But we're nervous. We're Jewish and I spoke to my parents down in Florida today. They're voting for McCain."
"Because he's white," said the wife. "Same with my parents."
"They just won't vote for a black man," the guy said. "And they're Democrats! Never voted Republican before!"
If it were an isolated incident, I wouldn't mind.
But the woman at my table added that the only one of her three sons who was a registered Democrat was voting for McCain because he was white.
And I've been hearing stuff like that for the past few months. What I hear banging around Queens is not, of course, a scientific survey. It's anecdotal. But after a while you feel a disturbing vibe.
"Most of the guys at my law firm are voting for McCain," said a lawyer I know. "Not for any specific issue. Because he's white. No, make that because he's not black. It's scary because these are educated people."
He said his own wife was voting for McCain for the same reason. And she's a teacher.
Other educated white people have told me that "it's too soon" for a black man to be president. Or, "I thought it would happen in my kids' lifetimes, not mine."
And this is in Queens, the most ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse county in America, in "liberal" New York City.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓In a previous Newsbusters post, I pointed out the left would no longer call Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom" so long as he endorsed liberals like Barack Obama. It works the other way around too. Hamill continues to compare the hatred against Jackie Robinson to those who are voting against Obama.
He finds this analogy when talking to his 9-year old son:
But many whites, including Democrats, can't see past his skin color, which is so ignorant that I have a hard time explaining it to my 9-year-old son, a baseball fanatic who just read a book about Jackie Robinson.
"I still don't understand why they spit on Jackie and called him all those bad names," he said as we drove on the Jackie Robinson Parkway to a batting cage on Metropolitan Ave. last week, 61 years after Robinson broke the baseball color line.
I tried to explain that it was a sick hangover from a terrible chapter of American history called slavery, when white people owned black people as if they were farm animals. "Some white people still think they are better than black people because of the color of their skin," I said.
He shook his head and said, "I think the real reason they hated Jackie Robinson is because he was so much better than most of the white people he played against."
He could have been talking about the presidential election.
Obama is no Jackie Robinson. Robinson had more major career achievements than Obama by age 35, and he did not need a fancy ivy league degree to do this.
Hamill also sees that it is not just Obama but his wife Michelle who is turning off voters normally voting Democrat:
"It's Michelle Obama who really bothers me," he said. "She just has a face that really looks to me like she doesn't like white people."
I didn't quite know how to respond.
I asked him how he would feel if someone said that Cindy McCain had a face that looked like she hated blacks.
He shrugged, acknowledged that his statement might seem irrational, but said he sometimes got the same "read" from the faces of certain black citizens he has to deal with on the job.
Lost in all of this, of course, is that Barack Obama is half white and was raised by a white mother and a white grandmother. But none of that should even matter. Obama hasn't run as a "black" candidate.
Hamill conveniently forgets Cindy McCain has never been a polarizing figure the way Michelle Obama has been. To say that Obama has not run as a "black candidate" is as next to laughable as making a big deal about Obama being raised by his "white grandmother."
Hamill needs to be reminded that Obama threw his sweet grandmother underneath the bus. The NY Daily News, in fact, reported Obama said the following:
In the speech, he sought to calm the fury surrounding the controversial remarks of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, saying he could no more disown Wright than he could his grandmother, who helped raise him.
Obama said his grandmother "on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Obama made things worse when he said this:
... .. The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it..."
Hamill and the rest of the liberal media would like us to think that people who vote for the Democratic presidential candidate look beyond gender or race. In 1984, GOP voters were sexist because they rejected Democrat Geraldine Ferraro for vice president.
Today, the media says GOP voters must be racist if they reject Barack Obama for president. Imagine the accusations hurled at these same voters when the GOP presidential candidate is not white.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Let's see...
October 28, 2008 - 17:59 ET by HeavyChevyBreathing=Racist
Eating=Racist
Jogging=Racist
Going to work=Racist
Dancing=Racist
Paying taxes that goes to someone undeserving=Spreading the wealth
Going to Church=Racist, closed minded, and homophobic
Speaking your mind=Racist
Voting for someone on qualifications=Racist
Questioning Obama=Take a guess
Did I miss anything? Probably. Don't worry there's always tomorrow and the next day and the next day.
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
Chev, that about covers
October 28, 2008 - 18:31 ET by SickofLibsChev, that about covers everything.
Actually, Sick
October 28, 2008 - 20:03 ET by HillbillyKingH.C. forgot,
clingin to my guns = racist
thinking for myself = racist, sexist, ageist, etc.
Not voting for Barry = PRICELESS!!!
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
How can I forget!!
October 28, 2008 - 20:18 ET by HeavyChevyand the list goes on and on and on.....
While I'm sure there are
October 28, 2008 - 21:00 ET by CortillaenWhile I'm sure there are plenty of people who refuse to vote for a black man out of anachronistic sentiments, I wonder how many people are unwilling to vote for Obama because they perceive him as that kind of black. You know the sort. The honest ones want nothing to do with any whites, only hang out with blacks, avoid white businesses, and generally would prefer all blacks to leave the US and make their own country. The dishonest ones sue over nothing in the name of "civil rights", propose "reparations" be paid to blacks for slavery, and abuse any power they get to favor only blacks. Unfortunately, that kind seems to be gaining predominance within the "black community". I can honestly say that I, formerly inclined to view blacks and whites equally, have come to the point where I have a level of ingrained skepticism regarding blacks, and this election has been partially to blame. It's a difficult sentiment to express properly, because it isn't racism. Rather, it's a suspicion of racism on their part, born of seeing such to be the case far too often. When the black polls are skewed better than 9:1 for Obama as opposed to 6:4 for even the most biased poll of all people, it's hard not to see racism in the black community. The past few decades, especially, have seen the emergence of the mentality that blacks who put their job, justice, or even reality before their race are to be reviled by the black community as "race-traitors". This insistance of "race first" amongst blacks is the source of my new skepticism. It's unfortunate, but hard data tells me that, without any other information, a black man is likely to put race above other obligations, even to law and country (though it takes little enough to convince me otherwise on a personal basis). It appears MLK Jr.'s ideal of all races being as one has been discarded in favor of Du Bois's blacks for blacks. It's a sad state of affairs, lamented by more than one of my black friends who've managed to escape the snare.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Just an FYI, I stopped
October 29, 2008 - 12:37 ET by SQL_SamJust an FYI, I stopped reading after "anachronistic" and not to mention you're writing in a blog not writing a book.....
Just trying to be honest, because I don't like having to use a dictionary when reading a post, and I dont have the time to read big posts that are saying the same stuff over again. (not that I'm not willing to read but because I'm usually at work).
