[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I am saying you are wrong for having the opinion you have because you have no facts to base it on - it's an unsupported guess yet you are calling the author a racist based on that guess. That is wrong.

No - that's the definition of an opinion. From the OS X dictionary:

opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

Likewise we don't have evidence the author is a racist and it's wrong to call him one when there is no evidence, even if it is "just your opinion".

You are calling the author racist based on NOTHING AT ALL. That is wrong.

Dance around it all you want, but it is wrong to call someone a racist when you have zero evidence to support your statement.

Play word games all you want, but it is wrong to call someone a racist when you have zero evidence to support your statement.

You are wrong. You are completely wrong. Not for "having an opinion" as you stupidly said, but for calling someone a racist when you have no evidence to support your idiotic opinion.

It's not 'wrong' to have an opinion about something, so long as you don't state it as fact. I gave you the basis for my conclusion and made my assumptions clear. That's more than 'nothing at all'. Sorry, try again.

Once again, if you want to make a point, you're going to need to come with something more than 'You are wrong!'. I wish you luck.

Sure I have, multiple times. You've simply kept ignoring my rebuttals and going off on irrelivent tangents about how I supposed said nobody can have an opinion yadda yadda yadda.

Please demonstrate to me where you've provided any rebuttal. All I see you've done is continually tell me I have an opinion based on assumptions. Well no sh-t Sherlock!

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

No - that's the definition of an opinion. From the OS X dictionary:

opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

I do not care if it's your opinion, belief or a guess. You called someone racist based on assumption, based on nothing at all. That is wrong. What you call that assumption doesn't matter, it's your opinion? Who cares. You said he's a racist yet you do not know if he is. That is wrong and you are wrong.

It's not 'wrong' to have an opinion about something, so long as you don't state it as fact.

FAIL. I never said it is 'wrong' to have an opinion about something, that's just stupidity on your part. Try again.

I said it's wrong to call someone a racist when you don't know that they are, when you have absolutely no evidence that they are. It is wrong. Calling it an "opinion" doesn't change that, it does not justify it, it does not make it "ok" to accuse someone when you don't know - that's just you dancing around the topic and playing word games.

I gave you the basis for my conclusion and made my assumptions clear. That's more than 'nothing at all'. Sorry, try again.

Your "conclusion" is based on nothing but assumption which is exactly the same as 'nothing at all' - you have no facts to base your "conclusion" on, you only have assumption.

Once again, if you want to make a point, you're going to need to come with something more than 'You are wrong!'. I wish you luck.

No, you are wrong seems to work pretty well. That you try to suggest I mean you are wrong for having an opinion is just asinine word games on your part as I've clearly and repeatedly said why you are wrong and it has nothing to do with you having or not having an opinion.

Please demonstrate to me where you've provided any rebuttal.

I've shown multiple times that your conclusion does not jive with what's written in that letter.

"Again, it looked, walked and quacked like a duck that doesn't like the President, but it was completely void of racism. So why are you adding it in? Is it shameful to admit why you consider it racist?"

"The letter does not say Obama doesn't "deserve" his position, it only says electing him was a mistake, which many people have felt about everyone you listed and, frankly, every elected official."

"Sure, I know. But this duck looks like a goose - the author obviously doesn't care for the President, but millions of people don't care for the President and that doesn't make them racist ducks. This person expressed his anger via ranting about feet on the desk, hardly hard core racist stuff....."

"Maybe it's because the author is a Republican and mad about the changes Obama is trying to pass into law? You can't just jump to "racist" without any real reason."

The best part though, is that you kinda lied in there.
Possible. But I don't see people talking about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi like they don't 'deserve' their positions. Or Clinton or Carter, for that matter. The level of hate seems amped up to me.

The letter does not say Obama doesn't "deserve" his position, it only says electing him was a mistake, which many people have felt about everyone you listed and, frankly, every elected official.

