The less than august Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, makes a statement claiming we're no longer a racist nation, we're all over that; therefore, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not needed in our racially sensitive and racially healthy, non-bigoted country.
Then we read this from Roger Ailes of the MOST WATCHED cable news station in this country:
“Obama’s the one who never worked a day in his life. He never earned a penny that wasn’t public money.
How many fund-raisers does he attend every week?
How often does he play basketball and golf?
I wish I had that kind of time.
He’s lazy, but the media won’t report that.
So Fox News' chief said the President is a lazy black man who lives off public money and loves to play basketball."
For the record, Obama taught law at a private university and worked at a law firm, so Ailes is not only peddling racist garbage, he's peddling lies. Also he's a racist swine.
Now let's talk about someone who spent his ENTIRE life benefiting from government help and working for the government. As an adult, this guy never held a job outside of government. But would Roger Ailes call him LAZY, living off of public money? Hmmmmm.
Perhaps the two photos below can explain why.
See, President Obama did actually work in the private sector, and he has been president of the US for over four years, a not-for-the lazy, stressful, difficult job, made even more so by the obstructionist, sabotaging lie-mongerers in the GOP who, in addition to vowing to never cooperate and never compromise with the president, have happily kept alive the suspicion, held by certain morons in their party, that he isn't even an American. Also, those same cementheads in that unfortunate political party continue to slander and slur his wife, our FLOTUS.
The guy in the second photo below hoped to be the next vice president of the US, and probably will run for the presidency at some point in his all-government, all-the-time career.
Can we guess how many cable news moguls will call the guy in the second photo "LAZY?"
I'm gonna go out on a thin limb and guess "none."
Can you figure out why?
But...but...we don't need special laws to protect certain people's right to vote, because ANTONIN SCALIA and ROGER AILES!
Go read Smartypants on this subject right now!
And then this by Ta-Nahisi Coats in the New York Times.
51 comments:
Days off taken by our "lazy" president, compared with other presidents:
Carter (Democrat): 79 days in four years or 5.4%
Reagan (Republican): 484 days in eight years or 16.5%
Bush 41 (Republican): 543 days in four years or 37.1%
Clinton (Democrat): 152 days in eight years or 5.2%
Bush 43 (Republican): 1020 days in eight years or 34.9%
Obama (Democrat): 131 Days in his first four years or 8.9%
Numbers don't lie, but FAUX NOOZ's Roger Ailes does, and his audience, which apparently is too lazy to check the facts, believes him.
"Vice President Joe Biden is as “dumb as an ashtray,” President Obama is “lazy” and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a “prick,” according to Fox News chief Roger Ailes."
Give ol Roger some credit for getting one of three right.
I have always believed it's better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing.
As James Thurber (beloved humorist, essayist and partially-sighted cartoonist of New Yorker fame) famously quipped:
"He who hesitates is sometimes -- saved."
OR - as George Bernard Shaw put it:
"All this struggling and striving to make the world better is a great mistake; not because it isn't a good thing to improve the world, if you know how to do it, but because striving and struggling is the worst way you could set about doing anything."
As for the rest, it may be accurate to call Mr. Ailes a PARTISAN (who among us could honestly say he or she was not? ;-), but this notion often noised abroad that anyone who dislikes or opposes the president is, perforce, a RACIST is neither fair nor accurate.
It's rather like saying "Anyone who doesn't vote for the Democratic Party hates the United States of America."
Mr. Free Thinke, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it IS a duck.
Roger Ailes could have criticized President Obama for being too liberal or not transparent enough or for any number of political reasons. He, instead, chose to call him "lazy," a rancid, stereotype that African-Americans have endured during our shameful racist past AND present.
Why do you suppose he chose that particular adjective over all others, Mr. FT? Why didn't he call the president out on his policies?
And why doesn't ANYONE call someone like Paul Ryan who ACTUALLY has spent his ENTIRE life on the government payroll "LAZY?"
You did not address any of this in your comment, so I'm wondering why.
To dismiss the slur against the president that a powerful and influential man like Ailes made is to sanction it.
I don't think Ailes referred to Obama as a lazy black man, just lazy.
All of those you cited, with the exception of Clinton, worked in the private sector. Visiting speaker at a law school is not really working in the private sector is it?
Maybe if the left would stop promoting racism the country could talk about it.
