Monday, January 14, 2008

So, it took exactly five days for the chick to cry and the black candidate and his surrogates to play the race card.

I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Rodham-Clinton and her HINO (husband in name only). After all, there's nothing wrong with welling up -- President Bush did it just the other day when visiting the Holocaust memorial in Israel. The difference, of course -- and this says it all -- is that, while the President wept over the horrific murder of six million souls by the national socialists, the socialist here, HRC, was weeping about how hard HER life is, having to actually answer questions about her "record."

In fact, not only do I not have a great deal of sympathy for America's "first black president" and his WINO, in being attacked as "racists." After all, this is the card these corrupt socialists play against those who disagree with them all the time.

Interestingly, when the Democrats say overtly racist things: something they do all the time, because Democrats are inherently bigoted, there is never a fuss -- their coideologists in the leftist media either covering it up, excusing it away or reporting it once and then moving on.

Of course, it was Ms. Rodham-Clinton who argued that all Indians work in gas stations when she claimed that Mahatma Ghandi owned a small gas station and it was Democrat Party elder statesman, Joe Biden who was stunned to meet a black man who was "clean." It's Democrats who are asking "is Barack black enough?" because he doesn't speak the way black people are supposed to speak and because he actually wears a belt that keeps his pants up rather than how what Democrats call "authentic blacks" are supposed to dress.

To the Democrats blacks not only all look alike and dress alike, but they all THINK alike, so that Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell, Rod Page and Bill Cosby are "not really black" because they actually speak proper English (not ebonics) and talk about such "white" things as personal responsibility.

So it's good to see "the first black president" (what makes him "black?" The fact that he cheats on his wife? The fact that he blames others for his failures?) and his WINO being attacked as "racists" when, in this case, they didn't say or do anything wrong. We Republicans are used to the race card being played against us as a way to stifle honest debate that the leftists know they cannot win.

What Ms. Rodham-Clinton said was exactly right. As inspirational and important was the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., without an ally in government who could translate the message into legislation, the movement (mostly against Democrats who opposed civil rights) would have remained just that: an inspirational movement.

Hopefully some Democrats will take a lesson from these attacks because what should be clear, is that it doesn't matter how beloved you are by the Democrats. It doesn't matter how many years you've worked in service of the leftist agenda, you can even be "the first black president," but if it suits them, they'll come after you.

Whenever you see the Democrats play the race card against Republicans, remember, they'll play it against you, too, if they can make an extra buck.

669 comments:

1 – 200 of 669   Newer›   Newest»
Kate, the professor said...

I couldn't agree with you more, Evan. It's rather like watching a predictable reality show.

Dora said...

It's Democrats who are asking "is Barack black enough?" because he doesn't speak the way black people are supposed to speak and because he actually wears a belt that keeps his pants up rather than how what Democrats call "authentic blacks" are supposed to dress.

Omg, you're such a racist, Evan.

Sean Arther said...

Hi Evan,

You left out Hillary's most recent (and I think, most hilarious) gaffe in relating to minority voters. Last week she was campaigning in Nevada trying to appeal to Hispanic voters and illegal aliens (or in her view, MORE Hispanic voters), and her comment that "no woman is illegal" eclipsed the quote that I believe was more revealing.

While addressing the crowd about unscrupulous lending practices preying on poor Hispanic voters and illegals, Clinton said unscrupulous lending leads to bad mortgages, which lead to foreclosures, which lead to people with nowhere to go and vacant neighborhoods that can go rapidly downhill. "We treat these problems as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when ... they both go together," she said. (http://www.lvrj.com/news/13702902.html)

Can you imagine the cataclysmic firestorm that would have erupted if a Republican candidate had said something like that? Where are all those vigilant code-speak detectors that meticulously picked apart Rove's essay about Obama and Clinton now?

Sally Forth said...

Suckette sez: Interestingly, when the Democrats say overtly racist things: something they do all the time, because Democrats are inherently bigoted, there is never a fuss -- their coideologists in the leftist media either covering it up, excusing it away or reporting it once and then moving on.

Not only is he a bigot, he's extraordinarily stupid. All Democrats are the same to him. And he projects his own racist ideas about people of color onto Democrats. In fact, all he can talk about is the Democrats. And, I don't blame him; the Republicans are such a pathetic pack of losers--not that he's smart enough to realize that.

Sean Arther said...

"Omg, you're such a racist, Evan."

Dora,

This would be an example of "throwing around" those terms we discussed yesterday. Evan is only pointing out that blacks use the same cultural stereotypes that are supposedly so harmful to minority communities against their own if they step out of line from a strict liberal world view. How does that make him a racist? Do the rules of the liberal thought police require us to pretend that cultural stereotypes don't exist even in the context of pointing out blacks using the same stereotypes against each other? Is it racist to point out hypocrisy in blacks for relying on cultural stereotypes when it suits them while simultaneously claiming to be victims of the same stereotypes if they are even referenced by others?

I can't think of a better example of "playing the race card" than this.

Dora said...

because he actually wears a belt that keeps his pants up rather than how what Democrats call "authentic blacks" are supposed to dress.

Where have Democrats ever said anything about "authentic blacks" and pants? Where?

Evan sees this debate about Obama's blackness, which I find to be a very interesting debate about what makes identity and race, and he thinks, well, what are "authentic blacks"? In his world, it's black people who don't wear a belt to keep their pants up. No Democrat has ever said anything about pants.

That's why this comment reveals Evan's own racism.

And he keeps going

To the Democrats blacks not only all look alike and dress alike, but they all THINK alike, so that Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell, Rod Page and Bill Cosby are "not really black" because they actually speak proper English (not ebonics) and talk about such "white" things as personal responsibility.

Um, where has any democrat said these people are not really black?

So it's good to see "the first black president" (what makes him "black?" The fact that he cheats on his wife? The fact that he blames others for his failures?)

And here's more of Evan revealing his own racism. It's he who substitutes his own suppositions into the whole "first black president" Bill Clinton idea, but instead of subbing in what we usually sub in (born poor, single mom, etc.), he subs in adultery and lack of personal responsibility. Is that what he thinks of black people, that what makes someone black is adultery and lack of personal responsibility?

Cuz the Dems have not said or implied any of those things about what makes someone black (ebonics, sagging pants, adultery, lack of personal responsibility) -- it's all from Evan's racist head.

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

Sean said:
"Omg, you're such a racist, Evan."

Dora,

This would be an example of "throwing around" those terms we discussed yesterday.


Evan said:
Interestingly, when the Democrats say overtly racist things: something they do all the time, because Democrats are inherently bigoted

It's like you're not even trying anymore.

Anonymous said...

this dispute over race among the democratic candidates really shows how a black or female president will unite us and bring us together

divideandconquer said...

The race for the Democratic Nomination has been narrowed to a two-person competition between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Rasmussen Markets data shows both candidates are considered to have a good shot at the nomination.

Somewhat surprisingly, as the campaign has tightened, racial tensions have bubbled to the surface with the two camps exchanging accusations. Those tensions are reflected in this week’s polling data. Overall, Clinton and Obama are close nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. But, among white voters, Clinton leads 41% to 27%. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 66% to 16%.


The DNC has FINALLY fractured!

divideandconquer said...

The teflon coating on the purveyors of identity politics is beginning to peel.

I think it's time we turned up the heat!

Let's start chumming people. There's blood in the water!

ahousedividedagainstitself said...

LOL!

allquietontheiraqifront said...

More good news for the RNC...

For months the only argument the antiwar crowd could cling to was: “The surge has not brought about the national-level political progress it was intended to induce.” Ergo: We lose, bring ‘em home. While this argument requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” in light of recent improvements in Iraq, it was “technically” true.

No more.

The Iraqi parliament, flaws and all, came together — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd — to craft a law that relaxes restrictions on the right of former-members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to fill government posts. The law will reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed shortly after the war.

In short, less than five years after the fall of a genocidal Sunni dictator — who killed thousands of Shiites and Kurds — a democratically elected Shia government granted de-facto “amnesty” to former Baathist co-conspirators. Kind of makes our domestic illegal-immigration “amnesty” debate look silly, doesn’t it?

We should expect more progress in Iraq, although results will be mixed and the streets will not be quiet soon. But this groundbreaking settlement is a testament to the potential for political reconciliation, provided the security environment is stable enough to allow politicians to peek out from behind their sectarian divisions.

The Iraqi government still has a great deal left to achieve, but today they’ve shown us what real political reconciliation looks like. Democratic leaders in Congress — and on the campaign trail — should take a lesson from the Maliki government. Swallow your pride, admit you were wrong about the surge, and get behind our courageous military.

panicattack said...

Coming soon to a Democratic Primary near you!

attackattheangles said...

So much for the liberal "only Republicans are racists" argument. Kinda like the "only Republicans are corrupt" argument. All smoke and devoid of mirrors.

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

More good news for the RNC...

Uhhhhhh.....

toofunny said...

Hillary's only virtue as a candidate is that she's a chick. Obama's only virtue as a candidate is that he's black.

And in the primaries, attempting to hurl the usual "identity" hand-grenades results in nothing but fratricide, causing fissures all 'round.

rollingonthefloorlaughing said...

Uhhhhh,

Consider the source. The paper of distinctions without differences. LOL!

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

LOL indeed, Evan sock puppet. How's that book about how libruls are teh evil coming? You realize you're about 4 years too late on the ultra-right demagogue bandwagon? Wingnut welfare can only sustain you for so long.

leftistfoolsparadise said...

You'd be the expert! LOL!

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

Oh Evan sock puppet, you give me endless minutes of joy with your nonsensical ramblings. Excelsior!

skyv said...

"is Barack black enough?" because he doesn't speak the way black people are supposed to speak and because he actually wears a belt that keeps his pants up rather than how what Democrats call "authentic blacks" are supposed to dress.

Haha...Psychet putting more words in Dems mouths because he can't debate the real thing.

skyvester said...

Evan is only pointing out that blacks use the same cultural stereotypes

Blahblah...NO, Psycho Babbler is saying that Democrats are racists...not only insane and against all evidence but talk about throwing around the racist term!

krotchlessunderpantsgnome said...

is Barack black enough?

Why not ask Obama. He seems to be unable to answer that question himself. Just look at the tripe he writes in his drug induced haze of a mea culpa biography.

turnaboutsab*tchaintit said...

not only insane and against all evidence but talk about throwing around the racist term!

Larry Blivins said...

Let these poor, straggling dregs of the dead conservative movement feel good about themselves for the nonce...what they see as "fractures" are no more than primary fireworks...and only demonstrate the inevitable effects of the Democrats true diversity in race and gender. On the other hand, we've got some truly monstrous fractures in what remains of the pathetic right wing.

leighton said...

What's as interesting as it is pathetic is the question of what motivates these poor people in their desire to paint the dems as racist. They've been playing this pathetic card for years...meanwhile minorities -- the only ones who count in this matter -- keep moving ever stronger to the left and away from the bigots and the big money, whitey party. Is it mindless desperation on their part, or are they trying to convince themselves...what is their morbid and helpess motivation? They certainly don't convince anyone but themselves and merely make themselves look like dishonest fools more than ever.

LarryB said...

Everything they do now is like this...Iraq is going well, the economy is booming, the left is fractured, the GOP will win the election in a landslide, all the minorities are so stupid they don't know we're the ones on their side...it's the sorriest spectacle in the US in a long, long time...and it's the most fun to watch since they threw Tricky out of Washington.

leighton said...

Haha...yes, you expect them to start doing the Ghost Dance soon...actually it's a lot worse for them than the Nixon debacle...more like Hoover magnified.

leighton said...

"...without an ally in government who could translate the message into legislation, the movement (mostly against Democrats who opposed civil rights) would have remained just that: an inspirational movement."

