Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Updated: Barack Obama, who cares about race or religion? Not me.



UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU TO THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS

I do not give a rip about what color President Obama's skin might be and he can be any religion he likes. But he is a socialist and the country needs to wake up and realize this. The guy first ran for office under the flag of the New Party.

UPDATE: Here is a fairly long list of proofs that Barack Obama did in fact not only run under the New Party flag but first won office as a NP member and signed documents dedicating himself to the cause. Read it before you say it ain't so...because it is!

If you keep an eye on the activities of this administration, watch for attempts to "neutralize" radio programs. Remember the "Fairness Doctrine?" Did you notice the "Net Neutrality" attempt that failed? The government does not want freedom of speech to continue.


You will see the Tea Party movement get demonized. If attempts to make Tea Party members do something radical fail, a fake Tea Party member will be recorded doing something dastardly. This is no game. This is the attempt of the socialists to take control of the country and make it permanent. This administration wants to control the news and the internet. This is not about personalities but rather principles. Vote your principles this year or just slide into the comfortable numbness of socialism. You, the voter, are the decider. Will the country turn back towards Constitutional principles or will the Obama Administration will put an end to America and turn us into something else.



From American Thinker


October 08, 2008 (Original post date)(links on orignal article)
Archives prove Obama was a New Party member (updated)
Thomas Lifson

Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.


The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, explained fusion in a Human Events article:


Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let's call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama's New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.


The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. "After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century .... In 1996, it helped Chicago's Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district .... The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued."

Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.


J. Brown of Politically Drunk on Power has dug up multiple documentary sources (with hyperlinks) proving that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party, despite alleged attempts to cover up his tracks by scrubbing evidence. He or she deserves tremendous praise for doing this detective work.

Obama's career bears many signs of being helped along by the radical left. At the critical moment when he entered electoral politics, he was part of a movement to take over an established political party and direct it to the task of building a socialist America.



Hat tip: Rocco DiPippo

Update:

Erick Erickson and Rick Moran were onto the story last June.

Update:

More evidence, from the leftist publication New Ground 42, in 1995, before Obama had run for office. (emphasis added)


About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.


The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

Barack Obama entered electoral politics as a member of a radical marxist group aimed at gaining control of the Democratic Party in order to implement a hardline version of socialism in America. He signed a contract promising to maintain a visible relationship. The candidate should be pressed by McCain/Palin to reveal that contract and proclaim his adherence to New Party goals before the American people approve him for our hifghest office.

From Glenn Beck

(Links are available on original article)

The response:

Barack Obama Sr. (Dad)

*Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits...
- Obama Sr. on socialism (Link)
- Overview of the paper (Link)
*Harvard educated economist
*Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes
*Demonized corporations
*Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)

Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)

*Communist sympathizer
*Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism)
*Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud
*Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan
*Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies
*Left Barack Obama Jr.

Mentor

*Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link)
*Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents

College & Church

*Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors (Link)
*Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences' (Link)
*Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)

Career

*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (Link)
*Voted for TARP (Link)
*$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill
*Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth'
*Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link)
*President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler
*President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG
*President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare
*President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'
*President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs
*Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich'
*Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."
*Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC
*Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage (Link)
*Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link)
*Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around' (Link)

Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration

*Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
*Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate
*Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist
*Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market
*John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth
*Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan
*Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao
*Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar'
*Carol Browner, socialist
*Robert Creamer, socialist

(You can watch Glenn debunk Obama's claim HERE)

~






Again, my personal opinion is that the election of Barack Obama is a terrible tragedy. It is a tragedy because people of color believed that a vote for Barack was a vote that permanently confirmed their complete integration into the United States of America in every way. I do not believe most of these voters were voting for a socialist, they thought they were voting for Hope and Change.


The election of Barack Obama is a tragedy because people who use the race card as a means of political gain are playing it now when the Administration is criticized. At a time when race should be of no consequence to any of us these Jesse Jackson and John Lewis and Al Sharpton types will beat the drum of racism to try to keep the voters of color on the side of the socialists.


But it is the Democrats who do not want to allow school vouchers, which would allow inner city kids a chance to go the the school that would best help them be educated. It is the Democrats who want to keep inner city poor populations poor and depending on welfare checks and food stamps and an underground economy of drugs and pawn shops when what they need, what we all need, are JOBS!


