[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe the occasional concession might support the idea that you are open-minded?

Although at this point, I don't think anybody in here believes that you are. I'm not saying I am either, necessarily, but...

Here's a lesson for all Liberals...

Being open-minded doesn't mean that one believes any old lie or half-truth or nonsensical statement or unsubstantiated belief or myth or campaign assertion from a desperate Obama staff or their arguably treasonous, lackey, lamestream media. or from those who buy into their bs. You see, Obama's staff is handicapped by his lack of achievement as POTUS. So, his desperate staff's only resort is to mount a dirty attack campaign which steers clear of Obama's dismal record of under-performance and focuses on trying to discredit Romney and now, Ryan.

Someone, please give me 3 good reasons to vote for Obama.

You know, I may just have to give up hope and stop appealling to you all for reasons to vote for Obama. Because there seem to be none!

BTW, I'm watching the news and Mitt is promoting the use of coal energy and lamenting Obama's failure to get behind coal.

By contrast, all Obama can say about it is to bring up the time when Romney put the dog on top of the car.

Obama is a loser and he will go back home to Chicago where he belongs (and where he'll be unlikely to further damage America) next January.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Your transcript doesn't do the quote justice. Biden said this to a crowd mixed with individuals of various races and, to be sure, well populated by African Americans. And he didn't say 'put YOU back in chains' he said put Y'ALL back in chains.

You do realize he was speaking to a southern audience right? Last time I checked "y'all" is quite a popular term down south across the demographic spectrum. Paula Deen can't finish a show without saying it a dozen times or so.

Originally Posted by kimosABE

Please do not defend those racist expressions. I don't care what your political party of preference might be. There is no place for Biden's kind of racist fear mongering and racist attitudes and pandering.

I denounce it and so should Obama. But at last look Obama campaign spokesperson, Stephanie Cutter, was defending Biden's comment.

Really now? So I imagine you were similarly "outraged" when your boy had this to say ....

Originally Posted by Rick Santorum

This is the dynamism of America, because America trusted and believed in free people. That will be over -- that will be over if Barack Obama is reelected and "Obamacare" is implemented, because they will put you in chains called "Obamacare," and you will be dependent upon government and you will never break away.

Iowa State Fair - NBCUniversal Archives

Or is the "chains" metaphor cool when a Republican uses it in reference to a government program ... but it's "racist expressions" when used to describe a deregulated Wall Street run amok? And speaking of Santorum this little gem is relevant in light of our earlier discussion.

Originally Posted by Rick Santorum

I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.

Where was the outrage from our good friends on the right for that blatantly race baiting statement? Where was the ridicule and scorn when he tried to walk it back and say he said "blah people"? Where was the outrage over Newt Gingrich's rather predictable foray into racially inflammatory commentary when he said that "Obama is the best food stamp president in American history"? And let's not even get started on Rush Limbaugh's incessant race baiting. Beyond that, over 50% of the audience that Biden was speaking to was white. Was he only trying to get a message across to the African-Americans in the audience? Do you really think that African-Americans are foolish enough to think that the GOP actually wants to put them back into slavery?

I'm sorry. But the GOP literally wrote the book on the Southern Strategy and dog-whistle politics. Even to this day we see it rather frequently. From the "birther" nonsense to the Jeremiah Wright "faux controversy" about a 20 second clip out of a 2 hour sermon. From the steady attempts to portray President Obama as "foreign" and John Sununu's "I wish this president would learn how to be an American." comment. Did I mention the fact that 20% of Republicans STILL believe that President Obama is a "Kenyan born Muslim"? Yeah ... I'm going to have to call BS on this one Abe. I'm just waiting on the Romney campaign to start harping about Affirmative Action or some white woman who got raped by a black guy. Anything to get white people who are broker than the 10 Commandments to vote for a guy who wouldn't hesitate to ship their jobs overseas just as fast as the minorities working right next to them.

OAW

PS: One thing I will say is that I totally respect the 2008 McCain Campaign for refusing to delve into this type of nonsense. It was quite .... refreshing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe the occasional concession might support the idea that you are open-minded?

Although at this point, I don't think anybody in here believes that you are. I'm not saying I am either, necessarily, but...

... but you're not claiming to be open minded as Abe is claiming.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Of course, there is always the chance that Biden doesn't even know what he's saying when he's saying it, and words just kind of come out like ketchup out of the bottle, and sometimes his words just spill all over his pants and he has that uncomfortably ambiguous dark spot in his crotch for the rest of the day. But I like the idea that he's trolling Rush Limbaugh better.

I like your theory that conservatives can be so easily trolled. It suggests a way to use their greatest tool (talk radio) against them.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Ha! This proves you're not the real Abe. The Abe I remember is much, much smarter than this.
Biden is trolling Conservatives. He set that whole thing up on purpose, to get the Conservative press in a state of agitation over his words. He double-dog dared them to take his words out of context (which, of course, they did). I mean, isn't it obvious?
I think the Obama campaign got a lot of unexpected mileage out of the "you didn't build that" meme. Conservatives were apoplectic over it (especially here!), but they weren't going to vote for him anyway. I think Obama is realizing that most of the really valuable voters -- independents and the small sliver of undecideds -- are intelligent, and don't appreciate the frothing-at-the-mouth style of the edges of both political spectrums. But when the Obama campaign makes statements that can be easily taken out of context, conservatives can't help themselves: they charge right into it and don't realize how silly they look to the centrists.
It's like the reverse of dog-whistle politics. (Cat-whistle? That makes no sense, cats don't come even when you whistle.)
The Obama team is using words that sound loaded, but they're not. Just to troll Conservatives into looking like idiots. I wonder what they're going to do next?
Of course, there is always the chance that Biden doesn't even know what he's saying when he's saying it, and words just kind of come out like ketchup out of the bottle, and sometimes his words just spill all over his pants and he has that uncomfortably ambiguous dark spot in his crotch for the rest of the day. But I like the idea that he's trolling Rush Limbaugh better.

Sure, you'd LIKE to think he was simply trolling but we all know the truth. Biden is an incompetent clown with a big heart, a larger mouth and a tiny brain.

And he is Obama's choice for VP.

Shades of Sarah Palin!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's like the reverse of dog-whistle politics...

God-whistle politics?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I like your theory that conservatives can be so easily trolled. It suggests a way to use their greatest tool (talk radio) against them.

Hahahahaha! Are you saying YOU intend to use talk radio against us or that someone from the Obama campaign should indulge in such clever antics?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

... but you're not claiming to be open minded as Abe is claiming.

So, Wiskedjak, tell me what does "open-minded" mean to you? And please don't say, "the opposite of YOU," or anything like that.

And while I'm at it, besson3c, what does being "open-minded" mean to you?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You do realize he was speaking to a southern audience right? Last time I checked "y'all" is quite a popular term down south across the demographic spectrum. Paula Deen can't finish a show without saying it a dozen times or so.
Really now? So I imagine you were similarly "outraged" when your boy had this to say ....
Iowa State Fair - NBCUniversal Archives

Biden was appealing to the lowest of human instincts when he said what he did. Santorum was no doubt (I didn't bother to even click the link.) trying to warn the audience of the dangers of becoming victims of government dependence...a dependence Obama welcomes. BTW, Santorum was not my guy. Romney has always been my #1 choice for POTUS.

