FARK.com: (7067584) Chris Matthews calls GOP "Grand Wizard crowd". Michael Steele, Ku Klux Klan offended

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Chris Matthews calls GOP "Grand Wizard crowd". Michael Steele, Ku Klux Klan offended (nation.foxnews.com)		220
		More: Dumbass, GOP, Ku Klux Klan, grand wizard

• • •

1173 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:28 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7067584

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

220 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

Headso		2012-04-24 02:45:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: I'd say large and significant read as synonyms.

Not neccisarily. Context is key and where 95% is the norm, no deviation could be 'large' unless you consider half of the rema9inder to be 'large'. Which you could, but I think 'significant' is a more accurate term since it connotates relative difference, not objective magnitude.

Your initial post didn't contain percentages, you just said a significant increase which reads like you are suggesting that black people rushed out to vote for Obama where they had not in the past for white democrats. That is why several people responded with the percentages. To further provide context, at the end of the day what is your point even in mentioning that there was a significant increase?

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 02:59:03 PM

Headso: Your initial post didn't contain percentages, you just said a significant increase

Which is accurate. It was a measurtable and notable increase widely reported at the time.

...which reads like you are suggesting that black people rushed out to vote for Obama where they had not in the past for white democrats.

That's how you read it, and I can't control what conslusions Farkers jump to.

That is why several people responded with the percentages.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I poisted more numbers than anyone else.

To further provide context, at the end of the day what is your point even in mentioning that there was a significant increase?

It was a response to the groundless (or at least unsupported) claim that "the portion of his opponents that hate him for his race is several orders of magnitude larger than the portion of his supporters that love him for it."

That being the case (since one can apparantly absurdely attrribute racist motivation)s for Obama's SUPPORTERS as well, surely the measurable uptick in black voters for Obama should be counted as racists FOR hium and those would outnumber the racists who voted AGAINST him.

Presumably, since there are soooo many racists against Obama, there would have been an uptick in white votes for McCain? Except there weren't. Quite the opposite. McCain got 8% LESS white male votes. Of course as the numbers I posted show, more white people voted for Obama than usual as well, so the supposition being made is doubly demonstrably false

Philip Francis Queeg: You might want to do a little research on Russel Pearce and J.T. Ready.

Is THAT the best example you can point to?

Alphax		2012-04-24 02:59:27 PM

Overfiend: I used to really enjoy Chris Matthews. Until he hoped on the crazy train bound for Looneytown.

That is some really stupid shiat Matthews. Any of you who belive that in prinicipal, the Republican party is racist, have either drank too much of the Democrat Party kool-aid or you are not very bright.

There are, of course, Republicans who are racist. But to label an entire group of millions of Americans as bigots because of their political beliefs is a type of xenophobia. And inherently bigoted itself.

Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Mike Chewbacca		2012-04-24 02:59:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Uncle Pim: For anyone who thinks the GOP doesn't have a long history of racism, I present for your reading enjoyment:

The Southern Strategy
/'Nough said

ANd for anyone who doesn't think the DNC doesn't have a long history of racism, I present for your reading enjoyment:

The History of the United States, Southern Democrats and the Civil Rights movement.

Yeeeeaaaaaah, somebody already pwned you upthread. It's like they KNEW someone was going to go there. And you did.

Ah, here it is. It's the sixth post in the thread.

Oh heck, I'll just re-post the images for you.

sensoryoverload.typepad.com

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 03:00:45 PM

Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

Mike Chewbacca		2012-04-24 03:01:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Headso		2012-04-24 03:02:46 PM

BojanglesPaladin: That being the case (since one can apparantly absurdely attrribute racist motivation)s for Obama's SUPPORTERS as well, surely the measurable uptick in black voters for Obama should be counted as racists FOR hium and those would outnumber the racists who voted AGAINST him.

I'd say what shows racism more than vote percentages are things like the popularity of the birther movement and other rhetoric the republicans use.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 03:03:10 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Ah, here it is. It's the sixth post in the thread.

Oh heck, I'll just re-post the images for you.

And that proves the Democrat party has never been racist... how?

Remind me again the percentages of Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights act compared to the percentage of Democrats?

What's that? It's context? Or what happened decades ago doesn't really have any bearing on today?