HA! SQL,
October 29, 2008 - 13:45 ET by HillbillyKingyour comment is an ode to the uninformed. Yet, the self-abasing nature of it made me laugh. Well done.
I suppose I possess that kind of quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Sam
October 29, 2008 - 14:12 ET by cocodrieThis is a well written and thought out post. If you don't have a long enough attention span to read it, too bad. It would be a good idea for you to read your dictionary if these words are too difficult to understand.
This a article has the ring
October 28, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Chris NormanThis article has the ring of non-truth to it.
McNotObama '08
HELLO!!!!
October 28, 2008 - 18:05 ET by TheStersheeeet....IM HERE!!!!!
HACK.....STER...
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
Ster, Have you been
October 28, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Chris NormanSter,
Have you been drinking a lot of coffee today?
McNotObama '08
Chris,
October 29, 2008 - 09:24 ET by R D HelmLOL-I think Ster bypassed the coffee and went straight for the caffeine I.V. :-)
You know, now that I think about it......
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
right to the
October 28, 2008 - 20:48 ET by TruthMongerright to the point:)
Government is the "greedy capitalism" of marxists
I have heard from Obama
October 28, 2008 - 17:59 ET by IamTinmanI have heard from Obama several times " The faces on these bills don't look like me" or "Did I mention he's black" and from his surrogates the same verbage phrased any number of different ways from the beginning of the campaign. The idea that he's not using race is ridiculous.
I don't care what skin color Barack has, he is at heart a socialist and I wouldn't vote for anyone regardless of race, creed, gender or political affiliation who espoused a socialist agenda.
Barack Obama has defined himself, not with a legislative track record since he spent more time "present" than pro or anti much legislation, but by his own words, his writings, and his associates.
Someone had a great joke today
October 28, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Josh SNA top bracket (signed into law by Bush) of 36% is freedom, a top bracket of 39% (rolling back all Bush tax cuts, back to the Clinton rate) is socialism.
You left out the mid rates.
October 28, 2008 - 18:33 ET by SickofLibsYou left out the mid rates. That's where the socialism will be hiding.
Come on
October 28, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Josh SNThe Washington Post analyzed the tax plans of both candidates and made this graphic, which might help.
Josh
October 28, 2008 - 20:04 ET by SemperrightThe little jibe on McCains graphic should read
"This represents the bottom 60% but they don't pay any taxes so don't cry for them"
You and the post can peddle your class warfare crap somewhere else.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Big difference: Bush's
October 28, 2008 - 20:46 ET by zfBig difference: Bush's bracket was a *reduction* because he believed tax cuts across the board were needed, Obama's bracket is a *esclation* because Obama believes wealth should be redistrubuted. Big difference.
You also miss the big difference between saying the wealthy should pay higher taxes to support the Government in protecting our rights (which is what it was intended to do) and raising their taxes to "support" the "poor" and buffer government spending programs on "helping" the poor (which is an aribitary, moralistic freedom-abusing boondoogle that the libs want to turn our government into.)
The problem is not so much the wealthy paying more in taxes, the problem is using/raising their taxes to support people like Obama's ideas of 'social justic.'
No, rolling back to 39%
October 28, 2008 - 21:15 ET by ckc1227No, rolling back to 39% just so you can give welfare checks to non-taxpayers and as way of penalizing people for daring to earn a decent income is socialism.
Furthermore, some of us aren't naive enough to believe he will stop at 39% or $250,000. Barney Frank has pretty much already confirmed that.
And I really can't wait until they raise the minimum wage to $9.50, lol.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
socialism
October 28, 2008 - 21:20 ET by LionKingThe aspectof this that is socialistic is giving money to people that did not earn it ... Obama calls thatbeing FAIR while punishing the hardworking and successful.
It's all in the DIRECTION,
October 28, 2008 - 21:43 ET by KarmaIt's all in the DIRECTION, Josh.
Some would say 36% is socialism; 39% communism. We all have our own limits.
If someone like,
October 28, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Chris NormanIf someone like, say, Michael Steele was running against the liliest of white Democratic candidates, I'd vote for him without a first thought to his color. These liberal elites just can't accept the fact that there are a lot of people who just don't like liberals or thir philosophy - especially uber liberals like Obama. Why do they act surprised? Their liberal candidates run around denying they're liberal, claim to be "moderate", and try over and over again to find any other descriptive term for themselves other than "liberal". Get over it. It's not because Obama is black - it's because he's a far left liberal.
McNotObama '08
The media focus on race...
October 28, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Josh SN... because it is easy, and they are none too bright. It's also a sensitive issue to many people, so it will always sell more news. Will there be Democrats who don't vote for Obama because he is black? We don't know, and if there are, none of us know how many.
I have a nearly impossible time believing there is a law firm full of Democrats who are going to vote for McCain because he is white. Please recall that Obama was in charge of the Harvard Law Review. If they are voting against him for anything, it is because they are mad jealous. That is the #1 job for law students in the entire country. The implication is that he was more competent with the law than any law student in America.
By the way, Colin Powell was incompetent on the job as the Secretary of State of the United States. Loyalty to the President when he is wrong is betrayal for the rest of us. I knew many of the things Powell said at the U.N. about WMD were garbage (which is not the same thing as saying I knew there were no WMD).
Wrong implication Josh,
October 28, 2008 - 19:44 ET by IamTinmanFor the Harvard Law Review is not a meritocracy, You must first want the job and compete by writing an essay. 80 or so of the essayists are chosen by the faculty as editors and the editors in turn decide whether to campaign for the presidents job. Barack competed against 18 other editors and won a close election. It had nothing to do with his competancy with the law.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
October 28, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Josh SNUndoubtedly you are qualified to be one of the Judges of the most prestigious jobs of any law student in the United States of America.
Why not, by your bragging
October 28, 2008 - 21:03 ET by zfWhy not, by your bragging you surely are.
Really, if your defense rests on your opinion of "most prestigious" and other assorted appeals to authority and that anyone who is not part of what you decide is the lgeal 'elite' and therefore an ignorant moronthan you have no defense at all.
I'm sure it had to have
October 28, 2008 - 20:06 ET by balboaI'm sure it had to have _something_ to do with his understanding of the law. It is the Harvard LAW Review, right?
Yes, and the purity and all
October 28, 2008 - 21:05 ET by zfYes, and the purity and all knowingness of mighty HLR must not be defamed!
Actually Josh, if
October 28, 2008 - 20:23 ET by HillbillyKingwe apply your reasoning, the # 1 job in America for law students would be
Being in charge of the Yale Law Review.
