Gimme Shelter
Posted February 22nd, 2008 by Da King
Maybe it was all those Obama-Clinton-Edwards-Kucinich-whatstheirnames Democratic debates. Maybe it was listening to our messiah Obama at Youngstown State University the other day. Maybe it was Michelle Obama, a Harvard and Yale graduate who has benefited so greatly from what this country has to offer, saying that Barack's success provided her with the first occasion in her adult lifetime to be proud of her country. Maybe it was reading the National Enquirer New York Times for so many years.
Or maybe I just got a bad burrito from Taco Bell last night.
Whatever it was, I've had an epiphany. I've had a breakdown breakthrough.
I've listened to so many liberals progressives for so long that they've finally convinced me - america is a very, very bad place, run by a very, very bad man, George W. Bush. This man Bush is responsible for all the evil in america, and about 90% of the evil in the whole world. I'm not kidding. The wise woman Hillary kept saying so during last night's Democratic debate, and she seems very honest and concerned, so she must be telling the truth. It also seems that america was a very GOOD place before this evil Bush fellow took over, a regular garden of Eden, but alas, that's all over now. Bush has taken health care away from the people, for example (although the wise woman was trying to fix health care back in 1992-93, so I don't know how that could really be accura…oops, there I go, questioning the wise woman again. My deepest apologies. I'm new at being an unquestioning liberal progressive).
The best we can hope for is that the messiah or the wise woman will lead us out of the darkness, away from this evil place where we have to work for our food, shelter, clothing, and other needs - where we work like slaves, usually 40 hours per week, and then other people make more money than we do. It is so wrong, isn't it ? The hell with those other people. The messiah and the wise woman are going to bring us together as a country, and unite us against those other people.
They call this evil, degrading thing Capitalism. I spit on thee, Capitalism, just like Hugo Chavez, the messiah, and the wise woman do. Ditto for that whole Freedom concept. Who needs it ? It's just a word used to distract the morons. We are 'free' to do this, 'free' to do that. Good riddance. Gimme shelter instead (free, of course). Like Janis Joplin said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". She was another wise woman, that Miss Joplin, at least until she overdosed on heroin and died so young. Did Capitalism help her ? Did freedom help her ? Heck no. See what I'm saying ? No justice, no peace.
The way out of this massive injustice where some people have more money than others is to take the money away from those who have it, and give the money to those who don't, you know, like Jesus would do, like Robin Hood did, like Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution did, and like the Russian Revolution did. That's the only fair way. We can't have people running around making more money than others, prospering, accomplishing things, starting businesses, getting good grades in school, etc, when others can't. That is unfair. I mean, how are we ever going to build a strong and prosperous society that way ? Duh-uh. You can count on the messiah and the wise woman to do their best to make everything even and fair, and they will accomplish it by gaining control of our government and making our government good once more, instead of evil like it is now. That is such a wonderful plan, because everyone knows that if government takes power over everything, and the messiah or the wise woman are in control, they would use that total government power for the welfare of the peons people. Well, at least they would for four years, until the next election. Then we'd get someone else running the government with total power. Hmmm. What if that next person weren't so good ? Ah, no matter, what could possibly go wrong there ? I'm probably just being paranoid. Like I said, I'm not used to being braindead liberal progressive.
We're going to need a word to describe this new type of government, the one with total power to do good. Let's see…How about 'TOTAL-ITARIANISM' ? Yeah, cool. Sounds good. Let's go with it.
Under Total-itarianism, it will be so great when I no longer have to worry about food, shelter, clothing, health care, credit cards, mortgages, high gas prices, and stuff. Man, I can hardly wait. In fact, since all my needs will be taken care of, I'll just retire and live the good life. Forget all that work stuff. Who needs that ? It would interfere with my new lifestyle. I'm definitely voting for the messiah or the wise woman.