Good point.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 03:03:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: You might want to do a little research on Russel Pearce and J.T. Ready.

Is THAT the best example you can point to?

A prominent and popular Republican politician who endorses a neo-nazi for public office isn't enough for you?

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 03:04:00 PM

Mike Chewbacca: You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Can you demonstrate this 'embracing' by the GOP?

Overfiend		2012-04-24 03:06:33 PM

Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 03:08:00 PM

Overfiend: Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Already done. See Pearce, Russel.

Alphax		2012-04-24 03:08:42 PM

HighOnCraic		2012-04-24 03:21:58 PM

Uncle Pim: For anyone who thinks the GOP doesn't have a long history of racism, I present for your reading enjoyment:

The Southern Strategy
/'Nough said

One of the highlights:

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[4] but merely popularized it.[5] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[6]

While Phillips sought to polarize ethnic voting in general, and not just to win the white South, the South was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate, and the House, as some legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. In addition, the Republican Party worked for years to develop grassroots political organizations across the South, supporting candidates for local school boards and offices, as one example.

See also:

Gingrich: Let me say first that one of the gravest mistakes the Reagan administration made was its failure to lead aggressively in civil rights. It cost the Republican Party. It helped cost us control of the Senate in 1986 and it created an environment in the African-American community which was so severe that you can only fully appreciate it when you see the current approval ratings of George Bush. He is seen as a post-Reagan president by African-Americans, who feel he and Barbara are truly committed to their well-being.

None of us in the conservative wing of the party appreciated the degree to which we were sending the signal to African-Americans that we inadequately appreciated their fears of resegregation and of being deprived of their rights which they've held for less than a generation.

All Americans owe liberalism a great debt for having fought so passionately to end segregation. The liberal commitment to ending segregation and the colonization of the Third World are liberalism's two great contributions to the 20th century. And they often did that in the face of conservative indifference or hostility.

Link

Overfiend		2012-04-24 03:25:37 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Already done. See Pearce, Russel.

One guy is a local neo-nazi and the other is a state senator (who denounced his association with said neo-nazi after he found out about him).

These are your examples of systematic embracing of racists by the Republican party?

Pretty weak evidence amigo. Do you have any other examples?

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 03:29:14 PM

Overfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Already done. See Pearce, Russel.

One guy is a local neo-nazi and the other is a state senator (who denounced his association with said neo-nazi after he found out about him).

These are your examples of systematic embracing of racists by the Republican party?

Pretty weak evidence amigo. Do you have any other examples?

You mean "who denounced his association after it became publicly embarrassing"? right?

As for further proof I will direct you to HighOnCraic's post on the Southern Strategy.

HighOnCraic		2012-04-24 03:34:48 PM

The shift in demographics began long before the 60s; blacks who had formerly voted for Republicans started supporting Democrats in the '30s, and white Southern Democrats were growing unhappy with the influence of liberal, Northern Democrats, leading to Strom Thurmond's third-party presidential run in ''48.

Goldwater pushed the shift even further in '64.

After the nomination of Barry Goldwater for the presidency, King wrote in his Autobiography, "The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of good will viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The best man at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

Link

Overfiend		2012-04-24 03:45:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Already done. See Pearce, Russel.

One guy is a local neo-nazi and the other is a state senator (who denounced his association with said neo-nazi after he found out about him).

These are your examples of systematic embracing of racists by the Republican party?

Pretty weak evidence amigo. Do you have any other examples?

You mean "who denounced his association after it became publicly embarrassing"? right?

As for further proof I will direct you to HighOnCraic's post on the Southern Strategy.

From Wikipedia (the most trusted source for facts :) on the internets):

Political scientists Richard Johnston (University of Pennsylvania) and Byron Shafer (University of Wisconsin) have argued that this phenomenon had more to do with the economics than it had to do with race. In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Johnston and Shafer wrote that the Republicans' gains in the South corresponded to the growth of the upper middle class in that region. They suggested that such individuals believed their economic interests were better served by the Republicans than the Democrats. According to Johnston and Shafer, working-class white voters in the South continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s. In summary, Shafer told The New York Times, "[whites] voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences".[8]

Got anymore examples?

You do not, because there are none that show the Republican party embraces racism/racists. As a matter of fact, the idea that racism is prevelent in the Republican party is used by Democrats as sort of a reverse racism tool to drive minorities away from voting Republican.