I'm baffled at why Barry turned down what is considered to be the real best job for law students in this country. I mean, according to you, he was more competent with the law than any other law student in the country, so why pass on the chance to eventually clerk for SCOTUS? Hmmmmmm.....
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
It's amazing how
October 28, 2008 - 21:07 ET by zfIt's amazing how knowledable you are. You can read the mind of a entire law firm and magically deduce their motives with no actual facts. Anyone voting against the Messiah can't be doing so for any princpals because His Holiness's saintliness is so obvious. It must be for petty reasons, right?
And you "know" (I guess by your many visits to Iraq and friendship with Saddam) that what Powell said were "garbage." Or to use your logic, "I guess you must be qualified to judge the most prestigious foreign policy position in the US."
All Obama being in charge of the HLW means is that some idiot authorities there hired another idiot.
Dear Mr. Hamill... People
October 28, 2008 - 18:05 ET by Clear thinkerDear Mr. Hamill...
People that are running to McCain are running because they have learned that it is Obama that is the racist!!!
Obama Is A Racist
I really think the siteowners have a responsibility here
October 28, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Josh SNIs Obama a racist? I guess that would mean he hates, or at least distrusts, non-black people because they are non-black.
Do you really believe that? That he inwardly recoils every time he shakes some white guy's hand in the Senate, or maybe he inwardly loathed working with Senator Tom Coburn on their bill? Coburn is not an urban sophisticate, after all. It was all a ploy, to fool us into his "Now we enslave all the white people" program for America?
Come on, Newsbusters, maybe the law says you aren't responsible (does it? I do not know) you should feel responsible for talking down some of your more extreme commenters.
Undoubtedly, you disagree, and think Obama is a racist.
"maybe the law says you
October 28, 2008 - 18:20 ET by Chris Norman"maybe the law says you aren't responsible"
The LAW? Against what? What you consider irresponsible speech? There is a law. It's called the First Amendment. It guarantees free speech.
Your view is chilling, absolutely chilling and it's the kind of attitude in so many Obama supporters that have the rest of us scared to death of what we can expect if Obama gets in. I can't believe an American would type those words. Incredible.
McNotObama '08
You totally missed it
October 28, 2008 - 18:27 ET by Josh SNChilling? Look, some of the commenters here have said that electing Obama will mean the end of America. That's some pretty nutcase thing to say, but it also could easily lead to some pretty illegal suggestions about what to do about it. Let's say you honestly believed America will be destroyed (some of the people here say it, I don't know whether they believe it), then what would be your responsibility?
Unless you are a slacker, your responsibility would be pretty extreme. It could certainly involve joining a militia and attacking the United States, right? Are you saying you wouldn't fight someone who attempted to destroy America?
So, if someone starts talking here about attacking America, or inciting other people to attacking America, who is legally responsible? The commenter? The hosting company? The content publisher?
Josh... Don't be stupid.
October 28, 2008 - 18:35 ET by Clear thinkerJosh...
Don't be stupid. Nobody here is talking about attacking America. We are worried about an Obama presidency destroying the country we love. The best way to fight that possibility is to go into a voting booth and make damn sure Obama loses!
Obama Is A Racist
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Sure
October 28, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Josh SNIf you say Obama is going to "destroy" America, but you don't want to do anything about it, nor encourage anyone else to do anything, what does that make you?
Why not simply say that Obama will push America in a direction you don't like? One that you hope will be repudiated by this election, or, at worst, the next?
Saying Obama will "destroy" America is a different thing, altogether.
That is, unless you don't care about America.
"Why not simply say that
October 28, 2008 - 20:50 ET by ckc1227"Why not simply say that Obama will push America in a direction you
don't like? One that you hope will be repudiated by this election, or,
at worst, the next? Saying Obama will "destroy" America is a different thing, altogether."
Because, in this country, we still have free speech, whether you like or not. You don't get to decide what I say.
Obama WILL destroy America as we know it if he is able to do what he wants to do. He and his comrads have been planning it for years. Just because you're ok with it won't make it any less true.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
Don't even go there. Don't
October 28, 2008 - 18:40 ET by Chris NormanDon't even go there. Don't you dare try to link the opinions expressed here with some kind of fantasy terrorist attack. Is that what we can expect if your guy gets in? Some bombing happens and opposition political speech is stifled? It's people like you that make this kind of thing possible. How would you like it if I said that liberal opinion led to William Ayers bombing the Capitol. You have shown the ugly side of liberalism - "free speech" as long as it's not a conservative exercising the right. Why don't you go peddle your liberal fascism somewhere else?
McNotObama '08
Amen! Liberals have this
October 28, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Clear thinkerAmen!
Liberals have this ignorant idea that free speech is only for them.
Obama Is A Racist
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Josh I dont believe that
October 28, 2008 - 18:54 ET by dark_dsJosh I dont believe that Obama is a racist ...I believe he and his surrogates are using his race as an advantage politically .... I believe he went to a Black Liberation Theology Church which uses race as a tool to divide .. I believe many withing the Black Liberation Movement are Racists and pushers of victimhood .....I believe that this, pardon the pun "colors" his thinking (sorry couldnt help that) about race.... I believe that there are whites who will not vote for a black (or any other race) for President ... I believe there are Blacks who are voting for Obama ONLY becasue he is black ... I dont think either way of thinking is acceptable ..... I believe that the race card is being used with such frequency by the MSM and the left in an indescriminate manner which does disservice towards actual racial issues within this country ... I am person who actually admits that I have areas of prejudice within my flawed character ... I also will say that it is very difficult to have a discussion about race when the this kind of enviornment exists .. when political correctness causes many people to watch every word from their mouths for fear of being accused of being racist whcih does nothign to advance the cause of racial harmony ... I for one am not racist despite my admission that I have some issues of prejudice within me .. but these issues that I readily admit to have NOTHING to do with my belief that Obama and his policies would be bad for the country .. I belive that MSM and anyone that says the only reason Obama would lose is because of race are only perpetuating racial divison and furthering the practice of being a victim ... people are moving away from Obama because his statements and past are catching up with him regarding his leftist beliefs
That's fair enough
October 28, 2008 - 19:02 ET by Josh SNNot exactly how I'd put it. I'd say something more like Obama and his people are all-too-willing to let other people use the charge of "racist" against their political enemies.
How could he not be conscious of all this. The media, take CNN, for example, is constantly dividing America by race and telling us how purple and gold people feel about this or that issue.
Liberal reasoning...
October 28, 2008 - 20:27 ET by JPR1"I'd say something more like Obama and his people are all-too-willing to let other people use the charge of "racist" against their political enemies."
Sorry man, this borders on nonsense.
