama make his point that we are looking at another four years of the same policies.
37. phnx | May 16th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Obama’s outrage is feigned. Its an egotistical attempt to elevate himself to the level of the President.
38. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“And now the Democrats are soon to nominate a flawed candidate in a can’t-miss year and they’re starting to circle the wagons to defend him. ”
That should really scare you. The best chance McCain has is if the democrats keep fighting amongst themselves. If Obama gets the party 100% behind him McCain is in big trouble, especially since the Republicans aren’t really 100% behind McCain.
39. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“Obama’s outrage is feigned. Its an egotistical attempt to elevate himself to the level of the President.”
Of course his outrage is feigned, but it’s working. Look at Google News. He is getting great press.
40. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
neocon,
“Liberals have constantly misunderestimated Bush. John Kerry was suppose to be a sure thing on 04 and he has defeated Pelosi and Reid at every opportunity.”
I think Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest politicians ever. However, his ranking as a president will be much lower.
41. neocon | May 16th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Casper,
I misspoke, I meant mainly his handlers and supporters are the ones now constantly in a defensive mode. I also think there’s been a huge rift in the Democrat party that wont be entirely repaired by November. An inexperienced candidate, and turmoil in the party in a can’t-miss year has to give you reason to pause.
42. Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Casper -WHAT WILL OBAMA TALK TO IRAN, SYRIA, HAMAS, AND AL-QUEDA ABOUT?
Isn’t he angry because Bush ACCURATELY described his plan and attitude? If not, then what IS his plan?
43. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Kahn,
Actually, Obama has never said he wanted to talk to either Hamas or Al-Queda. As for what he would say to Syria or Iran, I don’t know. I’m not part of his campaign. Maybe hello. As far as his anger, I don’t think he was. I think he thought this was a great chance to link McCain with Bush. So far, it seems to be working.
44. Matt Margolis | May 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Is Obama an appeaser? Yes. But, sadly, he’s not the only appeaser in the Democratic Party… I’m sure Bush was talking about quite a number of Democrats. if Barack wants to make this about him, let him.. it just reminds people that he’s ready to play golf with terrorists and dictators if given the opportunity.
45. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Matt,
Please explain how Obama, or anybody in the Democratic party are appeasers. What exactly have they offered to give away?
46. SEW | May 16th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“I’m guessing that any of those three could beat Bush right now.”
Hussein, Carter, McGovern and Dukakis makes 4. And W is NOT running Casper. Now go do your homework then go to bed. Don’t forget to brush your teeth.
47. Jeremiah | May 16th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Please explain how Obama, or anybody in the Democratic party are appeasers. What exactly have they offered to give away?
He and they like to play with danger!!!
As it’s been said thousands upon thousands of times in any work environment….Safety first….and that means that a certian amount of experience must be acquired before you can work or operate machinery, tools, and in the case with terrorists…a very dangerous mind!
Mr. Obama hasn’t the experience nor lessons in safety to begin the task of taking care of 300,000,000+ people!
Me thinks Obama spoiled brat, who need to grow up and be a man!
48. Casper | May 16th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
SEW,
You might want to read what I said in context. I was referring to the three people you were trying to link Obama with. And yes, I know Bush isn’t running. I never said he was. Obama however, is trying very hard to link McCain to Bush.
49. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Boys, boys, boys. Next time get your talking points straigth with both the WH and McBush. They have stabbed you in the back.
As CNN’s Ed Henry reported today: White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
NBC’s John Yang also said that a White House official told him that Bush’s comments were aimed not only at Obama, but at former President Jimmy Carter and his suggestion that the United States talk with Hamas.
You’ve been left hanging out to dry and twist in the wind.
Just like McBush is doing: telling one reporter he would be okay with engaging Hamas and telling the next reporter something completely different. Such a maverick, doesn’t remember what he said just an hour before.
50. Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Casper, of course you don’t know what Obama would say. You don’t know what he would say to anyone or do about anything. He doesn’t actually explain anything.
One thing though, about “renegotiating” NAFTA. Maybe he should read up on what to countries supply most of our oil before he tells them he’s dumping our trade deal. Just a helpful suggestion.
And CASPER, OK he’s trying to link McCain to Bush. How about he just explains himself and his plans so that people like you can properly defend him? Since Bush have reasonably have been interpreted to be speaking about Carter or Pelosi, just why DID Obama assume he was speaking about him?
Could it be that he actually does have appeasement in mind and the remarks struck a little too close to home? Since you admit you don’t know, isn’t that a reasonable explanation?
51. Danish Artist | May 17th, 2008 at 12:10 am
In the largest appeasement “strategy”, Clinton convinced Israel to give Arafat everything he wanted.
Arafat turned them down!!!
You cannot even appease these people!
52. Brett Michaels | May 17th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Kahn | May 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I’ve been in L.A. all week. Last evening I had a very disturbing conversation with a liberal and black co-worker. His vision for America?
Why is it everytime a conservative on here talks to a black person, they mention their race?
Once Mark Noonan stated..”I overheard the conversation at the other table and the people happened to be black”
Now we have Kahn mentioning a liberal and black coworker.
