McLaughlin echoes smear of Michelle Obama: "You don't think she's a black militant?"
SUMMARY: On The McLaughlin Group, host John McLaughlin asked Clarence Page: "Do you think Michelle [Obama] -- do you think she leaves the impression -- not mine, but I've heard this -- that she has a chip on her shoulder?" McLaughlin later asked Page: "You don't think she's a black militant?" Several media figures have recently suggested that Obama has a "chip on her shoulder," including VDARE.com contributor Steve Sailer.
During the February 24 edition of the syndicated program The McLaughlin Group, referring to Michelle Obama, host John McLaughlin asked Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page: "Do you think Michelle -- do you think she leaves the impression -- not mine, but I've heard this -- that she has a chip on her shoulder?" Page responded: "I think that's BS. You know, people say that she's got a chip on her shoulder. That's like, well, she's been the B-word, which is a classic, you know, epithet against women whenever they sound aggressive or they really state their mind. ... Maybe I know her too well. She doesn't have a chip on her shoulder." McLaughlin then asked: "You don't think she's a black militant?" Page replied: "A black militant? Well, I'm a black militant, John, and the Tribune hired me anyway. Seriously." Several media figures have recently suggested that Obama has a "chip on her shoulder," including VDARE.com contributor Steve Sailer, who wrote that Obama "sounds like she's got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from lucking into Princeton due to affirmative action."
Earlier in the program, discussing the political strategies of Sens. Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's campaigns, conservative radio host Monica Crowley claimed that Clinton's "problem" is that, "[i]n order to win, she has to club the baby seal to death. OK? That is her entire situation. She is stuck with being a hope-squasher." Other media figures have also used violent imagery while discussing Clinton's attempts to defeat Obama, including MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews, who, on the January 4 edition of Hardball, remarked: "[W]hat does she do with the body? How does she get rid of a Barack Obama if she ever gets to beat him?" Additionally, on the January 24, 2007, broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, discussing the potential 2008 presidential candidates who had attended President Bush's State of the Union address, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank asserted: "Hillary Clinton was situated immediately behind Barack Obama, making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that's what she was trying to do."
From the February 24 edition of the syndicated program The McLaughlin Group:
McLAUGHLIN: Question: Obama is saying that his debate performances and his many endorsements fill any void in accomplishment that Hillary can point to. Did it work? Eleanor.
ELEANOR CLIFT (Newsweek contributing editor): Look, he's gotten a lot more substantive. He has a health-care plan. He has a plan to cure the economic ills. This election debate between the two of them is really not about their programs and their policies. They each agree on virtually everything. He's arguing that he would make a more inspirational leader and he could rally the country to get those policies through.
And Hillary Clinton's claims of experience have not worked. She, in a way, is the victim of her experience in American political life. This is a change election -- it's a cliché -- but she, by definition, can't be the change candidate. She's been there too long on the national stage. And she's watching Barack Obama run the 2008 version of the campaign her husband ran in 1992: change versus more of the same.
CROWLEY: Here -- here is the --
McLAUGHLIN: Do you detect policy differences between the two?
CROWLEY: Very, very minor. Here is Hillary's problem right now. In order to win, she has to club the baby seal to death. OK? That is her entire situation. She is stuck with being a hope-squasher. Right? Obama has cut into all of her constituencies deeply: women; he's picking up Hispanic voters, especially in Texas; lower income voters; senior citizens. Her entire base now is evaporating toward him. Her only hope is if there is some sort of hope backlash, where people have some sort of buyer's remorse about Barack Obama that they drank the whole bottle of champagne and it felt fizzy and great and now, they're going take a step back and say, "Well, wait a minute. Is this guy really ready?"
I think it's too late for her to be raising that question. I think he has the omentum, as we say, and her raising these questions -- she's still running on experience when it has backfired and not worked for her this entire time. She has learned nothing in this campaign.
[...]
McLAUGHLIN: Do you think Michelle -- do you think she leaves the impression -- not mine, but I've heard this -- that she has a chip on her shoulder?
