Liberal Racists On Parade In Maryland Senate Race

>>Condelezza Rice is a good example.

The only example.

Concerning McCains adopted daughter, she is from Bangladesh.

The rumor spread was that she was McCain illegitimate mulatto love child.

>>I don't believe he is radical at all.

He isnt, thats why Limbaugh etc. hate him.
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>Condelezza Rice is a good example.

The only example.

Concerning McCains adopted daughter, she is from Bangladesh.

The rumor spread was that she was McCain illegitimate mulatto love child.

>>I don't believe he is radical at all.

He isnt, thats why Limbaugh etc. hate him.[/QUOTE]

I'll agree with the Condoleeza Rice example about being the only one. Look how Powell was hung out to dry and what Black person would relate themselves to Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas. How many Black people or people in general would you consider Hard Right defender? Trotting out an extremist like Keyes who is in the vein of Jesse Helms doesn't help against such a charasmatic figure as Barrack Obama and probably a Centrist.
I didn't know she was from Bangladesh. Regardless from what I know Rove used this rumor or spread it to keep people from voting for McCain. Do you think these tactics that potentially disparage minority groups HELP to attract them? It's like spitting on a Black person then asking them to vote for you.
I'm talking to defender here msut. Defender most people think McCain doesn't have a chance though I might vote for McCain over Hillary. Honestly if McCain doesn't get the GOP nomination if I were him I'd just say fuck you and run independently if it was Jeb Bush just to give the Republicans a major screw over in the next Presidential Election.
I would hope most Republicans would realize even Hillary Clinton would be a better President then Jeb Bush but of course I don't want to see all Civil Service jobs outsourced either. This is man who said he wants to get government small enough to where he can drown it.
 
[quote name='defender']Well I do see work from the side of Republicans to attract voters of all races. It's dangerous for the Repubs to play the race card our front but imho they are positioning themselves by putting minorities in the spotlight. Condelezza Rice is a good example. I think what's funny is the mention of McCain's adopted kids being mixed. I never ever knew that as a republican. I am not sure what context Rove said it but it would appear to me that Rove is part of a Bush's circle of close friends and that includes people of all colors and races.

My wife is black so my 4 kids are mixed (or black as I assume they will be called as they get older). McCain having kids that are mixed only solidifies my loyalty to the republicans. I am a big McCain supporter and I don't believe he is radical at all. I think McCain running for a presidency would do a great deal to capture minority voters.[/QUOTE]

Well, McCain is someone I will rarely criticize (I only say 'rarely' because I know if I say "never" someone will find a post where I did ;)), so if you want to hold him up as what you consider to be ideal about the Republican party, more power to you.

While I also think that, as a moderate, his views are shared by a larger proportion of the American population, the problem he has is that elites dictate the power hierarchy for both political parties. That's one reason that voters are so disinterested every four Novembers. Extremists are the ones likely to participate in primaries, and that ruins it for those middle-of-the-road Americans.

As a Democrat, I can bitch about how Gore won, and lament about how Kerry was made to look like an aloof-ish elite when running against aristocracy itself; however, McCain should have won in 2000. I can only imagine where we would currently be if that were the case.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I wound nail Susan Estrich if given the chance.

Something tells me that nutty chick would be a wild lay. I'd only to it to say I did her but.... I still would.[/QUOTE]

So you're into fugly chicks? Interesting.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']One big thing is Michelle Malkin's stance is that there is nothing wrong with Internment. Lets be honest, of course the average Republican will have no problem with that because how often will it affect them? How often would a White person get interred?[/QUOTE]

Wow, I really think you are taking one person's view here and projecting it on an entire (large) group of people. I've never heard anyone justify the internment camps during WWII. Although I'll take your word for it that Malkin did, to project that position on "the average Republican" I think is really overreaching.

And I'm sure you think certain things that don't affect you are wrong; why are others different? The Holocaust didn't affect me personally, but I think it was wrong. Is that so unusual?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In short, poor minorities tend to vote democrat; better-off people tend to vote Republican regardless of race.[/QUOTE]

I've got to disagree with that. It's a well-known fact that the uber-rich vote Democrat. Why else would Beverly Hills be a strong Democratic area?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I've got to disagree with that. It's a well-known fact that the uber-rich vote Democrat. Why else would Beverly Hills be a strong Democratic area?[/QUOTE]

Because it isn't; I don't have the data (and if you really want me to search for it, I'll do so), but during last year's election, there were several articles dicussing how the local uber-rich area of Cincinnati (Indian Hill, for what it's worth) was the #2 "zip-code" (that's how they classified it) in the nation in terms of campaign contributions and fund-raising for the Bush/Ceheny ticket. They were beat only by Beverly Hills.

