Friday, July 19, 2013

Race Baiting at the Highest Level of the Federal Government...?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

I listened to the full Presidential news conference this afternoon. Obama said some things that made sense. Then he made the following remarks that IMNHO told the nation in full agenda with respect to said issue. Having a in depth discussion of race relations might very well be appropriate and a general discussion is something that MOST American's would welcome. Using the Zimmerman verdict ks simply the WRONG event at possibly the right time.

However, don't expect the President, the Department of Justice, or the liberal media or ultra liberal populace to understand what this means. If I can find a video of the full and complete news conference it will be posted later.

Via: Memeorandum 

 Update: via You Tube. 


Your views and thoughts are most welcome. Left and or Right leaning...


  1. 276,000 black people have been murdered over the past 35 years. 262,000 of them have been murdered by other black folks. Yes, there is a problem here. And, no, it isn't the Zimmerman's of the world.

    1. But there isn't political gain in pointing out those horrible numbers, Will.

  2. Better be careful thigh Will, you justight be considered a raaaaacist by some for mentioning this data and going so far as to say it has implications.

  3. Is it race baiting to point out the facts, that blacks are treated differently (with suspicion) by the police, justice dept., and Americans?

    1. It's like "judicial activism," anon. It's only the case when they don't like it.


    2. Are you really saying that President Obama's inJustice Department discriminates against blacks? Really?

      Do you think before you spew leftwing rhetoric designed make the politically-correct spewer feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

      Can you provide us some statistics? I am not denying racism exists. It does--but you've wielded a mighty broad brush there.

      NY High Kommissar Mikhail Bloombergovich, whom I detest, pointed out that per population percentages and crime statistics, their Stop and Frisk program oversamples whites.

      He said they are not stopping enough minorities! Imagine if Rudy Giuliani had said that! (whom the brain-dead left frequently and mindlessly compared to Hitler)

      But going straight to the Martin case. Does anyone know the race breakdown of perps caught in Zimmerman's gated community? Overwhelmingly white? Overwhelmingly black?

      That information would have some bearing.

    3. Yes, there are statistics to prove it. Educate yourself.

    4. Bring 'em! Or are you just another leftwing propaganda bot talking out your @$$?

  4. That's a stupid thing to point out. Why do cons always always go there? Whites mostly kill whites too. People tend to kill people they live near. All you geniuses point out when you sleazily point out "black on black" crime is that the country is still very racially segregated.

    "Data" my @$$.


    1. The "point", Jersey, was to underscore the abject hypocrisy of people like Sharpton, Jackson, and Harris-Perry who are a) still trying to peddle this fantasy of white people hunting down blacks and b) totally silent when it comes to acknowledging this interracial carnage. That be it, bro.

    2. @ Jersey: "Data" my @$$.

      The battle cry of an indoctrinated liberal

    3. "All you geniuses point out when you sleazily point out "black on black" crime is that the country is still very racially segregated."

      Attention Jersey: 1958 is calling! It wants your badly outdated claim back.

  5. "Is it race baiting to point out the facts"

    No, it isn't. But when your "facts" are peppered with falsehoods, and selected in a self-serving and hypocritical fashion in order to toss red meat to the racists in your base... then it is race bating.

  6. I wonder if this is the same illogical Anon who embarrassed himself badly by talking of Supreme Court justices who have been on the court for hundreds of years? When he was trying (and failing) to make a point that was inherently racist?

    To paraphrase Forrest Gump: Sammy is as Sammy does.

    1. no, it was your idiotic hate filled interpretation of my comment. I never said the same justices had been on the court for hundreds of years, that was your lie, prove it.

    2. Sammy/Anon said: "no, it was your idiotic hate filled interpretation of my comment."

      It's not hate filled. I read your racist comment as you said it. It is not my fault you said something so poorly worded. It was your own lie, when you talked about these people having been in the court for a very long time, as part of a generalization based on skin color. What a dumb and nasty person you are. A lack of logic, a lack of facts, and tons of racial prejudice. That description fits you to a "T".