PAGE: I think that's BS. You know, people say that she's got a chip on her shoulder. That's like, well, she's been the B-word, which is a classic, you know, epithet against women whenever they sound aggressive or they really state their mind. I --
McLAUGHLIN: You don't --
PAGE: I don't think that's true at all.
McLAUGHLIN: You don't think --
PAGE: Maybe I know her too well. She doesn't have a chip on her shoulder.
McLAUGHLIN: You don't think she's a black militant?
PAGE: A black militant? Well, I'm a black militant, John, and the Tribune hired me anyway. Seriously.
McLAUGHLIN: Really?
PAGE: They -- in the '60s, they said, "Well, we're going to hire that Clarence Page, but he might be a little militant for the Tribune."
McLAUGHLIN: Well, that was in the '60s.
PAGE: You know, and because of that --
BUCHANAN: John. John --
PAGE: -- I went to Brooks Brothers and bought a suit, so I went halfway, OK?
BUCHANAN: Hey, John. John, that statement -- that statement, if you get more of those, is very problematic. It suggests a sense of entitlement and a sense that America really hasn't lived up to my standards. And what she should have done is come forth and explained it and said, "I've never been more proud of my country than right now."
I saw this friday, I though Clarence was good. The interchanable blond got me a bit irritated though, Pat as well. McCaw doen't get this sort of charater asassination. As Mr. Foser detailed this week, only democratic people get this sort of infinite attension of their every word for any kind of possible flaw.
For all of this effort, they got two close elections. Unless they, the media, can charater assasinate 10 times better McCaw is going down hard in November.
This stuff is getting deep and it's only February.
"Black militant" indeed.
This was pointed out in a column in the "ultra liberal" New York Times today.
You mean that he hates America and wants us all to die, Praise Allah...?
Well..they say to judge a person by his friends. Here's a quote from his buddy Bill Ayers:
“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”
...or how 'bout this one?:
"I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."
- Bill Ayers in an interview with the NYT, published 9/11/2001
Face it...once the primary is over, the microscope is gonna be turned on Barry Hussein and his wife Omarosa
..it ain't gonna be pretty..
...I wonder who McCain's VP will be
When questioned about the relationship between the candidate and Mr. Ayers, Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said Ayers “does not have a role on the campaign.”
Well..that should put it to rest
All this proves is that by believing the rantings of a wingnut like Larry Johnson, the only thing that you're a stranger to is reality.
Go back to Free Republic, where the Freepers would thrive on your cybersewage.
Obama served on the board of the Woods Funds of Chicago with Ayers and attended an associated political event sponsored by Ayers in Chicago - big deal. There is no doubt that Ayers’ reputation amongst Progressives has been vastly tarnished by his past. Recently his press secretary has noted that Obama "strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group" and further noted that Ayers had no role in the campaign.
If you want a “guilt by association” list for The Bush-Cheney Administration – and many other Republicans or right-wing pundits, I’m sure there will be plenty of readers at MMFA willing to start naming them for you to point out the hypocrisy of even bringing this up.
Face it...once the primary is over, the microscope is gonna be turned on Barry Hussein and his wife Omarosa
..it ain't gonna be pretty..
There’s no doubt The Repugnentcans are drooling at the bit – Hell, they even prematurely settled for a guy who has a record of opposing 75% of their ideology - just so they have plenty of time to get the Hate-Machine fired up. As sure as you are of a McCain victory – I am even more convinced that in 2008, America will finally turn their backs on the disgusting tactics of the Republican Party. There are just far too many websites and bloggers out there exposing the truth. Like I said a year ago, the Carl Rove style low-life scumbag tactics of the Republican Party have created a monster that is about to turn around and bite them is the A$$. This time, it’s not only Democrats that are fed-up, it’s most all independents – not to mention all the “Obamacins” who have had enough sense to jump the sinking ship. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, it doesn’t matter - there will still be a HUGE chunk of voters who are simply voting AGAINST the Republicans.
Be sure to stop by MMFA for a talk the morning of Nov. 5th!:)
Sorry - I missed the whole first paragraph of the last post when I pasted it....