[OAW]

@Abe

So then why did Santorum walk his comments back if they were so uh ... "innocuous"?

OAW

PS: Naturally the question was rhetorical. You've clearly demonstrated a penchant for being willfully obtuse. Carry on.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

[/url]

Or is the "chains" metaphor cool when a Republican uses it in reference to a government program ... but it's "racist expressions" when used to describe a deregulated Wall Street run amok? And speaking of Santorum this little gem is relevant in light of our earlier discussion.
Where was the outrage from our good friends on the right for that blatantly race baiting statement? Where was the ridicule and scorn when he tried to walk it back and say he said "blah people"? Where was the outrage over Newt Gingrich's rather predictable foray into racially inflammatory commentary when he said that "Obama is the best food stamp president in American history"? And let's not even get started on Rush Limbaugh's incessant race baiting. Beyond that, over 50% of the audience that Biden was speaking to was white. Was he only trying to get a message across to the African-Americans in the audience? Do you really think that African-Americans are foolish enough to think that the GOP actually wants to put them back into slavery?
I'm sorry. But the GOP literally wrote the book on the Southern Strategy and dog-whistle politics. Even to this day we see it rather frequently. From the "birther" nonsense to the Jeremiah Wright "faux controversy" about a 20 second clip out of a 2 hour sermon. From the steady attempts to portray President Obama as "foreign" and John Sununu's "I wish this president would learn how to be an American." comment. Did I mention the fact that 20% of Republicans STILL believe that President Obama is a "Kenyan born Muslim"? Yeah ... I'm going to have to call BS on this one Abe. I'm just waiting on the Romney campaign to start harping about Affirmative Action or some white woman who got raped by a black guy. Anything to get white people who are broker than the 10 Commandments to vote for a guy who wouldn't hesitate to ship their jobs overseas just as fast as the minorities working right next to them.
OAW
PS: One thing I will say is that I totally respect the 2008 McCain Campaign for refusing to delve into this type of nonsense. It was quite .... refreshing.

Some people should not try to be politically correct in public lest they run the risk of making it look stupid.

Laughable.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Some people should not try to be politically correct in public lest they run the risk of making it look stupid.
Laughable.

We'll just note that a dismissal is not a rebuttal. I presented my case. Feel free to present your evidence to the contrary. Or just convince yourself that you know better simply because it's easier to duck and dodge the issue and merely assert ideology as fact. Like you did with the "welfare" discussion earlier that Dakar noted. Your only response to some of that "unwelcome fact" that I mentioned earlier?

Originally Posted by kimosABE

Let's not get mired in BS minutiae.

And that speaks volumes in and of itself.

OAW

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@Abe
So then why did Santorum walk his comments back if they were so uh ... "innocuous"?
OAW
PS: Naturally the question was rhetorical. You've clearly demonstrated a penchant for being willfully obtuse. Carry on.

Maybe his handlers advised him (maybe against his better judgement, maybe not) that his opponents would ATTEMPT TO PAINT the comments as racist and he would suffer in the polls if he didn't. But maybe not. I don't know. He wasn't my guy. Ask that question of someone who followed Santorum. Heck, maybe he IS a racist. I don't know. But, you are trying to make this about ANYTHING but Obama's dismal record in office and Biden's buffoonish expressions of incompetence.

Anyone who is swayed by your arguments is telling future Obama's that there are some voters who will swallow such bs and that will help make certain such bs will be employed in future campaigns.

Congratulate yourself on finding your niche.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

We'll just note that a dismissal is not a rebuttal. I presented my case. Feel free to present your evidence to the contrary. Or just convince yourself that you know better simply because it's easier to duck and dodge the issue and merely assert ideology as fact. Like you did with the "welfare" discussion earlier that Dakar noted. Your only response to some of that "unwelcome fact" that I mentioned earlier?
And that speaks volumes in and of itself.
OAW

Honestly, I was trying to save you some embarrassment by not going into more detail in my post which you call a dismissal. And to be candid, I also wanted to save myself the effort of thinking it out and typing it up and submitting it and then looking at it one more time before leaving it for posterity.

But if you want me to, I will.

And to be even MORE charitable (I don't know why I should except that it's the nice thing to do...) I'll do all that's required and then offer to post it here in the thread OR I will post it to you in a PM...and ONLY there.

Let's see who you are from my perspective.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Maybe his handlers advised him (maybe against his better judgement, maybe not) that his opponents would ATTEMPT TO PAINT the comments as racist and he would suffer in the polls if he didn't. But maybe not. I don't know. He wasn't my guy. Ask that question of someone who followed Santorum. Heck, maybe he IS a racist. I don't know. But, you are trying to make this about ANYTHING but Obama's dismal record in office and Biden's buffoonish expressions of incompetence.
Anyone who is swayed by your arguments is telling future Obama's that there are some voters who will swallow such bs and that will help make certain such bs will be employed in future campaigns.
Congratulate yourself on finding your niche.

More ducking and dodging it would seem. Let me put it to you another way. Considering the FACT that the majority of people on welfare are, and have always been , white .... why do you think ever since the passage of the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s the standard GOP political playbook has been to portray welfare as a "minority issue"? Do trust and believe that GOP operatives are not stupid. They know full well that a significant portion of the the white community in America perceives the typical "welfare queen" (a term that entered the political lexicon thanks to Reagan I might add) to be a black woman in the inner city driving a Cadillac funded by the tax dollars of hard-working white people. This has been confirmed by study after study. Hell just look at a typical news report or any other sort of media representation of "welfare" and what will you see? A sea of black/brown faces. IWhen the reality is that the typical welfare recipient is an unmarried white woman with children in a rural trailer park. Welfare Reform took place back during the Clinton Administration. It's essentially been off the table as a political issue since the late 1990s. I for one wholeheartedly supported it because did away with an angle for the GOP to major in minor issues when more substantive concerns faced the nation. Yet as soon as the Romney campaign started to sink in the polls they went to the old standby.

My initial comments regarding your ridiculous assertions with regard to the Obama Administration and welfare stand. Feel free to address my points with counter-points if you can manage to put together some semblance of a logical argument.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Honestly, I was trying to save you some embarrassment by not going into more detail in my post which you call a dismissal. And to be candid, I also wanted to save myself the effort of thinking it out and typing it up and submitting it and then looking at it one more time before leaving it for posterity.
But if you want me to, I will.
And to be even MORE charitable (I don't know why I should except that it's the nice thing to do...) I'll do all that's required and then offer to post it here in the thread OR I will post it to you in a PM...and ONLY there.
Let's see who you are from my perspective.