      Sammy, do us all a favor: let go of the racial hatred, and crack open a book sometime.

    3. Sammy also said something colossally stupid about the Supreme Court Justices having come from schools in the same university sports league At the same time he was bashing some of them for their skin color. That's what a bigot does: bash people for the skin color. He has nothing to say of validity.

    4. Again, I never said that, so keep making yourself look stupid and full mof hate. You are not a good sock puppet for RN and I never addressed you anyways. Toodles TREKI

    5. Speaking of sock puppets Sammy, it takes one to know one and you're a mega sock puppet of the looney tune progressive idiots. Toddle Doddles.

    6. I see that Sammy's comment in which he obsessed about college sports leagues and where he talked of 200-year-old Supreme Court Justices has been deleted. Well, it was pretty embarassing. I don't blame him for wiping it out.

  7. President Obama, a white African American who describes himself as black, could have been the perfect leader on this issue... Five years ago when he was elected.

    But his Minister of InJustice chose to call whiteys cowards, and then the self-identified "black man" President Obama himself pontificated that a white cop had acted stupidly.

    So, in my opinion, he can jam it where the sun don't shine. Why would I participate in a scolding, circumscribed 'conversation' dominated by him and the PC-speech-code-thought-police-race-baiters he runs around with?

    Regardless, we will be subjected to liberal lectures from the screeching progressive harridans and their ball-less castrati chorus of liberal metrosexual 'men' that never lets a preachable moment go to waste.

    F#@& 'em all.

  8. Very funny, SF. There is no way in god's green hell that Mr. Obama would ever, ever, ever be considered "white." Even if his mother was white, please explain how he would have been accepted in white society, say in Selma, Alabama.

    Because his skin is brown, he is considered an African-American. But that's not what his speech was about, and I don't understand your calling him a "white" African-American. What's the point. His mother was white, but he could never be accepted as a white Anglo. That's what his mother's background is, and he could never be accepted to the white Anglo club because, that just how race relations are in this country. If a man like Mr. Obama had applied to Augusta National for membership in the days before they allowed blacks to play their course, do you seriously believe he'd have gotten in because he's a "white" African with an Anglo mother?

    Because of the color of his skin, and the color of the skin of my nephews, Mr. Obama and they have been stopped just for walking in a neighborhood where they don't live and asked what they were doing there. You, SF, and RN, and dmarks, and I'm guessing WtnpH, have never had that happen to you. It happens all the g-d time in this country. Or do you not hear the stories and testimonies of black men? In fact, this is exactly what happened in this country in the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s before racial unrest hit the inner cities. African-Americans have always been feared and suspect in places where they had not lived and where they moved to during the Great Migration.

    Pretending it doesn't happen is ignoring history and reality and truth. That President Obama pissed you and so many others off with his heartfelt talk the other day shows it hit a nerve somewhere in your consciousness, if it hadn't you all wouldn't be seething with self-serving anger.

    1. Shaw,
      Since you are uncharacteristically obtuse today, I'll break it down for you.

      President Obama is a self-identified black the same way George Zimmerman is a self-identified Hispanic.

      Still don't get it? Go ask Soledad O'Brien, who got angry with Al Sharpton when he took issue with her calling herself black.

      Can't make this stuff up, folks! When the PC crowd can't keeps its own bs straight, things become particularly amusing.

    2. Zimmerman's great grandfather on his mother's side was BLACK (an African-Cuban, along the lines of Minnie Minoso), and the rest of the lineage on that side of the family is Peruvian (predominantly Native American as evidenced by Zimmerman's mother and uncle). That first fact along would have made Zimmerman's mother a quadaroon back in the old south and Zimmerman himself an octoroon. The fact that you have people like Sharpton and even the President have trying to racialize this tragedy is despicable.......Yes, if the President had a son, he'd look like Trayvon...and depending on who the mother was, he'd look like Zimmerman, too (actually, if the President had ever had a white wife, those children would probably be LIGHTER THAN ZIMMERMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!). So frigging what.