There isn’t enough room on this page to list all the radical liberals of the 60’s who are now respected contributors to American society. Many have even been elected to political office. I’m sure you don’t like any of them, or their political views, but that doesn’t make them, or associating with them, evil. I’m not sure how old you are – or if you were even alive during the Vietnam War era – but for many who were dedicated to ending the bloodshed, there was no other way - the “peaceful” dissent just wasn’t working. Depending on how you stood on the war – to this day these people are either villains or heroes (though I’m sure for many they are “closet-heroes”).
but for many who were dedicated to ending the bloodshed, there was no other way -
The irony...it drips.
Nice apologia. It looks like Barry Hussein and his wife Omarosa have a little company.
Once the Obama rock is turned over, many of even the most fervent cultists will be losing their religion....a collective case of buyer's remorse, if you will..
I'm not apologizing for anyone. At least I put some thought into my posts. Show me one of yours that has been written for any other reason than to express hate? I’m sure that you don’t even realize how much you represent this sickness that infects so many Republicans. The only “defense” you ever have is usually no defense at all, but rather some injection of an off-topic comment designed to incite hatred, fear, or prejudice. You really do a disservice to Republicans for so blatantly exemplifying the stereotype of a hate-monger.
The Pee-Wee Herman analogy written for you yesterday in the Savage thread fits you perfect. “I know you are but what am I?” LOL
Clevenative wrote;
but for many who were dedicated to ending the bloodshed, there was no other way - the “peaceful” dissent just wasn’t working.
and then:
I'm not apologizing for anyone.
He's very confused person
Oh, man, I'm gonna throw up...Stranger, man, you just blew every body away! Well, you're doing some kind of blowing... ;>)
Let's see if I've got this straight Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama’s Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group. Oh, man...$200 to Obama's campaign in 2001? They both served on the board of an anti-poverty group? Wow...! LOL...
And you think that's gonna blow Obama away? All you've cited is stuff that will excite the typical right wing internet freak. Are you freakin' insane...? Come back when you have something substantial, lightweight...
Personally, I could care less if he is Muslim, Christian, or atheist. And I suspect that, deep down, you really don’t care or believe it either. Even if he was of ‘the correct’ faith,
you’d just find some other reason to hate him.
"...I wonder who McCain's VP will be"
Stranger, you're assuming that McCain will last that long. Vicki Iseman has a big mouth...that's why John Weaver ran her off. If she was doing McCain you don't think she told anyone else? Ha...! I'll bet reporters are crawling all over each other at this moment to get the full story. And you know somebody's gonna talk...they always do. I would assume you'd want this to happen soon rather than in October.
Vicki Iseman has a big mouth...that's why John Weaver ran her off
I always thought part of the reason to have an affair was to get someone OTHER than your wife not someone who looks exactly like your wife. Maybe Johnnie didn't cheat he just got confused.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/vicki-iseman-and-cindy-mc_n_87708.html
I find it interesting that after the publication of the story by the NYT that the conservative right is now coming out in support of McCain. They mistakenly thought he was a maverick who wasn't a player on their team.
When they fiound out he might be an adulterer who sells out his country to the highest bidder or for some tail and some profit, they realized he is one of them after all...and that's why they are now supporting him. thieves and liars all of them...they are no "Stranger" to this type of behavior and they have a very wide ideological stance...if you catch my drift.
Let' see.. McCain took a plane ride once that Ms. Iseman was also on....Barry Hussein (the Muslim Manchurian Candidate)and his wife Omarosa kick it with members of the Weather Underground...
...which story makes the front page of the NYT?...oh...the non-story one
Solon,
Any reasonable person would have to agree with your name calling of the stranger. The shoe fits.
If I could, I would like to suggest something in terms of marginalizing this guy. It is obvious that he comes here and spouts rather extreme statements in an almost obvious attempt to engage someone in a conversation. If you think about it...it is rather pitiful that a person has to resort to such drivel just to have someone to talk to. He is likely unable to do this on a person to person basis, so he must try this charade on a computer, which offers the anonimity he needs to sustain his obvious Histrionic Personality Disorder (although a good argument could be made for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder). Anyway, the point is that until his posts offer at least some degree of self respect and reason they should be ignored. Responding to him only feeds his ego and likely contributes to making his mental illness worse. I know such outright ignorance is hard to ignore but since we all know you are completely capable of out reasoning this guy, wouldn't it be best to just leave him to his street corner with the rest of the loudmouth non substance preachers?