There is no "charity" involved here at all. The last time I checked this was a debate forum.. No PM. Either step up publicly in the thread or step off. It's as simple as that. And do try to back up whatever you have to say with some sort of facts and evidence. Because right about now you are coming off more like Crash Harddrive or Stupendousman than you are ebuddy or Uncle Skeleton. Alternatively, you can just cut your losses and refrain from "thinking it out". We wouldn't want you to stress yourself. I'm just saying .....

OAW

[kimosABE]

I'll return to this thread in the morning. G'nite all.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Hahahahaha! Are you saying YOU intend to use talk radio against us or that someone from the Obama campaign should indulge in such clever antics?

Democrats may have finally realized how predictable and absurd the conservative media is (to anyone who doesn't already buy in). Instead of fighting it, they are trolling to put that absurdity on display for all the country to see.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You do realize he was speaking to a southern audience right? Last time I checked "y'all" is quite a popular term down south across the demographic spectrum. Paula Deen can't finish a show without saying it a dozen times or so.
Really now? So I imagine you were similarly "outraged" when your boy had this to say ....

The one you're accusing of racist sentiment is not on the Republican ticket. He asked you about Biden's gaffe. Anything?

I'm sorry. But the GOP literally wrote the book on the Southern Strategy and dog-whistle politics. Even to this day we see it rather frequently. From the "birther" nonsense to the Jeremiah Wright "faux controversy" about a 20 second clip out of a 2 hour sermon. From the steady attempts to portray President Obama as "foreign" and John Sununu's "I wish this president would learn how to be an American." comment. Did I mention the fact that 20% of Republicans STILL believe that President Obama is a "Kenyan born Muslim"? Yeah ... I'm going to have to call BS on this one Abe. I'm just waiting on the Romney campaign to start harping about Affirmative Action or some white woman who got raped by a black guy. Anything to get white people who are broker than the 10 Commandments to vote for a guy who wouldn't hesitate to ship their jobs overseas just as fast as the minorities working right next to them.

• You've made it apparent that you'll give Democrats a pass for overt racism in order to demagogue a strategy from 40 years ago that had more to do with motivating the working class concerned about the economy than any other bloc of voters. Otherwise, this is race-o-saur stuff in an attempt to cover for your preferred racists of today in the Democratic party. Lest we forget all the registered old-dog Democrats still throw-aways from the Dixiecrat era.
• Jeremiah Wright was just another race-baiter and the 20-second clip was only the beginning of this man's damnable rhetoric. Let's not kid ourselves here, he's the reason Obama essentially stopped going to church... at least, divorcing himself entirely from the crazy uncle not unlike the rest of the black community.
• The birther nonsense was a contrivance of the Democratic party and the product of a lawsuit filed by a Democrat. What shall we call that strategy?
• An equal percent of Democrats and Republicans believe Obama is Muslim. 12% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim. Kenyan born? Not sure, check with your white democrat friends. Nice try.
• Charges of rape? You mean like those lodged against Herman Cain? Try again. If racism is detestable, it should be detestable regardless of whether there's an (R) or (D) after their name; anything else is just plain dishonest partisan shilling from 40 years ago.
• The Romney campaign has frequently invoked the European model with regard to this Administration's economic strategy. They're not suggesting Obama was born in Europe. In this, I wish Obama would learn how to be an American as well and I'm not concerned in the least with Obama's place of birth or race. Although, the same cannot be said for his Democratic counterparts involved in their Southern Strategy to get the Clintons back into office. I know, you can do whatever racist thing you want as long as you're a (D).
• Biden is a chronic knucklehead and it was a gaffe, plain and simple.

You're welcome to call BS on Abe so long as you're willing to accept the fact that your tax dollars are currently being sent overseas along with jobs under an Administration with a cabinet of tax cheats and two economic advisory panels chock full of tax hedgers and outsourcers.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

So, Wiskedjak, tell me what does "open-minded" mean to you? And please don't say, "the opposite of YOU," or anything like that.
And while I'm at it, besson3c, what does being "open-minded" mean to you?

It means a lot of things, but maybe the most succinctly put, it means that a thread like this wouldn't be a waste of anybody's time. Face it, there is absolutely *NOTHING* that anybody can say here that will change your mind, that is why you have so few takers.

[Kees]

As a European, looking in from the outside, one thing strikes me as a rather crucial change. I guess this is the pitfall of a two party system.

It seems the last couple of decades, US politicians from both sides' primary concern is to oppose the other side, rather than the good of the country.
Opposition seems to have become a matter of general principle in the US, not a way to look out for what is best for everyone.

There is something almost schizophrenic about the stance that their should be as little government as possible, yet everyone and their dog should abide by the same morals. The freedom everybody in the States is always raving about isn't very apparent to an outsider anymore. I haven't been across the pond in a while, so this is an observation form afar, and of course I'm generalising, but the great, United States of America seems mia since the Berlin Wall came down, eventually causing the USSR to dissolve.


For the record; there isn't a civilised country in the world that doesn't have a system like Obamacare in place, so for it or against it, the talk about it ending America seem a little exaggerated...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kees 

There is something almost schizophrenic about the stance that their should be as little government as possible, yet everyone and their dog should abide by the same morals.

I don't disagree, but I find the opposite stance equally schizophrenic, i.e. we can give government more power, but government will somehow never use that power to force a moral stance on people.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't disagree, but I find the opposite stance equally schizophrenic, i.e. we can give government more power, but government will somehow never use that power to force a moral stance on people.

They won't if the general population that would elect or re-elect them wouldn't gun for morality based legislation.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The one you're accusing of racist sentiment is not on the Republican ticket. He asked you about Biden's gaffe. Anything?

I could have sworn I made my position known when I said .... "Hyperbolic? Indeed. It's campaign season after all. But what makes it a BFD exactly for you? Please tell us that you are not a co-signer to this ridiculous notion being bandied about in right-wing circles that Biden was suggesting that the GOP was looking to put African-Americans back into slavery? "

The bottom line is this my friend. If what Biden said about "chains" is racist then why was it not when Santorum said it? Why is it not when Boehner and Ryan and Romney talk about "unshackling" the economy? If you look at the video it is patently obvious that Biden is responding to this talking point on the right with respect to Wall Street ... because even though Wall Street ran the economy off the cliff and had to be bailed out to keep the entire planet from going into a global depression ... the GOP refuses to believe that fat meat is greasy and insists upon further deregulation or "unshackling" of Wall Street. I mean seriously ... what else could he have been talking about? Again, over half the audience was white. Was Biden not speaking to them as well? I saw just as many white people applauding his comment as I did black ... so that was a really neat trick if Biden's comments weren't supposed to resonate with the entire audience. And I'll reiterate this point since it was the portion of my post that you chose to quote .....

Can somebody please provide a logical explanation for why Biden's use of the term "y'all" to a southern audience is somehow "racist" because African-Americans are present ... when the fact of the matter is that black and white southerners routinely use that expression?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

- You've made it apparent that you'll give Democrats a pass for overt racism in order to demagogue a strategy from 40 years ago that had more to do with motivating the working class concerned about the economy than any other bloc of voters. Otherwise, this is race-o-saur stuff in an attempt to cover for your preferred racists of today in the Democratic party. Lest we forget all the registered old-dog Democrats still throw-aways from the Dixiecrat era.