Mike Chewbacca		2012-04-24 03:53:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Can you demonstrate this 'embracing' by the GOP?

Overfiend: Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Read the thread. There are numerous examples.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 03:54:04 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: A prominent and popular Republican politician who endorses a neo-nazi for public office isn't enough for you?

I think that "prominent and popular" is the debatable par there, and if your example set is effectvely one weak one, you may have an exception that proves the rule. Particularly since he was universally renounced. and himslef vehemently denounced the affiliation:

"He quickly apologized to supporters in an email, stating: "Ugly the words contained in it really are. They are not mine and I disavow them completely. Worse still, the website links to a group whose politics are the ugliest imaginable."[24] Pearce told reporters he did not agree with the antisemitic and racist statements in the article, and that he had copied it from an email forwarded to him by someone else after "the title and the first paragraphs about media bias appealed to him".

Further regarding Ready, "Pearce has since claimed he was unaware of Ready's neo-Nazi affiliations at the time he made the endorsement."

Now I can't say that I believe Pearce, but if that is your 'smoking gun' for the RNC "embracing racists" I would say it's weak sauce, considering that He was making a personal endorsement of a personal friend and fellow congregationist.

And as we all learned recently, we are not allowed to judge a man based on affiliations or the statements of other people in thier church.

But look. Let's get to the point:

2) The Democrats REALLY need to come up with a better narrative than "Only racists oppose Obama's re-election". First, it's obvioiusly untrue, and secondly, you do not GAIN support by insulting and alienating at least half of the country by calling them racists. If anything, you will push them into voting AGAINST you.

Instead of spending time trying to dismiss Obama's critics as secretely racists, why not work to emphasise all the reasons why Obama' successes as President make him a clear choice for re-election?

... oh wait.

And THAT is why even people who voted for Obama are getting turned off by the distraction and demonizing campaign of the campaign surrogates.

Alphax		2012-04-24 03:54:35 PM

You are completely full of shiat, Overfiend.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 03:54:40 PM

Overfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Already done. See Pearce, Russel.

One guy is a local neo-nazi and the other is a state senator (who denounced his association with said neo-nazi after he found out about him).

These are your examples of systematic embracing of racists by the Republican party?

Pretty weak evidence amigo. Do you have any other examples?

You mean "who denounced his association after it became publicly embarrassing"? right?

As for further proof I will direct you to HighOnCraic's post on the Southern Strategy.

From Wikipedia (the most trusted source for facts :) on the internets):

Political scientists Richard Johnston (University of Pennsylvania) and Byron Shafer (University of Wisconsin) have argued that this phenomenon had more to do with the economics than it had to do with race. In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Johnston and Shafer wrote that the Republicans' gains in the South corresponded to the growth of the upper middle class in that region. They suggested that such individuals believed their economic interests were better served by the Republicans than the Democrats. According to Johnston and Shafer, working-class white voters in the South continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s. In summary, Shafer told The New York Times, "[whites] voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences".[8]

Got anymore examples?

You do not, because there are none that show the Republican party embraces racism/racists. As a matter of fact, the idea that racism is prevelent in the Republican party is used by Democrats as sort of a reverse rac ...

Let's see what the actual Republicans have had to say about the Southern Strategy, shall we?

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats" - Kevin Phillips

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N***er, n***er, n***er." By 1968 you can't say "n***er" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N***er, n***er." - Lee Atwater

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." - Ken Mehlman RNC Chairman

The Republicans have openly admitted embracing racists.

Headso		2012-04-24 03:59:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: 2) The Democrats REALLY need to come up with a better narrative than "Only racists oppose Obama's re-election".

I don't believe the narrative is that only racists oppose the guy. But the birther movement was popular enough to have mainstream support from republicans so there is obviously a decent percentage of republicans with racist motivations.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 04:03:37 PM

Headso: I don't believe the narrative is that only racists oppose the guy. But the birther movement was popular enough to have mainstream support from republicans so there is obviously a decent percentage of republicans with racist motivations.

YOU may not. But as demonstrated by Mathew's comments and many others, it is clearly a messaging effort to insinuate it.

