Liberal Racism

[Montgomery Burns]

In MLK day speech, Sen. Clinton slams the Bush team, saying GOP Congress is 'run like a plantation'

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sparked a Martin Luther King Day political firestorm yesterday by describing the GOP-controlled Congress as a "plantation" during a speech before an African-American congregation in Harlem.

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told an audience at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ during an event sponsored by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network.

Newsday

And

New Orleans Mayor Apologizes for Remark

Mayor Ray Nagin apologized Tuesday for a Martin Luther King Day speech in which he predicted that New Orleans would be a "chocolate" city once more and asserted that "God was mad at America."

Link

Why are these people allowed to get away with this kind of rhetoric with only a slap on the hand? We all know that if a Republican said something like this, they'd be lynched (pun intended).

They get away with it because they control the schools--where they rewrite history--and the media.

I am absolutely amazed when I talk to someone from Europe and they claim that the GOP is a racist party. And they seem sincere!

A Republican president went to war to free the slaves.

It was Republicans who introduced legislation in the 1920s so women could vote, and

It was Republicans that overwhelmingly voted the Civil Rights Act through (Al Gore Sr and Robert "KKK" Byrd filibustered it).

I have always considered leftwingers more bigotted than rightwingers. As recently as 2001, former Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (who the Democrats refer to as "the conscience of the Senate") used the phrase "white n*ggers" on the Evil Faux News Channel™.

And I have seen far too many cartoons from ultra-leftists like Ted Rall (who CBCunlocked.com lovingly linked to when they were on strike) portraying Colin Powell as an Uncle Tom and especially the RACIST cartoons about Aunt Jemima Condi Rice. The Condi ones were especially disgusting.

No one hates like the progressive left. Here is an example from progressive liberal Air America's radio host Mike Malloy--on the air:

Republicans are liars, cheats, and sneaks; they are deceivers. They are immoral, and they have no ethical structure whatsoever...If they are Republicans, they are thugs...They support mass murder. They support the destruction of this country.

Damn! Malloy outed Karl Rove and Dick Cheney--and myself!

And here is Malloy's "tolerant progressive thoughts" on President Bush:

I hate you to the depths of my soul. I will hate you when I'm dead. I will hate you a million years after I'm dead...My hate will be a star in the firmament that will shine down on your Republican *sses forever. That's how deep my hatred is, because of what you're doing to this country.

Nice.

But remember. President Bush is "the divider" and the Democrats are "the uniters"...

[YankAbroad]

A Republican president went to war to free the slaves.

No he didn't. Just ask any of the Southern Republicans today who bitterly hate Lincoln and talk about "the real reasons for the War of Northern Aggression."

[Montgomery Burns]

If you only see blame from the Repubs what do you see from the Dems? What have they put forth in the last 6 yrs?

Nothing either.

Of course, both Democrats and Republicans work hard to ensure that people with newer, better ideas cannot get access to the ballot, the electoral process, or the debates. Had our Libertarian presidential candidate been allowed into the highly scripted, phoney "debates" of the last presidential election, he'd have wiped the floor with both Dubya and Kerry. And in 2000, Harry Browne would have reduced Bush and Gore both to tears. Both would have won millions of votes and helped elect L's to the House. . . except that the Republicrats and Demopublicans ensure that nobody outside of their mutually ensured duopoly gets any time at all.

The gerrymandering and ballot laws means that even in places where registered Libertarians outnumber registered Democrats, the Libs have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on ballot access which the Democrats get automatically.

And no mainstream Republican leader would dare debate a Libertarian leader head-on, because the GOPer would have most of his "limited government" con-man's rhetoric blown to bits in the first ten seconds.

I think libertarians have many good policy suggestions--indeed some political tests I take place me as a libertarian--I think it could have been disasterous having Banirak in the Bush/Kerry debates.

Badnarik's foreign policy was naive--even dangerous--isolationism. He advocated an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, which would be a strategic and moral disaster.

Unfortunately, Badnarik often lives up to the Loonytarian stereotype. He has refused to get a drivers license or file an income tax return, he was arrested on the campaign trail, and he suggested he would blow up the UN building on his first day in office.

Btw, if your party only gets 399,000 votes, I don't think it deserves to be in the debates.

