T1B

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrmzl11LqiI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WTF kind of take is this by Mrs. O??

If ... black man ... barack is shot going to the gas station, guess what?
He's prolly gettin' shot by ... another ... black man.

Stats overwhelmingly demonstrate this FACT.

I'm not one to go to the race card, but I don't like the vibe coming off of her ... at all.

Black guys, in good neighborhoods, don't get picked off going to the gas station.
And if they DO, it sure as hell is an exception to the rule if it is whitey who squeezes the trigger.
It just doesn't go down that way ... overwhelmingly.

If it's dangerous for darkies out there, Ms O, it's because of darkies.

Your 'as a black man' BS doesn't fly, asshole.


werd

B-

I've seen better work, 'tart.

Tart,

I get the same feeling from her. Bad vibe. It feels like she's hiding a "it's because I'm black" agenda under neath the smiles and waves, but that agenda will come out in full force if he gets elected

Hell, I probably have a greater possibility of being shot going to the gas station because I'm NOT Black.

poptart wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrmzl11LqiI

WTF kind of take is this by Mrs. O??

If ... black man ... barack is shot going to the gas station, guess what?
He's prolly gettin' shot by ... another ... black man.

Stats overwhelmingly demonstrate this FACT.

Did she say otherwise? I must have missed that part.

mvscal wrote:Her racist implication is crystal clear.

Maybe to a hyper paranoid moron.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Her racist implication is crystal clear.

Maybe to a hyper paranoid moron.

But not, apparently, to a raving moonbat

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Her racist implication is crystal clear.

Maybe to a hyper paranoid moron.

Oh come on now, Bsmack. She said "The realities are Barack, as a black man could get shot going to the gas station."

Why is Barack more susceptible to getting shot than someone else? JUST because he's black? Why is that? Why are white guys not just as susceptible to be shot, and why does color even play a role in gun violence?

If she had implicated her own race as potential shooters, then I'd agree, but she didn't, and wouldn't, because it might shift the black vote away from Barack.

You can't possibly NOT see her race card implication in that statement. It was a patently ignorant thing to say, and has no basis in fact as stated.

Onogga needed to put a muzzle on that bitch a couple of months ago.

And he needed to hire a campaign manager with some brains.

Her perception versus reality isn't on the same planet. The "as a black man" racist overtones are based on some vast white conspiracy to keep a brother down. Reality says that's it's an incredibly small minority of white men that have that agenda. But it takes a majority of everyone, including white men, to get elected president.

What a patently offensive comment. Sure, the interviewer set her up for it, but she should know better. She will definitely be his undoing.


Memo to Michelle Obama from a White Man -- don't you worry about me busting a cap in your old man. Worry about winning an election. Onogga sucks huge dick, but believe me, I won't be up in arms over it. But if that bottom of the barrel traitorous piece of shit McCain gets elected, I might just be tempted to start loading up the sniper rifles.

There's been some FUCKED UP elections in my life, but this one takes the prize. Good thing you moronic tards don't want to "waste your vote" on someone who isn't a motherfucking thief.


The fact you stand for this shit makes you fucking idiots.

What the fuck do you mean "YOU"? last I checked the U & L was still inside the US border. You're just as fucked as the rest of us, no matter how or even if you vote.

Mister Bushice wrote:You're just as fucked as the rest of us, no matter how or even if you vote.

Thanks for proving my point, you major fucking retard.


"We're fucked."


There were plenty of other options on the table, but you choseto stick to the two-party system that has fucked you your whole life.

And how do YOU tards justify supporting your own demise?

With "I didn't want to waste my vote."


You truly did just prove my point.

Dinsdale wrote:There's been some FUCKED UP elections in my life, but this one takes the prize

I share your disgust, but it's really not much different than '00 or '04.

Bush just happened to dupe a lot of people into thinking he was a real conservative ... sort of.
But instead he's a HUGE government open border bumblefuck.

McCain is Bush.
Obama and Clinton are, for all intents and purposes, Kerry and Gore.

Same ol'.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:You're just as fucked as the rest of us, no matter how or even if you vote.

Thanks for proving my point, you major fucking retard.


"We're fucked."


There were plenty of other options on the table, but you choseto stick to the two-party system that has fucked you your whole life.

And how do YOU tards justify supporting your own demise?

With "I didn't want to waste my vote."


You truly did just prove my point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't "choose" to stick to the two party system, I've railed against it for years. I've voted outside of the two parties more often than in, so don't give ME that shit.