That was revealing...this guy is now at the point where he can say the most demonstrably ludicrous things and not even bother to cover it...I guess he thinks Johnson was a Republican. The boy is exhausted painting over seven years of disaster and can't even make the effort any more.

LarryB said...

Yes, very revealing...and TELLING...where is the REAL Prof...Edvard Teller, to tell us just how tellingly telling that was?

Dora said...

Haha...yes, you expect them to start doing the Ghost Dance soon...actually it's a lot worse for them than the Nixon debacle...more like Hoover magnified.


Now wait a second, according to Jonah Goldberg's new tome Liberal Fascism, Nixon was a liberal.

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

So was Joe McCarthy, doncha know.

Words don't mean anything anymore among the dregs of the right-wing echo chamber like Goldberg (and, to a lesser extent, Evan, since no one actually reads this silly blog). Redefine what words mean - fascism is a phenomenon of the left-wing (nevermind all the actual, bonafide American fascists like Stormfront and National Alliance which are decidedly right-wing). Racism is only practiced by Democrats (nevermind, for example, the Southern Strategy of the Republican party, which actively seeks to drive a wedge between whites and blacks). Just redefine terms according to your own particular brand of lunacy and you can claim that up is down and black is white.

skyvester said...

They just want to get your attention off the real racists...here's Fat KKKarl...Oink oink:

MSNBC analyst: Rove Obama attack close to 'outright racist'David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday January 11, 2008

del.icio.us |



Print This Email This



Keith Olbermann began a segment on the presidential primary campaign with a disclaimer about the irrelevance of endorsements, saying the last time one may have made a decisive difference was when William Jennings Bryan backed Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

That said, he noted that Barack Obama has been picking up a large number of endorsements this week, the most high-profile coming from Sen. John Kerry, who proclaimed, "The old guard sometimes has a hard time acknowledging an individual who breaks the mold. ... Barack Obama isn't just going to break the mold. Together, we are going to shatter it into a million pieces and rebuild our nation."

"No official endorsements for Senator Clinton today," Olbermann stated, "but it sure appeared as if Karl Rove was back to backing the candidate he'd love to see beaten ... writing an op-ed in the now Murdoch-owned Murdoch Street Journal, in which he explains why Mrs. Clinton won in New Hampshire and otherwise eviscerates Senator Obama, saying of the Illinois Democrat's performance at the debate Saturday, 'His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.'"

Political analyst Richard Wolffe joined Olbermann to comment on the Kerry endorsement, which he called "very well timed ... because there is a question of foreign policy experience, of where the establishment of the party is likely to go."

He further explained that the endorsements by Kerry and by a congressman who is extremely close to Nancy Pelosi are not really intended for voters, but should be taken as "important signals to the party that not only can Obama be taken seriously, but they should consider where they put their endorsements."

Of the Rove editorial, Wolffe stated, "Talking to some of Obama's aides, I think they detected a pretty ugly undertone in Rove's op-ed there. The 'trash-talking.' The 'basketball.' The 'lazy' thing. Is he suggesting that there's some sort of color aspect to Barack Obama's behavior that he's getting at? It was uncomfortably close to the edge of being plain-out racist."

"That's Karl," said Olbermann.

The racist slant of Rove's op-ed has already been widely noted among bloggers, with one of the more vehement writing, "When you take into consideration the malevolent genius of Karl Rove - The god damned Johnny Appleseed of fear harvesting - and understand that the higher echelon of the Republican base is being spoon-fed a concoction that consists of a feminist-socialist lesbian wife of a shill president or a lazy, jive-talking, b-ball playing huckster boy politician from Chicago ... Rove's ability to triangulate issues and interweave them with subtle strereotypical imagery would be fun to read if it was fiction. Unfortunately in real life, the fat master has stirred and is testing the waters to see if his style of politics still plays."

Realprof. Edvard Teller said...

Yaah....tellink, weery wery tellink. Karl liked my star vars, dough. But I felt luffed for the wrong reasons...I think he just vant to spend the money.

skyv said...

Now wait a second, according to Jonah Goldberg's new tome Liberal Fascism, Nixon was a liberal.

You know Jonah is Lyndon Johnson's and Lucianne's love child don't you? Poor miserable, little bastard.

Anonymous said...

BOBBY JINDAL TOOK OFFICE TODAY!!!!!!!

Finally the great state of La. can have responsible leadership.

Anonymous said...

Evan, Could you please write about Bobby Jindal and how the Republicans are supposed to be bigots yet Louisiana elected an Indian-American. He won 60 out of 64 parishes which has never happened and he is the first non-white elected since reconstruction; not to mention the youngest Gov in the US.

He is the future of the Rep Party and he deserves our support.

blackerthanthoucontestant said...

In the casting battle over the role as the "authentic black candidate", John Edwards clearly loses...

But no sooner had Clinton said she hoped the campaign would not be about race than it got even more heated. A prominent black Clinton supporter, Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson, criticized Obama and seemed to refer to his acknowledged teenage drug use while introducing Clinton at her next event.

"To me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues - when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book - when they have been involved," Johnson said.

Obama wrote about his youthful drug use - marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine - in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father."

Johnson later said in a statement released by the Clinton campaign that his comments referred to Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago "and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect."

Another Clinton campaign official, Bill Shaheen, resigned last month after suggesting Democrats should be wary of nominating Obama because his past drug use could be used against him in the campaign.

Obama, campaigning in Las Vegas, declined to respond to Johnson.

"I'm not going to spend all my time running down the other candidates, which seems to be what Senator Clinton has been obsessed with for the last month," Obama said.

His strategist, however, didn't spare Johnson or Clinton.

"I don't see why this is so much different from what Billy Shaheen did in New Hampshire," David Axelrod said. "Senator Clinton apologized for that. It's bewildering why, since she was standing there, she had nothing to say about this."

Clinton was not yet on stage when Johnson made his statements and she did not mention them when she emerged.

Meanwhile, in Atlanta, Obama's wife rose to his defense over Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment. Michelle Obama said some blacks might be skeptical that white America will elect her husband, but advised them to look to his win in Iowa.

"Ain't no black people in Iowa," she said during a speech at the Trumpet Awards, an event celebrating black achievement. "Something big, something new is happening. Let's build the future we all know is possible. Let's show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now."

John Edwards, a third candidate in the Democratic primary, waded into the dispute Sunday.

"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that," Edwards told more than 200 people gathered at a predominantly black Baptist church in Sumter, S.C.


Somebody tell the Breck Girl that it's over, and he LOST!

allmeritvshouseslave said...

BOBBY JINDAL! He's no DNC silver-spoon token affirmative action queen candidates, that's fo' sho'!

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

Hey, you sure like Bobby Jindal! Sort of creepily! Maybe you're another closeted Republican!

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

Here's a question - if Bobby had remained a Hindu and not converted to Catholicism, would he have had a chance in hell at being elected as a Republican governor? I...think we both know the answer to that question.

za real edvard teller said...

Vat's da truth in ze rumor zat Obama got ze nod from ze DNC because he vas raised white?

At least Bill Clinton haz real black childrink runnink all over Arkansas.

All zat Hillary's got iz zat vun ugly az sin daughter of a revenge binge drunk vith Vince Foster.

Tellink I zink... very tellink

Evan Sayet said...

Dora,

Instead of trading words, I have a suggestion. Please read a book called "Enough" by the black leftist from NPR, Juan Williams.

The fact that you think, by definition, a man is black if he's poor and fatherless -- and, by implication, practicing all of the social ills that poverty and being fatherless entails -- is a reflection of YOUR bigotry. It's what you've been sold, mostly by white leftists like Danny Goldberg (founder of Interscope records) while personally pocketing tens of millions of dollars.)

Please don't pretend you haven't heard the expression "authentically black" or the challenges to blacks who don't support the approved "real" black positions, people like Condi Rice and (when it serves their purposes) Colin Powell. Even Bill Cosby has come under attack from the left and from the race-profiteers in the Democrat Party for his book "Come on, People."

So, why don't you tell me what the Democrats mean when they keep asking "is Barack black enough?" A question so incessant that when he was late for a gathering HE asked "is THAT black enough for you?"

Sorry, Dora, the days when the leftists define race in this country by spewing their bigotries and then screaming "racism" when they are challenged are over. Just glad -- as I wrote -- to see Ms. Rodham-Clinton and the first black prez getting a little of their own medicine.

Evan Sayet said...

Meanwhile, note on this board not ONE leftist with a problem of having their old darlings attacked with bogus charges of racism, nor any concern about a chick candidate who breaks down and weeps over how difficult her life is after but ONE primary.

Lot's of ad hominem attacks, lots of "predictions" about the future race they're going to supposed win, lots of charges of "racism" but not a single, thoughtful look at the emptiness and evil of the Democrat Party

Dora said...

The fact that you think, by definition, a man is black if he's poor and fatherless -- and, by implication, practicing all of the social ills that poverty and being fatherless entails -- is a reflection of YOUR bigotry. It's what you've been sold, mostly by white leftists like Danny Goldberg (founder of Interscope records) while personally pocketing tens of millions of dollars.)

I have no idea who Danny Goldberg is or how he sold me any idea. i will say that i think you're taking this whole "Bill Clinton was the first black president" thing a little too literally. Black people could identify with him more because all, ALL of the president preceding him were not born into poverty or had no father. I did not say that makes someone black by definition. But if you look at statistics, it's something that is more likely to be experienced by black and hispanic people in this country than white or asian people.

Please don't pretend you haven't heard the expression "authentically black" or the challenges to blacks who don't support the approved "real" black positions, people like Condi Rice and (when it serves their purposes) Colin Powell. Even Bill Cosby has come under attack from the left and from the race-profiteers in the Democrat Party for his book "Come on, People."

That happens, but to imply that is the party line of Democrats, or common practice among liberals is completely disingenuous and you know it. It would be like me attributing to you the views of a few Republicans that you don't agree with, and then holding you responsible for those views. It is especially ironic that you attack the left for allegedly being racist with an incredibly racist diatribe, as I already pointed out.

So, why don't you tell me what the Democrats mean when they keep asking "is Barack black enough?" A question so incessant that when he was late for a gathering HE asked "is THAT black enough for you?"

Obama is half-black, and he doesn't have an American ancestry. He doesn't have roots that go back into slavery. For black people in America, slavery is a defining moment of their history. Obama has no connection to that history. That is what the discussion has been centered on, not how he talks or how he wears his pants.

Dora said...

note on this board not ONE leftist with a problem of having their old darlings attacked with bogus charges of racism,

Eh?

nor any concern about a chick candidate who breaks down and weeps over how difficult her life is after but ONE primary.

Weeps? I didn't see her weeping. Did you?

"chick candidate" lol

You don't even have a WINO, let alone a real wife or girlfriend, do you? I can see why?

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

nor any concern about a chick candidate who breaks down and weeps over how difficult her life is after but ONE primary.

Yes Evan, that primary was her entry into the political arena. She certainly hadn't been viciously attacked by the media since the day her husband took office in 1993 or anything.

I swear you get more ridiculous every day.

simes said...

"Sorry, Dora, the days when the leftists define race in this country by spewing their bigotries and then screaming "racism" when they are challenged are over."

But the days when goofball, fringe lunatics define reality as the wishful thinking in their chaotic pinheads arestill at hand. How may black votes are you planning on getting this time around? I'll bet it's even more embarassing than ususal for you.

racistdemocrat said...

That happens, but to imply that is the party line of Democrats, or common practice among liberals is completely disingenuous and you know it.

Tell that to Condi Rice, Bushes Aunt Jemima lover.