[YankAbroad]

I see that the Republican advocates are good on their smear campaign.

Most of what you've said about Badnarik is sheer old good-fashioned lies.

It IS true that Badnarik was arrested on the campaign trail -- you forgot to mention why.

Both Badnarik and the Green Party candidate were arrested at the national debates after the Republicrats refused to allow them to participate in the debates and ordered them to leave or face arrest.

There's NOTHING the Tweedledum and Tweedledee parties hate more than the idea of an open debate. Badnarik, while not perfect, would have crushed Bush and Kerry both in the debates -- this is why he was excluded.

Harry Browne, our candidate in 2000 and 1996, was even more articulate and would have made mincemeat of the GOP and Dims alike.

One reason why the Tweedle parties NEVER discuss issues in attacking Libertarians is because they know they're wrong -- they cannot win in policy arguments.

if your party only gets 399,000 votes, I don't think it deserves to be in the debates

One reason why Libertarians didn't get more votes in the election is because you shut us out of the debates.

The other is your ballot access laws which make us spend millions to get on the ballots even in districts where we outpace one of the two Tweedle parties.

And finally, the Reform party received millions of votes in prior elections and you didn't let them in the debates either.

The real reason you resist including the third largest party in the debates is fear. You're afraid we'll show the American people that your "small government" rhetoric is all bullshit as you've grown the government faster and larger than any other party in history.

It is funny though that you're suddenly concerned about the popular vote now -- your Tweedledum party wasn't so concerned with the popular vote in election 2000, was it? But I guess whatever argument works at the time should be employed, right? After all, hopefully nobody will notice the inconsistencies.

Ah, but we're noticing. And we keep doing better and better in every election. Eventually, we'll start costing you seats in close elections. Then we'll replace you as the primary opposition in a couple of others, and send folks to Washington. Then, your worst nightmare begins!

[moderateamericain]

I see that the Republican advocates are good on their smear campaign.

Most of what you've said about Badnarik is sheer old good-fashioned lies.

It IS true that Badnarik was arrested on the campaign trail -- you forgot to mention why.

Both Badnarik and the Green Party candidate were arrested at the national debates after the Republicrats refused to allow them to participate in the debates and ordered them to leave or face arrest.

There's NOTHING the Tweedledum and Tweedledee parties hate more than the idea of an open debate. Badnarik, while not perfect, would have crushed Bush and Kerry both in the debates -- this is why he was excluded.

Harry Browne, our candidate in 2000 and 1996, was even more articulate and would have made mincemeat of the GOP and Dims alike.

One reason why the Tweedle parties NEVER discuss issues in attacking Libertarians is because they know they're wrong -- they cannot win in policy arguments.

if your party only gets 399,000 votes, I don't think it deserves to be in the debates

One reason why Libertarians didn't get more votes in the election is because you shut us out of the debates.

The other is your ballot access laws which make us spend millions to get on the ballots even in districts where we outpace one of the two Tweedle parties.

And finally, the Reform party received millions of votes in prior elections and you didn't let them in the debates either.

The real reason you resist including the third largest party in the debates is fear. You're afraid we'll show the American people that your "small government" rhetoric is all bullshit as you've grown the government faster and larger than any other party in history.

It is funny though that you're suddenly concerned about the popular vote now -- your Tweedledum party wasn't so concerned with the popular vote in election 2000, was it? But I guess whatever argument works at the time should be employed, right? After all, hopefully nobody will notice the inconsistencies.

Ah, but we're noticing. And we keep doing better and better in every election. Eventually, we'll start costing you seats in close elections. Then we'll replace you as the primary opposition in a couple of others, and send folks to Washington. Then, your worst nightmare begins!

I would love to see a third or even a fouth party in american politics. A triangle is your sturdiest structure after all....

[tml12]

I see that the Republican advocates are good on their smear campaign.

Most of what you've said about Badnarik is sheer old good-fashioned lies.

It IS true that Badnarik was arrested on the campaign trail -- you forgot to mention why.

Both Badnarik and the Green Party candidate were arrested at the national debates after the Republicrats refused to allow them to participate in the debates and ordered them to leave or face arrest.

