Maybe he should team up with Ann Coulter and have a baby. It would be the devil himself! I know!
Hannity Denies Past Association With White Supremacist But Evidence Suggests Otherwise
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/20/hannity_denies_past_association_with_white_supremacist_but_evidence_suggests_otherwise.php
"A neo Nazi, you backed his career,"
Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.
Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.
BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Maybe he should team up with Ann Coulter and have a baby. It would be the devil himself! I know!
Hannity Denies Past Association With White Supremacist But Evidence Suggests Otherwise
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/20/hannity_denies_past_association_with_white_supremacist_but_evidence_suggests_otherwise.php
"A neo Nazi, you backed his career,"
Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.
Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.
BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.
O'Reilly I can handle-he's better on radio than on TV: he's more reasonable on radio. Limbaugh, he's a pathetic self-parody of himself; I never took Rush seriously. Hannity should hang it up, period.
As much as I dislike Hannity, the evidence here is pretty thin. A guy with occasional racist ramblings calling in to your radio show doesn't mean much to me.
I don't think you can blame the radio host for their callers, even if the host is polite to them.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
As much as I dislike Hannity, the evidence here is pretty thin. A guy with occasional racist ramblings calling in to your radio show doesn't mean much to me.
I don't think you can blame the radio host for their callers, even if the host is polite to them.
Well, it's nice to see a wolf who does not listen to the sheep hearders.
Is that some special kind of insult to me?
Fine. You are a melon who smells like a carrot.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Is that some special kind of insult to me?
Fine. You are a melon who smells like a carrot.
and your father smells of elderberries?
quote:
Hannity should hang it up, period.
Yeah, Sean should hang it up. After all, his radio show is on a paltry 500 stations (second only to Limbaugh) and his television show is a consistent No. 2 on cable news networks. Oh, those Freedom Concerts he has every year, you know where he raises money for children of fallen U.S. soldiers so they can go to college, that's way overrated. I mean really, compared to what you and FOTD contribute to society, Hannity is a loser.
I can't stand Hannity going on and on about the constitution, then supporting everything that goes against it.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Hannity should hang it up, period.
Oh, those Freedom Concerts he has every year, you know where he raises money for children of fallen U.S. soldiers so they can go to college, that's way overrated.
Hannity is a loser.
Always wondered why he had country singers on the bill for these concerts. Not that I dislike country, I actually quite like some of it. I'm just wondering why it's limited to country. I should think he'd be open to any entertainer from any musical genre to help out for a cause such as this.
As for him being a loser, I've read about his other endeavors before radio, as well as some of his early attempts at radio. Regardless of his success, the man's got to have a chip on his shoulder the size of the national debt.
The thread starter has much experience with the title......
Our hit and run poster no doubt loves these people in fright wing radio and spends much time listening to their messages....
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
I can't stand Hannity going on and on about the constitution, then supporting everything that goes against it.
In terms of the Constituttion, I think right-wing radio only makes a stand when it's their own ox being gored (directly or indirectly), or if something goes against their personal interpretation of it.
quote:
In terms of the Constituttion, I think right-wing radio only makes a stand when it's their own ox being gored (directly or indirectly), or if something goes against their personal interpretation of it.
Examples please?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
In terms of the Constituttion, I think right-wing radio only makes a stand when it's their own ox being gored (directly or indirectly), or if something goes against their personal interpretation of it.
Examples please?
For instance, anti-war or anti-Bush demonstrators: you'll hear the likes of, say, Brian Kilmeade raising the question as to when it would be OK to whack the demonstrators around a bit, but if there was proposed legislation concerning the editorial content of his prgramming, you can bet he'd be citing the 1st Amendment to protect his right to be stupid.
Now, this would be justice....
Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80392/
"As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore -- under penalty of law -- allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Now, this would be justice....
Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80392/
"As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore -- under penalty of law -- allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
No one is going to be prosecuted for changing party registration to vote on one side of the primary. Now you're getting into Neo-NAZI thought crimes and we dont' need to go down that slope.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
In terms of the Constituttion, I think right-wing radio only makes a stand when it's their own ox being gored (directly or indirectly), or if something goes against their personal interpretation of it.
Examples please?
For instance, anti-war or anti-Bush demonstrators: you'll hear the likes of, say, Brian Kilmeade raising the question as to when it would be OK to whack the demonstrators around a bit, but if there was proposed legislation concerning the editorial content of his prgramming, you can bet he'd be citing the 1st Amendment to protect his right to be stupid.
Since I do not know the context of Kilmeade's statement, I can only presume you must be suggesting that all anti-war protests are protected by 1st Amendment and thus any whacking of demonstrators would violate the 1st Amendment. Plainly, not all protests are protected. For example, if you came over to my house and started exercising your 1st Amendment rights by throwing red paint (symbolizing blood) on my house, you could expect to get whacked. That's trespassing. Same goes for those protesters who paint their hands red and shove them into the faces of other people. That's assault.
Few and far between malcontents on the left. Those few pale in comparrison to the vast web of ridicule radio ditto head sheep spreading their gospel of divisiveness and fear like the undisciplined nomads they flock with across our nation.
Jerimiah Wright is their only story.....sick.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
In terms of the Constituttion, I think right-wing radio only makes a stand when it's their own ox being gored (directly or indirectly), or if something goes against their personal interpretation of it.
Examples please?
For instance, anti-war or anti-Bush demonstrators: you'll hear the likes of, say, Brian Kilmeade raising the question as to when it would be OK to whack the demonstrators around a bit, but if there was proposed legislation concerning the editorial content of his prgramming, you can bet he'd be citing the 1st Amendment to protect his right to be stupid.
Since I do not know the context of Kilmeade's statement, I can only presume you must be suggesting that all anti-war protests are protected by 1st Amendment and thus any whacking of demonstrators would violate the 1st Amendment. Plainly, not all protests are protected. For example, if you came over to my house and started exercising your 1st Amendment rights by throwing red paint (symbolizing blood) on my house, you could expect to get whacked. That's trespassing. Same goes for those protesters who paint their hands red and shove them into the faces of other people. That's assault.
I'll retract a portion of my previous statement: Kilmeade's statements were not necessarily concerning antiwar demonstrators, but more towards those who were involved in demonstrating at the 2004 RNC convention. Evenso, I'm aware of the differences between lawful and unlawful protests, and those differences are very clear and distinct.
Kilmeade's statements came about during the 2004 RNC convention in New York, where there was a demonstration concerning Bush. He was obviously ticked that there were some people who were discontent with the then-present direction that US policy was taking, were unsatisfied with the president, and that they actually had the temerity to demonstrate against that.
The converstaion between Kilmeade and NYPD official Raymond Kelly concerining demonstrators took place July 13, 2004.
From mediamatters:
During the same program, the hosts interviewed New York City's police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, about security plans for the upcoming Republican convention, and focused on reports that some protestors plan to disrupt the convention or interfere with security operations. According to the FOX & Friends co-hosts, the reports suggest that some black-garbed protesters might intentionally try to confound bomb-sniffing dogs by wearing clothes with traces of gunpowder, or use marbles to thwart the work of mounted police officers. After a commercial break, the discussion returned with a broader focus, and Kilmeade asked about convention protestors, "When is it okay to whack them around?" Kelly hesitated for a moment before responding, "Never." Apparently unsatisfied with Kelly's response, Kilmeade restated his question, asking, "If they're not moving, if they're threatening you, can you whack them around?" After Kelly repeated his response, Kilmeade made his own view clear: "I hate seeing these protests."
KILMEADE: When is it OK to whack them around?
KELLY: Never.
KILMEADE: If they are not moving, if they are threatening you, can you whack them around?
KELLY: No. No. No. Believe me, we do things according to the Constitution and laws of New York state. So that's not something we engage in.
[crosstalk]
KILMEADE: I hate seeing these protests.
So, according to Media Matters, Kilmeade in 2004 stated he hated seeing protests. That's your evidence that right wingers only care about constitutional rights when it suits their interests? Well, with that empirical statistic, I must accede to your position.
For what it's worth, I too in large measure hate seeing protests, especially those where idiots run around naked to protest AIDS funding (which happened at the 2004 Republican Convention) or blocking access to, or trying to blow up, military recruiting stations. I guess that makes me an anti-1st Amendment malcontent too.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
So, according to Media Matters, Kilmeade in 2004 stated he hated seeing protests. That's your evidence that right wingers only care about constitutional rights when it suits their interests? Well, with that empirical statistic, I must accede to your position.
For what it's worth, I too in large measure hate seeing protests, especially those where idiots run around naked to protest AIDS funding (which happened at the 2004 Republican Convention) or blocking access to, or trying to blow up, military recruiting stations. I guess that makes me an anti-1st Amendment malcontent too.
As best as I can figure it, he was advocating taking violent means by which to quell the demonstration. But you can be sure that if say, the FCC took exception to his biased commentaries on TV or even the radio, he'd be screaming about the 1st Amendment and "equal time" and what have you.
Perhaps I've missed the point....
Moe Dowd does it mightier, with her pen. But it's not reprinted in any local news rag.Not as omnipotent as straight talk for fright wing radio.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23dowd.html?th&emc=th
"On Friday in Charlotte, N.C., Bill Clinton, the man who once thanked an R.O.T.C. recruiter "for saving me from the draft" during Vietnam, sounded like Sean Hannity without the finesse."
"Anti-intellectual Republican presidents have led this nation into a new age of unreason, as former Vice President Al Gore argued in The Assault on Reason (2007) and more recently, Susan Jacoby has reported in The Age of Unreason (2008). As Senator Obama campaigns, he can truly change America by simply refusing to play dumb. That strategy, if Obama continues it, may turn out to be not only courageous but also wise, for it is very possible that, after so many years, Americans are tired of having their innate intelligence insulted by their presidential candidates."
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13608
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
"That strategy, if Obama continues it, may turn out to be not only courageous but also wise, for it is very possible that, after so many years, Americans are tired of having their innate intelligence insulted by their presidential candidates."
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13608
Not likely. Innate intelligence, for many Americans, is the ability to put jalapenos in their velveeta occasionally, in order to call it Mexican food. Much of the American electorate is supremely capable of profound stupidity. The Democrats shouldn't be so quick to underestimate that. The GOP hasn't.
"Oh, yeah! We're best of buds!"
Sean Hannity Confronted Over His Relationship With Neo-Nazi Hal Turner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/23/sean-hannity-confronted-o_n_92961.html
"We have an article in a national magazine plus one of the parties involved who say that Hannity was a welcoming, friendly and encouraging host for Turner's views for a good while. Neither Boyce nor Hannity has specifically denied that."
We are not going to let these corporate representatives of the air waves redirect the issues this time around. We intend to not only knock them down but step on their necks and force them to inhale the mud they throw disingeniously forcing the conversation towards inanity rather than nobility as our country desrves.
Had these morons the power of the fright machine in the days of the revolution, we'd all be slaves of England to this day.
Hannity isn't running for office last time I checked. Who cares? Everyone knows Republican pundits are all closeted gay dope smokers.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hannity isn't running for office last time I checked. Who cares? Everyone knows Republican pundits are all closeted gay dope smokers.
Another lie....they take their dope many ways but not smokie....they mainline Big Pharma.
And here is another example of dumbass protesters and their dumbass protest:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-080323-arrests-holy-name,1,1788110.story
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
And here is another example of dumbass protesters and their dumbass protest:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-080323-arrests-holy-name,1,1788110.story
Again. Those gadfly's reach across the aisles and get the attention of a few hundred fellow congregants. Your talking mavens spew damned lies and hate to hundreds of thousands Neanderthals.
What kind of drug addict could start up something called "Operation Chaos"?
Encouraging people to commit a crime is the low of all lows when you have the power of media at your control. It's unAmerican what this schmoe is up to.
Please buy the products advertised on this idiots broadcast. That way we can identify you.
I listened to Neal Fartz's replay tonight for all of 5 minutes as I was seeking the Seigleman breaking news. Unbelievable the attacking hatred allowed on local stations towards Obama based on exaggerations and fact manipulations both true and false. The campaign by implication needs to be curtailed. Whatever happened to broadcast rules prohibiting outright lies and distortions? The venom they spew is made available by sponsors who care not about the subject matter. Greed and ratings keep these bums fat, happy, and on drugs. Their audience absorbs it all then goes on to watch Nascar or Reality TeeVee with eyes glazed over.
I think what has happened with Jeremiah Wright is that, whatever you think of him, and however unfair the media has been to him, he has given the right a way to mobilize resentment against Barack Obama that they never had before ... [Wright] is presented as the quintessential angry black man that the right wing loves to incite hatred against. So Sean Hannity is running with this as far as he can.
-- Journalist Max Blumenthal
And then there's this krud.....
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/18865-fox-news-porn
Americans should demand civility from fright wing journalism! And America's Fourth Estate should establish a new code of ethics and laws to stop intolerance. Fright wing nuts are all unwilling to even recognize or respect differences in our society. Shamefull they call themselves Americans.
Gee, can you imagine all his homophobic, xenophobic, sexist white male listeners getting worked up into an erotic lather while tuning into Michael Savage? We can, and it's scary that in our society, Savage is paid to be on the airwaves. He's an affront to a civilized society. His radio program appeals to our worst instincts as Americans. After each broadcast, he leaves the world a little more barbaric.
I really have a hard time understanding how companies can take the risk to advertise on this piece of crap radio station!....74o on your am dial.....
K, I've sat patiently by the sidelines.
Hannity, Rush, O-Reilly, Savage... they are all entertainers. That's what they do. It doesn't matter if you listen or read about them because you hate them, are merely interested, or because you worship them. Audience numbers are what matter.
Saying who or what should be on the radio only gives them more fodder for talk and backs up the rhetoric they spout about restricting conservative points of view. Belittling their audiences and insulting their intelligence also only helps to reinforce their importance. What did you hope to accomplish?
I split my time pretty evenly between KRMG and NPR (KRMG would take the cake if we counted Tulsa sports coverage, with ease). The talking heads on conservative radio offer interesting perspectives and a window into a large swath of our society. You don't have to agree with them to find that interesting nor do you have to listen to their repeated banter to get the gist of them (85% of my radio is in the car).
For 3 weeks now you have done all you can to keep this thread alive by having a conversation with yourself calling everyone else stupid. I'm tired of checking the thread to see if there is any real discussion... let it die.
I don't believe nothing will change and the same gang of evil pukes will continue in perpetuity. The thread will stay alive through the election in November due to these commedians brain washing of the American hick. Racism and hatred are their vehicle. It needs to be crashed.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
K, I've sat patiently by the sidelines.
Hannity, Rush, O-Reilly, Savage... they are all entertainers. That's what they do.
Interesting that one would consider the demagogue preponderance of hate and racism as entertainment. It's not.
BTW, while mostly ads for their own KRMG products, others who pay to spread hate are Airco (Lenox) and John Q. Hammond.
I'm sorry, when I read the title of the thread and saw that you authored it I assumed it was an autobiographical piece...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry, when I read the title of the thread and saw that you authored it I assumed it was an autobiographical piece...
Now that's funny. I was actually thinking it was authored by the person from the discussion forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hannity isn't running for office last time I checked. Who cares? Everyone knows Republican pundits are all closeted gay dope smokers.
Interesting, I don't even like Sean Hannity and I never got that closeted gay-vibe from him. Give him a mustache, and he may make for a passable leather-man, but even that would be a stretch.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry, when I read the title of the thread and saw that you authored it I assumed it was an autobiographical piece...
Now that's funny. I was actually thinking it was authored by the person from the discussion forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut.
Well, now Guido, aren't you pro-life? If so, hopefully you're more sensible than the losers over at Army of god, or Operation Rescue or some other weirdo pro-life outfit.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hannity isn't running for office last time I checked. Who cares? Everyone knows Republican pundits are all closeted gay dope smokers.
Interesting, I don't even like Sean Hannity and I never got that closeted gay-vibe from him. Give him a mustache, and he may make for a passable leather-man, but even that would be a stretch.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry, when I read the title of the thread and saw that you authored it I assumed it was an autobiographical piece...
Now that's funny. I was actually thinking it was authored by the person from the discussion forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut.
Well, now Guido, aren't you pro-life? If so, hopefully you're more sensible than the losers over at Army of god, or Operation Rescue or some other weirdo pro-life outfit.
What are you talking about? I am pro-life, but my post was directed at a moronic comparison made by a pro-abortion advocate on this forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut. As far as being "sensible", I would hope anybody would interpret such a comparison as moronic as well, notwithstanding if they are members of the radical Army of God (notice how I capitalize God) or Operation Rescue.
Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you too believe such a comparison is valid.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hannity isn't running for office last time I checked. Who cares? Everyone knows Republican pundits are all closeted gay dope smokers.
Interesting, I don't even like Sean Hannity and I never got that closeted gay-vibe from him. Give him a mustache, and he may make for a passable leather-man, but even that would be a stretch.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry, when I read the title of the thread and saw that you authored it I assumed it was an autobiographical piece...
Now that's funny. I was actually thinking it was authored by the person from the discussion forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut.
Well, now Guido, aren't you pro-life? If so, hopefully you're more sensible than the losers over at Army of god, or Operation Rescue or some other weirdo pro-life outfit.
What are you talking about? I am pro-life, but my post was directed at a moronic comparison made by a pro-abortion advocate on this forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut. As far as being "sensible", I would hope anybody would interpret such a comparison as moronic as well, notwithstanding if they are members of the radical Army of God (notice how I capitalize God) or Operation Rescue.
Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you too believe such a comparison is valid.
The small g in God was a typo, I will freely admit.
I'm becoming more and more neutral on the abortion issue. I look at both sides these days and it's becoming a bit too extreme for my liking. Since I'm not a woman and cannot bear children, and have never married, the pro-choice angle really doesn't apply to me. At the same time, I look at some of the pro-life people demonstrating in front of clinics these days, and they're just plain weirdo's, what with their theatrics and histrionics; hopefully, Guido, you're a little more level-headed.
As for remarks regarding the membership of groups such as Operation Rescue and Army of God (hey I capitalized it this time!) where I characterized them as losers, I openly stand by my assessment. All we have to do is look at their the individual histories and homelives and lifestyles of some of these people to establish this. And there's a larger agenda in mind too: if they can have their way on the abortion issue, what else are they going to demand?
AOX, I must not listen to Rush or Hannity as much as you do - because I have never heard them be racist nor more hateful than any other political discussion. They are closed minded ideologues in my opinion, but hateful racists?
It is something to watch the discussion manipulated away from the threads original intent. What are you? Lackey's for K Street lobbyists?
The abortion side track and the personal attacks do not cover up the fact that the fright wing followers in this country plan to play on your fears rather than your hopes. The fright wing would go as far as try to make you think we all in the left and left of center are conspiring for ending hunting and religious beliefs in America.
And Hillary Clitton has started the Republicrat movement as she joins forces with the evil doers.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
AOX, I must not listen to Rush or Hannity as much as you do - because I have never heard them be racist nor more hateful than any other political discussion. They are closed minded ideologues in my opinion, but hateful racists?
Well then, you certainly can play stupid too....
I listen to their drivel sparsely and hear hate and racism continuously be it in the form of Reverend Wright speeches taken out of context or the mocking use of Jews to set a tone of "he's going to destroy Israel because he is tied to Farrakhan". It's all baiting.
