Not to mention that Hannity's entire campaign against Obama's church was based on the false premise that the church was racially exclusive. If that's not making an issue of Obama's race, then I don't know what is.

Err - the church teaches black theology and anti-american government towards blacks.  That is a racially motivated church - regardless of the people who attend  it.

I just find it amusing that the right is arguing against the influence of theology on government. Funny that didn't happen when Falwell was preaching about"civil wrongs".

The image of jesus christ as a white man has been laid out even before blacks were part of western culture.

Since when was Jesus white?

Some people have Jesus white, some have him black, some have him gay, some have him straight, some have him single, some have him married, some have him liberal, some have him conservative, and others have him nonexistant.

 

Did I get them all?

Some people have Jesus white, some have him black, some have him gay, some have him straight, some have him single, some have him married, some have him liberal, some have him conservative, and others have him nonexistant.

Okay. I'll bite on the possibly gay, married or in some views non-existant but where the frick did you get the conservative from?

 

It may have been a while since l read the New Testament but l really didn't find too much in there that you could point at that would label Jesus conservative.

Now you understand how people like Hannity are able to claim as fact something that can easily be proven wrong and have a following who eat it up.

I get it. A large dose of teh stupid.

 

We have it over here and sadly it's not confined to ageing former football hooligans. We now have as Mayor of London a man that make Bush seem intelligent, articulate and sincere, propped up by a herd of diet Limbaugh's. 

. We now have as Mayor of London a man that make Bush seem intelligent, articulate and sincere

You've elected a dead guy? Seriously, UK, how do you know about Limbaugh and all of these nuts? Are they on over there? Is it that Fox sister station, Skytv? Tell me it's not so, please!

Hate to break it to you Harlan, but as well as Sky News we also get FoxNews, due to the fact that they are both under the ownership of the Aussie Murdoch. I "discovered" them in 2003 when a bad case of insomnia kept me up & l ended up watching FoxNews and Hannity lied about something which even l knew was a lie. As l had been following US politics as a hobby for a few years and had just gone online at the time l ended up following the entire campaign and everything else since. I even record the 3 hours of C-Span on BBC Parliament on Sundays if l am at work, which l have had to admit to workmates is a bit sad!!    

When were Black people not a part of Western culture? Somewhere between Leave it to Beaver and the The Mod Squad?

OK, there was Rochester, but I think that was before Scienceguy's time.

When were Black people not a part of Western culture?

Prior to 1619..... 

The first Africans in America arrived as Indentured Servants via Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. From 1619 to about 1640, Africans could earn their freedom working as laborers and artisans for the European settlers. Africans could become free people and enjoy some of the liberties like other new settlers. By 1640, Maryland became the first colony to institutionalize slavery. In 1641, Massachusetts, in its written legislative Body of Liberties, stated that "bondage was legal" servitude, at that moment changing the conditions of the African workers - they became chattel slaves who could be bought and solely owned by their masters. Source: http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/aaslavry.htm

Maybe you haven't had your coffee yet, WZ, but--- a little USA-centric of you, no?   ;0)

 

It was stolen by the europeans but only an idiot would think that Jesus, being from nazereth, was anything but a shade of brown.

ATTENTION PEOPLE!!!

Why in the world are all of you suddenly ignoring the topic of this MMFA article?

You let some wingnut start talking about the color of Jesus?

Dems get distracted all the time, eh? Don't you know that that's why they lose! 

I always thought Jesus was Jewish.

Huh. Go Figure.

Reminds me of a poem from my youth:

Roses are red
Violets are bluish
If it weren't for Jesus
We all would be Jewish.

:-)

the very first image of God as a white man was racially motivated. whether or not blacks had become "part of western culture " at that time is irrelevant and meaningless

the very first image of God as a white man was racially motivated.-heru

Everything to you is racist. You sound like your hero BHO.

You disagree that the church purposely made him look white? Try reading about the crusades, making Jesus look european was central in their drive to gin up anger against the muslims.

Everything you say is dumb as shit. You sound like your hero JSM.

There fixed it for you TAZ.

You know....

MMFA spent a substantial amount of time here documenting Hannity hypocrisies about "race," and all you guys want to do is argue about Jesus' color?