Kahn,
I googled all your statements on this blog and the previous blog. Not once have you ever mentioned a person’s race..only when they are black.
Why?
Are we such anomalies that when you do talk to a negro you feel the need to mention our race?
You and Mark Noonan both do it. You never once say “I was talking this guy who happened to be white”
I dont expect and answer from you…but you should ask yourself why you feel the need to mention a person is a negro.
53. Brett Michaels | May 17th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Sorry my post was cut off.
It was supposed to say:
…but you should ask yourself why you feel the need to mention a person is a negro….when you are retelling the context of a conversation.
54. SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Brett, In America saying negro is condescending. Watch yourself or the other liberals will be all over you, unless of course you’re black, then it would be OK. But liberals never say negro.
55. SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
One more Brett, why do liberals consider Barry black when he is half white?
56. Brett Michaels | May 17th, 2008 at 12:40 am
SEW I am a negro. Its not a condescending term..I’m not sure where you received your information from. Dr. King proudly called us negros and I proudly call myself a negro.
I even posted several photos of myself in my Class A’s a while back until Mark informed me I was not allowed to do that.
57. Brett Michaels | May 17th, 2008 at 12:42 am
SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
One more Brett, why do liberals consider Barry black when he is half white?
Because negro genes are dominant.
An interracial child will always have tight curled hair.
58. Brett Michaels | May 17th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Sew,
Quite honestly, the more I think about your post, the more I am puzzled but the complete lack of knowledge of our culture.
Nergo is a condescending term?
Why is the a United Negro College Fund? http://www.uncf.org/
Your statement is really odd to say the least.
59. thrower | May 17th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Do you consider Obama to be white SEW? If the answer is no, you just answered your own question.
In slave holding Virginia, anyone with one African grandparent was legally defined as black for the purposes of denying them rights as a citizen. It may just be that sorry history of discrimination that makes mixed race people consider themselves to be black.
60. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Brett,
I mentioned it because it was relevant. He holds some views that are not widely held by white liberals that I know. The fact that in North Carolina 90% of blacks voted against a white and for a black no matter what his positions were show that race is indeed an issue. It is not racist to point this out. Having to use imprecise “politically correct” speech is a hindrence to the free flow of ideas.
But depending on the exact issue: anywhere from 25% to 75% of blacks believe that O.J. is innocent, the government created AIDS to kill the blacks, that the government imports drugs to inner cities to kill blacks, and Black Muslims flat out believe that the “white man” is the devil.
So YOU tell ME, how do we deal with these insane positions largely only held by the black community by pretending that we are talking about Swedes and Germans?
Like you - his beliefs are a mish mash of contradictory beliefs based upon created and in many times disproven fact. The truth is, I didn’t have to scratch very hard to get through to the hatred. He would change subjects wildly, never argue a point to it’s logical conclusion. He called me a liar on every factual point I made and refused to believe even CNN and the Washington Post when I brought up articles on my hand held computer to demonstrate points.
He believes that Republicans are bad greedy people. Evil. That we need to have our guns taken away, apparently so we can’t fight the socialist utopia he sees being imposed on us. Liberal reporters NEVER lie or twist the truth. Conservatives ALWAYS do. Hollywood’s control of TV and the movies don’t matter because even if they lie and twist stories to make a point it’s OK if the point is liberal and it’s just entertainment anyways.
He doesn’t care about my point. You should have seen the look on his face when I got him to admit that he wanted the government to seize guns. He asked me what would I do when they came to my door? And you know what, for the first time I really decided that if that was the case. I’d start shooting.
He told me that euthanasia is OK and necessary . He gave an example from his own family. And, he said that these decisions should be made by the living and that the family should be able to make that choice even if the person in question had opposed it. He said he didn’t care about my opinion on abortion and that you should be able to kill a fetus right up to the end. Hell, why not? He’s willing to kill a family member with a social security number.
So yes - he’s black. He’s also liberal. Two different things. THAT’s why I described him as such.
But that is the main point of post eh? Not the rest of the crazy crap? The fact that I mentioned he’s black? F.Y.
61. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Brett - “only when they are black”? Oh - and the OTHER times where, when?
62. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Oh and Brett- YOU mention the race of a poster…. yourself.
Why do black posters here feel that they need to tell us their race. Does being black give you special authority on certain subjects? Careful now, I’m laying a rhetorical trap…
63. Casper | May 17th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Kahn,
Of course Obama is trying to link Bush with McCain, just as Mark and Matt have been trying to link Obama with anyone they think will hurt him. It’s called guilt by association. Since I’ve already admitted I don’t know what Obama is thinking, why don’t you explain how you think he is going to appease Hamas or Iran. What is he going to give up, Wyoming?
64. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Casper, but you don’t actually have a clue what Obama has planned do you. You’re the teacher right? So lets not get led around by the campaigns and lets think for ourselves.
