Wales2004

While I respect and understand the criticism that Romney is getting for somewhat distancing himself from Ryan's budget, I do feel that there is a blatant double standard that exists (because of the perception of Romney being much too wishy washy). For instance, I fail to recall anyone criticizing Obama for not sharing Biden's view on Iraq (after choosing him). (Biden originally supported that war, and a big reason why Obama defeated Hillary was because she voted for that war as well.)

I disagree with you regarding the double standard. Joe Biden ran in the primaries and it was no secret that he voted in favor of the war so there was nothing for Barack Obama to hide nor any need to remind voters of their opposing views. Paul Ryan's budget is a possibility unlike a vote that was already cast.

I don't know if that vote was a big reason why Barack Obama defeated Hilary Clinton. I think the Clinton's arrogance played a major part in their defeat. They didn't take his candidacy seriously and they ended up making some costly mistakes including playing racial politics which backfired on them.

Part of the reason I don't believe race in America is going to progress significantly is because it is financially beneficial to some and politically beneficial to others. Both parites have relied on it for years but the Republicans are the ones who are usually more obvious about it. The Democrats just generally get to fall back on the idea that they will get minorities to vote for them. The Republicans are forced to use a lot more coded phrases because of Barack Obama's racial background. They're not going to come right out and tell the racist xenophobes to whom they want to appeal to vote white so they remind them by referring to Barack Obama as foreign and un-American and they use people like John Sununu who was born in Cuba and is of Palestinian descent to do it which says a lot about how easy that part of their constituency is to manipulate.

IMO, the Republican party has zero credibility in making claims about racially-charged remarks since they engage in it more effectively than the Democrats. This has nothing to do with Republicans trying to tell black people they should be offended. Black people are not a homogenous group of people so not every black person is going to see this the same way and the sooner people get rid of the "black group think" idea, the better because people won't be as easily manipulated due to being easily distracted because getting mad because you think a white man is telling you what to think and feel on top of all the other things of which you think white people are guilty is nothing but a useless distraction and keeps too many people from accomplishing much. Racial politics has very little to do with race and everything to do with emotions that are used to manipulate the ignorant masses, misguided religious zealots, and the idealists into voting a certain way. At the end of the day, a rich Republican is not going to care any more about the poor white citizens he used to get where he was going than he does about the black ones he put down to do it.,

Mitt Romney is just upset that the Democrats are not rolling over for him. The Republicans need to be quiet about running Hilary Clinton as V.P. because they know very well if she ended up on the ticket they will be gleefully slinging mud at her. Joe Biden doesn't come across as cold and calculating so he can cut them up in a delightful non-malicious way.

I don't know how to embed youtube videos but here's one I came across on HP (a site I know I need to stop visiting) where Mitt Romney accuses Barack Obama of a war on religion:

I felt all warm and fuzzy inside when i saw the dead pope and read that Lech Walesa endorses that message. I mean now it's all perfectly clear....

A SuperPAC that supports President Civility released the most disgusting ad in political history, effectively blaming Governor Romney for a woman's death:

While I find the ad on the deceptive side, even though the man in the ad stands by it, I don't find it the most disgusting. I cannot think of an ad to fit that description because I usually just see the ads as misleading. I don't recall whether the McCain has a black baby was an ad but whatever it was disgusting fits the bill for that, imo.

The thing is that the common man thinks of him as being 100% black. Certainly, the black community is just as enthused about his candidacy as if he had two black parents. The only way a dark-skinned person could ever become president was to combine the intense loyalty of urban blacks with a proven track record of support in the white community as well. Obama is thus not the only person who could do this: Doug Wilder had these same type of skills, and Cory Booker attracts a lot of white support as well. (In fact, if Booker got the Democratic nomination, his charisma combined with his stellar record as mayor would win him the presidency. But, I am not so sure he could get the nomination, since he refused to demonize Bain.) To the best of my knowledge, neither Wilder nor Booker is half white.

I personally abhor the designation of community to a group of people who do not all live in the same neighborhood. I know you didn't come up with it but it's silly for an entire segment of the population to refer to themselves and to be referred to as a community since the only reason they are being lumped together is race-based and for no other reason than that. They are Americans who happen to be black and all of them aren't in love with Barack Obama either. Morgan Freeman recently referred to him as the first biracial president which is accurate unless one of the other presidents happened to be. If it weren't for the racist one-drop rule then black Americans would not have been in a position to become the gatekeepers. I'll abandon this for now in favor of this:

I never thought Romney would win. But there is a definite double standard: as you pointed out, Romney's religion is a big negative for him, but--if/when he loses--few people will say anti-Mormon prejudice is what caused Romney to lose. If Obama loses, there will be tons of cries that his loss was due to "racism."

The fact that there are Republicans who are unhappy that Mitt Romney is Mormon has already been used to explain his previous failed attempts to get the Republican nomination and has already been mentioned as a problem for him this time around. Yesterday I watched a show with a liberal agenda and there were leaked memos making reference to this.

We happen to live in a country where racism trumps discrimination on the basis of religion. In fact the only religious discrimination likely to gain attention is if the perceived victim is a Muslim.

If Romney loses are we even going to be certain that the majority of the people who voted against him did so because they actually knew he was a Mormon amd were dead set against it. The racial prejudice isn't so hard to discern. It's part of a corner stone of the Republican primaries. Accusing McCain of having a black baby to ensure that racist white voters would steer clear of him. Newt Gingrich boasting about going to the NAACP and telling them "African-Americans" essentially shouldn't get free money of the backs of hard working white Americans. Mitt Romney's not so coded language about how foreign and un-American Barack Obama's policies are. His plan to restore Anglo-Saxon relations which went belly up. And now his opposition to the welfare waiver that he favored when he was governor and his attempt to take a page out of Newt Gingrich's book and in fact using him as a surrogate to try to pretend that welfare is doing more harm to this nation than corporate greed. Those candidates only mention black people to agitate racists who they hope will run out to the polls and vote for them and in turn those ignorant people get nothing because they will never see them as anything but a guaranteed vote.

http://www.huffingto...ics&ir=Politics

I hope the party continues to let this garbage spew.

I saw that piece yesterday but I didn't waste my time watching that rubbish. I thought it was a tad bit funny that they want to take self-hatred to a whole other level. The other slightly humorous piece is the attempt to link Barack Obama to slavery through his mother. Now I'm not saying that it is impossible for his mother to have any black ancestors but the original slave seems like a real stretch to me.

I keep getting distracted so I hope my response makes sense.

I really don't feel like arguing about this, but if anybody dared to suggest that it said a lot about Obama that he was content to attend the hateful Wright's church for 20 years, he would immediately be called a racist. If there are going to be attacks about one's religion, there should be consistency: it can't be unacceptable to attack one candidate's religion while OK to attack the other's. (Wales, I apologize if you felt I suggested that you were responsible for this double standard; however, I have seen other Obama supporters be hypocritical on this matter.)

I try not to employ double standards and when I do I will usually admit to it upfront but feel free to point it out to me if I do. One of the unfortunate consequences of America and race is that when b/w people are involved in anything deemed a controversy, people tend to reach for race as the reason. This is a major reason why the nation seems to have taken a step backwards on the issue--another being there is no incentive to progress because race is a highly profitable business for some (e.g, Al Sharpton, Pat Buchanan, Michael Eric Dyson, Rush Limbaugh) and it's politically beneficial to certain Republicans appealing to "real Americans." So yes, if you say something perceived as negative about Barack Obama then you'll either be labeled a racist or a sell-out.

My opinions of the candidates as it pertains to Christianity or their choice of a religion has nothing at all to do with whether or not I think they ought to hold a political office. Christianity and politics are two separate things as far as I am concerned. If they bring Christianity up then I will more than likely formulate an opinion on whatever they say.

I don't see the snippet of what Jeremiah Wright said as comparable to a church's actual doctrine. If you tell me that the church had a racially discrimiatory policy then I would agree but Jeremiah Wright is clearly not the church. Furthermore, I haven't heard 20 years of his sermons so I have no idea about what he was preaching during Barack Obama's 20 years there. But there is somewhat of a line between racialism (of which I am certain he is guilty) and racism. That said, I don't see Barack Obama in any better light than Mitt Romney when it comes to his professed Christianity either.

I hope you don't mind me asking this, but given your reservations about the Mormon Church, do you believe that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should give up his very powerful leadership position (to another Democrat)? (It is alright if you do not want to answer this.)

Just because I wouldn't join the Mormon Church doesn't mean that I don't credit them with moving forward. I don't exclude Mitt Romney from being a viable candidate on the basis of his relgion (my issues with him are not about his being a Mormon it begun with his attitude towards the poor) so I won't do the same to Harry Reid. I don't know enough about him to have a real opinion on his leadership skills but he seems weak offhand. I do take issue with the Democrats for hypocritically allowing him to skate on that racialist statement he made about Barack Obama being able to communicate in the negro dialect. But that's a tricky one because I know there are black people who agree with him.

Well, Romney already addressed such concerns during his first run for the presidency with his "Faith in America" speech. According to Wikipedia:

Romney has no obligation to address the issue again, and doing so wouldn't satisfy bigots like Karger, anyway. He and like-minded people are convinced that it is dangerous for all Mormons (save Harry Reid) to hold public office because they will just blindly follow the "anti-gay" instructions of church leaders.

His word doesn't mean a thing as far as I can tell because he's wishy washy. I don't see him as a man of conviction but I don't think his religion is a factor because ultimately money is his God. I love a number of pop songs about money including Michael Jackson's but no matter what people want to pretend, money and Christianity do not go hand in hand. Mitt Romney should not have any issue at all with paying whatever taxes are required of him if he's a devout Christian and he should know that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven.

He may have pulled over and wept when he heard that his church was ending discrimination but the fact that he was content to attend a church that denied the priesthood to persons of African descent says a lot about him. But let's just celebrate the fact that Clint Eastwoond endorsed him. That ought to put him way over the top now.

It's sad to me that the choice is between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The latter is the better option in terms of international relations hands down. i'm not good with the domestic pandering. One segment of his speech last week to the Urban League reminded me of Billy Cosby's 2004 speech. Many books were written condemning Mr. Cosby. So far I've only seen one unhappy camper express her disappointment with it. So he created some useless African-American education initiative because what's going to help the kids is another group of adults sitting around talking about the problem. At least Bill Cosby suggested Hooked on Phonics. Teaching little kids that "they" is not a pronoun shoudln't be that hard but in America it is and in America we can pretend that it's some special language and mediocrity is a condition suffered by the only poor people in America because poverty is race conscious.

On a lighter note, the strip clubs are ready for the Republicans and the "coffee" memo has been sent.

After reading this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9424524/Mitt-Romney-would-restore-Anglo-Saxon-relations-between-Britain-and-America.html

I really wish Mitt Romney would stand somewhere in the middle of the West End (London) and make a speech about restoring "Anglo-Saxon" relations. In fact he should share this with the American public as well.

Mitt Romney would restore 'Anglo-Saxon' relations between Britain and America

Mitt Romney would restore "Anglo-Saxon" understanding to the special relationship between the US and Britain, and return Sir Winston Churchill's bust to the White House, according to advisers.

As the Republican presidential challenger accused Barack Obama of appeasing America's enemies in his first foreign policy speech of the US general election campaign, advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

You are preaching to the wrong crowd as most of aren't praising Perry's work here. Heck I didn't even know the hell this show you were referring to was

I'm not trying to preach. That's not my intention at all. I was just thinking out loud basically.

Now it's out of my system and I am sorry if I annoyed you.

I know it's a tv show but reality shows seem to be scripted to some extent. I'm not sure that it makes a difference because most of the praise I've read about Tyler Perry is that he "gets black women" and he tells "their storires" so even if this is him telling another story, I still believe if people are going to get mad about how black women are depicted on reality shows then it's not all that much different from complaining about black women being stereotyped in movies or scripted tv shows.

The reality for me is that people can choose what they want to watch so it's hypocritical to attack one show and not the other for doing essentially the same type of thing. Granted, VH1's shows do this on a regular basis but they seem to be equal opportunity in terms of women behaving badly. I recall Roland Martin complaining that this show had higher ratings than the NAACP Image Awards last year and how disappointing it was that black people would rather watch that than an awards show with the best that black people had to offer. Really....... I get when people say that others died for the right to ride in the front of the bus but what if the real prize is being able to make a choice? When is it okay to advocate personal responisbility?

I understand your point. The only reason I brought up Geithner is because he was appointed (and still remains employed) by Obama in spite of his tax problems, while Obama surrogates are attacking Romney over tax issues. (Thus, bringing up Geithner is meant to show Obama's own hypocrisy on these tax attacks. On the other hand, if I brought up Charlie Rangel as a counterpoint against attacks on Romney, it would be irrelevant, since Obama did not give him his job.)

Politics is a very nasty business and since I've grown up, it no longer fascinates me. The ideal start out fresh and ready to change the world and then they end up like Barack Obama. I can't stand his pandering but he seems to be able to pull off with a whole lot more style than Mitt Romney who simply appears to be a major flake blowing whichever way the wind is at the moment. I will begrudgingly give Barack Obama and his surrogates credit for being able to play at the same level the Republicans do. He seemingly tried to compromise with them on many levels only to be kicked in the face and for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to show how "tough" they are. I am sure they decided he'd be a complete pushover.

This is a very valid point. The only thing I can say in Romney's defense is that he is not one of the many Republicans who wears his religion on his sleeve (though he is very religious).

The way I see it, since Mitt Romney knows that the people he needs to embrace him are no fans of his religion, he's forced to not remind them. Apparently he's a hard pill for the so called "religious right" to swallow. The fact that Christians proudly segregate themselves is another thing altogether. I'm waiting for the label of the "true American Christian" to surface.

This is neither here nor there but I hope the people who are so outraged over this show are also bothered by Tyler Perry's For Better or Worse. A wife setting her husband's car with his clothes in it (Waiting to Exhale rip-off) on fire then antagonizing him while he's eating and attacking him with an iron cast skillet because he won't take the bait, isn't any better. I haven't heard about the online petitions or concern.

Geithner failed to pay his taxes on time, and that was illegal. We don't know if it is Romney is doing something illegal by holding some of his funds in offshore accounts (though we should be able to find out because he needs to release his tax returns). Unless you want to demand Geithner's resignation, it's hypocritical to trash Romney while letting Obama off the hook for having a tax fraud in one of the most important cabinet posts. (I'll say right now that there's no double standard on my part: Romney should drop out ASAP if he did anything illegal.)

We're on different planes concerning this topic.

My point is Timothy Geithner failing to pay his taxes on time is a more relatable issue than being so wealthy that you get to hide your money overseas so that you can avoid paying taxes on it.

Politicians seem to be generally hypocritical so I'm not at all moved by that. If we start opening the doors on all the politicians in D.C., we will find plenty of questionable financial practices so finger pointing beyond the two primary candidates could become quite messy.

You can call me hypocritical for seeing a difference in a man who is not running for President, failing to pay his taxes on time and a man running for President, who proclaims love for his country and who probably sees himself as a "real American," hiding his money in Swiss bank accounts to avoid the great American tax system. At least the IRS can make one man pay. The other has hidden his treasure from them altogether (and I am no fan of taxes but I would never hide my money to avoid them nor do I desire to have more money than I could ever spend). My issue with the government has nothing to do with paying taxes to help fellow citizens, it's the inefficiency of certain governmental agencies and frivolous waste that could have been used to help citizens in need instead of fueling some greedy official's personal vehicle, et al.

What's hypocritical to me is the fact that certain politicians will label themselves as Christians to appeal to "lost soul" voters but money is really their God. The Bible clearly states that you cannot serve two masters.

Unless Timothy Geithner did not pay his taxes at all then I don't see the point of bringing him up. It's irresponsible of him, especially in his position but it's nothing to which a segment of the voting population won't be able to relate.

A significant number of the voting population cannot relate to Mitt Romney in terms of his wealth. He'd seem ridiculous whining about the IRS having to go after TG when it's not going to change the fact that he's got foreign tax shelters. It looks terrible someone to claim he loves America so much that he wants to be the President, yet he's trying to minimize the amount of taxes he pays by sending his money outside of America.

If he does end up releasing more tax returns then he'd be better off not trying to drag anyone else into it. How did it work out for him when he tried to drag John Kerry's wife into it? Last I checked, she wasn't running for President and had no obligation to release her tax returns. No one should say a word about his precious Ann but John Kerry's wife is fair game. John Kerry's not even his opponent. His response to those who bring up his dad releasing 12 years of returns is to be a big baby.

I'm not a fan of the Democrats but the Republicans do a good job of making the Democrats look reasonable and sane. It's great that John McCain stands up against some of the insanity but the fact that it persists is not a good look for the Republicans. The Democrats have their spaced out Nancy Pelosi but the Republicans have weeping John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, crazy Michelle Bachman, Alan West and the list goes on.

Right now I'm guessing that Mitt Romney is the problem and not his advisers. Maybe he gets some bad advice but the tax return business seems to be his decision. They can't make him produce them if he doesn't want to do it. He seems to think that everyone is so dumb that he can ease on into the White House but he's underestimating appeal and he lacks that big time. He's patronizing in a way that's costly to him.

It's kind of sad that the Republicans choose to go this route.

I can't count how many times I've heard that George Romney released 12 years of returns when he ran for President. I found it puzzling that he ran considering he was born in Mexico. He subsequently dropped out, possibly to avoid that as an issue.

The Romneys are pretty good at making criticism of them all inclusive. When Hilary Rosen correctly pointed out that Ann Romney had never had a 9-5 job (and I consider motherhood real work but not a job), Ann Romney claimed it was an attack on all mothers and people went along with it. Now, Mitt Romney claims that Barack Obama was attacking Steve Jobs and all these other men who are not Mitt Romney and had nothing to do with what was said. They're both awfully whiney. Maybe they should watch how many party members are swiping and Mitt Romney and making it clear that they really don't like him either. All that's missing from this show would be a mutiny at the RNC.

Once again we learn that Barack Obama was born in the foreign nation of Hawaii where he was smoking stuff and he's gasp un-American. John Sununu, on the other hand, was born in the great American state of Havana.

Mitt Romney is already not very likeable. He should lay off the coded "un-American" label. He's really going to help turn Barack Obama into a sympathetic figure.

Insanity seems to have taken a bigger hold on the Republicans lately.

Mitt Romney has no choice but to get the far right groups the pro-life VP candidate that they find acceptable.

There doesn't seem to be any real enthusiasm for him at all.

He can benefit from the Republican's anti-Obama sentiment since they seem to care more about getting rid of Barack Obama than they do about Mitt Romney, and this is an understatement.

He can also benefit from voter apathy and of course, the voter I.D. laws that they cooked up for him.

His people do risk riling up the apathetic though.

The whole C. Rice business is probably meant to distract the liberal media from their fixation on Bain. Since they're already viewing it as a ruse, it's unlikely to do him much good.

In terms of ugly racist strategy, it works - a lot of voters hate black people. Of course why he is still trying to firm up this voter base is something I don't get. I guess he knows how unpopular he is and the apathy he produces.

Some of the analysts on MSNBC suggested prior to and continue to suggest that his appearance is about his white voters. He supposedly showed them that he's not afraid to stand up to black people by referring to the AHCA as "Obamacare."

I think they may be reading too much into it. He's just following today's political handbook in terms of showing up at certain events. He's not going to be any more at home there than he seems to be at most places since being around people in general seems to take him way out of his comfort zone.

I'm still trying to figure out why he even wants to be President. He doesn't appear to be an idealist nor does he seem to be politically savvy. It's almost as if he has some list that says he should accomplish something his father didn't and he's going to just keep trying until he does.

He's going to be a constant reminder of how terrible the Republican party is at finding Presidential candidates. They're pretty lucky that George and Barbara gave them two sons and the Democrats mess up as well. They're batting 1000 in the guys we don't really like category. John McCain and now the reject of that last bunch. The only fire they can generate is the "kill Obama" fire and it's laughable that Ann Romney was whining about "kill Mitt' considering her party only really cares about "kill Obama" and nothing about her precious Mitt.

The sad part about ESPN's monopoly on sports is how they overhype events and athletes.

Andy Murray is not all that. The entire nation wasn't rooting for him.....the entire Wimbledon crowd wasn't even rooting for him.

They can just be glad that a bloke from Liverpool won in doubles. Maybe one day they'll have a really great tennis star. I wouldn't pin my hopes on Andy Murray at all.

Jo-Wilfred Tsonga should slap himself for "fearing" Murray and worst of all, publicly saying so. Some things should be kept to oneself.

I watched Sunday without rooting for either. The sad story of Andy Murray's home town didn't make me want to root for him.

I'm no fan of Roger Federer's but I can appreciate his achievements but greatest ever.....?

That's not even like John McEnroe calling Serena Williams the greatest women's player ever. I don't know about that but there is no doubt about her serve when it's on.

American tennis wouldn't even be a blip on the radar if it weren't for Serena and Venus, no matter who doesn't like them. They've kept America with champions. The men are still off by the wayside.

The Cable News Media is the one who blew this all over the place. Whoever said "let's report whatever crap we can to fill up the 24hr cycle." A guy on a jet sky. What's next? oh yes. Tom and Katie. No wonder CNN and MSNBC during the day really stinks.

CNN has basically lost its way. MSNBC is similar to ESPN when it comes to their shows. They all beat you down with the same topics on just about every show.

I'll watch MSNBC because it's way more tolerable than Fox News for me. I don't think I can watch an entire hour of any of their shows though because it's like rinse and repeat. Lawrence O'Donnell irritates me when he gets on his "I'm going to educate you about religion" kick but I find him over the top anyway. Between him and Martin Bashir's total adoration of Barack Obama,,,,,

Anyway, the jet ski saga reminds me of the day Hilary Rosen dared to say that Ann Romney didn't know what it was like to work and raise kids. I knew that she meant leave the house and go to a job and that she wasn't putting down motherhood but to hear the idiotic media tell the tale was surreal. I was certain for that week to follow that I was in an alternative universe where all the dumb people had taken over. Sadly, that universe still exists to some degree.

At least they're not still milking that. Ever since I saw the clip of Wolf Blitzer insisting that Hilary Rosen apologize, I find it difficult to listen to him say anything at all. I could barely take many of those "journalists" seriously in the first place so this sort of thing only makes it worse.

I know we live in an age where everyone on television is a celebrity, but I honestly don't need to know the personal opinions or business of the people reading the news. And I don't need to hear all the quotes from twitter. I feel sorry for this social media generation because they will never know what real news is. That ship sailed.

The jet skiing isn't a bad thing. I don't think people should find that problematic but we live in a society where people can be "made" to resent just about anything whether they actually care about it or not.

The offshore accounts are a problem. No matter how you cut and slice it, it seems very odd that someone who wants to preside over a nation would have his money in other countries.

Max,

I am too lazy to go back and check on this so forgive me if I'm wrong but I believe I read that you took issue with the NAACP not saying anything about voter fraud regarding Charles Rangel. His opponent is Dominican. It might interest you to know that Charles Rangel's father was a Puerto Rican immigrant so I guess he can also claim to be a black and Hispanic. I know that doesn't change whatever your issue is though.

If we're absolutely honest then aren't we all a little racist or racialist in some way? Once the concept of race is introduced to us, it's hard to say that it does not shape our opiinions of each other in some fashion.

Look how easily we lump people into categories as if they are all the same people simply because they have race or nationality in common. Latinos are people of various races and various nationalities. In politics they are referred to as one monoloithic group despite the fact they are not. Cuba, Mexico, and the Dominican, for example, do not have the same traditions and food associated with them but they're discussed as one united group of people despite the differences.

Asians are lumped together as if Japan and China are the exact same country.

People easily disregard the fact that a black man from Ethiopia is not the same person as a black man from America.

Race discussions are very rarely logical. They tend to be emotional and people generally enter into those discussions with preconceived notions and in a defensive mode.

People tend to react to what they think someone else is thinking (whether they've read the person right or not) and the other person in turn reacts defensively. Once you've set up the antagonism, there is no middle ground.

When a person is accused of racism, if he doesn't defend himself then aha, that proves he is a racist. But if he defends himself or does it too much, then that proves he's a racist as well. Once you're labeled a racist then you might as well throw your hands up and let the label stick because there's no way around it.