ACHRISPAGE:
It's a formula with two main parts.
FIRST, invent alternative NAMES for those you oppose, loosely based on their real names, but which reflect the disrespect you have for those people. The made-up names should attempt to insult, to show derision and denigration, and you should use your alternative name religiously. The idea is that, by USING and REPEATING this insulting name, other people will learn to disrespect your target as YOU do. The extremely weak of mind will think this namecalling "clever" and begin using your made-up terms as their OWN ... and so the disrespect spreads.
[Used by such luminaries as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, this technique has been used for the Democratic Party ("Democrat party" ... taken up by the President himself) and politicians such as Harry Reid ("Dingy Harry") and Henry Waxman ("Nostrilitis"). The arrogant, childish calculus here is that, if YOU ridicule someone (because YOU are so valued and respected yourself), your targets become objects of ridicule instead of serious human beings. Cruel children go through this phase around second grade, and almost all outgrow it by the fourth grade.]
SECOND, you must adopt every fringe rumor, every vicious innuendo, every outlandish baseless smear, and repeat it as if it's God's gospel TRUTH. Based on the theory that "where there's smoke, there's FIRE", your job becomes setting off as many smoke-bombs as you can.
Again, the RIGHT uses this technique regularly, a recent example being the "SWIFT BOAT" people. Baseless smears simply invented in order to tear down someone with whom you disagree politically. Because this technique involves DIRECT and PROVABLE LYING, it's usually instigated by third parties who do not have any CREDIBILITY to protect. Then, the "luminaries" of talk radio, etc., can "pick up the ball" and run with it, giving it "legs" by pondering if all this smoke means FIRE (and concluding that it MUST).
John Kerry (and Al Gore before him, to name just TWO) tried the "high road" approach, and it was a mistake. IGNORING these Rightwing smearmongers does not work ... they have to be confronted and their assertions destroyed by FACTS and LOGIC ... and appropriate OUTRAGE.
So here we have STRANGER, a self-styled master of BOTH techniques, and you suggest he be ignored. I disagree. When the childish and hate-promoting STRANGER makes assertions that are obviously FALSE, it should be pointed out, and if someone (like SOLON) wants to take time to expose the childish, petty, and bankrupt techniques of some of these rightwing smearmongers, it's all for the good.
Cockroaches can be pests, and it doesn't hurt a thing to squash one.
Again, the RIGHT uses this technique regularly, a recent example being the "SWIFT BOAT" people. Baseless smears simply invented in order to tear down someone with whom you disagree politically. Because this technique involves DIRECT and PROVABLE LYING, it's usually instigated by third parties who do not have any CREDIBILITY to protect. Then, the "luminaries" of talk radio, etc., can "pick up the ball" and run with it, giving it "legs" by pondering if all this smoke means FIRE (and concluding that it MUST).
Your diatribe sort of describes the new clinton tactic, although I'm unsure exactly of their intention. What do they expect to gain by circulating photos of Obama in a muslim garb meeting with a somali muslim elder? More dishonest fear-mongering from the Clintons, trying to advantage themselves to some of the basest impulses of Americans?
THOMP defends: "Your diatribe sort of describes ... "
RESPONSE: "SORT OF"? What a weasel!
THOMP: " sort of describes the new clinton tactic ..."
RESPONSE: There's a "NEW Clinton TACTIC"? Great. Direct us to the official Clinton site that demonstrates this new tactic, let us see for ourself what it is "sort of" like!
THOMP: "... although I'm unsure exactly of their intention."
RESPONSE: You're now UNSURE of something that is SORT OF. Why do you bother to POST when you have NOTHING to add?
THOMP: "What do they expect to gain ..."