There's NOTHING the Tweedledum and Tweedledee parties hate more than the idea of an open debate. Badnarik, while not perfect, would have crushed Bush and Kerry both in the debates -- this is why he was excluded.

Harry Browne, our candidate in 2000 and 1996, was even more articulate and would have made mincemeat of the GOP and Dims alike.

One reason why the Tweedle parties NEVER discuss issues in attacking Libertarians is because they know they're wrong -- they cannot win in policy arguments.

if your party only gets 399,000 votes, I don't think it deserves to be in the debates

One reason why Libertarians didn't get more votes in the election is because you shut us out of the debates.

The other is your ballot access laws which make us spend millions to get on the ballots even in districts where we outpace one of the two Tweedle parties.

And finally, the Reform party received millions of votes in prior elections and you didn't let them in the debates either.

The real reason you resist including the third largest party in the debates is fear. You're afraid we'll show the American people that your "small government" rhetoric is all bullshit as you've grown the government faster and larger than any other party in history.

It is funny though that you're suddenly concerned about the popular vote now -- your Tweedledum party wasn't so concerned with the popular vote in election 2000, was it? But I guess whatever argument works at the time should be employed, right? After all, hopefully nobody will notice the inconsistencies.

Ah, but we're noticing. And we keep doing better and better in every election. Eventually, we'll start costing you seats in close elections. Then we'll replace you as the primary opposition in a couple of others, and send folks to Washington. Then, your worst nightmare begins!

I would love to see a third or even a fouth party in american politics. A triangle is your sturdiest structure after all....

Completely agreed on that...

[Insom Elvis]

I see that the Republican advocates are good on their smear campaign.

Most of what you've said about Badnarik is sheer old good-fashioned lies.

It IS true that Badnarik was arrested on the campaign trail -- you forgot to mention why.

Both Badnarik and the Green Party candidate were arrested at the national debates after the Republicrats refused to allow them to participate in the debates and ordered them to leave or face arrest.

There's NOTHING the Tweedledum and Tweedledee parties hate more than the idea of an open debate. Badnarik, while not perfect, would have crushed Bush and Kerry both in the debates -- this is why he was excluded.

Harry Browne, our candidate in 2000 and 1996, was even more articulate and would have made mincemeat of the GOP and Dims alike.

One reason why the Tweedle parties NEVER discuss issues in attacking Libertarians is because they know they're wrong -- they cannot win in policy arguments.

if your party only gets 399,000 votes, I don't think it deserves to be in the debates

One reason why Libertarians didn't get more votes in the election is because you shut us out of the debates.

The other is your ballot access laws which make us spend millions to get on the ballots even in districts where we outpace one of the two Tweedle parties.

And finally, the Reform party received millions of votes in prior elections and you didn't let them in the debates either.

The real reason you resist including the third largest party in the debates is fear. You're afraid we'll show the American people that your "small government" rhetoric is all bullshit as you've grown the government faster and larger than any other party in history.

It is funny though that you're suddenly concerned about the popular vote now -- your Tweedledum party wasn't so concerned with the popular vote in election 2000, was it? But I guess whatever argument works at the time should be employed, right? After all, hopefully nobody will notice the inconsistencies.

Ah, but we're noticing. And we keep doing better and better in every election. Eventually, we'll start costing you seats in close elections. Then we'll replace you as the primary opposition in a couple of others, and send folks to Washington. Then, your worst nightmare begins!

I would love to see a third or even a fouth party in american politics. A triangle is your sturdiest structure after all....

Completely agreed on that...

I can agree with a large portion of both sides of this argument. I am a registered Rebublican voter but I tend to sway towards the Liberitarian party and definately away from the liberal faction. I could see a great good coming from a Liberitarian party in power, given the right president, congressional candidates and structure. The reps and Dems are competing for power, why would they allow a third party into their limited discussions? This is a competition, not a charity, if someone wants the floor they need to find a way to get more support. Rather than stand in line and wait for your opponent to give you airtime, go to the public, get support from the press, use whatever means you might have at your disposal and then you might have something of a chance. As it stands, The Dems and Reps have all the funding, air time and ( here's a big one ) history they could possibly want. Nothing has ever gone perfectly for either party but I'm sure people have uncertainty when it comes to opening the way for a third party. Do they have the experience to run a country founded on Bi-partisan ideals for so long? Will they go too far and diminish our military and defense systems? If the Libs are to win, they need a stable platform and a hell of a lot of support which is hard to gain when most of the country depends on a republican democracy to keep everything in order on a day to day basis.