Ms. Shaw,
Racism -- like Beauty -- may very well be "in the eye of the beholder."
I would ever have seen it in that comment, myself, but then I'm not always "on the prowl" looking for it either.
People talk mockingly today about "The Communist Scare" of the 1950's as though a subversive Communist movement in the United States never existed, and the threat posed by the U.S.S.R. was insubstantial and inconsequential at worst.
Good Americans, who were deeply concerned at the time, have in latter days been accused of seeing a Communist lurking behind every bush, hidden in every closet, and skulking underneath every bed.
Today, instead of a "Communist," it's a "Racist."
I say, "Nuts!"
Please read the small article I posted at my blog several months ago called "ENEMETICS." I believe it to be insightful.
In addition I must ask, "What in the world could the throughly honorable, admirable, squeaky clean Paul Ryan have to do with this discussion? [Thank you by the way for posting such a flattering picture of him.]
INFORMATION ON PAUL RYAN from WIKI
” ... When he was 16, Ryan found his 55-year-old father lying dead in bed of a heart attack.[6][18] Following the death of his father, Ryan's grandmother moved in with the family, and because she had Alzheimer's, Ryan helped care for her while his mother commuted to college in Madison, Wisconsin.[6] After his father's death Ryan received Social Security survivors benefits until his 18th birthday, which were saved up in order to pay for his college education. ...”
“ ... Ryan worked summers as a salesman for Oscar Mayer ...”
[Ryan worked as] as a staff economist attached to Bob Kasten's office, which he did after graduating in 1992.[29][46] In his early years working on Capitol Hill, Ryan supplemented his income by working as a waiter, as a fitness trainer and at other jobs.[18][31] ... “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
Anon: "Maybe if the left would stop promoting racism the country could talk about it."
Maybe if people like you, Anon, understood that quoting racist statements is not promoting racism, it is exposing it, we could have a conversation.
And you may be so immersed in it yourself that you just don't understand that calling an African American "lazy" is a racial stereotype.
Mr. Free Thinke, Roger Ailes characterized our first bi-racial president as "lazy," noting that he never held a private sector job.
I used Ryan to point out that while president Obama most certainly DID work in the private sector, Congressman Ryan NEVER HAS.
I've read other GOPers refer to Mr. Obama as "lazy" as well.
But never have I heard that attached to people like Ryan. I've asked "why is that?" And neither you nor Anon answered.
BTW, Anon doesn't think very much of writers, since apparently writing a book, even two books, in his/her world isn't considered working in the private sector.
I'd like to hear Anon sell that nonsense to people who write for a living.
Anon is, as I suggested, obviously so immersed in his or her own bigotry, that he or she doesn't think writing TWO best selling novels (and for the record, earning money from them) is PRIVATE SECTOR WORK.
BTW, Anon, Mr. Obama also worked in a law firm in addition to teaching in the University of Chicago, and working as a community organizer. But in your narrow little world those jobs don't count.
Can you explain why? Dig deep down, I'll be you'll come up with an answer.
president obama worked as a community organizer...kinda like Jesus did...taught at a private university, worked at a law firm, and wrote two best selling books...anonymous and ailes call that lazy...could that have anything to do with his skin color...cuz it sure sounds like it to me...lol...that ryan dude spent his whole adult life sucking off the government teat...but he ain't lazy...he a repuklican...
What? Paul Ryan has always worked in the public sector.
But surely the fringe right knows that.
What would John Galt say?
Ducky, only bi-racial dudes who become president are "lazy" when they work for the government--even when they don't work for the government ALL THEIR LIVES, as Paul Ryan does.
He has never had anything BUT A GOVERNMENT JOB his entire adult life.
John Galt be damned! He's a GOPer! It's patriotic when they do it! It's "lazy" when anyone else does, especially the black dude.
Having spent over thirty six years supervising and managing in the private sector I had my share of lazy people. Both white and black. I also had many hard working motivated people, both black and white.
Ailes is playing to the choir, nothing more, nothing less. He is snake, pitching to the worst in human nature. It is after all about the ratings.
Interesting how things play out.
"Ailes is not only peddling racist garbage, he's peddling lies."
Pure redundancy, after you've ID'd Ailes as the head of Fox Noise.
"Also he's a racist swine."
Alas, that seems to be as common in Republican circles as white collars at gatherings of clergy.