Only when such happy days arrive will we finally fulfill the words of the U.S. Constitution, which says, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
I don't know about that ability stuff, but boy, I sure have lots of needs. Like, I need to go to Las Vegas at least twice per year, and I need a good stereo system, a wide-screen digital tv, and maybe one of those sleep-number beds……
This is definitely going to rock ! Vote for Obama. Or Hillary. It really doesn't matter. I don't know why they even bothered to have that so-called debate. They agree about everything, like good panderers liberals progressives do. Let's just appoint one Czar and let the good times roll.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Thanks for all the lib - uh progressive definitions, King. I think that maybe that word you used, total-itarianism is what I have been searching for when I talk about Obama talking about what I will do and not mentioning the fact that under our system he has to get Congress to do. When I watch all those young women swoon while he promises and promises I get more and more sure that they really think HE can do those things by himself. Is there some possiblility that either the messiah or the wise woman would want to "rule" as a total-itarian and that they think they can swing that by force of numbers of young women swooning and fainting? I do wonder about that.
You used that word that Dems don't like to see, pander in this one and it is so obvious that I'llbombya is doing that so well because his handlers have seen the effect his pandering is having on the people he panders to.
I just thought I would throw in the fact that CNN reported yesterday on their latest poll in Texas and that it showed McCain the winner against either of the "wise" people of the left. Only by 6 points over Obama but then Bush didn't have that big a number over Carry in 2004 but he still won. I only heard CNN mention that poll one time yesterday. I wonder if some editor didn't manage to write that report out of the later idiot cards for his talking heads. Oh no, they wouldn't do that any more than the al Times would use such great timing for the McCain report, would they?
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
What don't you be honest about what Michelle Obama really said?
"For the first time I'm proud" has a MUCH different meaning than, "For the first time I'm really proud."
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The wife of Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama sought Wednesday to clarify her comment that for the first time she's really proud of her country.
On Monday, Michelle Obama told an audience in Milwaukee that "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change." Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential contender John McCain, later sought to capitalize on the remark, saying "I have, and always will be, proud of my country."
Asked by WJAR-TV if she would like to clarify her comment, Obama replied that she has been struck by the number of people going to rallies and watching debates, as well as record voter turnouts.
"What I was clearly talking about was that I'm proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process," she said.
"For the first time in my lifetime, I'm seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven't seen and really trying to figure this out — and that's the source of pride that I was talking about," she added.
When asked if she had always been proud of her country, she replied "absolutely" and said she and her husband would not be where they are now if not for the opportunities of America.
Obama himself gave a similar explanation during an interview Tuesday with WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas. Expressing frustration that his wife's remarks had been taken out of context and turned into political fodder, the Illinois senator said, "What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America, because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."
Michelle Obama was campaigning in Rhode Island two weeks before the state's March 4 primary. She planned a rally later with her brother, Craig Robinson, the coach of the Brown University men's basketball team.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Roy,
Don't you worry about that McCain guy. The NY Times and Moveon.argh will take care of that un-libera..er, non-progressive. The Cultural Revolution draws near.
Jimmy,
I did tell the truth about what Mrs. Obama said. I just went with the original version, as opposed to the amended one. No biggie. I'm good with either version. What's important is -
Kill the rich !!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Taking the country economically back to the 90's is somehow embracing totalitarianism?
I like to rant on occasion too. Straw man construction, however, just isn't convincing.
George W. Bush is a bad man. Just the way it worked out.
However, returning the tax code back to what it was in 2000, does not make a totalitarian society. That's a bit silly.
Not one candidate speaks about wanting government to control all things, as you wrote here.
If you see health care for all and obscenely wealthy people having to pay a little more as a totalitarian government running everything…..then I'd have my eyes examined.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Along with my "free" health care, I'd like of refund for my (2) hours invested viewing that garbage last evening. If they would have attacked each other, I could have coaxed myself into seeing some value in that gathering.
By doling out the same nonsense, they managed to secure the same drone-like enthuisiasm from the zombie population. Again, another debate where G. Bush seems to be the most popular subject and it seems to me that one should highlight their own capabilities rather than focus on a lame-duck President. In addition, we are constantly reminded on the high levels of participation in these primaries…… as if we are to be impressed? If 10% of these individuals could name their congressional representative, a state senator, or even one of their favorite candidate's policies, that would be worth noticing. There is a new breed of ignorance that has been unleashed and it's quite entertaining, from an outside perspective. Instead of educating oneself, we have the hopeless seeking hope and others praising change of no specific origin. Captain Crunch could lure this crowd by simply promising a pirate ship ride.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I've been feeling bad for the Reverend.