Are you morons or something? 

Are you morons or something? 

Real smart way to start a discussion. Who the moron again?

Everything to you is racist. You sound like your hero BHO.

Oh look who just crawled out from under a rock. Our resident cockroach Taz. Time for some bug spray.

Oh!!!!

 

It's your resident cockroach!!!

 

I thought he was there to make salient points to encourage intelligent debate between the poster on this site. Then again, l haven't read to much of TAZ's posts. ;-) 

Hey Taz, what would you do if it turns out that modern forensic scientists rendition of Jesus is correct?

Is this the same guy?

I knew it! I knew Jesus was a liberal! And it was the republicans who threw him in jail, too. I knew it!

Everything to you is racist.

And everything you post is stupid.

This nimrod can't be serious can he? You can just listen to good old Rush Limbaugh playing "Barack the Magic Negro" and that pretty much says it all. Not to mention, every right wing talk show radio host has been falling all over themselves to make sure that everyone knows that if you criticize Obama, be prepared to get called a racist, which isn't true of course. If you criticize his policies, and NOT his race, then yeah, you've got a valid opinion, but these guys are the ones who are bringing race into the whole equation, and NOT the Obama campaign. The only time Obama brings it up, is basically when he is called out about it.

Do I also need to mention the reports we had about Obama being "too white" or "not black enough"?

You can just listen to good old Rush Limbaugh playing "Barack the Magic Negro" and that pretty much says it all.

I thought it was a pretty catchy tune.  The video on YouTube was even better.

"Obama can't point to a single instance" -- that part might be true. While instances exist, democratic politicians are historically unable to produce the obvious killing shot when attacked.

Too true.

It is too true. The irony is that our Party is filled from the bottom up with folks itchin' for a fight.

I think this covers the spirit of things...

Are the comments of the 20(?)%ers on this site  public domain, or did Tom Tomorrow have to pay for those?

OK, they're trimmed down a little, but the ideas are pretty much the same.

Thats why MMFA was created and has had such a great impact unraveling the GOP wrecking crew. Disinformation depends on lack of memory for effectiveness. Now GOP disinformation is tracked and archived in such a way that the falsity of comments like Insanity's can be exposed in a matter of moments.

----------------------------------------------------- 

"Obama can't point to a single instance" -- that part might be true. While instances exist, democratic politicians are historically unable to produce the obvious killing shot when attacked.

• - steeve

Erm.................

 

Doesn't the obese former oxycotin addict from Floria play a song on his radio show called "Barack the Magic Negro?"

Or is he now not classed as a major republican on the right hand side of US talk radio? Just how stupid are Hannity's listeners if they believe him?................

 

 

Forget that last part!!! 

 

"As more is learned about SEAN HANNITY'S positions, his past, and his affiliations, it seems that the FAIR AND BALANCED SPOKESPERSON has all the same problems with DRINKING as those before him," and later added, "It's only fair to ask: Do the HANNITY'S have a DRINKING problem of their own?"

Of course Hannity is mistaken.  It's a good thing he didn't include the Clintons in his false claim too, at least that's something.

I heard BilldO Reilly call Mr. T "boy" last night. I don't think ol' B.A. Baracas even heard it as they were talking over each other, but I wish he had.

Ooohhh, I pity the fool.

Come on, Tommy.  Hannity isn't 'mistaken'.  He's lying.  There's a difference.

Surprised? Ask a racist if he's a racist, what's he gonna say - yes? In the meantime, why am I not surprised...

updated 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

MIAMI - A man who authorities said was keeping weapons and military-style gear in his hotel room and car appeared in court Thursday on charges he threatened to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Raymond Hunter Geisel, 22, was arrested by the Secret Service on Saturday in Miami and was ordered held at Miami's downtown detention center without bail Thursday by a federal magistrate.

A Secret Service affidavit charges that Geisel made the threat during a training class for bail bondsmen in Miami in late July. According to someone else in the 48-member class, Geisel allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, "If he gets elected, I'll assassinate him myself."

This always happens when Democrats are doing well. So convinced by their paranoic thought leaders that liberals are the damned enemy, the nuts come out of hiding to "preserve" traditional values. What can we expect from the right? Nearly their entire message is one of the threat of violence. Conservatism has been destroyed by right-wing authoritarian thugs.