I'll respond when you A) identify the Democrat who displayed "overt racism", and B) show me where I let it slide. And if you are going to insist on hanging your hat on "chains" or "y'all" then you'll first need to address my points above.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

- Jeremiah Wright was just another race-baiter and the 20-second clip was only the beginning of this man's damnable rhetoric. Let's not kid ourselves here, he's the reason Obama essentially stopped going to church... at least, divorcing himself entirely from the crazy uncle not unlike the rest of the black community.

Seriously ... do you know anything about Jeremiah Wright other than the excerpts from his sermons "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall" and "Confusing God and Government" that were first revealed by ABC News and then played incessantly on Fox News for months thereafter? This man is a GIANT in the black church. And you are kidding yourself if you think he has in any way been ostracized in the black community. He was the Senior Pastor of one of the most prominent middle-class African-American churches (6000+ strong) in Chicago for over 30 years. Did Obama throw him under the bus? Well of course he did! Why? Because he was an African-American male running for POTUS who could not get there without getting at least 40% of the white vote. And that would have been next to impossible to do if he was in any way perceived by whites ... fairly or unfairly ... to be some sort of "angry black man". He was (and still is) extremely reluctant to even discuss issues related to race at all because many whites ... even among our good friends on the LEFT ... are simply uncomfortable with the topic. So as a politician he had to drop Jeremiah Wright like a hot potato. As MLK once said ... "... the most segregated hour in America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning." The average white American is utterly clueless when it comes to the black church experience. Its raison d'être. Its history. Its practices. Its rituals. Some may have seen the emotiveness that is often on display in various media caricatures. But how many know anything about its origins? The social context, the exegesis, and the homiletics that are the foundation of the "rhetoric" you find so distasteful? The Trinity United Church of Christ comes from a tradition of activism and social justice. It's motto is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian". And it's retired Pastor Emeritus Jeremiah Wright is known to speak truth to power. His more pointed social criticisms are real easy to demagogue in a 20 second clip ... especially with an audience that erroneously equates "unashamedly black" with "anti-white" ... and/or is jingoistic in its worldview. Explaining the fuller context simply wouldn't fit into a soundbite or a political ad. And as the saying goes ... "If you are explaining you are losing." He became a distraction ... simple as that. That being said, I don't want to go too far OT here ... so I'll make one last observation about Jeremiah Wright in another post.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The birther nonsense was a contrivance of the Democratic party and the product of a lawsuit filed by a Democrat. What shall we call that strategy?

Indeed. Hillary Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg was one of the earliest birthers. But intellectual honesty would require you to acknowledge that on the Dem side this nonsense pretty much died on the vine with Berg and various anonymous chain emails from Hillary Clinton supporters. Whereas the GOP side took the ball and ran with it. And especially revealing is that top GOP leadership and pundits not only refuse to repudiate the likes of Trump et al ... they actively encourage the nonsense with wink-and-a-nod comments like "It's not my job to tell the American people what to believe." because it benefits them politically.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

An equal percent of Democrats and Republicans believe Obama is Muslim. 12% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Charges of rape? You mean like those lodged against Herman Cain? Try again. If racism is detestable, it should be detestable regardless of whether there's an (R) or (D) after their name; anything else is just plain dishonest partisan shilling from 40 years ago.

Herman Cain was never charged with rape my friend. He was charged with sexual harassment. BIG difference.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The Romney campaign has frequently invoked the European model with regard to this Administration's economic strategy. They're not suggesting Obama was born in Europe. In this, I wish Obama would learn how to be an American as well and I'm not concerned in the least with Obama's place of birth or race.

That's funny. The Romney campaign as well as the GOP in general is pushing austerity polices just like the Europeans. And such European policies have led to an average unemployment rate of 11.1%. With Spain ... one of the Eurozone countries being pushed the hardest to adopt austerity measures ... registering an unemployment rate of 24.6%. Perhaps Romney et al ought to "learn how to be an American" so we don't end up with unemployment rates like the Europeans?

That being said, let's not pretend that Sununu's comments were about Obama emulating European economic policy. They were about tapping into the "Obama as foreign" narrative that is so prevalent on the right. As was just expressed here.

Originally Posted by kimosABE

Although your attempt to shift the focus from the man who doesn't really understand what it is to be an American because his formative years were spent on the streets of Jakarta and Nairobi, to the corpulent all-American New Jersey Governor, comes straight from the Saul Alinsky radical playbook, it's not going to work with me, buck-o.

There are those on the right who continue to promulgate this repeatedly debunked foolishness when the fact of the matter is that President Obama didn't visit Kenya until 1988 right before he entered Harvard Law School.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Here's a lesson for all Liberals...
Being open-minded doesn't mean that one believes any old lie or half-truth or nonsensical statement or unsubstantiated belief or myth

Yet you believe any old lie or half-truth or nonsensical statement or unsubstantiated belief or myth coming from crazy conservatives.

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

BTW, I'm watching the news and Mitt is promoting the use of coal energy and lamenting Obama's failure to get behind coal.

Romney has taken every position on every issue.

Hey, Romney use to be for gay marriages and individual healthcare mandate.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

[*] An equal percent of Democrats and Republicans believe Obama is Muslim. 12% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim. Kenyan born? Not sure, check with your white democrat friends. Nice try.

So mostly white evangelical conservatives. No surprise there.

[OAW]

As for Jeremiah Wright .... let's start off by looking at this transcript from a David Asman's interview with Ambassador Edward Peck on Fox News after the 9/11 attacks:

ASMAN: Ambassador Peck, you know, I'm thinking of a man named Chamberlain back in the 30s who had such a strong adherence to the orderly world and the rule of law, etcetera, that he had become accustomed to that he lost sight of precisely what it was a madman like Adolf Hitler was doing. And, unfortunately there were too many people like him, who in order to adhere to those specific rules of law, allowed Hitler to get away with an awful lot. Some people are saying the same thing is happening now with not only Osama bin Laden, not only those in Afghanistan who support him but people like Saddam Hussein, too, because of adherence to these specific little rules, is able to get away with murder.

PECK: Well, you know, the specific little rules are what we base our entire conduct on.

ASMAN: But there comes a point in which, and we came to that point Tuesday, Ambassador, in which those rules have to be looked at again and have to be taken in context with massive, massive loss of human life and a change of the rules in effect, wasn't it a very significant change of the rules that took effect last week?

PECK: They came to do to us what they perceive, it doesn't make them right, but what they perceive is we've been doing the same thing now for a long time in various parts of the world. It doesn't make them right or us wrong. Don't misunderstand me. But the only thing anybody has to ...

ASMAN: I just have to stop you. We've been doing the same thing around the world?

PECK: Yeah. You want a list of the countries that we've bombed and invaded over the last 25 years?

ASMAN: What country, in what country have we rammed a plane loaded with fuel through a known civilian center such as was done this week? Excuse me, Ambassador, but I can't think of a precedent for this week anywhere in the world, certainly not one committed by the United States.