When he took the religious blinders off and walked away from a life of the cloth, he seemed to become embittered toward all things Christian.
What's going to happen when he sees he's been deluded again, this time even worse, by the Manchurian Messiah? I'm afraid it's going to get real ugly.
Just try to keep those feet on the ground and you'll be all right, Rev.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
So, Mrs. Omama says,
"For the first time in my lifetime, I'm seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven't seen and really trying to figure this out — and that's the source of pride that I was talking about."
Well, Honey, people have been rolling up their sleeves to work in this country since the day it was founded. They've done this to work for a living as well as to work for candidates. That you haven't seen it until you've reached 40-years old indicates you have had, shall we say, a sheltered life to date.
+++
"Jimmy, I did tell the truth about what Mrs. Obama said. I just went with the original version, as opposed to the amended one."
Nice, King, nice. The original version of what Mrs. Obama said did not have the qualifier of "real" in it. I know; I heard it replayed on the radio.
Mrs. Obama is like Obama, a typical lefty who seems to have a knee jerk tendency to blame America-first. It's part of their belief system: America is bad because America isn't perfect … but Castro and the commies are good because they're at least on the road to Utopia. (I know it sounds crazy, but it makes sense to to them. Go figure.)
Say, what do you think would happen if the following questions were asked during the Democratic debate: "Would either of you candidates object to taking the Pledge of Alligence?" And, "Do you know the words to the Pledge?"
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:52 am
"Not one candidate speaks about wanting government to control all things, as you wrote here".
Someone hasn't been paying attention, Rev. Name one area of society that liberals like Obama and Clinton DON'T want to be involved in.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 am
Alexander,
Hillary in particular drives me crazy with her 'failed policies of George Bush' proclamation in every other sentence. Yesterday, she was in Youngstown talking about how NAFTA was so bad for the people in Ohio and how she was going to change it (in some unspecified way, of course). Somehow, she left out the part about her husband being the one who started NAFTA, and how she has always voted for it. I think you must be right about how easily fooled the people are, because the people at her Youngstown rally cheered her when she said this, when they really should have booed her off the stage for her hypocrisy.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Vince,
I imagine Obama and Hillary would both take the Pledge of Allegiance on national tv at a debate, if for no other reason than they are political animals, totally image conscious. A refusal would kill their candidacy in the general election, even if it might enhance their standing with moveon.argh types.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
"I imagine Obama and Hillary would both take the Pledge of Allegiance on national tv at a debate."
Comrade Hillary might take the Pledge of Allegiance for the sake of the general election, but don't bet on B. Hussein Obama doing it.
After all, he has refused to wear an American flag lapel pin since last fall, class act that he is.
But since the debates are run by libs, no such question of the pledge will be forthcoming… unfortunately.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
I think the Pledge would be an easy thing for them to do on CNN. They would surely be supplied with the normal CNN idiot cards to make sure they didn't fail the test. CNN can't do anything without idiot cards for the speakers on their programs and the "debates" are surely CNN staged programs.
As for all the talk about what the Obama woman said, there is no way for them to clean up that act. Words said before the fact just can't be changed unless fools are listening and it seems that Obama has the ears of millions of fools these days.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Alex says….
"it seems to me that one should highlight their own capabilities rather than focus on a lame-duck President. In addition, we are constantly reminded on the high levels of participation in these primaries…… as if we are to be impressed?"
Bitterness will run deep for folks like Alex here. Bush was the Great and Glorious Dear Leader…..for a time…..wasn't he Alex? But sadly….there was no there….there…..and now GOP cheerleaders have to deal with the fallout.
It's sad.
And yes, Alex…..the number of Democratic primary voters should impress neo-cons and regular conservatives alike. A 2-1 turnout advantage over unexcited and unenthused GOP primary voters….spells a generation of doom for the Republican Party.
So yeah….many reality based folks are impressed.
Now there are all those very engaged, very intelligent conservatives, you know, who can name their representatives, etc…..and who also believed in all the lies of this, the most corrupt executive branch in American history.
The "new breed of ignorance" you mention….would that include the wingnut acceptance of "faith based" versions of stories? Versions that have no basis in fact? You know, the Plame case, the Iraq run-up, the rejection of science, Schiavo,…..stuff like that. Does basic ignorance of those stories by conservatives also reflect this "new breed of ignorance"?
February 24th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Rev,
Apparently you didn't notice the irony of your own response to Alex. He said the candidates should be talking about their own capabilities rather than bashing Bush, and you chimed in right off the bat by….drumroll, please….bashing Bush. I swear, if nothing else, at least you give me a laugh nearly every day. FYI - Bush isn't running in the election.
"A 2-1 turnout advantage over unexcited and unenthused GOP primary voters….spells a generation of doom for the Republican Party".
A "generation of doom" ? Not too hyperbolic and presumptive, are we ? See what I mean ? A laugh every day. Sometimes more than one.
But wait, there's yet more hilarity from the Rev.
"The "new breed of ignorance" you mention….would that include the wingnut acceptance of "faith based" versions of stories?"
So, the only people who are "faith-based" are conservatives, Rev ? Again, hilariously and spectacularly incorrect. Your statements are obviously false, not that truth means anything in a Rev rant. You are in rare comedic form with this post.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Firstoff…it's disingenuous to say Obama or Hillary haven't spoken extensively about their records while campaigning.
They have.
Every reality based, fact based analysis of the electoral situation points to a Democratic avalanche in November. I know it's hard to accept and Alex would never accept those facts…..but "generation of doom" for conservatives….is, indeed, what the GOP is facing. No exaggeration.
When I used "faith based" in my comment, it was for the purpose of pointing out the fact that Bush neo-cons and what I call "we believe what you say, even though there's no empirical reason to believe", conservatives, trust their Leaders unquestioningly. So much so, that they repeat completely fictitious versions of reality. Plame, Iraq, Iran, Katrina, torture, spying on Americans, and many, many other examples can be cited.
While Alex is condescendingly pointing his finger at "ignorant" voters……he expresses, himself, the important "ignorance" of those who have supported the worst presidency in American history.
He's just bitter about losing this November.
Many more conservatives will follow his lead.
I'm always happy to make people laugh….but then "he who laughs last"….and all that.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Vince, first constant reminders as to what Obama's middle name was; now calling his wife OMAMA. Are you from South Carolina? Isn't it about time you get a new confederate flag sticker for the gun rack on your pickup truck?
Seriously, though…..OMAMA? That's weak, even from you. Better go ask the grand poobah of the triple K for some better slurs. That one ain't so good.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Mr. Truth,
Save your time sparring with Mr. Ghost. This is what passes for clever out there in right wing world. It's also why there are no funny right wing comics.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:30 am
da truth, I guess you missed Obama's sister calling herself an Obama mama the other day in Hawaii. It sounded so cute but I was sure that someone would soon pick up on it and call someone in his campaign, Omama or Obama mama. It took quite a time but it sure did happen, didn't it.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Reverend,
I can't speak for Alex's political preference, but I didn't automatically assume he was some neocon just because he accurately pointed out the sad state of the last Dem debate. I thought that debate was a complete waste of time also. No matter what question was asked, the candidates just spun their answers into the same old talking points. Yes Barack, we get it already, your good judgement was against the war from the beginning. Yes Hillary, we get it already, you'll be ready to lead on day one. We've gone from the Lincoln vs Douglas debates to the battle of the poll tested tv sound bytes. The only reason I can think of to watch tuesday's debate is to see how desperate Hillary gets and what new line her handlers give her to try to score a point in a pseudo debate against someone with whom she is a political twin.
I do agree with you about a Democratic landslide victory in november. Things could change, but this is looking like a big year for the Dems, and the Republicans deserve to lose. You'll get no argument from me on that. I won't say the Dems deserve to win, that's a different thing, but the Repubs deserve to lose, for sure. They had their chance and they blew it. I'm for change as much as anyone, it's just that I pay attention to what we are going to change things into before I sign up, and changing things by wildly raising taxes and spending is NOT what should be done by any responsible politician at this time, not that Obama looks to be responsible in the least. He's promising boatloads of new spending and then tax cuts at the same time. That sounds a lot like what Dubya did wrong to me, and a lot like what Congress has been doing wrong since Dubya took over. That is not 'change you can believe in'. That is 'more of the same' and 'big brother taking over even more'. No thanks.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:26 am
"Vince, first constant reminders as to what Obama's middle name was"
Was?
Sorry, Chief, but Obama's middle name still IS Hussein, which attests to his Islamic heritiage.
With that, you've earned the right to sing your little song again, Da_Truth….. "IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN …"
And not that it matters, but no, I'm not from South Carolina, which is one of our great states. Only a pretentious bigot could be down on S.C. But that's not you, is it Da_Truth?
+++
Roy points out:
"da truth, I guess you missed Obama's sister calling herself an Obama mama the other day in Hawaii."
Roy, there's little that Da_Truth does not miss. The boy has got on ideological blinders, and he only see a Dim's point of view.
+++
"Better go ask the grand poobah of the triple K"
Who would that be, Robert (KKK) Byrd, the Dim from West Virginia???
Those in the KKK were Dims. Yes they were.
There was even a Dim who was president of the Unitede States served time in the KKK. Can you tell us which one? Or better yet, which Dim on the U.S. Supreme Court was a KKKer? Come on, Da_Truth, you supposedly went to law school. These questions are no-brainers. Oops. Sorry Da_Truth. Didn't mean to embarrass you. Forget the questions.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
One sad aspect I've noticed in the democrat race:
When Hillary acts out the old stereotypes, she gets praise from the 'liberal' media: crying in New Hampshire, the 'conciliatory' words at the end of the debate, etc. She took it too far with the hand-on-hip scolding of Obama, but it's obvious the campaign is testing to see which stereotypical feminine behaviors work best.
Then of course there's the kid glove treatment of Obama. I saw about an hour's worth of media types falling all over themselves to show that Obama's plagiarism is brilliant on the Sunday morning shows. I guess the Dems and MSM don't want those African Americans looting in the streets so they're afraid to actually discuss anything the man does or says.
The poor Dems still have a long way to go.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Vince, again, you hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Yes, Vince, there were/are dims in the triple K. There, are you happy that you have proven a fact that everyone already knows? And, since you are so eager to point out my use of "was" instead of "is", let me clarify something for you. Show me where I said anyone from SC was a racist or a bigot? I merely asked if you were from there. You know you don't have to be from the South to be a racist, right Vince? There's plenty right here who will respond to this post by calling me names and telling me how dumb I am, right Vince?
While you go back and watch Wizard of Oz again (what is your fascination with that movie? the fact that there are no blacks in it must really appeal to you), keep spewing that hate…..just pushing more and more people to vote for one of the 3 democrats running for president.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am
larry,
The Democratic debates are so inundated with political correctness that the two candidates are barely able to criticize each other. The ground rules are such that almost any critique Hillary has against Obama is automatically out of bounds and she gets booed, no matter how much truth there is to it. Hillary should be saying "Obama has no experience, no record of accomplishment in the Senate, where he's been for about 10 minutes. He has never been in any position of leadership in his life, and you morons are about to make him the leader of the free world just because he learned how to make a speech that contains the words 'hope', 'change', and 'unity'. Give me a break already. His foreign policy is simplistic and naive beyond belief, and all he does is promise people the moon, as if we are living in Neverland".
I imagine that would get her booed off the stage, but that's what she should be saying about her opponent, because it's all true.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Good point, King. It might take that for her to turn her campaign around. She might pull some undecided indies if she said that.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Larry D,
Here is another "sad aspect of the the democrat race" from americanthinker.com. IMHO, it's well worth reading.
February 25, 2008
What happened to Hillary's multiculturalism?
By: Vasko Kohlmayer
In their desperate attempt to derail the Obama juggernaut, the Clinton campaign has circulated a picture of Barrack Obama dressed as an African village elder.
One just wonders what happened to all their multiculturalism. As bona fide liberals, the Hillary people should be celebrating this photo with all the cultural diversity implied therein.
It could not be more paradoxical that the Clintons are trying to sink the historic candidacy of a black man with a picture that shows him going back to his African roots.
Assuming that the photo will turn voters off, the Clintons have insulted not only Obama but also the whole African culture for which the garb he wears stands. This is especially hypocritical of these liberals who so often talk of Africa as a repository of special wisdom.
Now we know what how they really look at it: They think that Obama dressed as an African will somehow demean him in the eyes of Democrat voters. Could anything more cynical come from these shameless purveyors of multiculturalism?
The Clintons owe an apology not only to Obama but also to all people of African descent.
++++
Ah, those Clintons, here they are caught playing the race card yet again against the Dim's most loyal voters, the blacks.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I just saw that picture and got a good laugh, Ghost. Pretty shameless.
But what I'm wondering is whether anyone will listen to Nader when he reveals that Obama's pretty much like the rest of the politicians. Probably not.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
The reason Hillary can't say this tomorrow night….
"Obama has no experience, no record of accomplishment in the Senate, where he's been for about 10 minutes. He has never been in any position of leadership in his life, and you morons are about to make him the leader of the free world just because he learned how to make a speech that contains the words 'hope', 'change', and 'unity'. Give me a break already. His foreign policy is simplistic and naive beyond belief, and all he does is promise people the moon, as if we are living in Neverland".
…is because it isn't true. Nothing in any of your sentences is true. So, even Hillary is smarter than you are here King.
In addition, today's Republican Party appears racist today, not 50 years ago, not last century….today. Americans know that. The glaring evidence, the indisputable evidence is found in the fact that TODAY, in 2008, not one black represents the Republican Party in Congress, not one.
I still have not read or heard an answer to why that is. I wonder if Father Ronald knew?
Finally, the extremist right in America is going to be humiliated this election season. And they will humiliate themselves. Because of what the extremist right stands for, their most vocal members, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Ingraham, Kristol, Limbaugh, Hewitt, Beck, Savage, etc….won't be able to avoid using junior high allusions to race against Obama. As they proceed through the summer and intensify their intolerant College Republican tomfoolery in the fall, Americans will witness the vile nature of these extremists and be offended by it.
We witnessed just a bit of that when the Clinton's went all Jesse Jackson and MLK around the South Carolina primary. It backfired.
So if the extremist right had any credibility…..ever. They'll lose that too this year. That's the good news. And I'm sure Ghost would agree.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Rev,
What kind of a rebuttal was that ?
First, you rebutted my 'what Hillary should say' with 'it isn't true'. That was your entire alleged rebuttal, and then you were off changing the subject and calling Republicans racist for no reason whatsoever.
Would it be too much to ask for you to explain WHY Republicans are supposedly racists, or is this just one more example of 'it's true because I say it's true' from you ? That was really lame, man. The only bigotry it exposed was your own. Calling people racists just because you disagree with their politics is really cheap and disgusting.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
King,
Consider this contrast of the parties on the race issue — racism which cuts both ways, black and white.
When David Duke of the KKK tried to run as a Republican in, I think it was, Louisiana, the GOP formally repudicated him and kicked him out of the party.
Now the look at today's Dim party. They embrace and respect Robert (KKK) Byrd (D-WVa) as their senior statesman in the U.S. Senate, even when this former-KKKer just a few short years ago used the dreaded "N-word" in an interview. And what did the Dims and their stooges in the media do about it? Nothing, but try to bury the story.
Now for the other side of racism in the Dim party, look at the last presidential election cycle when the black racist, the "Rev." Al Sharpton, was a candidate for the party's nomination. What did the other candidates do? Did they ostracize Sharpton as they should have? No, the Dims embraced him as an acceptable candidate.
Sharpton's presence in the Dim 2004 presidential debates would be as if David Duke was in the GOP presidential debates.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:06 am
You make a good point Vince. There are racists of all stripes, but the difference is, when they pop up in the GOP they are booted. When they pop up in the Donkey party they are tolerated. This also holds true when it comes to corruption and criminal behavior. The Dems tolerate it, and the GOP doesn't. The proof is Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, William Jefferson, Gerry Studds, Alcee Hastings, Harry Reid, John Murtha, etc, etc, etc. It almost seems like the most corrupt Dems are the ones who get promoted.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Right, King, and a big factor for this double standard is that the mainstream media is in the tank for the Dims and 1) will cover up for Dims and 2) do the Dims' dirty work for them.
The mainstream media is composed of Dims.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
So, in your comments above, there's an answer somewhere to be found to my question of why there are no blacks currently representing the Party of Lincoln?
Because I didn't see it anywhere.
A double standard discussion…..would, like, be an entirely different discussion, I mean, wouldn't it? Or is that the point?
I was looking for the answer to my, I think, important question.
No blacks are representing the GOP in Congress. None. Why is that? The Democrats have a number of blacks representing them in Congress…..and a black is going to be in the White House come January 2009…..but blacks representing the Republican Party in Congress,…..you know, where the American people are actually, like, supposed to be represented…..I can't find any.
Is that just happenstance, ya' think?
Or is Ghost's response the real answer? Robert Byrd and Al Sharpton are the reason there are no blacks representing the Republican Party in Congress? Is that it? Or are there no blacks representing the GOP in Congress because the Democrats are tolerant? Seems like kind of an odd way to answer that question.
Oh well.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Rev,
We all know that 90% of blacks vote for Democrats, almost without fail. That's WHY it's referred to as the 'Dem plantation', and when blacks take a step off that plantation, they are decried by other blacks as uncle Toms, as Condi Rice, Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, and many others have been. We also know that Democrats pander directly to blacks and Republicans don't. The Democrat strategy has been to divide the country up into groups, pitting one against the other, and have been very successful in portraying Republicans to the black community as uncaring racists who are only looking out for white people, even though that's the biggest pile of manure the Democratic party has ever crapped out (well, maybe second, after the Social Security swindle). I could well turn your question back on you and ask why there isn't any independence of political thought being exhibited in the black community ? We've all seen how destructive the Democrat-created welfare state was to the black community. Why do you continue to defend it ? We've all witnessed the destruction of the black family under liberal policies. Why do you continue to stand for them ?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:58 am
"We've all witnessed the destruction of the black family under liberal policies. Why do you continue to stand for them ?"
Answer: Because it gets the Dims nearly 90% of the black vote.
That's what it means for the blacks to be chained to the government Plantation of Dependency — "chained" not literally but psychologically, economically & emotionally.
The deal is you blacks vote for us Dims and we Dims will give you welfate, affirmative action, government jobs.
We Dims also give you blacks things like the failed public schools for your children and keep you in a perpetual sense of victimhood. We can fabricate the idea that all that is the fault of the racist, white middle class society. I mean come on. Why do you think we Dims have the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson around for? It's so that you blacks keep believe that that lie.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Notice how King and the Ghost answer my question of why there aren't ANY blacks currently representing the GOP in Congress.
Paraphrasing: Blacks are too stupid to realize that all the Democratic party is doing, by championing the causes of the weak, the vulnerable and minorities, is actually enslaving them into some cul-de-sac cosmos of victimhood and dependency. Blacks are not sophisticated enough to know or understand what the new Democratic slavemasters are really up to.
Or….Blacks are freeloaders by nature, you know, lazy bums, who are only looking for a handout and, naturally, Democratic plantation owners are more than willing to offer those handouts in exchange for their "cotton picking" vote.
So King, is it your belief that the reason the GOP is not represented in Congress by any blacks is there aren't any blacks intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying?
King…."why there isn't any independence of political thought being exhibited in the black community ? We've all seen how destructive the Democrat-created welfare state was to the black community. Why do you continue to defend it ? We've all witnessed the destruction of the black family under liberal policies. Why do you continue to stand for them ?"
If King is correct, then blacks are so utterly stupid , or craven, that they would vote for their own race's destruction just to get some food stamps. Blacks can't or won't think "independently" because they're caught up in some gravy train, like Ronald McDonald's non-existent, Cadillac driving welfare queen, huh?
In addition, while I fully recognize the problem of the absence of black fathers in their children's lives, how is it that Democrats caused that exactly? By helping out with dependent children? Was that, somehow, an incentive for black fathers to leave their family?
Ghost: "We Dims also give you blacks things like the failed public schools for your children and keep you in a perpetual sense of victimhood. We can fabricate the idea that all that is the fault of the racist, white middle class society."
Ghost is a reality denier, mostly. Oh well. Think about what happened after the civil rights legislation of the 60's. Ever hear of "white flight". Whites fled to the suburbs for a reason.
Tax bases reflected that flight, producing disparity of resources for inner city schools. Plug into that formula white resistance to affirmative action intended to lift the black minority out of poverty and we wind up with failing inner city schools. Yes, the absence of black fathers and the drug culture didn't help.
But the idea that the Democrats purposely hold blacks down with poor schools to perpetuate a sense of victimhood could only come from the thought processes of an all white, as in white sheet, Ghost.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:33 am
Rev,
What a big pile of evasive racist crap you just posted.
Calling people racists to avoid a substantive discussion is shameful.
First of all, do you deny that the Democrats are almost wholly responsible for the creation of the welfare state, which has had a terrible effect on the black community ? Do you deny that nearly every inner city in the country has been run by Democrats for decades and decades ? Do you deny that the welfare state destroyed the black family and resulted in record numbers of illegitimate births ? All you gotta do Rev, is look at the statistics from pre- and post-welfare state to figure these things out. It ain't complicated.
And I cannot believe that you blamed 'white flight' for the lousy inner city schools. Maybe I should take a page from your racist book and say 'oh, so you think blacks are so stupid that they can't run a school system without white people ?' That was just dumb.
Oh, and all that stuff you were supposedly 'paraphrasing' me about didn't come from me at all, it came from your own mind. I would never call anyone 'stupid' or 'lazy' for accepting a handout from the government. If the government was offering me something for nothing, I'd take it too. I don't know of many people who wouldn't take it. That doesn't mean it's be the right policy for the government to engage in. That doesn't mean the effect on society isn't negative. I was only pointing out the results of Democratic policies on the black community. You didn't refute any of it. Like I always say, the Dems are continually doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. They hurt those the most who they are intending to help.
But don't worry, the entire country is slowly adopting the Dem credo of 'ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you'. Pandering works everywhere, not just in the black community. The Obama skyrocket is proof positive. McCain telling a hard truth doesn't stand much of a chance against the Dreamweaver, the guy who's going to give us everything for free and bring world peace and harmony for all god's children (and all in his first term too !). By Obama's second term, after poverty, war, strife, disease, and restless leg syndrome have been wiped off the face of the earth, maybe we can go colonize other solar systems and spread the Obamania. O happy day !
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
"But don't worry, the entire country is slowly adopting the Dem credo of 'ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you'. Pandering works everywhere, not just in the black community. "
Yes, the Dim plan is to make the middle class as dependent on the government as they have made the blacks.
The problem, however, is that dependency on government leads to dysfunctionality. Make enough people dependent on big government, and you will have effectivelly killed the goose that lays the golden eggs — the golden eggs which premited the initial generous dependency to exist in the the first place.
If you listen to Dims like Algore, Comrade Hillarty, and B. Hussein Obama closely, you'll hear the partonizing tone they take towards voters. The message is, "We, the Dims, are the parents and you, the voters, are the children. We Dims know what is best for you, so shut up and be happy."
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Yes, Vince, dependent people make very good and loyal Democrats. It's like giving an addict his drugs. It's about expanding the base. I was listening to Diane Feinstein on tv this morning campaigning for Hillary and she said (and I paraphrase), "Hillary has done a very good job of conditioning the minds of the american people toward Democratic policies". How do you like that ? "Conditioning the minds of the american people". These people know exactly what they are doing. They even believe they are doing the right thing, but where they will lead I don't want to follow. They will tear it all down brick by brick and replace it with their house of cards utopia that will collapse under it's own weight. They say great empires only last about 200 years and then they crumble from within. I'm starting to think we've had our run and the leftists are the implements of our destruction.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
"Conditioning the minds of the American people"
These people are shameless.
And you're right King. The Dims and leftists know exactly what they're doing. The socialist governments that took their people on a march to Utopia ended up literally murdering tens of millions of them.