Who's disingenuous? Look in a mirror.

dissincondi said...

Mainstreaming racism.

Dora said...

Still not sure where the party line Democrat racism is, guys. One guy on a blog called Post Cards from the Pug Bus does not a majority make.

typicalleftyracism said...

Here's a site dedicated to Leftist "Condi-love". Can't you feel the liberal love?

Dora said...

From the site: How can I say these horrible things? I am the product of house niggers and free blacks --and being a light skinned, highly education black Puerto Rican woman, I know how the game of "passing" is played. To the chagrin of my white mother, I have called myself la negra since time immemorial. My maternal grandmother would say, "Don't say you're black. You are not black, you are trigueƱa." She wanted me call myself a brunette --quite an understatement even with the lightness of my skin and the occasional "beat with a blower 'til it's dead" straightness of my hair. Brunette, I am not.

huh.

skyv said...

Campaign exposes deep rifts in GOP coalition
McClatchy Newspapers

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — The house that Ronald Reagan built is in danger of collapsing.

The coalition of fiscal conservatives, national security conservatives, anti-tax activists and social conservatives that rallied behind Reagan in 1980 and has defined the Republican Party ever since is coming apart at the seams heading into the 2008 election.

All the men running for the party's presidential nomination invoke Reagan's name repeatedly. But all of them offend at least one wing of the party enough that they'd find it difficult, and perhaps impossible, to pull the disparate elements of the old coalition together.

"It's gone," said Ed Rollins, who worked on Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign and now chairs the campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"The Reagan coalition is pretty much gone," added Karen Spencer, a Republican strategist in California who watched the Reagan phenomenon firsthand when her father served as Reagan's chief political strategist. "It's been 28 years. Maybe it is time for a change."

condiesinthehouse said...

Cornfuzed? Maybe Ted Rall, Washington Post cartoonist, said it better

mlkwasnothinglbjwaseverything said...

Hillary get's cold shoulder from blacks...

Gee, I can't imagine why they h8 that racist b*tch.

demokkkratsreallyh8blacks said...

Could it be because Democrats have always been Wrong on Race!

Dora said...

Could it be because Democrats have always been Wrong on Race!

Could it be that there were Southern Democrats, and there were North/West Democrats? Southern Democrats were not liberals or leftwing.

Evan Sayet said...

Dora,

I'm not going to convince you on this blog...but perhaps you'll open your ears and hear it in the future.

Any black who doesn't toe the far-leftist line is instantly dubbed an "Uncle Tom," a "traitor to his race" or a "house nigger."

Condi Rice is "Aunt Jemima" while Ward Connerly, Larry Elder and Bill Cosby are all viciously attacked (and threatened) for daring to suggest that blacks are people, too.

I can't fathom (actually I can) why it doesn't bother you in the least that within one day of losing the NH primary, Obama's people are intentionally taking a factually correct and important statement by a long-time supporter of leftist causes, and spinning it into an attack on them as racists.

Does it not bother you that a black who believes in low taxes, a strong America and good education is instantly deemed "not really black?"

Meanwhile, who cares what percentage of "black" Obama has in him, he's not running as a black (I thought) he's running as a human being.

Your defense of the "is Obama 'black enough'" argument -- and you're merely rationalizing the inherent racism of the Democrat -- does nothing to change the racist attack on Obama coming from the LEFT.

So, keep your ears open and every once in a while find some outrage for the hate and racism that infests your party, rather than yelling "Karl Rove" every time you need an excuse for your party's failures.

Dora said...

You know what the difference between the left and the right on this issue is?

sure, there are leftwingers who say things like Aunt Jemima and others. And there are plenty of racist rightwinger folk too. The politicians can't control what every supporter of their respective parties says.

But while no one prominent in the Dem party says racist things, on the Right, everyone from Trent Lott to Jesse Helms to Ron Paul to Karl Rove says racist things. Racism is just an accepted part of the discussion among influential, powerful rightwingers.

youbonix said...

Does it not bother you that a black who believes in low taxes, a strong America and good education is instantly deemed "not really black?"

Since, as usual, this is only said in your bug infested head by nonexistent leftist bogey men, why should it bother anybody? Give it up, fool...you've been droning this idiocy for years and the minorities just keep moving away from you slime balls more than ever.

Who Dat said...

Evan,
You are oh so right about the Dems being racist, but the public doesn't call them on it. Meanwhile, though, the Republicans better get their act together if they want to keep the White House. Logic and common sense may not be enough to win it. Most can't even see what danger we are in from Islamofascists, let alone the left wing in this country. Aren't there any folks in Hollywood willing to put some money up on our side?

Verm I Cide said...

Aren't there any folks in Hollywood willing to put some money up on our side?

What?! You've got upChuck Heston and upChuck Norris...now, that's a brain trust...the kind of morons who like the right...so, quit whining.

Tom Wright said...

Colorado Bible Thumper Republican Member of the Crime Party Kicks Photographer While Packing Bible.
Another Republican criminal wannabe? You make the call.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds
Douglas Bruce did so during his swearing in ceremony. It appears he was carrying a bible at the time. There’s video, too! From CBS 4 Denver:

New lawmaker Douglas Bruce brought a Bible to the Legislature on Monday and apparently kicked a photographer for taking his picture during the morning prayer, but he didn’t get the swearing-in ceremony he demanded, with the full House in attendance.

Bruce got upset when a photographer, Javier Manzano, from the Rocky Mountain News took his picture during the traditional prayer to open Monday’s brief session. A CBS4 News videographer saw Bruce make a kicking motion, but didn’t see the actual contact.

“Don’t do that again,” Bruce said, then brought down the sole of his shoe hard on the photographer’s his bent knee. Bruce offered no explanation or apology as the photographer left.

How often does a politician at the state level get his own entry in Wikipedia! And, boy oh boy, this guy has some fun stuff in there, including some time in jail!

In addition to his Colorado Springs properties, Bruce acquired rental properties in Denver and Pueblo, Colorado. He has been cited repeatedly by law and code enforcement officials regarding the upkeep of his properties[6], although most of the dozens of citations brought against him have been overturned.[7] In connection with charge of operating an unsafe building, Bruce spent eight days in jail in 1995 on a contempt of court citation.[8] In response to the numerous complaints filed against him, Bruce has questioned the constitutionality of city code provisions, and accused city officials of selective prosecution and carrying out a “vendetta” against him personally.

I’m going to call the guy a slumlord as well as a scumbag. But he’s a Republican, and they’ve been having problems recruiting good candidates lately, so maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised.

bob blooger said...

Quote of the Day

"I can press when there needs to
be pressed. I can hold hands when
there needs to be - hold hands."
-- President Braindead telling us why we need a babbling idiot four more years.

klanmemberfromthednc said...

But while no one prominent in the Dem party says racist things, on the Right, everyone from Trent Lott to Jesse Helms to Ron Paul to Karl Rove says racist things. Racism is just an accepted part of the discussion among influential, powerful rightwingers.

That's a load of CR*P! It is no more prevalent among Republicans than it is amongst Democrats. The only difference is that Democrats get a "pass". The race and sex cards are primarily discussion-ending trumps for "Democratic" card-playing.

That the Clinton Campaign is taking a beating over this just goes to show what an "vacuous" card the race card really is.

Meanwhile...

Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama stepped back from a controversy over race Monday night, agreeing that a prolonged clash over civil rights could harm their party's overall drive to win the White House.

The two leading Democratic contenders shifted course as Republicans pointed toward Tuesday's pivotal primary in Michigan, where Mitt Romney and John McCain both pledged to lead a revival for a state and an auto industry ravaged by recession.

Obama was the first to suggest a cooling of the rhetoric on race, calling reporters together to say he didn't want the campaign "to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this."

Referring to Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards, he said that while they may have disagreements, "we share the same goals. We're all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights."

Clinton's campaign issued a statement in the same vein about an hour after Obama spoke, saying it was time to seek common ground. "And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans," she said.

Strikingly, though, one of Clinton's supporters, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, was sharply critical of Obama in an interview during the day. "How race got into this thing is because Obama said 'race,'" Rangel, the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, said on television station NY1.


Funny isn't it. The truce only applies to Democrats. There's no talk of ending the race-card playing and bringing "America" together. Only Democrats. They want to save the race/sex cards for the General election.

Because as any good Democrat knows, only Republicans are racists. They don't give a whit about civil/equal rights. *spit*

Farmer John said...

But while no one prominent in the Dem party says racist things.

No one? How about Robert Byrd (D). He's only three heartbeats away from the presidency.

Dora said...

But while no one prominent in the Dem party says racist things, on the Right, everyone from Trent Lott to Jesse Helms to Ron Paul to Karl Rove says racist things. Racism is just an accepted part of the discussion among influential, powerful rightwingers.

That's a load of CR*P! It is no more prevalent among Republicans than it is amongst Democrats. The only difference is that Democrats get a "pass". The race and sex cards are primarily discussion-ending trumps for "Democratic" card-playing.


Really? So tell me, when was the last time Robert Ryrd said something racist? The last time a democrat denied having a black love child? the last time a democrat said that had we all voted for the dixiecrats, all these bad things that have happened since wouldn't have happened? the last time a democrat said that 67% of black people are in prison and 95% of black people do not have rational political thoughts? The last time a democrat said that barak obama learned his trash talking while playing basketball at harvard? Last time a democrat called someone a "happy-headed ho"? how about the last time a democrat said that someone can't be sworn in on the religious text of their choosing? last time a democrat said "tell me, sir, that you aren't working with the enemy"?

You got, maybe one, Joe Biden, with his "clean" and "articulate" comments. To say that Biden got a pass, however, is ridiculous. He was scrutinized and criticized for it by the left itself.

Vera White said...

Guantanamo should be shut down, says US military chief
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 15 January 2008
The notorious prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should be closed as soon as possible because negative publicity about the treatment of terror suspects has been "pretty damaging" to America's image, the chief of the US military has said.

"I'd like to see it shut down," Admiral Mike Mullen said, during his first tour of the detention centre since he became chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in October. "More than anything else it has been the image – how 'Gitmo' has become around the world, in terms of representing the US.

"I believe that, from the standpoint of how it reflects on us, it has been pretty damaging."

But the admiral said he had no idea when it might be closed or what would happen to detainees who have been held without charge and with restricted access to lawyers since the camp opened in January 2002. The jail would endure "until someone comes in and shuts it down", he said, adding: "I have no idea how long it will be. The political leadership would have to make that decision."

What happens to Guantanamo depends largely on the outcome of the US presidential election. At least one Republican candidate, John McCain, wants to shut the jail but his opponent Mitt Romney has said he would double its size.

The Democrats all favour shutting it down.

tablarasabraineddemocrat said...

Really? So tell me, when was the last time Robert Ryrd said something racist?

Probably this morning. If Democrats never say anything racist, then what was all the flap in the last 3 days with Shrillary and Zipperhead about? LOL!

spongepantsquareheaddemocrat said...

Guantanamo should be shut down

I agree. We need to build some brand new multi-billion dollar detention facility on some other island. I'm thinking.... Manhattan.

Evan Sayet said...

Here's how the leftist mind works. The Democrats are viciously racist but, because they CAN'T be racists, they are given a pass.

Meanwhile, the Republicans say nothing racist but they are actually speaking in "code," code that the leftists invent so that "good morning" because "I hate you, nigger."

Karl Rove has said racist things? Like what? This chick doesn't know, she just knows that talking point number seven is, anytime you are caught lying, yell out Karl Rove (note: if that gets boring, substitute "Haliburton" or "Enron" even though you know even less about them.)