If this President wanted to help people, he would have tried to create jobs and give people a chance to work and make money and improve their lives. Instead he used every bit of political clout and backroom dealing to push out an arguably unconstitutional takeover of one-sixth of the American economy. Think about his priorities - giving bailouts and taking over parts of corporations, "stimulus" monies being given proportionally by party affiliation and for often ridiculous and useless projects, taking over health care and the student loan industry.


I don't oppose the black half of Barack Obama. I don't oppose the white half. I do not care. I oppose Barack Obama because Barack Obama is wrong. He is seeking to impose failed socialistic programs that will kill our economy and bring nothing but woes to future generations unless in 2010 we vote in a Congress that will stop the madness and defund the mistakes. It is as simple and yet as difficult as that. Big money wants Obama to win because big money knows how to profit from the despair of the rest of us. They can take over property when the owners cannot even pay their taxes. They can snap up businesses at rock bottom prices. Rich guys like George Soros and Al Gore are not afraid of another great depression, they know how to play it and they have money tucked away. It is you and I who will suffer.


Forget your prejudices. Cast aside party affiliations. Decide if you want America to be the beacon on a hill like Ronald Reagan saw it, or a system of wealth redistribution as Barack Obama sees it.

33 comments:

scohen said...

"At a time when race should be of no consequence to any of us", you write a attaboy comment on a post that calls someone a "mulatto mixed-breed".

Race will cease to be an issue when people like you refuse to sit idly by when someone makes a comment like that.

highboy said...

Race will cease to be an issue when minorities face the fact that its not the 1950s anymore and stop using the color of skin as a political weapon.

Chaos Engineer said...

Did you notice the "Net Neutrality" attempt that failed? The government does not want freedom of speech to continue.

OK, I'll bite.

Can you explain in your own words what "Net Neutrality" is? Would you say that Freedom of Communication for all citizens is protected more strongly with Net Neutrality, or without?

scohen said...

Being heavily involved in the internet, I second Chaos.

Tim, I don't see how your comment is pertinent to mine.
Is calling someone a "mulatto mixed-breed" *not* racist?
Is sitting idly by when someone else does this a good example?

I get that radar and "Angel" don't like Obama's policies, what I don't understand is using language like what I highlighted above to attack them.

Also, isn't your stance a little "blame the victim"?

AmericanVet said...

Are you guys not paying attention? This post is about ignoring race and focusing on principles. I do not see the phrase "mulatto mixed breed" in this article or on this blog.

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
I've been saying this since before the election. Here's my take on it...


Dossier3 (with comments)

radar said...

Uhm, the phrase on Angel's blog and what I said on her blog were unrelated, I was sending out Easter and Passover greetings to Christian and Jewish friends.

I will say that Obama is in the eyes of some a mixed breed and so am I. So what? I think mongrels are stronger than purebreds and I am glad I am a mixture of several different lines.

Hawkeye® said...

Chaos Engineer,
Net Neutrality is in essence, the Fairness Doctrine applied to the Internet. The concept of "neutrality" implies that there must be a "neutral" playing field. The government would establish limits on what can be said and who can say what. They don't want "right wing extremists" just saying anything they want to. So to answer your question, Freedom of Communication for all citizens is protected more strongly without Net Neutrality.

Don't be fooled. Net Neutrality is a ploy that has been disguised as a law "that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed" on the Internet. Sounds good right, but there are currently no such restrictions, so why do we need a law and more government bureaucracy to insure what we already have? Simple. The government wants to regulate everything so that: 1) they can control content they don't like, and 2) they can put a tax on it.

That's what government has come to these days.

scohen said...

Hawkeye, my jaw just hit the floor when I read what you think net neutrality is about.

Where did you get this (mis) information?

Net Neutrality has nothing at all to do with content and has everything to do with access and speed thereof.

"so why do we need a law and more government bureaucracy to insure what we already have?"

Because you're fundamentally misunderstanding what net neutrality is *about*. Net neutrality addresses a problem that has happened in the past (and IIRC continues to happen). This problem should upset you if you're a consumer of the internet.

Why would google, amazon and microsoft be strong supporters of net neutrality if it limited what could be published on the internet? Google especially has advocated for free and unfettered speech since its inception.

scohen said...

"Uhm, the phrase on Angel's blog and what I said on her blog were unrelated"

The problem is you posted right underneath it without addressing the (as I see it) racist tone of the post.