Obama and his people, that's one group;
Other people using the charge of racist, that's another group;
Their political enemies, that's yet another group.
Who are... the "other people using the charge of racist"?
If you are referring to the media and do not consider them to be part of the group "Obama and his people" then you are unquestionably missing not just the whole point of this web site but the reality of this election.
Barack Obama has "played" the race issue his entire life. Soft and low when he's in the public eye of course, but if you don't think he has used it consistently you're really missing the obvious.
Speak Truth to Power
October 28, 2008 - 19:09 ET by Dexter the BeagleI thought dissent was the highest form of Patriotism? Tell you what when you are just as concerned about the "imprison bush, torture Cheney" bumper stickers, or a movie that has President Bush being shot before the Iraq war, or buring of the President in effigy during "peace" rallies, then i will be concerned that Newsbusters militia will be coming to my town seeking the overthrow of the American government. Oh, and our responsibility is to the preservation of the Constitution.
Since libs always love to through quotes out about Thomas Jefferson here are a couple for you;
"What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? and what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.",
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson wrote this in response to his fear of the trending away from popular liberties, toward despotism. He was opposed to the specific objectives of the rebels (these quotes are taken from a letter to a friend regarding a rebellion in Massachusetts) , he was however, aware of the everlasting dangers of tyranny and force. Rebellion on the part of men nurtured in self government seemed to him the lesser of two evils.
"It could certainly
October 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by ckc1227"It could certainly involve joining a militia and attacking the United
States, right? Are you saying you wouldn't fight someone who attempted
to destroy America?"
I think I'd probably launch my political career in their living room instead.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
Josh, yes I really believe
October 28, 2008 - 18:21 ET by Clear thinkerJosh, yes I really believe that.
Did you read what's at the link? I laid out my argument in it, and you are free to dis-agree with it, but I do believe I have enough evidence to back up my claim.
Obama Is A Racist
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
You better CT. In
October 28, 2008 - 18:43 ET by Chris NormanYou'd better be able to do just that CT. In this guy's mind, your kind of assertions will get you arrested.
McNotObama '08
That's right, cause in this
October 28, 2008 - 18:46 ET by Clear thinkerThat's right, cause in this guys mind, I'm the racist and dangerous. All I did was do some research and write about my conclusions so I should go to jail. However, if Obama destroys this country, that's cool!
Obama Is A Racist
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
This nasty little troll
October 28, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Chris NormanThis nasty little troll is an example of the modern liberal activist. They run around calling Bush a "nazi", claim that he and Cheney "destroyed freedom" and "destroyed the economy" and then have the absolute unmitigated gall to break in here and claim, that by expressing our opinions regarding Obama and the charge of "racism", that WE are being inflammatory. You know, you can tell what a candidate is like by the kind of supporters he attracts - this speaks volumes about Obama.
McNotObama '08
Did *I* call Bush A Nazi?
October 28, 2008 - 19:10 ET by Josh SNI have talked about Prescott Bush and the Nazis. That is a fact. I have talked about the Republican National Heritage Groups Council, how it was filled with old Nazis, and how George Herbert Walker Bush was pretty well connected to them. But that is not the same thing as saying "And therefore, George Walker Bush is a Nazi."
I think calling Obama the real racist here is over the top. I think his membership at that church is very reasonable. There is, as far as I know, no evidence he was ever in Church when Wright was at his most inflammatory. In fact, maybe Wright knew to reign things in when he had politicians in the audience. We don't know.
I think the site owners have a paternalistic responsibility to some of their regular, yet off-kilter, posters. That is what I was trying to say.
If you have a friend who says all polka-dot people are like dogs, and you can kill them like you would kill a dog (my father told me that about Arabs), do you have any responsibility?
That's what I was trying to talk about. Responsibility.
The American Revolutionaries (you might call them Founding Fathers) knew that freedom of speech was a responsibilty.
I'm not going to get in an
October 28, 2008 - 19:23 ET by Chris NormanI'm not going to get in an argument with you about what constitutes "responsibility". Everyone is free to disagree. However, when you start implying that there are laws or should be laws restricting opinion and speech to what YOU consider "responsible" and when you make the dishonest, pathetic, and nasty attempt to link our God-given right to express our non-violent opinions to some fantasy of violent acts, then, in my opinion, you forfeit any privelege to be part of this conversation. Post all you want, I'm not addressing you any further. It's "responsible" people like you that ease the way to the suppression of free speech.
McNotObama '08
There are Limits on Our Freedom of Speech
October 28, 2008 - 20:00 ET by Josh SNThere are laws against free speech, including inciting people to violence. You can read about the exceptions to your freedom of speech at that link.
I must admit being not familiar enough with this law. It pretty clearly says at that link the incitement to violence must be "imminent."
Considering how broad your
October 28, 2008 - 21:23 ET by zfConsidering how broad your interpertation of said law is, you are both not familiar enough with it and are also exposing more and more that you are an outright facist boob.
Notice how libs are obssessed with pushing the "limits" parts of freedom of speech and not with the "freedom of speech" part of it.
Josh SN, your comments could possibly incite people into thinking people on this board are evil and incite them to violence against us. Therefore, by your own logic, you should be repressed and locked up.
oh please
October 28, 2008 - 19:44 ET by Dexter the Beagle"The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our Brethern are already in the Field! Why stand we here idle?...is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me Death!"
Geez somebody should really go to Patricks house and check him out, or maybe prohibit him from making such scarey speeches.
Patrick Henry
St Johns church Richmond Va. March 1775
"I think calling Obama
October 28, 2008 - 19:56 ET by ckc1227"I think calling Obama the real racist here is over the top. I think his membership at that church is very reasonable.
There is, as far as I know, no evidence he was ever in Church when
Wright was at his most inflammatory. In fact, maybe Wright knew to
reign things in when he had politicians in the audience. We don't know."
Yeah, that's probably what happened. Well, I guess as long as they didn't hang any blacks while he was there, it would be perfectly acceptable for McCain to attend KKK meetings.
Talk about suspension of disbelief. The excuses you guys come up with are amazing, lol.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
Geo. Washington Attended A Church whose Tenets He Never Espoused
October 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by Josh SNThat's what the link says.
Josh ... just someone's opinion
October 28, 2008 - 21:17 ET by LionKingDo you have FACTS to support this or is this just someone's conjecture?
He may not have
October 28, 2008 - 21:18 ET by zfHe may not have specifically "espoused" their tenets, but I'm sure that church never damned the Revolution, praised hanging the founders or advocating killing black people. Or are you going to convince me he would have stayed if they had?
The comparison is beyond weak.