Al-Queda: Our sworn enemies. We are killing them. They would see talks and our disengagement as a victory. Refer to Israels withdrawals from Lebanon as an example. So, just what does Obama think he has to say to these people? In my opinion the only thing to say is, “hey - look up. See that plane?” BAM
Iran, Syria, and Hamas. Iran is probably working on nuclear weapons. It is funding Hamas and sending arms and bombs into Iraq. It probably has designs on souther Iraqs oil fields. And though they scream “death to Israel!”, I’m not sure if they really mean to attack or not. But they ARE funding attacks on Israeli and Iraqi and actually lebanese civilians NOW. As well as, attacks on Americans - NOW.
So Again again again - what do you think Obama has to say to Iran? What cleaver new argument does he have to make them stop this hostile belligerent activity? Or, is it possible (more likely) that he is going to offer them a deal. A deal like maybe, cutting of aid to Israel? I mean - isn’t that a fair guess?
If not, why did Obama assume Bush was speaking of him, when Pelosi, Carter, or a host of other Democrats could have been who he meant? In fact, it may have been aimed at the Europeans.
Come on now, be honest. Even you have admitted you don’t have a clue what he would say.
I say, demand an answer. He wants to be th freakin’ president for cryin’ out loud.
65. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:53 am
What could Obama give to Al-Queda, Hamas, Syria, and Iran? Hmmmmm
We will pull all troops out of the middle east (he’s already said he has a plan to pull out of Iraq, and thats where most of them are).
We will stop financial and military aid and cooperation with Israel.
We will not interfere (because sending troops BACK to the mid-east would be impossible) if Syria and Iran decide to change their borders around a little, you know - by seizing oild fields in Iraq.
We will not oppose Iran’s nuclear program and we will stop pushing for sanctions.
We will sell you parts for your F-14’s from our mothballed fleet of planes in Tuscon.
Hey, whtja know? I could think of several things without bringing in Wyoming. Casper - you’re a teacher. Grade your own lame effort above as if you were a student. What could Obama offer up? Wyoming? “F”
66. Casper | May 17th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Kahn,
Obama has never said he would talk to either Hamas or Al-Queda, so that makes it pretty hard for him to appease them.
As for your other comments, could you please link to statements by Obama where he has backed any of those positions. Do you really have a clue as to what he would say? If you do show where it came from.
Actually, the point I’m trying to make is that this whole thing is a political stunt. If Obama’s strategy is to link McCain to Bush, then he got what he wanted. It doesn’t matter whether or not Bush was aiming his comments at Obama . Obama has used them for his own purposes.
67. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | May 17th, 2008 at 3:59 am
LMAO!!!!!! You conservatives are as bad at defining appeasement as that empty suit Kevin James. Loved watching Chris Mathews exposing that guy for the idiot he is. If you haven’t seen it you should youtube it. It’s SWEEEEEEET!!!!
So Repuglicans, not your best week I’d say. One, you committed a faux pas by having Bush vent internal political disagreements to a foreign delegation, something that has only been done a few times in the last 60 years precisely because it is so politically stupid. Two, in a year when the public desires change you make McCain defend the Bush policies therefore inexorably connecting himself to a president with the lowest approval rating in American history. It also increases his profile as the conductor on ” The Double Talk Express” because 2 years ago he endorsed negotiating with Hamas. Three, this misstep has cemented in the media the idea of Obama as the Democratic nominee because he’s shown that he can effectively defend himself against these attacks which worked so well just 4 years ago. Now he’s got Bush and McCain back peddling and playing catch up.
If this is how you guys intend to campaign I’d say save your money for a shot at 2012.
68. kjstrouble | May 17th, 2008 at 9:26 am
With all of the negative press, and foolish comments and whines that Obama has come up with recently, this could be a very interesting campaign season. McCain may not be perfect, but he says what he means, and not what he thinks others want him to say. At least with McCain you know where he stands, what he believes in, and what will happen. With Obama (and HRC) you have to try reading between the lines, looking at past history, and try to see what are just talking points to try and win votes, and what he actually might believe.
I look forward to the debates, to see if smooth, nice sounding rhetoric can win out over real feelings, and actual plans. I hope not, I prefer reality to liberal dreams.
69. FmrMarine | May 17th, 2008 at 9:33 am
KAHN:
>>>>He said “this next election is the most important in history. It will decide the future of the country.” And in THAT he was absolutely 100% correct. Is McCain perfect? No. But the extreme liberal agenda as personified in Barack Obama is more frightening and frankly evil than even we have realized. These people MUST be stopped.<<<<
BINGO….
These people ARE DANGEROUS !
Make no bones about it.
I always wondered how countries could plunge into civil war, neighbor against neighbor. However like you listening to the convoluted rantings of marxist liberals, and reading the bilge spewed here by the nutjobs makes one really wonder how long before the next shooting civil war begins.
The modern day blacks have bought into the marxist system and i see b. hussein playing on that.
Here is a good article for your friend.
A Brief for Whitey
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 03/21/2008 ET
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in
America .
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way
conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its
convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black
folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave
ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian
salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity
blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an
American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks
than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on
welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants,
student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and
poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the
mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in
discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract
set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white
applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals
all over America have donated time and money to supp ort soup kitchens,
adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
Barack talks about new ‘ladders of opportunity’ for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown , and ask the white kids
in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters
handing out scholarships for ‘deserving’ white kids.