Heck, even churches aren't safe anymore from violent authoritarians spurred on by Hannity and Rush. Hate!  Fear!  Violence!  Jesus!!!

liberals are the damned enemy, the nuts come out of hiding to "preserve" traditional values. What can we expect from the right? Nearly their entire message is one of the threat of violence. Conservatism has been destroyed by right-wing authoritarian thugs.-roundhouse

Snoopy left out part of the story (probably on purpose)

Another person in the class quoted Geisel as saying that "he hated George W. Bush and that he wanted to put a bullet in the president's head," according to the Secret Service.

Still think he's a right-wing nut? Maybe he's just a nut. I know that destroys your rant, it's always more fun for you left-wing loons to blame everything on the right.

Speaking of lunatics, how's your ideological soul mate, Jim Adkisson doing?

Are you saying right wing lunatics are still in love with george? I've seen many here say they hate him...

"he hated George W. Bush and that he wanted to put a bullet in the president's head," according to the Secret Service.

Still think he's a right-wing nut?

Yes.Right wing nuts hate Bush as much as anybody, and are more likely to consider killing over voting.

limbaugh talks about obama's "pure ignorance"?  how about the bushmeister, the guy limbaugh has propped up for eight years?   dumber than a rock and infinitely more dangerous.

No shit. Remember when Clinton went to China. Rush said Clinton was selling out our country to the ChiComms. Remember that? Now that Bush is going over there, it's all good.

Fox News Channel identifies Michelle Obama, the completely lawfully-wedded wife of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as "Obama's Baby Mama."

Oh no massa Sean, ya'll ain't racist.

Hannity's schpeil roughly translates to "please pay attention to me and give me relevance". Of course he's wrong but Obama is much too busy and smart to get in a shouting match with him.

Worst case of impacted ear wax I've ever seen.

He could put wicks in them, and light them, to guide him though the night.

On May 21, Limbaugh said that "Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate."

Well, after 8 years of a legacy candidate it would have to be an improvement. 

 

Everyone's brought up his race, and Obama has done his fair share of bringing up race too.

 

"They're going to make you afraid of [Obama]. They're going to say, 'He's got a funny name. He dun look like all those Presidents on those dollar bills. Did I mention he's black?'" - Obama

 

"I think they played the race card on me." - Bill Clinton

 

Who cares if he's black? I could seriously care less about voting in the first black President. I wanna be able to say, "I voted the RIGHT (Correct) President into office." Both the Messiah or the Maverick are able to fall under that category.

 

If we could ignore his (or anyone's) race we'd be making progress.

 

 

Who exactly are the "messiah" and the "maverick"?

 

Explain please. 

Since Obama's speech before 200,000 in Germany the MSM has tryed paint him as one who thinks he is the Messiah.

McC has long used the mostly self generated tag of the "Maverick"

Go figure. We live here and yes it is confusing to many of us as well.

He is not the Messiah!!!

 

But McCain is a very naughty boy!!

"If we could ignore his (or anyone's) race we'd be making progress."

But we can't. And Obama will continue to be right when he says that his race will be used against him. 

So you don't want race ignored, you want it to be an issue?

Interesting...... 

Race should never be the issue, but while certain people continue to suffer from S.B.M.S it always will be. It is an affliction that is very hard to cure, even with major rehabilitaion.

I never said that. I said race can't be ignored. It's a factor whether you like it or not. Countless posts of yours have told us that you choose to ignore historical context, and that any mention of race by a liberal is met with accusations of "playing the race card" or "playing the victim." Dawuss falls back on the typical conservative line about how much better the world would be if we could ignore race. History dictates that we cannot.

"......typical conservative line about how much better the world would be if we could ignore race"

Considering you aren't a conservative, you would reject the "typical conservative line" about how better off the world would be if we ignored race. Which means you believe the alternative, that the world would be better off if we did not ignore race, hence you don't want it ignored, which is what I said in my first response to you, and you denied it.  Oops.....

Once again, you fail Logic 101. The world would be a better place if I could crap $1000 bills. But I can't. That doesn't mean I prefer it that way.

