LA Times redefines “raaaaacist”

raaaaacist

LA Times: satirical image of Michelle Obama based on Versailles painting is raaaaacist!. The LA Times, in panic mode, plays the highest race card in its apparently crappy hand. Turns out to be a joker. Pathetic.

This post was last modified on January 6, 2012

Bonfire of the Absurdities: After 35 year career writing software for IBM mainframes, am now self-employed contractor thinking of joining a union and striking for higher wages. Cured morbid fear of heights when I learned to look at them as lengths standing on end. Uncompromising in refusal to accept browser cookies. Amateur investor who has accumulated a small fortune in the market after starting out years ago with a large one. For recreation, I run, hike, kayak and play tennis but will not consider synchronized swimming under any circumstances.

View Comments (537)

  • Once again, my bitch, you are backpedaling. You attacked the source of the story without even checking on it. The story is totally legit and you, in your haste to defend a Muslim, went off on the tangent you accuse others of.
    ***************
    Is there anyone here who knows how to read? If so, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain to these goofballs that I never denied the incident had taken place. My point was that those who who brought it up here were (1) using a rabid right wing opinion piece/rant as a news source, (2) allowing said rant, together with their own prejudices, to control their reactions to the incident.

    Poopajoe, before you try to taunt others about how "legit" a story is, you'd best learn the difference between objective information, and a blatant attempt to manipulate the reactions of gullible readers. Because you keep falling into the same trap, every time you fancy you're winning debate points.

    • The point of the story did not change because the source he quoted was a "rabid right wing opinion piece/rant." The entire story was true, and reported accurately. So if you don't have a problem with the content, why do you have a problem with the source?

    • Holy crap! We get debate points?!?! Do we redeem them here or.....?

      I can't believe this friggin' thing is still going. Is there some kind of record of days we can keep Olivia blabbing that we can shoot for here? I am usually not in favor of baiting any one troll for this long, no matter how fun it is, but Olivia, you've got some serious staying power. It's too bad that persistence doesn't equal common sense.

      • am usually not in favor of baiting any one troll for this long, no matter how fun it is, but Olivia, you’ve got some serious staying power. It’s too bad that persistence doesn’t equal common sense.
        ****************
        Translation: "I can't refute any of the points you're making here, so I'll just conform to the crowd, and fling lame insults instead."

        • Translation: "My arguments are so weak that I have to keep using the same lame ass "translation" lines over and over again."

          Get some new material, you are getting boring.

      • Is there some kind of record of days we can keep Olivia blabbing that we can shoot for here?

        It's a record that keeps setting itself each day!
        My goal is to set a record for how many days we can get her to STFU!

    • That's one of my socialist plans StrinaM. That and gettin' the govt. of this country to realize they're not the high and mighties they think they are.
      HEY, the trolls could eat the pols!

      :D

  • One more time: THE OBAMAS DON”T WANT OR NEED YOU TO DEFEND THEM. They are grown up peopl in public life. They are well aware that some will not like them. Get over yourself!
    ***************
    Rose, you're not qualified to speak for the Obamas, or what they want or perceive.

    Regardless, as long as you and your buddies continue your dishonest and/or ill-informed attacks, I will challenge you on them. Not because the Obamas want or need me to do so, but because I choose to. Better get used to it, or learn to ignore those posts.

      • What was that Elton John song?…Oh yea, “The Bitch is back”….Olivia that would be you.
        ****************
        Thank you. It's been my experience that far righters label as "bitch" any woman who dares to express an unapproved viewpoint.

        I'll wear the label with pride, and continue to strive to be worthy of it. You, in turn, can continue to strive to be logic-free and fact challenged. ;)

        • It’s been my experience

          Once again, you show that your experience isn't worth shit!

          I’ll wear the label with pride, and continue to strive to be worthy of it.

          Poor, poor, delusional bitch! If you had a clue, you might be dangerous!

        • "You, in turn, can continue to strive to be logic-free and fact challenged."

          in short strive to be like you oevilia?

    • //Rose, you’re not qualified to speak for the Obamas, or what they want or perceive.//

      You are not qualified to speak for anyone either. Yet you do. You pretend to speak for the Obamas in their defense, you pretend to speak for blacks and other minorities, in general.

      So let's lose the BS here Olivia. You have no right to make judgments on anyone with your narrow minded focus and faulty logic.

      • You know who she does NOT speak for?

        Unborn babies. Odd given she champions "victims". But only the progressive sanctioned ones.

      • "You have no right to make judgments on anyone with your narrow minded focus and faulty logic."

        Ding ding ding! Hit that ol' nail right on the head. :)

  • Olivia, you've become redundant, saying the same thing over and over. Perhaps you think that endlessly repeating yourself somehow makes your words insightful or true.