[YankAbroad]

The reps and Dems are competing for power, why would they allow a third party into their limited discussions? This is a competition, not a charity, if someone wants the floor they need to find a way to get more support.

Where in the Constitution does it mandate a two-party competition?

Incidentally, the idea that getting enough votes will get you into the debates is a fallacy. The Reform Party received more votes under Ross Perot than Dukakis had received when he ran for president, but was still shut out of the presidential debates in 2000 and 2004.

It's not about "competition." It's about control.

You realise that the "debates" are carefully scripted and orchestrated, right? All questions are approved in advance, as are question-askers. Ask an "unapproved" question and they'll shut off your mic.

The whole thing is a sham. So is the "political competition." Most of the time, the Republicans and Democrats have 80% to 95% overlap on policy issues, ranging from the Iraq War to growth of government spending. They accentuate the 20% to 5% differences in order to pretend they're worlds apart. . . but when push comes to shove on important issues, they all tow the party line.

Don't believe me? Well then, answer me this: where was the debate over the Iraq War? There certainly wasn't one in Congress or the Senate, where the "opposition" not only refused to ask questions, but happily rubber-stamped what has proven to be a disastrous policy. They then had the chutzpah to campaign against their own policy later.

That's the sort of thing a healthy Libertarian party will put an end to.

[geoffrey]

The reps and Dems are competing for power, why would they allow a third party into their limited discussions? This is a competition, not a charity, if someone wants the floor they need to find a way to get more support.

Where in the Constitution does it mandate a two-party competition?

Incidentally, the idea that getting enough votes will get you into the debates is a fallacy. The Reform Party received more votes under Ross Perot than Dukakis had received when he ran for president, but was still shut out of the presidential debates in 2000 and 2004.

It's not about "competition." It's about control.

You realise that the "debates" are carefully scripted and orchestrated, right? All questions are approved in advance, as are question-askers. Ask an "unapproved" question and they'll shut off your mic.

The whole thing is a sham. So is the "political competition." Most of the time, the Republicans and Democrats have 80% to 95% overlap on policy issues, ranging from the Iraq War to growth of government spending. They accentuate the 20% to 5% differences in order to pretend they're worlds apart. . . but when push comes to shove on important issues, they all tow the party line.

Don't believe me? Well then, answer me this: where was the debate over the Iraq War? There certainly wasn't one in Congress or the Senate, where the "opposition" not only refused to ask questions, but happily rubber-stamped what has proven to be a disastrous policy. They then had the chutzpah to campaign against their own policy later.

That's the sort of thing a healthy Libertarian party will put an end to.

Or a real conservative party, not the Republicans.

[Montgomery Burns]

This isn't racism, but...

Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty

Yeesh.

[Liam]

This isn't racism, but...

Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty

Yeesh.

This guy admitted that he's only running as a Democrat because that's how he was registered the last time he voted. (I suspect that would have been for Wallace in '68.) The sad thing is this guy would probably get farther along among Ohio Republicans.

[Black Dog]

This isn't racism, but...

Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty

Yeesh.

Democrat does not equal liberal. Duh.

[tml12]

This isn't racism, but...

Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty

Yeesh.

Democrat does not equal liberal. Duh.

Democrat=Liberal in some areas, Conservative in other areas.

Republican=Liberal in some areas, Conservative in other areas.

Obviously, this mean isn't really a Democrat. If you read Liam's point, I think you'd realize what is going on here.

[Montgomery Burns]

From the article:

Liberal blogger Deborah White was less than thrilled with Keiser's candidacy and the media's response to it.

"What if this hate-filled moron called for the execution of all blacks or all Jews?" she asked. "Would the public outcry be similarly subdued? Would the press still report it as a cute curiosity or merely an alternative viewpoint? Where is moral outrage in 2006?"