So, Karl Rove is racist for saying "good morning" but Hillary ISN'T racist for sayiing Mahatma Ghandi worked in a gas station (like all those towelheads do, of course) and Joe Biden ISN'T racist for saying he was surprised to find a "clean" black man, and Democrat Jesse Jackson ISN'T bigoted for calling New York "Hymietown" and Chris Dodd ISN'T racist for saying that the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan is a "great leader" (not now...THEN).

Meanwhile, the party that is in a race attack mode after but two primaries attacks the Republicans who have Condi Rice as Sec of State, Colin Powell before her, Rod Page as Sec of Education but, of course, the mindless just know that when they were five years old their leftist school teacher told them "Democrats AREN'T racists and Republicans are" and no other thought need ever be given.

Democrats are INHERENTLY racist. That's what makes you a Democrat. The idea that ALL women look, act and think the same way, that ALL blacks look, act and think the same way, that ALL homosexuals look, act and think the same way...that's the essence of "identity" politics and the whole of Modern Liberal dominated Democrat Party "thought."

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

You're an idiot. Seriously. Kill yourself. I'm done trying to convince a shrill, mindless demagogue like you with reason that everything you say is so pathetically black and white that it's effectively self-parody. So on behalf of the rest of the human race, please kill yourself so we can conserve the water that it would take to keep you alive.

vera white said...

Suckette, the parrot, peering at his reflection, sez to hisself:

Democrats are INHERENTLY racist. That's what makes you a Democrat. The idea that ALL women look, act and think the same way, that ALL blacks look, act and think the same way, that ALL homosexuals look, act and think the same way...that's the essence of "identity" politics and the whole of Modern Liberal dominated Democrat Party "thought."

vera white said...

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

Seriously. Kill yourself.


That'd be knockin off at least five others.

Dora said...

Karl Rove has said racist things? Like what?

Karl Rove, Op-Ed, WSJ, Jan. 10, 2008:
You couldn't help but smile. It reminded Democrats what they occasionally like about her. Then Mr. Obama followed with a needless and dismissive, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

Her remarks helped wash away the memory of her angry replies to attacks at the debate's start. His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.


Unless Rove can produce some evidence he has that there was trashtalking at the basketball games Obama engaged in at Harvard, he's made a racist assumption -- a black man playing basketball MUST engage in trashtalking.

Hillary ISN'T racist for sayiing Mahatma Ghandi worked in a gas station (like all those towelheads do,

Well, huh:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for joking that Mahatma Gandhi used to run a gas station in St. Louis, saying it was "a lame attempt at humor."

http://www.ivarta.com/newsletters/nL_040107.htm

She apologized for it. When do republicans apologize the racist things they say?

And speaking of towelheads, wow, evan. Ghandi wasn't a towelhead in any possible way -- it's Sikhs and Muslims that are possible towelheads. You can't even get your stereotypes right.

Plus, which US house member said that "someone "wearing a diaper on his head" should expect to be interrogated in the investigation of terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York City"?

U.S. Rep. John Cooksey, A republican.

Huh.

of course) and Joe Biden ISN'T racist for saying he was surprised to find a "clean" black man,

Yes, let's see what kind of "pass" Je Biden got:

CNN coverage of his racist remark

Wonkette.com coverage

CBS news coverage

Washington Post coverage

The Economist coverage

USA Today coverage

Is that what you call a pass, Evan?

Democrat Jesse Jackson ISN'T bigoted for calling New York "Hymietown"

He apologized for it, and it was in 1984. Trent Lott's comment about Strom Thurmond was in 2002. Lott did apologize, though.

Chris Dodd ISN'T racist for saying that the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan is a "great leader" (not now...THEN).

Oh, we're back to Robert Byrd, I see.

Meanwhile, the party that is in a race attack mode after but two primaries

And could you point out the racist things that the Democrat candidates have said, just for avoidance of confusion?

attacks the Republicans who have Condi Rice as Sec of State, Colin Powell before her, Rod Page as Sec of Education but, of course,

Wait, wait, are you now attributing these appointments by Bush to the Republican candidates?

the mindless just know that when they were five years old their leftist school teacher told them "Democrats AREN'T racists and Republicans are" and no other thought need ever be given.

Well, i don't know about the others, but when I was 5, I was in the USSR. Maybe my school teacher was a leftist, but she didn't talk about Democrats or Republicans.

Democrats are INHERENTLY racist. That's what makes you a Democrat. The idea that ALL women look, act and think the same way, that ALL blacks look, act and think the same way, that ALL homosexuals look, act and think the same way...that's the essence of "identity" politics and the whole of Modern Liberal dominated Democrat Party "thought."

And who, pray tell, espouses these ideas? Not the Democrats, that's for sure. But maybe Mr. Rove, who thinks that any black man who plays basketball is bound to "trashtalk"?

Dora said...

Plus, I wonder, Evan, why do you think it is that, if Democrats are the real racists, why the women, minorities and gays vote for Democrats more than for Republicans?

And please don't tell us that it's because the Democrats trick those groups into voting for them, because that would be saying that women, minorities and gays are, as a class, more easily trick, or stupider, than white straight males.

Also please don't tell us that they vote Democrat because the Democrats give them handouts, because that would imply that women, minorities and gays are more easily bought with handouts than white straight males.

And wouldn't both of those be implying that "ALL women look, act and think the same way, that ALL blacks look, act and think the same way, that ALL homosexuals look, act and think the same way"?

vera white said...

Plus, which US house member said that "someone "wearing a diaper on his head" should expect to be interrogated in the investigation of terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York City"?

Vitter? Oh, wait, that was another Repuglican diaper episode.

Evanisaboilontheassofsociety said...

From that, one can only conclude that ALL Republicans visit prostitutes and like to get treated like babies by them. I learned that from this site - if one does it, that means they ALL do it.

ron white said...

Woodies all round for the 25%:

"National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park,"

vera white said...

Well, this guy sure fits the repuglican stereotype:

Megachurch Leader Charged With Perjury
AP
Posted: 2008-01-15 06:31:37
Filed Under: Nation News
ATLANTA (Jan. 15) - An 80-year-old leader of a suburban megachurch who is at the center of a sex scandal has been charged with lying under oath for saying he had sex outside marriage with only one other woman, court documents show.

A warrant for the arrest of Archbishop Earl Paulk, co-founder of Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill Harvester Church, was issued Monday, according to court documents. Paulk was making arrangements Monday night to turn himself in, WAGA-TV reported.

His attorneys did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press seeking comment.

Former church employee Mona Brewer is suing Paulk, his brother and the church on allegations that Paulk manipulated her into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation. In a 2006 deposition stemming from the lawsuit, the archbishop said under oath that the only woman he had ever had sex with outside of his marriage was Brewer.

But the results of a court-ordered paternity test revealed in October that Paulk is the biological father of his brother's son, D.E. Paulk, who is now head pastor at the church. As part of Brewer's lawsuit, eight women have given sworn depositions that they were coerced into sexual relationships with Earl Paulk.

A judge ordered the paternity test at the request of the Cobb County district attorney's office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. District Attorney Pat Head declined to comment when reached at his home Monday night.

Paulk and his brother, Don, have been hit with lawsuits from former members alleging they were coerced into sexual affairs, but this is the first time criminal charges have been filed against the archbishop.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Tom Wright said...

Really obtuse Farmer says:Funny isn't it. The truce only applies to Democrats. There's no talk of ending the race-card playing and bringing "America" together. Only Democrats.

Yeah, it's real funny. Why would there be a truce with REAL Republican racists...the truce between dems is because there was no racism in the first place...as Rangel rightly points out.

dumbdorademocrat said...

Unless Rove can produce...

Rove doesn't have to prove anything. It's YOUR race adled brain that takes every basketball reference for a stereotype.

shit4brains said...

Kill yourself...

What a bunch of sick demented fucks. People who disagree with them should be killed. If you wanted everybody to agree with you, you shoulda stayed at the Huffington Post, asswipe.

And you haven't the balls to list your own blogs. Fuckin' coward.

votes4sale1/2price said...

Also please don't tell us that they vote Democrat because the Democrats give them handouts, because that would imply that women, minorities and gays are more easily bought with handouts than white straight males.

Bingo!

justthedumbassoneslikeu said...

"ALL women look, act and think the same way, that ALL blacks look, act and think the same way, that ALL homosexuals look, act and think the same way"?

LOL

tom wright said...

Meanwhile, the party that is in a race attack mode after but two primaries attacks the Republicans who have Condi Rice as Sec of State, Colin Powell before her, Rod Page as Sec of Education but, of course, the mindless just know that when they were five years old their leftist school teacher told them "Democrats AREN'T racists and Republicans are" and no other thought need ever be given.

Uh, gee whillikers, this boy is a babbling idiot...did the GOP banish him to this dead end? Here he's saying that ninety plus percent - and rising - of them nigrahs are too stupid to know who to vote for. Why do they bother? Everyone just laughs at this shrill, silly babble.

desperatelyseekingabsolution said...

The swiftness with which the Clintons reached out to the lawmaker, who has remained neutral in the race for the nomination but said he was not pleased with statements from the campaign of the former first lady, highlights the urgency and importance of the issue.

“We talked about the unfortunate circumstances that we find ourselves in,” Clyburn, who is black, said with regard to his conversation with the former president. The lawmaker pledged to Bill Clinton that he would do his “level best to help get us beyond this, because this campaign is about change.”

Clyburn characterized the Clintons as “remorseful” over what has transpired since the senator made a remark that some have interpreted to belittle the accomplishment of Martin Luther King Jr.

Obama told Clyburn that he “would love for this to get behind us,” the lawmaker said in the interview.


Say 10 Hail Martins and confess your white unworthiness at the next NAACP convention.

tom always wright said...

Meanwhile, the Republicans say nothing racist but they are actually speaking in "code," code that the leftists invent so that "good morning" because "I hate you, nigger."

See how the rightist "mind" works...they have to reduce the REAL argument to something silly they can handle...yeah, riiiiight, peabrain...GOOD MORNING is your code word...hahaha...this boy is a TARGET...try stringing LAZY, BASKETBALL, AND SHUFFLE together in one statement, sicko...try WELFARE QUEEN.

This was a great line too...the dem is not racist...he's VIcIOUSLY racist...ever hear of protesting tooooooooooooooooooo much? hahaha

tom wrightagain said...

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...
You're an idiot. Seriously. Kill yourself. I'm done trying to convince a shrill, mindless demagogue like you with reason that everything you say is so pathetically black and white that it's effectively self-parody.


Good Thought!! Laughing Guy, but please, don't deprive me of the insanest target in all Bedlam.

ycan'twebefriends said...

Clinton’s real problem is that she is caught in a trap, which you might call The Identity Trap.

Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn’t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on.

Fair enough. The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.

Clinton is suffering most. She is now accused, absurdly, of being insensitive to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Bill Clinton’s talk of a “fairy tale,” which was used in the context of the Iraq debate, is now being distorted into a condemnation of the civil rights movement. Hillary Clinton finds that in attacking Obama, she is accused of being hostile to the entire African-American experience.


Bring back the mandingo love!

Evan Sayet said...

Oh, I forgot, just two more "non-racist" comments by people who can't be-- simply can't be -- racists because, uh, only non-leftists can be racists (and, oh, yeah, if they never say a single racist thing in their entire lives, that's okay, they're speaking in "code")...

Hillary, disparaging her black opponent argues that he hasn't "done the spade work..." Also from the Dem's re: Barack Hussein Obama, he likes to "shuck and jive..."

Oh, right, but Karl Rove was secretly signaling his racism when he said "lower taxes are good for the economy..." We ALL know what THAT means.

Evan Sayet said...

Actually, there are a lot of Republicans in Hollywood. The problem is that the leftists are such fascists that, if you dare to disagree with their radical, hate-America-always agenda, you'll find yourself out of work.