Yeah, that Bob Johnson, surely he's a racist:
http://www.charlotte.com/171/story/581394.html
"Obama wouldn't be where he is if he was white".
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Yeah, that Bob Johnson, surely he's a racist:
http://www.charlotte.com/171/story/581394.html
"Obama wouldn't be where he is if he was white".
Using an elitist black man to attack a populist black man over a white woman's racist bias comment really is a form of prejudice. It's insulting. Interesting timing by this corporate Clintonite.
Irony is though, that Obama is 1/2 white.
He is perceived as a black man. Very scary for those with bigot bloodlines.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hannity isn't running for office last time I checked. Who cares? Everyone knows Republican pundits are all closeted gay dope smokers.
Interesting, I don't even like Sean Hannity and I never got that closeted gay-vibe from him. Give him a mustache, and he may make for a passable leather-man, but even that would be a stretch.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry, when I read the title of the thread and saw that you authored it I assumed it was an autobiographical piece...
Now that's funny. I was actually thinking it was authored by the person from the discussion forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut.
Well, now Guido, aren't you pro-life? If so, hopefully you're more sensible than the losers over at Army of god, or Operation Rescue or some other weirdo pro-life outfit.
What are you talking about? I am pro-life, but my post was directed at a moronic comparison made by a pro-abortion advocate on this forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut. As far as being "sensible", I would hope anybody would interpret such a comparison as moronic as well, notwithstanding if they are members of the radical Army of God (notice how I capitalize God) or Operation Rescue.
Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you too believe such a comparison is valid.
The small g in God was a typo, I will freely admit.
I'm becoming more and more neutral on the abortion issue. I look at both sides these days and it's becoming a bit too extreme for my liking. Since I'm not a woman and cannot bear children, and have never married, the pro-choice angle really doesn't apply to me. At the same time, I look at some of the pro-life people demonstrating in front of clinics these days, and they're just plain weirdo's, what with their theatrics and histrionics; hopefully, Guido, you're a little more level-headed.
As for remarks regarding the membership of groups such as Operation Rescue and Army of God (hey I capitalized it this time!) where I characterized them as losers, I openly stand by my assessment. All we have to do is look at their the individual histories and homelives and lifestyles of some of these people to establish this. And there's a larger agenda in mind too: if they can have their way on the abortion issue, what else are they going to demand?
Since I do not engage in the form of anti-abortion protest you have identified, I guess I am at least level headed. However, I find their form of protests no different than those "accepted" forms which are exhibited by groups like those code pink bozos dressing up as ghosts during Petraeus recent Congressional visit, or dipping their hands in red paint and shoving them in peoples faces, or even their douchebag anti-Marine recruiter gathering in Berkely.
Would you at least agree with me that comparing getting an abortion to a haircut is moronic, and perhaps defines what a "loser" is?
Ok AOX, let me get this right:
If you are afraid Mulsims hate Israel you're a racist.
If you are white and say something about black people - you are a racist.
If a successful billionaire black man says a disparaging (if not possibly true) comment about powerful millionaire black man - he's a racist.
Allusions to Obama's other heritage (Midwestern white women or Muslims) are racist.
If a white woman runs a hard race against a black man, she's racially biased.
. . . .
So what you're saying is the world has kept this ivy educated successful attorney turned millionaire author Senator who has propelled himself to be the Democratic front runner for the presidential candidacy - down?
Damn the man.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Ok AOX, let me get this right:
If you are afraid Mulsims hate Israel you're a racist.
If you are white and say something about black people - you are a racist.
If a successful billionaire black man says a disparaging (if not possibly true) comment about powerful millionaire black man - he's a racist.
Allusions to Obama's other heritage (Midwestern white women or Muslims) are racist.
If a white woman runs a hard race against a black man, she's racially biased.
. . . .
So what you're saying is the world has kept this ivy educated successful attorney turned millionaire author Senator who has propelled himself to be the Democratic front runner for the presidential candidacy - down?
Damn the man.
That's twisting my words. And that is exactly what the "entertainers" on blog radio do to paint a negative image of Obama.
It's what they say and don't say but insinuate which causes the subliminal racial hatred to get those "bitter" juices flowing in mainstream low IQ America. Soon to be raised to an even higher level, it's easy to see this will be the driver for Repug swift boating in 08. I'm glad their inherent racism is blinding them to the immense backlash that will ensure from this line of attack.
You do realize that Limbaugh's producer James Golden (Mr. Snurdley) is black, as is Neil Boortz's, Royal Marshall? Hannity used to have a black woman (only known as "Flipper") as his screener.
Some racist bigots we got there on talk radio, must be since the black man is playin' second fiddle to those white devils.
"Some of my best friends are black" speak...
"Broken words don't need to be spoken
Everything is broken..."
B. Dylan
Ok AOX, let me get this right:
If you are afraid Mulsims hate Israel you're a racist.
If you are white and say something about black people - you are a racist.
If a successful billionaire black man says a disparaging (if not possibly true) comment about powerful millionaire black man - he's a racist.
Allusions to Obama's other heritage (Midwestern white women or Muslims) are racist.
If a white woman runs a hard race against a black man, she's racially biased.
Mainstream America has a low IQ and is racist.
If someone has black friends or employees they are condescending, and racist.
- - -
The list keeps growing.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Ok AOX, let me get this right:
If you are afraid Mulsims hate Israel you're a racist.
If you are white and say something about black people - you are a racist.
If a successful billionaire black man says a disparaging (if not possibly true) comment about powerful millionaire black man - he's a racist.
Allusions to Obama's other heritage (Midwestern white women or Muslims) are racist.
If a white woman runs a hard race against a black man, she's racially biased.
Mainstream America has a low IQ and is racist.
If someone has black friends or employees they are condescending, and racist.
- - -
The list keeps growing.
If you use Israel as a tool to gain what you want, inducing fear, your intent is unauthentic.
If you insert Muslims, rather than say Hezballah, then it is hate.
If you are white and say something hateful or design a comment using African American ethnicity to stir up controversy, that is racist.
I never said Johnson was racist. Corporate pig and K Street Lobby groupie but not racist.
Obama even admitted his white Mother's racist anger
She is racially biased when she let's her husband get away with calling the opponent's campaign a "fairy tale" when her opponent is black and trouncing her....
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You do realize that Limbaugh's producer James Golden (Mr. Snurdley) is black, as is Neil Boortz's, Royal Marshall? Hannity used to have a black woman (only known as "Flipper") as his screener.
Some racist bigots we got there on talk radio, must be since the black man is playin' second fiddle to those white devils.
Flipper is black? I did not know that...
http://www.flirtyflipper.com/pals.html
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
If you use Israel as a tool to gain what you want, inducing fear, your intent is unauthentic.
If you ignore suicide bombings by Hamas and PLO what does that make you?
quote:
If you insert Muslims, rather than say Hezballah, then it is hate.
What if you pretend the WOT is imaginary, what does that make you?
quote:
If you are white and say something hateful or design a comment using African American ethnicity to stir up controversy, that is racist.
What if you're a black preacher and you say something hateful? What if you're the leader of a prominent black movement and state in public that Jews are bloodsuckers?
quote:
Obama even admitted his white Mother's racist anger
I don't recall him ever saying that?
quote:
She is racially biased when she let's her husband get away with calling the opponent's campaign a "fairy tale" when her opponent is black and trouncing her....
What does calling his campaign a "fairy tale" have to do with race? I think he was clearly referencing the pass that BO is receiving in the media.
quote:
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
Are you admitting you're a racist?
quote:
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
What do you think of Soros? Is he an elitist, or is he okay since he's the godfather of the loony left?
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place. You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread. In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
"We have a racial stalemate that we have been in for years." Barack Obama
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hannity isn't running for office last time I checked. Who cares? Everyone knows Republican pundits are all closeted gay dope smokers.
Interesting, I don't even like Sean Hannity and I never got that closeted gay-vibe from him. Give him a mustache, and he may make for a passable leather-man, but even that would be a stretch.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry, when I read the title of the thread and saw that you authored it I assumed it was an autobiographical piece...
Now that's funny. I was actually thinking it was authored by the person from the discussion forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut.
Well, now Guido, aren't you pro-life? If so, hopefully you're more sensible than the losers over at Army of god, or Operation Rescue or some other weirdo pro-life outfit.
What are you talking about? I am pro-life, but my post was directed at a moronic comparison made by a pro-abortion advocate on this forum who compared getting an abortion to getting a haircut. As far as being "sensible", I would hope anybody would interpret such a comparison as moronic as well, notwithstanding if they are members of the radical Army of God (notice how I capitalize God) or Operation Rescue.
Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you too believe such a comparison is valid.
The small g in God was a typo, I will freely admit.
I'm becoming more and more neutral on the abortion issue. I look at both sides these days and it's becoming a bit too extreme for my liking. Since I'm not a woman and cannot bear children, and have never married, the pro-choice angle really doesn't apply to me. At the same time, I look at some of the pro-life people demonstrating in front of clinics these days, and they're just plain weirdo's, what with their theatrics and histrionics; hopefully, Guido, you're a little more level-headed.
As for remarks regarding the membership of groups such as Operation Rescue and Army of God (hey I capitalized it this time!) where I characterized them as losers, I openly stand by my assessment. All we have to do is look at their the individual histories and homelives and lifestyles of some of these people to establish this. And there's a larger agenda in mind too: if they can have their way on the abortion issue, what else are they going to demand?
Since I do not engage in the form of anti-abortion protest you have identified, I guess I am at least level headed. However, I find their form of protests no different than those "accepted" forms which are exhibited by groups like those code pink bozos dressing up as ghosts during Petraeus recent Congressional visit, or dipping their hands in red paint and shoving them in peoples faces, or even their douchebag anti-Marine recruiter gathering in Berkely.
Would you at least agree with me that comparing getting an abortion to a haircut is moronic, and perhaps defines what a "loser" is?
The type of protests you see the extremists indulging in comes under the genre of street theatre, and its subgenres of guerilla theatre and agitprop theatre. Sometimes, it's educational and entertaining, sometimes it's just plain disturbing. I suppose it depends on taste and one's own political bent.
As for defining the term loser in the contexts of the more extreme factions of the prolife movement, they do exist in rather disturbing numbers. May not be the majority, but they do form a sizable enough minority to notice them. I think all you'd have to do is examine the socioeconomic backgrounds of the people involved, see which ones have been charged with domestic violence or child abuse, and how extreme they are in their religio-political ideologies. Look at their emotional state when they do their protest thang. You'll see what I mean.
I'll call them males, because some of them are not worthy of being called
Man.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
Now who's showing their relative ignorance? What precisely do you know about NASCAR and the people who follow it? Different sort of "race" dillweed. You seem to think
anyone who is not voting for Obama is a beer-swilling redneck.
You make out guys like Limbaugh and Hannity as being total KKK, bigot racists. I'm hardly an apologist for them, however, it stands to reason if they were the racist imbeciles you imply, they would not have had black people on their payrolls for years. How many white people, btw are on the ministerial payroll at Trinity UCOC? How many work for Rainbow/PUSH?
It's ****ing ludicrous how intimidated black activists have made white people when it comes to anything racial these days. If race is mentioned by a white person, white and black people come down on them. If a black person mentions it, there's a free pass because of "slavery, Jim Crow laws, blah blah blah."
People like the Revs $harpton, Jack$on, and Wright get a free pass now to spew racial intolerance and anti-semitic hatred with total impunity.
A successful and well-educated black man shares an opinion of Obama's skin color being a reason for his success, he's summarily brushed off as a political "Uncle Tom". Think about it, he's got an attractive back-story. After miserable failures of stodgy candidates, Democrats tasted great success with Bill Clinton. Charisma, grew up in the hills of Arkansas, from a broken home, etc. He was our "first black president". (That's one of the more racially patronizing statements I've ever heard.)
You have to admit, as much as there is an element of bigoted voters (I'd guess less than 20%) who will never vote for a black man, there's at least an equal percentage who will vote for him, just because he is a black man.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You do realize that Limbaugh's producer James Golden (Mr. Snurdley) is black, as is Neil Boortz's, Royal Marshall? Hannity used to have a black woman (only known as "Flipper") as his screener.
Some racist bigots we got there on talk radio, must be since the black man is playin' second fiddle to those white devils.
Flipper is black? I did not know that...
http://www.flirtyflipper.com/pals.html
Look again, and listen to her voice, there's some African American in her. I'd venture a guess a little less than Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
Now who's showing their relative ignorance? What precisely do you know about NASCAR and the people who follow it? Different sort of "race" dillweed. You seem to think anyone who is not voting for Obama is a beer-swilling redneck.
You make out guys like Limbaugh and Hannity as being total KKK, bigot racists. I'm hardly an apologist for them, however, it stands to reason if they were the racist imbeciles you imply, they would not have had black people on their payrolls for years. How many white people, btw are on the ministerial payroll at Trinity UCOC? How many work for Rainbow/PUSH?
It's ****ing ludicrous how intimidated black activists have made white people when it comes to anything racial these days. If race is mentioned by a white person, white and black people come down on them. If a black person mentions it, there's a free pass because of "slavery, Jim Crow laws, blah blah blah."
People like the Revs $harpton, Jack$on, and Wright get a free pass now to spew racial intolerance and anti-semitic hatred with total impunity.
A successful and well-educated black man shares an opinion of Obama's skin color being a reason for his success, he's summarily brushed off as a political "Uncle Tom". Think about it, he's got an attractive back-story. After miserable failures of stodgy candidates, Democrats tasted great success with Bill Clinton. Charisma, grew up in the hills of Arkansas, from a broken home, etc. He was our "first black president". (That's one of the more racially patronizing statements I've ever heard.)
You have to admit, as much as there is an element of bigoted voters (I'd guess less than 20%) who will never vote for a black man, there's at least an equal percentage who will vote for him, just because he is a black man.
You go Conan. Keep going. Show your colors!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
Now who's showing their relative ignorance? What precisely do you know about NASCAR and the people who follow it? Different sort of "race" dillweed. You seem to think anyone who is not voting for Obama is a beer-swilling redneck.
You make out guys like Limbaugh and Hannity as being total KKK, bigot racists. I'm hardly an apologist for them, however, it stands to reason if they were the racist imbeciles you imply, they would not have had black people on their payrolls for years. How many white people, btw are on the ministerial payroll at Trinity UCOC? How many work for Rainbow/PUSH?
It's ****ing ludicrous how intimidated black activists have made white people when it comes to anything racial these days. If race is mentioned by a white person, white and black people come down on them. If a black person mentions it, there's a free pass because of "slavery, Jim Crow laws, blah blah blah."
People like the Revs $harpton, Jack$on, and Wright get a free pass now to spew racial intolerance and anti-semitic hatred with total impunity.
A successful and well-educated black man shares an opinion of Obama's skin color being a reason for his success, he's summarily brushed off as a political "Uncle Tom". Think about it, he's got an attractive back-story. After miserable failures of stodgy candidates, Democrats tasted great success with Bill Clinton. Charisma, grew up in the hills of Arkansas, from a broken home, etc. He was our "first black president". (That's one of the more racially patronizing statements I've ever heard.)
You have to admit, as much as there is an element of bigoted voters (I'd guess less than 20%) who will never vote for a black man, there's at least an equal percentage who will vote for him, just because he is a black man.
You go Conan. Keep going. Show your colors!
At least he has some color you lilly white f_uck nut.....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You do realize that Limbaugh's producer James Golden (Mr. Snurdley) is black, as is Neil Boortz's, Royal Marshall? Hannity used to have a black woman (only known as "Flipper") as his screener.
Some racist bigots we got there on talk radio, must be since the black man is playin' second fiddle to those white devils.
Flipper is black? I did not know that...
http://www.flirtyflipper.com/pals.html
Look again, and listen to her voice, there's some African American in her. I'd venture a guess a little less than Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You do realize that Limbaugh's producer James Golden (Mr. Snurdley) is black, as is Neil Boortz's, Royal Marshall? Hannity used to have a black woman (only known as "Flipper") as his screener.
Some racist bigots we got there on talk radio, must be since the black man is playin' second fiddle to those white devils.
Flipper is black? I did not know that...
http://www.flirtyflipper.com/pals.html
Look again, and listen to her voice, there's some African American in her. I'd venture a guess a little less than Obama.
Who knows, she might be. Good dig at Obama though. I always considered her character on the show as the flighty, airhead type. Here are other photos from her website:
http://flirtyflipper.com/gallery/album17
If you are afraid Mulsims hate Israel you're a racist.
If you are white and say something about black people - you are a racist.
If a successful billionaire black man says a disparaging (if not possibly true) comment about powerful millionaire black man - he's a racist.
Allusions to Obama's other heritage (Midwestern white women or Muslims) are racist.
If a white woman runs a hard race against a black man, she's racially biased.
Mainstream America has a low IQ and is racist.
If someone has black friends or employees they are condescending, and racist.
References to "fairy tales" and possibly other works of fiction directed at a minority are inherently racist.
Arguing with AOX/FOTD makes you intolerant and lack understanding.
- - -
Just to be clear: if a white person tells a black person "that idea is a fairy tale" it's racist. But if a black person says it to a white person we're ok? Is that correct. Just trying to get the rules down so I'm not a racist - I'm not arguing with you as I understand that to make me intolerant (one step below racist).
Also, I need clarification: is it just fairy tales or do we include other pieces of fiction? Mrs. Clinton's story about sniper fire was very Tom Clancy, was she really implying that a black man would not be able to handle a peaceful landing in a position of power and should learn his place - or are Tom Clancy type stories OK because McCain has referenced some Clancy like moments in his past to.
And I was thinking Disney movies always cast black people in lesser roles. The lobster who is a palace assistance, an ogres donkey, or a band of brigens. I think we should include Disney references as inherently racist - ESPECIALLY since many of them are based on fairy tales.
Please advise.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
Now who's showing their relative ignorance? What precisely do you know about NASCAR and the people who follow it? Different sort of "race" dillweed. You seem to think anyone who is not voting for Obama is a beer-swilling redneck.
You make out guys like Limbaugh and Hannity as being total KKK, bigot racists. I'm hardly an apologist for them, however, it stands to reason if they were the racist imbeciles you imply, they would not have had black people on their payrolls for years. How many white people, btw are on the ministerial payroll at Trinity UCOC? How many work for Rainbow/PUSH?
It's ****ing ludicrous how intimidated black activists have made white people when it comes to anything racial these days. If race is mentioned by a white person, white and black people come down on them. If a black person mentions it, there's a free pass because of "slavery, Jim Crow laws, blah blah blah."
People like the Revs $harpton, Jack$on, and Wright get a free pass now to spew racial intolerance and anti-semitic hatred with total impunity.
A successful and well-educated black man shares an opinion of Obama's skin color being a reason for his success, he's summarily brushed off as a political "Uncle Tom". Think about it, he's got an attractive back-story. After miserable failures of stodgy candidates, Democrats tasted great success with Bill Clinton. Charisma, grew up in the hills of Arkansas, from a broken home, etc. He was our "first black president". (That's one of the more racially patronizing statements I've ever heard.)
You have to admit, as much as there is an element of bigoted voters (I'd guess less than 20%) who will never vote for a black man, there's at least an equal percentage who will vote for him, just because he is a black man.
You go Conan. Keep going. Show your colors!
At least he has some color you lilly white f_uck nut.....