I guess it's easy to draw a line between "Hollywood" uber-wealth and "corporate" uber-wealth, and say that's where the political lines are split between parties; I don't think that'd be accurate nor appropriate.

I wish there were more uber-rich proponents of Democratic political activity; poor George Soros is a one-man target!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, I really think you are taking one person's view here and projecting it on an entire (large) group of people. I've never heard anyone justify the internment camps during WWII. Although I'll take your word for it that Malkin did, to project that position on "the average Republican" I think is really overreaching.

And I'm sure you think certain things that don't affect you are wrong; why are others different? The Holocaust didn't affect me personally, but I think it was wrong. Is that so unusual?[/QUOTE]

Just to point out:

jh1ab.png


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260514/103-7680972-5575802?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

She argues that the overwhelming majority of japanese were innocent, but should have been interned anyway because a select few may have been spies.

And some coulter quotes, cause she reminds me of malkin:

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages." - [2], 16 August, 2004

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

"Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do" - [3] May 18, 2005
On the New York Times and the Oklahoma Bomber:
  • "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - in a New York Observer interview, 26 August, 2002
On the previous quote:
  • "Of course I regret it. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'" - in a rightwingnews.com interview, 26 June, 2003
"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back in time would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal." When asked, "You're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation?" she replied, "That would be a good start." - Politically Incorrect May 7, 1997.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
 
Malkin and Coulter only exist to put a "pretty" face on inherently ugly ideas. Their extremism makes the elected Republicans look moderate by comparison. Can you imagine a white, middle-aged male making the argument that Japanese internment was a good idea? Or that Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times building? He would be resoundly criticized as a nutcase and not on the bestseller lists.

I have to give credit to Coulter though - she is entertaining. She knows how to push liberals buttons and she does it with glee. Malkin is still kinda mousey and Chris Matthews pwned her last year. Ann Coulter is an attention whore of the highest order. The best defense would be to ignoer her because she adds nothing vital to the discussion. Her only function is to create a spectacle and get everyone to watch. That's why the political shows book her.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']she adds nothing vital to the discussion[/QUOTE]

Not that this is a character trait that makes her unique, but you're spot on right here.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia discusses that she uses sarcasm and hyperbole heavily. Could those quotes listed in wikipedia's database just be sarcasm and hyperbole...or does she really think that way (If it is the former, she is really good at making her sarcastic and hyperbolic arguments sound like her legitimate opinions)?
 
>>...or does she really think that way

I never reallly heard say she is using hyperbole or joking, many on the right take her seriously.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, I really think you are taking one person's view here and projecting it on an entire (large) group of people. I've never heard anyone justify the internment camps during WWII. Although I'll take your word for it that Malkin did, to project that position on "the average Republican" I think is really overreaching.

And I'm sure you think certain things that don't affect you are wrong; why are others different? The Holocaust didn't affect me personally, but I think it was wrong. Is that so unusual?[/QUOTE]

Yes but there are people that will shrug it off. Look at what happened with Oklahoma City. Did they start profiling White people after that? If they did it was only for a short while meanwhile after 9-11 they're profiling Arabs and Muslims while some White people are just shrugging their shoulders and saying it's ok. Shit even with OKC NOT profiling didn't they say to check around on people ordering a large amount of Ammonium Nitrate? Isn't it a lot less tiring to check up on actions rather than an ethnic group? Look at James Woods when he was on that plane before 9-11, he thought the people were acting suspicious and contacted someone about it. They were ACTING suspicious, he didn't look and say well those are Muslims and I need to contact the Flight Attendent!
edit: Also with Malkin if the RNC head regularly books her for shit with the Republican Party I would consider it encouragement or acceptance of her ideas.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Wikipedia discusses that she uses sarcasm and hyperbole heavily. Could those quotes listed in wikipedia's database just be sarcasm and hyperbole...or does she really think that way (If it is the former, she is really good at making her sarcastic and hyperbolic arguments sound like her legitimate opinions)?[/QUOTE]

She does use sarcasm and hyperbole when she speeks, and many supporters argue that ridiculous comments such as repealing the emancipation proclamation and supporting mcveigh, as many have accused her of doing since she mirrors many of his opinions, should not be taken at face value. But, at the same time, she always defends such comments that she makes.

Personally, I think many are serious (ie. invade all muslim countries, kill their leader and make them christian), some are not (ie. get rid of the emancipation proclamation). Out of the ones that aren't serious, this is how I percieve them "I may be making a joke about it and it's not intended to be a serious political view, but, if it were to actually happen, I wouldn't really care or get upset about it". Kind of like when I make comments saying people should kill primate, elephant etc. poachers. I'm not going to openly argue for it and such statements are tongue in cheeck. But, at the same time, I'm not going to care very much if someone took one of my statements too seriously and acted on it.
 