Also, you seem to be making the assumption that the only motivation for "birthers" is racism, if the presence of "birthers" is proof of racism. I'm not sure that can be conclusively demonstrated. Certaiunly many racists are 'birthers', but not all racists are birthers, and not all birthers are racists.

Headso		2012-04-24 04:12:36 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: I don't believe the narrative is that only racists oppose the guy. But the birther movement was popular enough to have mainstream support from republicans so there is obviously a decent percentage of republicans with racist motivations.

YOU may not. But as demonstrated by Mathew's comments and many others, it is clearly a messaging effort to insinuate it.

Also, you seem to be making the assumption that the only motivation for "birthers" is racism, if the presence of "birthers" is proof of racism. I'm not sure that can be conclusively demonstrated. Certaiunly many racists are 'birthers', but not all racists are birthers, and not all birthers are racists.

Give me a break dude, the only motivation for the birther movement is racism. IMO that level of out of touchness among republicans for how racist they really are is why 90+% of black people vote against republicans. It's also why you have Hispanics who are generally socially conservative running away from the Republican party as well.

Chris Mathews also mentioned the birthers specifically, not everyone who ever said anything bad about Obama.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 04:24:42 PM

Headso: Give me a break dude, the only motivation for the birther movement is racism.

That's simply not true. I know a LOT of people (including foreigners) who bought into the "non-American birth" as the key aspect of the birther bullshiat. It's not that he's black, it's that he's "not really American" and it would be the same if he had been born in Germany or India. It doesn't help that he spent much of his youth abroad either. This is why so many 'birthers' get hung up on his time in 'madrasas' and his religion'. It's often about a percieved cultural and national disconnect between Obama and "real" Americans.

It's a bullshiat argument, but if one does stupidly believe that Obama's birthplace is still up for discussion, they can do so for reasons that have more to do with nationalism and even xenophobia that have nothing to do with racism.

I am not validating the birther argument which I think is mostly stupid, I am saying that simply calling it racist and dismissing it overlooks the nature of the complaint and why it remains to broadly persistent. It is a fundamental mistust of the President of the United States as an "other", but not simply becasue he's a darkie.

Headso: Chris Mathews also mentioned the birthers specifically, not everyone who ever said anything bad about Obama.

Chris Mathews called the GOP klan people with the black former head of the RNC across the table. It was a clear insinuation that Republicans are all racists.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 04:33:59 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: Give me a break dude, the only motivation for the birther movement is racism.

That's simply not true. I know a LOT of people (including foreigners) who bought into the "non-American birth" as the key aspect of the birther bullshiat. It's not that he's black, it's that he's "not really American" and it would be the same if he had been born in Germany or India. It doesn't help that he spent much of his youth abroad either.

So they felt exactly the same way about John McCain's foreign birth?

Overfiend		2012-04-24 04:34:41 PM

Alphax: You are completely full of shiat, Overfiend.

Lemme guess - I am a troll too.

The Fark Progressive way - if someone disagrees they are either a troll or full of crap.

No wonder there is no such thing as civil discussions on the Fark Politics tab!

You should be proud Alphax. Your astute observation that I am full of shiat (in your opinion) means you win the award for the most ignorant poster in this thread.

Mucus Mule		2012-04-24 04:38:37 PM

Why did I read the headline thinking of the Wizard Of Oz. Grasping for subby's meaning.

Headso		2012-04-24 04:46:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: That's simply not true. I know a LOT of people (including foreigners) who bought into the "non-American birth" as the key aspect of the birther bullshiat.

As PFQ mentions McCain had similar issues and the dude ran for president twice without a peep.

BojanglesPaladin: It was a clear insinuation that Republicans are all racists.

His quote says ""There's none of those problems over there. All those birthers out there." In other words the republican party has problems with racists in their midst. Instead of being honest and trying to shame that aspect of the party the party heads and pundits encourage it.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 04:53:09 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So they felt exactly the same way about John McCain's foreign birth?

Really? You are really asking to compare "real American" qualifications between Obama and McCain?

McCain was born in American controlled Panama on an American Navy base commanded by his Navy Grandfather who was a four star admiral and born to his Navy Dad who was also a four star admiral. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, was a Navy Captain, a decorated war hero and perhaps the most famous POW the country has. He has been a US Congressman for three decades.