And if the conservative ideal is to ignore race altogether, then no, I don't agree with that. I choose to celebrate cultural differences, not ignore them.

I don't know whether you intentionally fake ignorance regarding this, or whether you are genuinely clueless, either way it doesn't matter.  Let me be clear, I have never said we as a society should be colorblind, and I absolutely agree with you that celebrating our culture and our differences is important.  I acknowledge and respect history and cultural traditions, in that context, No, race cannot be "ignored".

However, in this context, in voting for officeholders, including for the first time the presidency, I do ignore race.  It is not a consideration for me, it has not been, it will not be.  It is irrelevant to me.  That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the historical implications of an Obama candidacy, of course I do, it would be disingenuous to say otherwise.  But do I hold his race up as some determining factor in my vote? No. 

You can choose to use Obama's race in whatever advances your causes, or your grievances, or your political manueverings, I have more respect for him than that. 

And how exactly am I using Obama's race?

{"If we could ignore his (or anyone's) race we'd be making progress"}

"But we can't".

Yes, we can.  I can. 

So you're saying that if we ignore all racial attacks, they'll just go away? You're "I'm above it all" attitude doesn't work in a world still rife with racism. This is the point that you continue to miss. As has been shown time and time again, you apparently see no difference between acknowledging the role that race plays in our society and racism itself. As our old friend Valentinian used to point out, you literally don't seem to understand the definition of racism. This is how you're able to continue to do things like call civil rights workers "race-baiters" or call me a "bigot" for pointing out the bigotry of others.

Barack Obama is going to be our first black president. Race is a factor. You better get used to hearing people talk about it without sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you're blind to it.

You just cannot defend your remarks without lying about mine.  Please show me where I said "ignore racial attacks"?  And you wonder why you have the reputation of being a classless, victimized race baiter, not to mention a thoroughly dishonest individual.

I said race is irrelevant to me with regard to whom I vote for, or against.  Unless you can demonstrate how that is racist, or anything remotely connected to it, then stop embarrassing yourself, and discuss this like a man, instead of a bratty child. 

Wow, project much? Defend my remarks? I'm not trying to defend my remarks at all. Once you saw that you couldn't make your initial accusations stick (i.e. I "want race to be an issue") you started erecting straw men. You suddenly changed the conversation to "[D]o I hold his race up as some determining factor in my vote?" That's not what we're talking about and you know it. And now you're challenging me to call you a racist?

You're only goal here is to call me names. Hm...what do they call those people who pick an argument over race just so they can call somebody a racist? I think they call them race-baiters.

No, what really happened is that you stuck your foot in your mouth and inadvertantly said race has to be an issue, or your exact words when responding to Dawuss' post when he said race should be ignored and you said "But it can't".  Of course it can't, to you.  Because if race is ignored than it can't be used as bait, in your case.  Do you honestly think you're fooling me? Ahhh, duh, No, you  aren't.

So don't act like Dawuss was not referring to race with regard to voter's decisions, because that was the discussion.  Here is the exact quotes from him that you responded too > "Who cares if he's black? I could seriously care less about voting in the first black President. I wanna be able to say, "I voted the RIGHT (Correct) President into office." Both the Messiah or the Maverick are able to fall under that category. If we could ignore his (or anyone's) race we'd be making progress"

Yet, you tried to turn the discussion into some commentary on historical oppression and racial attacks, when the topic and the discussion were very specific > whether or not race should be ignored as a factor in voting for president. 

I stand by my comments, you should at least do the same to yours. 

Oh my god. This is insane. Race IS an issue. We CAN'T ignore it. I did not put my foot in my mouth, and I'm not trying to defend anything I said, because it doesn't need defending. If you can't wrap your mind around any of this, then that's not my fault. All you want to do is paint me as a racist. That's your sole agenda here. You're race-baiting, plain and simple.

Let me ask you a simple and direct question that requires a simple answer.

Do you think that when I, or you, or anyone, walks into the voting booth this fall that Obama's race should be a factor whatsoever?  Should it be considered or not?