Silly Deborah. The press isn't giving it attention because he is a Democrat. Now if he was running for the Republicans, it would be front page headlines and the top news story on the TV news. The press knows that Democrats never come out against the numerous radicals in their party, so they are going to help the Dems by basically ignoring this shocking statement.

White speculated Keiser was planted by the GOP.

"He must be a Republican plant," she wrote. "Please ... someone tell me I'm correct."

Ah yes. Cause Republican representatives want to kill homosexuals...

Another victim of Karl Rove's Evil Mind Control Ray Gun.

[Montgomery Burns]

The progressive liberals are on Michelle Malkin's case again. The invaluable Ms Malkin had the unmitigated temerity to "link[ing] to a Students Against War press release bragging about booting military recruiters off campus and for re-posting publicly available contact info for the SAW press machine". Let's take a look at some of the hate mail that Ms Malkin got from SAW and friends:

From: Joe Smith [email protected]

Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:48 PM

Subject: You belong in prison.You are a disgusting waste of oxygen.

You WILL burn in hell you disgusting c*nt.

***

From: [email protected] [email protected]

Mailed-By: aol.com

Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:47 PM

Subject: TIP

Someone ought to sew your c*nt up with barbed wire. Not that it gets any use, you facist, hate spewing, disgraceful piece of shit.

***

Michael McPherson [email protected]

6:42 pm (1 hour ago)

You are a fucking slanty-eyed c*nt.

Have a nice day

***

From: [email protected] [email protected]

Mailed-By: adelphia.net

Date: Apr 17, 2006 6:31

you miserable c*nt... too bad your parents were not killed in a war...

***

Craig Mayor [email protected] (<---- Western Canada addy--MB)

Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:24 PM

Subject: chink scum (apparently this brainiac thinks that Chinese and Philippino are the same--MB)

listen chink

leave the students alone

lets call YOUR friends and family

Poor Michelle.

She is constantly subjected to racist and venomous comments from "the compassionate and tolerant progressives in the reality-based community".

And yet the idiots continue to send her hate mail even though it clearly states on her contact page: "All e-mail is subject to print, including your name. If you don't want me to publish your e-mail, or if you would like to remain anonymous, just let me know."

P.S - I was the one who bleeped the c*nt word. I'm no shrinking violet, and the ladies on this forum don't appear to be either, but that is a word I find offensive and should never be said in the company of females--so I bleeped it.

[Riverwind]

She is constantly subjected to racist and venomous comments from "the compassionate and tolerant progressives in the reality-based community".

This persecution complex you have is a wonder to behold. You dig up a bunch of postings from crackpots on the internet and try to claim that it is some how typical of anyone who disagrees with your views. Extremist crackpots exist on both sides of the spectrum. I am sure Belinda got similar letters and e-mails when she switched to the Liberals. The difference is: she did not feel she had to post them on the internet in order to get sympathy from her addled followers.

I suspect Michelle is deliberately manipulating her readers by posting these kinds of things. She thinks by playing the 'victim' card she can attract more loyal readers.

[Montgomery Burns]

She is constantly subjected to racist and venomous comments from "the compassionate and tolerant progressives in the reality-based community".

This persecution complex you have is a wonder to behold. You dig up a bunch of postings from crackpots on the internet and try to claim that it is some how typical of anyone who disagrees with your views. Extremist crackpots exist on both sides of the spectrum. I am sure Belinda got similar letters and e-mails when she switched to the Liberals. The difference is: she did not feel she had to post them on the internet in order to get sympathy from her addled followers.

I suspect Michelle is deliberately manipulating her readers by posting these kinds of things. She thinks by playing the 'victim' card she can attract more loyal readers.

Michelle Malkin gets tons of these types of emails. I've linked to this subject previously on MLW. That is why she doesn't allow comments on her web site.

Seriously. How many emails do you think Belinda Stronach got calling her a c*nt?

Few hate like a progressive liberal. They are an intolerant lot; worse (because of their potty mouthes and their penchant for pieing conservative speakers) than the religious right.

[Black Dog]

Few hate like a progressive liberal. They are an intolerant lot; worse (because of their potty mouthes and their penchant for pieing conservative speakers) than the religious right.

Here's a selection of coments posted on the SAW web site from Malkin's mouth-breathing legions. A tasty sample of the restraint and decorum of the right. (Note too the tenuous grasp of irony, as evidenced by the comment by "Tom Ault".)