Surely you aren't asking if American voters had the same doubts about McCain being a "real" American?

Again, I'm not arguing about whether or not Obama is a "real" American.Nor am I saying that McCain was a better man or better candidate. I'm saying that John McCain was indisputably "a real American".

The point is that THAT question in the minds of "birthers" is the root cause, not necissarily his race. I think anyone still arguing over where Obama was born is pissing in the wind.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 04:58:38 PM

Headso: As PFQ mentions McCain had similar issues and the dude ran for president twice without a peep.

Because no one could dispute that McCain was not a "real American" and the technical question was already answered. It DID come up occasionally. And was easily answered with any of the following:

"8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.[86] In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.[87] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[88]"

How much more time do you want to waste on this?

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 05:00:34 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: So they felt exactly the same way about John McCain's foreign birth?

Really? You are really asking to compare "real American" qualifications between Obama and McCain?

McCain was born in American controlled Panama on an American Navy base commanded by his Navy Grandfather who was a four star admiral and born to his Navy Dad who was also a four star admiral. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, was a Navy Captain, a decorated war hero and perhaps the most famous POW the country has. He has been a US Congressman for three decades.

Surely you aren't asking if American voters had the same doubts about McCain being a "real" American?

Again, I'm not arguing about whether or not Obama is a "real" American.Nor am I saying that McCain was a better man or better candidate. I'm saying that John McCain was indisputably "a real American".

The point is that THAT question in the minds of "birthers" is the root cause, not necissarily his race. I think anyone still arguing over where Obama was born is pissing in the wind.

So the guy who is actually born in a foreign country is "indisputably a real American", but the guy actually born in the United States isn't.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why some voters didn't have the same doubts.

Headso		2012-04-24 05:02:26 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Because no one could dispute that McCain was not a "real American"

No one can reasonable dispute either of them being a real American. That's the point.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 05:13:10 PM

Headso: No one can reasonable dispute either of them being a real American. That's the point.

Philip Francis Queeg: So the guy who is actually born in a foreign country is "indisputably a real American", but the guy actually born in the United States isn't.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why some voters didn't have the same doubts.

I think you are both missing the forest for debates about the nature of the moss growing on the bark.

The persistance of the "birther" movement is more about whether Obama is a "real" American than it is about him being black.

We agree that it is irrational to continue to argue about his birthplace, but the birther irrationality derives from the desire to "prove" that he's not REALLY American. That his interests are not American. That he is at some fundamental level, not FROM this country. (And therefore is not a legitimate President).

By contiuing to see this particular delusion as primarily racist, you continue to misunderstad the real motivations and roots of the movement. It is pervasive becasue it's not about whether or not Obama is black, people can accept that. (even racists can accept that a negor got elected though they don't like it). It's about whether or not he's "really" American. And every time Obama does something, ANYthing that departs from their perception of what a "real" American would do, it reeinforces their suspicion and beliefe that he's not REALLY an American. It feeds into the delusion that Obama and the media are "tricking" America, and they are the only ones who see through the deception.

Headso		2012-04-24 05:19:08 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The persistance of the "birther" movement is more about whether Obama is a "real" American than it is about him being black.

The former only exists because of the latter. There would be no questions about him being a real American if he were white. Obviously in 2012 they can't come out and openly say he's black he is illegitimate so they use quasi racist langue and dog whistles. It's like republicans attack Michelle Obama for having a "fat ass", that's quasi racist dog whistle type rhetoric there.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 05:19:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: No one can reasonable dispute either of them being a real American. That's the point.

Philip Francis Queeg: So the guy who is actually born in a foreign country is "indisputably a real American", but the guy actually born in the United States isn't.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why some voters didn't have the same doubts.

I think you are both missing the forest for debates about the nature of the moss growing on the bark.

The persistance of the "birther" movement is more about whether Obama is a "real" American than it is about him being black.

We agree that it is irrational to continue to argue about his birthplace, but the birther irrationality derives from the desire to "prove" that he's not REALLY American. That his interests are not American. That he is at some fundamental level, not FROM this country. (And therefore is not a legitimate President).