Wasn't this guy banned from this site at one point?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
I never said one was "called" uppity. Uppity is an implied term meaning racial overtones utilized to keep a person of color in their place which is often outside of your box. I'm not going to keep explaining to you that there are issues and then there are stereotypes designed to move the discussion off course.
Selective outrage? I've never seen you post any outrage against the senseless war, pollution, bigotry, or Bushed. You get outraged at people attacking the white folk majority thought process.
When you admit the strategy of the GOP is personal attacks not issues (they have no new ones), then I will transcend the race discussion and gladly discuss real issues.
You're going to be real hard to deal with after the November landslide. All this crap will play out badly for the fright wing. Most Americans see through it. Not Okies. They love KRMG and their special kind of stupid heroes .....I don't love Soros but I do respect him. I have no respect for KRMG, their advertisers, and the race baiting whoreific talk show "entertainers" who think this route of hatred best suits America rather than focusing on real issues.
So he never really was called uppity, but it was implied? So by disagreeing with Obama they implicitly called him uppity - which implies racist overtones? Wow.
Ignoring that stretch:
Uppity:
Princeton Words - overweening: presumptuously arrogant.
Cambridge - adjective INFORMAL DISAPPROVING
describes a person who behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are
Mariam Webster - putting on or marked by airs of superiority : arrogant, presumptuous <uppity technicians> <a small uppity country>
Dictionary.com - –adjective Informal.
1. affecting an attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish.
2. rebelliously self-assertive; not inclined to be tractable or deferential.
American heritage - adj. Informal
Taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's station; presumptuous: "was getting a little uppity and needed to be slapped down" (New York Times).
- - -
There is racial overtone in modern usage. If you want to try and make up a case for racial overtone we can look up the etymology of the word and go back to the 1600's where it was used by blacks to describe other blacks who were too assertive. Are you implying that they were saying Obama was too assertive for a 17th century black man?
in any event, it has held it's present meaning in common society for nearly 300 years.
Online Etymology Dictionary (Harper's)
uppity
1880, from up; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus"). The parallel British variant uppish (1678) originally meant "lavish;" the sense of "conceited, arrogant" being first recorded 1734.
- - - -
Basically, what I'm saying, is that notion is laughable. If we want to try and draw the race card on everything said surely we can go back in history and try to find a phrasing or use that could be construed as racist. And of course, if we did, at the time of the original usage it probably was not considered racist (such as 2 black men calling each other Uppity in the 1600's, inherently difficult for them to be racist against each other).
Or are the 5 dictionaries I cited as well as the etymology center incorrect?
The only time I can ever remember the term "uppity" applied in a racial sense was a comment by Slim Pickens in "Blazing Saddles".
You uppity white folks......[;)]
No, I'm far to self loathing to be uppity. I blame my Catholic youth. Not that anyone cares, I'm pretty insignificant.
CF, shouldn't you be on tour with the Pope?
Why, if the ambassador to the vatican is from Tulsa, is the tour not stopping here?
Thought I'd slip that in ( no pun intended ) to this "Special Kind of Stupid" thread....
quote:
Selective outrage? I've never seen you post any outrage against the senseless war, pollution, bigotry, or Bushed. You get outraged at people attacking the white folk majority thought process.
Nice dodge. I take it from your non response that Wright is your kinda guy. As far as your list, what war are you referring to? Where is your outrage against child labor, spousal abuse, etc? What a stupid response.
I asked you a VERY narrow question within a specific context and you chose to support an anti-semite. Congratulations.
quote:
When you admit the strategy of the GOP is personal attacks not issues (they have no new ones), then I will transcend the race discussion and gladly discuss real issues.
You're going to be real hard to deal with after the November landslide. All this crap will play out badly for the fright wing. Most Americans see through it. Not Okies. They love KRMG and their special kind of stupid heroes .....I don't love Soros but I do respect him. I have no respect for KRMG, their advertisers, and the race baiting whoreific talk show "entertainers" who think this route of hatred best suits America rather than focusing on real issues.
You're the post boy for "personal attacks." In fact, you're like a left wing Chatty Kathy doll. Pull the string and out comes an incomplete, thoughtless, and canned response. For the life of me I don't know why people even engage with you. The intelligence quotient for this forum spiked briefly before you returned.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Selective outrage? I've never seen you post any outrage against the senseless war, pollution, bigotry, or Bushed. You get outraged at people attacking the white folk majority thought process.
Nice dodge. I take it from your non response that Wright is your kinda guy. As far as your list, what war are you referring to? Where is your outrage against child labor, spousal abuse, etc? What a stupid response.
I asked you a VERY narrow question within a specific context and you chose to support an anti-semite. Congratulations.
quote:
When you admit the strategy of the GOP is personal attacks not issues (they have no new ones), then I will transcend the race discussion and gladly discuss real issues.
You're going to be real hard to deal with after the November landslide. All this crap will play out badly for the fright wing. Most Americans see through it. Not Okies. They love KRMG and their special kind of stupid heroes .....I don't love Soros but I do respect him. I have no respect for KRMG, their advertisers, and the race baiting whoreific talk show "entertainers" who think this route of hatred best suits America rather than focusing on real issues.
You're the post boy for "personal attacks." In fact, you're like a left wing Chatty Kathy doll. Pull the string and out comes an incomplete, thoughtless, and canned response. For the life of me I don't know why people even engage with you. The intelligence quotient for this forum spiked briefly before you returned.
You're like a bad nightmare....you add little to any discussion. All you do is set the tone for negativity. Would you prefer I disappear again? Sure, that would increase your following by one.
It would be easy to leave now that my man will be President. Nothing left for me to do except harp on your party's dismal performance and the awful state of affairs they've put us in.....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
QuoteFor the life of me I don't know why people even engage with you.
Amusement IP.
Speaking of amusement, you should find this a fun response to a threatened infringement suit:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
QuoteFor the life of me I don't know why people even engage with you.
Amusement IP.
Speaking of amusement, you should find this a fun response to a threatened infringement suit:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
Amusement to some, but all of us have to suffer through..
Anyone remember this one?
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb43/eladabbub/blazing-saddles.jpg)
Back when people were allowed to laugh at race.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
Now who's showing their relative ignorance? What precisely do you know about NASCAR and the people who follow it? Different sort of "race" dillweed. You seem to think anyone who is not voting for Obama is a beer-swilling redneck.
You make out guys like Limbaugh and Hannity as being total KKK, bigot racists. I'm hardly an apologist for them, however, it stands to reason if they were the racist imbeciles you imply, they would not have had black people on their payrolls for years. How many white people, btw are on the ministerial payroll at Trinity UCOC? How many work for Rainbow/PUSH?
It's ****ing ludicrous how intimidated black activists have made white people when it comes to anything racial these days. If race is mentioned by a white person, white and black people come down on them. If a black person mentions it, there's a free pass because of "slavery, Jim Crow laws, blah blah blah."
People like the Revs $harpton, Jack$on, and Wright get a free pass now to spew racial intolerance and anti-semitic hatred with total impunity.
A successful and well-educated black man shares an opinion of Obama's skin color being a reason for his success, he's summarily brushed off as a political "Uncle Tom". Think about it, he's got an attractive back-story. After miserable failures of stodgy candidates, Democrats tasted great success with Bill Clinton. Charisma, grew up in the hills of Arkansas, from a broken home, etc. He was our "first black president". (That's one of the more racially patronizing statements I've ever heard.)
You have to admit, as much as there is an element of bigoted voters (I'd guess less than 20%) who will never vote for a black man, there's at least an equal percentage who will vote for him, just because he is a black man.
You go Conan. Keep going. Show your colors!
At least he has some color you lilly white f_uck nut.....
I'm beggining to sense that Breadburner is iplaw's evil twin sister....and they're not African American.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Anyone remember this one?
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb43/eladabbub/blazing-saddles.jpg)
Back when people were allowed to laugh at race.
I think there were times when we were not allowed to hear certain humor. I do not think laughing at race has ever been blocked.
Blazing Saddles was a terrific movie that humored all while leaving no minority unscathed.
It was humor....not the body politic.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
The trouble with "shock" talk show hosts such as Savage and Limbaughcontin and Neil Boortz and Sean Hannity is that they sanction our most base feelings and legitimatize them. They have a First Amendment right to state their foul views, but that doesn't mean that a broadcasting network, using the public airwaves, is justified in making a profit off of their aggressively vicious demagoguery.
But, of course, there are those haters who revel in their cesspool of bigotry. They are their loyal audience.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
The trouble with "shock" talk show hosts such as Savage and Limbaughcontin and Neil Boortz and Sean Hannity is that they sanction our most base feelings and legitimatize them. They have a First Amendment right to state their foul views, but that doesn't mean that a broadcasting network, using the public airwaves, is justified in making a profit off of their aggressively vicious demagoguery.
But, of course, there are those haters who revel in their cesspool of bigotry. They are their loyal audience.
You harp and gripe about the Constitution being trampled by the current admin. Yet, you selectively parse the First Amendment to your liking, without considering that bigots like Al Sharpton also use the public airwaves. Why don't you lump him in with the white bigots you mentioned?
You also support a candidate who is a chameleon when it comes to guns and was for an all-out ban on handguns at one point and has come out in the past against conceal-carry.
For someone as paranoid as you are about gov't getting into your life, don't you know they come for your guns first and start stripping away your right to free speech? That's how it happens. Right after that, they hack your TulsaNow account.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
The trouble with "shock" talk show hosts such as Savage and Limbaughcontin and Neil Boortz and Sean Hannity is that they sanction our most base feelings and legitimatize them. They have a First Amendment right to state their foul views, but that doesn't mean that a broadcasting network, using the public airwaves, is justified in making a profit off of their aggressively vicious demagoguery.
But, of course, there are those haters who revel in their cesspool of bigotry. They are their loyal audience.
You harp and gripe about the Constitution being trampled by the current admin. Yet, you selectively parse the First Amendment to your liking, without considering that bigots like Al Sharpton also use the public airwaves. Why don't you lump him in with the white bigots you mentioned?
You also support a candidate who is a chameleon when it comes to guns and was for an all-out ban on handguns at one point and has come out in the past against conceal-carry.
For someone as paranoid as you are about gov't getting into your life, don't you know they come for your guns first and start stripping away your right to free speech? That's how it happens. Right after that, they hack your TulsaNow account.
Cue the evil music!!!! The evil Bush 'ministration is after him...
Stephanopoulos Got Debate Question for Obama about 1970s Radical William Ayres from Fox's Sean Hannity
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/04/17/stephanopoulos-grilled-obama-with-question-from-hannity/
1) Ask Obama about his relationship with Ayers and WeatherUnderground and Axelrod's comments, "They're friendly"
2) Ask Obama why he attended the Million Man March
Why not ask Hannity about his association with a Nazi lover and Isreal hater. So why is Hannity allowed to spew his own brand of hate speech on the radio and tv?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Low IQ mainstream America is mostly racist. See Nascar.....
When Conan drags out black "employees" to make acceptable intolerant talkspeak, I'm pointing out that is prejudice. You must have trouble understanding what's really going on in the election. It will become clear once the campaigns swing into full gear. The corporations and elitist's are planning all out racial oriented politics. Can they stay on the issues or will the talkies continue portraying uppity?
Now who's showing their relative ignorance? What precisely do you know about NASCAR and the people who follow it? Different sort of "race" dillweed. You seem to think anyone who is not voting for Obama is a beer-swilling redneck.
You make out guys like Limbaugh and Hannity as being total KKK, bigot racists. I'm hardly an apologist for them, however, it stands to reason if they were the racist imbeciles you imply, they would not have had black people on their payrolls for years. How many white people, btw are on the ministerial payroll at Trinity UCOC? How many work for Rainbow/PUSH?
It's ****ing ludicrous how intimidated black activists have made white people when it comes to anything racial these days. If race is mentioned by a white person, white and black people come down on them. If a black person mentions it, there's a free pass because of "slavery, Jim Crow laws, blah blah blah."
People like the Revs $harpton, Jack$on, and Wright get a free pass now to spew racial intolerance and anti-semitic hatred with total impunity.
A successful and well-educated black man shares an opinion of Obama's skin color being a reason for his success, he's summarily brushed off as a political "Uncle Tom". Think about it, he's got an attractive back-story. After miserable failures of stodgy candidates, Democrats tasted great success with Bill Clinton. Charisma, grew up in the hills of Arkansas, from a broken home, etc. He was our "first black president". (That's one of the more racially patronizing statements I've ever heard.)
You have to admit, as much as there is an element of bigoted voters (I'd guess less than 20%) who will never vote for a black man, there's at least an equal percentage who will vote for him, just because he is a black man.
You go Conan. Keep going. Show your colors!
At least he has some color you lilly white f_uck nut.....
Wasn't this guy banned from this site at one point?
As a matter of fact no...
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Selective outrage? I've never seen you post any outrage against the senseless war, pollution, bigotry, or Bushed. You get outraged at people attacking the white folk majority thought process.
Nice dodge. I take it from your non response that Wright is your kinda guy. As far as your list, what war are you referring to? Where is your outrage against child labor, spousal abuse, etc? What a stupid response.
I asked you a VERY narrow question within a specific context and you chose to support an anti-semite. Congratulations.
quote:
When you admit the strategy of the GOP is personal attacks not issues (they have no new ones), then I will transcend the race discussion and gladly discuss real issues.
You're going to be real hard to deal with after the November landslide. All this crap will play out badly for the fright wing. Most Americans see through it. Not Okies. They love KRMG and their special kind of stupid heroes .....I don't love Soros but I do respect him. I have no respect for KRMG, their advertisers, and the race baiting whoreific talk show "entertainers" who think this route of hatred best suits America rather than focusing on real issues.
You're the post boy for "personal attacks." In fact, you're like a left wing Chatty Kathy doll. Pull the string and out comes an incomplete, thoughtless, and canned response. For the life of me I don't know why people even engage with you. The intelligence quotient for this forum spiked briefly before you returned.
You're like a bad nightmare....you add little to any discussion. All you do is set the tone for negativity. Would you prefer I disappear again? Sure, that would increase your following by one.
It would be easy to leave now that my man will be President. Nothing left for me to do except harp on your party's dismal performance and the awful state of affairs they've put us in.....
Look it's a conspiracy theorist daddy....
quote:
You go Conan. Keep going. Show your colors!
[/quote]
At least he has some color you lilly white f_uck nut.....
[/quote]
Wasn't this guy banned from this site at one point?
[/quote]
As a matter of fact no...
[/quote]
Not one in the same.....multiple devils, er personalities.
Besides, he offers up more info and ideas and provoking discussions than you .....and he pulls no sucker punches like you do.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
You go Conan. Keep going. Show your colors!
At least he has some color you lilly white f_uck nut.....
[/quote]
Wasn't this guy banned from this site at one point?
[/quote]
As a matter of fact no...
[/quote]
Not one in the same.....multiple devils, er personalities.
Besides, he offers up more info and ideas and provoking discussions than you .....and he pulls no sucker punches like you do.
[/quote]
That, my friends, was either an example of a special kind of stupid, or just a stiff bong hit of hope.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
I'm gonna open a big ol' can of worms with this, but I think it needs to be said.
If white racism is bad, then what is black racism? There seems to be a misguided belief that individual black people can't be racist, and it's just ridiculous. Of course, those in the black community won't call their disparaging remarks concerning other races as making racist remarks, instead making some noble justification for their rhetoric.
And yet, a double standard is at play here. If a white person makes a negative comment towards certain isolated shortcomings in the black community-even if they aren't directed towards the community as a whole-they are derided as racist. For instance, you could click it onto BET or any other cable channel featuring black stand-up comics, and it's "white people this, white people that," or "orientals this or that," and it all seems perfectly harmless; they seemed to be held to a different standard. But if a white comic went on television and went off on a rip about "black people this, black people that," it'd create untold amount of controversy, assuming they'd even put such a comic on TV in the first place.
Race isn't that complicated an issue. There's bigotry on both sides, unfortunately some are judged by a different standard.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
The trouble with "shock" talk show hosts such as Savage and Limbaughcontin and Neil Boortz and Sean Hannity is that they sanction our most base feelings and legitimatize them. They have a First Amendment right to state their foul views, but that doesn't mean that a broadcasting network, using the public airwaves, is justified in making a profit off of their aggressively vicious demagoguery.
But, of course, there are those haters who revel in their cesspool of bigotry. They are their loyal audience.
You harp and gripe about the Constitution being trampled by the current admin. Yet, you selectively parse the First Amendment to your liking, without considering that bigots like Al Sharpton also use the public airwaves. Why don't you lump him in with the white bigots you mentioned?
You also support a candidate who is a chameleon when it comes to guns and was for an all-out ban on handguns at one point and has come out in the past against conceal-carry.
For someone as paranoid as you are about gov't getting into your life, don't you know they come for your guns first and start stripping away your right to free speech? That's how it happens. Right after that, they hack your TulsaNow account.
Cue the evil music!!!! The evil Bush 'ministration is after him...
(http://a2.vox.com/6a00c22526bbf9549d00d09e594a62be2b-500pi)
These ladies will sing his song...
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
When someone says "fairy tale" it implies Obama is uppity and does not understand his place.
Since when did being called "uppity" equate to racism?
quote:
You have no clue from these comments what Obama has said, what calling a Jew a bloodsucker means, and what Soros has to do with this thread.
Jeremiah Wright was publicly anti-semitic along with Calipso Louie, yet did we ever hear you speak out against any of those two? Nope. Strange that "racism" seems to incite selective outrage with you.
Also, you decry the evils of the corporate and elitists, yet you love Soros. How is he not a elitist and a corporate monster?
quote:
In other words, your reply indicates you are intolerant and lack understanding.
Let me translate this from Bulls$t to English. "I can't think of a meaningful response so I'm going to use my two favorite buzz words."
quote:
Sheeesh. Transcend race and talk issues.
I believe that in this entire thread the only person to label someone a racist or intolerant is YOU, so it appears that you're the only one who can't "transcend" the issue.
I'm gonna open a big ol' can of worms with this, but I think it needs to be said.
If white racism is bad, then what is black racism? There seems to be a misguided belief that individual black people can't be racist, and it's just ridiculous. Of course, those in the black community won't call their disparaging remarks concerning other races as making racist remarks, instead making some noble justification for their rhetoric.
And yet, a double standard is at play here. If a white person makes a negative comment towards certain isolated shortcomings in the black community-even if they aren't directed towards the community as a whole-they are derided as racist. For instance, you could click it onto BET or any other cable channel featuring black stand-up comics, and it's "white people this, white people that," or "orientals this or that," and it all seems perfectly harmless; they seemed to be held to a different standard. But if a white comic went on television and went off on a rip about "black people this, black people that," it'd create untold amount of controversy, assuming they'd even put such a comic on TV in the first place.
Race isn't that complicated an issue. There's bigotry on both sides, unfortunately some are judged by a different standard.
So, you are a worm?
Oppression never happened to whitey.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Oppression never happened to whitey.
Sure it has, it's called "political correctness"
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Oppression never happened to whitey.
Sure it has, it's called "political correctness"
I'm no worm. While I don't seek to intentionally offend most people, I do believe that the truth of a matter is important no matter who it helps, no matter who it hurts in the long run. Racism is not a social ill practiced exclusively by whites!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Oppression never happened to whitey.