RESPONSE: Who is "THEY"? You've identified NOBODY, only speculated that there's a "new" tactic out there being directed by "Clinton". You'll have to do far better than THAT.
THOMP: " what they expect to gain by circulating photos of Obama in a muslim garb meeting with a somali muslim elder?"
RESPONSE: There are maybe TEN THOUSAND Rightwing smearmongers "out there" who ALWAYS "stand to gain" by smearing Democrats. So you have concluded that it is Clinton who is "circulating" a photo? And then you scratch your head in public, wondering what "they" hope to GAIN? Could you BE more disingenuous? Ignorant? Stupid?
THOMP: "... and ten More (sic) dishonest fear-mongering from the Clintons, trying to advantage themselves to some of the basest impulses of Americans?"
RESPONSE: Dishonest fearmongering comes from the RIGHTWING, every day, every minute of every day, and they hope to gain SMEARING and DESTROYING every Democratic candidate in sight. And you are correct, the Rightwing DOES appeal to the basest impulses of Americans.
But, based on NOTHING (that you've shown us), you decide that it's Clinton who is doing this dastardly "circulation of photos"? You're plumb out of your mind, and your desperation is palpable. GET A FRIGGIN' CLUE!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
Plouffe said in a statement: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.
Maybe it will turn out that it's not the Clintons, but this is what I read this morning. Obama's campaign certainly wouldn't be surprised that your candidate would seep this low.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_response_the_days_Drudge.html
The clinton campaign's response
THOMP:
Thanks for the link to the Clinton response. It clearly says that this was NOT a Clinton "tactic", NOT sent out by the campaign, and even if it was, what's the big deal? Clinton herself has worn many "costumes" in nations she has visited, doing proper visiting dignitary duty.
Now your confusion is quelled. Must feel better.
invent alternative NAMES for those you oppose, loosely based on their real names,
Solon...it's only OK when it's done against someone from the right. OK?
...cuz, if it weren't then typing things here like, as is done all the time, O'Leilly, Michael "Wiener" Savage", KKKarl Rove, etc. would be wrong..
...got that? :)
STRANGER:
I see a pattern. You go seeking rare examples of asinine and childish behavior, SO YOU CAN EMULATE it.
I think I'd aim higher, but hey, you know your own limitations.
Tex scrawled:
SECOND, you must adopt every fringe rumor, every vicious innuendo, every outlandish baseless smear, and repeat it as if it's God's gospel TRUTH. Based on the theory that "where there's smoke, there's FIRE", your job becomes setting off as many smoke-bombs as you can.
Again, the RIGHT uses this technique regularly, a recent example being the "SWIFT BOAT" people. Baseless smears simply invented in order to tear down someone with whom you disagree politically. Because this technique involves DIRECT and PROVABLE LYING, it's usually instigated by third parties who do not have any CREDIBILITY to protect. Then, the "luminaries" of talk radio, etc., can "pick up the ball" and run with it, giving it "legs" by pondering if all this smoke means FIRE (and concluding that it MUST).
...right above tex's post was this gem from Pearlene:
I always thought part of the reason to have an affair was to get someone OTHER than your wife not someone who looks exactly like your wife. Maybe Johnnie didn't cheat he just got confused
Like I've said, you guys are waaaay beyond parody.
Oh..and Tex?...the definition of Swift Boating is to expose the truth about Democrats that the lying, corrupt MSM refuses to do
STRANGER supplies a definition: "the definition of Swift Boating is to expose the truth about Democrats that the lying, corrupt MSM refuses to do."
RESPONSE: Wonderful. The Swift Boat guys mainly tried to "expose the TRUTH" that Kerry did not deserve his medals.
Since this TRUTH was so convincingly EXPOSED, I must've missed where the NAVY corrected its official record to reflect this TRUTH, and called for Kerry to return all those medals that were issued in error.
I expect that Kerry was called on to pay a penalty for defrauding the Navy with his false accounts about what actually happened over there.
Since I missed these events, which MUST have happened if STRANGER is correct and the TRUTH has now been EXPOSED ... I wonder why STRANGER has not linked us to where the Navy has made these long overdue CORRECTIONS in their records.