But if you are SO delusional to think that either the dems or the repubs are going to ALLOW a third party to step in and compete on a level plain with them, YOU are the tard. They have Washington locked down, and they can even legally manage to exclude third party candidates from major debates by instituting rules designed BY THEMSELVES to make certain outside candidates won't qualify.

Short of a revolution or a new party that truly captures the peoples hearts, (the libertarians and the green party will never amount to shit because they can never manage to field a candidate that meets those requirements) We are stuck with these bozos, because they have enough hardliners that believe in them that a few hundred thousand votes scattered among 2 or 3 other better candidate options are nothing but piss in a rainstorm.

So go ahead and write in Ron Paul, but don't ever be so stupid as to count me among the camp followers of either of the two major parties again.

poptart wrote: McCain is Bush.

I think McCain is Reagan. Slightly less charismatic, but still...

McCain '08

Mister Bushice wrote: What the fuck are you talking about?

What else.

He's smart. The rest of us are stupid. Haven't you gotten used to Dinsdale's act by now ?

By his question to Mrs O, Steve Croft was trolling for a racially wack reply from her.
She didn't disappoint.

A balck woman in her position (as p0tential first lady) could have done herself proud by not taking that obvious bait, and by answering that any person seeking a very high office runs the risk of assassination.

Last I checked the Kennedy's, Reagan and Lincoln, for example, were all white folk.

She made a complete fool of herself.

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Her racist implication is crystal clear.

Maybe to a hyper paranoid moron.

Oh come on now, Bsmack. She said "The realities are Barack, as a black man could get shot going to the gas station."

It is a statistical fact that black men are more likely to fall prey to gun violence than people from other racial groups. Now, should she have fleshed out her answer so that paranoid nut jobs don't take it as a "racial" answer? I suppose so. But I sure as hell ain't changing who I vote for because of her answer.

Poor folks and folks of lesser education levels are the people who are gunned down at a HIGH rate in America.

Her old man isn't included.

mvscal,

The contention is this. Black folks don't own the ships, don't own the trucks, and don't have the working capital to get the drugs into the city. White men do.

So white men introduce the product, get black folks to sell the product, reap the profit from the product AND THEN - criminalize the possession and distribution of the product. Take the money made off drug sales and invest in prisons and rehabs. Make more money. Blacks are targetted specifically.


Didn't you see the "Godfather" ?

Tom In VA wrote:mvscal,

The contention is this. Black folks don't own the ships, don't own the trucks, and don't have the working capital to get the drugs into the city. White men do.

So white men introduce the product, get black folks to sell the product, reap the profit from the product AND THEN - criminalize the possession and distribution of the product. Take the money made off drug sales and invest in prisons and rehabs. Make more money. Blacks are targetted specifically.


Didn't you see the "Godfather" ?

I didn't realize the godfather was from Columbia, or that wiseguys tunneled under the US / Mexican border to smuggle drugs in from Italy and the far east.

But I seriously doubt there are a ton of white people in Compton selling drugs. There are a hell of a lot of pimped out Lincoln Navigators with well dressed Black dudes at the wheel driving through poor black neighborhoods there, and in Oakland, and they's always on the phone.

I guess they's visiting the ole homestead on a vacation from their jobs at Goldman Sachs?

Mister Bushice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:mvscal,

The contention is this. Black folks don't own the ships, don't own the trucks, and don't have the working capital to get the drugs into the city. White men do.

So white men introduce the product, get black folks to sell the product, reap the profit from the product AND THEN - criminalize the possession and distribution of the product. Take the money made off drug sales and invest in prisons and rehabs. Make more money. Blacks are targetted specifically.


Didn't you see the "Godfather" ?

I didn't realize the godfather was from Columbia, or that wiseguys tunneled under the US / Mexican border to smuggle drugs in from Italy and the far east.

But I seriously doubt there are a ton of white people in Compton selling drugs. There are a hell of a lot of pimped out Lincoln Navigators with well dressed Black dudes at the wheel driving through poor black neighborhoods there, and in Oakland, and they's always on the phone.

I guess they's visiting the ole homestead on a vacation from their jobs at Goldman Sachs?

It was a reference to the scene in the Godfather where Corleone finally acquiesced to including drug sales in operations. The compromise was that they would focus on black areas, because "they're animals" or something.

Of course the financial backers of the operation and "executive" level white folks won't be caught dead anywhere near the actual operation. Plausible deniability.

The select few from "the hood" that make it and get to show off "bling" is all part of the recruitment enterprise.