Sure it has, it's called "political correctness"
Now that's unintentionally funny. Sort of like when Montgomery Burns says:
"Well, for once, the rich white man is in control."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Oppression never happened to whitey.
Sure it has, it's called "political correctness"
Pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
So, you are a worm?
Oppression never happened to whitey.
Have you never picked up a history book? White people have been enslaved and oppressed throughout history. No ethnic group has escaped unscathed throughout time.
Your ignorance on virtually every topic would be entertaining if it weren't so depressing.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw No ethnic group has escaped unscathed throughout time.
Except the Jews. No one ever picks on them.
(sorry, I really couldn't resist)
[edit]in case anyone missed it, this is sarcasm because Jewish history is full of enslavement, persecution, and hostility towards them and in the modern world most Jews are white - in light of the statement white people don't get picked on it seemed relevant[/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
So, you are a worm?
Oppression never happened to whitey.
Have you never picked up a history book? White people have been enslaved and oppressed throughout history. No ethnic group has escaped unscathed throughout time.
Your ignorance on virtually every topic would be entertaining if it weren't so depressing.
And it's good that we're no talking about minority-on-white hate crime, because i'd have plenty to say on that little subject!
White people have been but not because they're white.....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
White people have been but not because they're white.....
Racism takes many forms, see the history of Israel during WWII. What did it matter what the color of their skin was? Would it really matter to you if you were oppressed because of your skin color or because of the religion you belong to? Oppression is oppression no matter the foolish reasoning behind it.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
White people have been but not because they're white.....
So does that mean refusing to hire, do business with profiling, stereotyping, or otherwise treating white Jews different because of their ethnic identity is somehow lesser than being racist against blacks?
I understand Jews are not a "race" as is a too common perception, but as a group they are subject to similar stereotyping as blacks, and have been treated just as poorly (or worse) in the past. Not pointing anything out in relation to that fact, but just trying to clarify if a struggle against bigotry based on class, religion, or origin is really that much different than bigotry based on skin color.
IMHO, the Jews that I know are light hearted about the stereotypes and I am not aware of any real prejudice (other than the extreme KKK/Nazi types) - but certainly it was more common in the past and I doubt it is altogether gone.
/again, just brought up Jews because it seemed an easy point of debate as most are familiar with their struggles.
What about Armenians at the hands of the Turks? They're Caucasian (by definition) and were persecuted just on race.
Armenians were oppressed and suffered genocide over Nationalism not due to being white....
"William Tell has stretched his bow till it won't stretch
No furthermore and it may require a change that hasn't come before." Hunter/Garcia
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
White people have been but not because they're white.....
Well, certain official and unofficial affirmative action measures don't exactly bear witness to that statement!
Another special kind of stupid:
Rush Limbaugh 'Dreaming' Of Riots In Denver
Talk Show Host Wants America To See Actions Of 'Far Left'
POSTED: 11:37 am MDT April 24, 2008
UPDATED: 1:30 pm MDT April 25, 2008
DENVER -- Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments that appear to call for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.
He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.
"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.
Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama.
Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."
Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called part of "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.
"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."
He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.
"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.
Later, Limbaugh downplayed his "dreaming of riots in Denver" statement, and said that he wasn't calling for riots and was referring to warnings of trouble if superdelegates decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.
Limbaugh's comments prompted Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to say, "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."
Denver will host the DNC on Aug. 25 to Aug. 28.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html
Don't everyone jump in at once to back Rush up on this illegal activity.
1 question:
If there are riots in Denver, will it be leftist hippies, communists, labor party members, black caucus members, and other democrats... or conservatives that are turning over cars and smashing store fronts?
If the former, do you think they are listening to Rush? If the latter, I highly doubt it.
If you honestly think people will take to the streets because Rush says so you are severely out of touch with his core audience. But way to take the new "talking points" of all the liftist bloggers and post it whole sale like a good little follower.
and back up your claim of "illegal activities." I want a citation to the law, jurisprudence, and his specific comments.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1 question:
If there are riots in Denver, will it be leftist hippies, communists, labor party members, black caucus members, and other democrats... or conservatives that are turning over cars and smashing store fronts?
If the former, do you think they are listening to Rush? If the latter, I highly doubt it.
If you honestly think people will take to the streets because Rush says so you are severely out of touch with his core audience. But way to take the new "talking points" of all the liftist bloggers and post it whole sale like a good little follower.
and back up your claim of "illegal activities." I want a citation to the law, jurisprudence, and his specific comments.
It's unlawful to incite a riot.....
http://belvasdaughter.blogspot.com/2008/04/fox-expert-if-mob-ran-things-thered-be.html
"If, after watching the video below, you think that FOX should issue an apology to Sen. Obama and censure Ms. Byrnes, contact them here:"
feedback@foxbusiness.com and comments@foxnews.com
To incite a riot your actions must be "reasonably calculated and incur a high probability of causing illegal activity."
Basically, you need to have both the intent to and a chance of actually starting a riot. Neither was present, so ignoring the semantics of what was actually said - it still is not a crime.
Please, stop making defend Rush. He raises some good points, but generally I don't like his bully style nor his Republicans Are Right stance.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
To incite a riot your actions must be "reasonably calculated and incur a high probability of causing illegal activity."
Basically, you need to have both the intent to and a chance of actually starting a riot. Neither was present, so ignoring the semantics of what was actually said - it still is not a crime.
Please, stop making defend Rush. He raises some good points, but generally I don't like his bully style nor his Republicans Are Right stance.
Oh come now.
Come now on legal definitions, pointing out the facts, or not wanting to defend Rush?
Sharpton was on the news this morning, saying he wants to shut NYC down and take to the streets... are you calling for his arrest?
I get confused every time I see this thread because I see "A Special Kind of Stupid" then "FOTD" on the same line and all I can say is YES!
That makes sense.
Many here miss the point.
The point being...If you look at the U.S. Patriot Act, there are three requirements for causing someone to be labeled a "Domestic Terrorist": 'Under the new USA PATRIOT ACT, Section 802 of HR 3162 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that - 1) involve acts dangerous to human life 2) that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States: 3) ...and "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;"' 1) Calling for riots is dangerous to human life. 2) Calling for riots is illegal. 3) Calling for riots to disrupt a political convention is clearly an attempt to both intimidate or coerce a civilian population AND influence governmental policy by intimidation or coercion. Thus, Rush Limbaugh is a "Domestic Terrorist" as defined by the U.S. Patriot Act.
Declared a genius, this buffoon can't construct a simple sentence.
http://iht.com/articles/2008/05/12/america/rove.php
Rove as a pundit raises suspicions
By Jim Rutenberg and Jacques Steinberg
Published: May 12, 2008
WASHINGTON: Late Thursday night, Karl Rove, "the architect" of the last two Republican presidential victories, was on his new television perch at Fox News, offering free advice to Senator Barack Obama as he closed in on the Democratic nomination.
Any move by Obama to declare victory before the last of the Democratic primaries in June, Rove said, would alienate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's wing of the party. "That's a mistake," he said.
"That just is rubbing the loser's nose in it. And a lot of those supporters will remember it by November."
In the Obama campaign war room in Chicago, where Rove's talking head was just one of several across six television screens, his counsel was taken with a heavy dose of salt.
"Wouldn't taking his advice be a little like getting health tips from a funeral home director?" said Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton.
The bête noire of the Democrats has turned pundit, and his old nemeses - along with those who used to cover him in the news media - do not always know what to make of it.
One year ago, when he was still a deputy White House chief of staff in the Bush administration, Rove was more likely than not ducking news organizations.
Now, he has joined them, as an analyst for Fox News and a contributor to Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal. A book is in the offing, too. (Still no word on a radio show, but there was an National Public Radio appearance late last week).
At times clearly partisan, at others, apparently offering down-the-middle analysis, Rove's new role as a media star marks another step in the evolution of mainstream journalism - where opinion, "straight news" reporting and unmistakable spin increasingly mingle, especially on television.
George Stephanopoulos's abrupt move 11 years ago from Bill Clinton's White House to ABC News - initially as a partisan member of a Sunday morning political panel who would also do some reporting - raised hackles inside and outside the network.
Speaking at the time to the American Journalism Review, the Washington Post columnist David Broder complained about what he saw as a worrisome trend: "One day they are calling journalists to write favorably about their prominent political patrons," Broder said, "and the next minute they are sitting at the table with journalists and indistinguishable from the journalists."
This year, there has been hardly a hiccup as the cable news networks and other outlets have sought to stoke interest in the presidential race - already a huge ratings boon - by signing up a number of strategists who have either left politics only recently, or still work in campaigns, a detail that is usually shared with the audience but not always.
Nicolle Wallace, who had been the communications director for President George W. Bush's 2004 campaign and then held the same job in the White House, was an on-air political consultant for CBS News until last month, when she joined the campaign of Senator John McCain.
Alex Castellanos, formerly the top advertising strategist for Mitt Romney, has been a regular member of CNN's bipartisan panel on Democratic election nights. He is also now an outside volunteer adviser to McCain's advertising team.
The CNN analyst Paul Begala is a Clinton supporter who works as a consultant to Progressive Media USA, a so-called 527 group that is running attack ads against McCain. Begala often sits alongside James Carville, a former Clinton aide, or Donna Brazile, a Democratic National Committee member and superdelegate.
"We have now reached a point, particularly in 24/7 cable, where it is not the journalist who is the preferred participant, but the politician, the political activist, the Karl Rove type," said Marvin Kalb, the former director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard who was a former correspondent for CBS and NBC.
There are "Karl Rove types," and there is Karl Rove, who defined the modern brand of knuckle-ball politics and helped build a new generation of Republican operatives, some of them now with the McCain campaign, including Wallace and Steve Schmidt, McCain's senior strategist.
Rove, who would not comment for this article, says that he maintains regular contact with his progeny at the McCain campaign.
"I'm not certain that I qualify as an adviser to McCain," he wrote in an online discussion last week with readers of the Washington Post Web site. "I have friends at the campaign who occasionally ask me for reactions, and the Fox network is well aware of that, and similar contacts by some of their Democratic analysts."
Rove is also regularly mentioned as a candidate to run a Republican 527 group, though no plans have been announced.
Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, said he was not worried that his readers would confuse Rove's leanings. "No one on the planet who is reading Newsweek is at all puzzled as to what Karl's politics are," he said.
Meacham said he hired Rove as a contributor last fall in an effort to "responsibly provoke." Indeed, he said, several hundred readers canceled their subscriptions in response to the announcement.
Unlike many of his fellow commentators, Rove has avoided any big predictions.
On March 6, he warned in The Wall Street Journal against reading too much into a victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania. "If she wins," he wrote, "there are five more contests with more than 50 delegates at stake in each, and Obama could regain momentum."
He has also at times been complimentary to the other side, saying of Obama's speech last week on the night of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, "I thought it was well done."
Democrats say they remain suspicious, especially of his "advice."
In a letter to Obama in Newsweek last month, Rove advised him to do more to work across party lines in the Senate because "your lack of achievements undercuts your core themes." On Fox News he recently suggested that Obama campaign less and work in the Senate more.
Begala, the Democratic operative and CNN analyst, said it was Rove's job, and his own, to keep them guessing.
"That's what makes it interesting television," he said.
Join us, or join the hero's; that's my bet of what the slimy worms' advice is about.
The contrast between the commedians on Faux Newz, CNN, and Comedy Network is amazing.
Jon Stewart conducts a very good interview here. Why do we hardly ever see this type of interview from the MSM? The fright wing should coduct themselves like Stewart since they are all in the same business. They should all be held to the same ethical standards in the realm of entertainment.
http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2008/05/jon-stewart-spe.html
The worst person of all these scoundrels.....BILL OLIELY!
In case you missed this Billarious melt down:
http://gawker.com/5008668/bill-oreilly-meltdown-resurfaces
Still more stupidity from the Evangelickas....
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/85497/
Apocalyptic Christian Nationalism at Its Scariest
Posted by ZP Heller, Brave New Films at 9:20 AM on May 15, 2008.
These are excerpts from "Silhouette City," a new documentary by Michael Wilson that investigates apocalyptic Christian nationalism. The film tracks the rise of this religious fervor over the last three decades, from fringe Christian survivalist groups of the 1970's to today's mainstream movement. As you can see from this clip, the current leaders of apocalyptic Christian nationalism include Rev. Rod Parsley and Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain has actively sought.
According to Wilson:
"I began making "Silhouette City" because, in late 2001, I began to hear echoes of the Christian extremism from my childhood in Arkansas. In order to quiet the ringing in my ears, I immersed myself in the contemporary Christian right – the media, music, ministries, books, personalities and organizational apparatuses.... As the economy continues to slide, the energy crisis becomes palpable and the occupation of Iraq appears indefinite, the potential grows for a major disruption of daily life. A significant percentage of the population sees these looming crises through a specific lens: a belief that humanity is waging the opening skirmishes of a cosmic war between Good and Evil that will usher in the Kingdom of God. Such belief enables an ever-escalating sense of urgency – very real threats to the middle and lower classes (outsourcing, rising fuel and food costs, etc) combine with perceived threats (secularism, homosexuality, ethnic/religious others) to become overwhelming evidence of the tribulations that signal apocalypse."
"Silhouette City" focuses on the motivations behind this growing need to adopt an apocalyptic worldview.
Right-Wing Media Using Immigration Debate to Mainstream Hate
By Ali Gharib, AlterNet. Posted May 23, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/86302/
"By poisoning the public discourse with disinformation, right-wing talkers improve their ratings while leaving us far from fixing a broken system. "
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The worst person of all these scoundrels.....BILL OLIELY!
In case you missed this Billarious melt down:
http://gawker.com/5008668/bill-oreilly-meltdown-resurfaces
On his radio show, he ain't that bad a guy....
Damn it Jaynes, he was one post away from having a month-long conversation with himself.
How many people do you think read the garbage you spam in all these threads?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Damn it Jaynes, he was one post away from having a month-long conversation with himself.
How many people do you think read the garbage you spam in all these threads?
So that's your game plan? Eliminate discussion so you can eventually let it go by with no sound reasoning nor an honest conclusion nor a determination of right from wrong? How do your coworkers tolerate you? Do you have coworkers or are you always in your confinded little world?
lol @ AOX.
I forget you are the poster child for sound reasoning and honest conclusions. Which one of those is spamming of articles with no discussion or reply for nearly a month?
Also, in what way did I stymie discussion - point out that you talked to yourself in here for a month? It seems no one is interested in discussion things with you because you fail miserably to meet your own criteria. In general, when someone points out that you are acting like a fool (posting to yourself for a month) - the preferred response is not to prove them correct.
You may now go back to your article spamming.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
lol @ AOX.
I forget you are the poster child for sound reasoning and honest conclusions. Which one of those is spamming of articles with no discussion or reply for nearly a month?
Also, in what way did I stymie discussion - point out that you talked to yourself in here for a month? It seems no one is interested in discussion things with you because you fail miserably to meet your own criteria. In general, when someone points out that you are acting like a fool (posting to yourself for a month) - the preferred response is not to prove them correct.
You may now go back to your article spamming.
Where's your butt brother Ipsqueak been lately?
Military Propaganda at it's worst....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHNntBQlzOs
Americans by and large are suckers.....they believe the special stupid people.
Legal Brief
Religious Right Lies About Hate Bill
By Rhonda Brownstein
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=910
"These and other similarly outlandish claims by an array of far-right Christian fundamentalist groups are designed to incite their members to oppose a proposed amendment to the current federal hate crimes law. But it's obvious that these groups never consulted an actual lawyer — at least not one who knew anything about law."
"Contrary to the claims of right-wing groups like the American Family Association that the bill would "criminalize thoughts," the bill only applies in cases where a victim was physically attacked or the subject of an attempted attack. It does not "criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality." It would not make calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit a "hate crime" punishable by "a hefty fine and time in prison." It would not "send your grandma, your pastor, or you to jail for sharing your faith." Here's what the bill actually says...."
"The outrageous claims of the American Family Association and other groups that the LLECHPA is "dangerous legislation [that] would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion" are nothing more than false demagoguery and fearmongering. As groups that allegedly promote morality, one would expect they would have more allegiance to the truth."
They don't know what their talking about....all those special kind of media and religious stoops....
I gotta pop into this thread every now and then.
It's like watching my daughter have a discussion with her imaginary friend.
No intelligible dialogue, just a stream of words, emotion, and expression.
This is a tapestry of the poster's mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I gotta pop into this thread every now and then.
It's like watching my daughter have a discussion with her imaginary friend.
No intelligible dialogue, just a stream of words, emotion, and expression.
This is a tapestry of the poster's mind.
But enough about Laura Ingraham....
Putz News Network. I still insist on a restaurant or club turning that channel off before I give the establishment a dime of my money.....
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdesperadoPost%3Aa291bd57-de8e-4309-9775-e47354920419
"The topic was Republican attacks on Michelle Obama and whether or not it was fair. The strange thing about the caption was that neither Malkin nor Kelly said those words during the interview. Apparently, someone in the production room decided to insert their personal opinion. I know Fox has an anti-Obama slant, as borne out by Sean Hannity's continuous rant about the "radical" Barack Obama, but this is over the top.
Is this what we can expect from the "fair and balanced" network from now 'til November? Since it's only June, I shudder to think what words might crawl across the screen by then."
FOX Propaganda Network gets a jump start on the Michelle Obama racial slurs with "Baby Mama" caption. The FOX Bigot Network. Roger Ailes would make a good plantation owner. You can see him standing there with his bull whip.
What was bigoted about it again?
(http://contribute.chron.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/15/03bdfcc7-66cb-4f32-bf37-b20a2be65ec9.Large.jpg)
Do you know what a bigot is? It's not a simple matter of showing bias or even disrespect.
Also, calling him "radical" my be using a loaded term, but he is the most liberal member of the Senate and has been advocating for extreme change... so the description is apt. Is that what makes the news bigoted?
Also, do you just sit around and try to find things to be outraged about?
You can go back to talking to yourself now...
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Putz News Network. I still insist on a restaurant or club turning that channel off before I give the establishment a dime of my money.....
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdesperadoPost%3Aa291bd57-de8e-4309-9775-e47354920419
"The topic was Republican attacks on Michelle Obama and whether or not it was fair. The strange thing about the caption was that neither Malkin nor Kelly said those words during the interview. Apparently, someone in the production room decided to insert their personal opinion. I know Fox has an anti-Obama slant, as borne out by Sean Hannity's continuous rant about the "radical" Barack Obama, but this is over the top.
Is this what we can expect from the "fair and balanced" network from now 'til November? Since it's only June, I shudder to think what words might crawl across the screen by then."
FOX Propaganda Network gets a jump start on the Michelle Obama racial slurs with "Baby Mama" caption. The FOX Bigot Network. Roger Ailes would make a good plantation owner. You can see him standing there with his bull whip.
You are probably a lousy tipper too.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
What was bigoted about it again?
(http://contribute.chron.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/15/03bdfcc7-66cb-4f32-bf37-b20a2be65ec9.Large.jpg)
Do you know what a bigot is? It's not a simple matter of showing bias or even disrespect.
Also, calling him "radical" my be using a loaded term, but he is the most liberal member of the Senate and has been advocating for extreme change... so the description is apt. Is that what makes the news bigoted?
Also, do you just sit around and try to find things to be outraged about?
You can go back to talking to yourself now...
