Members DRW50 Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 Racism is pretty commonplace in criticism of Obama. More than once I've gotten e-mails which compare Michelle Obama to Cheetah. A federal judge sent out an e-mail to people which said Obama's mother had sex with a dog. If Romney has a long record against gay rights, then I'd think he would be proud to be called a homophobe. He seems fine with working with a man who put up billboards attacking PBS for showing a pro-gay special. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scotty Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 LOL... Iowa Republican congressional candidate Dan Dolan gives speech to local Democrats after mixup The mixup occurred after the Republicans moved their convention, but neglected to notify Dolan Read more: http://www.nydailyne...7#ixzz1pJsEBaPE 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 And not commonplace. Love those who know every single thing going on with 365 million Americans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) I don't understand how commonplace means 365 million Americans. Of 365 million, many support Obama, many don't care. We weren't even talking about them. Of those who oppose Obama, I do think racial attacks are common in criticism of Obama. Not everyone bases their view of him on race, but many do. It has been a constant presence for his entire term, from the birther stuff, to the secret Muslim stuff, to "food stamp President," to the ugly e-mails and jokes and bumper stickers. Edited March 16, 2012 by CarlD2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 I was talking about them. Ok? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/rick-santorum-war-on-porn_n_1353383.html?ref=politics This will REALLY bring the jobs back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 Wow. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/kansas-redistricting-brenda-landwehr-primarily-caucasian_n_1349425.html?ref=politics 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 Sorry - I thought you were replying to me, since you quoted me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 Nope was agreeing with you Carl. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 LMAO....this guy needs to get laid by a man already....lol http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/porn-titans-not-worried-rick-santorum-banning-business-192050828.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 16, 2012 Members Share Posted March 16, 2012 The stupidity of all of this is that if people believe in abstinence only, then many who are trying to abstain will be drawn to porn. I think the next stap is that the true believers will also say, "No porn, and no masturbation." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scotty Posted March 17, 2012 Members Share Posted March 17, 2012 Oh Santorum, where's the (self) love? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ReddFoxx Posted March 17, 2012 Members Share Posted March 17, 2012 That's kind of how the cookie crumbles in politics. There are no free rides in election, so what if Democrats got another candidate, that is not equal to attacking a veteran's character. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted March 17, 2012 Members Share Posted March 17, 2012 That particular bumper sticker doesn't have to be commonplace because it has plenty of company: the birthers, the people who call Obama a Muslim, Joe Wilson screaming "You lie!" during the SOTU, Jan Brewer shaking her finger in the president's face like she was ordering him to bust up a chiffarobe, the insane Fox News meltsown when Common visited the White House...it all comes from the belief that the office of the President doesn't deserve respect as long as that uppity boy is in it. If decent conservatives really don't agree with stuff like this bumper sticker then why don't they stand up and renounce it? With all due respect Max, do you call out your fellow conservatives for their hate? Or do you just accept it and then turn around and blame liberals for thinking conservatives are racist? Decent, thinking, intelligent conservatives would serve their cause a lot better by publicly pushing back against the hate speech but they don't because in the end conservatives, care more about power than principles because in the end they know that all the ideals in the world mean nothing if you don't have the power to execute them. I only wish my fellow liberals would understand that concept. We'd get a lot more accomplished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Max Posted March 17, 2012 Members Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) I've already indicated how I feel about that racist bumper sticker. That birther s#it--which was a lot more common than racist bumper stickers--was really terrible. In addition to the racism and anti-Muslim sentiment involved, that movement deeply damaged the credibility of conservatives and gave the Democrats plenty of ammunition to suggest that virtually all conservatives were bigots who were opposed to Obama primarily because of racial prejudice. Actually, as despicable as those Cleland attacks were, they were not illegal. On the other hand, switching a candidate at the last minute was a direct violation of the existing election law in place (and was something that I don't believe was ever done before, aside from instances where a candidate died or became medically incapacitated). So, ONE COULD CERTAINLY ARGUE (DaytimeFan) that what happened in NJ in 2002 was even worse than what happened in GA that same year (since the former act was illegal, while the latter act was still legal, albeit highly immoral). (If Democrats wanted another candidate, then why didn't they pressure Torricelli to drop out before the deadline had passed? Or, why did they not advocate for a write-in campaign for Lautenberg, which would still have been legal?) Edited March 17, 2012 by Max 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.