This is the same black list that the leftists claim came from Joe McCarthy. The difference? McCarthy was against communism -- the most murderous mentality in human history (and, by no coincidence, a leftist mentality) and, oh yeah, McCarthy it turns out was absolutely right.

The leftists in Hollywood, like on the college campuses, will not allow any voice that questions their hate-America-always agenda.

The difference between, say, Chuck Norris and Susan Sarandon? Chuck made his fortune by accomplishing something, he worked his body into shape and became an action star. Susan Sarandon took off her clothes and ran around half-naked in the Rocky Horror Picture show and has not had two successful movies in the three decades since.

Has Sean Penn had a hit movie since he played the typical Democrat in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? Has Alec Baldwin ever had a hit movie? The child-actor turned leftist idiot George Clooney...any hit movies? None that I can think of. Except for that silly Oceans franchise which requires him to surround himself with actors who actually make money (for the studios, not just themselves) like Julia Roberts, how's his track record? Oh-for-his-entire-career?

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left THINKS they're so smart, the right proves it through accomplishment.

Dora said...

Also please don't tell us that they vote Democrat because the Democrats give them handouts, because that would imply that women, minorities and gays are more easily bought with handouts than white straight males.

Bingo!


Bingo what? Bingo that women, minorities and gays are more easily bought with handouts than white straight males?

Isn't that racism, sexist and homophobic, because it says that because someone is a woman/minority/gay, he (or she) is more easily bought than others? What's not racist/sexist/homophobic about that?

whenbillsoutoftown said...

Hillary, disparaging her black opponent argues that he hasn't "done the spade work..."

Yep, there she goes daydreaming of that good mandingo love...

...knocks it 3x on the bedpost. Hillary rolls and says, "Ready to go again, Barack?"

chickvote4sale said...

Isn't that racism, sexist and homophobic...

No, it's not. It can't be.

democratjoinsthepipelayerunion said...

COLUMBUS — Newly named Senate Democratic Leader Ray Miller, whose new post involves overseeing the finances of his caucus, owes a downtown hotel more than $26,000, according to public records obtained by the Associated Press.

Miller's ongoing monetary struggles with the Hyatt Regency Columbus, which stemmed from a 2006 banquet of his National Progressive Leadership Caucus, add to a host of other revelations about Miller's activities that threw his new position temporarily into jeopardy today.

chicksvote4sale said...

How come?

The buyers were all Democrats. Evan was right. They can't be any of those things!

vera white said...

Dora says: Bingo what? Bingo that women, minorities and gays are more easily bought with handouts than white straight males?

Isn't that racism, sexist and homophobic, because it says that because someone is a woman/minority/gay, he (or she) is more easily bought than others? What's not racist/sexist/homophobic about that?

They will never understand no matter how slllllllllloooooooooowlllllyyyyyyyy anyone says it. Dey gotz no brainz.

Dora said...

They will never understand no matter how slllllllllloooooooooowlllllyyyyyyyy anyone says it. Dey gotz no brainz.

Yup.

democratsgotnobrains said...

Maybe Bill Clinton wasn't our first black president, after all.

Bubba and the missus had to interrupt Hillary's presidential campaign yesterday to deal with an outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease. They might have to call in Trent Lott and Don Imus for tips.

This is not your grandfather's race baiting — that giant whooshing sound is the ghosts of Theodore Bilbo, Pitchfork Ben Tillman and Ross Barnett dancing in the graveyard — but the Clintons, with a little help from Barack Obama, have loosed the race issue on us just when we thought all that had been put to rest.

Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York, a partisan for Hillary, set off the contretemps when he called Mr. Obama's policies a "shuck and jive." Several Obama folks cried that "shuck and jive" is racial code for deceit and cheating. Indeed it can be, but "shuck" was the rustic's euphemism for something you get on your shoes in the barnyard and "jive" is the euphemism for a lot of things, including the sex act.

But we no longer have to pay attention to the actual meaning of words. Everyone is entitled to take offense when he just thinks what he hears is an insult. Bubba has played the race card before, once at the expense of old friends at home when he said he remembered the shame he felt for the black churches torched when he was a barefoot boy in Arkansas. It turned out that he remembered something no one else, black or white, did. An investigation revealed that no church black or white had ever been torched in Arkansas.

While Hillary was trying yesterday to make amends for saying something taken as a slight to the memory of Martin Luther King, Bubba was going from talk show to talk show trying to defuse black anger over remarks made by a black Hillary partisan suggesting that Mr. Obama had once used drugs. This was particularly ironic since the senator himself wrote in his autobiography that he had once used drugs. (Dissing yourself doesn't count.)

The formerly black president conceded that he had said something about the Obama rhetoric being "a fairy tale," but that was after somebody in the Obama campaign called Hillary an India Indian, "the senator from Punjab." This was after — or maybe it was before — Robert Johnson, the president of Black Entertainment Network, accused Mr. Obama of once "doing something in the neighborhood, and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book."

Race-baiting was simpler in the old days. Everybody understood what was insult or not, whether by the early George Wallace, the late Orval Faubus, or Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Now a lot of explanation, argument and counterargument, is necessary to plumb whether anyone was actually insulted, dissed or affronted.


I've gots to 'splain it ya!

vera white said...

Silly parrot says: Oh, right, but Karl Rove was secretly signaling his racism when he said "lower taxes are good for the economy..." We ALL know what THAT means.

Yeah, we all know what it means. It means that the top 1% is going to make a killing. It was his racism, THAT time.

vera white said...

CORRECTION:

Vera white said...

Silly parrot says: Oh, right, but Karl Rove was secretly signaling his racism when he said "lower taxes are good for the economy..." We ALL know what THAT means.

Yeah, we all know what it means. It means that the top 1% is going to make a killing. It WASN'T his racism, THAT time.

bob blooger said...

Man, did you see the bitterness drooling all over the page when poor Sayet, the FAILED comedian and blogger went on about some of the greatest and most acclaimed stard in Hollywood...poor guy...probably not smart to pick a career in comedy if you don't have sense of humor...or a career in blogging if you're so simple minded that you can only get two or three adolescents and one weirdo deviant pseudo intellectual farmer to listen to you without rolling their eyes. He is getting quite a few lib fans though...they're very sophisticated and have a taste for weird, unintended comedy.

O'fleck said...

Many "Pioneer" Bush Backers Not Backing Current GOP Presidential Candidates 1/16

Just too damn crazy...

wedgeissues said...

Hillary Donors Changing Camps...

African-American activists talk of forming their own political party...

It doesn't get any better than that!

buggery4all said...

Oh wait, it does... LOL!

whoinvitedhim2dinner? said...

This is a sad Martin Luther King Day for American politics, thanks to Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign.

President Clinton was confronted today by Roland Martin, a black radio host and CNN contributor, for the racially charged attack against Barack Obama at a Hillary Clinton event this weekend. The Clinton Campaign has repeatedly attacked Obama, through surrogates and supporters tasked with introducing Hillary Clinton at events, so Martin pressed President Clinton on his claim that the latest attacks from Bob Johnson were not "part of any planned strategy." Referring to the innuendo about Obama's prior admitted drug use, Martin said: When you listen to that tone and the inflection, he was not talking about community organizing. It seemed to be very clear what he was implying.

The former president continued to defend the remark, saying "nobody knew" it was coming. (Nobody apologized for it, either.) Yet as all political observers know, presidential campaigns carefully select and coach every supporter who introduces the candidate at major events. Just last week, in fact, a supporter introduced Hillary Clinton by referencing political assassinations and Barack Obama, (which the Clinton campaign had to disavow). And while Johnson's drug remarks are garnering the most attention -- he was forced to issue a statement explaining them -- he also launched another racially charged attack, saying Obama was a "reasonable, likable" figure like "Sidney Poitier [in] Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." Jack and Jill Politics, a blog offering a "Black Bourgeoisie perspective on American politics," breaks down the attack in an excellent post today, contending that "the point of that insult is that Obama is a House Negro, a sellout." The post quotes James Baldwin's analysis of how the movie presents a "black doctor" succeeding in American life by promising not to "defile" the white society, and then elaborates:

This is a character who has been written from the perspective of being as inoffensive to white viewers as possible--so much so that he is willing to leave the hemisphere in order to prevent white people from feeling uncomfortable about his marriage to a white woman. [...] these are more than just accusations that Obama [] is a sellout ... While it is currently black Clinton surrogates who are doing the heavy lifting, eventually the "Obama is a sellout" meme will become so common that white people will have no problem making the same kind of assertions. Obama's run for president in itself will become a kind of selling out; a metaphor for his ambition trumping his commitment to the community.

Anonymous said...

Why do the Dems always make everything a race issue. Can't we just get past it.

Evan Sayet said...

Because leftists are indiscriminate they can't discuss things like policy. They have no explanation as to why some things succeed and other things fail thus all they can do is what they do here...attack others as "racists" or "sexists" or call me a "failed comedian."

These things are of course, meaningless, as two and two is four whether one is black, female or Jerry Seinfeld. But, since they don't know that two and two is four (that would be racist since some blacks, for example, may think it's five and to say it's four would "hurt their feelings" all they can do is focus on the meaningless.

They are called ad hominem attacks and that's all the Modern Liberal has.

Evan Sayet said...

Nope, Dems aren't bigots:




January 15, 2008
Read More: Barack Obama

Obama knocks Farrakhan

Richard Cohen in the Post made Louis Farrakhan -- a former State Senate constituent of Obama's, and the honoree of a publication by his church -- an issue today, and Obama has a comment out now:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.

That's a pretty sharp statement on a subject that can cause a bit of a headache for Obama in his Chicago backyard, but should help settle something that was whispered for months before Cohen wrote it.

------

Of course, Obama didn't object at the time it came out and, of course, it was well-known for months and months before one member of the media decided that the vicious Jew-hater's being chosen as man of the year might be something worth reporting.

Modern Liberal is INHERENTLY anti-Jewish. Since the indiscriminate cannot understand why some people succeed and other people fail, the success of the Jewish people must be -- simply must be -- because they are evil, conniving bastards who control the media and the government. What else can it be? A superior culture? Not to the Modern Liberal so Jew-hatred is their ONLY possible response.

Anonymous said...

I guess I do not understand why they can't jump on board for the big win and put these 20th century social issues behind us. The more the Dems talk about it the longer they keep it alive. Just look at Louisiana. By the Dem standard the citizens are the most racist in the country yet they elected the first Indian-American governor ever.

academyaward said...

Why do the Dems always make everything a race issue. Can't we just get past it.

Sayet setting himself up for another silly denial.

eel said...

Where's that "Shakespeare prof." who adores his timeless prose?

2ndversesameasthe1st said...

[Matthew 5:10] Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

Modern Liberal is INHERENTLY anti-Jewish.

I'm a Jew, and a liberal, and you're a fucking joke, and a piece of shit to boot.

iluvu said...

Genesis 39:17 Then she spoke to him with words like these, saying, “The Hebrew servant whom you brought to us came in to me to mock me;

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

You know who thinks Jews control the media and the government? Far right sacks of shit like your buddy Sean Hannity's friend Hal Turner. The way you project everything that the right actually does onto the left is so incredibly delusional. You are, quite frankly, a world class scumbag, and you deserve nothing more than what you have here, screaming pathetic diatribes to a few nutjobs while the rest of us enjoy watching what happens to a twisted weirdo when he loses his grip on reality.

iluvu said...

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

left field said...

(Matthew 5:44 KJV) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work Evan!


-reformed Lib (i graduated college and started working).

Tom Wright said...

Dow falls 277 points as 'A growing conviction that the U.S. is headed toward recession sent Wall Street plunging Tuesday'

tom wright said...