PECK: Certainly not, we've never had to do that because we have, you know, untrammeled military force. These people are terrorists. They resort to that because they can't take us on, head on, nor should they even, well they can't. But the point is that some of the things that we have done in the firm, honest belief that we are advancing the cause of justice, human rights, and freedom and all of that are not perceived that way by the people that we bomb. I offer you Panama. I give you Haiti. Take Cambodia. What about Iraq?

Too Much Reverence for the Reverend? - PBS | Ombudsman

And now let's see what the "crazy uncle" of the GOP had to say about such matters ....

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Most often, our messing around and meddling in the affairs of other countries have unintended consequences. Sometimes just over in those countries that we mess with. We might support one faction, and it doesn't work, and it's used against us. But there's the blowback effect, that the CIA talks about, that it comes back to haunt us later on. For instance, a good example of this is what happened in 1953 when our government overthrew the Mossadegh government and we installed the Shah, in Iran. And for 25 years we had an authoritarian friend over there, and the people hated him, they finally overthrew him, and they've resented us ever since. That had a lot to do with the taking of the hostages in 1979, and for us to ignore that is to ignore history... Also we've antagonized the Iranians by supporting Saddam Hussein, encouraging him to invade Iran. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? But the on again off again thing is what bothers me the most. First we're an ally with Osama bin Laden, then he's our archenemy. Our CIA set up the madrasah schools, and paid money, to train radical Islamists, in Saudi Arabia, to fight communism... But now they've turned on us... Muslims and Arabs have long memories, Americans, unfortunately, have very short memories, and they don't remember our foreign policy that may have antagonized... The founders were absolutely right: stay out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, mind our own business, bring our troops home, and have a strong defense. I think our defense is weaker now than ever.

Yet when Jeremiah Wright referenced Ambassador Peck's interview and spoke on the exact same topic in his sermon "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall" and made comments like this ....

Originally Posted by Rev. Jeremiah Wright

I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens are coming home to roost.

We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.

We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a [pharmaceutical] plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.

...

We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society. Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation's healthcare system that leaves the nation's poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.

The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 Sermon - CNN.com

.... somehow that magically makes him a "race baiter" spewing "damnable rhetoric"? How does that work exactly? Especially since neither Ambassador Peck nor Ron Paul has ever been publicly and mercilessly excoriated for making the same observation that America's foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9/11 attacks? Especially since neither Peck, Paul, nor Wright said anything that was untrue about the topic. I mean I know sometimes the American public just doesn't like to hear things like that. Some are so caught up in "American Exceptionalism" that they turn a blind eye to the havoc that our government has wreaked around the world throughout its history in addition to the great good it often does. Perhaps you have yourself fallen prey to the "America can do no wrong" mentality? And if that's the case it's certainly disappointing considering your intellectual prowess. Because for the life of me my friend ... it would seem that you of all people could recognize the logic and rationality behind someone like OAW completely supporting the War in Afghanistan ... while at the same time being critical of the US government's role in its causation. Even if you choose to disagree with some or all aspects of that criticism.

OAW

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Romney campaign as well as the GOP in general is pushing austerity polices just like the Europeans. And such European policies have led to an average unemployment rate of 11.1%. With Spain ... one of the Eurozone countries being pushed the hardest to adopt austerity measures ... registering an unemployment rate of 24.6%. Perhaps Romney et al ought to "learn how to be an American" so we don't end up with unemployment rates like the Europeans?
OAW

A little more in-depth research (or academic honesty) would show that Europeans didn't cut spending as well as cutting taxes like Romney and Ryan recommend.

Cut Spending – Cut Taxes: Sweden – Ryan – Tea Party Budget

“Austerity has failed,” is the mantra of the proponents of big government in America. Seeking to enlarge central control, these predators of the governmental dole are singing in unison, “Look at Europe.”

Okay, let’s inspect Europe. Most of Europe raised taxes, nibbled at “cuts,” and expanded deficits. Their economies are terrible.

However, there are two notable exceptions. Since 2009, Germany and Sweden cut spending and balanced their budgets, which produced good economic growth, substantially better than the economic growth of United States and the remaining European countries. Robert Barro a Harvard economist reports in the Wall Street Journal:

Two interesting European cases are Germany and Sweden, each of which moved toward rough budget balance between 2009 and 2011 while sustaining comparatively strong growth—the average growth rate per year of real GDP for 2010 and 2011 was 3.6% for Germany and 4.9% for Sweden. If austerity is so terrible, how come these two countries have done so well?

Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University succinctly states: The answer is that they constrained spending without jacking up taxes.

Spain, Greece, Italy and most of Europe really didn’t impose austerity – the cuts were insignificant. They continued to spend and increased taxes. Resultantly, these countries continue to stagnate economically.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/teda/cut-spending-–-cut-taxes-sweden-–-ryan-–-tea-party

[OAW]

@kimosABE

If you have convinced yourself that the situation in GERMANY and SWEDEN ... both of which continue to enjoy high exports ... are indicative of EUROPE as a whole then I suggest you look into how the other 25 states in the Eurozone are faring. Germany is pushing austerity onto the rest of the Eurozone because it is doing well and doesn't want to foot the bill without drastic concessions. The problem is those policies are good for Germany but we can see how it is negatively impacting their neighbors especially the counties in southern Europe like Spain, Italy, and Greece.

OAW

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@kimosABE
If you have convinced yourself that the situation in GERMANY and SWEDEN ... both of which continue to enjoy high exports ... are indicative of EUROPE as a whole then I suggest you look into how the other 25 states in the Eurozone are faring. Germany is pushing austerity onto the rest of the Eurozone because it is doing well and doesn't want to foot the bill without drastic concessions. The problem is those policies are good for Germany but we can see how it is negatively impacting their neighbors especially the counties in southern Europe like Spain, Italy, and Greece.
OAW

If the Europeasn nations followed the prescription suggested by Romney, lowered taxes and a spending cut, they all might have enjoyed the results experienced by the highlighted countries.

Did you read my entire post yet somehow miss this quoted section?

Spain, Greece, Italy and most of Europe really didn’t impose austerity – the cuts were insignificant. They continued to spend and increased taxes. Resultantly, these countries continue to stagnate economically.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As for Jeremiah Wright .... let's start off by looking at this transcript from a David Asman's interview with Ambassador Edward Peck on Fox News after the 9/11 attacks:
Too Much Reverence for the Reverend? - PBS | Ombudsman
And now let's see what the "crazy uncle" of the GOP had to say about such matters ....
Yet when Jeremiah Wright referenced Ambassador Peck's interview and spoke on the exact same topic in his sermon "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall" and made comments like this ....
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 Sermon - CNN.com
.... somehow that magically makes him a "race baiter" spewing "damnable rhetoric"? How does that work exactly? Especially since neither Ambassador Peck nor Ron Paul has ever been publicly and mercilessly excoriated for making the same observation that America's foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9/11 attacks? Especially since neither Peck, Paul, nor Wright said anything that was untrue about the topic. I mean I know sometimes the American public just doesn't like to hear things like that. Some are so caught up in "American Exceptionalism" that they turn a blind eye to the havoc that our government has wreaked around the world throughout its history in addition to the great good it often does. Perhaps you have yourself fallen prey to the "America can do no wrong" mentality? And if that's the case it's certainly disappointing considering your intellectual prowess. Because for the life of me my friend ... it would seem that you of all people could recognize the logic and rationality behind someone like OAW completely supporting the War in Afghanistan ... while at the same time being critical of the US government's role in its causation. Even if you choose to disagree with some or all aspects of that criticism.
OAW

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The more words and quotes and sources you employ to make a point, the greater the liklihood you are trying to prevent us from focusing on the weak link in your assertion.