Right, because now that
October 28, 2008 - 21:13 ET by zfRight, because now that Wright's even deeper in the public eye, he's been less inflammatory and has reigned things in.
They need to try another one, ckc1227.
Funny, I didn't know there
October 28, 2008 - 18:13 ET by Chris NormanFunny, I didn't know there were racists in the Democratic Party. Where, oh, where have they all been hiding - the unions - gays - lesbians - soccer moms?
McNotObama '08
A President obama would
October 28, 2008 - 18:13 ET by MidAmericaA President obama would be historical not because he would be the first Black President but the first Red President.
We Must Write Eisenhower (and FDR, natch) Out Of History!
October 28, 2008 - 18:16 ET by Josh SNThe criminal communist Presidents FDR and Eisenhower had top tax rates of 90% (admittedly, with lots of loopholes). If Obama is commie for wanting to raise the top rate to 39% (that would be rolling back all Bush tax cuts for the top bracket) then President, General, Dwight David Eisenhower is AT LEAST TWICE THE MARXIST of Obama.
Is there anyway we can forget that those AWFUL, AWFUL 1950s ever happened?
There is a big
October 28, 2008 - 18:36 ET by MidAmericaThere is a big difference between letting the government collect taxes in order to fund legitimate programs and taxing people because the government believes they have too much income (i.e. spreading the wealth around).
Who was the Oracle of the America Republic?
October 28, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Josh SN"They [, the men of the 1787 Convention] had for their oracle of political philosophy the treatise of Montesquieu on the spirit of laws, which, published anonymously at Geneva forty years before, had won its way to an immense authority on both sides of the ocean." -- James Bryce, American Commonwealth, 1911
"The oracles usually consulted were Blackstone and Montesquieu. The 'Spirit of Laws' was studied by Washington as part of his preparation for the work of the convention," Hannis Taylor, The Origin and Growth of the English Constitution, 1889
"Montesquieu is accepted as the oracle of political theory for that time," R. A. Ames and H. C. Montgomery, "The Influence of Rome on the American Constitution," 1935
What did Montesquieu say about tax rates? In a Republic, moderation was important. The suggestion is that having some people earning multi-billions and some people earning $22K is, all by itself, a net negative.
What did the 1st Congress say about tax rates? They set tariff rates. They set much higher rates on Madeira (fortified wine consumed by the rich) than they did on other alcohol. They had progressive taxation rates.
Maybe you think that is wrong. George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay had far more respect for Montesquieu.
And that doesn't even include "The Penman of the Constitution," Gouvernor Morris. Look at what he said during the debates on the Constitution.
troll
October 28, 2008 - 19:06 ET by LionKingTariffs were not about redistributing wealth which is what progressive taxation is. Progressive taxes punish the successful. Tariffs tax imports and in effect, are a consumption tax.
Tax rates/tariff rates are irrelevant to the discussion of Obama's socialisitic tax proposal. btw, his definiton of wealthy has already started down the slippery slope: $250,000, $200,000 and now, $150,000.
tariffs and choice
October 28, 2008 - 19:12 ET by LionKingAnother thing. The wealthy had a choice whether to be taxed or not... they did not have to buy the heavily taxed Madeira if they did not want to. That is a fundamental problem with the current income tax; you MUST pay. It is very totalitarian and the progressive nature, by design, punishes people who are more successful. The problem with Obama's plan is he wants to further punish successful people. In fact, when questioned about raising taxes and reducing tax revenue,Obama statedhe did not care about revenue, but rather, FAIRNESS.
In the 1st Congress
October 28, 2008 - 19:21 ET by Josh SNThe Annals of Congress is the primary record we have of the debates of the 1st Congress. From its pages:
(bit in [] is mine)
It sure sounds to me like they were taxing people according to their ability to pay.
tax choice
October 28, 2008 - 19:30 ET by LionKingIf I do not buy the Madeira wine, am I taxed?
It is called CHOICE ... familiar with that, are you?
Madeira was a proxy for wealth
October 28, 2008 - 19:36 ET by Josh SNFitzsimmons and Muhlenberg, at least, wanted to get the tax revenue from the wealthy. If you stopped drinking Madeira and starting eating fish guts (driving up the price for high quality fish guts so that only rich people could afford them) then they'd have taxed that.
Caviar isn't actually fish guts. ;)
taxing the wealthy
October 28, 2008 - 19:40 ET by LionKingI have no problem taxing the wealthy. I have no problem with a luxury tax on items as long as CHOICE is involved. Income tax is state sanctioned ROBBERY.
Josh
October 28, 2008 - 19:38 ET by cocodrieYou just pointed out one of the major flaws of liberal thinking - taxing the ability to pay. These taxes tend to put some things out of reach of lower income people. Why does every liberal solution to any problem involve higher taxes? I heard Barack Hussein;s theme song - "Hi-ho hi-ho lets tax the whities some mo".
Are you for real?
October 28, 2008 - 20:04 ET by Josh SNWith conservatives like you, it is no wonder the Democrats are going to win big next week.
Whitey? ****ING WHITEY? Have you ever? I never.
This "liberal" thinking you describe RULED THE DAY in 1783. So, if there is some sort of "true American thinking" it would be progressive taxation.
josh
October 28, 2008 - 20:16 ET by cocodrieyou need to watch some of the ''black exploitation movies'' they're fun.
It ruled the day SO MUCH
October 28, 2008 - 20:21 ET by zfIt ruled the day SO MUCH that income taxes were made illegal and ONLY could be made so by sneakily adding an amendment to the Bill of the Right in direct contradiction to the constitution. Go peddle your myths somewhere else.
Sorry Josh
October 28, 2008 - 19:08 ET by cocodrieThe tax rate under Roosevelt and Truman sky-rocketed to 94%, Eisenhower inherited these rates from them. It was under Eisenhower that the rates began to come down. Eisenhower was the direct opposite of a communist, Roosevelt fits the description though. I lived through the '50s - you have no clue of the realities of those days. Get rid of your revisionist history books.
Eisenhower never cut taxes on the rich
October 28, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Josh SNNot sure where you are getting what you learned, but Eisenhower "refused to push tax rate cuts for the high-income" Americans during his entire eight years. Further proof you don't know what you are talking about (i.e. Eisenhower did not cut rates on the rich) here, from Cato.
Proof positive he was TWICE THE MARXIST of Obama.
Josh
October 28, 2008 - 19:47 ET by cocodrieYou are denying the obvious. The tax rates went up to 94% under ROOSEVELT and TRUMAN and began to come DOWN UNDER EISENHOWER. You can select certain segments of the tax rates in a useless attempt to deny reality all you want but it is futile. You also need to look up the definition of communist in a real dictionary and cease being silly.