By the Dem standard the citizens are the most racist in the country yet they elected the first Indian-American governor ever.

What?!! Sayet says the Democratic party with millions of people in it is "viciously racist." How can the country not be racist, then? We must keep battling to clean up America with these bigotted hordes all around us.

tom said...

Keep up the good work, Tom.

Evan Sayet said...

Democrats are only 1/3 of the population. Of those, very, very few understand what has become of their party. They think they're voting for liberal (lower case "l") values when, in reality, they are voting for racists and America haters, Christian haters and Jew haters.

Anonymous said...

Why cant Dems tolerate other view points? My opinion, as an American, is valid right?

bob blooger said...

Below, after having painted himself into a corner, explains why Democrats are vicious racists and not racists at the same time...he is one goofy guy, and real fun to make fun of...he is becoming popular for that reason...he is happy, because now his blog is not as dead as he is...only a temporary phenomenon, though, as his novelty as a buffon will soon wear off...now, check this:
Democrats are only 1/3 of the population. Of those, very, very few understand what has become of their party. They think they're voting for liberal (lower case "l") values when, in reality, they are voting for racists and America haters, Christian haters and Jew haters.

tom wright said...

Why cant Dems tolerate other view points? My opinion, as an American, is valid right?

No, it is not valid, nor tolerable. I can tell from what a simple dink you appear to be.

Anonymous said...

tom, every American has the right to express their opinion. Duh!

Vera White said...

Why cant Dems tolerate other view points? My opinion, as an American, is valid right?

Wrongo. No one has to tolerate your inane, asinine, stupid opinion. Being American does not "validate" your opinion. Now, go sit on a pickle.

Dora said...

"Modern Liberal is INHERENTLY anti-Jewish."

I'm a Jew, and a liberal, and you're a fucking joke, and a piece of shit to boot.


I second that.

Most Jews are Democrats. Most Jewish politicians are Democrats.

Dora said...

"So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?" Savage asked.

The caller replied: "Yes, I am."

"Oh, you're one of the sodomites," Savage said. "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."


Rightwinger Michael Savage, comments for which he was fired from MSNBC

Oh, but it's the democrats who are the bigots, right?

Evan still has not yet addressed why it is that more women, minorities, Jews and gays vote for Democrats than Republicans, if it's the Democrats who are the racists, sexist, anti-Jewish and homophobes.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Let me help you out - it's obviously because women, minorities, gays and, yes, Jews, are dumb and easily duped. If they were smart they'd vote Republican, because Republicans are for things that are good and successful and Democrats are for things that are evil and failures.

This site could be written by a 3 year old.

evan's cousin said...

This site could be written by a 3 year old.

Evan's condition is a sensitive subject in the family. He seemed alright as a little boy, they say, but something happened to him and he's become a bit of an embarassment and sometimes very difficult to be around. We all know he is not normal but try to deal with him as best we can.

leftwingmoonbat said...

dora's projecting again

and Savage is a loser

preacherman said...

Deuteronomy 30:7 And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

In his January 10, 1957, State of the Union Address, Eisenhower renewed his request for civil rights legislation, which had passed the House but died in the Senate in the previous Congress due to Southern Democratic delaying tactics. . . .

Everyone knew that the critical fight on the civil rights bill would be in the Senate. . . . In that body, the key figure was Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who represented the [former] Confederate state of Texas and had been installed in his position by Southern Democrats precisely in order to block civil rights legislation. Until the 1950s, Johnson's record of opposition to all civil rights legislation was spotless. But he was ambitious and wanted to be president. . . .

After dragging his feet on the civil rights bill throughout much of 1957, Johnson finally came to the conclusion that the tide had turned in favor of civil rights and he needed to be on the right side of the issue if he hoped to become president. . . .

At the same time, the Senate's master tactician and principal opponent of the civil rights bill, Democrat Richard B. Russell of Georgia, saw the same handwriting on the wall but came to a different conclusion. He realized that the support was no longer there for an old-fashioned Democrat filibuster. . . . So Russell adopted a different strategy this time of trying to amend the civil rights bill so as to minimize its impact. Behind the scenes, Johnson went along with Russell's strategy of not killing the civil rights bill, but trying to neuter it as much as possible. . . .

Eisenhower was disappointed at not being able to produce a better piece of legislation. "I wanted a much stronger civil rights bill in '57 than I could get," he later lamented. "But the Democrats . . . wouldn't let me have it."

Liberals criticized Eisenhower for getting such a modest bill at the end of the day. But Johnson argued that it was historically important because it was the first civil rights bill to pass Congress since 1875. "Once you break virginity," he said, "it'll be easier next time."

To put it mildly, LBJ was not a consistent advocate of racial equality. Bartlett (both in his book and in this article) quotes LBJ's explanation of why he backed the Civil Rights Act of 1957:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Kent said...

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

I just verified the authenticity of that quote. What do you have to say about your precious civil rights hero LBJ now?

Dora said...

dora's projecting again

and Savage is a loser


Well, Savage is a rightwinger.

So are many others

"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares." -Rush Limbaugh

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh

"have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson? - Rush Limbaugh

"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people-- I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work." -Rush Limbaugh

On the August 16, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly argued extensively for "profiling of Muslims" at airports, arguing that detaining all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45" for questioning "isn't racial profiling," but "criminal profiling."

More O'Reilly:

And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-Fer, I want more iced tea."

John Gibson, on the school shooting in Ohio: "What we have here is another example of hip hop culture bringing murder and mayhem into the rest of our society. This was a terrible incident out at aschool near Cleveland... 85% African American. First thing you see when you see pictures today, is a whole bunch of black kids." [Turns out it was a white kid who did the shootings, after realizing this] "Because the school is very heavily african american, i did leap to a conclusion, that the shooter may have been an african american. And you know why I knew ... I knew this was not a classic hip hop shooting, because he shot himself. He killed himself. Hiphoppers do not kill themselves. They walk away."


Hmm, and it's the LEFT that's RACIST?

Dora said...

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

I just verified the authenticity of that quote. What do you have to say about your precious civil rights hero LBJ now?


He still passed these acts, signed the momentuous 1964 Act, and worked on other civil rights issues.

Whereas what was the right/conservative movement doing at the time? Some Republicans supported Civil Rights legislation, but those were not conservative Republicans, those were Republicans who were moderate, some of whom eventually ended up in the Dem party.

But what was the right/conservative movement doing at the time? Oh, you know, hosing down black people, refusing to enforce Supreme Court rulings, writing leaflets about the harassment of white people.

Anonymous said...

Evan, why is it considered wrong in the Democrat mindset to give people their hard earned money back? I thought taxes were bad (Boston Tea Party).

Kent said...

The truth is, you cannot defend the pro-slavery, pro-discrimination past of the Democratic party that goes back to the founding of this nation. Democrats still continue to pit races and social classes against each other.

Dora said...

Evan, why is it considered wrong in the Democrat mindset to give people their hard earned money back? I thought taxes were bad (Boston Tea Party).

OMG, how stupid can you be?! Like, really, didn't you take US history in 8th grade? The Boston Tea Party was about taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, not all taxation. Unless you live in Washington DC, you are represented when taxed.

The truth is, you cannot defend the pro-slavery, pro-discrimination past of the Democratic party that goes back to the founding of this nation. Democrats still continue to pit races and social classes against each other.

The founding of this country? Seems you didn't take 8th grade US history either! there were no "democrats" or "republicans" at the founding. Presidents 1&2 had no party, and 3-6 were "Democratic-Republican." Andrew Jackson was the first Democrat president, and he took office in 1829, 40 years after the Constitution was written.

HELLO?! Maybe you guys are Republicans because you don't know anything about anything, and so are easily duped.

Anonymous said...

Dora, so you are saying that Thomas Jefferson did not help found the nation?

Greg said...

Evan, why is it considered wrong in the Democrat mindset to give people their hard earned money back? I thought taxes were bad (Boston Tea Party).

Democrats are socialists that want to redistribute the collective wealth of successful, hard working Americans. This is done by disproportionately taxing the wealthy and middle class in hopes that all people will have an equal standard of life. This is the socialist Utopian dream.

Conservatives want people to keep as much of their hard earned cash as possible so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. We believe taxation should effect all classes fairly without taking away the incentive to becomes wealthy and successful. The incentive for hard work and achievement is wealth, comfort and success. If you can enjoy a comfortable life without having to work hard and achieve, why get up and go to work every day? When people have more money, they spend more. Business thrives when more products and services are sold, and then guess what? In the end more taxes are collected through the marketplace.

It's common sense.

Anonymous said...

Evan, We are taxed all the time by the Feds and are not represented. Is this the same as the Boston Tea Party?

Dora said...

Anonymous said...

Dora, so you are saying that Thomas Jefferson did not help found the nation?



Obviously not. What I'm saying is that at the founding, the people who were there did not distinguish themselves as "Republicans" and "Democrats." There were federalists and anti-federalists, and other distinctions, but to claim that the history of the Democratic party goes back to the founding is absurd, because there was no Democratic party at the founding. When Jefferson was president, his party was the Democratic-Republicans.

Dora said...

Evan, We are taxed all the time by the Feds and are not represented. Is this the same as the Boston Tea Party?

Do you live in DC? Then you have a case for it. Otherwise, you are represented. You've heard of this Congress/Senate thingie, haven't you?

Dora said...

Democrats are socialists that want to redistribute the collective wealth of successful, hard working Americans. This is done by disproportionately taxing the wealthy and middle class in hopes that all people will have an equal standard of life. This is the socialist Utopian dream.

I guess it all depends on your meaning of "disproportionately." and let me that as a high-earning New York city resident, it's very likely that I taxed more than anyone else here. And, um, that's okay with me.

Conservatives want people to keep as much of their hard earned cash as possible so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "as much as possible." Shouldn't we have taxes for road upkeep and the police force and the fire department?

We believe taxation should effect[sic] all classes fairly without taking away the incentive to becomes wealthy and successful.

What is "fairly"? Your vagueness is piling up.

The incentive for hard work and achievement is wealth, comfort and success. If you can enjoy a comfortable life without having to work hard and achieve, why get up and go to work every day? When people have more money, they spend more. Business thrives when more products and services are sold, and then guess what? In the end more taxes are collected through the marketplace.

That's not common sense, that's the Laffer curve, and it doesn't work. Sowwy.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Conservatives want people to keep as much of their hard earned cash as possible so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Look up the term "corporate welfare" sometime, Sparky.

Greg said...

That's not common sense, that's the Laffer curve, and it doesn't work. Sowwy.

Of course a socialist like you would say that and defend yourself until death. People can do their own research. There is plenty of evidence that it works here in the United States and internationally where a flat tax has been implemented.

However, the common sense I was referring to is in the incentives for a productive, achieving society. The socialist Utopian dream, an equal standard of life for all, is diametrically opposed to that. The more you try to equalize things, the less incentive there is to achieve. An achieving society is by definition one of inequality. Conservatives do believe that each citizen of the United States should have equal opportunity to become wealthy and successful through their own hard work and ingenuity. This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism.

Dora said...

Of course a socialist like you would say that and defend yourself until death. People can do their own research. There is plenty of evidence that it works here in the United States and internationally where a flat tax has been implemented.

Um, yeah, "socialists" like me and N. Gregory Mankiw, Bush's top economic adviser.

Think about it.

However, the common sense I was referring to is in the incentives for a productive, achieving society.
The socialist Utopian dream, an equal standard of life for all, is diametrically opposed to that. The more you try to equalize things, the less incentive there is to achieve. An achieving society is by definition one of inequality. Conservatives do believe that each citizen of the United States should have equal opportunity to become wealthy and successful through their own hard work and ingenuity. This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism.