The suggestion that the author said or implied that Obama doesn't 'deserve' his position, unlike Pelosi, Reid, Clinton or Carter, is something that was added in by you to make a false case, a false impression - a lie.

So you're wrong for that too. Or is lying ok in your book?

All I see you've done is continually tell me I have an opinion based on assumptions. Well no sh-t Sherlock!

I have told you that you have called someone a racist based on assumption alone. That is wrong. That it's an opinion is irrelivent. I don't care if you call it your opinion, belief or vague guess - you still called someone a racist based on nothing more then assumption and that is wrong.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I do not care if it's your opinion, belief or a guess. You called someone racist based on assumption, based on nothing at all. That is wrong. What you call that assumption doesn't matter, it's your opinion? Who cares. You said he's a racist yet you do not know if he is. That is wrong and you are wrong.



FAIL. I never said it is 'wrong' to have an opinion about something, that's just stupidity on your part. Try again.

I said it's wrong to call someone a racist when you don't know that they are, when you have absolutely no evidence that they are. It is wrong. Calling it an "opinion" doesn't change that, it does not justify it, it does not make it "ok" to accuse someone when you don't know - that's just you dancing around the topic and playing word games.

Your "conclusion" is based on nothing but assumption which is exactly the same as 'nothing at all' - you have no facts to base your "conclusion" on, you only have assumption.

No, you are wrong seems to work pretty well. That you try to suggest I mean you are wrong for having an opinion is just asinine word games on your part as I've clearly and repeatedly said why you are wrong and it has nothing to do with you having or not having an opinion.

I've shown multiple times that your conclusion does not jive with what's written in that letter.

"Again, it looked, walked and quacked like a duck that doesn't like the President, but it was completely void of racism. So why are you adding it in? Is it shameful to admit why you consider it racist?"

I answered that question, in the process showing you how one could reasonably infer racist intent.

"Sure, I know. But this duck looks like a goose - the author obviously doesn't care for the President, but millions of people don't care for the President and that doesn't make them racist ducks. This person expressed his anger via ranting about feet on the desk, hardly hard core racist stuff....."

"Maybe it's because the author is a Republican and mad about the changes Obama is trying to pass into law? You can't just jump to "racist" without any real reason."

Both irrelevant. I've agreed there are other possible explanations. But that does not refute my conclusion that mine is the most plausible.

The best part though, is that you kinda lied in there.
Possible. But I don't see people talking about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi like they don't 'deserve' their positions. Or Clinton or Carter, for that matter. The level of hate seems amped up to me.

The letter does not say Obama doesn't "deserve" his position, it only says electing him was a mistake, which many people have felt about everyone you listed and, frankly, every elected official.

The suggestion that the author said or implied that Obama doesn't 'deserve' his position, unlike Pelosi, Reid, Clinton or Carter, is something that was added in by you to make a false case, a false impression - a lie.

So you're wrong for that too. Or is lying ok in your book?

By not responding to that part, I assumed we were all letting it go. But, since you need it - fine - I officially recant that particular statement. It's irrelevant to either of our conclusions. Happy?

I have told you that you have called someone a racist based on assumption alone. That is wrong. That it's an opinion is irrelivent. I don't care if you call it your opinion, belief or vague guess - you still called someone a racist based on nothing more then assumption and that is wrong.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I consider this tacit admission that you were wrong to assume he was racist.

I answered that question, in the process showing you how one could reasonably infer racist intent.

No you didn't. You created a convoluted mess of assumptions, nothing more.

Both irrelevant. I've agreed there are other possible explanations. But that does not refute my conclusion that mine is the most plausible.

Most plausible? LOLFAIL. The "most plausible" is that the author doesn't like Obama. Beyond that, anything else is speculation based on bad assumptions.

By not responding to that part, I assumed we were all letting it go. But, since you need it - fine - I officially recant that particular statement. It's irrelevant to either of our conclusions. Happy?

Yes.

And more tacit admission that you were wrong to assume he was racist.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I consider this tacit admission that you were wrong to assume he was racist.