By contiuing to see this particular delusion as primarily racist, you continue to misunderstad the real motivations and roots of the movement. It is pervasive becasue it's not about whether or not Obama is black, people can accept that. (even racists can accept that a negor got elected though they don't like it). It's about whether or not he's "really" American. And every time Obama does something, ANYthing that departs from their perception of what a "real" American would do, it reeinforces their suspicion and beliefe that he's not REALLY an American. It feeds into the delusion that Obama and the media are "tricking" America, and they are the only ones who see through the deception.

And what you willfully miss is that their feeling that Obama isn't a "Real American" at "some fundamental level" is because of his race. That's what it all stems from. They see a black guy running for President of the United States and say to themselves "That can't be right!".

No other Presidential Candidate has had his status as a "Real American" challenged in this way, no matter how much time he spent out of the country.

It's primarily about race, and you know it deep down. You just don't want to face the ugly truth.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 05:31:39 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: No other Presidential Candidate has had his status as a "Real American" challenged in this way, no matter how much time he spent out of the country

I wonder what John Kerry would think about that?

Headso: The former only exists because of the latter. There would be no questions about him being a real American if he were white.

OK. I see that you believe that to be the case.

Philip Francis Queeg: And what you willfully miss is that their feeling that Obama isn't a "Real American" at "some fundamental level" is because of his race. That's what it all stems from.

But that's not. Look. As I said above, I know a LOT of birthers who could care less about his race as much as the fact that he's "not from here". I don't know where you derive your understanding of the birther movement from, but I can say that (regrettably) I get my understanding of it from lengthy discussions with birthers. I have heard all about the Kenyan aunt who testified about being at his birth in Kenya, about the Isreali journalist who talked with Kenyan family, about unattributed quotes from Obama himself, blah blah blah.

Because I am (like Obama) the American son of a foreigner with a funny name, I have paid special attention to how people respond to that aspect of Obama's story and have had many, many conversations with teabaggers and birthers (they aren't hard to find when you travel rural Texas). And very few of them bring up that he's black, but all of them think it's important because he's not "A real American". Including both citizens who were not born in this country, and permenant residents who are not citizens. I even know a birther who think it's a GOOD thing that the US has a non-native President!

But go ahead. close your eyes, plug up your ears, and just say "birthersarebirthersbecausebirthersareracistbirthersarebirthersbecause birthersareracist".

I think we've reached the point of agree to disagree, but thanks for keeping it civil.

/you stupid cocksmoking morons!

SixPaperJoint		2012-04-24 05:32:48 PM

Overfiend: Alphax: You are completely full of shiat, Overfiend.

Lemme guess - I am a troll too.

The Fark Progressive way - if someone disagrees they are either a troll or full of crap.

No wonder there is no such thing as civil discussions on the Fark Politics tab!

You should be proud Alphax. Your astute observation that I am full of shiat (in your opinion) means you win the award for the most ignorant poster in this thread.

You're right. Alphax took the lazy way and was wrong to do so. He should have done it like Philip Francis Queeg did one post later.

Btw, it was this part that got you in trouble:

You do not, because there are none that show the Republican party embraces racism/racists. As a matter of fact, the idea that racism is prevelent in the Republican party is used by Democrats as sort of a reverse racism tool to drive minorities away from voting Republican.

Or, are you some internet philanthropist just giving away high ground?

Headso		2012-04-24 05:34:50 PM

BojanglesPaladin: /you stupid cocksmoking morons!

That's moran to you, jerk!

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 05:37:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: No other Presidential Candidate has had his status as a "Real American" challenged in this way, no matter how much time he spent out of the country

I wonder what John Kerry would think about that?

His citizenship and eligibility to be President was questioned? Really? I missed that. Please provide links.

Why do your many, many completely non-racist friends question why Obama isn't from here? What specific, completely non-racist things make them believe that? Why did they ever question his birth to begin with? Are these same people searching out to see if distant relatives of Mitt Romney have said anything about where he was born? Are they investigating his childhood experiences with the same fervor?

Or is Mitt Romney also "indisputably a Real American" unlike the uniquely disputable Obama?

HighOnCraic		2012-04-24 05:44:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 05:48:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: His citizenship and eligibility to be President was questioned? Really? I missed that. Please provide links.

No. Whether or not Frenchie Kerry the faux war hero was a "Real Americun"^TM was certainly brought up. Maybe you missed it?

