The Hillary Slime Machine Strikes Again!Follow

Without a doubt.

In fact, it's quite fun to have a look at the blogs and comments from people reacting to these pictures. I'm not joking, this time, but 95% of the people that have found these pictures anything else than completely innocuous were...

Well, I'll let you find out for yourself. I don't wanna upset gabji again.

I don't get annoyed that they're made. I get annoyed that this apparently is the only thing people like you think about, day in and day out. No matter what the topic it's "How can I squeeze in a 'joke' about Republicans being racists into this?"...

What's annoying is that there's no way to respond. By always making this a "joke" you never have to defend or support your statements. Which would be perfectly dandy if it was just one internet forum. But it's not. It appears that this is the extent of discussion of US political party positions, period. Doesn't matter what happens, or what the facts are, or what each party has actually done. The "lefties" like yourself simply pile on jokes that assume as part of their punchline that Republicans are racist, bigoted, religious fundamentalists.


It's annoying because it appears that most people would rather learn the "joke" then the true history. It's annoying because it's exactly this sort of constant hammering of this false assumption in every single outlet possible that causes people to assume something as absurd as "Republicans were responsible for 200 years of slavery in the US" (yes. That's an actual statement made on this forum once).

Do we forget that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln? We ended slavery in this country. We fought for reconstruction in the South. We worked hard to get blacks equal rights and equal treatment in the south, while the Dems were busy passing Jim Crow laws. We were fielding black candidates to public office a hundred years before the Dems were. But magically, when it appears that nationwide public opinion wont allow them to continue their policies of oppression, the Dems suddenly shift tactics from direct oppression to oppression via racially targeted entitlement and suddenly they're the party of the minorities and Republicans are "racists".


I'm sorry, but this is a sore point for me. When people like you constantly repeat the same false assumptions over and over and over, and when I try to respond I'm told "It's just a joke. Grow a thicker skin!!!". That's not the point. Your "Joke" gets repeated so often that everyone assumes it's true.

Even you. Despite your claim that it's a jok, you do believe it's true, right?

Ask yourself why. Or is that too much for you to manage?



And yet. Instead of saying that, you instead choose to comment about Republicans being racist. It's almost like you feel like you must deflect the issue somehow. It's almost Pavlovian really...




Apparently, the Dems in Clintons camp. And apparently, the Dems they expected to influence to try to use this to beat Obama in the Democrat primary.

Obviously, members of the Clinton camp assumed and were counting on their Dem voters being racists. Get it?


What I don't get is how Republicans even get mentioned. Yet that's exactly what you did. Again. Ask yourself why you felt you had to do this?

BS... Which blogs?

I don't spend my time on blogs, so I randomly googled, and read the first right wing blog I could find

Sure. Comments about it. Most people saying that it's not his religion that matters, but the somewhat "vague" history and changes in story surrounding his religion and upbringing. Those are legitimate questions. I didn't find a single "raving lunatic right winger" on that page. One guy being sarcastic was as close at it came...

Do you actually read right wing blogs? Or are you just a liberal making assumptions about what Republicans say and think?

ya beat me to it. in short McCain told that loud mouth nut job to shove it were the sun does not shine.

Well. That's not the entirety of the question Joph. I certainly acknowledge that there are bigoted and racist people in this country and that some of them are Republican.

The bigger question is: "Why link Republicans to racism and bigotry in a thread about the Democrat staffers of a Democrat presidential candidate using tactics designed to appeal to racism and bigotry against their opponent for the Democrat nomination?".

See how the whole "Well, there's lots of bigots and they're mostly Republican" is a total non-sequitur? It smacks of desperate redirection of the issue at hand by someone who doesn't want to acknowledge that there are bigoted and racist Democrats too. Lots of them.




Er? So she didn't condemn it if it came "authorized" by hired and positioned staffers? I'll assume you just miswrote that and meant to say that she condemned anyone involved in her campaign who did something like that if they indeed did do such a thing. Which is still pretty mealy mouthed IMO. It leaves one with the impression that she's just doing spin control and not actually taking any position on the issue of using such things against him. Kinda like she's more upset that they got caught then anything else.


McCain's statement was far more clear. Far more direct. And far more substantiative. He's set a tone that is miles above Clinton on this issue...

Um... So what?

Again. The distinction between a local group and the members of a national campaign is relevant.