The issue isn't what your opinion of "mongrels" (really?!? that's the best term you could come up with?) is. We're all a mix in this country. The issue is that she used an offensive term about our president on her blog post and no one --including you-- took her to task for it. Let me tell you that if my best friend put that on her blog, not only would I vociferously point out the error, but I would also re-evaluate our friendship.

Racism won't end until tacit approval of it ends.

Chaos Engineer said...

Hawkeye, that's not my understanding of network neutrality at all. Do you maybe have a source that supports your claims?

My understanding is pretty much what's at the Wikipedia article. Basically Network Neutrality means that your Internet provider can't arbitrarily block or restrict your access to legal content.

For example, if you get Internet through your cable company, they might want to try to encourage you to watch more cable TV by slowing down your access to streaming video sites. Or the evillest man in the world (Is that still George Soros? I find it hard to keep track.) might buy your Internet provider and block you from visiting Fox news.

Network Neutrality would make it impossible for that to happen.

Actually "Network Neutrality" is kind of a vague term. The Wiki article lists seven different (failed) bills that would have implemented various forms of Network Neutrality. Is there some particular clause in one of bills that you think would have reduced your freedom?

highboy said...

"Tim, I don't see how your comment is pertinent to mine."

It wasn't, which is why I didn't address you or quote your comment when I posted my response. Not sure why you would automatically assume in that regard I was addressing you.

As for Angel's post, not sure why its offensive. If calling someone a mixed breed is offensive than so would calling me a white boy.

"The problem is you posted right underneath it without addressing the (as I see it) racist tone of the post."

Key words: as you see it. You are also notorious for being easily offended. Some are more offended at the terrible policies of this president that are going to get us all killed, which is what Angel's post was all about, and if there is something factually incorrect than address it. Yet in all the post you pick out what you consider a racist slur.

scohen said...

"As for Angel's post, not sure why its offensive. If calling someone a mixed breed is offensive than so would calling me a white boy."

The word mulatto is offensive, as is bringing it up in a 'political' discussion.

"You are also notorious for being easily offended"

No, not really. My comments above have little to do with my personal offense and more to do with the attitude of letting that kind of stuff slide.

"Some are more offended at the terrible policies"

You're not offended by his policies, you disagree with them --as is your right.

"and if there is something factually incorrect than address it"

Why bother, while there was a *ton* that's factually incorrect but what would I gain by engaging her? Not sure if it was that post or another but she was arguing for returning the Hagia Sophia to Christians. I can't tell if that's conservative 'humor' or a serious argument, but either way it's waaaaay out there.

I might as well argue that the Catholic church return the Pantheon.

"Yet in all the post you pick out what you consider a racist slur."

Umm yeah. That was the entire point I was making. In order to move on and consider racism 'behind us', people like Radar, you and I cannot let racist slurs stand in any forum.

Don't lose sight of the fact that it was Angel who injected race into the post and knew it was wrong --she said something like "yeah, I said it" (knowing it wasn't acceptable).

Chaos Engineer said...

As for Angel's post, not sure why its offensive. If calling someone a mixed breed is offensive than so would calling me a white boy.

Well, surely that depends on context.

Suppose somebody like Angel were to go up to your boss at work and say about you, "I want you to fire him! He short-changed me, and my fries were cold, and the African city of Carthage was destroyed at the instigation of the Roman Senator Cato the Elder, and he gave me a hamburger when I ordered a cheeseburger. And he's a Christian white boy. There, I said it!"

My experience is that if someone has a legitimate complaint, they'll usually be able to express that without dragging in race or religion or bringing in unrelated complaints about the Third Punic War or whatever. So if I heard that, I'd think, "Wow, that person is a racist lunatic! I wouldn't be surprised if there was nothing wrong with the service they got, and they're just tossing out a bunch of wild accusations because they're frustrated at having to deal with someone of a race they despise."

Anyway, do you see any real difference between Angel and the person in my story? They're bigoted against different races, and they're tossing out different wild accusations, but I think they're about equally credible.

(Link to Angel's racist diatribe, copied from the previous thread.)

Anonymous said...

Just to get this straight, based on your previous posts, when you repeat other people's lies, you're just "reporting", is that right? That's what they taught you in journalism school or wherever, right?

radar said...

Anonymous, there are no lies in this post. Barack Obama is a socialist and he is trying to turn the USA into a socialist country before normal Americans wake up and smell the coffee. But I think they are waking up.

As to journalism school, we were taught to get the quotes straight and either report on page one or comment on the opinion page. Now so-called journalists opine on page one and the lines are blurred.