Of course, it MAY be that the NAVY is complicit in the fraud to honor military combat veterans with medals they do not deserve. If this is the case, then the FRAUD is systemic (if the Swift Boat guys are to be believed ... and STRANGER certainly believes THEM), and what this means is that there is NO MILITARY HONOR that can be trusted. We cannot honor military vets in a Veteran's Day parade, wearing their medals, because the Swifties have informed us that the SYSTEM is corrupt, and awards, then defends, fraudulent issuance of those medals. We can never again honor our decorated combat vets. We should, in fact, RIDICULE them.
And Purple Hearts are the WORST, according to the Swift Boat guys, because THOSE were used by COWARDS in order to avoid long military service in combat, and to leave their buddies behind to fight.
How about it, STRANGER? Show us where the U.S. Navy has honored those Swift Boat guys, by admitting they have the TRUTH, and by correcting the injustices Kerry brought about by falsifying his war record.
Or, alternatively, admit that the NAVY is complicit in this fraud, and therefore we cannot ever again honor decorated combat vets.
It's one or the other, STRANGER. Which is it?
Tex,
Yeah, I suggest he be ignored. Think about the rationale you are putting forth here. Let us be realistic. The Stranger is not going to change one single persons mind who posts here. By my count there are much less than a hundred people who post here regularly. That being said, what does anyone accomplish in this small setting by engaging this idiot? All that happens is he responds with more and more drivel and the cycle continues. Now, on a whole I can't disagree with your reasoning in terms of dealing with those who reach millions. They should be called out and challenged. But to equate the same approach to The Stranger, are you not then indicating that he is on the same level as Limbaugh, Oreilly, etc? I wuold submit quite the contrary, he is a silly poster on a website, who undoubtedly enjoys stirring you guys up. Why let him do that?
ACHRISPAGE:
Your case is convincing, and mostly I DO ignore the ramblings of STRANGER and his ilk, who vomit the worst garbage the rightwing smear machine can invent.
But sometimes, he and his hatemongering pals bring up a subject that calls for a response, and as you say, this is a finite forum. Readers here can see and digest every side of an issue, and can judge the character of the posters by their content.
STRANGER shows his content, and I show mine. You say responding to STRANGER and his ilk ENCOURAGES them, and feeds their need for attention. That may be so, but I prefer for them to KEEP POSTING so we can see their mindset and talking points clearly ... rather than their wearing sheets in the dark of night as their predecessors have done.
In short, I do not fear output from the STRANGERs out there, I WELCOME it, just as I welcome Ann Coulter DEFINING the Rightwing with HER output of hatred, misogyny, racism, and chronic mean spirit.
It helps us to "know the enemy", and if "encouraging" them keeps them posting, it's the least I can do. THESE are the people who support the NeoCons, the Republicans, and claim to be "conservative" (you know, those people with good family values and morality? LOL)
My grandpa had a phrase for people who make fools of themselves in public. He said, "They show their ass." As long as STRANGER is OK "showing his ass", I'm just fine LETTING him. OK?
Let' see.. McCain took a plane ride once that Ms. Iseman was also on
OMG, you mean not only get McCain confuse his mistress with his wife, he did it on an airplane?
Now it's interesting that you should bring up the quote about killing all the rich people and your parents, Stranger, because in the New York Times story to which you link, Ayers actually suggests he never said it. The article only says that Ayers was "said to have" made that remark. Did you read the story before you linked to it?
BTW, John McCain has very close ties to the (formerly North) Viet Namese...very close ties.
Go figure.
"Ronald Reagan sold weapons to our arch enemies the Iranians..." - Johnny_ny835
"and he did it in order to finance a Central American terrorist group.
Go figure indeed!
After all, if someone with "very close ties" to domestic terrorists is allowed to travel the country giving speeches about the need for change somebody at Homeland Security is asleep at the switch.
That's "questioning"...
And, no, I don't think Obama should be waterboarded...yet. ;>)
That's why I like The Stranger's comments. Whenever the thread takes a turn towards parody of gullible, pants-pissing wingnut-ese, Strangy tosses in a dead-earnest post that fits in seamlessly.