Nope. Just waiting for you to add something new to the discussion.

No you didn't. You created a convoluted mess of assumptions, nothing more.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

Most plausible? LOLFAIL. The "most plausible" is that the author doesn't like Obama. Beyond that, anything else is speculation based on bad assumptions.

Yeah, we get that the author doesn't like Obama. What we're left to infer is why? Given that this is a personal attack and not an attack on policies, we can infer it's personal. Unless Obama personally strangled this guy's puppy, I'm showing you the most plausible reason for personal hate.

And more tacit admission that you were wrong to assume he was racist.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yeah, we get that the author doesn't like Obama. What we're left to infer is why? Given that this is a personal attack and not an attack on policies, we can infer it's personal. Unless Obama personally strangled this guy's puppy, I'm showing you the most plausible reason for personal hate.

People constantly threw personal attacks at Bush. So was all that racist too? A little white on white racism I guess? Or maybe you think Bush personally went around strangling people's puppys and that's what cause all those personal attacks?

You make no sense. It was a personal attack, not a racist attack. All Presidents, all political figures have been personally attacked. Yet this time, because the President is black, it's racist? That's idiotic.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

People constantly threw personal attacks at Bush. So was all that racist too? A little white on white racism I guess? Or maybe you think Bush personally went around strangling people's puppys and that's what cause all those personal attacks?

You make no sense. It was a personal attack, not a racist attack. All Presidents, all political figures have been personally attacked. Yet this time, because the President is black, it's racist? That's idiotic.

It's also the nature of the personal attack. It's an attack on behavior that clearly can be demonstrated as common behavior. Yet Obama in particular is called out for it. And use of the words 'arrogant' and 'disrespectful' when Obama does it, but not others. Add it all up, and Quack Quack Quack.

One other question - if it's so 'idiotic', why do you acknowledge that I might be right?

[Doofy]

I like kittens.

Ooops. Shouldn't have let that slip. That's obviously code for "Let's go hang some niggers".

See, white people historically like kittens. They did this even before slavery was outlawed in the United States. Thus, liking kittens is loaded with racial baggage and is obviously some kind of secret code for hating black folks.

Do you guys realise just how broken your society is?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I like kittens.

Ooops. Shouldn't have let that slip. That's obviously code for "Let's go hang some niggers".

See, white people historically like kittens. They did this even before slavery was outlawed in the United States. Thus, liking kittens is loaded with racial baggage and is obviously some kind of secret code for hating black folks.

Here's a white guy who likes kittens. Awww, how cute!

Here's a black guy who likes kittens. How dare he? Who does he think he is, liking our kittens like that? He should show more respect for our kittens!

Do you guys realise just how broken your society is?

Yes. The first step to fixing it is understanding what's broken.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yes. The first step to fixing it is understanding what's broken.

The fact that the society is made up of a bunch of attentions whores who seek to differentiate themselves based on who their great great grannies let into their knickers?

"I'm a proud African-American".
"I'm a proud Italian-American".
"I'm a proud Irish-American".
"I'm a proud Asian-American".
"I'm a proud Mexican-American".
"I'm a proud Native-American".

Divisive, no matter which way you slice it. Too many people seeking to identify themselves with a group in order to lessen their own feelings of inadequacy. How's about using "I'm me" instead?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The fact that the society is made up of a bunch of attentions whores who seek to differentiate themselves based on who their great great grannies let into their knickers?

"I'm a proud African-American".
"I'm a proud Italian-American".
"I'm a proud Irish-American".
"I'm a proud Asian-American".
"I'm a proud Mexican-American".
"I'm a proud Native-American".

Divisive, no matter which way you slice it. Too many people seeking to identify themselves with a group in order to lessen their own feelings of inadequacy. How's about using "I'm me" instead?

Totally agree. Not only the need to identify with a group, but then insist 'my group is better'. Yes, it's pointless.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Totally agree. Not only the need to identify with a group, but then insist 'my group is better'. Yes, it's pointless.