Philip Francis Queeg: Or is Mitt Romney also "indisputably a Real American" unlike the uniquely disputable Obama?

Philip Francis Queeg: Or is Mitt Romney also "indisputably a Real American" unlike the uniquely disputable Obama?

Because of the cloud of doubt that the initial refusal to release the birth certificate caused, which once rooted has proven hard to dislodge. And the fact that he was raised abroad as a child. I have covered this. I'm not defending that this is a rational delusion, and I've been clear on this.

Look. If Williiam Johnson, black Illinois Senator from Chicago, (who was 100% African American, whose mama was a civil rights luminary, and whose Grandfather was a tuskagee airman) had won the election do you think anyone would be asking for his birth certificate? Of course not.

But if my brother, who was born to a Foreigner who is not a citizen, and there are records that he was baptised in Denmark as an infant, and who was issued Danish citizenship, and attended a Danish school before returning to the States ran for President, I'm damn sure people would want to see some proof he was 'natural born'.

Again, I think we've reached the point of agree to disagree, but thanks for keeping it civil.

Paul Baumer		2012-04-24 05:50:59 PM

BojanglesPaladin: And to help get this back on the rails again:
The Democrats REALLY need to come up with a better narrative than "Only racists oppose Obama's re-election". First, it's obvioiusly untrue, and secondly, you do not GAIN support by insulting and alienating at least half of the country byu calling them racists. If anything, you will push them into voting AGAINST you..

You repeat this a lot - and even if it were true that it was a actual dem narrative and not a strawman of your fevered imagination, given that Obama delivered an ass-whipping to the GOP last time, it seems like a pretty sound strategy.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-24 05:55:29 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: His citizenship and eligibility to be President was questioned? Really? I missed that. Please provide links.

No. Whether or not Frenchie Kerry the faux war hero was a "Real Americun"TM was certainly brought up. Maybe you missed it?

Philip Francis Queeg: Or is Mitt Romney also "indisputably a Real American" unlike the uniquely disputable Obama?

Philip Francis Queeg: Or is Mitt Romney also "indisputably a Real American" unlike the uniquely disputable Obama?

Because of the cloud of doubt that the initial refusal to release the birth certificate caused, which once rooted has proven hard to dislodge. And the fact that he was raised abroad as a child. I have covered this. I'm not defending that this is a rational delusion, and I've been clear on this.

Look. If Williiam Johnson, black Illinois Senator from Chicago, (who was 100% African American, whose mama was a civil rights luminary, and whose Grandfather was a tuskagee airman) had won the election do you think anyone would be asking for his birth certificate? Of course not.

But if my brother, who was born to a Foreigner who is not a citizen, and there are records that he was baptised in Denmark as an infant, and who was issued Danish citizenship, and attended a Danish school before returning to the States ran for President, I'm damn sure people would want to see some proof he was 'natural born'.

Again, I think we've reached the point of agree to disagree, but thanks for keeping it civil.

Of course you could ask yourself why anyone ever asked for his birth certificate to begin with. Has anyone demanded to see Romney's or any other Presidential candidate's birth certificate? But again, that might lead you to some ugly truths that you'd rather pretend don't exist.

Overfiend		2012-04-24 06:01:17 PM

SixPaperJoint: Overfiend: Alphax: You are completely full of shiat, Overfiend.

Lemme guess - I am a troll too.

The Fark Progressive way - if someone disagrees they are either a troll or full of crap.

No wonder there is no such thing as civil discussions on the Fark Politics tab!

You should be proud Alphax. Your astute observation that I am full of shiat (in your opinion) means you win the award for the most ignorant poster in this thread.

You're right. Alphax took the lazy way and was wrong to do so. He should have done it like Philip Francis Queeg did one post later.

Btw, it was this part that got you in trouble:

You do not, because there are none that show the Republican party embraces racism/racists. As a matter of fact, the idea that racism is prevelent in the Republican party is used by Democrats as sort of a reverse racism tool to drive minorities away from voting Republican.

Or, are you some internet philanthropist just giving away high ground?

I often make mistakes or say dumb stuff, especially here on the Fark Politics Tab.

However, I am still not convinced the the three examples in this thread (the two knuckleheads from AZ and the "Southern Strategy") prove that the Republican party is embracing the racist fringe who call themselves Republicans.