It's like a cartoon that doesn't know it's a cartoon.
It's like a cartoon that doesn't know it's a cartoon
Kinda like the Bush Administration...
I don't know, Solon. I wouldn't say that this garbage is any more ignorant than anything it ever posts. I'd say Strangy posts equally ignorant garbage.
Just to be fair.
Johnny,
Scary, isn't it.......
This is going to be the defining moment for the corporate owned media, the right-wing base, and any other racist prick that live among us!
Somehow, I get the impression that any sign of a black man or woman showing any sign of real strength or individualism will be critiqued as somehow having a.... what did McLaughlin use, oh yes, "A chip on their shoulder."
This should be fun watching these people make complete and total a$$holes of themselves believing that they are righteous!
I hope my tv isn't affected when that happens.
Glenn Greenwald wrote a piece in 2006 where he said that Obama's candidacy will bring out unintentional ignorant remarks by out pundit class regarding “race” and “character.” Yes, it will be an interesting election year because the pundit class, most who live in complete isolation from any people of color, just can’t help themselves. O’Reilly is not the only one who’ll have a “Silvia Moment” this election season.
Normally Clarence Page frustrates me, but he was very funny in this clip.
I like watching the MacLauhglin group,but I guess they are no different in trying to figure out this runaway train thats coming down that tracks and they don't know what to do or how to be relevant.For this is something that there circle of friends know how to explain or they themselves can explain.
So the potshots come.
Have to disagree with the assertion that the public at large has had their spirirt drained. People are turning out in historic numbers to get involved on the political process. I have to believe that these last eight years of Republican failure has shown people that elections matter. I think people are energized more now than ever. This mass participation favors the left because as voter turnout goes down, Republican success goes up.
Also, this time around Democrats have a communications infrastructure in place, are more organized and are in postion to beat back the smear thugs.
Michelle Obama is not a black militant? Yeah, right, er, umm, OK.
A strong black woman speaks up and all of a sudden she's a militant? This just sort of wreaks of misogyny to me, more or less. Why? Well, first Hillary is too shrill to be President, and she should tone it down more. Now, MO is a militant because she speaks up. Hey, maybe the ladies should just get back in the kitchen and make some pies or something. Or, you know, go and clean the house in high heels and a pretty dress and wait for her man to come home so she can make him comfortable and all.
I'd like to know how they came to the conclusion that she is a militant and what militant views does she hold? I haven't heard anything militant coming out of her mouth, or Obama's campaign.
Republican hypocrisy is such a joke. It’s funny how “militant” is a bad word when talking about someone who disagrees with their views and a glorified word (right up there with “patriotic”) if the person is militant in promoting their agenda.
One of the best examples can be found in this MMFA story – excerpt pasted below…
On the August 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity aired video footage of musician and right-wing activist Ted Nugent at an August 21 concert calling Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) a "piece of $hit" and referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "worthless bitc#." In the video clip, Nugent holds up what appear to be two assault rifles and says he told Obama "to suck on my machine gun" and says he told Clinton "you might want to ride one of these into the sunset." After airing the clip, Hannity referred to Nugent as a "friend and frequent guest on the program," and then compared Nugent's comments to recent statements by Obama, which Hannity again distorted by claiming Obama "accus[ed] our troops of killing civilians." Hannity then asked Democratic strategist Bob Beckel: "What's more offensive to you? Is it Barack Obama's statement about our troops or Ted Nugent?" Beckel responded by asking Hannity if he was "prepared to disavow this lowlife," to which Hannity responded: "No, I like Ted Nugent. He's a friend of mine." When Beckel said that Nugent "ought to never come on your show again, and if you have him on, you ought to be ashamed of yourself," Hannity responded: "Not at all. We have you on."