In point of fact, she's not his baby mama, (//%22http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baby+mama%22) which means the mother of his children to which he's not married. She's his wife. So it really IS a slur. I think it's bigotted, too, but I can see where that may be in the eye of the beholder.
Where do we get that whole "most liberal member of the Senate" malarkey? I've heard that repeated ad nauseum but haven't ever seen anything to back it up. Not that Obama's not a liberal, but that particular usage scans as inaccurate. What about Feinstein, or Feingold, or Boxer, or Kennedy, or Kerry? And now that I mention Kerry, doesn't it seem like, just four years ago, HE was the most liberal member of the Senate?
Wevus,
I agree that the comment was unprofessional from a journalistic perspective, but not terribly offensive. It was probably some stupid Fox desk jockey thinking he was being clever. It can also mean "The mother of your children" or "A source of endless emotional pain and/or headaches" per the link you gave me. I won't defend it, but the term "bigot" should be reserved for severe displays of racism (or other bigotry) IMHO.
Also, per the "most liberal" it comes from the National Journal Congressional scores. They (basically) take topics/votes and rate each side of that bill the conservative or liberal side of the bill, then track which way each member votes. The below linked website has their entire methodology in the sidebar link.
Obama ranked the most liberal member of Congress:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/
It has generally been acknowledged as a fair system as the empirical method it uses have limited interpretation. At least so far as political labels are concerned, it's pretty non-controversial. Oh, and all members are rated - kind of fun to check it out and see if labels fit or not.
Bittermen......
Obama is not the most liberal. National Journal says so, but most other ranking groups say he is middle of the road liberal.
Here is the composite score from other groups.
Here is a better guide to how conservative or liberal a senator is...Coburn is number 3 on the conservative side and Obama and Hillary are both middle of the road liberal.
The eight groups used in this study are:
ACU - American Conservative Union
ATR - Americans for Tax Reform
CWA - Concern Women for America
Club4 - Club for Growth
Eagle - Eagle Forum
FRC - Family Research Council
RTL - Right to Life
TVC - Traditional Values Coalition
Senator State ACU ATR CWA Club4 Eagle FRC RTL TVC Mean
Jim DeMint (R) South Carolina 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 97%
John Ensign (R) Nevada 100% N/A 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 80% 96%
Tom Coburn (R) Oklahoma 100% 85% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 96%
John Barrasso (R) Wyoming N/A N/A N/A 90% N/A 100% N/A N/A 95%
Saxby Chambliss (R) Georgia 96% 90% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 80% 95%
Jim Bunning (R) Kentucky 96% 90% 100% 87% 100% 100% 100% 80% 94%
James Inhofe (R) Oklahoma 100% 90% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 80% 94%
Jon Kyl (R) Arizona 92% 95% 100% 93% 89% 100% 100% 80% 94%
Johnny Isakson (R) Georgia 96% 90% 100% 79% 100% 100% 100% 80% 93%
John Sununu (R) New Hampshire 88% 95% 100% 80% 78% 100% 100% 100% 93%
David Vitter (R) Louisiana 92% 95% 100% 73% 100% 100% 100% 80% 93%
John Thune (R) South Dakota 100% 85% 100% 73% 100% 100% 100% 80% 92%
Jeff Sessions (R) Alabama 92% N/A 100% 73% 100% 100% 100% 80% 92%
John Cornyn (R) Texas 96% 90% 100% 80% 89% 100% 100% 80% 92%
Michael Enzi (R) Wyoming 96% 90% 100% 69% 100% 100% 100% 80% 92%
Charles Grassley (R) Iowa 88% 80% 100% 73% 100% 100% 100% 80% 90%
Mike Crapo (R) Idaho 88% 85% 100% 67% 100% 100% 100% 80% 90%
Wayne Allard (R) Colorado 88% 95% 100% 67% 89% 100% 100% 80% 90%
Elizabeth Dole (R) North Carolina 96% 80% 100% 62% 100% 100% 100% 80% 90%
Pat Roberts (R) Kansas 84% 90% 100% 40% 100% 100% 100% 80% 87%
Lindsey Graham (R) South Carolina 83% 95% 100% 92% 44% 100% 100% 80% 87%
Richard Burr (R) North Carolina 92% 90% 100% 100% 89% 85% 75% 60% 86%
Mitch McConnell (R) Kentucky 84% 95% 100% 53% 78% 100% 100% 80% 86%
Sam Brownback (R) Kansas 87% 90% 100% 80% 56% 85% 100% 80% 85%
Richard Shelby (R) Alabama 74% 80% 100% 40% 89% 100% 100% 80% 83%
Roger Wicker (R) Mississippi 88% 86% 100% 2% 100% 100% 100% 85% 83%
Mel Martinez (R) Florida 84% 95% 100% 60% 38% 100% 100% 80% 82%
Kit Bond (R) Missouri 80% 90% 100% 13% 89% 100% 100% 80% 82%
Larry Craig (R) Idaho 88% 95% 100% 50% 67% 71% 100% 80% 81%
Chuck Hagel (R) Nebraska 75% N/A 100% 50% 44% 100% 100% 100% 81%
Bob Corker (R) Tennessee N/A N/A N/A 60% N/A 100% N/A N/A 80%
Kay Hutchison (R) Texas 84% 90% 100% 53% 78% 85% 75% 60% 78%
Orrin Hatch (R) Utah 84% N/A 100% 47% 89% 85% 75% 60% 77%
Pete Domenici (R) New Mexico 75% 90% 100% 15% 56% 100% 100% 80% 77%
Norm Coleman (R) Minnesota 68% 75% 100% 33% 56% 85% 100% 80% 75%
Ben Nelson (D) Nebraska 64% 95% 89% 7% 100% 85% 75% 80% 74%
Judd Gregg (R) New Hampshire 72% 95% 100% 47% 50% 71% 75% 80% 74%
Lamar Alexander (R) Tennessee 72% 90% 100% 33% 67% 85% 75% 60% 73%
John McCain (R) Arizona 65% 80% 100% 100% 38% 42% 75% 80% 73%
Robert Bennett (R) Utah 72% 90% 100% 40% 56% 85% 75% 60% 72%
Richard Lugar (R) Indiana 64% 75% 100% 67% 33% 71% 75% 60% 68%
Thad Cochran (R) Mississippi 67% 80% 100% 13% 63% 85% 75% 60% 68%
Gordon Smith (R) Oregon 72% 90% 100% 47% 56% 57% 50% 60% 67%
George Voinovich (R) Ohio 56% 50% 89% 29% 33% 85% 100% 60% 63%
Lisa Murkowski (R) Alaska 71% 95% 100% 20% 44% 57% 50% 60% 62%
Ted Stevens (R) Alaska 64% 95% 100% 13% 33% 57% 50% 60% 59%
John Warner (R) Virginia 64% 80% 100% 15% 44% 57% 50% 60% 59%
Susan Collins (R) Maine 48% 60% 78% 27% 44% 28% 0% 60% 43%
Arlen Specter (R) Pennsylvania 43% 70% 88% 13% 25% 28% 0% 60% 41%
Olympia Snowe (R) Maine 36% 50% 78% 27% 33% 28% 0% 60% 39%
Mary Landrieu (D) Louisiana 24% 30% 67% 13% 22% 42% 50% 40% 36%
Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia 21% 10% 56% 7% 67% 14% 50% 40% 33%
Mark Pryor (D) Arkansas 20% 25% 56% 7% 33% 14% 50% 40% 31%
Kent Conrad (D) North Dakota 33% 15% 33% 7% 44% 42% 25% 40% 30%
Bill Nelson (D) Florida 40% 35% 33% 7% 44% 0% 25% 40% 28%
Bob Casey (D) Pennsylvania N/A N/A N/A 7% N/A 42% N/A N/A 25%
Tim Johnson (D) South Dakota 12% 10% 25% 0% 22% 14% 50% 60% 24%
Tom Carper (D) Delaware 20% 15% 33% 14% 33% 0% 25% 20% 20%
Claire McCaskill (D) Missouri N/A N/A N/A 40% N/A 0% N/A N/A 20%
Ken Salazar (D) Colorado 17% 10% 44% 7% 13% 14% 25% 20% 19%
Evan Bayh (D) Indiana 16% 15% 11% 36% 11% 14% 25% 20% 19%
Byron Dorgan (D) North Dakota 12% 5% 0% 7% 44% 28% 25% 20% 18%
Harry Reid (D) Nevada 12% 10% 11% 7% 11% 0% 50% 40% 18%
Max Baucus (D) Montana 8% 25% 11% 7% 22% 14% 0% 40% 16%
Russ Feingold (D) Wisconsin 8% 15% 0% 80% 0% 0% 0% 20% 15%
Blanche Lincoln (D) Arkansas 8% 20% 0% 14% 22% 14% 0% 40% 15%
Herbert Kohl (D) Wisconsin 16% 15% 14% 7% 11% 0% 25% 20% 14%
Joseph Lieberman (I) Connecticut 17% 15% 33% 7% 0% 14% 0% 20% 13%
Daniel Inouye (D) Hawaii 8% 5% 33% 7% 0% 0% 25% 20% 12%
Barack Obama (D) Illinois 8% 15% 11% 33% 0% 0% 0% 20% 11%
Ben Cardin (D) Maryland 8% 14% 29% 7% 14% 0% 0% 14% 11%
Sherrod Brown (D) Ohio 25% 18% 31% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10%
Debbie Stabenow (D) Michigan 16% 5% 0% 7% 33% 0% 0% 20% 10%
John Kerry (D) Massachusetts 12% 15% 0% 7% 11% 14% 0% 20% 10%
Ron Wyden (D) Oregon 8% 10% 11% 7% 22% 0% 0% 20% 10%
Dianne Feinstein (D) California 0% 10% 11% 7% 11% 14% 0% 20% 9%
Jeff Bingaman (D) New Mexico 8% 10% 22% 13% 0% 0% 0% 20% 9%
Hillary Clinton (D) New York 8% 10% 11% 11% 11% 0% 0% 20% 9%
Tom Harkin (D) Iowa 8% 5% 11% 13% 11% 0% 0% 20% 9%
Charles Schumer (D) New York 4% 5% 11% 7% 11% 0% 0% 25% 8%
Joseph Biden (D) Delaware 4% 10% 0% 17% 11% 0% 0% 20% 8%
Patrick Leahy (D) Vermont 0% 10% 11% 7% 11% 0% 0% 20% 7%
Bernard Sanders (I) Vermont 8% 14% 15% 7% 0% 0% 0% 14% 7%
Daniel Akaka (D) Hawaii 0% 5% 11% 7% 0% 14% 0% 20% 7%
Barbara Mikulski (D) Maryland 0% 5% 11% 7% 11% 0% 0% 20% 7%
Maria Cantwell (D) Washington 12% 15% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 20% 7%
Edward Kennedy (D) Massachusetts 0% 5% 0% 9% 0% 14% 0% 25% 7%
Jon Tester (D) Montana N/A N/A N/A 13% N/A 0% N/A N/A 7%
Jim Webb (D) Virginia N/A N/A N/A 13% N/A 0% N/A N/A 7%
Barbara Boxer (D) California 8% 5% 0% 7% 11% 0% 0% 20% 6%
Carl Levin (D) Michigan 8% 5% 0% 7% 11% 0% 0% 20% 6%
Dick Durbin (D) Illinois 4% 5% 11% 7% 0% 0% 0% 20% 6%
Patty Murray (D) Washington 4% 15% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 20% 6%
John Rockefeller (D) West Virginia 10% 5% 11% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Frank Lautenberg (D) New Jersey 0% 5% N/A 7% 0% 0% 0% 20% 5%
Bob Menendez (D) New Jersey 4% 5% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 20% 5%
Jack Reed (D) Rhode Island 4% 5% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 20% 5%
Amy Klobuchar (D) Minnesota N/A N/A N/A 7% N/A 0% N/A N/A 4%
Sheldon Whitehouse Rhode Island N/A N/A N/A 7% N/A 0% N/A N/A 4%
Christopher Dodd (D) Connecticut 8% 5% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Thanks RM.
He asked where that line comes from, so I was attempting to explain it. There are other ranks, everyone has their hat in the ring. I have not taken the time to look at the methodology of each to figure out which one I like best.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Putz News Network. I still insist on a restaurant or club turning that channel off before I give the establishment a dime of my money.....
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdesperadoPost%3Aa291bd57-de8e-4309-9775-e47354920419
"The topic was Republican attacks on Michelle Obama and whether or not it was fair. The strange thing about the caption was that neither Malkin nor Kelly said those words during the interview. Apparently, someone in the production room decided to insert their personal opinion. I know Fox has an anti-Obama slant, as borne out by Sean Hannity's continuous rant about the "radical" Barack Obama, but this is over the top.
Is this what we can expect from the "fair and balanced" network from now 'til November? Since it's only June, I shudder to think what words might crawl across the screen by then."
FOX Propaganda Network gets a jump start on the Michelle Obama racial slurs with "Baby Mama" caption. The FOX Bigot Network. Roger Ailes would make a good plantation owner. You can see him standing there with his bull whip.
You are probably a lousy tipper too.
Not to boast, but I'm a pretty good tipper if I say so myself. It's good for my karma.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Putz News Network. I still insist on a restaurant or club turning that channel off before I give the establishment a dime of my money.....
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdesperadoPost%3Aa291bd57-de8e-4309-9775-e47354920419
"The topic was Republican attacks on Michelle Obama and whether or not it was fair. The strange thing about the caption was that neither Malkin nor Kelly said those words during the interview. Apparently, someone in the production room decided to insert their personal opinion. I know Fox has an anti-Obama slant, as borne out by Sean Hannity's continuous rant about the "radical" Barack Obama, but this is over the top.
Is this what we can expect from the "fair and balanced" network from now 'til November? Since it's only June, I shudder to think what words might crawl across the screen by then."
FOX Propaganda Network gets a jump start on the Michelle Obama racial slurs with "Baby Mama" caption. The FOX Bigot Network. Roger Ailes would make a good plantation owner. You can see him standing there with his bull whip.
You are probably a lousy tipper too.
Not to boast, but I'm a pretty good tipper if I say so myself. It's good for my karma.
Amen to that. The service industry is a huge part of the city economy. Its survival depends on generosity .
Most the people I give the biggest tips to are my buds here at TulsaNow. For instance, remember to open your hearts and put stupid fright wing radio hosts on ignore even though the devil knows I too slip occasionally to listen what the dark side is saying. That's a fair tip.
Here's a good tip. Avoid the "Lester Maddox" News Network
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/fox-apologizes-for-michelle-obama-headline/index.html?nl=pol&emc=pola1
Fox Relies on Ex-Clinton Supporters to Tout McCain
"How many average Joes and Janes have you seen on Fox talkin' up John McCain? That's what I thought. But what the hay; Fox has found a way around that: Throw a disgruntled Clinton supporter on and let them (no interruptions) bash Obama and rave about McCain. (Background here.) It's like manna from heaven for Fox."
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/28/fox_relies_on_exclinton_supporters_to_tout_mccain.php
Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.
Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.
BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Fox Relies on Ex-Clinton Supporters to Tout McCain
"How many average Joes and Janes have you seen on Fox talkin' up John McCain? That's what I thought. But what the hay; Fox has found a way around that: Throw a disgruntled Clinton supporter on and let them (no interruptions) bash Obama and rave about McCain. (Background here.) It's like manna from heaven for Fox."
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/28/fox_relies_on_exclinton_supporters_to_tout_mccain.php
Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.
Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.
BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.
Anyone who relies on Hannity, O'Reilly, or Rush soley for their gubmint news deserves what they get.
The same could be said for the kind of people who frequent moonbat liberal blog and op-ed sites posing as news and the people who write the crap you constantly spam us with.
You're just pissed the liberal schtick didn't do well in electronic media because the reading comprehension of liberals like you sucks.
[}:)]
Dang it Conan, I've been enjoying the entertainment of someone bashing right wing pundits as biased by citing from left wing blogs.
"Bush eats babies!1!!one!!"
- www.godhatesbush.com
I can't believe this thread is still around. FOTD is so frisky!
I say we turn it into a discussion about macaroni recipes!
(http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-13-Wed-2003/photos/macaroni.jpg)
This is an excellent one:
Salt, as needed
1 tablespoon canola oil
2 pounds elbow macaroni
12 eggs
1 cup processed cheese (recommended: Velveeta)
1/2 pound (2 sticks) butter, melted
6 cups half-and-half, divided
3 cups grated sharp yellow Cheddar, plus 1 cup
2 cups grated extra-sharp white Cheddar
1 1/2 cups grated mozzarella cheese
1 cup grated Asiago cheese, grated
1 cup grated Swiss Gruyere cheese
1 cup grated monterey jack cheese
1 cup grated Muenster cheese
1 cup grated fontina cheese
1/8 teaspoon seasoning salt
1 teaspoon finely ground black pepper
Preheat oven to 325 degrees F.
Bring a large saucepan of salted water and a tablespoon of oil to a boil. Add the macaroni and cook until slightly al dente, about 10 minutes. Drain and set aside.
Whisk the eggs in a large bowl until frothy. Combine the processed cheese, butter, and 2 cups of half-and-half in a large bowl.
Add the warm macaroni, tossing until the cheese has melted and the mixture is smooth. Add the remaining 4 cups of half-and-half, 3 cups of sharp yellow cheddar cheese, the remaining grated cheeses, and seasoning salt and pepper, tossing until completely combined.
Pour mixture into 4 au gratin dishes, with the remainder in a casserole, and bake for 30 minutes. Sprinkle remaining 1 cup of sharp yellow Cheddar cheese on top and place under broiler until golden brown. Serve hot.
Oh please Gaspar. That is way too stupid for this thread.
Try this one...
INGREDIENTS
1 (12 ounce) package macaroni
1/4 cup butter
1/2 cup minced onion
1 1/2 tablespoons minced garlic
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 cup half-and-half cream
1 1/2 cups milk
1/2 teaspoon dry mustard powder
1/2 teaspoon liquid smoke flavoring (optional)
1 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1 (8 ounce) package cream cheese, cubed
1 cup shredded Swiss cheese
2 cups shredded Monterey Jack cheese
1/3 cup shredded sharp Cheddar cheese
salt and pepper to taste
1/2 cup bread crumbs
1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
DIRECTIONS
Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C).
Lightly grease a 9x13 inch baking dish.
Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Add pasta and cook for 8 to 10 minutes or until al dente; drain.
Meanwhile, melt the butter in a large saucepan over medium heat. Stir in the onion, and cook for 3 minutes until it begins to soften. Add the garlic, and continue cooking until the onion has softened and turned translucent, about 2 minutes more.
Slowly stir in the flour, and cook, stirring constantly for 5 minutes.
Stir in the half-and-half and milk, and bring to a simmer. Reduce heat to medium-low and stir in mustard powder and liquid smoke; simmer for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally. Add 1 cup of Parmesan cheese, along with the cream cheese, Swiss, Monterey Jack, and Cheddar cheeses; stir until melted.
Season to taste with salt and pepper, then stir in the drained macaroni noodles. Pour into the prepared baking dish. Sprinkle the remaining 1/2 cup of Parmesan cheese and breadcrumbs over the macaroni.
Bake in preheated oven until bubbly and brown, about 30 minutes. Remove from the oven and allow to stand 5 to 10 minutes before serving.