It seems there are people who were at the event who didn't see any oreos thrown.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.oreos13nov13,0,6788452.story


Ehrlich bristles at Oreo skeptics
Account of Steele pelted by cookies in '02 under scrutiny
By Andrew A. Green
Sun reporter
Originally published November 13, 2005
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said yesterday that he is angry at "revisionism" from political opponents who question a much-repeated story about Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele being pelted with Oreos during a 2002 campaign debate in Baltimore.

Versions of the story have been repeated over the years by Ehrlich, Steele and their supporters in describing what they call a pattern of racial slights against the black Republican, and accounts of the event have spread widely.


Speaking on Stateline with the Governor on WBAL-AM yesterday, Ehrlich said he would not tolerate questions about the veracity of the incident.

"This revisionism is real dangerous. And to the extent anyone is out there now saying, 'Well, no, those Oreo cookies really weren't thrown at Mike Steele, that's now an urban legend, whatever, made up by the Republicans,' I mean these people have got to get real," Ehrlich said.

Paul Schurick, Ehrlich's communications director, said last week that he saw people passing out packages of the cookies outside Morgan State University's fine arts center before the debate and that when Steele entered the auditorium about 15 minutes before the start, people let fly with the cookies.

"It was raining Oreos," Schurick said. "They were thick in the air like locusts. I was there. It was very real. It wasn't subtle."

As for those who question the story, Ehrlich said yesterday: "They're not going to be able now to reinvent something that a lot of people saw. Just go ask people who were there."

Several debate attendees, however, could not corroborate Ehrlich and Schurick's version of events.

"It didn't happen here," said Vander Harris, operations manager of the Murphy Fine Arts Building at Morgan State. "I was in on the cleanup, and we found no cookies or anything else abnormal. There were no Oreo cookies thrown."

The incident is said to have occurred when Steele walked to his seat before the debate started, not during the event on stage when it would have been captured on video. Newspaper articles and television news reports from that night didn't mention it, and representatives of the news departments at television stations WBAL, WJZ and WMAR and Maryland Public Television said they have no video of the incident.

News reports of the event, which was sponsored by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, extensively described the raucous and sometimes rude behavior of the crowd - especially by supporters of Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the Democratic nominee for governor. At one point, Kweisi Mfume, who was then head of the NAACP, interrupted the proceedings to implore the crowd to calm down.

The first reference to the Oreo incident came five days later in an article in The Sun in which Schurick, then a spokesman for the Ehrlich campaign, said Townsend supporters distributed the cookies in the audience. He also said the crowd booed Ehrlich's family - a detail that was reported on debate night - and scratched the paint on Ehrlich supporters' cars with their keys.

Clint Coleman, a spokesman for Morgan State who was at the event, said he saw lots of unseemly behavior but no Oreos.

"There were a lot of things, disturbances, by this group of outsiders who were bent on disrupting the debate," Coleman said. "But I never actually saw Oreo cookies being thrown at him."

As for "raining Oreos," Coleman said, "I can tell you that did not happen."

Neil Duke, who moderated the event for the NAACP, said last week that he didn't see any cookies.

"Were there some goofballs sitting in [the] right-hand corner section tossing cookies amongst themselves and acting like sophomores, as the legend has it?" Duke said. "I have no reason to doubt those sources; I just didn't see it."

Wayne Frazier, president of the Maryland-Washington Minority Contractors Association said he watched Steele walk into the auditorium that night but saw no Oreos.

"I was there the whole time and did not see any of the so-called Oreo cookie incident," Frazier said. "It could have happened and I didn't see it, but I was in the auditorium from start to finish."

Steele was quoted in two articles that appeared in the next day's newspaper talking about the pro-Townsend crowd and what he called race-baiting by her campaign, but he said nothing about cookies.

Three weeks later, Washington Post writer George F. Will wrote in his column that "some in the audience had distributed Oreo cookies." That day, while campaigning at a Jewish day school in Pikesville, Ehrlich told the audience that Townsend supporters threw the cookies at Steele.

Just before the election, the London Daily Telegraph said that Steele "was bombarded with Oreo cookies" during the debate. Most reports that month, however, referred to cookies being "passed around."

After the election, Steele told a writer for the Capital News Service that an Oreo rolled to his feet during the debate.

"Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there," Steele told the news service. "If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me."

Most of the accounts in the past few weeks have described Steele being "pelted" by Oreos. Ehrlich said on WBAL radio that his father was hit in the head by one of the cookies. Schurick also said Ehrlich's father was hit. Schurick would not make Robert L. Ehrlich Sr. available for an interview yesterday.

Steele campaign spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said last week that the cookies "were clearly thrown at the lieutenant governor." He said Steele would not respond to questions about the event.
 
bread's done
Back
Top