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and
incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of
white America ? Is it really white America ’s fault that illegitimacy in
the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout
rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent ?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a
failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial
crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama
aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent
of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times
more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times
as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana
Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes.
But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear
nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40
years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
�
70. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“Because negro genes are dominant.” - Brett
Brett,
Kahn only mentioned the race of that gentleman out of deference and respect to the dominant gene.
LMAO
71. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Casper - All YOU could think of was Wyoming. I am 100% speculating here and you know it.
He hasn’t said ANYTHING (you dolt). Get it. All we know is Bush says appeasement and Obama gets all mad. Why? He hasn’t said ANYTHING. Bush could have been talking about Carter (certainly) or Pelosi (likely). But Obama assumes he means him. Why?
Maybe because appeasement IS his plan.
Otherwise (again, again, agaim, again) please tell us what this clever new argument is that Obama will use to make our enemies understand that it was all just a big misunderstanding?
And give yourself another “F” for being obtuse.
72. SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
“Quite honestly, the more I think about your post, the more I am puzzled but the complete lack of knowledge of our culture.
Nergo is a condescending term?
Why is the a United Negro College Fund? http://www.uncf.org/
Your statement is really odd to say the least.”
Brett
Negro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Negro is a term referring to people of Black African ancestry. Prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s, the appellation was accepted as a normal neutral formal term both by those of African descent as well as non-African blacks. Now it is often considered an ethnic slur[1][2][3] although the term is still used in some contexts for historical reasons such as in the name of the United Negro College Fund[4][5]. “Negro” means “black” in Spanish and Portuguese, and the Italian “nero” is similar (Latin: niger = “black”).
Got that Brett? “Now it is often considered an ethnic slur.” From Wikipedia. Liberal political correctness is odd, not my statement.
73. SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“Because negro genes are dominant.
An interracial child will always have tight curled hair.” Brett
Brett, you have a lot to learn about liberal political correctness. Yor are racial profiling. A no no. And negro genes are dominant? Incorrect. Some are such as skin color/tone, others aren,t, bur the fact remains why is a half black half white considered black? The correct term is mulato, but that is also politically incorrect to use mulatto, considered a slur by the liberals!
So I’m with you 100%. I do not find Negro or mulatto offensive! But do a short post on this blog and refer to Barick as a Negro or mulatto and watch the liberals.
“The “mulatto” debate has lot in common with the controversy over politically correct (also known as PC) terminology. People create alternative terms (like “mixed” or “biracial”) because the original term (like “mulatto”) becomes loaded with negative connotations. When the people concerned (who originally disseminated the PC term) sense that the change in terminology is not causing the change in mindset that they wanted, various terminology springs up to try to rectify that problem. The birth of politically correct terms has to do with people’s idea that what you say influences what you think and feel. So, what does it mean that there are so many terms about racially diverse individuals? It probably means that there is no unifying community or organization that officially announces, “Yes, our community approves the rest of you (the media) calling us —-,” “No, we reject being called —– because we find it offensive/derogatory,” etc. A minority without a voice (yet), I guess.’
74. SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Brett, One more lesson. Liberals consider it OK for a black to use the term Negro or mulatto, but for a white to use them is clearly racism. Go figure, to me that simply means liberals have a loose screw.
Also OK for a black to say honkey or whitey or use the n word, but a white can’t use the n word or blackey.
It was also OK for HRC to have been under sniper attack is Bosnia until she had a more liberal opponent. Before Barick, it was the Right Wing Attack machine and swiftboaters that would have exposed the sniper fire truth. Liberals.
75. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
My point is that liberals are insane and that some black liberals harbor a very special insanity based on hatred of whites and America.
Now, it’s not a worse insanity. Just different.
76. FmrMarine | May 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
BM
>>>Why is it everytime a conservative on here talks to a black person, they mention their race?<<<
UMMMM because EVERY black person i have ever known has, self identified THEMSELVES as “AFRICAN - Americans”
NEVER EVER have i heard ANY white person identify themselves as a european - American.
YOU came onto this site throwing the N word around, and posted a picture of your self so ALL could see you were a negro.
GET OVER it and go like a good lemming and vote for the “dominant gene” earbama BRO!
77. Canadian Observer | May 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
UMMMM because EVERY black person i have ever known has, self identified THEMSELVES as “AFRICAN - Americans”
NEVER EVER have i heard ANY white person identify themselves as a european - American.
76. FmrMarine | May 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
You do know, FmrMarine, that they
were captured and brought to America from Africa bound in chains, do you not?
Whereas, White Americans came of their own free will.
Comparisons are ridiculous. Not the same experience at all.
78. bongoman | May 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
What a bunch of crap. He’s flip-flopped on so many issues it’s hard to keep up with. Abortion, immigration, torture, creationism, gay marriage , talks with Hamas etc etc
On all these issues, and more, he has been inconistent.
To clam that you know where McCain stands is laughable.