RM,
Don't be an idiot!
I suppose your recipe is fine for the "Common Man."
I prefer Lobster in my Mac n' Cheese!
For the lobster:
Salt
2 (1 1/2-pound) lobsters
For the beurre blanc:
1/2 cup white wine
1/2 cup white wine vinegar
1 tablespoon black peppercorns
1 large shallot, sliced
1/2 cup heavy cream
12 ounces high quality butter, cubed
For the pasta:
Salt
12 ounces elbow pasta
For the lobster oil:
Lobster shells (from above)
2 cups vegetable oil
1 tablespoon paprika
To assemble:
4 ounces high quality butter
8 ounces mascarpone
Freshly ground white pepper
Chervil, to garnish
For the lobster:
Separate the tails and claws from the lobster and place the claws in a heat proof container large enough to cover completely with water, do the same with the tails. Bring a large pot of salted water up to a boil and pour over the tails and claws, let the tails sit for 6 minutes and the claws for 8 minutes, remove and plunge into an ice bath. When the lobster parts are cool, remove the meat from the shell. Keep the meat refrigerated and save the shells for the lobster oil.
For the beurre blanc:
Place white wine, vinegar, peppercorns, and shallots in a nonreactive pan and reduce down until au sec (almost dry), add the heavy cream and reduce down by 2/3 and drop in butter slowly, whisking constantly. Strain through a fine mesh sieve and hold warm till ready to use.
For the pasta:
Bring large pot of salted water to a boil and cook the elbow pasta for 1 minute less than the package indicates. Drain and cool and hold until ready for use.
For the lobster oil:
Take the bodies from the lobster and place in a pot with 2 cups of vegetable oil and bring up to very hot almost frying and let sit for 10 minutes. Add 1 tablespoon paprika and let sit for 30 minutes and strain through a fine mesh sieve or coffee filter.
To assemble:
In a large saute pan, melt the butter and add the chilled lobster, when the lobster begins to warm add the mascarpone cheese and allow to melt, stirring constantly. Add the macaroni and just warm through and pour in enough of the Beurre Blanc to make it saucy. Season with salt and white pepper, to taste, and serve with chervil garnish and lobster oil.
Dare we hope that government by slander is on its way out?
Lack of money hobbling 'Republican attack machine'
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/42490.html#comments
"Another Republican said the deal fell through when Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who helped bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, refused to write a seven-figure check to get the group going. He, too, refused to be identified because he wasn't authorized to speak about Pickens or Rove."
Very wonderful news. I hope it is true. I hope it is critical.
Please gaspar. Save some of the wine for the dish.
Lobster with cheese? Are you even from around here? I think that there should be a constitutional amendment banning such practices.
You probably combine different generations in your food...like making chicken omelets.
My advice to a simpleton like yourself is to try something with cheese "food" as an ingredient...you can't be trusted with real cheese.
INGREDIENTS
8 ounces macaroni
2 tablespoons butter
2 1/2 tablespoons chopped onion
16 ounces cubed processed cheese food
3/4 cup milk
salt to taste
ground black pepper to taste
DIRECTIONS
In a large pot with boiling salted water cook the macaroni until al dente. Drain.
In a 2 quart microwave safe covered casserole dish, saute the onions and butter or margarine on high for 3 to 4 minutes.
Add the cooked and drained pasta, milk, and cubed cheese and stir. Cook for 11 to 12 minutes on high stirring at 4, 8, and 11 minutes. The mixture will still be runny at this stage. Add salt and pepper to taste.
Let stand for 5-8 minutes before serving. The sauce will thicken upon standing.
TulsNow's Itinerant Exorcism Service: "Friend Of The Devil" or FOTD.
Get it?!
Macaroni and Trees with Warm Cinnamon Pear Compote
Serves 4
Ingredients with an asterisk () are available as 365 and 365 Organic Everyday Value™ products.
* salt for pasta water, plus 1/2 teaspoons more for cheese sauce
* 4 cups broccoli florettes
* 8 ounces dry fusilli pasta (about half bag)
* 3 tablespoons unsalted butter
* 2 tablespoons all purpose flour
* 2 cups whole milk
* pinch black pepper
* pinch cayenne pepper
* 2 cups shredded cheddar cheese
Preheat the broiler. Bring a large pot of well-salted water to a boil. Add broccoli, return to a boil and cook, uncovered, until al dente, about 4 minutes. Remove broccoli with a slotted spoon, leaving the water in the pot. Boil the pasta in the water until just tender, about 10 minutes. Drain.
Meanwhile, melt the butter in a saucepan over medium heat. Stir in the flour and cook gently for about a minute. Whisk in the milk, salt, pepper and cayenne. Bring milk mixture to a simmer, reduce the heat, and cook for about 5 minutes until mixture thickens. Stir in two thirds of the cheese until it has melted. Remove saucepan from heat and set aside.
In 2-quart oven-proof dish, combine the pasta with 2/3 of the cheese sauce. Add the broccoli to the remaining cheese sauce in the saucepan.
Encircle the pasta in the dish with the broccoli. Sprinkle remaining cheese over the top and broil for about 3 minutes, until cheese begins to bubble. Serve with Warm Pear Compote.
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/recipes/value/v_macaronitrees.html
(whole foods! Even ties in with previous forum discussions)
Compote...compost...what's the difference?
Cannon Fodder couldn't tell a good cheese from a gouda cheese.
I think he should stick with cheese soup.
INGREDIENTS
2 (11 ounce) cans condensed cream of Cheddar cheese soup
1 3/8 cups milk
2 teaspoons prepared mustard
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
3 cups rotini pasta
2 tablespoons bread crumbs
1 tablespoon butter, melted
DIRECTIONS
Cook pasta in a large pot of boiling, salted water until al dente. Drain.
In a large bowl, combine condensed soup, milk, mustard, and pepper. Stir in macaroni.
Transfer mixture into a greased 2 quart casserole. Combine bread crumbs and melted butter or margarine in a cup. Sprinkle over macaroni mixture.
Bake at 400 degrees F (205 degrees C) for 25 minutes, or until hot and bubbling.
Well. What is taking place here displays the unnecessary arrogant repiglican and fright wing tactic of avoiding a discussion while subject changing. They refuse having to be held accountable or engaging in a true debate on the real issues. Blame all the special stupid entertainment media companies and their monkeys. Grind an organ to put in that dish of......
Can't you just do that religious thing and turn the other cheek even with the devil? The devil has fun!
TulsaNow's Itinerant Exorcism Servicer
*sniff, sniff*
Is that macaroni burning or did someone just fart?
Distraction politics in support of media pricks.
A true Oklahoma favorite.
How can you beat Sausage Mac & Cheese.
9 tablespoons unsalted butter
1/2 pound elbow macaroni
1 pound homemade-style spicy pork sausage, removed from casings and crumbled
1 cup chopped yellow onions
1/2 cup chopped green bell peppers
1 tablespoon Essence, recipe follows
4 teaspoons minced garlic
1/2 teaspoon anise seeds
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
3 cups whole milk
1 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/8 teaspoon cayenne
3 cups grated sharp cheddar cheese (8 ounces)
1/2 cup fine dry bread crumbs
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F.
Butter a large casserole dish with 1 tablespoon of the butter and set aside.
Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Add the macaroni and cook until al dente, about 10 minutes. Drain in a colander and rinse under cold running water. Drain well.
In a large skillet over medium-high heat, cook the sausage, stirring, until browned and the fat is rendered. Remove with a slotted spoon and drain on paper towels. Pour off all but 1 tablespoon of fat from the pan. Add the onions, bell peppers, and 1 teaspoon of the Essence, and cook, stirring, over medium-high heat until soft, about 3 minutes. Add the garlic and anise seeds, and cook, stirring, for 1 minute. Remove from the heat.
Melt the remaining stick of butter in a large, heavy saucepan over medium heat. Add the flour, and stirring constantly with a wooden spoon, cook over medium heat until thick, 3 to 4 minutes, being careful not to let the flour brown. Using a whisk, add the milk in a steady stream and cook, whisking constantly, until thick and smooth, 4 to 5 minutes. Remove from the heat. Add the salt, pepper, cayenne, and 2 cups of the cheese, and stir well. Add the noodles, cooked sausage and vegetables, and stir well to combine. Pour into the prepared baking dish.
In a mixing bowl, combine the remaining 1 cup of cheese with the breadcrumbs and remaining 2 teaspoons of Essence. Sprinkle over the macaroni and bake until golden brown and bubbly, about 25 minutes.
Remove from the oven and let rest for 5 minutes before serving.
I am glad you have decided to agree with me. I knew that your obstructionist recipes were just an effort to transfer your deep feelings of liberal lust.
As a show of political support, I give you my recipe that includes using a blender. It proves that we are a blended society.
INGREDIENTS
2/3 pound uncooked elbow macaroni
10 ounces extra-sharp Cheddar cheese, cubed
1 1/2 cups hot milk
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 small onion, cut into chunks
1 tablespoon Worcestershire sauce
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon dry mustard powder
1 pinch garlic powder
1/4 cup toasted wheat germ
1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese
DIRECTIONS
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Butter a 2-quart casserole dish.
Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Add macaroni and cook for 8 to 10 minutes or until al dente; drain well and pour into prepared casserole dish.
Meanwhile, place the Cheddar cheese, hot milk, flour, onion, Worcestershire sauce, pepper, salt, mustard powder, and garlic powder in the bowl of a blender. Blend until cheese is melted and onion is finely chopped.
Pour cheese mixture over macaroni. Sprinkle top with wheat germ and Parmesan cheese. Bake uncovered for 30 minutes.
Don't buy easy mac... this used to be on the side of their box before introducing that product:
Microwave Directions
Open box
Poor contents into microwave safe bowl
Add 1 3/4 cups of water
Microwave on high for 6-10 minutes, or until noodles are soft
Add 1/2 stick of butter
add 1/4 cup of milk
Add packet of "cheese" powder
Stir
Now instead of paying 59 cents for a good size meal, people pay $1.50 for a snack. Lazy, lazy people.
/my 8 year old will pack away an entire box by himself if allowed. The horror.
[edit] The political relevance of this recipe is to think of the working poor when considering macaroni recipes... or something.[/edit]
I didn't see you as a cheese "powder" kind of guy. I suspected more "rock" cheese from you.
http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=bf2d6a06-68ce-4c23-a8fa-d99b97442df7
The New Republic
Iron Woman
by Ed Kilgore
Why the sure-to-be blistering GOP attacks on Michelle Obama won't work.
Post Date Monday, June 30, 2008
"The history is relevant because the already-developed assault on Michelle Obama represents a sort of Greatest Hits of the nasty genre: like Eleanor Roosevelt, she's an ideologue; like Nancy Reagan, she exerts dangerous influence over her husband; like Hillary Clinton, she's Not Like Us. "
"Republican "racial inclusiveness" rhetoric has long been aimed not at attracting African-American voters but at convincing white swing voters that voting Republican doesn't mean voting racist. All that could be at risk if McCain abets too much anti-Michelle Obama talk."
go back to baking you sissies.....
HEAD CHEESE + Macaroni
3 lbs. (or more) lean boneless beef
4 lbs. large pork hocks
2 c. water
Tied in cheesecloth bag:
2 cloves garlic
2 tbsp. chopped celery or leaves
2 tbsp. parsley
2 slices onions
2 tsp. peppercorns
2 bay leaves
Macaroni
Mix together:
1 can beef broth
3 tsp. whole allspice, pounded or mashed with a mallet
Boil beef with spice bag in water (or pressure cook) until tender; remove from broth. Cook pork shanks in same broth until tender. Cool and remove meat from bones. Chill broth and discard fat from the top. Cut meat in small pieces and grind the skin from the pork shanks. Put back in kettle of broth and add salt and pepper to taste (about 2 teaspoons salt), can of beef broth and allspice. Heat on low heat until almost boiling. Pour into molds until set.
Add macaroni.
Head cheese does fit your style pretty well.
I used to work for a big company. My job title was section head. It was a good fit.
I am not sure your recipe counts according to the International Macaroni and Cheese expressed guidelines. You can add macaroni at the end to most things, but Hamburger Helper is not real. It don't help at all.
I would stick with this one. It uses boxed macaroni and cheese with a Mexican twist and makes a great dip.
INGREDIENTS
1 1/2 pounds lean ground beef
2 tablespoons dried onion flakes
2 (7.25 ounce) packages dry macaroni and cheese
15 ounces nacho cheese dip
1 cup medium salsa
1 (7 ounce) can diced green chiles
DIRECTIONS
In a medium skillet over medium-high heat, cook beef with onion flakes until beef is browned. Drain.
In a large saucepan, cook the macaroni and cheese according to package directions. Stir in the meat and onion mixture, nacho cheese dip, salsa and green chiles. Reduce heat and simmer 15 minutes, or until heated through.
Ouch. Totally busted for adding the macaroni to a usually non-macaroni recipe. But damn, I made myself chuckle. As sad as that may be.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
HEAD CHEESE + Macaroni
Now that's a thinking man's food!
Just for FOTD.
(http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/election_96/kraft_box.gif)
Rush Limbo is signing a $400,000,000 contract. Richistan? It should hoist him from oxy to heroin.[:P]
Go back to your intentional diversion. I am certain all of you think he's worth it.....
I bet Oxy is more expensive than heroine. Just a guess, but that's where I'd place my bet.
Assuming he would do the background research for each program anyway, as a hobby or general interest, that means he is getting about $83,000 an hour for on-air time. I wish I could do one show a year for Rush and pack away $250K in a day. Seriously, just one show a year - I'm not greedy.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I bet Oxy is more expensive than heroine. Just a guess, but that's where I'd place my bet.
Assuming he would do the background research for each program anyway, as a hobby or general interest, that means he is getting about $83,000 an hour for on-air time. I wish I could do one show a year for Rush and pack away $250K in a day. Seriously, just one show a year - I'm not greedy.
Cheezy reply.....
He didn't know he hit the guy. Yea sure. Just like he didn't know Valerie Plame's job was a secret.
Robert No-whack: Conservative commentator Novak hits D.C. pedestrian
DAILY NEWS STAFF
Wednesday, July 23rd 2008, 12:29 PM
Conservative pundit Robert Novak is anything but a conservative driver, and Wednesday morning he struck a Washington, D.C., pedestrian in his black Corvette convertible.
The syndicated columnist received a citation from police for failing to yield the right of way, after he drove away from the scene of the accident despite attempts by passers-by to stop him, Politico.com reported.
"I didn't know I hit him," said Novak, who was a block away from the scene when a bicyclist - who said he had to stand in front of Novak's car to get him to stop - finally got his attention.
Novak was listening to NPR when the accident occurred, TMZ.com reported, and apparently did not hear the impact.
The struck pedestrian, a man in his 60s, was knocked to the pavement and taken to George Washington Hospital with minor injuries.
Novak once attended a racing school in Florida and has been quoted threatening wayward pedestrians. Responding to his reputation as an aggressive driver, he had this to say to TMZ: "I'm 77-years-old. I'm not aggressive anymore."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzAuXYfWuEI
This is too juicy.
Sheep hearders those Busheviks. And using Faux newz to destroy their own credibility.
Shameful and self defeating like everything out of The Whitewash House.
FOTD can't wait for the day satellite radio becomes the more logical choice and the morons feeding Nascar Nation lies.
Michael Savage booted from Los Angeles station.»
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/michael-savage-booted-from-los-angeles-station/
Cry Not for the demise of this fear monger!
Cannon Fodder! A relative story to this thread.....
Right wingers literally encourage violence against anyone they pronounce a lefty. No where else in society, outside right wing radio and the right wing talk circuit, would enciting violence be considered acceptable civil discourse.
Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.
Talk Radio and the Conspiracy to Kill
By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted August 1, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/93622/talk_radio_and_the_conspiracy_to_kill/
"Would Jim Adkisson have killed without prompting from extreme right-wing talkers?
Having written extensively about talk radio's right wing shock jocks and the hate speech they regularly use to tar opponents -- equating liberals with terrorists, homosexuals with child rapists and the Mafia, and political and media figures with the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan (even calling on air for assassinations, as Michael Reagan, son of the late president, did last month) -- it was only a matter of time until the smear merchants took aim at me.
Still, it was a little surprising to hear that "O'Connor's mentor in spirit, Josef Goebbels, must be laughing in his grave." And it was more than just disconcerting that the charge of Nazism was made as part of an attack on the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the award-winning tolerance group named for the late 'Nazi Hunter,' after the Center's New York office offered to host a launch party for my book "Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio."
The allegation that Goebbels is my mentor came in an email forwarding a post by former Boston Herald writer Don Feder, which originally appeared on GrasstopsUSA.com ("Give Your Values A Voice".) Feder, the email said, "believes that the Wiesenthal Center supports deceptive fools like O'Connor to appease its wealthy leftist supporters. If that is true (and of course no offical [sic] at the Center would own up to it), it is shameful."
What's really shameful, of course, is trotting out the ad hominem "You're a Nazi" meme when confronted with ideas that differ from your own. Feder's "exclusive commentary" was headlined "Obama and the Conspiracy to Kill Talk Radio," another false meme being consistently bruited about by the right. Its opening made Feder's thesis clear: "Looking ahead, liberals are determined to derail potential opposition to their plans to accelerate the deconstruction of America. Consequently, they have targeted talk radio. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is just one facet of their scheme to eviscerate the only part of the media controlled by conservatives."
According to Feder & Company, "The jihad against talk radio" (I thought I was a Nazi, not an Islamofascist!) is this:
"The left will do anything to gag its opponents. From the college campus to the halls of Congress (think campus speech codes, think hate crimes legislation, think speech-suppression zones surrounding abortion clinics), liberals are the chief proponents of censorship in America.
On July 23, the Simon Wiesenthal Center's New York Tolerance Center will host the launch of Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio by Rory O'Connor, a book which indicts talk radio as "highly politicized, overly partisan and often factually challenged" -- unlike, say, The New York Times, AKA, Mainstream Media Hacks for Obama.
But that's not all. According to its cover, this penetrating analysis (endorsed by Walter Cronkite, the dean of liberal media manipulators) exposes the "dirty secret" of radio talk shows -- how "they use the guise of 'not being politically correct' to ratchet up their anti-gay, anti-woman and overtly racist language." In other words, they're against same-sex "marriage," reject feminist mythology and oppose racial quotas. Oh, the venom! Oh, the malice!
The left uses allegations of hate speech to set the stage for censorship. In its invitation, the Wiesenthal Center hyperventilates: 'Hate speech can lead to hate crimes. And hate speech has no role on the public airwaves.' Apparently, the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything the left deems "hate speech."
FYI, a friend of mine -- a Jewish conservative -- noted the exquisite irony here: Conservative talk-show hosts tend to be the most outspoken defenders of Israel anywhere in the U.S. media, while their counterparts in the mainstream media are overwhelmingly anti-Israel. Like the Anti-Defamation League, the Wiesenthal Center carries water for the left in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.
Shock Jocks is just the latest manifestation of the left's obsession with talk radio."
Feder's unoriginal jeremiad -- which he further promulgated on WABC's Sunday morning "Religion on the Line" program with Rabbi Joe Patasnick -- went to repeat what other right-wing media organs such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily have already attempted to inject into the mainstream -- the ridiculous idea that there is a conspiracy afoot to "Hush Rush" and knock conservatives off the airwaves by requiring "fairness" and "balance" in our public discourse.