You need to brush up on the conspiracy circuit. BTW: Actually referring to Compton and LA in general, many of the indictments against the CIA, financing drug operations in order to finance other operations with the profits come from non other - than a former LA Cop.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This may be a surprise to you, Tom, but the Corleone family wasn't real and The Godfather was fiction

The tooth fairy was fiction as well.

Sorry, I know. Another dream - crushed.

Cuda wrote:This may be a surprise to you, Tom, but the Corleone family wasn't real and The Godfather was fiction

Color me shocked. I mean really, Marlon Brando really wasn't a Don ?



C'mon Cuda, I know that shit was "fiction" but it was "fiction" based on perceived fact. It's not the first time somebody, somewhere, has to tried to place blame for the plight of inner city folks on the Mafia, the CIA, and anyone and everyone else BUT the people in the inner city.

Tom In VA wrote:it was "fiction" based on perceived fact. It's not the first time somebody, somewhere, has to tried to place blame for the plight of inner city folks on the Mafia, the CIA, and anyone and everyone else BUT the people in the inner city.

Fiction based on perceived fact. "Perceived" being the operative word.

Tom, when I was young - and I'm talking from about the age of 14 years old - I had access to every type of drug there was, from alcohol to hallucinogenics, pot to cocaine. I also had the money to buy most of it, if I chose to.

Did I try some of it? Most certainly. Did I become a dealer or an addict? Most certainly not.
Well, except maybe for beer. Still addicted to that. :)

Did white people I know become addicted? Yep. Two white dudes in my high school od'ed on heroine before they were 21. One of my close friends from HS STILL smokes pot regularly, going on 30 years now.

I CHOSE not to become an abuser of illegal drugs, despite it being just as available in my white upper middle class neighborhood. Hell, I probably had access to better stuff that what you'd get in the hood, too.

So this "The white man has forced the black man into a cycle of drug abuse, violence and the resulting poverty" is bullshit. Everyone makes choices. People in black communities weren't tied down and had needles stuck in their arms, powder forced up their nose, or pills shoved down their throats.

Bushice, thanks for the lecture.

Just because I provide information, doesn't mean I am a proponent of said information. Truth be told, I haven't the slightest clue as to the true nature of the problem. I do know one thing; If people stop choosing to do drugs, stop behaving irresponsibly, and get their shit together - it wouldn't matter where the drugs came from or how they got there. Am I clear ?

I read, research, and bring forth some of the information I find to engage in discourse and pass the time here. My reading of Ruppert started right after 9-11. The guys makes some compelling arguments. I'm not saying I buy into them; but he was a Cop in LA so as far as experience goes he has vast more knowledge and experience in this area than I do.

Would it surprise me ? No it would not, to be honest with you. Am I saying "This is the way it is .. ", no I am not. It's just that some people have siezed upon these "theories" in order to back up claims of "white men keeping the brother down". This is the kind of rhetoric that goes on in churches like Wright's and the kind of shit Farakhan and his followerers throw around.

My take: The individual is responsible for the choices that individual takes. If "gangbanging" and drug dealing are the way you choose - then as long as it's illegal - if you're caught - there's consequences to pay. Likewise as long as there's another brother competing for territory in your area, chances are a gang war will break out and people will get killed.

Mobs of all ethnicities have faced this. From the wops, micks, hebs, and so on. Currently the situation is blacks, russians, asians, and latinos. It's not all that different than what's transpired before.

Save for the "victimization" theories, I guess.

Tom In VA wrote: hebs,

HEEBS, dumbass, H-E-E-B-S

Cuda wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: hebs,

HEEBS, dumbass, H-E-E-B-S

I would also accept kinky-haired, hook nosed devils.
But hey, let's not argue semantics. That would be anti-semantic.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:You're just as fucked as the rest of us, no matter how or even if you vote.

Thanks for proving my point, you major fucking retard.


"We're fucked."


There were plenty of other options on the table, but you choseto stick to the two-party system that has fucked you your whole life.

And how do YOU tards justify supporting your own demise?

With "I didn't want to waste my vote."


You truly did just prove my point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't "choose" to stick to the two party system, I've railed against it for years. I've voted outside of the two parties more often than in, so don't give ME that shit.

But if you are SO delusional to think that either the dems or the repubs are going to ALLOW a third party to step in and compete on a level plain with them, YOU are the tard. They have Washington locked down, and they can even legally manage to exclude third party candidates from major debates by instituting rules designed BY THEMSELVES to make certain outside candidates won't qualify.

Short of a revolution or a new party that truly captures the peoples hearts, (the libertarians and the green party will never amount to shit because they can never manage to field a candidate that meets those requirements) We are stuck with these bozos, because they have enough hardliners that believe in them that a few hundred thousand votes scattered among 2 or 3 other better candidate options are nothing but piss in a rainstorm.

Abolishing the Electoral College would be a good start. That at least would give a third party some realistic chance of establishing itself. But then again, that would require a Constitutional Amendment, so good luck with that.

So go ahead and write in Ron Paul, but don't ever be so stupid as to count me among the camp followers of either of the two major parties again.

Of course, Ron Paul is operating within the two-party system, this go-round anyway. And fwiw, he's a bigger nutjob even than McCain (or Bush, for that matter, although that's a really close call).

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Of course, Ron Paul is operating within the two-party system, this go-round anyway.

Operating within, being totally ignored by. Same thing.

Terry wrote:And fwiw, he's (Ron Paul) a bigger nutjob even than McCain (or Bush, for that matter, although that's a really close call).

His voting record is pretty much perfection in as far as following the thing he's sworn to uphold ... you know, that pesky United States Constitution.

Kooky shhhtuff, yeah.

In later news........




Roswell (GA) Beacon creates unintentional (?) firestorm with choice of graphic for cover page

DailyKos readers — Kos receives more than 1.3 million visits a day, according to sitemeter.com — were encouraged to contact the newspaper and its advertisers. By day's end, Holiday Inn announced it would no longer do business with the Beacon, though the paper's publisher, John Fredericks, said editorial decisions would not be influenced by "liberal blogger thuggery."

"Good, bad or ugly, we tell the truth," he said.

My concern is, why use that caption with the crosshairs? It's one thing to say he's in crosshairs, that's a generic turn of phrase. It's another thing entirely to accompany a crosshairs photo with a superlarge caption about 'law enforcement' 'bracing' for 'backlash'. I think the people who should be most offended by that cover are not Daily Kos readers, but residents of the state of Georgia in general. John Fredericks is trying to turn this on 'liberal blogger thuggery'.... but his paper did put out a cover which implies in large lettering that residents of the state of Georgia want Obama dead, and Georgia's law enforcement is working overtime to make sure that doesn't happen.

Why would Fredericks say that, of Georgians?

Risa wrote:In later news........




Roswell (GA) Beacon creates unintentional (?) firestorm with choice of graphic for cover page

DailyKos readers — Kos receives more than 1.3 million visits a day, according to sitemeter.com — were encouraged to contact the newspaper and its advertisers. By day's end, Holiday Inn announced it would no longer do business with the Beacon, though the paper's publisher, John Fredericks, said editorial decisions would not be influenced by "liberal blogger thuggery."

"Good, bad or ugly, we tell the truth," he said.

My concern is, why use that caption with the crosshairs? It's one thing to say he's in crosshairs, that's a generic turn of phrase. It's another thing entirely to accompany a crosshairs photo with a superlarge caption about 'law enforcement' 'bracing' for 'backlash'. I think the people who should be most offended by that cover are not Daily Kos readers, but residents of the state of Georgia in general. John Fredericks is trying to turn this on 'liberal blogger thuggery'.... but his paper did put out a cover which implies in large lettering that residents of the state of Georgia want Obama dead, and Georgia's law enforcement is working overtime to make sure that doesn't happen.

Why would Fredericks say that, of Georgians?

John Fredericks wrote:"Good, bad or ugly, we tell the truth".

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:My concern is, why use that caption with the crosshairs?

To create the perception that those white people who do not support Onogga are violent, murderous racists.

You should know this.

The Beacon appears to be anti-Obama. You're saying that they're calling themselves violent racists?

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:My concern is, why use that caption with the crosshairs?

To create the perception that those white people who do not support Onogga are violent, murderous racists.

You should know this.

something about not seeing the forest for the trees

mvscal wrote:And what, exactly, do you base this "appearance" on? Certainly not the content of the editorial which is unavailable.

But go ahead and attempt to make a coherent point and detail why an article called "White Fright" with a picture of Odipshit in cross hairs must be an anti-Ofucktard paper.

Did you or did you not read the AJC article Risa posted?

...it's not over until I bail..just remember, Bobby Kennedy wasn't assassinated until sometime in June.

You try the electroshock yet, CM?

Cuda wrote:You try the electroshock yet, CM?

Huh?

Up the voltage, Goobs

Did you confuse ChargerMike with OCMike?