79. phnx | May 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“Obama has never said he would talk to either Hamas or Al-Queda, so that makes it pretty hard for him to appease them.” Casper
Casper, as a teacher you should know by now that Hamas is the sock puppet of Iran. So explain the difference between Presidential level negotiattions with Hamas or the man behind the curtain pulling the strings?
80. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“…….that they were captured and brought to America from Africa bound in chains, do you not?” - CO
Actually CO most of them were bought from “negro” slave traders in Africa. They sold their own.
81. Pain | May 17th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
55. SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Obama is black because of your rules!
Because like every other white man in America on the political right if he showed up at your door to take your daughter out for dinner and a movie you would see a black man not a biracial one.
That is why. As it always has been in America one drop of black blood is so powerful it can “taint” a whole body of white blood in the eyes of those who see race as currency
82. Pain | May 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
60. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:09 am
“his beliefs are a mish mash of contradictory beliefs based upon created and in many times disproven fact”
Are you talking about black liberals? Sounds more like the Religious Right to Us.
83. Pain | May 17th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
80. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
So If We bought your wife and children from a white neighbor who was holding them against their will and We took them to Haiti and forced them to grow sugar cane that would make Our enslaving them alright because someone of their own race made the original sale???
No wonder your warped world view is being painted into a corner! The seller AND the purchaser both committed crimes against Humanity and you neocon still profit from those crimes everyday.
84. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Wow, you know I never mentioned that I thought it was right, did I?
But you, just like Jamie Rubin, will try and perpetuate that lie. Liberals are all the same.
85. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
And tell me how I profit from those crimes.
86. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Tell me how the following is not a racist comment:
“Because like every other white man in America on the political right ” - Pain
87. Willem van Oranje | May 18th, 2008 at 12:17 am
neocon
Conservatives accused Reagan of “appeasement” when he tried diplomacy. The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad in 1988 saying “Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938.”
How wrong they were.
When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right’s leader, complained that the act of “diplomatic sentimentality” signaled the “death rattle of the West.”
Conservative icon Barry Goldwater accused Kennedy of “appeasement” after the Cuba Crisis because Kennedy had promised not to invade Cuba when the Russians would withdrew their missiles. Goldwater apparently didn’t mind turning a great part of the world into a nuclear wasteland.
It appears conservatives have a very limited vocabulary because historically, they have condemned every attempt to negotiatie as “appeasement”. This probably explains why they prefer bombs over words: they’ve got only a few of them.
88. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Pain - well actually both. The religious right is kind of screwy in my eues. Personally, I do not care about gay marriage. But I don’t care about polygamy either. In fact, I think if it were legal and open the recent fiasco in Texas wouldn’t have happened. I also think that religious arguments about the creation of life are as useless and unprovable as the lefts arguments. I think abortion is bad BECAUSE we can’t be sure if its murder or not.
But here we have a case of manufactured flip flops in McCains positions as a counter to Obamas clear weakness on foreign policy. McCain is the senator with the BEST record of reaching across the aisle to get things done. Obama has the worst. NEVER has he compromised with conservatives on anything. His idea of a “new” way is liberal totalitarianism.
Bush never mentioned Obama. His remarks could have meant Carter or Pelosi. No, the fact is that he hit close to home. We are already talking tough to our enemies. Just what is this great new cleaver argument Obama has to make? Let’s hear it. Enlighten us poor ignorant conservatives with your enormous liberal brain. Tell us what Obama has to negotiate with Iran, Syria, and Hamas (or with any of the individually) if it is NOT to give them concessions? Tell us. Resist the liberal urge to change subjects and tell us what Obama has planned?
And if you can’t, could you please tell us why you’re sure he’s right if you can’t articulate his intentions?
89. SEW | May 18th, 2008 at 1:00 am
“Obama is black because of your rules!” Pain
You libs are so ignorantly self righteous. Your rules! Ha, those rules are your rules Pain, not mine. You Dems are the party of segregation and racism. The Republican Party was founded to end racism, the Dems to propagate it. The Republican Party fought tooth and nail for Civil Rights, the Dem Party against Civil Rights. Your party wants to continue and is doing an excellent job of propagating racism. Don’t put your racism on me.
Democrats, Slavery, and Jim Crow
Contrary to Obama’s version of our Declaration of Independence, the signatories were divided by states that supported slavery and those that did not. Unless the opponents of slavery accepted the practice within slave states, pro-slavery Congressmen (New York, Pennsylvania) would not have signed the Declaration of Independence. And without unanimous agreement, the United States could not have waged a successful war for independence against the British.
While this compromise perpetuated slavery for another sixty years, it gave birth to the country that outlawed the practice of slavery throughout the Western World – the same country that continues to promote freedom throughout the world today. It would have been pointless to fight a civil war before establishing our American sovereignty.
When the American Revolution ended in 1789, Congress passed (and George Washington signed) a law (Art.6) stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.