If I quote someone who turns out to be lying then yes, the onus is on the liar who did not tell the truth if I quoted them correctly. If I misquote then the blame is on me. Of course I try to quote a source that is not lying unless I am using the quote to point out the lies.

radar said...

Also, once again you commenters are playing the race card instead of dealing with the issues. Obama is a socialist, his policies are socialist, his advisors are socialists and extremists of other unsavory sorts and his church was a BLT church and that means communism mixed with racism. He could be green and his politics would still be detrimental to the country.

radar said...

That "Dossier 3" is kind of scary. I know that Barack Obama is anti-American if you consider a pro-American to be someone who supports the Constitution and the basics of free enterprise and freedom of expression. I am not sure about the birth certificate/school records/SSN stuff. Why would Obama not release records and put an end to such charges? I have no idea whether there is truth to them and why he does not answer them.

I do know that everyone who complains about race in this thread is deliberately dodging the post. If you are glad a socialist is in the White House, just say so.

Remember, though, that sometimes socialism becomes something worse. Woodrow Wilson was a one-worlder, a eugenicist and a liberal who segregated the military and split the country. FDR instituted radical socialist (for the times) systems that helped keep the depression going long past expectations. LBJ's Great Society turned inner city poor folks into serfs.

radar said...

Stalin's communist Russia exterminated the poor, the Jews and people of color. So did Hitler's National Socialist Party leaders.

Tyranny tries to take over in times of crisis and immediately takes over the dissemination of information as quickly as possible. I believe that Obama and his cohorts actually want the country in crisis so they can take control and make sure they can keep it. Right now a large portion of our nation has begun to agree with me and that is why there are Tea Party Patriot groups forming and growing. We do not trust 99 per cent of the Democrats and maybe 60 per cent of the Republicans. We need government for the people, by the people, from the people and we need to kick the professional politicians and radical ideologues out!

scohen said...

"Also, once again you commenters are playing the race card instead of dealing with the issues"

Seriously? The issue of your post was race. Race is by definition germane to the discussion.

If you were really beyond race as you claim, you would have accepted the criticism that you acted badly and vowed to do better in the future.

scohen said...

"That "Dossier 3" is kind of scary."

It'd be even scarier if some of it were true. I thought you were smarter than that radar. You seriously entertain the notion that obama isn't a citizen?
This from a guy that would deride people who didn't like the last president as "bushchimphitler"s.


Jus sanguis? Not in this country hawkeye. It's sufficient but not necessary.

radar said...

scohen, still dodging the issue? I have laid out all sorts of proofs that Obama is a socialist dedicated to turning us into a socialist country and you poke at Hawkeye?

This post does not get into birth certificates and etc. It is all about Obama's upbringing, education, record, writings and actions, all of which spell socialist in big bold letters. Those of us near Chicago knew what kind of hope and change America could expect but they (you possibly) bought the sizzle and did not look at the steak.

radar said...

I am not posting about Obama's birth records because if it was true, we would have a major leadership crisis in Washington and Biden the Bonehead would take over the Presidency and would probably try to do what Obama wanted done anyway. He would just throw in a few colorful epithets along the way.

It is true that most of the pertinent records concerning Obama's upbringing and education have been hidden, which is curious. Can you find them? The Lamestream media came up with faked documents to try to attack GW Bush but they have no interest in the many blank pages in Obama's resume. Obama should have been vetted long before the election. Since it was not done I do not intend to pursue it.

Should he run for re-election there will be a drumbeat of demands that he produces some of these documents. If there are questions, that will be the time to ask them and not now IMO.

highboy said...

"You're not offended by his policies, you disagree with them --as is your right.'

No, I'm actually offended by them. His policies are offensive to me. What angel said is by no means racist at all. It may have been negative, but its hardly racism. Racism is racial quotas, set asides, etc, etc.

scohen said...

"scohen, still dodging the issue? "

On what planet am I dodging the issue? The issue above is race and I'm talking about race. More precisely, you're arguing that race should not be an issue any more. I provided a clear example of racism and how it was tacitly allowed.