In this case, we aren't concerned with Ron Paul. The GOP candidate is Mitt Romney. If you want to discuss Ron Paul or Amb. Peck and Wright's sermons start your own thread.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The more words and quotes and sources you employ to make a point, the greater the liklihood you are trying to prevent us from focusing on the weak link in your assertion.

I take it you are completely obvious to the extreme irony of your statement?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I take it you are completely obvious to the extreme irony of your statement?

I take it you are completely 'obvious' to the spelling and meaning of the word, 'oblivious.'

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I take it you are completely 'obvious' to the spelling and meaning of the word, 'oblivious.'

And I think your attempt to get a dig in over a typo just fell completely flat because that sentence you just wrote makes no sense whatsoever.

OAW

[kimosABE]

MODS: This thread seems to have petered out. Lockination?

[ebuddy]

Mods; please don't close Abe's thread because he's not happy with it. I'm finally getting around to responding to OAW; a friend of mine here who is very, very mistaken on things and in desperate need of my help.

[kimosABE]

I didn't know you had an interest in keeping it open. I yield to your request but please note I have no further interest in this thread.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Mods; please don't close Abe's thread because he's not happy with it. I'm finally getting around to responding to OAW; a friend of mine here who is very, very mistaken on things and in desperate need of my help.

Nice!

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I could have sworn I made my position known when I said .... "Hyperbolic? Indeed. It's campaign season after all. But what makes it a BFD exactly for you? Please tell us that you are not a co-signer to this ridiculous notion being bandied about in right-wing circles that Biden was suggesting that the GOP was looking to put African-Americans back into slavery? "

I absolutely believe Biden was connecting "chains" to Republicans. Do I need to draw the picture? The ol' fat white guy, probably nicknamed "Bubba" with a southern drawl, twisted sense of humor, and a hell of a lot of work that needs done. Of course, that wasn't good enough for Biden, he had to try on a little dialect of his own. C'mon man. Will you at least admit he was trying too hard on that one? Downright painfully awkward IMO, but...

The bottom line is this my friend. If what Biden said about "chains" is racist then why was it not when Santorum said it?

Honestly OAW, how the hell should I know? I don't know Santorum. What I can tell you is that it's moronic to go there as a man serving in his capacity. Why wouldn't I throw it back in democrats' faces? Seems to me republicans didn't care much for either of them.

Why is it not when Boehner and Ryan and Romney talk about "unshackling" the economy?

I'll answer with a question; why didn't Biden just quote Boehner, Ryan or Romney's damnable -- "unshackling" phrase instead of choosing for himself the word "chains"? Let me answer, "unshackling" didn't paint the picture Biden was trying to paint. I mean, it's clear Biden is not really up to the task of addressing a deeper conversation about government suppression of commerce, he'll abandon legitimacy entirely. I wonder at what point the electorate feels played for stupid. It seems our President and Biden have a lot of jokes, it'll be nice to have them hinge back up and join the race.

If you look at the video it is patently obvious that Biden is responding to this talking point on the right with respect to Wall Street ... because even though Wall Street ran the economy off the cliff and had to be bailed out to keep the entire planet from going into a global depression ... the GOP refuses to believe that fat meat is greasy and insists upon further deregulation or "unshackling" of Wall Street.

First, they didn't get TBTF without government help to begin with. Of course I'm opposed to Corporate bailouts. It's the most blatant form of welfare. You act as if Wall St is upset with Obama. From the top, all regulations and tax increases do is serve to hamstring your competition. I think it's time to consider the other 98% of the US economy. I'd venture to guess most business-owners in the US don't even like cigars or have offshore accounts, but they'd probably like to have more people investing in their business. I'd like to see a lot more dollars floating around out here in general, without having to print it. Wall St is only playing the game laid about before them by the rule-makers. The less they have to worry about failure, the less they'll worry about failure.

I mean seriously ... what else could he have been talking about? Again, over half the audience was white.

Biden or Santorum?

Was Biden not speaking to them as well? I saw just as many white people applauding his comment as I did black ... so that was a really neat trick if Biden's comments weren't supposed to resonate with the entire audience.

Resonate as in, pander. Yeah, it was unsightly.

And I'll reiterate this point since it was the portion of my post that you chose to quote .....
Can somebody please provide a logical explanation for why Biden's use of the term "y'all" to a southern audience is somehow "racist" because African-Americans are present ... when the fact of the matter is that black and white southerners routinely use that expression? :err

I didn't say his gaffe worked, or was well-timed, or effectively conceived. It was "say it ain't so Joe" not knowing where he is, what day it is, and who he's talking to; which seemed to him to be a plurality of black southerners at the time apparently.

I'll respond when you A) identify the Democrat who displayed "overt racism", and B) show me where I let it slide. And if you are going to insist on hanging your hat on "chains" or "y'all" then you'll first need to address my points above.

We had this discussion back when Herman Cain was running and the ridiculous things that had been said of him. If we play the way-back game we could quote what Lyndon Johnson said of getting the black vote. Bill Maher on Cain; Rick Perry ‘So Dumb’ Republicans Are ‘Even Considering Voting for a Black Guy’. Joe Biden on Obama; "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man.". Reid; "doesn't have the negro dialect, unless he chose to use one." (like in front of the NAACP, playing them for fools as well although slightly more authentic-sounding than when Hillary Clinton and Al Gore tried it). Al Sharpton (a GIANT); "White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." Bill Clinton on Obama; "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee...". I mean, the examples abound of the stupid, insensitive sh!t said by Democrats, but I'm hearing indictments of republican racism fashioned from much less than this. You and I both know you wouldn't have to string together nuance and hidden meanings if Republicans had been saying anything as backward as the above. Again, you'll point to an ambiguous "Southern Strategy" while ignoring the single longest filibuster in US History, Klan founders, Jim Crow, opposition to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments... it just goes on and on and while we argue about some alleged paradigm shift in governing philosophy between the parties somewhere between 1964 and 1967, it is apparent neither's constituency got the memo.

