Racism rears its ugly head

hubrat

Squeaky Wheel
Obama faces historic disrespect from political peers

President Barack Obama asked to deliver his economic speech to the joint session of Congress next Wednesday. House Speaker John Boehner, told him no. He'll have to do it on the 8th. Boehner cited a scheduling conflict, but the real "conflict" appears to be the GOP presidential debate scheduled for the same date. The president has been forced to capitulate -- and will now have to compete with the opening night of the NFL season for viewers.
What may seem like a minor slight underscores the crux of the problem in Washington: A blatant, sustained and unabashed disrespect of the president of the United States of America.
And it is historic.
Never in our nation's history has a president been publicly denied access to the chamber for an address, according to the House historian. This is just the latest in a string of eyebrow-raising and even historic slights.

And for those who want to say it's just partisan politics as usual, or just the kind of thing that goes with being an unpopular president, let's consider a few lowlights:
The "You lie!" shout during the president's speech on health care reform before the joint session of Congress in Sept. 2009
The recent posturing, walk-outs and tantrums thrown over the debt ceiling debate, which eventually led to our country's credit being downgraded.
Newt Gingrich referring to the president as "the food stamp president" and saying that Pres. Obama "knows how to get the whole country to resemble Detroit."
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn -- who supposedly enjoys a warm relationship with the president, saying he doesn't think President Obama wants to destroy the country, but "his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him as an African-American male" who "received tremendous advantage from" welfare programs.
Congressman Mitch McConnell's bold proclamation that he wants to be Senate Majority Leader to make sure that Obama is a one-term president.
Rush Limbaugh saying that he wants to see this president fail. (Note: Limbaugh has modified that statement to say he meant his "policies." But when it was said, it was less than a year into Obama's presidency and he was still cleaning up the mess from the previous president's policies, which Limbaugh had very little to say about during the Bush era).
Former Fox News host Glenn Beck declaring on the air that the president "hates white people" and "the white culture."
Television personality Donald Trump's over-the-top taunting of the president, hyping unprecedented demands to see the president's birth certificate.
The shouts of "We want our country back!" by the Tea Party.
And the frequent habit of not calling the president by his proper honorific: "President Obama", rather than just "Obama" -- by quite a few elected officials, pundits and others.

This negative "attention" that this president seems to attract cuts across partisan lines. Even before he took office, Joe Biden referred to him as the first "clean, articulate" African-American candidate. (Which we assume was meant as a compliment).
And let's not forget Bill Clinton, who chalked up Obama's win in South Carolina to being similar to Jesse Jackson's wins there in the 80s and then had the audacity to cry foul, saying the race card was played on him when Obama supporters called him out.
There was also his Senate mentor Joe Lieberman, who blocked the public option in the health care bill. And the near-deafening silence by high-ranking Democrats, including Senate leader Harry Reid, while all of this is going on.
The question among some of us who love this country and want to see it succeed is what is all of this really all about? Because it just seems as if there is a pissing contest going on, but the only ones getting wet are the American people; many of whom are suffering through the worst economy of their lives.
Some may call this obstructionism. But I think there's something else going on here. Now I'm not saying it's racism. But if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...
At the very least it's un-American. Because while all of this is going on, Americans are suffering.
This shouldn't be about President Obama. All 535 lawmakers who were sent to Washington to make a difference must ask themselves this question: is opposing everything this president does for the sake of opposition, or worse for a more insidious reason, helping this nation get back on her feet?
If the answer is no, then they need to knock it off. And if they're not going to do it, it's time for the silent majority to do it for them. Enough is enough!

http://www.thegrio.com/politics/oba...spect-from-both-sides-of-the-aisle.php?page=1
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I actually think the pres. was ill-advised by his "school yard bullies" staff to throw a wrench into the GOP debate. It was an immature "power thing. It was my understanding that congress wasn't even returning 'til 6:30 on Weds. and Obama submitted the request to speak at 8:00.
That does make logistics difficult when the venue has to be totally swept....security wise. Not Enough time. Obama is trying to throw his weight around, but he doesn't have any weight.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Barack Obama’s NASCAR Blues

In an article entitled “Don’t assume all NASCAR equates to Republican,” Raygan Swan concluded that Obama failed to attend because “Obama’s brain trust chose to end associations with NASCAR, because the sport shares the same stereotypes as Republicans.” Barack Obama’s people must have surmised that point because NASCAR races open with public prayer, are traditionally attended by flag waving, “smokin’ hot [pastor’s] wives” and everyone in attendance enthusiastically sings along to patriotic renditions of the national anthem.
Now, three-plus years later, on a typical Wednesday-is-Funday-at-the-White House, the President has plans to honor NASCAR champion/John McCain supporter Jimmie Johnson and the “11 other Chase drivers from last year in a White House ceremony.”
Ironically, in a week where scheduling problems are widespread, “nearly half of the 2010 playoff contenders won’t be there.” NASCAR claims that the five drivers – “Greg Biffle, Kurt Busch, Carl Edwards, Kevin Harvick and Tony Stewart – will not be attending the White House visit due to ‘schedule conflicts.’”
In light of the jobs speech/Republican debate/NFL Football kerfuffle, who more than Obama should understand how schedules can upset the best-made plans? Apparently he doesn’t, because the President who lacked consideration for NASCAR in the past has become a schedule-stickler, demanding a level of consideration from others that oftentimes he refuses to extend to anyone else.

The White House’s response to having the invite declined by five guys in sunglasses and colorful jumpsuits was at best a tad off-putting. Tongue-in-cheek, a testy spokesperson acknowledged that “They must be very busy people.”
Following up with a defensive rebuke, a White House spokesperson maintained that “Regardless of one’s political views, the president is still the president – and an opportunity to speak with the leader of the free world is a rare and special one.”
Snippy, snide and sarcastically chiding the NASCAR no-shows, an irritated Obama advocate argued: “You’d think whatever photo shoots or sponsor appearances these drivers have lined up on Wednesday afternoon – if that’s indeed the reason – could be rescheduled. After all, this is the President of the United States we’re talking about here.” Ouch!

The truth is that, while not justifiable, White House causticity is understandable, especially after being barked off the hydrant after attempting to mark political territory by disregarding the Republican debate and scheduling a speech that should have been given weeks ago.
Either way, it’s not surprising that a typically patriotic group would turn down the President’s invite, but what is a little strange is that a White House that so recently had a very public struggle with a scheduling issue would react in such a huffy manner to an identical excuse.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Some people do have better things to do than inflate a narcissist's ego! I'd tell the president's secretary, sorry, I have to wash my hair that night.
 

hubrat

Squeaky Wheel
Love this one:

[video=youtube;BCsJ-24MdZc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCsJ-24MdZc&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Political Science Academics Declare Tea Party Members Racist…
The race card is the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
What is the "race card" and if people bring up race is it automatically using the "race card"? If the "race card" has no merit, why so skittish?
 

Lue C Fur

Evil member
If all liberals and Democrats were called 'Child Molesters" would that offend you? What if all people from the "Quad Cities" were called "Baby Killers" would that offend you? If one side kept saying it over and over again would some think it was true?
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Actually, those on the right have succeeded in even making "liberal" a dirty word. Hell, they had people thinking Clinton was a "liberal". Offended? Not at all. Hard to take it seriously, actually. And do they really say, "All republicans are racists."? Or if I were to sat that there is a faction of Tea Partiers who in their rhetoric appear racist, is that calling all racist? Seems like these groups on the right are playing the victim card more than anything.
 
Actually, those on the right have succeeded in even making "liberal" a dirty word. Hell, they had people thinking Clinton was a "liberal". Offended? Not at all. Hard to take it seriously, actually. And do they really say, "All republicans are racists."? Or if I were to sat that there is a faction of Tea Partiers who in their rhetoric appear racist, is that calling all racist? Seems like these groups on the right are playing the victim card more than anything.

Really? Who thinks "liberal" is a dirty word? Are we going to have to stop using the "L" word? If anyone made it a bad word, it was the liberals.
If you were to say a faction of Americans who in their rhetoric appear to be racist. I would say you are correct. But when someone uses not racist speak and is called a racist anyway, it is truly offensive.
Ya see, the "liberals" learned a while back that enough people who were not driven by hate of any ethnic group would be sidetracked from a debate by being called a racist, the term was used to shut down the conversation. It was quite effective too, for a minute.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Really? Who thinks "liberal" is a dirty word? Are we going to have to stop using the "L" word? If anyone made it a bad word, it was the liberals.
If you were to say a faction of Americans who in their rhetoric appear to be racist. I would say you are correct. But when someone uses not racist speak and is called a racist anyway, it is truly offensive.
Ya see, the "liberals" learned a while back that enough people who were not driven by hate of any ethnic group would be sidetracked from a debate by being called a racist, the term was used to shut down the conversation. It was quite effective too, for a minute.
"Me thinks thou dost protest too much!"
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I like this "L" idea. You could have multiple sit-com shows all called , "For the "L" of it".

One show would deal with LOVE, one with LOSERS, one with LESBIANS and one with LASAGNA (it's an Italian family that runs a restaurant called Louie's)

Let's face it, there hasn't been an original idea for movie or shows in awhile. That's why there are so many re-makes of classic movies. This could work. Will someone who delivers Hollywood please pitch this idea. Thanks!
 
Top