Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist 62

Journal by smitty_one_each
Emphasis mine:

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist

Comments Filter:
  • that everything can be blamed on. Like Global Warming. Too many hurricanes? ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING!!
    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.
    • 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.

    • 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...

    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      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

  • Let's review
    • Maher is an entertainer, not a politician
    • Maher was not talking about any particular policy but rather about a movement that was created from within the republican party
    • Maher was not using the race card in response to anything that any actual politician was proposing doing

    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

    • I'm confident that you're impervious to the facts of how race baiting has been used by the Democrats. Stay beautiful.
      • 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.

        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?

        ... although considering the complete absence of either that you've had for most of your conspiracy theories, I can't

        • I've given you plenty of evidence [reason.com]. I'll chalk it up to your being obtuse, or maybe un-sober; accusations of lying are really getting tiresome, as is trying to dislodge your head to see the Alinskyian game that's been going on for six years. It's as conspiratorial as the sunrise.
          • 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

            • No, you have given exactly no evidence whatsoever.

              You do understand that the Argument Clinic sketch is more valid than your accusations?

              • 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

                • 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.

                  • 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

                    • 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.

                    • 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

                    • What. Independent. Investigations?
                      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].
                    • 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

                    • You're right. I should waste the time to see what they have to say. Real Soon Now. I don't dispute your point that I should wade through the deceptions, in the name of "science".
                    • With that attitude, I don't expect you to read any further into the reports before the heat death of the universe than what you already have. But if you want to remain intentionally ignorant of their contents, there is nothing I can do about it. I will, however, continue to make note of it whenever you claim to have interest in any non-conservative media.
                    • "You haven't read enough of the material I think you should read"
                      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.
                    • "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

                    • 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.

                    • 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

                    • 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.

                    • 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

                  • ...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.

                    • For credibility you need to abandon the entire system that enables them, not just specific personalities.

                      When and if they show moral turpitude.

    • by gmhowell (26755)

      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).

      • 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

  • by Bill Dog (726542)

    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.

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...