Seriously ... do you know anything about Jeremiah Wright other than the excerpts from his sermons "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall" and "Confusing God and Government" that were first revealed by ABC News and then played incessantly on Fox News for months thereafter? This man is a GIANT in the black church. And you are kidding yourself if you think he has in any way been ostracized in the black community. He was the Senior Pastor of one of the most prominent middle-class African-American churches (6000+ strong) in Chicago for over 30 years. Did Obama throw him under the bus? Well of course he did! Why? Because he was an African-American male running for POTUS who could not get there without getting at least 40% of the white vote. And that would have been next to impossible to do if he was in any way perceived by whites ... fairly or unfairly ... to be some sort of "angry black man". He was (and still is) extremely reluctant to even discuss issues related to race at all because many whites ... even among our good friends on the LEFT ... are simply uncomfortable with the topic. So as a politician he had to drop Jeremiah Wright like a hot potato. As MLK once said ... "... the most segregated hour in America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning." The average white American is utterly clueless when it comes to the black church experience. Its raison d'être. Its history. Its practices. Its rituals. Some may have seen the emotiveness that is often on display in various media caricatures. But how many know anything about its origins? The social context, the exegesis, and the homiletics that are the foundation of the "rhetoric" you find so distasteful? The Trinity United Church of Christ comes from a tradition of activism and social justice. It's motto is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian". And it's retired Pastor Emeritus Jeremiah Wright is known to speak truth to power. His more pointed social criticisms are real easy to demagogue in a 20 second clip ... especially with an audience that erroneously equates "unashamedly black" with "anti-white" ... and/or is jingoistic in its worldview. Explaining the fuller context simply wouldn't fit into a soundbite or a political ad. And as the saying goes ... "If you are explaining you are losing." He became a distraction ... simple as that. That being said, I don't want to go too far OT here ... so I'll make one last observation about Jeremiah Wright in another post.

Look, I understand "unashamedly black". I also understand otherwise incendiary rhetoric such as the use of "ni__er" within the black community. I guess this is a double-standard I have no problem acknowledging and accepting. I get the sense of camaraderie and solidarity those words of antiquity hold for many in the black community. In the most profound way, a shared stigma and plight. This is different OAW. This is a country of all different kinds of people. People who love their country and see it in a different light. Not as a slave owner or black person hater, but of smart and noble people who did noble things like fight and die in the Civil War. We're trying to be a post-racial society and Obama was viewed in that light, with that hope. He's the President of everyone. What if Ryan for example had been under the tutelage of Rush Limbaugh or co-produced Rush Limbaugh's program? Mind you, Rush Limbaugh is a giant in his field -- speaks truth to power and all that, but don't you suppose that would be newsworthy? Of course people would quote Rush Limbaugh and attribute that sentiment to Ryan. An act of God would've been required to help us had Rush been the pastor of a mega-church professing his governing philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing the accomplishments of the men.

Also please understand me; the Jeremiah Wrights of the world are necessary. I actually have a great deal of respect for him. In fact, I found it ironic that his Yearbook said something to the effect of; "and he's an example for young impoverished people to emulate" when in reality, his story of success is a good example for anyone, anywhere and should be emulated. If it weren't for the extremist charlatanism, he'd be a friggin' hero IMO.

Indeed. Hillary Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg was one of the earliest birthers. But intellectual honesty would require you to acknowledge that on the Dem side this nonsense pretty much died on the vine with Berg and various anonymous chain emails from Hillary Clinton supporters.
Whereas the GOP side took the ball and ran with it. And especially revealing is that top GOP leadership and pundits not only refuse to repudiate the likes of Trump et al ... they actively encourage the nonsense with wink-and-a-nod comments like "It's not my job to tell the American people what to believe." because it benefits them politically.

I'd be willing to bet not long ago you would've thought it disingenuous to say there weren't more republicans who believed Obama is a Muslim than democrats. Intellectual honesty would be realizing how easy it is to pin this rap on republicans right now because Obama's not running against another democrat. And as far as wink-nod comments divorcing yourself from the ridiculous ads of others... please.

Herman Cain was never charged with rape my friend. He was charged with sexual harassment. BIG difference.

There was a gentleman that I thought I recalled painting Herman Cain as a rapist, but I can't find our prior conversation about him (can't remember his name and nothing came up for me here under "Cain") and I can't find it online. I'll concede the point as sloppy. When you brought up the rape charge in context of how low republicans could stoop, I keyed off "raping" and suggested democrats weren't any more hesitant to go there. Given the fact that they've essentially accused Mitt Romney of killing a man's wife, I maintain I'm correct.

That's funny. The Romney campaign as well as the GOP in general is pushing austerity polices just like the Europeans. And such European policies have led to an average unemployment rate of 11.1%. With Spain ... one of the Eurozone countries being pushed the hardest to adopt austerity measures ... registering an unemployment rate of 24.6%. Perhaps Romney et al ought to "learn how to be an American" so we don't end up with unemployment rates like the Europeans?

Wait a minute, I think you've put the cart before the horse here. Austerity is painful, but this is their last resort for solving what it is we're hoping to avoid.

That being said, let's not pretend that Sununu's comments were about Obama emulating European economic policy. They were about tapping into the "Obama as foreign" narrative that is so prevalent on the right. As was just expressed here.
There are those on the right who continue to promulgate this repeatedly debunked foolishness when the fact of the matter is that President Obama didn't visit Kenya until 1988 right before he entered Harvard Law School.
OAW

I'm not pretending anything, I'm outright saying it. Railing on Obama's "European model" has been an integral part of their stumps. They're alluding to his European descent? Regarding "prevalent on the right"; like I said before, it's a good thing Obama's not running against democrats. You'd be amazed at how prevalent they become. At least we're not talking about Obama's cocaine usage. Wait! Before you say, BUT BUSH... ♫ hopee--changee ♫

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

please note I have no further interest in this thread.

That was clear from day 1

[besson3c]

This thread must not be locked, ever.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That was clear from day 1

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I didn't know you had an interest in keeping it open. I yield to your request but please note I have no further interest in this thread.

Considering the number of rebuttals lobbed at you that you've absolutely ducked, avoided, or run from......I consider this an "obvious" admission that you're doing nothing other than trolling this board.

Yet again.

Mods: banination?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Considering the number of rebuttals lobbed at you that you've absolutely ducked, avoided, or run from......I consider this an "obvious" admission that you're doing nothing other than trolling this board.

So it wasn't just me who noticed that huh?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Resonate as in, pander. Yeah, it was unsightly.

Indeed. On this note we agree my friend. That is truly how I took the "y'all" comment that Biden made. Again, I reject the notion that it was "racist". Because to go there one would have to ignore the fact that the term "y'all" is by no means exclusively or even predominantly used by African-Americans in the south. I think what happened the other day was NOT that Biden was linking racism to the GOP in front a 48% black crowd ... instead I think it is a fair criticism to say that Biden was simply pandering to a 100% southern crowd.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

We had this discussion back when Herman Cain was running and the ridiculous things that had been said of him. If we play the way-back game we could quote what Lyndon Johnson said of getting the black vote. Bill Maher on Cain; Rick Perry ‘So Dumb’ Republicans Are ‘Even Considering Voting for a Black Guy’. Joe Biden on Obama; "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man.". Reid; "doesn't have the negro dialect, unless he chose to use one." (like in front of the NAACP, playing them for fools as well although slightly more authentic-sounding than when Hillary Clinton and Al Gore tried it). Al Sharpton (a GIANT); "White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." Bill Clinton on Obama; "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee...". I mean, the examples abound of the stupid, insensitive sh!t said by Democrats, but I'm hearing indictments of republican racism fashioned from much less than this. You and I both know you wouldn't have to string together nuance and hidden meanings if Republicans had been saying anything as backward as the above. Again, you'll point to an ambiguous "Southern Strategy" while ignoring the single longest filibuster in US History, Klan founders, Jim Crow, opposition to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments... it just goes on and on and while we argue about some alleged paradigm shift in governing philosophy between the parties somewhere between 1964 and 1967, it is apparent neither's constituency got the memo.