Re: Fox Noise's audience being too lazy to do any fact checking. You miss the point. Fox's audience doesn't want the facts. They want red meat — comfort food for their be-addled minds. They want lies and distortions they can angrily insist are true to anyone who tries to insert a few crumbs of reality into their unhealthy diet.
Free Thinke wrote, " . . .this notion often noised abroad that anyone who dislikes or opposes the president is, perforce, a RACIST is neither fair nor accurate."
That notion is often noised abroad in right-wing circles, right after the victim card about how unfair to conservatives the liberal media are has been played.
Why, oh why, would anyone suspect that those who've made opposing the president an obsessive-compulsive disorder the past four years are racists themselves, or at least quite comfortable marching shoulder to shoulder with people who obviously are racists?
When I say opposing the president, I mean putting up a relentless, total-war wall of opposition to the president and everything he's sought to do. A wall of opposition that goes beyond anything any president in modern times has had to contend with. And, doing that to the detriment of the country and millions of unemployed people, all at the worst possible time — a worst possible time brought to us by the same conservative Republicans who have spent four years doing everything they could to stymie cleaning up the mess they made of just about everything.
Every Republican in the country isn't a racist. It's just that if you take a close look and listen to Republican America, you can't help but notice a river of racism runs through it. Same goes for misogyny.
BTW, your lament is especially misplaced on this blog. Shaw's posts aren't unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks on Republicans' good name and good intentions (gack). In this post, as in the rest, homework is done and claims are backed up.
Are there racists in the United States?
Yes.
To the extent that we used to have racists and racism here.
No.
Fox News' chief said the President is a lazy black man...
He said that -- in those words?
Personal note: For the past few years, I've had to endure the laziest child I've ever seen in my class. The laziest bar none! He is white. When I say to him as I sometimes do, "You're lazy!" am I criticizing this student's race or his behaviors?
I quoted a supposedly non-partisan source directly with links that tell us Paul Ryan has, indeed, worked in the private sector, albeit at menial jobs, and so far no one has acknowledged it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong, that I can see, with Paul Ryan's background or his performance, while EVERYTHING is either wrong -- or has been deliberately obscured -- or withheld -- about Barack Obama's background.
Paul Ryan suffered what-might-be-called a Natural Disaster when his father died very suddenly when Ryan was in his mid-teens.
Barack Obama's background should properly be called a Man Made Disaster of epic proportions. He was conceived on the perverted advice of his maternal grandfather -- not in love -- but to make a political point. In a very real sense Barack has been used his whole life as the vital ingredient in a long-range experiment brilliantly calculated to upend the political establishment in our country and change the nature of our economy and our culture.
From what little we know of Barack Obama’s home life, it appears he was carefully groomed from birth to play a particular role. He plays it magnificently, but one wonders if even he, himself, really knows what is going on behind his bright smile and carefully contrived manner?
Our president is very like an old-fashioned movie star -- one of those "products" skillfully molded and ruthlessly honed by studio bosses to create a particular impression on a naive, gullible public for the sole purpose of selling whatever the studio produced. Such people rarely-if-ever were permitted to lead real lives of their own. They existed to be manipulated at will by their “creators,” who in Judy Garland’s case at least actually referred to them not as persons, but as products. As a result, most of them with very few exceptions were tortured souls whose personal history behind the scenes was anything but enviable.
To me our president seems more like a hologram than a person. The way he speaks -- orotund yes, but also monotonous. His sentences come out phrase by phrase in a halting, staccato delivery with unnatural emphasis. He seems utterly lost without a script -- true also of his predecessor, I hasten to add (his is NOT a "race" thing at ALL).
At any rate his attractive, amiable, "cool" image seems artificial. His entire career seems artificial. It's as though he's never done anything entirely on his own, never been motivated by his heart, but has, instead, been conditioned from birth to do someone else's bidding.
Anyway, that is what I perceive in Barack Obama, but I see the same process at work in the formation of most of the utterly meretricious "icons" the gullible public has been seduced into idolizing by the moguls of the Entertainment Industry.
Our great trouble today, stems from the blending of news, information, politics and entertainment into one massively malignant Media Monster -- a hideous creature that has in actual fact become our Master.
Sincerity and Truth have dropped so low in the public's regard few even bother to pay them lip service anymore.