I'm pretty sure the bio of Senator Byrd trumps anything you could post Joph. This guy is the senior Democrat in Congress. He's a member of your party. He's a former member of the freaking KKK. What exactly is the excuse here? Where's the condemnation? When is your party going to toss him out for being a racist Joph?


Isn't that relevant? Isn't who we put into positions of power in our respective parties a bit more important then looking around at small local groups and clubs, labeling them based on which party they support, and then labeling the party itself "racist" as a result?

I think so...

Huh. I thought we were discussing racism vis a vis the presidental election. However...I await the same statements from the Tenn. Republican Party. Let me know when they get sent out, okay?

And since when is a state political party a "small group" or "club"?

there are just as many raciest and bigots that are dems, learn to live with that.

No, there ******* aren't. There also aren't "just as many" black racists as white ones. This idea that somehow arbitrarily equivocating everything is "fair" and "unbiased" is ********* There are more Republican's now who actively discriminate against people based on their gender or the color of their skin. In 1950 there were more Democrats that did. There are more Republicans that hate gays. In 1950 it was probably a tie. Things change, it's a continuum. It's almost never the case that there are ever "just as many" of anything on either side. Grow the **** up.

Yes. Which means that stuff put out by actual members of a campaign is relevant. Finding someone somewhere in another party with a similar position isn't.

The comment about Senator Byrd goes to the point of who a party picks as leaders Joph. Elected leaders. Cause presidents and Senators both have that in common. I'm comparing one elected democrat to another elected democrat who happens to also be running for president.

Certainly Democrat Senator Byrd and Democrat Senator Clinton have more in common then Clinton and some unnamed person writing a press release for a state party organization. You do see that, right?



Lol. When those folks are elected, it'll be more relevant. Um... But they did print corrections on their website with regard to the "muslim dress" caption. Whatever...


Again. Who you elect says more about your party then what one group of people working one state party does.



I'd wager that there are fewer people involved in decision making activities in the Tennessee Republican Party then there are at my Mom's local AKC. Sad? Maybe. But true nonetheless. They really are more like clubs. Essential to getting local movement going, but largely irrelevant in terms of national policy...

its the master flame bate once again showing ignorance.

Lol...


Yes Joph. Because Robin Smith, Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party, is so much more of an indicator of the position and agenda of the Republican party with regards to issues of race and ethnicity, then the most senior member of the Democrat party in the Senate (or in Congress as a whole) is to the Democrat party. Certainly, she's more significant then a guy who's only third in line of succession to the Presidency. We should be far more concerned about the influence she has on federal party policy then Senator Byrd...


Or Senator Clinton. You remember her. The one actually running for president? And the one who's campaign staffers dug up and passed around the photo we're all talking about here?

Oh... And just to respond directly to this:



To be fair though, the objective of their piece was not to say that Obama is/was Muslim and therefor to be afraid of him or something due to his race/religion/etc. The point of their release (which has been lost in all of this) was to highlight the number of organizations he's been a part of or from which he's received support that have strong anti-Semitic and/or anti-america agendas.

The picture was put into the article because it was released (from Clinton's people btw!) as a picture of Obama in a muslim outfit. What they were going for was that Obama seems perfectly willing to adopt clothes and ideology from groups that are traditionally anti-semitic/anti-american while appearing to be reluctant to adopt those that are traditionally pro-american (like wearing a flag lapel pin, putting his hand over his heart during the pledge, etc).


While I agree that those things are certainly prone to racist undertones, they are *also* legitimate issues to discuss. Not in a "OMG! Obama is a Muslim!!!" way, but in a "Does Barrack Obama really hold the same values, goals, and ideology held by most Americans?" kind of way. Sure. The picture is a bit over the top, but they weren't the ones who put the false "this is Obama in Muslim gear" caption on it. The Clinton camp did. You kinda can't blame a group of people gathering a list of questionable activities by Obama to toss that in, can you?

And again. The point isn't whether Obama is muslim or not, but the degree to which he's accepting of some of the less "western" aspects often held by the faith, and by many nations that have large Muslim populations. Things like degradation of women's rights, oppression of other faiths, and Sharia Law. Dunno. I think it's relevant. When we've got a candidate with so little actual history in terms of his politics at a federal/world level, I think that anything in his past becomes "fair game" in this context. Because we don't really know anything about his positions on a whole host of international issues that are pretty darn important right now.

I just think that labeling anyone who even broaches the subject a racist is a bit unfair. Especially since the context here was to look for signs of anti-semitism...