You make a valid observation here. Naturally, I see it somewhat differently. But I can respect where you are coming from which is rooted in a perception of a "double standard". I could reply myself... but it just so happens that I read this article this morning before I even saw your post. The writer sums it up perfectly IMO so I'll just quote it here. Sorry for the length, but it doesn't lend itself very well to just listing excerpts.

Originally Posted by Elon James White

The GOP, Race and Hypocrisy
A racial double standard for Democrats and Republicans? Only if you disregard history and context.

I know I brought the following on myself. Asking me "Why would you do such a thing?" will be a complete waste of typing and/or breath: I tuned in to Sean Hannity's radio show.

I've already stated that I'm aware of my error. I was having a delightfully peaceful afternoon, and then I volunteered to have my ears assaulted and my common sense tackled by a "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker"-styled idiotic argument.

Hannity, in the wake of "Ryan is not making everything as magical as we thought he would, so let's puff up a controversy around Joe Biden"-gate, was doing what all good Republicans do when there's a chance to attack race: Yell about a double standard.

"If a Republican said what Biden said about the opposing party putting people 'back in chains,' the left would've demanded they retract that statement and apologize!" This was the war cry heard throughout right-wing media.

It sounds so good, right? Liberals, progressives and Democrats are such phonies. They attack poor, innocent Republicans if they say something that "supposedly" has racial undertones, but if a Democrat does it, they clap and cheer and do the Electric Slide in celebration!

Well, that argument works only if you live in a bubble where, by some magical spell, there's no such thing as history or context.

Oftentimes, when Republicans are criticized for coded phrases and insensitive rhetoric, they immediately yell that they had no idea that what they said could possibly be perceived in the evil, politically correct light that Democrats are shining on it. And oftentimes I agree with them. I don't think they saw the problem.

Of course, I believe that their lack of insight has less to do with innocence and more to do with privilege. They didn't have to see it. They didn't have to acknowledge what the rhetoric meant because in their land of whiteness and traditional honey, these statements don't mean what they do when you interact in a space with a mixture of race, class and gender that better reflects the ever-changing population of America.

But what of this double standard? It's clear why someone like Hannity might think that Democrats get a pass for language Republicans wouldn't get away with.

It's not because of maliciousness. It's not because of a desire among blacks to demonize Republicans and praise Democrats. Because let's be honest here: Many members of the black community are quite aware of the racial issues within the so-called left-wing political sphere. Black Americans may vote Democrat a majority of the time, but don't conflate "We're together for this battle" with "OMG! You guys are so racially sensitive and understanding of our community! We shall give you our support!" However, the underlying idea of "the left" at its best is one of inclusion and an acknowledgment of historical failures and subjugation, and their effect on society today.

Republicans, on the other hand, often push the narrative of everything being "A-OK!" as long as you "work hard!" But when someone brings up issues such as institutionalized racism, bias and the reality that many people of color are still actively discriminated against today -- consciously or unconsciously -- that's when eyes are rolled, arms are crossed and brows are furrowed.

So again, let's be honest.

Mitt Romney making a statement and Joe Biden making a statement are two very different situations. This is not to defend everything Biden has ever said, because he's put his foot in it numerous times. Remember when he described Obama as clean and articulate? Yeah, please refer back to my earlier reference to the black community and the left.

But yes, things being said by different people who have different philosophies, allegiances and experiences will be judged differently. This isn't a double standard per se. This is what humans do. We listen to words and look at where those words are coming from. If my best friend told me to "screw off," I'd take that very differently than from a stranger. I'm not applying a double standard. I'm using context.

The Nieman Journalism Lab recently wrote about a mockup of the New York Times home page. But instead of the regular Times articles, it was populated with all Fox News headlines. They discussed the fact that people react differently to news depending on the source.

I'd argue that anyone paying attention to politics at all knows all this to be a fact. Take a look at the Obama presidency. Obama has at times made statements and put forth ideas that Republicans have said before, and yet now that Obama said it, somehow these ideas are socialism and left-wing nut-baggery.

The Republican Party gets critiqued more because of what it has allowed to become its narrative. The GOP sat by and let the president get birth-checked by Donald Trump and other radical-turned-mainstream members of the party. The GOP is the party known for the Southern strategy. The GOP is the party that sent Michael Steele to get black folks on its side. The GOP is the party that actively attacks affirmative action, using black and brown faces while never acknowledging how much white women benefit from the policy.

The GOP praises race-baiters like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the late Andrew Breitbart. The GOP allowed Newt "Poor Black Kids Should Work as Janitors" Gingrich to reach the final four during its presidential primaries. The GOP's presidential candidate spoke to the NAACP, using it as a political pawn -- creating a "backbone" moment as opposed to connecting with this part of the electorate.

Time and time again the GOP refuses to acknowledge the party's own issues when it comes to race but instead throws a middle finger in the face of the aggrieved and lets out a throaty "Get over it." This is what the party has become known for.

I'm sorry -- you were asking about some sort of "double standard"?

Racial double standard in politics? Not quite - TheRoot.com

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They won't if the general population that would elect or re-elect them wouldn't gun for morality based legislation.

Whoa dude... you need to take a step back and rethink your entire deal here.

All legislation is morality based.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whoa dude... you need to take a step back and rethink your entire deal here.
All legislation is morality based.

I disagree.

Would laws that close financial loopholes be moral? You could say so, but you could also say that this would be pragmatic as a means to having the healthiest economy, leaving the individuals or groups that benefit or do not benefit and their back stories out of the picture entirely. There is a definite mechanical component to a balanced economy.

Not all legislation has to be driven by a moral component.

[subego]

If the law in question is so pragmatic, doesn't one have a moral obligation to enact it?

Is someone who wants the loophole to remain not morally responsible for that position?

You imply there's no overlap between practicality and morality. What's your justification for this position?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The writer sums it up perfectly IMO so I'll just quote it here. Sorry for the length, but it doesn't lend itself very well to just listing excerpts.
Racial double standard in politics? Not quite - TheRoot.com
OAW

That entire rant is an insult to the intelligence of all, let alone white folks, particularly those like myself among the majority of those once in poverty and used welfare; who had the traditional "honey" lifestyle he's suggesting. I'm sorry, he's out of touch not only with white folks, but of socioeconomics in general and his narrative plays on fools.