Race isn't complicated. People complicae it by trying to intellectualize an idiotic exclusionary classification.

Once upon a time, the southern segregation laws put every black person who traveled to the south in the same boat in America. Thoughts cannot be legislated. Outside of race, black Americans don't all have any singular bond of which I am aware. Everyone isn't poor, undeducated and living in the ghetto. Everyone isn't running from the police and on crack. Everyone isn't aspiring to be in the NBA or a rapper. Pseudo-black leaders contribute just as much to perpetuating this false image of the entire black American population as white radical conservatives do. Two races of men on the opposite side of the fence achieving the same goal. When Bill Cosby stood up to try to encourage those who fit the shoes, so to speak, to use correct grammar and get educated, he was attacked by the pseudo-intellectuals who were more concerned about public image than addressing any real issues. Now they can make a career out of appearing on shows as analysts so the problems need never go away.

My ranting means nothing to anyone but me. I would ask that when a person comes into what appears to be a loaded topic, that he/she considers what baggage he/she is bringing into that discussion.

We should all try to be honest about our parts in inflaiming certain topics and that includes us dragging our baggage into other threads. And my intention is not to pick on anyone so please don't read anything other than my very simple statement.

In the interest of full disclosure, there is one topic which gets me bent and that is when a GH soap character to which I have no particular affinity gets labeled in what I see as a derragotary manner. I contend that she's a victim of poor writing and blind hate. Other than that, I am all about harmony.

Wales, thank you so much for your kind response. I'm certainly culpable of adding to the political vitriol, and I should be inspired by you take the high road.

I don't know all that much about Villaraigosa, but he has always come across as a phony to me. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he was elected Governor of California in 2018.

Considering that the special California voters brought back Jerry Brown, I cannot rule out AV but maybe Gavin Newsome wants to be next. He seems to be popping up on cable TV more and he's got a new show on Current.

Antonio Villaraigosa first put me off when he manipulated the misguided students who ditched school to protest immigration laws and adversely affected downtown traffic. I should probably be more compassionate about traffic and I am working on that. Anyway, immigration is a federal issue so they should have been marching in front of the INS building which is blocks away from City Hall. He saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation and invited some of them into City Hall for the cameras, knowing full well that he has nothing at all to do with immigration laws.

I also do not like how his last name is a combination of his name Villa and his ex-wife's name Raigosa. That must sting her family a lot since he cheated on her and public adultery adds a layer of embarassment to an affair.

Wales, I've never pretended that I don't have disdain for this man. What I take issue with is the suggestion (made by Roman and Ann) that I despise the man because of the color of his skin. In fact, his policies aren't even the main reason why I despise him. Instead, it's because he masquerades as somebody who is honorable and doesn't play politics, all the while living the high life amongst the elite.

I know you've never pretended to like him. I'm no fan of his. I cannot even think of a politician off the top of my head that I actually find decent but I guess I'm jaded right now.

What I try not to do though, is hate because it won't get me where I want to go.

The politician who turns my stomach the most right now is the mayor of Los Angeles. Antonio Villaraigosa. He's all kinds of disgusting but he's not worthy of any of my emotions.

I want to comment on the names without quoting anyone.

Willard is Mitt Romney's real name is it not? I can understand why he would go with Mitt instead of Willard because it sounds like the name of a pet. But then Mitt sounds like gloves but it works in a Biff kind of way and is preferable, imo, to Willard but he could definitely make Willard work for him.

Barry, on the other hand, is not Barack Obama's real name. It's one of those things you let people call you before you stand up and take pride in your real name....like when people call Susan Susie and then one day Susan feels grown up and starts telling people to stop calling her Susie because she's not a little girl anymore.

Unless a person is in Barack Obama's inner-circle or he's said that he prefers to be called Barry then I think it's disrespectful to call him Barry. I know people called George W. Bush, W.. I prefer to call Presidents by their first and last names or their last names, but I avoid first names only.

Whenever I read or hear Barack Obama referred to as Barry, it indicates a special level of disdain.

Mitt Romney's not the President so calling him Willard cannot even compare to Barry, but Barack would be a more applicable comparison.