I PROVIDED TWO LINKS, INCLUDING CATO
October 28, 2008 - 20:05 ET by Josh SNIke did not cut tax rates on the rich. Put up (a link) or shut up.
WOULD YOU MIND NOT SHOUTING?
October 28, 2008 - 20:07 ET by BlondeThanks.
In his own words (19 seconds): This man is qualified to be VP?
Josh
October 28, 2008 - 20:11 ET by cocodrieyou would deny a link thr same way you deny all reality. Enjoy your little impolite world.
But at least he actually
October 28, 2008 - 21:41 ET by zfBut at least he actually cut taxes to other income groups including those who while not the top earners ("super-rich") were still quite wealthy and the middle class, which Obama will do to no one. And no, giving money to people who don't pay taxes is not a cut.
Also, I don't remember Eisenhower *raising* taxes on the rich and then justifying it as "redistribution of wealth for social justice."
Again, here's the difference: having higher taxes on the wealthy than on those poorer to help run the government and and it's obligation to protect our rights and freedom = wrongheaded but not Marxist.
Having higher and higher taxes and squeezing the rich to pay for one group or individuals concept of "social justice" and programs to push that agenda = Marxist.
Defections?
October 28, 2008 - 18:22 ET by JillCWPerhaps folks are really defecting because of his ideologies. I'm Jewish and the man clearly hates us and Israel. He's a Muslim puppet and the Muslim world views him as one of them because his father and stepfather (who adopted him) were Muslims. Ergo, if he doesn't toe the Muslim line and acknowledge that's what he is, he's a infidel. It's not his skin color that has me concerned, it's his worldviews that are anti-Christ in nature.
I'm sick of hearing that we're racists. We are not racists, we are intelligent people who want to preserve this nation. If people hate America so much, why don't they just leave. We won't miss them and there's many countries where I'm sure they would be happier. And while they're at it, they can take BarryO and his little dog Joe Biden with them.
Judeo-Christianists, then
October 28, 2008 - 18:29 ET by Josh SNIf the most competent person in the world wasn't a Judeo-Christian, but they ran a half-as-competent Judeo-Christian against him...
Well, I think you've made your position clear.
Hold those horses . . .
October 28, 2008 - 18:47 ET by JillCWSheesh, maybe we're not racists, maybe we're really cutural bigots. How's that? There are different cultures and we all don't get together singing peace songs. I respect my neighbors from India and I don't have to worship their god Vishnu to chat with them. I didn't vote for the "O" because he wants to destroy this nation (which is what the Tower of Babel folks want). I don't care for the guy, his worldview, his socialist beliefs, etc. Why do I have to waste time explaining this simply because the "O" is bi-racial or tri-racial? There! He's bi- or tri-racial, not black. Isn't that the new lingo?
Tower of Babel folks?
October 28, 2008 - 19:00 ET by Josh SNYou only brought up religious identity, not his lefty politics or his worldview. Excuuuuse me for latching on to the words you actually used instead of guessing as to what you meant.
"mixed race" is a fine term. I like the term "mutt" for myself. I'm Swedish, Ukrainian, German, Welsh, Scots-Irish, Romanian/Hungarian, and English.
Hey, what are the Tower of Babel people? I never heard of that before.
I guess hating Jews or
October 28, 2008 - 21:53 ET by zfI guess hating Jews or symphazing with those who do is not "worldview" material in your book, Josh, but it is in mine.
Also, he didn't condemn him because of his religious identity but because of his attitude to Jews. Or are you implying if that there was a Judeo-Christian black running for office who hated Jews he would vote for him just because he was Judeo-Christian?
Tower of Babel people = people who want to destroy all cultural identity in the name of some vague unified "multicultarism" which is really a form of uniculturism. Before they built the Tower of Babel, those people spoke only one language. I'm "shocked" this went over your head.
P.S. Why couldn't you read his mind? You read the mind of an entire law firm whose employees you never met. Surely just one person is not beyond your amazing scope.
Y'all
October 29, 2008 - 09:09 ET by RowaneY'all have let this little wetend totally disrupt the conversation, as was his plan.
Who?
October 29, 2008 - 17:16 ET by JillCWOkay, I'm a she as my name indicates. My goal was to stress why we are voting against racisim by not voting for "O" not because we are racist. For the record, if we don't protect ourselves as a nation, the economy won't matter because we won't exist. If the "O" prevails in is quest for Nimrod the Hunter's revived appearance, racism again Caucasians will be the sport of the day. That said, may God keep us safe.
Classic Projection
October 28, 2008 - 18:24 ET by 2birds"Most of the guys at my law firm are voting for McCain," said a lawyer I know. "Not
for any specific issue. Because he's white. No, make that because he's
not black. It's scary because these are educated people."
I'm sure they don't have any specific reason in your mind. Racism has got to be the cause! Because the candidates are so close on everything else.
Barkley was right
October 28, 2008 - 18:40 ET by exLibat least in the fact that ANY racist is not going to admit they are a racist, or bigot to use the correct phrase.
This guy must think his readers are dopes. I have NEVER heard a single person say, "not for any other reason, but BECAUSE they are black".
Even the most bigoted people in the world, Nazis, Skin heads, Liberals, NEVER admit the real reason they do things they ALWAYS project their bigotry and biases on the other person or their vies.
So, I can tell this is a lie on it's face. Also, speaking a face, who would say "she has a look on her face of not liking white people"? Especially when she has a history of saying things that are offensive and has more Jeremiah Wright in her than Barack has?
This is high comedy, if it weren't so disturbing.
Barclay forgets about all
October 28, 2008 - 22:11 ET by zfBarclay forgets about all the people who say they will vote for Obama because if they don't, they'll be *thought* of as racist even when they are not. I'll bet there are more of them then people lying about voting for Obama because they actually *are* racist.
The problem with Barcley and others is that they are pushing *assumptions* about how people really feel based on their own biases and with no other facts.
P.S. I have met people and seen people on TV who do say right out that they are racist. In fact, they reveal in the fact so I have to an issue with saying that *no* racist or bigoted person in history was ever admitted they were. Hiter's racism for instance was hardly a big secret, even at the beginning.
P.S. Notice no conservatives are saying that there aren't white people voting for McCain just because he's white. We know that there are, we're realists. We just resent the media implying that that's the case for either all or most of McCain's supporters, that there is none of that on the other side (voting for Obama because he's black or just because McCain is a whitey), and that's the only reason to not elect Obama and if he loses it's only because of racism. That's all.
You Missed The Point, Kerry
October 28, 2008 - 18:46 ET by JoelCTKerry, you misunderstand the article. Those people actually said, "I just can't vote for a Socialist", which we now know is "secret code" for "black people", and the author was just doing us the favor of translating the code for us while he wrote the story!
