Drudge: Obama Describes Society Where White Majority Profits By Exploiting Black Americans

He sounds like a politician more than anything. I could honestly see Romney saying the same things given the same audience, just with an even worse accent.

Another distraction. We're $16T in debt, the drums of war are banging, the prez can detain/assassinate American citizens, our kids are getting molested at the airport, but THIS is what we're supposed to get outraged about. /vent

That sums it up.
 
He sounds like a politician more than anything. I could honestly see Romney saying the same things given the same audience, just with an even worse accent.

Another distraction. We're $16T in debt, the drums of war are banging, the prez can detain/assassinate American citizens, our kids are getting molested at the airport, but THIS is what we're supposed to get outraged about. /vent

Yes, you should be.

The president in engaging in the type of divisive politics Romney was knee-deep in with his now infamous "47%" remark, only Obama's comments were racial, which IMO is a much worse division to make. Nobody knows you are a moocher on sight, but you wear your race on your sleeve, so you cant deny or run from it, its touchier, more explosive.
 
Last edited:
The Right-Wing Alt-Media’s Self-Consuming Obsession with Race
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-right-wing-alt-medias-self-consuming-obsession-with-race/

It was about the Carlson-Drudge-Breitbart-Kurtz-D’Souza right’s certitude that Obama’s secretly seething black radicalism would be known to all if only the media would stop covering it up. This obsession bears all the hallmarks now of psychopathology. You need the right antennae — or maybe the right tooth fillings — to pick up on its signals. When Obama “talks black,” he is not merely pandering to a friendly audience — as, say, a Texan Republican might when speaking to fellow Southerners. He is “race-hustling.” When Obama mentions the legacy of slavery or segregation or urban poverty, he’s not taking conventionally liberal positions held by the Kennedys, LBJ, and the Clintons; he’s nursing a deeply felt personal grievance. When Obama talks about equality or income distribution, he is not simply a New Deal/Great Society Democrat; he’s a glorified inner-city rioter looting by other means.

This is hardly an original point — Ramesh Ponnuru and others have made it many times — but apparently it needs repeating: there is scarcely a position held by Obama, or an action taken by his administration, that cannot be explained by the fact that he’s a liberal Democrat. This dark and dank corner of the right can’t resist adding a superfluous layer of racialism to what should be an uncomplicated picture.

The lesson of last night’s embarrassing flop will no doubt be lost on them. They can’t stop.

Daily Caller Race Vid? Huh? What Part of 8 Percent Unemployment Don't Republicans Understand?
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/daily-caller-race-vid-huh-what-part-of-8

Whatever else you can say about Barack Obama before he beat John McCain four years ago, his actual presidency has been far, far worse than could have been predicted. Was his boyhood mentor "Frank" a secret communist? Did Bill Ayers write his books? Did young Barry harbor a soft spot for Franz Fanon and smoke dope like a Cheech & Chong extra? Did he get into Columbia despite being an adult illiterate raised in Kenya by Rosicrucians? Let's play along and say yes to all this and more.

So freaking what? Compare any and all of that to the grim landscape that Obama has presided over like a dime-store Ozymandias. The guy got just about everything he wanted - expanded auto bailout, mega-stimulus, health-care reform, troop surge in Afghanistan, a free pass to deport immigrants and raid legal-under-state-law pot dispensaries. And it hasn't worked. The best that the Obama administration can do to defend its objectively awful record - don't forget the inability to muscle a goddamn budget through the Democratic Senate or deliver a deficit under $1 trillion - is to say that it would have been even worse if McCain had been elected. That sort of counterfactual - and the insistence that it's alway George W. Bush's fault - is the last resort of a scoundrel. That was the essence of Clint Eastwood's bizarre but memorable appearance at the Republican National Convention: Obama hasn't gotten the job done. If anything, he's made things worse.

But the GOP must really be out of gas if a Republican-friendly platform like The Daily Caller is burning up even a few infinite pixels with what is ultimately a curious and irrelevant speech from 2007. Emphasizing what Obama was yapping about and his slangy patois (Obama slips into "an accent he almost never adopts in public") five years ago will not swing a single uncommited voter to the GOP column. But the piece's fixation on "racial solidarity" as some sort of secret key into Obama's mysterious ways may well scare alienate independents. Too many Republicans seem to be so on the hunt for the deep meaning of events that they can't stick to what is right in front of their faces. Even when what's in front of their faces might help them gain office. They remind me of JFK conspiracy buffs who insist that only a communist would have killed Kennedy and then wave away Lee Harvey Oswald from the heart of crime. Why are Republicans always sniffing around for the secret revelation that will - finally! - undo Obama when the terrible official record is hiding in plain sight?

Everyone in the country knows that Obama has been a failure (that's the essential acknowledgement of Samuel L. Jackson's sad-sack "Wake the F*ck Up!" video). All the Republicans needed to do to win in November was tie a bow around a vaguely plausible candidate and push him or her out on to the stage. All they had to do was produce someone who would hammer home the dismal failure of Obama's economic interventions, gesture a bit toward the Middle East and Central Asia where things are as messy as they've ever been, and promise to spend less and do less.

Alas, that task proved too difficult for the party of Lincoln and instead they nominated Mitt Romney, whose great political achievement during the few years he actually held elective office was...implementing the model for Obamacare. Who talks about needing more boats than the Navy had in 1917 and starting trade wars with Chinese "cheaters" and keeping the parts of Obamacare he "likes." And whose unconvincing spending plan is to ultimately limit spending to 20 percent of GDP or 2 percentage points higher than the average annual percentage.

There's a good chance that Mitt Romney may well win in November. But to the extent it's a contest, it's not the media's fault, or the Democrat's fault, or anyone else's fault but the Republicans and the person they picked as their standard-bearer. Sadly for the growing number of us who are neither Democrats nor Republicans, we will end up paying the freight for the major parties' failures.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting those two articles, Lucille. I would have missed them otherwise. +rep
 
Thanks for posting those two articles, Lucille. I would have missed them otherwise. +rep

The articles are awful! The first is only interesting for its audacity, and the article from Reason says essentially "Ignore this, theres so much more to criticize Obama on", seemingly oblivious to the fact that 8% unemployement and the litany of other bad news has been brought up over and over and he is still headed for another term.

And even when you use the supposedly PC criticisms, the timid types are still shushing you!

Theres just too many people covering for him, no matter what he says or does he is a saint to roughly half our population, and that frightens the bejesus out of about half of the remainder. That kind of reverence isnt how politicians in a republic ought to be treated, and that alone is the reason Im praying Romney wins.
 
Back
Top