I do not blame Barack Obama for who he is or what he’s done. He is a much a victim as anyone in all of this. In a very real sense he closely resembles the tragic figure of Raymond Shaw in the Manchurian candidate. The blame belongs to the modelers, molders of marionettes and the puppeteers who animate these creatures of illusion -- and especially to us for being so unwary, so unwise and so lazy-minded as to let ourselves be hoodwinked into ceding our freedom, our character, our values, our priorities, -- and our very identity -- to those unseen forces determined to enslave us.
AOW,
Here's what this blog post is about:
The head of one of America's most powerful and influential cable news outlets was interviewed and then quoted from that interview in a magazine where he claimed this president is "lazy."
Anyone who has been sentient in this country during their either brief or long life knows that's a dog whistle.
This has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else encounter day to day in our interaction with other people.
You claim racism isn't as bad as it used to be. I don't know. I think it's still in our culture, but is like SW Anderson said--a river running through it. One of our friends, yours and mine, who runs a blog, just this past year, referred to President Obama's father as an African savage.
How a "savage" manages to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard is something National Geographic would be interested in learning. Nevertheless, that adjective was attached to a black man from Africa who happened to be President Obama's father. I can't think of any other reason, other than racism, for using that sort of language on a man who earned a post-graduate degree and whose skin is black.
That's one example, of course, but try googling "President Obama and racism" and see how many hits you get.
I have never accused anyone who criticizes President Obama's policies and politics of racism. When people claim liberals call critics of Mr. Obama racists, they're being just as mindless as those who claim every complaint about Mr. Obama's policies and politics is racism.
When the president's father is referred to as a "savage," and when the head of Fox Cable News calls the president "lazy," I recognize that as racism.
This article that was published online at Alternet addresses this discussion:
January 23, 2013 |
"As he looks back on his first term, President Barack Obama can take satisfaction from a series of significant accomplishments. But according to a new analysis by a Brown University political scientist, his rise to power has also produced a less-welcome result: A renewed alignment between political preference and “old-fashioned racism.”
Old-school racist beliefs were “unrelated to white Americans’ partisan preferences throughout the post-civil rights era,” writes Michael Tesler. But his analysis of survey data, recently published in the Journal of Politics, suggests that changed with the 2008 election—and was also a factor in the 2010 mid-terms. “The election of the country’s first black president had the ironic upshot of opening the door for old-fashioned racism to influence partisan preferences after it was long thought to be a spent force in American politics,” Tesler writes. He adds that this “enhanced polarization of white partisanship” may “leave a lasting mark on American politics that endures after he leaves office.” Understanding his argument first requires clarifying his vocabulary. Political scientists define “old-fashioned racism” as belief in the biological inferiority of blacks, and support for racial segregation and discrimination. In contrast, the new racism is characterized by “a moral feeling that blacks violate such traditional American values as invidualism and self-reliance, the work ethic, obedience and discipline,”
Sometimes we refuse to see what is in front of our noses.
Shaw,
I'll let that other blogger whom you mentioned explain if he so chooses.
I'm not so sure about the dog whistle that you mentioned.
Two questions for you:
1. How to root out covert racism? Is it even possible to do so without creating an Orwellian world?
2. Was Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist?
BTW, as to my saying that racism isn't as bad now as it once was, I do recall the days of separate water fountains and separate bathrooms for coloreds and whites. When I was a little girl, I myself saw those signs. Those days are behind us, are they not?
I do remember the days of the forbidding of interracial marriage by state statute. Those days are behind us, are they not?
PS: I am not defending Ailes, for whom I have no respect, anyway.
SWA, excellent observations. I, like you, believe a river of racism does run through our culture.
Better to be the POTUS and be called lazy by Jabba the Hutt's stunt double, than to work for Faux Noise.
ORAXX
AOW: "Two questions for you:
1. How to root out covert racism? Is it even possible to do so without creating an Orwellian world?"
SK: Obviously, we can't become a nation of thought police, but we can acknowledge that racism exists when we see it blatantly expressed. We need to question our assumptions about all stereotypes and not attribute an undesirable trait to ALL members of a cultural group when we find it in individuals of a particular cultural group. Don't you think we should be always vigilant on that issue?
AOW: "2. Was Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist?"