Normally I ignore such ignorant attacks on my person, along with absurd charges like the one that Barack Obama is somehow engaged in a stealth "conspiracy to kill" talk radio. I raise them now only because of a real conspiracy to kill -- one that took two lives in a Tennessee church recently. After a troubled man named Jim Adkisson murdered two and wounded seven, it was reported that he had books by shock jocks Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in his home. (What wasn't widely reported is that radio station WNOW-FM in Knoxville airs shock jocks Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin every weekday. Given the killer's professed hateful attitudes towards liberals and homosexuals, it's at least as likely that he was influenced by the hateful speech Savage and the others spew forth on the public airwaves as by their books ... )
So when these and other shock jocks regularly employ and promote hate speech over the public airwaves aimed at women, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, foreigners, Islam and its adherents, and anyone else they perceive as an opponent, dehumanizing them with terms like 'feminazis,' 'hos,' 'slanty-eyed gooks' and the like ... and when they consistently blur the borders between news, opinion and entertainment, then quickly retreat when challenged, claiming it's just 'good fun,' asking why you're being so 'politically correct,' and demanding that you just 'change the channel' ... and their audience is angry and armed -- what do you expect to happen?
Are the shock jocks creating a climate where such acts are somehow deemed acceptable? Do they have blood on their hands if others -- albeit a few, marginalized, desperate and deranged listeners -- act on their poisonous rhetoric? Would Jim Adkisson have killed without prompting from extreme right wing talkers? We'll never know -- but isn't it time to step back and think about the effect this sort of debased dialogue is having on our democracy and society? It's not 'just entertainment' any more -- if indeed it ever was. Instead, it's now literally a deadly serious business, and we all need to examine our accountability -- as well as to look for new strategies to contain the spread of hate speech in our media -- before someone else gets killed.
In the last few months alone, Michael Reagan has called for murder on-air; Rush Limbaugh has hoped for riots in Denver at the Democratic National Convention and spoken about a non-existent tape of Michelle Obama castigating 'Whitey'; Bill O'Reilly has mentioned Michelle Obama and a lynching party in the same breath; Don Imus has (again) engaged in racially charged remarks; and Michael Savage has called autistic children 'idiots' and 'morons' and charged that both autism and asthma are 'rackets.'
As previously noted, the real racket is the shock jock racket. You know, the one where everyone gets paid -- Savage, Limbaugh (to the tune of 400 million dollars), Hannity (100 million), etc. -- but also local stations like WOR in New York City, which expressed 'regret' but took 'no responsibility' for Savage's remarks; national distributors like Talk Radio Networks -- the second largest provider of syndicated talk shows -- and its headman Mark Masters, who puts Savage on 350 stations reaching 8 million listeners every week; and of course their corporate advertisers and sponsors. So let's pressure the corporations who are using the public airwaves but not serving the public interest -- and let's challenge the shock jocks whose dehumanizing talk may be leading to terror and hate acts such as that which played out so tragically in a church in Knoxville.
In remarks given at my recent book launch party at the Tolerance Center, I specifically warned about shock jocks' hate speech and the potential for some listener actually to take their advice literally, and to act on it in a real world "conspiracy to kill." Some attendees later told me "You called it." I hope not."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html
Book says White House ordered forgery
"A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein."
Too late to impeach. dumbf*ckers.....
The phony letter was trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Really?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The phony letter was trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Really?
On a semi-related note, I've noticed on his radio show that O'Reilly has gradually become an unlikely voice of moderation. Not on all issues, of course. But take note:
-- His support of the gay-marriage ban referendum in California has been tepid, at best.
-- He's said for many months that the Iraq war "isn't worth the blood and treasure."
-- He's a believer in global warming and has been a vocal proponent of alternative fuels and power.
-- He's refused to not endorse Barack Obama. He hasn't endorsed him, either. But he says "he's not that bad."
-- This week, he urged oil companies to voluntarily "give back" to the public some of the record profits they've earned.
All these developments make me go hmmmmm.
Is he just following the swing of public sentiment, however tentatively?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The phony letter was trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Really?
On a semi-related note, I've noticed on his radio show that O'Reilly has gradually become an unlikely voice of moderation. Not on all issues, of course. But take note:
-- His support of the gay-marriage ban referendum in California has been tepid, at best.
-- He's said for many months that the Iraq war "isn't worth the blood and treasure."
-- He's a believer in global warming and has been a vocal proponent of alternative fuels and power.
-- He's refused to not endorse Barack Obama. He hasn't endorsed him, either. But he says "he's not that bad."
-- This week, he urged oil companies to voluntarily "give back" to the public some of the record profits they've earned.
All these developments make me go hmmmmm.
Is he just following the swing of public sentiment, however tentatively?
No, O'Reilly ("The Leprechaun" as Savage calls him) has never been the rabid, blind, conservative he's portrayed to be by libs.
His stance on the war is much longer than months, it goes back at least two years I can think of.
Global warming isn't new to him. Here's a piece from six years ago:
"Points Global Warming & the Bush Administration Tuesday, June 04, 2002
By Bill O'Reilly
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.
Global warming is now real, at least to the Bush administration. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.
I have never understood the resistance to the concept of global warming. It's certainly happening here in New York. When I was a kid, we used to be able to skate on frozen ponds for two months. Now if you get a week of natural ice, that's a cold winter.
Anyway, the truth is that no one but God really knows why the climate is changing, but many reputable scientists say there's no question that things are heating up fast, and they have the data to prove it.
For the first time, the Bush administration is acknowledging that fossil fuels are the reason, and that makes sense, although we can't be 100 percent positive.
Now, some conservatives like Rush Limbaugh recoil at all this global warming theory, but again, what's the big deal? The earth is getting warmer, and whether it is because of man or nature is pretty much beside the point.
On his radio program today, Mr. Limbaugh criticized the president, saying, "George W., Al Gore, anyone?" Come on, there's no downside to developing cost-efficient cleaner fuel. The USA should be trying to become energy self-sufficient and should be looking hard at hydrogen power.
With the tremendous technology that's developing, we should be able to get away from fossil fuel if we can.
Now, I'm no fanatical Green Giant, I wouldn't have signed the Kyoto Treaty because it would have hurt America economically while giving other polluting nations a pass. Yes, we use the most energy in the world, but we also drive the world's economy and protect the world from madmen like bin Laden.
Even though President Bush has not yet developed a visionary fuel strategy, I give him credit for being honest. He could have fogged up the global warming report and not acknowledged the problem at all. Once again, Mr. Bush seems like an honest man. He could have easily spun the report his way.
Now, America needs to stop arguing over the cause of global warming and begin a disciplined 10-year plan to use fewer polluting agents, more conservation, and tons more innovation.
Tax credit for alternative fuels should be ramped up.
Once again, who opposes this beside people making money from fossil fuels? Does anyone like acid rain? Does anyone want L.A. smog in their neighborhood? Let's stop the polarizing political nonsense and start working together to improve the environment and expand our wallet size."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54413,00.html
His worst critics are those who never watch his show.
I don't have much use for partisan talk shows of either bent anymore, though I will follow each during election seasons just to see what the talking heads are trying to pump into our conscience.
Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.
Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.
BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.
Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.
Short McDonalds....boycott coming.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.
Short McDonalds....boycott coming.
That's baloney.
The McDonald's I go to at 23rd and Southwest has CNN on every time I'm in there.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.
Short McDonalds....boycott coming.
That's baloney.
The McDonald's I go to at 23rd and Southwest has CNN on every time I'm in there.
Thanks for the correction. If FOTD sits at a bar or restaurant and Faux News is on, he asks for a channel change. If they can't, he leaves without return. Other devils should follow his lead....
Same with the McD's at 13 & Harvard. It always seems to have CNN on.
That's not much improvement.
Cartoons would seem to cater to their customer.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.
Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.
BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.
Then who is MSNBC designed for? People with mongoloidal tendencies? [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.
Short McDonalds....boycott coming.
Most likely the "corporate policy" of the franchisee running that particular McDonald's.
Colo rep. Mark Udall, a real special kind of stupid:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/06/video-udalls-day-off/
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Same with the McD's at 13 & Harvard. It always seems to have CNN on.
The one at 145th and the Broken Arrow had Faux on when I went....
Yes, Jaynes is back, lol!
The devil knows these three can't read so they watch FOX and listen to liars and jerks on their radddeeeooes.
Officials dismiss plot to kill Obama; only gun charges likely against 3 men arrested
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-obama-threat-investigation,0,5588406.story
So, how many other haters lurk in the shadows of intolerance?
Leave it to our friends at Fox to bring this up like it matters.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/28/report-britney-spears-set-designer-built-obamas-invesco-stage/
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The devil knows these three can't read so they watch FOX and listen to liars and jerks on their radddeeeooes.
Officials dismiss plot to kill Obama; only gun charges likely against 3 men arrested
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-obama-threat-investigation,0,5588406.story
So, how many other haters lurk in the shadows of intolerance?
Can you imagine if these guys would have said the same thing about Bush as they said about Obama? They'd be locked up for years. If the powers that be in this country let Obama be assassinated, just like they did the Kennedy's and Martin Luther King, this country will be doomed.
The Aryan Nation is getting their shot in the arm....not only meth, but Barack too.
U.S. Attorney Troy Eid seemed to say that because the three men were on drugs, they shouldn't be taken as a serious threat.
Is this one of the U.S. Attorneys hired by Monica Goodling?
Fighting back against the media, even in Chicago: Obama campaign confronts WGN radio; "WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters.
Obama campaign confronts WGN radio
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html
"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves," the note continued. "At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."
"I would say this is the biggest response we've ever got from a campaign or a candidate," he said. "This is really unprecedented with the show, the way that people are flooding the calls and our email boxes."
The "race" is on!
http://stanleysound.com/audio_theatre.html
funny stuff....even for you rethuglicans.
"I am extremely disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. I will still vote for Senator McCain" Docta Laura (thought she melted away or a house fell on her).
http://www.drlaurablog.com/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-and-motherhood/
This is awesome. Sweet!
"You Fool, You Idiot..."
Posted by Pamela Troy in General Discussion
Wed Sep 24th 2008
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Pamela%20Troy/50
Pamela Troy's Journal
"You Fool, You Idiot..."
Posted by Pamela Troy in General Discussion
Wed Sep 24th 2008, 02:22 PM
"Does anyone remember what happened on Hannity and Colmes last week?
On September 10, a few days before our stock market meltdown, Writer Robert Kuttner was being interviewed by Alan Colmes about his new book, Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, when Hannity, plainly incensed about Kuttner's bleak view of the American economy waded in with his rhetorical fists flying, exclaiming "Stop it. Stop it. This is — this is garbage you're spewing here."
I'm happy to say that Kuttner gave as good as he got.:
HANNITY: You said the economy is in dire straits.
KUTTNER: It is in dire straits. You want to deny that, you fool?
HANNITY: You fool, you idiot.
KUTTNER: You're going to deny that the economy is in dire straits?
HANNITY: For the first time — sir, sir, unemployment in this country...
KUTTNER: Sir, sir, my butt.
HANNITY: ... has been lowest than in the last four decades. Economic growth in the last quarter was 3.4 percent..."
The last time I a saw a conservative pratfall this blatant was back in 1979 when, just days before the news about the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island broke, George Will wrote an indignant piece about how the movie The China Syndrome -- a film about an accident at a nuclear power plant – was unrealistic and alarmist.
In his defense, George Will is at least an elegant writer, and has a semblance of old world courtesy. Hannity's roughneck, "shut-up-or-I'll-beat-the-crap-out-of-you" approach, on the other hand, ups the ante to the point where, watching the video today, you can only shake your head in wonder. It's not just that Hannity is wrong. We're all wrong at some point. But few of us are so arrogantly, insultingly and obnoxiously wrong in front of a national audience.
Unless, of course, we're right wing pundits with bestselling books and/or talk radio/cable TV shows. In the years since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, belligerent and unrepentant wrongness seems to have become the norm among right-wing apologists. When they are proven wrong they don't alter their viewpoint. They just file away being wrong as another injury inflicted upon them by liberal meanies. They also quickly convince themselves that liberals who were repeatedly warning against attacking Iraq or deregulating the marketplace are now pleased about being right and were therefore always rooting for the dire consequences they had been warning everyone about – like the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq, the collapse of companies like Enron and Worldcom, and all those stocks that went just a tad sour last week. The fact that liberals might have been warning against these things because liberals didn't want them to happen is not to be considered.
I feel as though I'm in a rollercoaster, in that instant when it's just crested the top of a slope and is about to plunge straight down. No, I'm not cheering and throwing my arms up over my head. I don't like rollercoasters as much as I used to, and I know that unlike the old Zephyr at Pontchartrain Beach, the one we're riding now can be genuinely lethal.
Being right doesn't even begin to make up for what may lie ahead for us. But I confess, I do derive some comfort from watching that slender, bearded scrapper, Robert Kuttner, warning us about the fragility of our economy and calling that square-jawed bullyboy a fool.
Just before events have proven Kuttner to be correct on every count."
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
This is awesome. Sweet!
"You Fool, You Idiot..."
Posted by Pamela Troy in General Discussion
Wed Sep 24th 2008
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Pamela%20Troy/50
Pamela Troy's Journal
"You Fool, You Idiot..."
Posted by Pamela Troy in General Discussion
Wed Sep 24th 2008, 02:22 PM
"Does anyone remember what happened on Hannity and Colmes last week?
On September 10, a few days before our stock market meltdown, Writer Robert Kuttner was being interviewed by Alan Colmes about his new book, Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, when Hannity, plainly incensed about Kuttner's bleak view of the American economy waded in with his rhetorical fists flying, exclaiming "Stop it. Stop it. This is — this is garbage you're spewing here."
I'm happy to say that Kuttner gave as good as he got.:
HANNITY: You said the economy is in dire straits.
KUTTNER: It is in dire straits. You want to deny that, you fool?
HANNITY: You fool, you idiot.
KUTTNER: You're going to deny that the economy is in dire straits?
HANNITY: For the first time — sir, sir, unemployment in this country...
KUTTNER: Sir, sir, my butt.
HANNITY: ... has been lowest than in the last four decades. Economic growth in the last quarter was 3.4 percent..."
The last time I a saw a conservative pratfall this blatant was back in 1979 when, just days before the news about the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island broke, George Will wrote an indignant piece about how the movie The China Syndrome -- a film about an accident at a nuclear power plant – was unrealistic and alarmist.
In his defense, George Will is at least an elegant writer, and has a semblance of old world courtesy. Hannity's roughneck, "shut-up-or-I'll-beat-the-crap-out-of-you" approach, on the other hand, ups the ante to the point where, watching the video today, you can only shake your head in wonder. It's not just that Hannity is wrong. We're all wrong at some point. But few of us are so arrogantly, insultingly and obnoxiously wrong in front of a national audience.
Unless, of course, we're right wing pundits with bestselling books and/or talk radio/cable TV shows. In the years since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, belligerent and unrepentant wrongness seems to have become the norm among right-wing apologists. When they are proven wrong they don't alter their viewpoint. They just file away being wrong as another injury inflicted upon them by liberal meanies. They also quickly convince themselves that liberals who were repeatedly warning against attacking Iraq or deregulating the marketplace are now pleased about being right and were therefore always rooting for the dire consequences they had been warning everyone about – like the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq, the collapse of companies like Enron and Worldcom, and all those stocks that went just a tad sour last week. The fact that liberals might have been warning against these things because liberals didn't want them to happen is not to be considered.
I feel as though I'm in a rollercoaster, in that instant when it's just crested the top of a slope and is about to plunge straight down. No, I'm not cheering and throwing my arms up over my head. I don't like rollercoasters as much as I used to, and I know that unlike the old Zephyr at Pontchartrain Beach, the one we're riding now can be genuinely lethal.
Being right doesn't even begin to make up for what may lie ahead for us. But I confess, I do derive some comfort from watching that slender, bearded scrapper, Robert Kuttner, warning us about the fragility of our economy and calling that square-jawed bullyboy a fool.
Just before events have proven Kuttner to be correct on every count."
Said it before, I'll say it again: Hannity is a goob. A big goob.
All of the above really doesnt mean mucs as in 2 weeks the USA will make changes like we have never seen.We will loose most of our freedoms and socialise will replace them.Dont worry,we are from the government and we are here to take care of you.
All of the above really doesnt mean much as in 2 weeks the USA will make changes like we have never seen.We will loose most of our freedoms and socialise will replace them.Dont worry,we are from the government and we are here to take care of you.
quote:
Originally posted by Quinton
All of the above really doesnt mean much as in 2 weeks the USA will make changes like we have never seen.We will loose most of our freedoms and socialise will replace them.Dont worry,we are from the government and we are here to take care of you.
Are you so upset about the change that you had to make sure everybody knew by posting twice?
[:O]
And by the way, it's 'socialism'.
Not like it will even happen. Same thing happened under Clinton's watch, or at least was tried. The republicans are making mountains out of molehills here. Like that's anything new, though.
The Right-Wing Media has unleashed a Race War that threatens our Democracy and our Personal Safety!
The election of Barack Obama was a return to America's Constitutional, pro-democracy roots -- and as a step into a future filled with promise and opportunity, not the destruction, tyranny and lies of the Bush Administration. But what none of us expected is that the right-wing media shills and their corporate owners would unleash what is becoming an armed rebellion of white males against our government.
Some others in radio AND TV need arresting.
Radio Host Is Arrested in Threats on 3 Judges
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25threat.html?_r=2&ref=us
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 24, 2009
WASHINGTON — An Internet radio host known for his incendiary views was arrested Wednesday in North Bergen, N.J., after federal officials charged that his angry postings about a gun case in Chicago amounted to death threats against three judges.
In a case that tests the limits of free speech, the Justice Department charged that the radio host, Hal Turner, had crossed the line into hate speech.
Mr. Turner, regarded by civil rights monitoring groups as a white supremacist, an anti-Semite and a "maestro of radio hate," posted commentaries on his blog denouncing a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, that upheld two local bans on handguns.
"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," Mr. Turner wrote in a blog entry on June 2. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions."
He said the three judges, William J. Bauer, Frank H. Easterbrook and Richard A. Posner, should be made "an example" of in order to send a message to the rest of the federal judiciary: "Obey the Constitution or die."
Mr. Turner also posted the judges' photographs, phone numbers, work addresses and courtroom numbers.
There is no indication that Mr. Turner or anyone else acted on his warnings. Nonetheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in an affidavit that it believed his comments constituted "a threat to assault or murder a United States judge."
F.B.I. agents arrested Mr. Turner at his home, and he is due to make his first court appearance on Thursday. Three weeks ago, in a case still pending, state officials in Connecticut charged Mr. Turner with inciting violence against lawmakers involved in an unrelated decision involving the Roman Catholic Church.
Traditionally, the courts have given wide latitude to First Amendment rights, even in cases involving speech that is widely considered offensive, but public statements regarded as "true threats" have not been afforded legal protection. One key test case came in 2002, when a federal appeals court in California upheld a $109 million jury verdict against organizers of an anti-abortion Web site that distributed Wild West-style wanted posters of abortion providers, with photos of dead doctors crossed out.
Just keeping everyone on this forum up to date about their news feeder...
Fox News viewers overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/
"In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly."