Four years later, Thomas Jefferson formed the Democrat Party. By 1808, Congress abolished the slave trade in America although it was difficult to enforce in the Democrat-controlled slave states until imposed by Republicans during the Civil War. When Democrats gained control of Congress in 1818, they used their majority to undo these anti-slavery decisions. The Democrat Party passed the Missouri Compromise (1820), institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories. During the next thirty years, Democrats passed multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law, which ended all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus for blacks (even free men) who were falsely accused of being escaped slaves. Four years later, Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act that exceeded the limits of the Missouri Compromise by opening up new territories to slavery.
In 1854, the Republican Party was formed specifically to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues. And even after millions of Republicans volunteered to fight and die to end slavery, Democrats opposed every effort to codify and enforce civil rights in America.
From 1866 to 1875, the Republican Congress passed 19 civil rights laws, including the 14th and 15th Amendments that established citizenship for all and the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Democrats oppose them all and, when they took control of the House, Democrats established Jim Crow laws and repealed all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they could not repeal they skirted with poll taxes and literacy tests. Democrats controlled the black vote in the Solid South with this simple admonition – vote Democrat or we’ll burn down your home and kill your family. This was not a racist white-on-black practice, but a Democrat-on-black practice.
Obama’s Big Lie
Hillary supporters dare not contradict Obama’s Big Lie (white racism) because they’ve spent decades creating and promoting it. Since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Democrats have used public schools, the media, and race baiters to convince Americans that 1) white children and their parents are responsible for the legacy of slavery and racism in America and 2) they will also grow up to be racists unless they help the Democrat Party end white racism (along with other pseudo-educational subjects like collective bargaining, immigration rights, gay rights, and global warming). Like affirmative action, Obama has redirected the Big Lie from Republicans onto white Democrats, who are now forced to choose between the rich white Democrat and the black messiah who will forgive us of our burdensome white guilt.
Obama’s oratory skills notwithstanding, no one corroborates his unsuitability as president more than his mentor and fellow race-baiter Jeremiah Wright. Whether the Obama Family was seated on a given day or not, no one can deny Wright’s enthusiastic congregation or the black talking heads that continue to endorse the Obama/Wright worldview. White Democrats like Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer refuse to discuss it, imploring us to MOVE ON, vernacular for, You’ve caught me in an indefensible position and I want to escape from my responsibility as your elected representative.
Because Obama is not the progeny of slavery or white racism, he bought his own authenticity by joining the most poisonous pseudo-church in Chicago. While the Harvard-educated politician and his affirmative action wife lent credibility to the church, Wright bestowed black authenticity to Obama. But like other fraud schemes, someone always gets stuck with the bag; which is why white Democrats cannot attack Obama without attacking their own mythology.
Obama has defined this racial fraud like no one before him. To be authentically black, must we accept that the United States deserved the attacks of 9/11? What about über-supporter Oprah Winfrey? To be authentically black, must she accept that the US government developed the AIDS virus to kill black people?
I’m not saying that Republicans don’t say whacky things, but I don’t have to accept ex-Democrat David Duke’s venom to be authentically white – even if my Mom’s Brazilian and my children are brown.
Although Democrats have a unique opportunity to free themselves from the tired rhetoric of America’s race-baiters, it’s hard to imagine how they will reform themselves without admitting to their institutional guilt. I suspect that, to most Democrats, buying into Barack Obama’s hallucinogenic lie will be much easier than accepting the truth about themselves.
90. Ryan | May 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am
TO Obama:
“You’re so vain. YOu probably think this speech is about you. .”
91. FmrMarine | May 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
pain
>>>The seller AND the purchaser both committed crimes against Humanity and you neocon still profit from those crimes everyday.<<<
Sure we do……BS alert.
The TRILLIONS spend for welfare, crime, drugs, affirmative action etc etc sure profits my family….NOT.
92. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Ryan, that is freakin’ hilarious. Really.
93. Pain | May 18th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
89. SEW | May 18th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Somehow in all of that you fail to mention that when Lyndon Baines Johnson dsinged the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party in protest and found a warm and conmfortable home in the GOP who used the Solid South to Sweep Richard Nixon to the White House in 1968. In 1972, Nixon swept the South with a wink and a nod to Billy Graham. Johnson emancipated blacks in both civil and voting rights in the 1960s and from that point on the black Southern vote has been democratic and the bulk of white voters fled to the GOP.
94. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Oh and Brett- YOU mention the race of a poster…. yourself.
Why do black posters here feel that they need to tell us their race.
Why do I mention my race….because I can.
Any more questions?
95. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 12:54 am
SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Got that Brett? “Now it is often considered an ethnic slur.” From Wikipedia. Liberal political correctness is odd, not my statement.
So you use wikipedia to determine is something is a slur or not?
Have you ever asked negro face to face if he or she considers the word a slur?
Why do you have to resort to faux source such as wikipedia?
Why not relate a conversation you had with a negro friend?
If you have alot of negro friends or lived around negros you would have never considered the word offensive.
…remember….The United Negro College Fund.
Amazing that a charity would use such an ’slur’ in their name.
What other myths do you think about negros? Any other pearls of wisdom you glean from wikipedia about negros?
96. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Pain, Republicans voted in higher percentages for the Voting and Civil Rights acts than did Democrats. We’d been pushing for them as the minority party for years.
Your little bit of pseudo-history is incorrect. A hand full of Democrats defected to the Republicans, yes. (Got any numbers to back up YOUR claim). But the Republicans seeing an opportunity came up with a plan to win the Soiuth on OTHER issues. Namely, support for religion and guns rights.
By the way, as we saw success - what was LBJ’s response?
He addicted the blacks to welfare. His “feed them rather than teach them to fish” plan doomed the inner city black family and has led to degeneration of those areas for two generations now. Every time a Republican suggests that maybe these people should stand up on their own - they’re branded racist.
So, now think about these effects of the LBJ plan:
1. Live where we tell you (public or subsidized housing).
2. We’ll feed you and take care of you.
3. We don’t care if your families dissolve.
4. Just do what we tell you to do - vote Democrat.
LBJ re-instituted slavery. He got them the vote, and then addicted them to government money that they could keep flowing only… with the vote.
Oh and Brett - good stupid answer thanks. Why does a dog lick himself? Because he can. Ha Ha.
97. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Brett - well it was started in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s wasn’t it? Your people hadn’t decided to be offended by the word back then.
98. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 2:01 am
oops my mistake. It’s late and I misread Bretts post. I must admit that I don’t know when the UNCF was founded. I was thinking of the NAACP , which makes no sense at all, I know.
Brett - is “colored” OK than? I mean…. the NAACP wouldn’t use a slur either, would they?
99. SEW | May 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
“What other myths do you think about negros? Any other pearls of wisdom you glean from wikipedia about negros?” Brett
Like I said I don’t consiser it a slur. But why does all the press use black or African American instead of Negro? The press is the Political Correct Cop.
Wikipedia is controlled by the liberal Politically Correct Police. Liberals, Brett. Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson would raise holy hell if a white person referred to either as a Negro.
Brett, Wikipedia is the voice of liberals.
100. HolaA | May 19th, 2008 at 9:46 am
“LMAO!!!!!! You conservatives are as bad at defining appeasement as that empty suit Kevin James. Loved watching Chris Mathews exposing that guy for the idiot he is. If you haven’t seen it you should youtube it. It’s SWEEEEEEET!!!!
So Repuglicans, not your best week I’d say. One, you committed a faux pas by having Bush vent internal political disagreements to a foreign delegation, something that has only been done a few times in the last 60 years precisely because it is so politically stupid. Two, in a year when the public desires change you make McCain defend the Bush policies therefore inexorably connecting himself to a president with the lowest approval rating in American history. It also increases his profile as the conductor on ” The Double Talk Express” because 2 years ago he endorsed negotiating with Hamas. Three, this misstep has cemented in the media the idea of Obama as the Democratic nominee because he’s shown that he can effectively defend himself against these attacks which worked so well just 4 years ago. Now he’s got Bush and McCain back peddling and playing catch up.”
I saw the clip, Kevin James looked like a complete idiot. He couldn’t answer because he didn’t know….talk about towing the parties talking points.
McCain has flip flopped on his positions so many times I’m not sure what he wants. He says one thing a year ago and the exact opposite today. He could be the ultimate panderer or the ultimate liar. Oh right, it could ba another of his many ‘gaffes’.
To add to the racial debate, The term ‘negro’ is considered by and large a derogatory term.
101. HolaA | May 19th, 2008 at 9:51 am
“LBJ re-instituted slavery. He got them the vote, and then addicted them to government money that they could keep flowing only… with the vote.”
Another kook right statement from Genghis Kahn! That’s a rich one. I may use that in my book.
102. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | May 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Kahn-
” But the Republicans seeing an opportunity came up with a plan to win the Soiuth on OTHER issues. Namely, support for religion and guns rights.”
Really!!???? So then that explains why Ken Mehlman , chairman or the RNC, went before the NAACP to apologize for the Republican’s “southern strategy”.
(from Wikipedia)
“Mehlman addressed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) a full year before Bush addressed the civil rights organization.[3] In his address to the NAACP on July 14, 2005 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Mehlman apologized for the Republican Party’s failure to reach out to the black community in the aftermath of 1964’s Civil Rights Act, stating, “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization… I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong”. In a CNN interview a couple of days after the speech, he reluctantly mentioned the “Southern Strategy” by name. ”
What was the Southern Strategy?
(from Wikipedia)
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to methods of winning elections in the South in the latter decades of the 20th century by exploiting racial anxiety among white voters.
Although the phrase “Southern strategy” is often attributed to Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[1] but merely popularized it.[2] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:
FROM NOW ON, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”[3]
Lyndon Johnson knew that his endorsement of Civil Rights legislation would endanger his party in the South, but he did it anyway. The national Democratic party supported integration and passage of civil rights legislation to correct injustices. In the election of 1968, Richard Nixon saw the cracks in the Solid South as an opportunity to tap into a group of voters who had long been beyond the reach of the Republican Party.
Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—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 “Nigger, nigger.”.[12]
Herbert wrote in the same column, “The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.’s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.”[13]
So Kahn are we clear on the REPUBLICAN’S SOUTHERN STRATEGY NOW?
103. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Kahn,
I didnt know you could be addicted to welfare.
Yooz nose, we dumb negros…weez so dumb, that weez just want to stay on welfare. Dats why weez always votes for democrats. Cuz weez such addicts.
104. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
SEW,
Again I will ask you the question…why didnt you just ask a black friend if he/she thinks the negro is a slur?
If you didnt think it was a slur, then why did you bring it up? When was the last time you saw anyone protesting the use of negro?
If you do not think its a slur…when was the last time you referred to a black person you knew as a negro?
105. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Sew,
Just to refresh your memory since you seem to be backtracking by stating you dont thin negro is a slur
SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Brett, In America saying negro is condescending.
106. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Kahn,
In your first post you mention the black co-worker statements..and then you go on in the same post
And here’s the thing, I had a conversation with a retirement age white liberal coworker a few weeks ago that closely paralleled this conversation.
I ask you why you mentioned the black guys race:
You reply:
I mentioned it because it was relevant. He holds some views that are not widely held by white liberals that I know.
Yet in your original statement you claim the white and black liberal have the same viewpoints.
So why mention his race?
I know alot of Jews that dont have the same politcal beliefs as me…but it never occurs to me say…I was talking to my Jew co-worker and you wouldnt believe what that Jew was saying”
107. Pain | May 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
89. SEW | May 18th, 2008 at 1:00 am
I’m not saying that Republicans don’t say whacky things, but I don’t have to accept ex-Democrat David Duke’s venom to be authentically white – even if my Mom’s Brazilian and my children are brown.
Duke ran as a Democratic Party candidate in 1974 for Louisianan State Senate and as a Democratic primary candidate in 1988. Duke was the eventual 1988 nominee of the populist party and his main platform positions were anti-homosexula military service laws, anti-Latino immigration and anti-affirmative action.
In the only political campaign victory David Duke ever had, for the Louisiana State House 81st District seat he ran and won as a Republican after defeating John Treen who had the support of both Ronald Reagan and President GHW Bush.
Duke ran as a GOP candidate for US Senate in 1990 and again in 1996. Duke ran as a GOP candidate for Governor in Louisiana in 1991. Duke ran as a GOP candidate in 1999 for the Louisiana 1st district US House seat. In December of 2006 David Duke multiple Republican candidate for public office gathered at a Holocaut deniers conference that was opened by none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran in the capital Tehran.
108. SEW | May 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Sew,
Just to refresh your memory since you seem to be backtracking by stating you dont thin negro is a slur
SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Brett, In America saying negro is condescending. Brett
condescending
adjective showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority: They resented the older neighbors’ condescending cordiality.
slur
3. to cast aspersions on; calumniate; disparage; depreciate: The candidate was viciously slurred by his opponent.
Brett, You are really thick. Slur and condescending are 2 different words, with different meanings. But you are a very par liberal. You guys always compare apples to oranges, especially when caught in a corner with your absurdities. Spin it.
109. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Nietzsche - read your own post.
We failed to reach out — to the minority—-that had been bought and paid for by LBJ’s welfare scheme.
We chose to go after the religious vote and the guns rights people. That was the strategy. Instead your party chose a policy of destructive welfare programs that have left the black community a shattered shell of its former self. Look to where you have controlled for proof.
110. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Wow SEW,
Next you will try to define what ‘is’ is.
Let me refresh your memory once again…
post #54 you state negro is a condescending term.
Post #56 I tell you it is not…
Post #58 I tell you I am very puzzled by your statement that negro is a condescending term.
Your reply Post #72…your reply was to link to wikipedia about negro being an ethnic slur “Got that Brett? “Now it is often considered an ethnic slur.” From Wikipedia. “
And then YOU accuse me of comparing apples to oranges?
So you start out saying its condendscending…and to prove your point…you link to wikipedia stating its an ethnic slur.
Go figure.
Ok, I gotta jet. I need to go get my welfare fix. cuz use nose we negros beez addicts to dat welfare check. aint dat right Kahn?
111. Brett Michaels | May 19th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hey guise,
Looks, weez negros are so dumbs, dats weez only vote democrats cuz weez addicts. weez addicts to dats smack called welfare.
Aint dat right Kahn? Tellz us how dumbz weez negros ares. We done been boughts and paids fo’ by dat welfare check.
Thanks for cluing me in Kahn about my race. I had no idea. I just linked your post and sent it to everyone in my barracks.
Now weez alls knows about those addicted negros. weez allz going awallz tomorrow to get our welfare checks.
gotta get dat fix.
How many black friends did you say you have?
lol
112. Pee Public Pee Public Pis&hellip | June 9th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Pee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
113. fox fire golf course nc&hellip | July 17th, 2008 at 3:47 am
fox fire golf course nc
Some weblog software programs, such as Wordpress, Movable Type and Community Server, support automatic pingbacks where all the links
114. Katy Texas Homes For Sale&hellip | August 10th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Katy Texas Homes For Sale
Let me know if anyone is still working on this site please.
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed