Wow , Race Card Much

Just looking for a different tube , I hit this one that I'm still shaking my head at.

A speaker in Texas proclaiming that Obama is not going to tax Texas to death,

while Michele has 26 aides.


WATCH how fast they jump to Racism. American's are screwed with this

adminastration, no criticism will see the light of day

Chris Mathews is a tool.......his only ability is to throw around labels. He has to be one of the biggest shills for this administration. I don't agree with Obama, so by definition, I must be a racist. Does this mean all of the people who hated President Bush were racist as well, or could there be another reason.......hmmmmm.

reply to post by Sean48


Chris Matthews is a dumbass. He wants desperately to be the MSNBC version of O'Reilly or something, but he ends up being more like a sweaty Larry King.

So his gig is throwing out fight-starters and hoping something sticks, just to reel in viewers.

He was riding around in the last administration's pocket, too.

Here's my attempt at explaining the racialization of Obama's critics:

I think many look at criticism of Obama as racially motivated, because he is being given a different standard than other presidents. I mean, what is different about Obama that makes people scramble to delegitimize his presidency at every turn?

Also, so much of the criticism of Obama is spewed without a logical basis, so that makes people question from where the venom is truly coming. By most neutral accounts, Obama has been rather moderate in his style of governance.

A good example of the double standard was how Bush lost the popular vote, and became president due to a supreme court decision. However, people that questioned this usurpation of power were labeled as crazy fringers. Meanwhile, birthers and teabaggers are treated as though their opinion on the possibility of Obama not being legitimate are legitimate.

Bush spent an ungodly amount of time at his ranch, and on vacation, yet Obama is lambasted for taking Michelle out for dinner? What gives?

If it's not racially driven, than what is it? Plus, I think if many that doth protest a little too much were somehow given a test that determined their tendency towards being prejudiced, the findings would not be surprising.

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by skunknuts


This video has actually NOTHING to do with Mr or Mrs Obama.

Its the use of the Scary Race Card.

The people in Texas were complaining about taxes, while Michele

has 26 aides , being paid by the public.


BOOM

Racist

reply to post by skunknuts


True, he is getting a different standard, just ask the media, they'll tell ya whatever Obama wants them to say. Again, I really dislike him, has nothing to do with his race.......

reply to post by Sean48


That's what I'm saying. How does Michele's staff/ team compare to that of other first ladies? Would you undies have been in such a bundle if the issue had been about the cost of Laura Bush's staff? Eleanor Roosevelt's?

Furthermore, I've heard a lot of people use racial overtones when talking about the first lady in a negative manner.

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by skunknuts


There's two driving factors.

One, he's black. Let's not try to pretend this is a non-factor, lots of white people on both sides are scared and upset by this. This is where the "Kenyan muslim" thing is coming from, as well as jibes about his "experience" (considering that out of the last dozen presidents, only LBJ and HW Bush had any "experience" as defined by these folks)

Over here in my neighborhood on the Left, the race factors in in another way - a lot of liberals expected a "magic negro", a Bagger Vance Goes to Washington administration. Because he's black, he was supposed to bring in massive reform, all sorts of no-nonsense common sense policy, fix the wars and economy, and lead us all to confidence and greatness... Just like all the black presidents on TV have done. So now that it turns out that no, he's pretty much just another president instead of their personal Morgan Freeman, they're all bent out of shape.

The other big part is simply blind partisanship. Uh oh, there's a Democrat in office, grab your guns and start tucking your food stamps under the mattress, maw! So you get all the militia yahoos who happily watched Bush assrape the constitution for eight years deciding to start rambling around again. you get a Republican party who's base is a bunch of people who call themselves "teabaggers" and who's national policy is just to say no to everything... All the usual stuff you expect from these guys.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by skunknuts

 

True, he is getting a different standard, just ask the media, they'll tell ya whatever Obama wants them to say.

Again, I really dislike him, has nothing to do with his race.......

Not sure what media to which you are referring? Seems to me that the for profit media are still all about making profit, as well as subtly pushing the corporatist brain-washing policies loved and paid for by the powers that be.

Sure Fox News clearly has an agenda, and blatantly shows its contempt for its viewers by the obvious manner in which they promote the ignorance and arrogance of their viewer-ship, but that certainly doesn't make other huge for-profit media conglomerates Obama supporters.

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by skunknuts


Surely you jest? You can honestly say Obama is not better treated than President Bush by the usual MSM? He has screwed up in alot of ways this first year, yet is still treated with kid gloves. Is it because the MSM is in the WH's pocket, or are they themselves afraid of being labeled the same thing they use on others all of the time.

Elect black president, continue to call americans racist. GREAT LOGIC DEMOCRATS!

reply to post by DeathShield


Only here can you be a racist automatically for not agreeing with Obama, and yet you could vote for him only because he was black and you aren't. The race card has been played so much lately it's lost any value it may have had before. Kind of funny it only took a year to do that with this administration and the MSM, and it couldn't be done that quick with Jessie and Al and company, they've been playing it for years.

reply to post by skunknuts


Excellent point. Only be comparative reasoning will this type of point (the appropriate number of aides, etc, compared to OTHER First Ladies) be made, if there is one to be made.

Mixing it with ANY racial undertones will guarantee that any relevant data will be ignored, no matter how valid.

Our journalists should be more credible, maybe sloppiness and bad manners are part of how weak the media has become. He should be a little more careful.

The accusation of racism should be expected, and easily disproved, if it is not there. Only integrity will deflect this type of smear campaign, on both sides.

reply to post by Copperflower


I'm not disagreeing with you in the least except on one point..........why should charges of racism be expeted? It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is to disprove, why should it be expected?

[edit on 4-1-2010 by adifferentbreed]

Originally posted by Sean48
while Michele has 26 aides , being paid by the public.

Why didnt you complain When Laura Bush had the same number? Lady Bird Johnson had 30, Betty Ford had about 30, Jacky Kennedy had 40.....

So why are you complaining now, perhaps because she is ......?

[edit on 4/1/10 by dereks]

OMG another one. Maybe because they never investigated how many other first ladies had...........nope definitely racist....

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Sean48
while Michele has 26 aides , being paid by the public.

Why didnt you complain When Laura Bush had the same number? Lady Bird Johnson had 30, Betty Ford had about 30, Jacky Kennedy had 40.....

So why are you complaining now, perhaps because she is ......?

[edit on 4/1/10 by dereks]

First of all, I'm not complaining ....

Its not me in the video .......

if you can , read, the OP

It was a statement by people complaining about taxes .........

The news commentator hit the race card .....

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Sean48
while Michele has 26 aides , being paid by the public.

Why didnt you complain When Laura Bush had the same number? Lady Bird Johnson had 30, Betty Ford had about 30, Jacky Kennedy had 40.....

So why are you complaining now, perhaps because she is ......?

[edit on 4/1/10 by dereks]

For comparison, let’s remember that poor Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salaries for 5 of their personal secretaries from their own pocketbooks. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, says that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was “headed” by one person who supervised a staff of approximately nine full and part time workers (including the White House cooks and chambermaids

Laura Bush had 15, and there was no recession.

Cost Bush: $1,083,700
Cost Obama: $1,750,000
www.canadafreepress.com...


A difference of almost $700,000 is not the same. Where are you getting your facts from?

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. A one minutes search on google, click the first link, boom, a breakdown of Laura's aides by name and wage. what's the excuse for investigating Bush? Ageism?

reply to post by heyo


"And there was no Recession"

Well, maybe there wasn't for the Bush family...