I really believe (maybe I'm naïve) that each political ideology has great things they stand for. I also believe the fringes of each party are helping widen the gap between us all. My fear is that we will continue to be pushed to the extremes - with comments like "Obama is a secret mooslim" or "republicans are racist birthers!".

Shiat will never get done in this country the way things are going, and that's bad for all of us.

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 06:02:39 PM

Paul Baumer: You repeat this a lot - and even if it were true that it was a actual dem narrative and not a strawman of your fevered imagination,

Maybe you missed the article on which this thread is based? Unless you believe Mathews is a product of my fevered imagination?

Or perhaps you missed ALL the myriad posters here in this thread vehemently arguing that Republicans and/or 'birthers' are clearly racists? Are they too products of my fevered imagination?

Putting aside the philosophical abtraction of whether or not all of reality exists only in my own mind, I think you attribute WAY too much to my imagination.

given that Obama delivered an ass-whipping to the GOP last time, it seems like a pretty sound strategy.

Perhaps you blinked during the 2010 elections? You know. The one where the Teabaggers swept in a crop of die-hard intractables with the sole purpose of thwarting Obama? The same ones on which all of Obama's ~~failures~~ inability to get good things done are blamed?

Perhaps you can explain to my fevered imagination how Obama's "ass-whipping to the GOP last time" is such "pretty sound strategy" that it has effectively nuetered him from getting anything done?

BojanglesPaladin		2012-04-24 06:04:39 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Of course you could ask yourself why anyone ever asked for his birth certificate to begin with. Has anyone demanded to see Romney's or any other Presidential candidate's birth certificate? But again, that might lead you to some ugly truths that you'd rather pretend don't exist.

Fair enough. Remind me again when we LAST had a Presidential candidate born to a foreign national?

Overfiend		2012-04-24 06:06:27 PM

HighOnCraic: Overfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: Overfiend: Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Alphax: Republicans are bigots, yes. It's a self-selecting group. If you're not a bigot, you will not want to belong to it.

Sigh.

It's THIS kind of shiat.

It is not helping.

You know what's not helping? The GOP embracing the racist part of their base.

Please provide examples. Verifible, documented examples.

Already done. See Pearce, Russel.

One guy is a local neo-nazi and the other is a state senator (who denounced his association with said neo-nazi after he found out about him).

These are your examples of systematic embracing of racists by the Republican party?

Pretty weak evidence amigo. Do you have any other examples?

You mean "who denounced his association after it became publicly embarrassing"? right?

As for further proof I will direct you to HighOnCraic's post on the Southern Strategy.

From Wikipedia (the most trusted source for facts :) on the internets):

Political scientists Richard Johnston (University of Pennsylvania) and Byron Shafer (University of Wisconsin) have argued that this phenomenon had more to do with the economics than it had to do with race. In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Johnston and Shafer wrote that the Republicans' gains in the South corresponded to the growth of the upper middle class in that region. They suggested that such individuals believed their economic interests were better served by the Republicans than the Democrats. According to Johnston and Shafer, working-class white voters in the South continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s. In summary, Shafer told The New York Times, "[whites] voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences".[8]

Got anymore examples?

You do not, because there are none that show the Republican party embraces racism/racists. As a matter of fact, the idea that racism is prevelent in the Republican party is used by Democrats as sort of a reverse raci ...

Here's a link to the original article:

Link

You can find a cheap copy of Phillips' book here:

Link

While he cites many factors, Negrophobia is the key element in the realignment of white Southern voters who left the Democratic Party and joing the Republicans, particularly when it came to presidential elections.

Farewell to the Party of Lincoln is another good source to check about the realignment of black voters.

Link

Honestly, thanks for your reply. I will check out the links and the books (can't promise I'll buy the books but I will read as much as I can find about them).

I am not so hard headed as to plug my ears and shout LALALA when I hear another point of view. I have been proven wrong plenty of times and changed my mind on various issues.

Paul Baumer		2012-04-24 06:20:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin:

Chris Matthews and fark posters represent the national Democratic party strategy committee and Obama was running in the 2010 elections

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaahahahaaaaaahhahaaaaaahahaaaaaa - you and Overfiend should do Vegas.

Displayed 50 of 220 comments