Of course, Mac users are the exception. We clearly are better.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Of course, Mac users are the exception. We clearly are better.

Well, duh!

[BadKosh]

It is a cultural issue. It's more of a culture issue than even race. The biases, tastes, and ways of dealing with things are all cultural, and not race driven. When you slice the population into groups (whatever they may be) 30 percent of the people are still jerks. This transcends race.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

It's also the nature of the personal attack. It's an attack on behavior that clearly can be demonstrated as common behavior. Yet Obama in particular is called out for it. And use of the words 'arrogant' and 'disrespectful' when Obama does it, but not others. Add it all up, and Quack Quack Quack.

People do this kind of attack all the time and it has nothing to do with race. Bush got attacked for taking vacations... For "kissing" Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah as a show of respect... for holding Crown Prince Abdullah's hand as they walked - a sigh of friendship... A million other "common" things... Hell, there were even bozos writing up laws to arrest Bush & Chaney if either entered their stupid little town...

Bush was attacked relentlessly on every move, over everything. This attack on Obama is no different then any of those stupid attacks, there's nothing racist about it.

One other question - if it's so 'idiotic', why do you acknowledge that I might be right?

Because I understand that I do not have enough information to even make a guess either way, which means either possibility is possible.

The author "might" be racist, I simply don't have enough information to know. Nothing in that letter leads me to believe there is racist intent, but of course it is possible in the same way that it's possible George Cloney is gay, I don't know, maybe he is - i can't say with certainty he's not. I mean, who would have thought Mel Gibson was anti-Semitic? I didn't know that, did you? Who would have thought the congressman that keeps voting against gay rights is gay?

There is nothing at all overtly racist in that letter, so it is not reasonable to assume the author is racist because lack of information is not proof of anything.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

People do this kind of attack all the time and it has nothing to do with race. Bush got attacked for taking vacations... For "kissing" Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah as a show of respect... for holding Crown Prince Abdullah's hand as they walked - a sigh of friendship... A million other "common" things... Hell, there were even bozos writing up laws to arrest Bush & Chaney if either entered their stupid little town...

Bush was attacked relentlessly on every move, over everything. This attack on Obama is no different then any of those stupid attacks, there's nothing racist about it.

Bush exhibited this exact same behavior, and wasn't attacked for it. So I find it interesting that you use him as an example.

Because I understand that I do not have enough information to even make a guess either way, which means either possibility is possible.

The author "might" be racist, I simply don't have enough information to know. Nothing in that letter leads me to believe there is racist intent, but of course it is possible in the same way that it's possible George Cloney is gay, I don't know, maybe he is - i can't say with certainty he's not. I mean, who would have thought Mel Gibson was anti-Semitic? I didn't know that, did you? Who would have thought the congressman that keeps voting against gay rights is gay?

Yep - was right about the Gibson and congressman ones too.

There is nothing at all overtly racist in that letter, so it is not reasonable to assume the author is racist because lack of information is not proof of anything.

You're right - there's nothing overtly racist in that letter. It's just a lame personal attack on a man, based in fallacious arguments. So why the lame personal attack? If there's a specific thing the author doesn't like, he could call that out. But the author chose a lame personal attack. That's telling. I think that either the author has no real reason to hate Obama, or he doesn't want to reveal the reason. Either way - that's an awful lot of quacking.

If you're looking for 'proof', go ask the author. I offer you my reasoned opinion. Again, you're entitled to yours, and I mine.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Bush exhibited this exact same behavior, and wasn't attacked for it.

You know this for a fact? Or is this yet another assumption?

Yep - was right about the Gibson and congressman ones too.

Sure you were.

You're right - there's nothing overtly racist in that letter. It's just a lame personal attack on a man, based in fallacious arguments.

Which is absolutely nothing new in politics and does not indicate racism.

If there's a specific thing the author doesn't like, he could call that out. But the author chose a lame personal attack. That's telling.