I wouldn't label Mr. Lincoln as a "white supremacist," but I would say with some certainty from the biographies I've read about him that he did believe the Negro was an inferior human and that the mixing of the races was undesirable. Remember at one point during the Civil War he assembled prominent leaders, free men from the North in the African-American community, and asked them to leave their country of birth, America, take the slaves with them to a Caribbean country and establish a Negro nation. IOW an idea for a solution to the problem that the white man established in the colonies was to exile those Negroes who were American citizens and have them set up a separate country with the slaves the white men abducted from their native lands.
One would have to believe the Negro was an inferior being to suggest such a solution.
So, as much as I admire Mr. Lincoln, I would have to say that he was a product of his times in believing in the inferiority of the Negro. At the same time, Mr. Lincoln believed slavery was a scourge on this nation.
I give him credit, though, he did evolve in his attitude and thinking by the end of the Civil War. I refer to his friendship with Frederick Douglass and the fact that he opened the White House to allow African-Americans to celebrate his second inaugural--the first time African-Americans were allowed into the WH, unless they were in the role of a servant.
The instances you mention where this country has made progress are considerable and admirable. But we have to remember those barriers were permanently taken down by legislation, not by any movement on the part of the people who stubbornly cling to their prejudices and hatreds.
This is what alarms me about the Supreme Court and the conservatives on it who appear to be ready to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Act.
The above comment on Lincoln's attitude toward slavery was not meant to ignore his efforts to pass the 13th amendment.
Funny how all these conservatives who voted for and supported Ailes, his candidates, and his ideology, now claim they have no favor for them. Interesting how losing makes the rats jump ship. They just don't want to be seen as irrational and bigoted publicly. Next they will be denying they voted for Romney. Nixon won by a landslide, but few today would admit they voted for him. No convictions here, just fools not wanting to be seen as fools, so deny their own party.
Republican voting laws during the last election affected blacks more than any other voting group, but they say we don't need a voting rights act. Laughable!
Shaw,
[Lincoln] was a product of his times in believing in the inferiority of the Negro.
We ALL are a product of our times, are we not?
The evolving of views does take time. No doubt about it.
IMO, we have seen quite an evolving in process for decades -- if not much longer.
Legislation per se does not change views but, over time, can contribute to the evolving that you mentioned.
Also IMO, people will always harbor prejudices and the like. How they ACT on those view greatly matters.
Anonymous,
FYI....I don't watch Fox News. Therefore, I had to look up just who Roger Ailes is.
Not everyone who voted for Romney watches Fox News, BTW.
"We ALL are a product of our times, are we not?"
A few people who did not give in to bigotry and who had the courage to think independently from "the times" come to mind.
Eleanor Roosevelt resigned from the D.A.R. when they would not let Marian Anderson, a world-renowned singer, perform at its Constitution Hall in Washington DC. That single decent and courageous act by Mrs. Roosevelt let the country and the world know that it is NOT acceptable to hate and discriminate on the basis of the color of someone's skin.
There are others--I remember reading about Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack. Sammy Davis could perform at the hotels on The Strip in Las Vegas, but he was not allowed to sleep in them, so Sinatra and his pals at one time went with Davis and took rooms at the hotel that Davis was allowed in. Eventually it was Davis and Sinatra who helped integrate The Strip.
Anyway, there are probably many other instances unheralded, where people with courage and character went against the accepted bigotry of the times.
Mrs. Roosevelt's letter to the D.A.R.
Shaw,
Yes, quite a few not-famous people made their stand against the accepted bigotry of the times.
They are still doing so.
Plus, there are degrees of racism and degrees of making a stand.
I do think that we need to be cautious about crying "Racism! Racist!" so as not to become the boy who cried wolf or ludicrous (not saying that you are the latter, just pointing out this possible descent).
I also note that teachers today refrain from calling black students lazy. The euphemism = "not applying himself."
As I said in another comment here, I didn't even know who Ailes is until I looked him up on the web. I wouldn't vote the way that anyone suggests that I do; instead, I make up my own mind about candidates. I've always done so, in fact.
I just clicked on another link in the body of the blog post and found THIS.
All that I can say is "DAMN!" and "What the hell is wrong with people?"
Lots of people have supervised people just like you RN, and have had similar and different experiences. You just love to generalize. I can add 30 years to your experience; and can tell you not every work site has lazy people (person). were you in the liquor business, gas station, restaurant, or maybe an office that has many "lazy" white people? If blogging while working is that laziness, or ??
FT: "I quoted a supposedly non-partisan source directly with links that tell us Paul Ryan has, indeed, worked in the private sector, albeit at menial jobs, and so far no one has acknowledged it."