No, and I never said it did. That's just you trying to reframe the discussion and twist whatever I say into another opportunity to accuse me of "race-baiting" or "playing the victim." That's your only agenda whenever there's a thread about race. You're consumed by your obsession with painting me as a racist. And it's an obvious knee-jerk reaction to your own long and storied history of being on the wrong side of nearly every discussion on race that you've ever participated in here. It's your patented I-know-what-you-are-but-what-am defense. So you can either stop with baseless name-calling and accusations, or we can go back to the point where I provide links to your treasure trove of racially suspect and racially ignorant statements from the past.

"No, and I never said it did"

Good, then we agree, and you obviously "misspoke" when you originally reponded to Dawuss.  If you had agreed with him, as in the answer you just gave me, then you could have spared yourself alot of needless embarrassment. 

The rest of your post is just more useless blather and toothless threats because you were "outed" as a race baiter, again, and you don't like it when that happens.  If you want to avoid this in the future, stay away from thread topics involving race, because Sweetheart, you just can't help yourself - or choose your words more carefully, oh, and grow up. 

When exactly was I outed as a race-baiter? And I mean exactly. As in provide a specific link and a specific set of quotes.

And again, I didn't misspeak. I meant exactly what I said. We can't ignore the race factor. Obama is black. That holds some measure of significance for most people, for better or for worse. If you want to twist that to mean that I'm saying we should take his race into consideration in the voting booth, then that's your problem. I've made myself clear enough for any reasonable person to understand.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's always the same. You puke up some outrageous accusations (it used to be that I was a "liar"), and then when asked to back it up with some actual evidence, you disappear.

Ignoring race in this campaign will be fatal for Obama. He never does as well as when he is using his astounding rhetorical abilities to address attacks directly. Just think about how effective and real he was in PA talking about Rev Wright.

That was in response to, Clams.

There was a day when people celebrated being white. People today call something like that racism. Let's quit celebrating differences we have no control over. Then racism will go away.

 

Black superiority isn't much different from white superiority. Black inferiority isn't much different from white inferiority. 

That would almost make sense if i had brain damage.

Funny, I thought you did.

You are able to think? Since when?

That is the king of all false equivalences. I know conservatives love to pretend that 400 years of oppression never happened, or that history has no impact on the present, but conflating white pride with celebrating black culture is just completely outrageous.

DaWuss? Outrageous? Say it ain't so, Joe! Moronic? Insincere? Starved for attention and totally self-centered? All those things, and outrageous too?

Black superiority isn't much different from white superiority.

Black inferiority isn't much different from white inferiority. 

Wow. I didn't realise that in the last 400 years black people in the states and uk owned the slave ships, the plantations, the cotton mills in England and the banks that held the money. Then again l did european history mainly so that may be why it's different to yours. ;-)

A lot of the leading families in the south were desendants of the Caviliers from your own civil war of the mid 1600's. During and after ours, many moved to France. 

A lot of the leading families in the south were desendants of the Caviliers from your own civil war of the mid 1600's. During and after ours, many of these same families moved to France. 

Let's quit celebrating differences we have no control over. Then racism will go away.

Celebrating? You think that racism occurred because folks "celebrated" their differences? 

"There was a day when people celebrated being white. People today call something like that racism. Let's quit celebrating differences we have no control over. Then racism will go away...Black superiority isn't much different from white superiority. Black inferiority isn't much different from white inferiority."

Who is talking about "black superiority"?

This has been explained multiple times to people who like to interchange "black power" with "white power" and then say "ooh look they're both racist!", but here goes again.  There's a huge difference between the dynamics of black and white groups, and that is the concept of societal dominance.  When black people band together and talk about pride and power and heritage, these things are about rising up to reach complete equality with white people.  White people have no such need, we already have the advantage, never mind equality.  There's no noble cause at hand for white people, and therefore the only purpose of celebrating white pride  or power is to keep other people down.

So "black superiority" is much different from "white superiority", since celebrations of being black assert no such concept, while celebrations of being white most certainly do.

When exactly was this imaginary day that people celebrated being white? 

Well one thing is for certain Clams......race will always be an issue for you. Perhaps it's folks like yourself which contribute to validating your point that race can never be ignored.

Your dumb comment was addressed here before you even made it. Try to come up with something better and try again.

Your dumb comment was addressed here before you even made it. Try to come up with something better and try again

That is your reply? Your grasp of stating the irrelevant never ceases to amaze me. Like it or not, it is race baiters like you, who eagerly point out others racism (as if you are without guilt), which prevent the issue of race from becoming a non-issue.