Of course I agree that there should be incentives for success and one of the biggest incentives for success is personal wealth. And I fully support the creation of personal wealth (you guys do too, unless it's by lawyers, right?! :)).

At the same time, I think you're not only misstating what classic socialists want, but also deliberately misstating what the Democrats want. Plus, according to your theory, there should be no income inequality in socialist countries like France and Germany and the Scandinavian countries. But there is -- there are poor people and very rich people in all of those countries. How did this happen?!

I believe in incentivizing success, I don't want to have taxes here like they have in Europe, not even close. But that doesn't mean i should support your crackpot Laffer curve. Look at all these tax cuts for corporations, rich people, oil companies that we've put into our economy. And it's still taking a nosedive!

According to your Laffer curve theory, we can collect more taxes by lowering the tax rate, because then corporations will pass on those savings to consumers in terms of lower prices, and to employees, in terms of higher salaries. That allows people to buy more stuff, increasing corporate revenues.

But if people reduce their spending, the revenues go down, and and then tax revenues go down too. Uh oh. Watch what happens to our deficit and tax revenues once people's home equity evaporates, and consumer spending goes down, as it already has.

The effect would of course be similar without the recent tax cuts, but since taxes are lower, there will be even less revenue.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Conservatives (ie "Republicans") talk about how we should all be taxed less, but what do they actually do about it? Mostly, they dole out tax breaks to corporations and the already wealthy. 1/3 of all Wal-Marts in this country are subsidized by state sales tax - when you shop at those stores, all of the sales taxes you pay go, not to the state, but to Wal-Mart Inc. They are hardly the only company to get that sort of sweetheart deal. Your buddy W, you know where he made his money? Oil? Wrong. Through a state sales tax in Texas that was used to build a new ballpark for the Texas Rangers. The partners bought the club on the relative cheap, hijacked the state for a new stadium, and then sold the club (including the stadium, which was sold back to them by the state for pennies) for a tidy profit. His money came directly from the taxpayers of the state of Texas. Republicans love corporate welfare, because it makes their buddies richer. Meanwhile, Democrats fight for the middle and working class taxpayers, and people like you (who have no idea what they're talking about) call them "socialists". Corporate welfare is what you support.

Greg said...

Conservatives (ie "Republicans") talk about how we should all be taxed less, but what do they actually do about it? Mostly, they dole out tax breaks to corporations and the already wealthy.

What is a corporation? It's just a group of people that work together. When you tax a corporation you are taxing the workers of that company and the consumers of their products. You liberals really are dense. When we "cut taxes for the wealthy", we are cutting taxes for working Americans that are paying a vastly disproportionate percentage of the tax burden. The Bush tax cuts helped everyone proportionately, including the wealthy. Not that Bush has been conservative with spending. He definitely has not!

As far as Europe is concerned - the liberal programs of France and other countries in Europe have already started to fall apart. Why do you think more conservative leaders like Sarkozy and Merkel are getting elected there? Business's can't compete internationally in those environments.

Along with tax cuts, of course, is the need to cut spending on social programs, especially ones that have never worked and were doomed from the beginning - like most of the new deal. Cutting taxes by itself doesn't really solve any problems. Everyone knows that social security is doomed for failure, but politicians are too weak to do anything about it. Socialist welfare programs have never fixed the cycle of poverty in our cities, regardless of how much money we throw at it. Look how much things improved in the 1990's when Clinton signed the republican welfare reform bill? Besides, it is not the role of the federal government to distribute charity. If anything, it is the role of local communities and individuals. Socialism doesn't work. It's been proven time and time again, and it will continue to be proven in the US and abroad.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

working Americans that are paying a vastly disproportionate percentage of the tax burden.

This is the first correct thing you've said. Unfortunately, you followed it up with this:

The Bush tax cuts helped everyone proportionately, including the wealthy.

Proving, finally, that you have no idea how the economy works.

A corporation is not "a group of people that work together". It is a legal entity that exists outside of whoever might be working for it at the time. When governments give subsidies to large corporations, they are putting money into the pockets of its shareholders and taking it out of the wider tax base that is used for things like schools, roads and hospitals. If you think a company like Wal-Mart actually shares the sales taxes it takes in with its employees, you're even more delusional than Evan.

Dora said...

What is a corporation? It's just a group of people that work together. When you tax a corporation you are taxing the workers of that company and the consumers of their products. You liberals really are dense. When we "cut taxes for the wealthy", we are cutting taxes for working Americans that are paying a vastly disproportionate percentage of the tax burden.

OMG, you have no idea what you're talking about at all, it's precious.

A corporation is SHAREHOLDERS - people who pool their assets together, or invest their assets, into the corporation to make a profit. Shareholders select the board of directors to oversee the corporation, and that board of directors in turn selects the executives, who in turn select the employees.

The board's and executive's supreme duty is to INCREASE SHAREHOLDER VALUE. They have no duty to the consumers, nor to the employees (they do have a duty to employees in Europe).

When you cut taxes on a corporation, what you are doing is this: you have revenues, you subtract expenses (rent, employee salaries, general administrative expenses, etc), and that is your gross income. Then you subtract interest. Then you subtract tax, and you get your profits. Those profits are for the shareholders. The dividends paid out of those profits are for the SHAREHOLDERS.

When you tax a corporation, the people you're taxing are the shareholders, not the consumers or the workers. The lower the taxes, the greater profits there are for reinvestment into the corporation, or to distribute to the shareholders. Unless an employe or a consumer is also a shareholder, they don't get a cut of those profits.

Socialism doesn't work. It's been proven time and time again, and it will continue to be proven in the US and abroad.

Seems to be working in Europe.

As far as Europe is concerned - the liberal programs of France and other countries in Europe have already started to fall apart. Why do you think more conservative leaders like Sarkozy and Merkel are getting elected there? Business's can't compete internationally in those environments.

indeed they are more conservative, but they are by leaps and bounds more liberal and socialist than any american politician except for maybe Dennis Kucinich. Neither Sarko nor Merkel want to cut their versions of social security or welfare or state funding for education or healthcare. It just wouldn't happen. Even Margaret Thatcher explicitly said that she will not dismantle the british healthcare system.

Anonymous said...

Evan, Does the extreme taxation by the Democrats have to do with California controlling the thermostat in homes throughout the state? Can they now tax the weather?

Justin said...

Greg - there's no point trying to reason with these clowns. They think like children.

"Gosh, it's sad that there are people that can't afford health care. Why don't we just make it free by doubling taxes. After all, health care is a basic human right. Yea! Oh wait, and food is also a basic human right. Everyone should have food on the table. Why don't we double taxes again and make food free for everyone. Yea! On no - there are people that cannot afford nice clothes, we should make those free as well. And transportation! How is it fair that some people can drive to work and others have to walk or ride a bike. Transportation is a basic human right! Double taxes again."

Wow, sounds a lot like communism now, eh? You can't reason with these wacko far leftists on any level. They live in a fantasy world.

Dora said...

You can't reason with these wacko far leftists on any level. They live in a fantasy world.

From the man who supports public hanging.

Shall we have a show of hands here, who else supports public hanging?

Danny Glover said...

Evan, Does the extreme taxation by the Democrats have to do with California controlling the thermostat in homes throughout the state? Can they now tax the weather?

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Justin's been taking straw man lessons from Evan, it would seem.

We spend 600 Billion dollars per year on our defense budget. That is more than the entire rest of the world combined. You want to pay less taxes? Then why not vote for someone who has the stones to say that our biggest budget outlay is also the one that is most in need of a trim.

Anonymous said...

We spend so much on defense because people like you would like to see us all dead.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

He still passed these acts, signed the momentuous 1964 Act, and worked on other civil rights issues.

Whereas what was the right/conservative movement doing at the time? Some Republicans supported Civil Rights legislation, but those were not conservative Republicans, those were Republicans who were moderate, some of whom eventually ended up in the Dem party.


You are quite the revisionist. REPUBLICANS voted FOR Civil Right Legislation in higher percentages than Democrats...

Vote count on the 1964 Legislation - The two numbers in each line of this list refer to the number of representatives voting in favor and against the act, respectively.

Senate: 77–19

Democrats: 47–17
Republicans: 30–2
House: 333–85

Democrats: 221–61
Republicans: 112–24
Conference Report:

Senate: 79–18

Democrats: 49–17
Republicans: 30–1
House: 328–74

Democrats: 217–54
Republicans: 111–20

Justin said...

Shall we have a show of hands here, who else supports public hanging?

Who here supports legal polygamy, incest, and prostitution? Shall we have a show of hands?

This girl is as far on the wacko left fringe as they come. She is completely devoid of common sense or morality.

Anonymous said...

mega dittos justin. also, Dora is getting more and more venomous the longer she trolls this GREAT site! this means Evan is right on.

politicianshavemixedrecords said...

oh yeah the old "ideological party shifts" myth.

Johnson voted no to court the Dixiecrats so he could run for President and Kennedy didn't act until forced to do so by demonstrations.

Johnson had other reasons for taking his stance. No civil rights act had been introduced into America for 82 years. If this one went through successfully and had support from both parties, it would do his position within the Democrats a great deal of good as he had plans in 1957 to be the party’s future presidential candidate. If he could get the credit for maintaining party unity and get the support of the South’s Democrats for ‘killing the bill’, then his position would be greatly advanced. If he was seen to be pushing through the first civil rights act in 82 years he hoped to get the support of the more liberal west and east coast Democrat senators.

Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

It was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

Democrats like to claim credit for Civil Rights legislation. They shouldn't.

Votes on the 1968 Civil Rights Act

The passage of the bill was largely spurred by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. a week before.

Vote statistics (Senate):
Passed 71-20
Democrats: 42-17 (71.2% For, 28.8% Against)
Republicans: 29-3 (90.6% For, 9.4% Against)

House:
Passed 250-172
Democrats: 150-88 (63% For, 37% Against)
Republicans: 100-84 (54.3% For, 45.6% Against)

Dora said...

Who here supports legal polygamy, incest, and prostitution? Shall we have a show of hands?

This girl is as far on the wacko left fringe as they come. She is completely devoid of common sense or morality.


I don't support it, I just don't think it should be illegal. You still haven't given any reason as to why incest, polygamy or prostitution should be illegal.

so, let's hear it, our moralist friend, why should incest be illegal?

Anonymous said...

Evan, Does the extreme taxation by the Democrats have to do with California controlling the thermostat in homes throughout the state? Can they now tax the weather?

Danny Glover said...

"I don't support it, I just don't think it should be illegal. You still haven't given any reason as to why incest, polygamy or prostitution should be illegal."

incest- because you will have retarded children

polygemy- because it is hard enough to take care one woman.

prostitution- because it increases the spread of STD's

Dora said...

Oh yes, let's break it down, y'all:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 100-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Uh oh for you guys!

Dora said...

"I don't support it, I just don't think it should be illegal. You still haven't given any reason as to why incest, polygamy or prostitution should be illegal."

incest- because you will have retarded children


Well, that's not true. It's POSSIBLE you will have retarded children.

But if it's preventing retarded children, we should ban retarded people from having children, yet their right to reproduce is explicitly protected by the Supreme Court.

Also, we should ban people who carry various genetic diseases from reproducing, esp. 2 people who are both carriers. This is a big problem among Ashkenazi Jews.

But we don't ban either of those things. So banning incest for that reason doesn't seem to make sense.

polygemy- because it is hard enough to take care one woman.

Har har.

that's not a reason, try again.

prostitution- because it increases the spread of STD's

Not the way they do it in the Netherlands. Plus, all kinds of activities that are perfectly legal increase the spread of STDs.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

What vote was that dora, 1862? for president? LOL!