"I have laid out all sorts of proofs that Obama is a socialist dedicated to turning us into a socialist country"

You've got a long way to go before you convince anyone that a centrist democrat is a socialist. Your political thought betrays a sloppiness that is evident in your other writing. For example, you consider the progressive income tax redistributive. By that logic every president is 'socialist'. Sorry, but that just isn't the case.
Similarly, you cite the direct loan program as a 'government takeover'.
Aside from DL being a *great* program that cuts out the middleman banks that did nothing other than tack on another couple of points to the loans and added restrictions, it saves a *ton* of money over the other program. It also gives students loans in the 3% range *and* has very favorable payback options. Banks are still free to offer student loans, of course, but the government isn't going to guarantee the loans if they default. So, in a sense it's less socialist than it was before. See? Sloppy thought.

Similarly, your opposition to net neutrality seems to be based on not understanding what the concept of net neutrality *is*, and frankly that's unforgivable for someone who works in IT. Very sloppy.

"poke at Hawkeye?"

Lol. Hawkeye produces a link to a video of red faced, spittle-flecked conspiracies and... well... lies and when I criticize him it's poking at him? I guess I have to shut up and let his... umm... ideas... stand.

"It is true that most of the pertinent records concerning Obama's upbringing and education have been hidden"

There's that conspiratorial thinking we've come to know and love.

Seriously, I thought you were smarter than that. If you come out to be a birther that would be tremendously disappointing.

Chaos made an awesome point above that is relevant:

"My experience is that if someone has a legitimate complaint, they'll usually be able to express that without dragging in race or religion or bringing in unrelated complaints about the Third Punic War or whatever"

That goes just as well for words like 'socialist' which doesn't mean what you think it means.

scohen said...

"No, I'm actually offended by them"

That's too bad, it's hard to have a discussion about policy when offense is involved as it implies something other than logic is informing your views of the other side.

Bush had awful policies (rendition, warrantless wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus) but I wasn't *offended* by them. I thought they were awful and should be changed immediately. Obama has let me down greatly by not fixing the use warrantless wiretaps by the way.

"What angel said is by no means racist at all"

That's 180 degrees from right. Simply put, calling someone a "half-breed mulatto" is racist. It should be evident, but apparently I have to explain. Very well,here's why:

1. She meant it as an insult
2. The insult pertained solely to his race
3. Insulting someone because of their race is racist.

Additionally, "half-breed" is especially offensive because it equates a person to an animal by using the word 'breed' which is obviously degrading.

It's truly a shame you don't see that.

highboy said...

"You've got a long way to go before you convince anyone that a centrist democrat is a socialist."

You are a long way from reality if you're even implying that Obama is in any way a centrist. You can keep denying it, but Obama's programs by and large are blatantly socialist. Its simply undeniable. No president in history has went as far as Obama in that regard. As for student loans: sugar coat it all you want, but I now have to pay back more money, money I didn't borrow, because Obama decided that government control was better, and in order to help pay for his ridiculous healthcare plan.

"That's too bad, it's hard to have a discussion about policy when offense is involved as it implies something other than logic is informing your views of the other side."

That's one way to spin it, another would be to say that Obama's policies are so unbelievably horrific that one with common sense and a basic sense of humanity would definitely be offended. My logic is most certainly informing me of the views, and that information offends me. Trying to spin it to make it look less rational as you have just attempted is rather dishonest.

"Bush had awful policies (rendition, warrantless wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus)"

The Constitution doesn't say you need a warrant, and only protects against searches that are without probable cause. No one has any examples of Bush doing so without probable cause.

"That's 180 degrees from right. Simply put, calling someone a "half-breed mulatto" is racist. It should be evident, but apparently I have to explain."

No, let me explain by referring you to an actual dictionary definition of racism:

"
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

1. Not once did angel say her race is superior.
2. not once did she advocate a policy based on discrimination.
3. not once did she show hatred or intolerance of another race. simply calling someone what they are is hardly an example.

If you showed this much passion fighting against real racism, racism might indeed by a dead issue.

scohen said...

I'm on my phone so I'll keep it short.

Direct loans: you obviously don't understand the program, since you'll be paying less. The government in effect gave money to banks who then re-loaned it to students. Unless you're a banker this a win win situation.

Warrants/probable cause:
A warrant establishes probable cause, without a warrant there isn't pc. Review by a judge is *essential*.

Racism:
implicit in an insult is the knowledge that the insult itself is negative or inferior. "scohen is a Jew" is a fact. If someone says "scohen is wrong and dumb and evil... And a Jew" it is an insult and anti-semetic.

highboy said...

"Direct loans: you obviously don't understand the program, since you'll be paying less. The government in effect gave money to banks who then re-loaned it to students. Unless you're a banker this a win win situation."