Unlike you, I don't hold such dim view of what can be. Your negativity only fuels the idea of race always being an issue. Dr. King talked of a "colorblind" society, but it's dimwits like you who would rather bath in the controversy race identity creates. For what reason, I do not know. Perhaps it gives you a feeling of atonement for the sins of your ancestors to parade your self aggrandizing notion that everyone is racist but you. I guess you are the only one in America who has moved past seeing color in another person. Is it lonely in that ivory tower or are there plenty of mirrors?

 

"Like it or not, it is race baiters like you, who eagerly point out others racism (as if you are without guilt), which prevent the issue of race from becoming a non-issue."

If you're going to accuse me of being a race-baiter and a racist, then you seriously need to come up with even just one example.

"Unlike you, I don't hold such dim view of what can be. Your negativity only fuels the idea of race always being an issue."

So because I acknowledge 400 years of oppression I'm being negative? When Jews talk about the Holocaust are they just being negative too? Or maybe you think I was being negative when I talk about celebrating black culture?

"Dr. King talked of a 'colorblind' society, but it's dimwits like you who would rather bath[sic] in the controversy race identity creates."

That's every conservative's favorite MLK quote. Too bad they never listen to the rest of that speech.

"Perhaps it gives you a feeling of atonement for the sins of your ancestors to parade your self aggrandizing notion that everyone is racist but you."

What sins did my ancestors commit? And when did I say that everyone is a racist but me?

"I guess you are the only one in America who has moved past seeing color in another person."

You're just spouting confused hyperbole at this point. I think we should see color and we should celebrate it. Whereas you apparently just want people of color to shut up and start acting white.

"start acting white"

How ridiculous. What exactly does that mean, acting "white"?  I know plenty of white people who all "act" quite differently.  To say that white people are some monolithic group that "act" according to their race is not only ludicrous,  but ignorant and bigoted in and of itself.

You are a piece of work. 

I never said that all white people act alike. That's not my perspective, but the perspective of those who continuously preach this "colorblind" ideal. This is just you twisting my words, so you can once again falsely accuse me of bigotry and racism.

Then what exactly does "acting white" mean?  If I had said "acting black", would you question that?  Of course you would.

I'm sure everyone else here knows exactly what I was saying, and they no longer take your weak accusations of bigotry seriously (if they ever did in the first place), so this is for your sole benefit. When conservatives or other ignorant and backward-thinking factions of society preach the "colorblind" ethos, what they are really saying is that they want the negros to stop acting so negroid and start acting white, so that they can more easily ignore our racial differences and start living in harmony without having to hear about all that black people stuff.

Now let me point out to you what just happened there: I wasn't calling black people "negros" and I wasn't saying that all white people act alike. I was pointing out how "colorblind" proponents think. Can you wrap your concrete mind around that slightly abstract literary device? I know that your brain simply sees the word "negroid" and automatically makes your fingers type "racist," but I don't go out of my way to dumb down my text just so you can understand. Try to keep up.

I have never advocated a colorblind society, as I have said many times. I am not afraid, or threatened of celebrating cultural and racial differences whatsoever.  So your accusations towards me where that is concerned is crap.

This entire discussion is in the context of voting for individuals for public office, and on that basis race should be irrelevant, a non-issue, not a factor.  What about that do you disagree with? 

I never said you advocated colorblindness. You jumped into the middle of a conversation between myself and somebody else. You really need to take a deep breath and reread this thread before you post anything else. You clearly have no idea what the grownups are talking about here.

Dr. King preached a "colorblind" society Clams. That's the way it is. You pervert his ideas with your own liberal logic as if "colorblind" means abandonment of culture. That just shows how little you know of his message. You know what some community college professor taught you. I lived in the 60's and participated in the civil rights movement. The "colorblind" society he spoke of is not the revisionist crap you think it to be. Look at the King institute website. His wife writes that Dr. King strived for a "colorblind" society. Unless you are more privy to his thoughts and ideas than his wife I'd say you should just hush now before you make any more of an ass of yourself.