  9. He didn't piss any of us off. But his lies, hollow ginning up of his racist base, and playing politics disappointed me. If anything, I could be smug that I could have predicted that he'd make a lousy speech/statement. And he did.

  10. Also, Shaw, Mr. Obama did not have the typical black upbringing. Scholarly parents, growing up surrounded by other scholars. Traveling the world. Banker grandmother, private high school, Ivy League.

    That is a privileged upbringing by anyone's standards, so go peddle that 'dreams of my father' crap to the soft-heads.

    1. You are one very, very angry dude. Ever try to figure out why? Your anger is more interesting to me than are your silly and inaccurate comments.

      Barack Obama's mother was on food stamps. His grandmother and father were NOT scholars. They had high school educations, and those are the folks he "grew up" with. He spent 4 years in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. He earned admission to the private high school by dint of his intelligence. Pissed off at that? Same goes for his college degrees.

      Anger is destructive. That's all you've got. And a lot of messed up crap about President Obama that you believe are facts. They're not.

      Privilege is what George W. Bush and Mitt Romney grew up with. Neither of their mothers, if I remember correctly, lived on food stamps.

    2. Shaw,

      The rightwing anger meme is stale. Give it a rest and go foist your psychological projections on somebody else.

      I am a joyous person. President Obama does not anger me. Even extreme leftwing boobies and nuthatches, cawing into the popular groupthink echo chamber do not anger me. I am saddened, dismayed, but not angry.

      I have, however, like millions of others, decided to no longer sit down and shut up while progressive propaganda vectors sanctimoniously parrot a failed ideology.

      This is pushback. Got it? Just because you heard it on msnbc, doesn't make it so.

      The left cries for dialog, discussions, healing, bla bla bla, but it ends up being a one way lecturing sermon, but we've abandoned your church. You can't accept that, so you must ascribe nefarious motives or some mental defect to those you disagree with.

      Get over it. Sometimes people just have different opinions, or as Freud would say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

      Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

  11. And Obama did not piss me off. It's the standard rhetoric we've come to expect from the Worst President in the History of The United States.

    1. What will you do, SF, when history proves that statement completely wrong?

      Stamp your foot and fall through the floor?

    2. Shaw: the food stamp thing proves nothing. A lot of wealthy and well-off people are on food stamps...and the Dems are blocking reforms to stop this form of welfare for the rich.

  12. Anon: Is it race baiting to point out the facts, that blacks are treated differently (with suspicion) by the police, justice dept., and Americans?

    It isn't. The president's words were not "race baiting". Conservatives don't want to hear the truth because they are happy with things the way they are (better treatment for Whites and throw the book at Blacks).

    RN: Better be careful Will, you just might be considered a raaaaacist by some for mentioning this data and going so far as to say it has implications.

    With good reason. It is racist to draw these conclusions when the FACT is that in a majority of ALL murders the victim and killer are of the same race. Politifact says, "professor David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in NYC [explains]... "Homicides overwhelmingly happen among people who know each other. There are relatively few... straight-up stranger homicides. Homicide is a phenomenon of social networks. Most peoples' relationships are primarily with someone of their own race or ethnicity". Whites primarily kill Whites and Blacks primarily kill Blacks. Will Hart says "there is a problem here" but there isn't. It is completely within the norm. I call his implication racism or ignorance. Take your pick Mr. Hart.

    BTW, there is only one "a" in racist. But I know what you're doing. RN is insinuating that accusations of racism from the Left are not to be taken seriously (this is why he makes a joke of the word by adding the extra "a"s). But what Will did *IS* racist. Whether Will knows it or not is another matter. Whether RN (who said "exactly") knows it or not is also another matter. I suspect they do.