No it's not at all. Personal attacks are made all the time in politics, that doesn't mean they are all racist.

You can hate someone of a different ethnicity without being racist....... What makes it racism is when you hate them because of their race, which is usually expressed with racist words like "uppity" or, well, any of many other words I won't use. The author didn't do that - you're creating all that in your head.

I think that either the author has no real reason to hate Obama, or he doesn't want to reveal the reason. Either way - that's an awful lot of quacking.

What garbage "thinking". There are plenty of reasons to hate Obama with a huge passion if you disagree with his policies just like all the people that personally attacked Bush because of his policies. Hell, people have hated politicians for a lot less then that and racism had nothing to do with it.

If you're looking for 'proof', go ask the author. I offer you my reasoned opinion. Again, you're entitled to yours, and I mine.

And I'm showing you how your reasoning is not sound because it's based on nothing more then assumptions, such as your assumption that nobody ever attacked Bush for putting his feet on the desk. That's an assumption of convenience - it bolsters your argument even though it may be completely wrong.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

You know this for a fact? Or is this yet another assumption?

The author didn't acknowledge it. Fact.

Which is absolutely nothing new in politics and does not indicate racism.

No it's not at all. Personal attacks are made all the time in politics, that doesn't mean they are all racist.

You can hate someone of a different ethnicity without being racist....... What makes it racism is when you hate them because of their race, which is usually expressed with racist words like "uppity" or, well, any of many other words I won't use. The author didn't do that - you're creating all that in your head.

You're right. Personal attacks are made all the time, and not all of them are rooted in racism. Not even all the ones on Obama. But we're not talking about all personal attacks. We're talking about this one. The author expressed that Obama is being disrespectful for a common behavior, and he should respect 'our' property (it's his too!). Is that 'in my head'?

What garbage "thinking". There are plenty of reasons to hate Obama with a huge passion if you disagree with his policies just like all the people that personally attacked Bush because of his policies. Hell, people have hated politicians for a lot less then that and racism had nothing to do with it.

Exactly. So why didn't the author mention any of those? Again, he doesn't want to reveal his reason. If he hated Obama with a passion because of his policies, why not mention them?

You might want to think about taking out your own garbage before worrying about others'.

And I'm showing you how your reasoning is not sound because it's based on nothing more then assumptions, such as your assumption that nobody ever attacked Bush for putting his feet on the desk. That's an assumption of convenience - it bolsters your argument even though it may be completely wrong.

Nope. I'm just reading what the author wrote.

Again with the assumptions! For god's sake - yes! It's based on assumptions! The author didn't offer his reasoning, so we're left to infer from assumptions. I've shared mine, and your lame attempts to attack them have fallen flat. So, I'm going to continue to assume. Soundly.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The author didn't acknowledge it. Fact.

You assume the author knew about it. You assume he didn't write a separate letter to Bush. You pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption and think that makes for a good argument or, in this case, a "fact". You're wrong.

You're right. Personal attacks are made all the time, and not all of them are rooted in racism. Not even all the ones on Obama. But we're not talking about all personal attacks. We're talking about this one. The author expressed that Obama is being disrespectful for a common behavior, and he should respect 'our' property (it's his too!). Is that 'in my head'?

Oh great, so now "disrespectful" is code word for racism...? Did your parents never tell you that it is disrespectful to put your feet on the table / desk in a formal environment, which the Oval Office of the White House would count as?

So maybe the author just has better manners then you?

Exactly. So why didn't the author mention any of those? Again, he doesn't want to reveal his reason. If he hated Obama with a passion because of his policies, why not mention them?

Who cares? And to jump from that to "racism" is asinine.

You might want to think about taking out your own garbage before worrying about others'.

Oooh and you think you're witty too.

Nope. I'm just reading what the author wrote.

BAHAHAHAHAHA You're reading what the author wrote, making lots of assumptions and jumping to an extreme, baseless and unsupported conclusion.