Ask yourself why you are so quick to point out others racism at the drop of a hat. If you are without guilt in this area then why do you find it o.k. to always cast the first stone The reality here is that you get some kind of sick feeling of gratitude pointing out others bigotry and racism as if you are qualified to do so. Tell me what qualifies you to judge others in this area?

We can all agree on outright racism from extremist groups and individuals, but you love to stick that moniker on anyone who doesn't magically fit your idea of acceptable presentation when discussing anything concerning race. My guess is that you have never been discriminated against. That makes you a crusader happily paving the road to Hell with your good intentions. How about a little advice? Educate yourself on the message of Dr. King, understand that just because people may say or do things you don't approve of, it doesn't make them a racist. And for God's sakes understand that by incessantly pointing your bony finger of a racist detector; you only add to the racial divide in this nation. Lastly, grow up you little psuedo-intellectual creep.

So instead of answering any one of the half dozen or so direct questions that I posed to you, you're just going to make more baseless assumptions and unfounded accusations about who I am and what I believe? I'll only reiterate that it is conservatives who have twisted MLK's ideal of a colorblind society to mean a world where everyone acted like white people. You know what King believed in? He believed in affirmative action and reparations for slavery. But you'll never hear conservatives mention that.

Conservatives love to quote the "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" part of the I Have a Dream speech, but they'll conveniently ignore the rest of speech where King says things like, "Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual...The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges," and "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people." And furthermore, "There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, 'When will you be satisfied?' We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one."

Conservatives would have us believe that King's dream has come true, and that the people who speak up about injustice and racism are themselves the cause of any racial divide. People who live in the real world know better. And of course the most ridiculous part of all this is that you're accusing me of being a racist and a race-baiter in a thread that's devoted to showing the proliferation of race-baiting that's coming from your corner. All I had to do was to point out that race can't be ignored in the midst of these racist attacks, and suddenly you and Tommy swoop down to call me a racist. Funny how you chose to condemn me instead of condemning any of the multitude of racial statements and attacks from the right.

So you don't want race ignored, you want it to be an issue?

Interesting...... 

 

• - tommy

-------------------------------------------------------

Victims of white racism don't get to choose.

Heru be honest, you love playing being a victim. But it's getting old and I bet most people are getting sick of it.

Standard wingnut deflection of injustice.

Check.

To be repeated later. Not my best day of posting where I want to.

They're going to make you afraid of [Obama]. They're going to say, 'He's got a funny name. He dun look like all those Presidents on those dollar bills. Did I mention he's black?'" - Obama

Obama didn't lie, there are Republicans who want you to be afraid of him. Bill Cunningham loves to use Obama's middle name with the hope that folks will think he's somehow related to Saddam and the war were fighting. Irregardless of his white mother, he appears to be African American to some white folks who fear African American males 

The right wing he's a Muslim/black/terrorist e-mails circulating were created to work on the fear and ignorance of some Americans.

Obama is using the race card as a diversion to his politics, which really scare people away.

 

Especially now that his celebrity status is starting to wear thin.

Could you be more full of crap?

Quite ridiculous. While Obama's hands are not clean in terms of inserting race into the election, it is clearly not difficult to see that McCain and the GOP are definitely doing exactly what Obama is describing. David Gergen had an interesting take on this. You should read it.

So when has McCain attacked Obama on his race, and on his "funny name"?

 

*Braces himself for refution*

you mean when McCain personally approved and/or verbatim said those things?

That will never happen. He has stupid, racist, illiterate, ignorant people like you, and I am peeved to no extent that your vote counts equally as mine, to do it.

read the thread addressing the statements of David Gergen. That should give you a pretty good idea of how McCain and his surrogates are accomplishing this feat which you seemingly think is so unattainable.

So when has McCain attacked Obama on his race, and on his "funny name"?

Republican candidates don't directly attack anyone, they prefer to use a surrogates to do their dirty work! For some reason they think it allows them to say exactly what you just said, "Since when has McCain attacked Obama on his race". Republicans also think that people are too stupid not to realize that Lars, Laura, Michelle, Sean, Bill, Boortz, Limbo, Cunningham, The Texas GOP, The Tennessee GOP, The CCC and the rest of the blowhards are STILL Republicans playing dirty politics.

Obama is using the race card as a diversion to his politics, which really scare people away. Especially now that his celebrity status is starting to wear thin.

Please tell me you aren't dumb enough to believe that using the "race card" helps Obama in ANY way. His race couldn't be a "diversion" if he tried cause it's damn hard not to see he's black.

As far as your pathetic "celebrity" comment goes, again, is it Obama's fault that some folks in America haven't heard of a well spoken, well educated black man? Is it his fault that some folks have lived under a rock for the last 40 years? Is it his fault that some of those same folks work in MSM and draw attention to Obama?

This "celebrity" bull shi*t paints a picture of ignorance on the part of some folks. 

Wuss,

You don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry to disagree, but I think that the right wing is terrified of Barack, so they are pulling out all the stops. No holds barred. No punches pulled. No rules, except "eat or be eaten". 

They don't know Obama, so they have to play the race card, the muslim card, the child-of-divorced parents card, the father was a polygamist card, the arrogant elitist card, the inexperience card, the marxist leninist stalinist nazi card. They'll play any card they think might help, and at the end they'll play the hail-mary card (whatever that turns out to be, maybe John Kerry can figure it out).

These right-wingers are scared to death of losing power, and they'll say anything they think will help them keep that from happening. And they have a big media machine to help them get their way.

Anne#'s, You forgot the Radical wife and that "whitey" tape which will be discussed again but never played. And what about the limo ride some lunatic righty took with Obama. A list of each and every attack, lie, untruth and just plain garbage should be made and numbered. Then the Cons can sell them for $25.00 and just refer to the number so their sheep can use that junk when the number is called.

Everyone's brought up his race, and Obama has done his fair share of bringing up race too. DAWUSS

Damn shame you believe whatever comes on that black box, instead of actually watching for yourself.  Obama's race was never an issue with the Obama's.  The media first asked the question "IS BARACK OBAMA BLACK ENOUGH."  They then turned around and asked "IS HE TOO BLACK."  Then they asked, does he belong to a separatist racist church.  Come on.  Tell me I'm wrong.  Tell me the Obama's have done their "fair share" of bringing up race.  Your problem is you're spoon fed what to believe instead of thinking for yourself.  Everything Obama said was true.  They've been trying to make everyone afraid of Obama from day one.  "He doesn't say the pledge" "He's not like us" "He's Muslim" "He's the anti-christ"  Seriously Dawuss, when has a presidential candidate been compared to Moses, and Hitler.  That's either a disingenuous post or you are as dumb as these other conservative posters around here.

Hannity, among others, spent at least two solid month discussing Trinity Church's "black liberation theology" in the context of it being Obama's church.

I think that indicates fairly conclusively that they made race an issue, and that Hannity will not give up easily the title "dumbest guy in the room" to Glen Beck without a fight.

Oh, no! Obama is in trouble! Help!

Poll Shocker! Obama In Big Trouble As McCain Drops To 39%

By: Blue Texan Thursday August 7, 2008 6:00 am 15
diggs
 digg it

It's officially time to panic.

Barack Obama leads John McCain 45 percent to 39 percent in the latest CBS News poll.

Not good. Obama's people better figure out how to respond to McSame's devastating "Paris" ad and all of those relentless tire gauge attacks pretty damn quick. Because they're clearly having a significant impact.

Consider -- since this barrage of negative attacks started, McSame has dropped 3 points in the CBS poll since June.

And McSame is outspending Obama during the Olympics, so it's not inconceivable that he could drop even lower. Nothing could be worse for Obama than consistently leading McSame through the election.

McSame's got us right where he wants us. Unless Obama rights the ship, we could be headed for another '84 or '72.

so Hannity just moves on to another quotient of bogus blather since his last error about not knowing any prominent Republican who has challenged Obama's patriotism.

Hannity is an embarrassment. There has got to be a twelve-step, or tax-payer-paid program that will enroll Sean Hannity. It is folks like Hannity that make me not-proud of America.

This is just another example of the RIGHT WING SMEAR MACHINE is going off at full throttle. They are throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

And here's yet another example of smear machine at work. I think... I could be wrong...

 

Why can't we criticize this guy over issues of substance? Instead we're wailing about race and double-standards and patriotism...