SK: Paul Ryan has spent his entire adult life as a government employee. I don't have a problem with that, but certain people think that the government can do no right, especially Randians, so why would Ryan choose to be part of the problem?
FT: "There is absolutely nothing wrong, that I can see, with Paul Ryan's background or his performance, while EVERYTHING is either wrong -- or has been deliberately obscured -- or withheld -- about Barack Obama's background."
You do not offer anything to back up your assertion that EVERYTHING is wrong with President Obama's background or has been "deliberately obscured or withheld" so those assertions appear to be biased.
FT: "Paul Ryan suffered what-might-be-called a Natural Disaster when his father died very suddenly when Ryan was in his mid-teens."
President Obama met his biological father when he was ten. And that is the only time he met him. Mr. Obama lost his father as well.
FT: "Barack Obama's background should properly be called a Man Made Disaster of epic proportions. He was conceived on the perverted advice of his maternal grandfather -- not in love -- but to make a political point. In a very real sense Barack has been used his whole life as the vital ingredient in a long-range experiment brilliantly calculated to upend the political establishment in our country and change the nature of our economy and our culture."
FT, this is nothing more than opinion backed up by nothing.
You are welcome to believe this, but because it has no basis in fact, why should I?
FT: "At any rate his attractive, amiable, "cool" image seems artificial. His entire career seems artificial. It's as though he's never done anything entirely on his own, never been motivated by his heart, but has, instead, been conditioned from birth to do someone else's bidding."
Even you can't place these speculations in a framwork of fact. Everything is couched with "seems."
The seeming appears to be on your part.
Again, you have the right to your musings, but those musings and speculations are not shared by a majority of Americans.
Can't you be satisfied with saying you don't like his politics and policies?
Must you also impugn his personal character and motivations as well as his parents' reasons for conceiving him? That doesn't just "seem" abusive and cruel, it also "seems" bigoted.
I had a black supervisor working for me 20 years ago who refered to both black and white employees who had an aversion to work as lazy. With a few descriptive adjectives added in. My most recent manager (I worked for him) was the same. He just didn't use the descriptive adjectives.
Perhaps one day we will be able to allow ourselves to see things and call things as we see them. The fine gentleman I mentioned above did and do.
Ailes was of course wrong. Obama is not lazy by any reasonable analysis
Free Thinke kicked off his latest drivel dump with this: "Barack Obama's background should properly be called a Man Made Disaster of epic proportions."
Let's see. Grew up a mixed-race child in a society not always kind and accepting of youngsters of that description. Raised single-parent style by women of modest means. Was uprooted from friends and familiar surroundings from time to time. Made it through high school, went on to college, got accepted at Harvard Law. Became Law Review editor, a signal achievement. Became an instructor of constitutional law. Worked in a law firm. Became a community organizer. Got elected to the Illinois legislature. Spent and invested his money wisely, attaining a net worth of about $1 million. Won a U.S. Senate seat. Ran for and won the Democratic presidential nomination. Won the presidency handily.
If that's what a background that's a man-made disaster of epic proportions yields, I wish my background had been equally disastrous.
Free Thinke, the victim in all this is you. You're a captive of your own fanciful and unfounded mind meanderings.
"The blame belongs to the modelers, molders of marionettes and the puppeteers who animate these creatures of illusion -- and especially to us for being so unwary, so unwise and so lazy-minded as to let ourselves be hoodwinked into ceding our freedom, our character, our values, our priorities, -- and our very identity -- to those unseen forces determined to enslave us."
That appellation better relates to the real presidential creature of illusion, George W. Bush, his handlers, marketers, excuse makers and diehard supporters, now morphed into tea party extremists.
Thank you, Ms Shaw for positing my lengthy remarks.
If you read what I say carefully, it's not so much "anti-Obama" as it is an indictment of the I-think-unhealthy amalgamation of politics, business and the media culture that acts effectively as the front men and army of servants who support and "sell" this unholy alliance with astonishing zeal 'round the clock, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.
I described the president more as a victim -- along with all the rest of us -- than as a self-willed perpetrator of evil. I do not dislike him personally at all, but I detest the role I believe he's been assigned to play.