Americans, mostly idjits.
Maybe you need to link to some contrary info, but what I have been told is:
1) illegal immigrants already get care under Federal law. You can't just tell someone to take their broken leg back to Mexico. Under this bill medical providers that are required to provide such services can be reimbursed. Hence, coverage for illegals.
Juan won't be able to walk into St. Francis and get a checkup on Uncle Sam, but it will end up with more Federal money flowing to pay for cost incurred due to illegal immigrants.
2) If you wanted to orchestrate Universal Governmental Health Coverage, would this not be a large step in your plan? The bill certainly does not authorize a governmental takeover of health care, but it is a move in that direction. "Will lead to" is an open ended phrase evoking the slippery slope argument. In that regard, I can see where ~80% of FOX viewers would think this could/would lead to a government takeover of health care.
Hell, for that matter medicaid/medicare/prescription drug/grants/government funded hospitals/public employee health insurance/a billion other rules and regulations have already started the ball rolling pretty well.
3) This bill does fund abortions more liberally than currently allowed. In some circumstances an abortion procedure could end up being paid for by the new health system. Hence, it will lead taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.
You won't be able to march into Abortions-A-Plenty for a quickie before church on the governments dime, but more abortions will be paid for under this plan by the government.
4) The government will be able to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. It isn't a "death panel" any more than we already have, but certainly guidelines will be put in place saying a 85 year old man doesn't get a heart transplant and other standard measures. It won't say that procures cannot be done, but that it won't pay for it. Which will generally be the same thing
- - -
Is the hyperbole espoused by many opponents spot on? No. But each on of those elements in based on reality. I could just as easily ask readers of the Huffington post the same question and then prove them idiots but pointing out that in some circumstances illegal migrants will be covered, this is a move towards a governmental "takeover," it will pay for more abortions, and the government will necessarily make decisions about what services will be provided.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 20, 2009, 03:56:36 PM
Maybe you need to link to some contrary info, but what I have been told is:
1) illegal immigrants already get care under Federal law. You can't just tell someone to take their broken leg back to Mexico. Under this bill medical providers that are required to provide such services can be reimbursed. Hence, coverage for illegals.
Juan won't be able to walk into St. Francis and get a checkup on Uncle Sam, but it will end up with more Federal money flowing to pay for cost incurred due to illegal immigrants.
2) If you wanted to orchestrate Universal Governmental Health Coverage, would this not be a large step in your plan? The bill certainly does not authorize a governmental takeover of health care, but it is a move in that direction. "Will lead to" is an open ended phrase evoking the slippery slope argument. In that regard, I can see where ~80% of FOX viewers would think this could/would lead to a government takeover of health care.
Hell, for that matter medicaid/medicare/prescription drug/grants/government funded hospitals/public employee health insurance/a billion other rules and regulations have already started the ball rolling pretty well.
3) This bill does fund abortions more liberally than currently allowed. In some circumstances an abortion procedure could end up being paid for by the new health system. Hence, it will lead taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.
You won't be able to march into Abortions-A-Plenty for a quickie before church on the governments dime, but more abortions will be paid for under this plan by the government.
4) The government will be able to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. It isn't a "death panel" any more than we already have, but certainly guidelines will be put in place saying a 85 year old man doesn't get a heart transplant and other standard measures. It won't say that procures cannot be done, but that it won't pay for it. Which will generally be the same thing
- - -
Is the hyperbole espoused by many opponents spot on? No. But each on of those elements in based on reality. I could just as easily ask readers of the Huffington post the same question and then prove them idiots but pointing out that in some circumstances illegal migrants will be covered, this is a move towards a governmental "takeover," it will pay for more abortions, and the government will necessarily make decisions about what services will be provided.
1) Doctors should not be reimbursed (even if it is for an illegal human being)? And FOTD thought Randy Terrilble had stopped this "issue."
2)Nixon. He started that ball rolling. If you are over 65, you get medicare which should be the administrator for all insureds doing away with the Insurance mafia....you may prefer paying these "agents" commissions for their conflict of interest. And, how do you know Faux viewers "might think." That's a ridiculous analysis. The government already took over health care for everyone over 65. So why not just put it in the category of Public Safety for all and shift all that enormous waste from the military that you never complain about over to health care?
3) Could end up? Come on Sparty, that's nonsense. Maybe the Republicans could write some belt and suspender language to prevent such if they weren't so caught up in organizing tantrums and just saying "no."
Besides, an abortion pill will kill your "coulda woulda shoulda" baloney.
4) No matter what the government says, a hospital rules. That means even with a directive like a living will, the institution may find the idea of ending a life unacceptable. Medicare will reimburse these hospitals for life support until code blue.
You are talking party politics not health care.
Yours is the politics of ignorance. Just follow it down C Street...
Never miss a good chance to
shut up show your true colors.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/fox-news--the-new-liberals
Stewart Again!!!!!
I wasn't advocating for any position, so how you glean my "politics" from that response is somewhat amusing. I merely read elements of the bill and reported how they could be construed as to correspond with the questions posed in the survey you copied and pasted. The bill will have compensation for services rendered to illegal aliens, it will fund abortions to some extent, in effect the government will make decisions about end of life care, and the bill may be a step leading towards a governmental takeover.
Often times not in the manner Fox News presumably claims those things will occur (I'm afraid I haven't seen their coverage on this issue) , but it doesn't make the answers less accurate. To briefly address your retort:
1) I never said providing care for illegal immigrants was a bad thing.
2) I know what Fox Viewers "might think" because the poll you posted stated as much. No one can deny that this is a step closer to a governmental takeover of health care. Ergo, extrapolating that it might lead to such a thing is a stretch of logic but not out of line. I say that not as a doom and gloom scenario, just as a logical extension to support the poll data.
3) Abortions are legitimate medical procedures in a number of situations in the eyes of the AMA and the government. It stands to reason that they would then be funded. I did not indicate that this was a good or a bad thing in any way, just that it is.
4) It is undeniable that the government will dictate what procedures will be covered. Just like we currently have with insurance policies, they do not cover every procedure. To do otherwise is just not practical. Again, I didn't pretend it was a doom and gloom death squad; but the government will be making health care choices that include care at the end of life.
Party politics? My party isn't represented in the State. I've endorsed and volunteered for a select group of candidates in Oklahoma and most of the Democrats. My voting record is probably pretty evenly weighted. Party politics is not my game.
Sorry Devil, but it seems you are emotionally invested in this issue. I'm merely analyzing the stats you posted and explaining why the majority answer could be right. Similarly, what % of viewers of other networks had such views?
Finally, and incidentally, I agree with you assessment that most people are idiots. Not stupid, but often uneducated and suffer from a refusal to think. One doesn't need the magic trio of being intelligent, educated, and willing to think. . . but one or two of the three is helpful. Failure to apply the third item in the trio is fatal.
(http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/ignorance-dont-know-demotivational-poster.jpg)
They've actually been pointing to the passage in the healthcare legislation that says, in big bold letters "WE WON'T COVER ILLEGALS." (cf. Barney Frank, et al.) No, no hospital will deny care to a person who's ailing, legal or illegal (the whole Hippocratic Oath thing is the trump card), but no illegal can take part in the insurance regime being proposed, which is really what we're discussing.
Heh. I said "regime."
The death panel argument is just a more pungent way of expressing the argument that government control will result in rationing of care. Because what is a death panel if not the ultimate denial of service based on need. ("Sorry. You're too old and/or sick to waste any more money on. Get on this ice floe.")
Of course, we ration care now based on ability to pay, so while we think our current system vs a reformed system with a public option is an apples and oranges comparison, it's actually gala vs. granny smith apples. But it's still apples all the way down. Rationing happens either way.
So in the end, all of this discussion comes down to how you want your healthcare rationed. Do you want private business to control all the rationing -- the way it currently stands -- or do you want the government involved? (And because single payer was never on the table, the government will never "control all the rationing" . . . it will only ever be a mitigating element of the rationing).
I would also like to say, since I've been drinking and writing most of the night and why stop now, that I think modern conservatives rely entirely too much on the slippery slope argument as a primary proof of ideology. Meaning, "we object to a public option because it is just one more step closer to single payer" is only slightly legitimate as a public policy argument. The slippery slope is just like grandma wagging her finger at you and saying "One day you'll regret what you're doing, sonny! You just wait!" That day may never come, and there's simply no proof -- other than deep seated suspicion -- that the public option is only a waypoint to the destruction of Modern Capitalism As We Know It. Or to single payer.
Say hey to the anarchists amongst us!
A few more republicans in action!
Notice in the above pics there are no non whites to be found anywhere...Rushpublic American Racists!
Here you supporters of Dick Armey and your fellow republicant revolutionaries....why don't your leaders denounce this hatred?
Thousands Rally in Capital to Protest Big Government
By JEFF ZELENY
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html?_r=1&hp
Published: September 12, 2009
WASHINGTON — A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.
On a cloudy and cool day, the demonstrators came from all corners of the country, waving American flags and handwritten signs explaining the root of their frustrations. Their anger stretched well beyond the health care legislation moving through Congress, with shouts of support for gun rights, lower taxes and a smaller government.
But as they sang verse after verse of patriotic hymns like "God Bless America," sharp words of profane and political criticism were aimed at Mr. Obama and Congress.
Dick Armey, a former House Republican leader whose group Freedomworks helped organize the protest, stood before the crowd and led the rallying cries in nearly the same spot where Mr. Obama took his oath of office eight months ago.
"He pledged a commitment of fidelity to the United States Constitution," Mr. Armey said, suggesting that Mr. Obama was in violation of what the founding fathers intended the size and scope of the government to be.
"Liar! Liar! Liar! Liar!" the crowd shouted back, echoing the accusation that Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, hurled at the president three days earlier during his address to Congress.
The demonstrators numbered well into the tens of thousands, though the police declined to estimate the size of the crowd. Many came on their own and were not part of an organization or group. But the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours.
The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light. One sign called him the "parasite in chief." Others likened him to Hitler. Several people held up preprinted signs saying, "Bury Obama Care with Kennedy," a reference to the Massachusetts senator whose body passed by the Capitol two weeks earlier to be memorialized.
Other signs did not focus on Mr. Obama, but rather on the government at large, promoting gun rights, tallying the national deficit and deploring illegal immigrants living in the United States.
Still, many demonstrators expressed their views without a hint of rage. They said the size of the crowd illustrated that their views were shared by a broader audience.
"I want Congress to be afraid," said Keldon Clapp, 45, an unemployed marketing representative who recently moved to Tennessee from Connecticut after losing his job. "Like everyone else here, I want them to know that we're watching what they're doing. And they do work for us."
As Mr. Obama traveled to Minnesota on Saturday to rally support for his health care plan, he flew over the assembling crowd in Marine One. The helicopter could be seen flying overhead as the demonstrators marched down Pennsylvania Avenue.
"This is not some kind of radical right-wing group," Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said in an interview as dozens of people streamed by him. "I just hope the Congress, the Senate and the president recognize that people are afraid of what's going on."
Mr. DeMint and a few Republican legislators were the only party leaders on hand for the demonstration. Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians. And most of those who turned out were not likely to have been Obama voters anyway.
Protesters came by bus, car and airplane, arriving here from Texas and Tennessee, New Mexico and New Hampshire, Ohio and Oregon. The messages on their signs told of an intense distrust of the government, which several people said began long before Mr. Obama took office.
For the most part, Democrats stayed silent on Saturday, with the exception of a small group of counterdemonstrators who gathered behind a roadblock to protest what they called a "right-wing rally." Many were members of the clergy, who said they were concerned about misinformation propagated by opponents of health care legislation.
"We'd like to have an honest debate," said Chris Korzen, director of the nonprofit Catholics United. "I don't see a lot of substance here."
While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity. A band of protesters in colonial gear wended through the crowd, led by a bell ringer in a tricorn hat calling for revolution. A folk singer belting out a protest ballad on a guitar brought cheers.
In conversations with demonstrators, people identified themselves as Republicans, libertarians, independents and former Democrats. Several speakers denounced the Obama administration's health care plan as "socialism." A few Confederate flags waved in the air, but there were hundreds of American flags and chants of, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" A young girl held a sign saying, "Don't redistribute the wealth of my Barbies."
Ruth Lobbs, 57, a schoolteacher from Jacksonville, Fla., said she flew to Washington on Saturday to protest how she believes the government has violated the Constitution. She said she did not vote for the president, adding that her anger has been building for years.
"It's more than Obama — this isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue," Ms. Lobbs said as she held a yellow flag that declared, "Don't Tread on Me."
"I don't know if anything will come of this or not," she said, "but this is a peaceful way of showing our frustration."
Theo Emery and Ashley Southall contributed reporting.
This came across the transom this morning and I thought it was worth a repost. Newsmax thinks Obama is risking a coup: (http://newsmax%20thinks%20obama%20is%20risking%20a%20coup:)
QuoteObama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
By: John L. Perry Article Font Size
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
. . . . .
There's more, but you get the drift.
I don't think a coup is imminent just because some douchebag from Newsmax is telegraphing that he'd like it to happen. But I think we can all agree that this kind of talk isn't helping form a more perfect union.
Quote from: we vs us on September 30, 2009, 06:50:02 AM
This came across the transom this morning and I thought it was worth a repost. Newsmax thinks Obama is risking a coup: (http://newsmax%20thinks%20obama%20is%20risking%20a%20coup:)
There's more, but you get the drift.
I don't think a coup is imminent just because some douchebag from Newsmax is telegraphing that he'd like it to happen. But I think we can all agree that this kind of talk isn't helping form a more perfect union.
Hey! "We" got rid of Bush and his buddies. What more could "we" ask for?
lol. Imminent coup. If the military didn't rise up to oust Carter or Clinton, Obama is probably safe. Particularly when the military is busy killing people over seas.
It would be hard to imagine even die-hard redneck gun toting Republicans supporting a violent coup barring something severe. If Obama starts detaining opponents in camps, taking over TV stations, and executing citizens en mass . . . then I could see it. Pretty much short of that and yeah, it's a worthless article.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 30, 2009, 08:50:11 AM
lol. Imminent coup. If the military didn't rise up to oust Carter or Clinton, Obama is probably safe. Particularly when the military is busy killing people over seas.
It would be hard to imagine even die-hard redneck gun toting Republicans supporting a violent coup barring something severe. If Obama starts detaining opponents in camps, taking over TV stations, and executing citizens en mass . . . then I could see it. Pretty much short of that and yeah, it's a worthless article.
Absolutely worthless. But it's not often you see someone talk so openly about overthrowing the sitting American president. And, you know, OVERTHROWING HIM, not voting him out or anything like that.
(http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9385.0;attach=691;image)
Eugenics? But where's Khan?
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/Images/ricardo-montalban-khan-star-trek-2.jpg)
/End Nerd Joke
If I had access to google image search at work, I'd annhiliate you, Grizzle.
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 30, 2009, 02:16:35 PM
(http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9385.0;attach=691;image)
Eugenics? But where's Khan?
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/Images/ricardo-montalban-khan-star-trek-2.jpg)
/End Nerd Joke
Selling rich Corinthian leather in new cars.
Rush Limbaugh spreads hoax about President Obama
Excerpt from article, you can see the videos here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1172-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2009m10d26-Rush-Limbaugh-spreads-hoax-about-President-Obama
On Friday, radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh reported that he was reading from President Obama's college thesis, ten pages of which had been discovered by Michael Ledeen of the National Review Online. Ledeen discovered the ten pages of Obama's thesis hoax on the blog, Jumping in Pools. Ledeen wrote about the thesis thinking it was true and Limbaugh followed up with his diatribe on Friday, denouncing the President of the United States for having written a thesis that was 'anti-constitutionalist.'
As Limbaugh read from the faked Obama thesis on the air Friday, he became more and more agitated.
Limbaugh seemed to be even more incensed because Jumping in Pools website wrote that Joe Klein of TIME magazine had known about the college thesis a year ago.
He ranted, "So Joe Klein at TIME Magazine has known for a long time about Obama's college thesis when he was at Columbia. Why didn't this come out a year ago at this time? Why didn't this come out before the election in November?"
When he discovered the supposed Obama thesis was a hoax, his idea of a retraction or an apology came out thus: "So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today."
Limbaugh has made it clear in the past that he accepts his role as titular head of the shrinking Republican party. Is it any wonder that only 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republican? As long as Limbaugh, Palin and Beck are the spokespeople for the GOP, Democrats will enjoy a long run in power. When the titular head of the Republican party's idea of an apology is to claim he knows that what he has just ranted about is satire but that he "knows" that the hoax is what President Obama is thinking anyway, it is not alarming, it's just pathetic.
When wingnuts get punk'd
http://ltradio.blogspot.com/2009/10/when-wingnuts-get-punkd.html
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/08/31/report-gop-mouthpiece-bill-oreilly-bribed-police-to-investigate-wifes-alleged-affair-with-a-cop/
Report: GOP-Fox Mouthpiece Bill O'Reilly Bribed Police to Investigate Wife's Alleged Affair with a Cop
Jon Ponder | Aug. 31, 2011
Jeff Bercovici at Forbes wonders if O'Reilly's scandal could drag Fox News into the Murdoch family's U.K. hacking scandal:
Ha hahahahahahahahaha
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 31, 2011, 10:43:58 PM
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/08/31/report-gop-mouthpiece-bill-oreilly-bribed-police-to-investigate-wifes-alleged-affair-with-a-cop/
Report: GOP-Fox Mouthpiece Bill O'Reilly Bribed Police to Investigate Wife's Alleged Affair with a Cop
Jon Ponder | Aug. 31, 2011
Jeff Bercovici at Forbes wonders if O'Reilly's scandal could drag Fox News into the Murdoch family's U.K. hacking scandal:
Ha hahahahahahahahaha
That would be your ultimate wet dream, wouldn't it? No, wait, it wouldn't. Your ultimate wet dream would be Rove, Oh'Really, and Murdoch in the same cell. Prolly sends a tingle up your leg. :o
I hear the dirge in the distance....Rush has lost over 100 sponsors since his personal attack on Ms. Fluke. Bill Maher is against the withdrawal demands for sponsors and I guess it's because he'll lose material if Rush goes down.
Maybe KRMG will wise up and get a local host to do a mid afternoon Tulsa Now show. I'd nominate Guido but something tells me that would be a led balloon.
Conan is somewhat objective.
I'd do if the show were titled: A Special Kind Of Stupid.... :D
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 12, 2012, 07:47:49 PM
I hear the dirge in the distance....Rush has lost over 100 sponsors since his personal attack on Ms. Fluke. Bill Maher is against the withdrawal demands for sponsors and I guess it's because he'll lose material if Rush goes down.
Maybe KRMG will wise up and get a local host to do a mid afternoon Tulsa Now show. I'd nominate Guido but something tells me that would be a led balloon.
Conan is somewhat objective.
I'd do if the show were titled: A Special Kind Of Stupid.... :D
No, it's because Bill was once in the same position as Rush (losing sponsors). He explained that last Friday on his show. He doesn't have to worry about that now.
Was it Johnny Martin who was the afternoon guy on KRMG many years back?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 13, 2012, 09:07:31 AM
Was it Johnny Martin who was the afternoon guy on KRMG many years back?
He was the night time guy, famous for his "It's Friday night, case night in the city" refering to getting a case of beer on Fridays to start the weekend.