Nugent, militant for sure. I have waivered back and forth on Ted for many years. After the little incident you quoted in your reply though, I was done with him forever. Just not acceptable really. I mean, in essence, what he was doing, and he'll deny it, is that he was threatening, or making threatening gestures and or actions towards 2 presidential candidates, and one former first lady, just because he doesn't like their politics. Yeah, peach of guy right there. I've come to the conclusion that Ted Nugent is a pretty deranged individual, and a really huge hypocrite about war. Since he dodged the draft for Vietnam and all, and now he's all gung ho and pro war (not pro military, pro WAR) because he doesn't have to serve. Yeah, he's a loser.
Michelle Obama? Not really militant, but outspoken about the things that she believes in, and does so eloquently I might add, or at least I think that she does eloquently and with class.
For anyone who is not familiar with The Motorcity Madman – I found this great story that has an accurate bio of this blood-thirsty jackass. Be sure to read the part about how this phony patriot got out of the draft – it’s as sick as it gets. The MM Hannity story is just the tip of the iceberg – but if you put it together with this CampusProgress.org story you will understand why Sean Hannity is such a dangerous man.
Back to Nugent - Anyone who knows anything about human psychology can tell you that a guy who brags about how he first got his kicks bludgeoning small animals as a child can only be on a path to something far more grandeur. I predict that the day will come - when there is no fuel left for this egomaniac’s antics – that his psychopathic mind will lead him into doing something that will put him in the history books. I’m sure he’ll look at his actions as martyrdom for his cause and part of his destiny - up until the very day of his lethal injection.
I'm sure it wasn't in the same league as what this genuine piece of human filth Nugent said.
His bio gives new meaning to the word Chickenhawk.
I suppose what burns my butt most is the fact that someone like Stranger had the balls to come in here to smear Obama by calling Bill Ayers “his buddy” and posting a supposed quote from Ayers – that turns out to not be an actual quote but rather hearsay from 40 years ago, and an era from which I’m sure the only knowledge he has is what he’s read in the right-wing Vietnam spin of history books. He then ridiculed me for pointing out the fact that Barrack’s campaign has publicly distanced themselves from Ayers by downplaying the validity of that fact - while on his side of the wall you have idiots like Sean Hannity who refuses to distance himself from someone as militant and loony as Nugent – in fact quite the opposite, as Hannity, on live airwaves, specifically reiterated his relationship with Nugent as something more than just an association by stating “"No, I like Ted Nugent. He's a friend of mine." I wonder what other “friends” Hannity has who we don’t know about?
So apparently to be buddies with someone, you had to have met him, or her somewhere along the line. Shaken hands. And then got $200 donated to his campaign, in 2001. If that qualifies as buddies, well, then, I guess I would be buddies with Obama as well. Since I've met him, shaken his hand, and donated almost $200 to his campaign.
The thing is with this Ayers guy, he was never convicted of anything. But was associated with a group that was nefarious in the least, and possibly terroristic at the most, except that they never killed anyone, except for their own members mistakenly.
So by The Stranger's assertion, Don Rumsfeld must have been GREAT friends with Saddam Hussein, because we have all seen the pictures of Donny old boy shaking hands with Hussein, and then selling him WMDs. The whole guilt by association game can be played both ways. Reagan let the terrorists win, because he withdrew the Marines from Beirut. Bush is in bed with terrorists since his entire family is good buddies (actually in real life good friends) with the Saudi crown, and since most, or a majority of funds that go towards terrorist groups around the world come out of Saudi Arabia and all. Not to mention when the Bush administration let the Taliban come on over here before the attacks of 9/11. I mean, we could play this game ALL DAY LONG.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal
I thought Nugent was dead till the whole machine gun thing. I wish I'd been right.
Well, it proves that you're an idiot who thinks that anyone who wears a turban is a muslim.
Not quite sure that it does.
The picture was taken during a trip to Kenya...the home of his Muslim father. Osama Obama was raised as a Muslim.
The outfit that Barack bin Laden has on in not traditional of any Kenyan tribe. Turbans, especially, are not native. It is a Muslim importation common now to the region. Notice too the hat on the other guy. It also is traditional Muslim headwear.
Check out these comments from a Muslim forum/chat room
Golly, Strangy.I haven't seen you this scared since you discovered that W is a Jew.