    Dennis: ...when your "facts" are peppered with falsehoods, and selected in a self-serving & hypocritical fashion in order to toss red meat to the racists in your base...

    OK, but your "definition" has nothing to do with the president's words. Mr. Obama spoke the truth. No "falsehoods". Also, he wouldn't be interested in tossing red meat to the racists in his base because there are none. I'm not claiming that there are zero racist Democrats, but they didn't vote for Obama. They aren't part of his "base".

    1. It is not completely "within the norm". The number of homicides within the black community is FAR beyond that which is happening within any other racial group and the number of black on white violent crimes is 13 times higher per capita than the reverse.......And the hard racism is on the liberal side. They're the ones who seem to think that minorities are simply too feeble-minded not to engage in aggression and who apparently need the beneficent hand of government to survive.

  13. "Mr. Obama spoke the truth. "

    Wow. He did? Might be the first time he has done so since sometime in 2011 (and that was a mistake on his part).

    " I'm not claiming that there are zero racist Democrats, but they didn't vote for Obama. They aren't part of his "base"."

    Check the picture of Obama and Sharpton. Sharpton is a big leader in his "base". Sharpton, the man who organized a hate campaign to destroy the livlihoods of people who looked Asian, in a continuation of the "Yellow Peril" campaigns of the past. Textbook racism, that.

    1. Oh stop it, dmarks. Vice President Cheney was happy to tell folks he is a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh, he even was featured on one of Limbaugh's shows.

      You remember Rush, right? The guy who told an African-American who called into his show to "take that bone outta your nose," and many other racially incendiary slurs. So don't get all high and mighty about President Obama appearing with Sharpton. This is a case of wingers ignoring the trash their side listens to in the persons of Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, and Levin, just to name a very few in their galaxy of race-baiting haters and nutballs.

    2. Shaw said: "Oh stop it, dmarks."

      Hmmm. It's Les's blog. I will wait until he tells me to "stop it".

      Then Shaw made a failed attempt to divert attention from the President's race baiting by going waayyyy back to an irrelevant figure who isn't even in office at all.

      Sorry, Shaw, nice try. But you failed. Your attempt to change the subject fooled no-one. The only thing it proved is that you are embarrassed about Obama, perhaps, and can't deal with the facts.

      You didn't counter anything about Obama's problem.

    3. I didn't counter because there is no problem except in your suspicious mind. SF, like you, seethes with anger. Just read his prose. Happy people don't use the language he uses. Liberal ideology is not a failure. The fact is that our country is becoming more liberal: see Gay Equality for example. This country was founded by liberals.

      Relax. The guy in the White House with the funny name will be one of the best of the best.

      It's funny to read how Rumplestiltskinian everyone is here.

    4. Obama can't be anywhere near the best of the best considering the millions of jobs he has lost. But I will give him a pat on the back if he can ever get his deficits down to Bush's levels. Not holding my breath on that though.

    5. I agree it is HIGHLY unlikely history will determine President Obama to be the best of the best. That is merely hyperbole and wishful thinking on Shaw's part.

      However, just as Obama cannot create jobs neither can he destroy millions of jobs. Only the market can do that. And given Obama has followed pretty much the same track as Bush the policy issues affecting the economy have been pretty consistent.

      But. ideologues on both sides prefer to evade this reality.

    6. @ Shaw: This country was founded by liberals.

      What calumny! Equating your ilk with the founders.

      There is nothing liberal about today's doctrinaire, dogmatic, so-called 'liberals.'

      Today's 'liberals' are a klatch of we-say-so progressive statists, and the founders would recognize you only as a foreign force hell-bent on destroying their experiment, which the Progressive Long March has almost accomplished.

      I readily admit that my personal religious beliefs are rigid and illiberal, but my politics are not.

      If only 'liberals' were truly liberal in the fashion of the founders, we would not be mired in the multitrillion dollar quagmire we find ourselves in.