Last summer I did a series of posts at FreeThinke's Blog listing in minute detail the many reasons why I believe it was inadvisable to support the candidacy of Barack Obama. If you saw these articles, I'm sure they didn't set well with you, but they contain myriad facts -- hundreds of them -- that back up what I said here earlier today.
Needless to say I did not make any of of this up. It's all a matter of record, but because it doesn't aid the progressive agenda, it has been ignored, lampooned or dismissed as "rubbish" with a great wave of the hand by the Establishment Media -- and ALSO - by the Old Guard in the GOP who are as much or more a part of the problem as any active Communist as far as I'm concerned.
Here are links to several articles I published last summer -- most of them overloaded with data that supports my point of view. They can't ALL be mere fabrications of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-06-23T09:49:00-04:00
http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-06-23T09:49:00-04:00
http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/2012_07_01_archive.html
http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-07-27T05:00:00-04:00
Some people are more productive than others; but if you are the supervisor and have "lazy" (don't work) people on your staff, it's your fault.
Yep aNon, and that is why the good supervisor/manager either 1)reasigns them if the issue is a bad skill/job fit or 2) takes corrective action that includes warnings, suspension, and eventual discharge if employee fails to improve performance.
Free Thinke opined: "Good Americans, who were deeply concerned at the time, have in latter days been accused of seeing a Communist lurking behind every bush, hidden in every closet, and skulking underneath every bed.
"Today, instead of a 'Communist,' it's a 'Racist.'
"I say, 'Nuts!'"
Speaking of nuts, there's this: The Group Behind CPAC Has a White-Nationalist Problem
Free, I am under no illusion that you will bother to respond but I'll give it a try...
You rather mockingly said... "It's rather like saying "Anyone who doesn't vote for the Democratic Party hates the United States of America."
Do you mock the right when they just up and say that those on the left hate America and want her to be destroyed?
Do you call out the extremists on the other sites upon which you comment and where you call people out for not paying attention to your actual words when they call us more liberal Americans commies, libturds, idiots, douchebags and any number of names simply because we have a different politcal view?
You come here frequently under the guise of being moderate yet you are not.
The left, while extremely critical of the right, and indeed President Bush and his. IMHO, largely idiotic policies, never called him UnAmerican and never said he did not belong here or have a right to be president.
That type of criticism is almost exclusively found on the right.
Why is that?
I guess your Republican readers never heard of the old bigoted saying, "Lazy shiftless nigger."
It referred to ANY black man, not just a "lazy" black man. Amazing to watch People like RN explain it away, like they never heard the term before. I'm sure they will have a party if the Supreme Court overturns the Voting Rights Act.
Shaw, I see you are still attracting the low life. I suppose the fact you post aNon's groundless and fallacious comment gives you some sort of perverse pleasure. I'll remind myself of the partisan loyalty over honor that you apparently subscribe to.
Cheerio old chap...
As far as I can determine, the anonymous comments are not ad hominem attacks on anyone here. There's no name calling, which I will not tolerate. I didn't read the anonymous comments as an attack on your or anyone in particular. They appear to be generalizations.
I saw a fabrication of a quotation by Ailes, who never referred to Obama's race, or implied it. Was there a quotation from Ailes that happened but you never referred to?
Anon said: "I guess your Republican readers never heard of the old bigoted saying, "Lazy shiftless nigger."
This is the first time I have seen it. It is clear that this racist concept exists in your mind, and you are running with it.... And yes, you made a racist insult here.
My post says nothing about Ailes bringing up Mr. Obama's race directly. My post quotes Ailes calling President Obama "lazy."
The anonymous comment above refers to how many people--and I've heard this over my lifetime, myself--refer to African-Americans. I've heard that with my own ears spoken by white people about A.A.s.
Ailes knew exactly what he was doing when he called our first African-American "lazy."
dmarks, you have a real problem with understand the difference between making a racial slur and quoting what someone else said.
You apparently have no concept about this, therefore, you believe someone quoting what others say is the same thing as making a slur?
Hint: They're not the same thing. Anonymous correctly stated what I've heard all my life. That doesn't mean Anonymous approves it. Anonymous is stating a fact.
How did I hear this? I had a very close relative, by marriage, who came from south of the Mason-Dixon line. That's how.
Dmarks,
Your information is often wrong (like WMD's in Iraq) It does not surprise me that you claim to have never heard that saying before. You must be one of the few who have never heard it, gee I wonder why. You need to educate yourself on MANY issues.
Post a Comment