So even though those that have read the healthcare bill specifically state we'll pay 1700-1800 dollars more, you're still saying we're not?

"A warrant establishes probable cause, without a warrant there isn't pc. Review by a judge is *essential*. "

Excuse me?

"Racism:
implicit in an insult is the knowledge that the insult itself is negative or inferior. "scohen is a Jew" is a fact. If someone says "scohen is wrong and dumb and evil... And a Jew" it is an insult and anti-semetic."

Wrong. Saying "Jews are dumb" would be anti-semantic. Unless you have some definition of racism that's different than an actual dictionary, this argument is over. You can keep calling people racist all you want, but racism has nothing to do with calling it what it is, derogatory tone or not.

radar said...

I have posted two follow-up posts that clearly identify the reason racial hatreds still exist in America and why. Democrats play the race card continually while their policies continue to inhibit the advancement of people of color and any inner-city children of any color.

scohen, it is people like YOU who are ignorant on the subject that continue racism by your tacit approval of the Democrats and their policies and lies. The welfare system and the broken schools have created a defacto class of serfs in the inner cities and the Democrats would fight to keep that from changing.

Those of us who live close to the poor areas of Chicago, East Chicago, Hammmond and Gary know that the Democrats pay a pittance to poor people to vote Democrat. They spend in some case just five dollars a vote. ACORN is involved in voter fraud suits because they were sending out poor people to vote under false names in exchange for a small payment.

We call this voter fraud and bribery and morally reprehensible. You blindfolded liberal loons do not know your history and you are too lazy to find out the truth or else you yourselves are too comfortable yourself to care.

Not one of you hypocrites have a reason to call me a racist! I have done more and do more to end racial hatreds than probably any of you. I see the Democratic Party as a party of shame and slavery and bondage and with good reason!

radar said...

And by the way there were more people of color in the Bush cabinet than there are in Obama's.

If you think Obama is a centrist then you must think Josef Stanlin was a philanthropist! That is a ludicrous statement! Obama was once rated as the most left-leaning member of the entire US Senate! How does he react to a recession? Throw money away and put all his political capital at taking over the entire health care industry, thus adding great debt and raising taxes on everyone!

scohen said...

"So even though those that have read the healthcare bill specifically state we'll pay 1700-1800 dollars more, you're still saying we're not?"

Tim, sometimes I don't know what to do with you. If you're going to vehemently oppose something, please take the time to first find out what it is. Direct loans have nothing at all to do with healthcare.

"Excuse me?"

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

--US Constitution, 4th amendment

Whether or not there is probable cause is a decision made by a judge when presented with evidence by the government (usually police). If there is probable cause, then a warrant is issued and a search can take place. Warrantless wiretaps remove judicial review from the process, so who decides if there is probable cause? No one.
Condoning the government's use of warrantless wiretaps seems to me to be out of character for someone with your beliefs. That was an enormous power grab by the Bush administration that thankfully has been recently ruled illegal.

"You can keep calling people racist all you want, but racism has nothing to do with calling it what it is, derogatory tone or not"

I feel very comfortable calling the above mentioned post racist in tone. Insulting a person on the basis of their race is racist, plain and simple. If you find fault with my logic above, please discuss that, quoting dictionaries is excessively pedantic


But since you like dictionaries, let's look at half-breed:

The term is considered an impolite and rude offensive slur by many
an offensive term for an offspring of parents of different races

scohen said...

"scohen, it is people like YOU who are ignorant on the subject that continue racism"

Considering I have gone to great lengths to combat racism --even face to face, this statement rings hollow.
Actually, it's a pathetic attemept to re-direct the focus from a failing of yours onto me.

Do you really think that racism exists because welfare exists? That sounds an awful lot like a *justification* for racism.

Let's look:
"The welfare system and the broken schools have created a defacto class of serfs"

That remains to be seen, but what you seem to be saying is that because there is a de-facto class of serfs that it's only natural to be racist. That simply doesn't follow.

"You blindfolded liberal loons do not know your history"

Please. Just stop before you embarrass yourself. I love how you paint everyone who didn't reach the same conclusions as you as deluded.

Anyone who makes the statements that you make about the Democratic party is the one who is at the very best, tone deaf to history.

"Not one of you hypocrites have a reason to call me a racist"

No one ever called you a racist, I called Angel a racist. Also, I'm clearly *not* a hypocrite on this issue. I have put my money where my mouth is on this issue many times before.