    7. I believe that would be Classical Liberalism.

      Also, I wonder what those Classical Liberals, many who were also deist would say about illiberal rigid religous beliefs if they spilled over into secular government.

      My appology for interjecting. I know your comment was for Shaw but I didn't want to lose my thought.

    8. Les said: "And given Obama has followed pretty much the same track as Bush the policy issues affecting the economy have been pretty consistent."

      There are some differences that are having an impact, such as the specific provisions of "Obamacare" which are problematic. This includes the provision to force medical equipment makers to fire people or move off shore, and of course the (now delayed, thankfully) provision to discourage companies from hiring more than 50 people or pay people to work more than 30 hours.

      But yes we have not learned from the mistakes of the past. Fannie and Freddie are STILL there, meddling with the housing market in a dangerous way.

    9. Shaw said: "This country was founded by liberals."

      The word means something a LOT different now, as Les implied. Sorry, Shaw, the country was not founded by modern liberals. Case in point:

      - The founding fathers specifically placed limits on the rapaciousness of the rulers. Modern Liberals believe in the supremacy of the State.
      - The founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment to protest the basic human right of self defense. So many on the Left wants to repeal this amendment and take away this freedom.
      - The founding fathers gave us the First Amendment SPECIFICALLY to protect the right of the people to criticize those in power. Modern Liberals have a "Move to Amend" to abolish this right.

      Let us also quote some founding fathers, who had views decidedly opposite of those of modern liberals:

      "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Jefferson

      "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America." - Alexander Hamilton

      "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Benjamin Franklin.

      Les, you are right with your point about the religions beliefs, also. But the modern liberal ideas on taxation, the supremacy of the state, and the creation of a welfare class with a life of ease are also entirely the opposite of modern liberals.

  14. And of course most violent crimes happen within groups. That's the whole frigging point, Sherlock. You've got these race merchants like Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris-Perry going around acting like black folks are being hunted down, en masse, by an army of white people led by George Zimmerman...WHO ISN'T EVEN WHITE (the dude is 1/8th black and 3/8th Native-American) HIMSELF!...You really need to rearrange your own furniture first there, wd.

  15. President Obama threw red meat to his base of Blacks who are racially biased against Asians... with his remarks about Trayvon Martin? This must be a theory that is held by Dennis alone. I'd be amazed if anyone else reached that conclusion.

    Being a Black person who is concerned about racism doesn't make you a "race merchant" a "race hustler" or a "race baiter". Jesus, your side has a LOT of pejoratives to describe people fighting against racism and for Civil Rights. And I'm pretty sure I've heard Melissa Harris Perry speak about Black on Black crime. She acknowledges it exists. But that isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about how White privilege allowed GZ to get away with murder. Now, I know you don't believe that is a big deal, but obviously that is because you are White. Maybe you should TRY to see something from someone else's perspective FOR ONCE?

    1. "White privilege" is a laughable myth: a racist concept made up by the Left... itself a form of racial profiling.

      Sorry, WD, I am not a bigot, and I refuse to try something from the "perspective" of racists. Not even "just once".

      And when you say " but obviously that is because you are White." You are being nothing more than a bigot: judging on skin color. Only racists do this...

  16. White privilege - Zimmerman is darker than Melissa Harris-Perry!! They showed a split screen between the two peeps and it was frigging obvious.

    1. Will: the concept of whites as "privileged" is no less racist than the idea that all blacks are criminals. Racism requires a person to be stupid and ignorant and ignore facts. Such as the fact that GZ isn't white.

    2. And Will, it is a double-whammy of stupidity coming from the Left. First there is the racism, in which they bash GZ according to the paradigm of the "white privilege" stereotype idea which makes pseudo-intellectuals on the Left feel good about bashing people for their skin color. Then there is the stupidity that GZ isn't even white.

      Racial hate and illogic all on parade from the Left, along with a hatred for the Constitution and for the rule of law (as exemplified by those who insist GZ is a murderer even though according to the law of the land, he most definitely is not).

    3. And don't you also find it hilarious and ironic that wd, a person who is 100% orthodox leftist, is pleading for other folks to "see something from someone else's perspective FOR ONCE?" That dumb line made me laugh out loud.

    4. Yes Will, it is quite interesting, yes amusing.

    5. "And don't you also find it hilarious and ironic that wd, a person who is 100% orthodox leftist"

      WD is someone to whom "both sides of the issue" means checking with Rachel Maddow first and getting a second opinion from Mr. Armenian Genocide (Cenk Uygar).

      Complete balance, that.

  17. Will: That dumb line made me laugh out loud.

    I knew you wouldn't even acknowledge that you have this problem... which is why I did not "plead" for anything. I knew you would not and could not.

    FYI, Dennis, the cops wrote in their report that GZ was White. They took his word regarding what happened and let him go home because they thought he was White (an example of White privilege at play). Denying it exists is a sign of a racist mindset.

    The "law of the land" did not declare GZ not a murderer. It said he was "not guilty" of the crime as charged. That isn't the same as innocent. Innocent means you didn't do it, "not guilty" means it couldn't be proven in the eyes of the law. These are two very different things. Liberals can believe he is a murderer and acknowledge the "validity" of the verdict. So you can stuff your "hatred for the Constitution and for the rule of law".

    1. "So you can stuff your "hatred for the Constitution and for the rule of law".

      How can I stuff it when you have shredded it to bits with your claim that GZ is guilty, when in light of the Constitution and the law of the landhe is innocent.

      In actual fact, we have the presumption of innocent in the US. That is the default. GZ was presumed innocent before this trial. The trial put it into question. The jury found that there was no reason to change GZ's status. So he goes back to being innocent.

      "Liberals can believe he is a murderer"

      Only if they are grossly uninformed and like believing things that their betters have proven are simply untrue.

    2. Point of clarification... Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Not guilty and innocent are not synonomous.

      Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges brought by the DA. Who, IMHO brought the wrong charges.

    3. RN: Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Not guilty and innocent are not synonymous.

      So we agree that Dennis is grossly uninformed with his idiotic statement concerning the Constitution saying GZ is innocent.

    4. wd/DS, yes we agree on this point.

      However, my purpose is to point out the incorrect nature of dmarks statement as a oversight, and a quite important oversight. Not make dmarks appear unintelligent or idiotic as you have choosen to do.

      He is neither. Regardless of what you may think.

    5. Les: My point was referring to the presumption of innocence, which is the default position. George Zimmerman is back at this point, now that the court proceeding is over.

      Les said "Zimmerman was not guilty of the charges brought by the DA. Who, IMHO brought the wrong charges."

      I don't disagree with you.

    6. Also, WD's hatred for the Constitution is quite prevalent elsewhere. Remember the discussion in which he argued in favor of censorship of political expression, and used the argument that the First Amendment only protects the freedom of expression for a narrowly-defined, government-approved "press". WD sees the mention of freedom of the press not for what it really is (an emphasis), but as a limitation (only this). Which puts him at odds with his betters, along with the entire civil liberties community. He has a reputation of opposition to such basic human rights which the Bill of Rights enumerate and help to protect.

      This is not too far off topic, it now seems that the presumption of innocence is something he is ignorant about and/or holds in contempt.

      "Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship."

      Yes, Les. I agree that the court did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Zimmerman's innocence is the default state, absent any conviction.

    7. I shall allow wd/DS to respond to your opening remarks as I frankly have not kept s close watch on all his utterances. I would be most pleased if he decides to respond and clear up any inaccuracies he finds in your allegations. A concise rebuttal would be most welcome.

      Again, a verdict of "not quilty" does not neccessarily imply innocence. It does default to fully restoring to the individual found "not guilty" of the charges brought against him/her their full freedom.

    8. Thanks for explaining the subtlety of this better, Les.

      A verdict of "not guilty" is not an action that implies innocence. Innocence is implied by the "default" presumption.

    9. I note your attempt to use my words to support your assertion. I therefore reassert my statement as originally written.

    10. I recognize my error; just realize that.

  18. Shaw,
    Tell it to the millions that can't find work.

    I say let the chips fall where they may.

    He may end up making something of himself, but he is running out of time.

    This is the weakest recovery in our nation's history, so I guess that could be considered historic...

    There are other historic events as well: The murder of a US Ambassador overseas... That's only happened a few other times.

    Lets see... What else?

    The only president to be reelected with less votes than his initial election...

    Record deficits...

    Unprecedented weakness overseas, with most of the Muslim world hating us more now than when Bush was in office...

    And he's also the first Choom Gang member to rise to the highest office in the land.

    So, yeah, he does have some historical accomplishments under his belt.

    My apologies.

  19. Negative, negative, negative. You didn't mention one positive thing because that would ruin your campaign to demonize the man you detest. Look, the liberals did the very same thing when Dubya was president--they made him into a demon, just like you're doing here with Obama! La comedia e' stupenda!

    You don't even see how you are the twin of the barking mad liberals during 43's presidency. There wasn't one good thing they said about him. Jesus. All we're doing is playing "Who Can Hate The Other Side Better."

    We don't live in an ideal world, so you need to deal with the world we DO live in with all its disappointments and changes. But there's a hell of a lot of good stuff going on, too.

    It's a shame that Benghazi didn't turn out to be the impeachable offense the rightwing was praying for, nor the IRS non-scandal either. But that's reality; and as some people have observed, reality is a bitch.

    1. Just for the record, Shaw, I don't particularly care for either of them; Bush 2 OR Obama (this, though, I did vote for the latter in 2008). But I also appreciate your intellectual honesty on this one and maybe folks like wd could take some notes here.

    2. Shaw, the IRS scandal is real. You only call it a non-scandal because you think it is OK for the IRS to threaten people with a tax penalty for speaking out on the issues of the day. That is indeed scandalous.

    3. Is the IRS boondoggle discussion germain to this post?

    4. It's a shame that Benghazi didn't turn out to be the impeachable offense the rightwing was praying for

      Typical political team sports.

      No, Shaw. It's a shame people died while our government dithered.

      And you're wrong. President Obama is not a demon. Tragically, he is a man woefully in over his head, and we're all suffering the consequences.

    5. Les said: "Is the IRS boondoggle discussion germain to this post?"

      Not really. I wonder why Shaw felt the need to say something so ridiculous about it. But at least it is put to bed now...

  20. ... " Look, the liberals did the very same thing when Dubya was president--they made him into a demon..."

    Thank you for your honesty Shaw. It is why your views as a progressive merit deserve consideration and respect.

    "just like you're doing here with Obama! La comedia e' stupenda!"

    Once again, even given your progressive tendencies I personally must agree 100% with this.

    As Forest Gump's Mom was reported as saying, "Stupid is as Stupid does." Neither ideological side has a lock on stupidity.

    My sincerest apologies if I intruded in this thread with my response. However, as one might say, this is my site.

  21. And a point on race here. If Obama had a kid with a white woman, that youngster would have exactly the same amount of African blood as Zimmerman's mother and uncle (1/4th black). At what point is a person not black I'd like to know.............And just because the cops screwed up Zimmerman's race, that doesn't give the media and the left carte blanche to do the same (again, I ask you, do a split screen on Zimmerman and Melissa Harris-Perry and see what you see, folks) - not by a long shot.

  22. Again the trumpublican cons got it wrong. But hey, simply IGNORE them and ALWAYS do the right thing. IE: In which harm comes to no one. Something trumpublicans and cons show little concern for.


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.