And can you parse it any finer? Is your argument now that Southerners are racists? What happened to the D vs R crap you were spinning?

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Is your argument now that Southerners are racists?

Do you even read the crap you write? At least painting Southerners with the broad brush of "racist" would make some sense, as opposed to painting Democrats with it, like the ass boil does.

Dora said...

What vote was that dora, 1862? for president? LOL!

No, that was the civil rights act of 1964. Oh noes for you!

And can you parse it any finer? Is your argument now that Southerners are racists? What happened to the D vs R crap you were spinning?

My argument is that the current makeup of the Democrat party is mostly leftwingers, because Southern Democrats and other conservatives have left the Democratic party for the Republican party, which is now mostly made up of conservatives.

In other words, back in 1964, each party was more diverse in terms of the views of its members than they are now. The conservatives have SINCE THEN gone to the Republican party (Strom Thurmond and Ronald Reagan started out as Democrats), and the liberals in the Republican party of 1964 have gone to the Democratic side.

So, nowadays, Democrat is much more synonymous with liberal/left-wing, and Republican with conservative/right-wing, than it was in 1964.

And so, my argument is that conservatives are much more racist than liberals. Always were, too, even back in 1964. As you can see by the breakdown of the votes for the Civil Rights Act -- the racists back then were the southerners, from both parties.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

The racist-Dixiecrats all "supposedly" left the DNC in the 40's/50's for the RNC.

But by YOUR vote totals, it looks like them old'Klan Southern Democrats like Bobby Byrd are STILL with the DNC! Your vote count pretty much proves it.

187 Southern Democrats vs 10 Southern Republicans in the House AND 21 Southern Democrats vs 1 Southern Republican in the Senate.

I'd say it wasn't the "racists" that left the DNC for the RNC in the sixties... it was the Pro-War Scoop Jackson Wing!

Justin said...

Danny, don't bother responding to anything she says. As soon as you do, she'll call your wife a fat cow, your children stupid, and judge your chosen way of life. When the discussion doesn't go her way, then you'll see her venom. She is part of a special group of the most childish, closed minded, judgmental, hateful and morally corrupt liberals.

You cannot discuss the morality of incest, polygamy, and prostitution when one of the parties doesn't see the basic and principal value of the family and it's critical and foundational role in society. There's no basis for a discussion. This girl is trying to deny nature.

It's funny - these are all things the original feminists fought against. Look where feminism has gone.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

The operative word is "were". A lot has changed since the Jim Crow Democrats.

The Bill to Renew the '65 Voting Rights Act was passed the Congress in 2006

The bill to renew the Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, 390-33, with support from Republican House leadership, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.. The U.S. Senate passed the bill 98–0.

Anyone who says that things haven't changed is a liar.

Dora said...

I'm sorry, that was a typo in my original post:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

The Republicans finally come down on the right side of history. Good work. 50 years from now, when they're renewing the Gay Marriage Act of 2012, I'm sure they'll claim that they were always for equality for gays and lesbians.

Dora said...

Danny, don't bother responding to anything she says. As soon as you do, she'll call your wife a fat cow, your children stupid, and judge your chosen way of life. When the discussion doesn't go her way, then you'll see her venom. She is part of a special group of the most childish, closed minded, judgmental, hateful and morally corrupt liberals.

Oh cry me a river, and get off your moral highhorse, justin. You don't judge me? please!

You cannot discuss the morality of incest, polygamy, and prostitution when one of the parties doesn't see the basic and principal value of the family and it's critical and foundational role in society. There's no basis for a discussion. This girl is trying to deny nature.

It's funny - these are all things the original feminists fought against. Look where feminism has gone.


You pathetic coward, can't come up with a good argument, can you?

This is sooooo telling...

Dora said...

Let's add it all up by region, shall we?

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

= Southern politicians: 7-97 (7% - 93%)
= Northern politicans: 283 - 33 ( 90% - 10%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

South: 1-21 (5%-95%)
North: 72-6 (92%-8%)

Hmmm, and the South is all red states now. Some blue patches, but that's mostly black people and Bill Clinton.

Think about it.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

Oh, and most of the objections today to extensions to the 64/5/8 Civil Rights Laws is that many felt that the law had outlived its' purpose and simply imposed onorous and costly requirements (like requiring the printing of multi-lingual ballots).

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

Yeah...but look at what happens when the same law comes up for a vote today (see above). Those hundreds of racist Southern Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Laws in '64 are gone... except for a few Democrats like Robert Byrd.

Apple & Oranges.

Justin said...

You pathetic coward, can't come up with a good argument, can you?

This is sooooo telling...


I've already been through all of this with you. I don't need to keep repeating myself so you can get off on unleashing your hateful venom on me again.
The majority of people in this country have common sense. We don't have to read a bunch of books to see the damage that prostitution, incest, and polygamy have on families and society as a whole. Not to mention the damage it does to women in general. You think prostitution is empowering to women? You're nuts! Most democrats would even agree with me on this point.

Dora said...

Those hundreds of racist Southern Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Laws in '64 are gone... except for a few Democrats like Robert Byrd.

Apple & Oranges.


I'm not sure what you mean. Republicans today vote against all kinds of civil rights legislation and proposals, are against affirmative action, same-sex marriage, are all for abridging rights to privacy (sodomy laws, warrantless wiretapping, PATRIOT Act, etc). The Republicans were once for civil rights, but no longer, because of the Southern Strategy, which meant making themselves attractive to voters who used to vote for Southern Dems, but were disenfranchised after the Dems took a turn for unabashed liberalism.

The Republicans sold their soul for votes by deciding to take the South under their wing.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

If racism were still a problem in the South your views might be worth considering. But they're not. The white whackjobs have all been muzzled (except for Jesse and Al and Louis Farrakan, anyway - all democrats btw). So I think you better start looking to your own for some REAL problems.

Because Liberal leftwingers are the most intolerant folks on the planet.

Whackjob environmentalists spiking trees to kill loggers and blowing up SUV dealerships. Whackjob PETA idiots throwing blood on people. Whackjob Muslims flying planes into office buildings.

Dora said...

I've already been through all of this with you. I don't need to keep repeating myself so you can get off on unleashing your hateful venom on me again.
The majority of people in this country have common sense. We don't have to read a bunch of books to see the damage that prostitution, incest, and polygamy have on families and society as a whole. Not to mention the damage it does to women in general. You think prostitution is empowering to women? You're nuts! Most democrats would even agree with me on this point.


You never told me what was wrong with incest. so, I dont know what your opinion is.

As for the damage all those things have done to the family? I mean, incest and polygamy aren't exactly widespread practices that people are clamoring to do, but don't because they're illegal. I don't know what the damage done to the family through polygamy is, seriously. If people want to live in that kind of arrangement, and they're happy in it, what is that my business?

As for prostitution, I'm not really sure what damage it does either. The STD issue is actually a good one, but can be dealt with.

damage it does to women in general.

where's the damage to women from incest, polygamy and prostitution in our society?

You think prostitution is empowering to women? You're nuts!

I don't think that the government should tell women (and the few men who engage in it) what they can't do with their bodies. I know that you conservatives love to think of men as the protectors of women, and so we need to pass legislation to protect women, but that's so ... quaint.

Dora said...

If racism were still a problem in the South your views might be worth considering. But they're not. The white whackjobs have all been muzzled (except for Jesse and Al and Louis Farrakan, anyway - all democrats btw). So I think you better start looking to your own for some REAL problems.

Well, you forgot the KKK and David Duke and Trent Lott and the John Birch Society. And many, many more. I can't believe you're seriously arguing that there is no racism in the south. that's absurd.

Because Liberal leftwingers are the most intolerant folks on the planet.

Whackjob environmentalists spiking trees to kill loggers and blowing up SUV dealerships. Whackjob PETA idiots throwing blood on people.


Those are not representative all liberals. There's probably fewer members of peta and the ecoterrorists than the KKK.

Nice strawman though. It'd be like if I said that all Republicans are in the KKK.

Whackjob Muslims flying planes into office buildings.

Oh, those guys are liberals now too? Really? Interesting.

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

The Republicans sold their soul for votes by deciding to take the South under their wing.

Are you saying that the South doesn't deserve representation in the USA?

The Republican program to reform and redeem the South started in 1861. WE Republicans did that. Not you. And as they have reformed, they are redeemed.... and we are PROUD to represent them.

Now, it's time to take back the REST of the country! McCain in '08!

Danny Glover said...

dora, you asked for a reason to criminalize incest, polygamy, and prostitution and I gave 2 and a joke. There is always something to scrutinize about any generalization.

If the majority of incestuous relationships create retarded babies then ban 'em. Problem solved.

Polygamy is just another form of totalitarian rule. Ban it.

Prostitution spreads STD's and desensitizes the act of meaningless sex. The only reason you would like prostitution to be legal is so there would be a boom in the abortion business.

Dora said...

See, that's what i love about conservatives. They write things like:

We don't have to read a bunch of books to see the damage that prostitution, incest, and polygamy have on families and society as a whole. Not to mention the damage it does to women in general.

As if it's so obvious! Then, you ask them, well, what is the damage, if it's so obvious?

And all you hear is crickets.

I've asked Justin to tell me why incest should be illegal, but instead of telling me why (i thought it was so obvious), he's going to use every excuse he can think of to avoid answering that simple question.

Very telling!

doraesunpedazodemierda said...

what's wrong with incest? is she for real?

republicancivilrightsactivist said...

Oh, those guys are liberals now too? Really? Interesting.

I don't see Republicans trying to spring them out of Guantanamo or passing on instructions to their followers (Blind Sheik) once they're captured.

And I don't see any right wing organization backing up the PLO at university demonstrations across the nation. Code Pink/ International ANSWER. Those are YOUR whackjobs.

Dora said...

Are you saying that the South doesn't deserve representation in the USA?

Of course they deserve it. They could have, and wanted to, form their own party - the Dixiecrats. But the Republicans couldn't let all those votes go to waste. The Dems decided, we don't want those racist bastards in our party, and the Republicans thought, welll, they're racists, but without em, we can't win.

The Republican program to reform and redeem the South started in 1861. WE Republicans did that. Not you. And as they have reformed, they are redeemed.... and we are PROUD to represent them.

Again, are you telling me that there racism in the south is "solved"?

Have you heard of Vidor, TX?

Dora said...

what's wrong with incest? is she for real?

If it's such an obvious question, why can't anyone give a good answer?!

Danny Glover said...

I just gave a GREAT answer but it is not good enough for you. INCEST IS HOW RETARDS ARE BORN!!!!!!

tom wright said...

Below, we see Justin whining because he was not "respected" after he told Dora how much he respected her views. Poor, li'l guy.

Justin said...
Danny, don't bother responding to anything she says. As soon as you do, she'll call your wife a fat cow, your children stupid, and judge your chosen way of life. When the discussion doesn't go her way, then you'll see her venom. She is part of a special group of the most childish, closed minded, judgmental, hateful and morally corrupt liberals.

Dora said...

I don't see Republicans trying to spring them out of Guantanamo or passing

LOL Really? Cuz all those military dudes are against it, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Defense Secretary Gates have all said they want to close Gitmo.

But i know, i know, why would the US want to give fair trials to people? that's crazytalk! So what if more than half of Gitmo detainees (the worst of the worst, allegedly) have been released with charges -- they're all bad guys, i tells you!

And I don't see any right wing organization backing up the PLO at university demonstrations across the nation. Code Pink/ International ANSWER. Those are YOUR whackjobs.

The PLO is not a legitimate organization? Wasn't Mahmoud Abbas at Annapolis shaking hands with President Bush? Isn't Bush a Republican?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 669   Newer› Newest»