Again with the assumptions! For god's sake - yes! It's based on assumptions! The author didn't offer his reasoning, so we're left to infer from assumptions. I've shared mine, and your lame attempts to attack them have fallen flat.

My lame attempt to attack? YOU are the one that is trying to call the author racist based on idiotic assumptions, not me.

So, I'm going to continue to assume. Soundly.

Great, continue to be wrong and make an ass of yourself all at the same time, you act like I care.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

You assume the author knew about it. You assume he didn't write a separate letter to Bush. You pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption and think that makes for a good argument or, in this case, a "fact". You're wrong.

Nope. If the author didn't know about it, then he's prejudging Obama. After all, the evidence is readily available, and if he's going to call out Obama for defacing his beloved Resolute desk, you'd think he'd do a little research on how other presidents treated it. So if he didn't know and didn't bother to check, then he's irresponsible and prejudicial. Quack Quack.

Don't need to assume anything for that. Either way it's quacking.

Oh great, so now "disrespectful" is code word for racism...? Did your parents never tell you that it is disrespectful to put your feet on the table / desk in a formal environment, which the Oval Office of the White House would count as?

So maybe the author just has better manners then you?

I doubt it. He's a racist!

Who cares? And to jump from that to "racism" is asinine.

Oooh and you think you're witty too.

BAHAHAHAHAHA You're reading what the author wrote, making lots of assumptions and jumping to an extreme, baseless and unsupported conclusion.

My lame attempt to attack? YOU are the one that is trying to call the author racist based on idiotic assumptions, not me.

Great, continue to be wrong and make an ass of yourself all at the same time, you act like I care.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Nope. If the author didn't know about it, then he's prejudging Obama.

But not racially.

After all, the evidence is readily available, and if he's going to call out Obama for defacing his beloved Resolute desk, you'd think he'd do a little research on how other presidents treated it.

Grasp at straws much?

So if he didn't know and didn't bother to check, then he's irresponsible and prejudicial. Quack Quack.

Hey look, even more stupid conclusions! Now being irresponsible is racism too!

I doubt it. He's a racist!

And you conclude that based on a letter about keeping feet off the desk. Priceless.

More tacit admission.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

But not racially.

Grasp at straws much?

Hey look, even more stupid conclusions! Now being irresponsible is racism too!

And you conclude that based on a letter about keeping feet off the desk. Priceless.

Yep. Let's look at what we can observe:

Prone to prejudice. Quack.
Attacks one man for specific behavior, not another. One is 'disrespectful', others get a pass. Quack.
Demonstrates no real basis for attack, other than personal hate. Writes in a manner to camouflage said basis. Quack.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably...

More tacit admission.

[OldManMac]

How low the Republican party has sunk, when it's been hijacked by nutjobs.

New Harris Poll Finds Nearly One Fourth of Republicans Believe Obama May Be the Antichrist | Firedoglake

[Doofy]

The Republican party has been hijacked by Democrats?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

How low the Republican party has sunk, when it's been hijacked by nutjobs.

New Harris Poll Finds Nearly One Fourth of Republicans Believe Obama May Be the Antichrist | Firedoglake

Yeah I saw that today on Digg. More of the lunacy that unfortunately isn't just on the fringe anymore .....

On the heels of health care, a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama: Two-thirds think he's a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist."

To anyone who thinks the end of the health-care vote means a return to civility, wake up.
Obama Derangement Syndrome—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism—has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist. [OAW] .... Funny how they didn't think this about Bush and the Republican Congress who expanded Medicare Part D without paying for it .... [/OAW]

The belief that Obama is a “domestic enemy” is widely held—a sign of trouble yet to come.

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim.

45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president".

38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did".

Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

These numbers all come from a brand-new Harris poll, inspired in part by my new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for ratings is bad for the country.

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what's driving this insanity?

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what's driving this insanity?

It's because he's black, obviously.

I'll let you into a secret, OAW. All white people hate all black people. We might try to disguise it but them's the facts. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise!