Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist 62
A few weeks ago, the liberal comedian Bill Maher and conservative strategist and pundit Bill Kristol had a brief spat on Maher's HBO show, putatively over what instigated the tea party but ultimately over the psychic wound that has divided red America and blue America in the Obama years. The rise of the tea party, explained Maher in a let's-get-real moment, closing his eyes for a second the way one does when saying something everybody knows but nobody wants to say, "was about a black president." Both Maher and Kristol carry themselves with a weary cynicism that allows them to jovially spar with ideological rivals, but all of a sudden they both grew earnest and angry. Kristol interjected, shouting, "That's bullshit! That is total bullshit!" After momentarily sputtering, Kristol recovered his calm, but his rare indignation remained, and there was no trace of the smirk he usually wears to distance himself slightly from his talking points. He almost pleaded to Maher, "Even you don't believe that!"
"I totally believe that," Maher responded, which is no doubt true, because every Obama supporter believes deep down, or sometimes right on the surface, that the furious opposition marshaled against the first black president is a reaction to his race. Likewise, every Obama opponent believes with equal fervor that this is not only false but a smear concocted willfully to silence them.
I can only plead my life, having served with Americans of all stripes: I'm not racist. I don't think you can find substantial actual racism much of anywhere (though somebody is always willing to carry a Confederate Battle Flag for a few bucks, I'm sure.)
No, the race card has just been a convenient foil, no more. A bin into which all legitimate criticism can be swept. In a way, one must confess it's been a handy device.
It's a crutch... (Score:1)
No hurricanes? ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING!!
Warm weather? ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING!!
Coldest winter in decades? ZOMG GLOBAL WARM--, ER, I MEAN, CLIMATE CHANGE!!
I'll admit it. I hate what these people stand for.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit it. I hate
Indeed, by injecting extra hate you do a great job of turning your parody up to (at least) 11.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh stop! You know damn well it's the gay agenda [imdb.com] that is responsible. They did 9/11, and they'll do it again...
Even the Brits say so [bbc.com]... I think they're onto^H^H something...
Re: (Score:2)
I was at, and performed in, one of the very first Tea Party events. I also performed at another shortly after the first. I attended a third shortly after. Black people were on the stage at each of the three (in particular, an elected representative, the wife of the organizer, and an MC). I guess they all hated black people.
Kristol is right: it's bullshit.
That's not to say there aren't some racist people who associate with the Tea Party. But then again, there's a bunch of liberal racists around here in
Re: (Score:2)
This whole thread pertains to damn_registrar's assertion that there is no evidence that the Left has claimed opposition to Obama is motivated by racism.
No one takes damn_registrars seriously. The left says this all the time, especially on MSNBC. Every week, probably. Maybe every day.
Re: (Score:2)
This whole thread pertains to damn_registrar's assertion that there is no evidence that the Left has claimed opposition to Obama is motivated by racism.
No one takes damn_registrars seriously. The left says this all the time, especially on MSNBC. Every week, probably. Maybe every day.
How very kind of you to mention me by name, Pudge.
Now, can you actually fulfill the challenge that smitty has so far failed at? Don't just tell me about "the left" doing this. Show me where an actual politician is actually responding to actual criticism of President Obama by calling the critic racist.
I don't claim that Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Nugent, or Miller represent "the right", and certainly I don't claim that they represent the GOP. Yet here smitty is claiming that various random people on T
Re: (Score:2)
... the challenge that smitty has so far failed at?
I know of no specific challenge. But yes, the left and Democrats cry racism all the time. Actual politicians.
Show me where an actual politician is actually responding to actual criticism of President Obama by calling the critic racist.
Well, most politicians are too smart to call specific things racist, because they know they can't back it up. Instead, they say that, collectively, the opposition to Obama is based on racism, bullshit like that (which Jimmy Carter infamously has done, multiple times). And the Democrats (led by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz) often call specific policies racist, including, but not limited to l
Re: (Score:2)
... the challenge that smitty has so far failed at?
I know of no specific challenge. But yes, the left and Democrats cry racism all the time. Actual politicians.
Which is why I am telling you about it now. I tell you of it to see if you can succeed where smitty has failed.
Show me where an actual politician is actually responding to actual criticism of President Obama by calling the critic racist.
I do know that anyone who claims the Democrats don't lie about racism all the damned time are full of shit.
You gave a whole bunch of sweeping generalizations, and not a single actual example. Can you show us a time when an elected democrat was responding to someone criticizing Obama by calling that person racist? You, like smitty, seem convinced that it happens a lot. If that is the case then it should be trivial for you to show examples of it happening. Instead so far all you have done is come i
Re: (Score:2)
... I am telling you about it now.
I do not believe anything you say, so the fact that you claim it is not evidence the "challenge" was ever made, or accepted.
You gave a whole bunch of sweeping generalizations, and not a single actual example.
I gave you a specific example of Jimmy Carter, though I didn't quote or cite it. But why would I? It doesn't meet your mythical "challenge," so as best I can tell, you don't care about it.
Can you show us a time when an elected democrat was responding to someone criticizing Obama by calling that person racist?
Yes. Jimmy Carter said Joe Wilson's "you lie!" was based on racism. [huffingtonpost.com]
But I do not accept your mythical "challenge." But, you can no longer claim no evidence has been presented.
(Prediction: you will
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show us a time when an elected democrat was responding to someone criticizing Obama by calling that person racist?
Yes. Jimmy Carter said Joe Wilson's "you lie!" was based on racism.
I'm sorry that you are struggling with reading comprehension today. Jimmy Carter was not an elected democrat when he said that.
you can no longer claim no evidence has been presented.
Being as you did not present evidence meeting the criteria, I most certainly can.
Prediction: you will dishonestly claim that no evidence has been presented.
Being as there was dishonesty only from your response, your prediction did not pan out.
You ... seem convinced that it happens a lot.
You're a liar. Quote me implying that.
How about in your previous comment in this same discussion [slashdot.org]:
Instead, they say that, collectively, the opposition to Obama is based on racism, bullshit like that (which Jimmy Carter infamously has done, multiple times). And the Democrats (led by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz) often call specific policies racist, including, but not limited to laws against abortion, promoting election integrity, promoting reductions in the welfare state, and so on (not to mention immigration).
...
anyone who claims the Democrats don't lie about racism all the damned time are full of shit.
You're not very good at this, pudge. Apparently you have amnesia towards your own words.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry that you are struggling with reading comprehension today. Jimmy Carter was not an elected democrat when he said that.
Um. Actually, yes, in fact, he was. He was a Democrat, and he was elected. He was no longer serving in office, but you didn't ask for that: you asked for someone who had been elected. President Obama is -- by the exact same standard -- not an elected Democrat. He was elected. He is not currently being elected. Same thing with Carter.
If you meant a Democrat currently serving in office, you should have said so. Instead, you're lying about what your words mean. As usual.
Re: (Score:2)
If you meant a Democrat currently serving in office, you should have said so. Instead, you're lying about what your words mean. As usual.
No, you are playing with words because you failed to read what I requested. It is understood that when you refer to someone as an elected official, you mean someone who is currently serving. No reasonable person would refer to George W Bush currently as an elected president, just as no reasonable person would refer to Jimmy Carter currently as an elected politician.
You failed to read the question, and provided a non-answer to it. You have not provided an example yet of an elected democrat responding t
Re: (Score:2)
you are playing with words
You're a liar. There is no sense in which Jimmy Carter is not an elected Democrat. You're just lying ... as usual.
It is understood that when you refer to someone as an elected official
You're a liar. You didn't. You said "elected Democrat." You're just lying ... as usual.
No reasonable person would refer to George W Bush currently as an elected president
And no one did. You're lying by implying "Democrat" is the same as "official" or "President."
just as no reasonable person would refer to Jimmy Carter currently as an elected politician
Um. Except that definitionally, he is. Stop lying.
You failed to read the question
You're a liar.
You have not provided an example yet of an elected democrat responding to someone criticizing President Obama by calling that person racist.
You're a liar. And I correctly predicted you would state this lie.
Of course, that's not much different than predicting that the Earth will spin a
Re: (Score:2)
And no, accusing me of lying, or lying about lying - or any other such nonsense - is not a sufficient answer to that question.
N
Re: (Score:2)
I showed where you were wrong
You're lying. And it's obvious you're lying. Jimmy Carter is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. Barack Obama is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. They are both elected Democrats in every possible sense of the words. You're wrong. And you know you're wrong; we know this because instead of pointing to the meanings of the words, you waffled and said "no reasonable person would" use the words that way. You didn't point to the actual common definitions of the words because you know they don't bac
Re: (Score:2)
I showed where you were wrong
You're lying. And it's obvious you're lying
Wrong. I am not lying. The fact that you had to distort the meaning of a word to the point where it no longer matches the commonly understood meaning proves that I am right and you are, as usual, trying to weasel out of having to admit to being wrong.
Jimmy Carter is a Democrat, and he was elected as one.
...and he currently holds no elected office. Only an idiot would currently refer to him as an "elected democrat".
Barack Obama is a Democrat, and he was elected as one.
They are both elected Democrats in every possible sense of the words.
No. They have both been - at different t
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you had to distort the meaning of a word ...
Wow. You think I distorted the meaning of "elected" by pointing out the fact that Carter was elected.
You're a completely pathetic liar.
(And no, I didn't read the rest of your comment. It's a shame you spent so much time on it and no one will read it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us again how Jimmy Carter wasn't elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Equally important, you just claimed "no one will read it" in regards to my comments here. If that is the case, then it would be equally likely that "no one will read" you comments either. Being as we both know that you are wrong, and that you are continuing to make yourself look more ridiculous with each passing comment as you keep digging yourself an increasingly deeper hole, why are you still replying?
You most certainly won't convince anyone else that you ar
Re: (Score:1)
...I didn't read the rest of your comment.
Ah see? You can ignore words. You almost had me there...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah see? You can ignore words. You almost had me there...
Of course I can ignore words. But some words matter, and some don't.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, to you! It's a personal thing, a choice, if you will... or even if you won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, to you! It's a personal thing, a choice, if you will... or even if you won't.
Shhh! He believes nobody else is reading these comments. He's going to have to call you a liar for reading, as he can never be wrong and therefore you must not be telling the truth about reading these comments!
That still doesn't help your case (Score:2)
In other words, you still haven't come up with even one single example of a politician responding to someone criticizing President Lawnchair's actions by calling that person racist.
When something ridiculous is said by Limbau
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confident that you're impervious to the facts of how race baiting has been used by the Democrats
Being as you have not presented any, it is hard to be impervious to them. While you have shown ample evidence of racist baiting, you have not shown a single example of race baiting used in the same way yet.
... although considering the complete absence of either that you've had for most of your conspiracy theories, I can't
Come on, smitty. The floor is yours. Show us the evidence that you keep saying you have. You wouldn't continuously lie to us about "facts" and "evidence" like this, would you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've given you plenty of evidence.
No, you have given exactly no evidence whatsoever. That is a link to a hyperpartisan website who is posting context free soundbites. They aren't posting enough to even know if the lines they have up have anything to do with what they claim them to be about. You might as well be linking to your own blog. None of what they have on there could be counted by any reasonable and thinking person to be evidence of anything other than that they are desperately trying to make people mad. They are accomplishing
Re: (Score:1)
No, you have given exactly no evidence whatsoever.
You do understand that the Argument Clinic sketch is more valid than your accusations?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have given exactly no evidence whatsoever.
Blah blah blah
Smitty, if I gave you a list from dailykos or huffingtonpost that claimed to demonstrate that the Koch Brothers were aspiring fascist leaders, would you accept it? What if I gave a list from either of them that used Bush quotes to claim him to be a member of the Illuminati?
No, of course not. You would reject those lists immediately. We both know that. Yet here you have given links to hyperpartisan sources presenting soundbites of mostly nonpolitical people and you are claiming that these lists are
Re: (Score:1)
Smitty, if I gave you a list from dailykos or huffingtonpost that claimed to demonstrate that the Koch Brothers were aspiring fascist leaders, would you accept it?
I don't know, are they? If it's true, unlike the self-soiling dreck of the Washington Post [powerlineblog.com], then why should I not heed it?
Believe it or not, you and fustakrakich have helped me be more skeptical of the GOP than I was.
Re: (Score:2)
Smitty, if I gave you a list from dailykos or huffingtonpost that claimed to demonstrate that the Koch Brothers were aspiring fascist leaders, would you accept it?
I don't know, are they?
Don't be silly. You have bashed many a web site - be it traditional news or otherwise - for being too liberal. If I gave you a link to dailykos or huffingtonpost you would not follow it.
Hell, you don't even read all the links that you give.
Believe it or not, you and fustakrakich have helped me be more skeptical of the GOP than I was.
Well, it would be nearly impossible to be less skeptical of the GOP than you have been as of late. Interesting that you are praising yourself for being somehow skeptical of your party when you absolutely refuse to even consider the possibility that I would be ske
Re: (Score:1)
If I gave you a link to dailykos or huffingtonpost you would not follow it.
Oh, a prophet now!
Well, it would be nearly impossible to be less skeptical of the GOP than you have been as of late.
And a peevish prophet, at that! Such a chipper manner, yours.
Re: (Score:2)
If I gave you a link to dailykos or huffingtonpost you would not follow it.
Oh, a prophet now!
Smitty, amongst many things that you have refused to read are both of the independent investigations into Benghazi. In fact, you not only refused to read them, but at times you have displayed a pride in having not read them. Had you read either of them you would know that they were both rather damning towards the president who you invest so much time and effort into your hatred of.
Being as one of those came from a traditional news source, and the other from the US Senate Intelligence Committee, what ho
Re: (Score:1)
The New York Times? The Democrat-controlled Senate's?
Puh-effing-leeze. Next you're going to tell me Elijah Cummings wasn't colluding with the IRS [washingtonexaminer.com].
Re: (Score:2)
What. Independent. Investigations?
The New York Times? The Democrat-controlled Senate's?
Puh-effing-leeze
You are only supporting my hypothesis that you will not read anything that you have already convinced yourself ahead of time that you do not agree with. Both of those investigations came back hard on the president. If you read either of them you would know that. Just because neither came back calling for his immediate removal sans trial as you want does not mean that either were kind. You have admitted more than once both to not reading either, and to not wanting to ever read either.
Being as you ar
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Another non-falsifiable claim (Score:1)
We live in the Age of Endless Accusation.
I guess if I thought you were sincerely pointing toward valid material, you might matter. However, you've debased you conversation capital over these months to lower yourself to the "dripping faucet" category.
Re: (Score:2)
"You haven't read enough of the material I think you should read"
This is more about the material that you open brag about not having read, in spite of the fact that it supports a lot of your interests.
Look at it this way, smitty. If I were demanding a new government investigation into 9/11, Iran-Contra, or Watergate, would you not want me to read the official reports on each beforehand? Why do you not hold yourself to the same standard? Why do you take such pride in your ignorance?
Wouldn't you prefer that the government do less redundant work? You are asking t
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you not hold yourself to the same standard?
I also don't have time to watch everything Andy Warhol ever filmed, which, at a guess, has the merit of anything the NYT ever printed. Meanwhile, Harry Reid is having ranches shot up in Nevada [infowars.com]*. I still have half the Qur'an and Mein Kampf to slog through, boss. Your point is not entirely without merit, but it's really a matter of time.
*I take Alex Jones about as seriously as the NYT.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you not hold yourself to the same standard?
I also don't have time to watch everything Andy Warhol ever filmed, which, at a guess, has the merit of anything the NYT ever printed.
With that statement you are doing more to prove my point than to disprove it. I had stated before that you would not read a link to a site like dailykos or huffingtonpost (while expecting me to read reason, powerline, and townhall). Here you just brushed aside one of the oldest names in journalism in our country because you perceive them to somehow be evil or inferior to your conservative blogs.
I stand by my point. You won't read sources you don't like. You hold the rest of the world to a much dif
Re: (Score:1)
You won't read sources you don't like.
It's more accurate to say that I don't spend a lot of time reading sources I find unreliable.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't read sources you don't like.
It's more accurate to say that I don't spend a lot of time reading sources I find unreliable.
Which is at best a subjective statement based on which sources you like versus which ones you do not. Even more so, it becomes a really convenient excuse for you to discard published information based solely on who published it.
But why would you read results from the house and not from the senate? What if the players in the house who you regard most highly were to lose their seats this election cycle and the second government investigation were to finish without them? What if some time in the future t
Re: (Score:1)
...you and fustakrakich have helped me be more skeptical of the GOP than I was.
I would like to believe that, but for the fact you pimp people like Ted Cruz and that bunch, it is very difficult. For credibility you need to abandon the entire system that enables them, not just specific personalities.
Re: (Score:1)
For credibility you need to abandon the entire system that enables them, not just specific personalities.
When and if they show moral turpitude.
Re: (Score:2)
He is a liberal for thee, but a libertarian for me. At least Limbaugh and those clowns seem to want the same rules for everyone (that they conveniently are most helped by).
Re: (Score:2)
He is a liberal for thee, but a libertarian for me.
I personally don't think of Maher as that much of a liberal, but I don't see President Obama as one either. However as the whole country has been on a lemming-like march to the hard right, Maher sits slightly left-of-center.
At least Limbaugh and those clowns seem to want the same rules for everyone (that they conveniently are most helped by).
I wouldn't really say they want the same rules for everyone. That would imply that things like criminal offenses for the same crime leading to the same punishment regardless of the socioeconomic class of the crime. It would also imply that all people pay similar taxes rather than a
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you still haven't come up with even one single example of a politician responding to someone criticizing President Lawnchair's actions by calling that person racist.
Thereâ(TM)s no doubt that thereâ(TM)s some folks who just really dislike me because they donâ(TM)t like the idea of a black president
Which is not the same as him responding to actually being criticized. You fail. No wonder you posted AC.
Re: (Score:1)
The particularly egregious E.J. Dionne: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-obama-riddle/2013/05/26/add4e0aa-c4c6-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Yet it’s undeniable that racism lurks beneath so many of the preposterously false charges against him
The codpiece media is the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party; whether your ignorance of this is feigned or genuine is a tangential, academic point.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another list: http://townhall.com/columnists... [townhall.com]
Townhall.com is one of the least reliable sources of news in existence. Much like your other list, this is a collection of context-free soundbites - most of which came from people who do not hold elected office. There is no way to know if any of the soundbites on that list are actually supporting your claim, and most reasonable to assume that none of them actually are.
In other words, we both know that you would not accept a list from dailykos or huffingtonpost. Why you insist that a list from townhall
next (Score:1)
Next I suppose you'll tell us how you are not waging a war on women.
It's sad that the Left can make the Right dance, joining in talking about whatever inanities the Left pushes hard enough. Have fun doing the intellectual limbo.