From: Wayne

Subject: shame on you

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:30:26 -0400

You will pay for your seditious activities. It is only a matter of time...We are retired military snipers & we are watching you...

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

From: Hermy Flenagin

Subject: Military

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:24:54 -0700 (PDT)

Girls (and other assorted shitdicks),

My sincere hope is that a couple hundred of the local patriots take a day off work for your next anarchist event, and come down to your little shithole with some axe handles and bust your fucking heads.

Short of that, I certainly hope the Feds stop sending money to your dicklicking junior college.

Hermy

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

From: Peter Peanut

Subject: I hope...

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:38:44 -0700 (PDT)

...one a fine young American very, very soon puts his shiny gun barrel up to your left temple and pulls the trigger. Now THAT will make America a much, much better place to live for the rest of us, you utterly disgusting piece of shit...

"Hearing a Western woman talk about how she might want to become a Muslim is like hearing black Americans talk about how they might want to become slaves."

From: "Tom Ault"

Subject: outrage!

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:19:52 -0400

You intolerant left wing socialist fucking cock-suckers. We're coming to get you and when we do we'll hurt you..REAL BAD!

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

From: Christopher Boylan

Subject: Go fuck yourself

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:50:35 -0400

s

Fucking pansy douchebag, you're lucky one of those recruiters didn't put his foot up your silly little ass. Get cancer, you traitorous shit breath cocksucker.

Evidently the anonimity confered by the internet promotes reckless stupidity. Exhibit B

[Riverwind]

Seriously. How many emails do you think Belinda Stronach got calling her a c*nt?

We don't know because Belinda does not try to troll for sympathy by publishing the hate mail she receives. She said that she received a lot and some of it was quite disgusting - but that is all she said.

Few hate like a progressive liberal. They are an intolerant lot;

Hatred and intolerance has no ideology - trying to insist that it is unique to one side of the political spectrum simply demonstrates hatred and intolerance on your part.

[Darth Buddha]

In MLK day speech, Sen. Clinton slams the Bush team, saying GOP Congress is 'run like a plantation'

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sparked a Martin Luther King Day political firestorm yesterday by describing the GOP-controlled Congress as a "plantation" during a speech before an African-American congregation in Harlem.

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told an audience at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ during an event sponsored by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network.

Newsday

And

New Orleans Mayor Apologizes for Remark

Mayor Ray Nagin apologized Tuesday for a Martin Luther King Day speech in which he predicted that New Orleans would be a "chocolate" city once more and asserted that "God was mad at America."

Link

Why are these people allowed to get away with this kind of rhetoric with only a slap on the hand? We all know that if a Republican said something like this, they'd be lynched (pun intended).

Yeah, right. I guess conservatives prefer a few poor word choices over more than thirty years of voting records for each party. Of course, I can't USE G.W.'s poor word choices: everybody assumes that half of what he says is result of a poor word choice, so he gets a pass. I never realized how clever the Neocon movement was so shrewd in electing a man whose incompetence in speaking English is legendary.

So enough about politicians with their repsective feet in their mouths. If you want to see some interesting statements about race in the U.S., there are some TELLING matteres where actions point out the good and bad.

On the up side, check out the NAACP helping a radio show host who was lauding Condoleeza's merits as an NFL commisioner and ran "coup in" to "coon" and was fired immediately thereafter. Surprise is that the newscaster is white. The NAACP has finally matured to the point that they can tell friend from foe even when the speaker who screws up happens to be white. This is more than just "words" in this case, because it is about a man getting a job back.

On the down side, check out Cynthia McKinney's physical altercation with Capitol Police when she walked around an X-Ray machine sporting a make-over that I surely didn't recognize her as the same person. When an officer tried to retain her, she apparently hit him. Afterwards what does she do? She plays the race card. Capitol Police had been harassing her. Several black leaders of lesser judgement (Al Sharpton et. al.) than the NAACP has demonstrated backed her up and appeared with her when she leveled such racial charges. That "harassment" by repeatedly failing to recognize her would still not be a justification for punching a police officer didn't dawn on any of these august persons is a real crime. That's the bad news. The silver lining is the withdrawal of support by many Democrats (who have gone so far as to refuse to make campaign appearances with the errant congresswoman). So it seems the race card doesn't buy off assault on a policeman even amongst Democrats in elected office.

So there you have it: not slips of the tongue, poor word choice, or poor choice of metaphor: in the realm of actions we have the NAACP backing an innocent white man but Al Sharpton backing a congresswoman who is likely guilty of assault. Topping it off, we have Democrats not helping Ms. McKinney's reelection effort.

Seems some "liberals" are still willing to use the race card inappropriately, but even the NAACP and elected Democrats have a bit more sense.

[gc1765]

Really? I noticed France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN went along with Bush on his ride to Iraq

What you should have "noticed", is that the debate wasn't centered on whether Iraq possessed illegal weapons, all believed that, the debate was centered on what to do about it, more inspections versus removal from power. Again, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the UN all had intelligence that strongly suggested Iraq possessed illegal weapons and continued to pursuit illegal weapons programs. Your lies may work with a less informed audience, but not with this one, and not in this forum. Re-write your history someplace else.

Did France, Germany, Russia and China tell their citizens that Saddam Hussein has ties to Bin Laden? That was a pretty blatant lie.

[Darth Buddha]

Actually in my experience in business, 90 percent of my excuse makers are self proclaimed liberals/democrats/left leaning/etc. I find that most of these types can find reasons to justify any short comings in there business practices. Not that I overly care, there money spends the same. On the flip side, I know a Factory manager whos a classic democrat but is an absolute ass whipper in business. The guy is just a slave driver. Classic no bullshit individual. My point is the blame game or excuse game (really the same thing) is not limited to Conservative/republicans.

Nope. The excuse game is more liberal. Extenuating circumstances, contextual issues, and the like. Health issues are a good example, though I've seen many allegedly conservative types move to the left when they find out just how quickly bad fortune can strike them down even though they've played by the rules and attended church worshipping a God they presumed was rewarding them until their ill fortune. Suddenly despite having paid for health plans for years suddenly they don't have the coverage to even recover. It's amazingly educational: some leeches are in the system, but some really deserving folks are there too and often don't get half the help they need.

The blame game is more conservative. Scapegoating, burning subordinates, and even setting someone up in advance to make the fall guy or gal more guilty. I've survived enough purges and layoffs to know the game of the average American businessman. I've also dodged unemployment by bugging out in time when employers were breaking this or that law protecting consumers and/or employees. I've even been witness in two lawsuits (in this case deposed by lawyers before it went to trial), one that ended up in the quarter million range when settled. In both cases, the more conservative management did their best to smear the plaintiff with material both true and manufactured.

True, there are some principled businessmen and managers, but I've seen most of them take some serious lumps and/or purging for their ethics.

Of course, I've been a technical expert and later a project manager, not a business owner or manager of PEOPLE. That's MY business experience. Wonder how many of these things you've seen, "moderateamerican"? I'm not sure how "moderate" you are, but I am pretty sure that your sample of 'business' is probably from a pretty small sample of events, just as I at least hope that I just got to see a really bad sample by dumb luck rather than representative cross section.

Really? I noticed France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN went along with Bush on his ride to Iraq

What you should have "noticed", is that the debate wasn't centered on whether Iraq possessed illegal weapons, all believed that, the debate was centered on what to do about it, more inspections versus removal from power. Again, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the UN all had intelligence that strongly suggested Iraq possessed illegal weapons and continued to pursuit illegal weapons programs. Your lies may work with a less informed audience, but not with this one, and not in this forum. Re-write your history someplace else.

Did France, Germany, Russia and China tell their citizens that Saddam Hussein has ties to Bin Laden? That was a pretty blatant lie.

While we're talking about lies, did IRAQ have ties to Bin Laden? Even a former U.S. commander in Iraq admitted that they didn't in an interview this weekend. Did IRAQ have yellow cake ore? Turns out the CIA didn't think so at the time, and lo and behold that turned out to be true.

I think that further reveals who is "re-writing" history, and re-writing the known facts of the case even as the case for war was made.

What this really has to do with racism is beyond me, even though it does go to the credibility of certain posters.