Now you know the author isn't really a lying, racist jerk. He's just doing us all a favor. We owe him our thanks.
Now excuse me while I go throw up.
Exactly!
October 28, 2008 - 18:51 ET by JillCWThat was perfect. So if you don't like socialism, you're a racist, but only if the socialist candidate is black, arab, white, or all three or any combination thereof. If he's white and a socialist you'd still be labeled as a fundamentalist, right-wing lunatic, etc. There's no getting around the permissive stereotyping by the media. Now, before I throw up, I shall hangeth my head in shame for disliking the "O's" worldviews, and politically and nationally dangerous machinations.
Don't read Leviticus 25 or Matthew 5:18
October 28, 2008 - 20:08 ET by Josh SNLeviticus 25 says all debts should be forgiven (if you can't afford to buy back your land) every 50 years. Get that past the credit card industry which bankrolled the bankruptcy bill the Republicans pushed through a few years ago! Ha!
And Matthew 5:18 says not one jot of "the law" (the Old Testament) shall be changed until it is all fulfilled.
I guess that includes Exodus 21:15 and 21:17 which says parents must kill their children if they strike or curse them.
OK, Hawking time for a
October 28, 2008 - 20:50 ET by PeskyDaneOK, Hawking time for a little Biblical scholarship here. First of all, you've mis-quoted it. It's not "strike," it's "smite," which in the ancient languages means a fatal or near-fatal altercation (the NIV says "attacks," again a word which, though softer than "smite," in a tribal culture still means an intent to kill.
"Curse" is also a little more extreme than a simple "F-you" in the heat of an argument. We're talking about adult off-spring that are so far gone as to be a danger to the community at large.
Another thing, it does not say that the "parents" are to put their children to death. The ancient Hebrews established a very advanced system of juriprudence for the ancient world with due-process and required statements from witnesses. If the parents were to drag one of their children to court, you can imagine what an extreme case such a thing would entail.
good news...with the msm
October 28, 2008 - 19:01 ET by gopstevegood news...with the msm ramping up these "racist" stories, they must be getting nervous!
Fibs amd such
October 28, 2008 - 19:01 ET by Poker PlayerI think Hamill is making all of this up.
Just to "handy."
hmmmm
October 28, 2008 - 19:09 ET by JillCWOdd. I had the same thought. It all sounded very contrived.
It Is FICTION
October 28, 2008 - 20:21 ET by JoelCTDenis Hamill has written many fiction books, some of which actually sold. He has written NO works of non-fiction.
Now that you know this, go back and read his story again.
It reads like a novel. His story is pure fiction. He made it up completely.
"They just won't vote for a black man," the guy said. "And they're Democrats! Never voted Republican before!"
People only talk that way in novels, not in real life. Humphrey Bogart could be reading that line in "Key Largo".
The NY Daily News printed his story, probably knowing it was fiction, because they earned their Obama kneepads long ago.
Pray tells is this Obama Voter Erosion
October 28, 2008 - 19:10 ET by Lame CherryOh my, I broke the story about Obama voter erosion among Democrats and there was AP the next day saying how much Obama helped Democrats.
And now, we have the liberal press exposing AP as liars 2 days later and my blog right. WOW!
My question is as I watch feed from Minnesota is Al Franken REFUSES to include Obama in his campaign. His Democratic Senator comrade, Amy Klobuchar, did a commercial stating, "Al Franken can work with the NEW PRESIDENT.)
Amy liberal democrat Klobuchar and Al insane thug Franken too refuse to add black power to the white racist liberal ticket.
Does this mean that Bill, Hillary, Chelsea Clinton with the Biden Brigades who are all going to vote for John McCain that they are racists too?
Sure there are a bushel of racists in Bob Byrd's KKK party and here is a little hint, Jesse Jackson and numbers of his black party are not going to be voting for Barack Obama either this coming election.
It doesn't make it racist if people are voting in their self interests. Geez Louise do you really think all those Hillary women are going to vote for the messiah, knowing he is going to wipe women off the Democratic ballot as second stringers until Chelsea gets installed in New York in another 20 years.
Obama for women means 50 years before they get another shot at the top slot, because all the liberal males have ragged in Sarah Palin so much the nation will in the MSM blame the Gov. for all things bad as they already started.
There are racists in the Democratic Party, but there are also a host of other people who see impeachment, Hillary installment, Obama being a Carter disaster as the destruction of the Democratic party.
As Obama spins around in this, you know by Biden's own words someone is going to attack America. George W. Bush kept that from happening after 9 11 completely.
Let Democrats answer that one in Obama's are you better for weeks ago than now? Because the GOP will come at Obama and Pelosi in 2010 are YOU MORE ALIVE NOW with Obama standing over a mass American grave.
Obama is the Democratic nightmare. Democrats better hope his voter erosion is a landslide, Atlantis sinking into the ocean as they are going to be destroyed as a party with him in control.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwxJ46HWXbA
October 28, 2008 - 20:56 ET by TheSterRock and Roll.
Hells Bells.
Hehehehe
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
Voted for McCain
October 28, 2008 - 19:26 ET by TN MomToday, I VOTED FOR McCAIN/PALIN!!!
I am NOT racist.
I AM against Socialism. I AM against Big Government.
The ONLY reason Obama got this far is the MEDIA.
Amen to that.
October 28, 2008 - 19:50 ET by attorneygirlThank God for you.
I too am voting for McCain.
God all mighty.
I am a small business owner.
I am taxed up the ass.
I am sick of it.
Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress want to take my hard earned dollars and give it to someone who did not earn it.
I am just sick of it.
Vote McCain.
Vote Palin.
Vote to keep your own money.
AttorneyGirl!!! What music do you like????
October 28, 2008 - 20:45 ET by TheSterGirl...what music do you like??!?!?!
Talk to me!!!! Play??
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
Hey Ster.....did you drink......
October 28, 2008 - 20:48 ET by BEGRUNTtoo much coffee today........LOL
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
I am Waiting
October 28, 2008 - 20:29 ET by JoelCTI am waiting for election day. I don't care if I have to wait in line; I'll bring a sandwich. ;-)
I don't trust anyone in this election. I don't trust the early ballots to make it to the vote counters.
I plan to check every box that has an 'R' by the person's name. I have never done that before, but I am doing it this time. I hope everyone else does, too. We have to tell the Democrat Party and the MSM that they just can't LIE their way into office any more. The only way to do that is to blow them out.
I don't think we'll get back the House, but it is within the possibility that we can get back the Senate (thus insuring we can get our Supreme Court nominees passed), if we will ALL just get to the polls and vote for the 'R'.
I'd vote for Larry Craig and Ted Stevens if it meant we can teach the Democrats the lesson about lying their mothers never taught them!
Joel...do you like HEAVY METAL??
October 28, 2008 - 20:42 ET by TheSterI'm here...
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
I didn't vote for a single
October 28, 2008 - 20:56 ET by TN MomI didn't vote for a single Democrat!!!
It's very interesting that 7-8 NEW McCain signs are appearing around my neighborhood in the past 2-3 days alone!
...and my daughter, a sophomore in college, bought a 'Women for McCain/Palin' sticker and placed it on her car in a prominate place...above her sorority decal!! It's her FIRST Presidential election to vote!!!
THANK YOU TN MOM. I have
October 28, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Scuba DudeTHANK YOU TN MOM.
I have to wait until next Tuesday to pull the lever for McCain/Palin and any other Republican that is running.
If that makes me a racist in the eyes of the MSM, so be it. I do not care what they think of me for they are lower than pond scum. I just want to see the breakdowns on tv when McCain/Palin are declared the winners. Just desserts for the lying sack of cr@p that the media has become.
ScubaDude
October 28, 2008 - 22:02 ET by TN MomCountry First!
COuntry first...
October 28, 2008 - 22:07 ET by semolina_filcher....wealth distribution never!
OH Yeah!!!!! And I hope
October 28, 2008 - 22:08 ET by Scuba DudeOH Yeah!!!!!
And I hope that we do not lose to many seats in Congress because I do not want those thief’s Franks and Dodd to be able to get away with anymore crimes with the help of the incompetents Pelosi and Reid.
Let me get this straight,
October 28, 2008 - 19:34 ET by ckc1227Let me get this straight, white voters won't tell pollsters they are voting for the white guy because they're afraid they will be perceived as racist, yet all these white folks are openly claiming that they won't vote for Obama because he's black?
Give me a break.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
Bkack Racism
October 28, 2008 - 20:02 ET by nadadhimmiBlack racism is never questioned, even though 95% of blacks will vote for their own race based on race and race alone. Race, race, race, yet blacks, will NEVER!!!! BE EXAMINED FOR RACISM BY THE MSM. Do you understand what it's like to live in America today?
Tired of it.
October 28, 2008 - 19:47 ET by attorneygirlI am sick and tired of liberals labeling anyone with a brain who does not want income redistribution as a "racist."
This is intellectually ridiculous.
How about the flip side of the coin?
October 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by mvfreemanHow many articles or stories have there been about some black people voting for O just because he's black?
In the MSM
October 28, 2008 - 20:10 ET by Josh SNI haven't seen one.
»→ You won't Josh
October 28, 2008 - 21:58 ET by Cool ArrowIt's a tribute to the Rasputin-like ability of Democrats to encapsulate an entire race into cocoon of incorrigibility.
There is an old chant with a new meaning around the Democrat plantation;
Failure to thrive, failure to leave the nest?
Jesse! Al! Meet the new Boss.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool...Dig this.
October 28, 2008 - 22:05 ET by TheSterhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwxJ46HWXbA
Yup.
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
For those about to
October 28, 2008 - 22:32 ET by TN MomFor those about to rock....We salute you!!
Ahh...Good Times!
From one fan to another...
October 28, 2008 - 23:11 ET by mvfreemanCheck out Black Ice.
I think it's waaaay better than Stiff Upper Lip.
Thanks Ster!
October 29, 2008 - 08:40 ET by SeashellHaven't heard that song in a while. I think I heard they have a new CD out?????
Yes.
October 29, 2008 - 10:43 ET by mvfreemanIt's called Black Ice.
Most of the new songs were on you tube but it looks like they got pulled because of copyright issues.
Found another link
October 29, 2008 - 12:32 ET by mvfreemanhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2sdBfld45g&feature=related
New AC/DC songs.
Because you have not been
October 28, 2008 - 22:05 ET by zfBecause you have not been looking. And you won't find it on the MSM. It took Howard Stern of all people to show that some blacks are voting for Obama just because of his skin color.
This guy is an idiot, He honestly must believe *not a single black person in America* is voting for Obama just because of his race. Amazing.
Come on...
October 28, 2008 - 22:35 ET by mvfreemanJosh said "not in the MSM". Which is what you just said.
How does that equate to a belief that "not a single black person in America* is voting for Obama just because of his race"?
He made no argument to counter my view that some blacks are voting for O because of race.
Poll data on Blacks voting...
October 29, 2008 - 08:15 ET by vrwc13Race
White
39%
51%
10%
Black/Hispanic
81%
8%
11%
Black/Hisp
Black
91%
-
9%
Hispanic
55%
29%
16%
this is lifted from http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=310068083524223
...but normally you will not find this data in their "shortened" info.
This came from a Drudge link yesterday that had the more "expanded" data. hmmm
v
Black vote (2) ....hmmm again...
October 29, 2008 - 09:54 ET by vrwc13On the lead comment of mine: voting is:
It appears the only data not listed on their "normal" posting is the info on race (white vs black/hispanic / black vs hispanic)
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=310068083524223
...now why do you think they would do that?
v
So what; vote your race
October 29, 2008 - 13:20 ET by MinutemenHere is Obama's position on race.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaRace.htm
Here are interviews with Harlem voters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU&eurl=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/13/howard-stern-exposes-why-so-many-people-support-obama
Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc., have every right to peacefully advance or defend their races in the privacy of the voting booth. So do whites. There are no PC voting criteria.
Obama, by his many associations, statements, and acts, really IS an enemy of the white race, including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. If you feel guilty in that realization, then you have been neutralized by the propaganda of neo-communists like Ayers and Rathke, and neo-columnists like Jonathan Alter.
Understand that Obama was indoctrinated in adolescence by the anti-white black racist communist Frank Davis, then he was mentored by the anti-white black racist Jeremiah Wright at his anti-white black racist church, then he became friends with anti-white black racist Muslims Louis Farakhan and Kenya's communist Raila Odinga. These are a few examples of Obama's anti-white black racist "roots." The last I checked, induction is still a method for finding truth. If it walks like a duck .... Read the above Obamafile, and you too will be convinced.
If the race of a nation's ruling class is overthrown, then that nation is overthrown, and the population is easily destroyed: Marxism 101. ACORN is, among other things, a black power, election fraud, neo-communist gang. Now go defend yourselves, and vote your race at the polls. It could be your last chance.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/276377.php
I have no choice but to
October 29, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Clear thinkerI have no choice but to agree with you.
Is Obama A Racist?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/