    Meanwhile, we will DARE to critcize the Obamas (and your bigoted comments) as we see fit.

    Keep in touch.

  • Oevilia:
    I know you're talking about me and Notso
    *****************
    I'm talking about quite a few posters here, Robert.
    *****************
    , no matter how thinly veiled your allusion to us. However; you're deluded in your assessment that we're trotting out Jim Crow era Stereotypes. Rather we're speaking from experience utilizing idiomatic and colloquial devices to convey conversational points far and away above your ability to comprehend apparently.
    ****************
    "Experience" heavily colored by bigoted expectations, Robert. And egged on by AM talk radio hatemongers masquerading as political analysts.

    Sorry, but the accusations against Michelle Obama here are straight out of Jim Crow stereotypes, as is the perpetual outrage that she's affluent, well educated, admired and clearly enjoying her work as First Lady. How DARE she enjoy life! How DARE she do things that I can't afford to do! How DARE she express an opinion!

    Keep on trying to argue that the sky is really pink and 2 + 2 really equals 5, Robert. That kind of persistent spin might work on you, but a lot of people (myself included) see right through it.

    • “Experience” heavily colored by bigoted expectations, Robert.
      And egged on by AM talk radio hatemongers masquerading as political analysts."
      That's a bald faced lie, and I demand an apology!
      The fact that you've missed that I'm deaf shows how socially relevant YOU are.
      I get most of my news from Yahoo front page.
      I don't listen to radio.
      I read op-eds on both sides of the aisle, when I can stomach them.

      Frankly I'm unimpressed with any current Republican candidate, and you could rather address this truth vis-a-vis the current occupier in chief.
      "How DARE she do things that I can’t afford to do!"

      NOT because of racism or bigotry or whatever else you wish to trot out as your charger. If she truly believed in making sacrifices that family would NOT be jet-setting around the world on vacations!

      "Keep on trying to argue that the sky is really pink and 2 + 2 really equals 5, Robert. That kind of persistent spin might work on you, but a lot of people (myself included) see right through it."

      If you can cite an example, I'd be happy to answer your accusations.

      • Robert you know you are arguing with a brick right? No matter what you say it gives you the same five year old response.."I know you are but what am I?"....If anyone here listens to Rush it would be Oblivious, she can quote him chapter and verse and buys the transcripts...I think she has the hots for him. Her only goal here is to say the opposite of what anyone else says..You say Black, she says white. There is no argument just the standard liberal media fed lines. She has nothing, and is just an angry old crone who likes to pretend she is smart, God knows there are a whole bunch of bloggers here smarter than she would be if she got a brain transplant. And for her to attack you? That's just another sign of a sick mind. She has dishonored you sir. Because she has no honor, integrity or honesty.

  • Author: poppajoe49
    Comment:
    Let's make one more point, nobody here has ever referred to "greedy black welfare queens” except Oblivious. We have referred to "greedy" and "welfare queens”, but Oblivious is the only that put the "balck" qualifier into a post
    ***************
    As I've pointed out many times, Poopajoe, it's not currently fashionable for bigots to parade their bigotry. So, instead, they make nasty little remarks just under the radar (they hope). Instead of talking about "BLACK welfare queens," they use the popular doublespeak term "inner city," since a disproportionate number of inner city poor are nonwhite. They also like to trot out those Jim Crow era stereotypes, and even on occasion mimic what they think is black dialect.

    Again, it's like the elephant in the living room. You can argue, "I never specifically said there was an elephant in the room"----but anyone with a grain of sense can see, hear and smell it just the same.

      • "... and even on occasion mimic what they think is black dialect."

        stuff and nonsense.

        Oevilia:
        I know you're talking about me and Notso, no matter how thinly veiled your allusion to us. However; you're deluded in your assessment that we're trotting out Jim Crow era Stereotypes. Rather we're speaking from experience utilizing idiomatic and colloquial devices to convey conversational points far and away above your ability to comprehend apparently.

        • When you were a kid Robert did you every buy a record of your favorite song and listen to it over and over..At some point you got sick of it or maybe it got damaged and started to get stuck in one spot. That is where OBlivious is now, she repeats herself like a damaged record..stuck on the same freakin' line for ever. Well over 50 posts and nothing new, no facts, just babbling incoherent bullshit like always. Like I said before she has some serious mental problems, and has a fetish for Dear leader and Mrs dear leader. She can not understand why people don't just start drooling like she does when they see Obama...I see an idiot when the president is on tv or in the news, she sees a rock star and a little god like creature.

          Think of it this way, in the Muslim world, you show contempt by throwing a shoe at someone because they insulted your cult/gang whatever you want to call it. Gang members do the same, they beat up people who "disrespect" them. Olivia is clinging to her president and the Muslim Cult to the point where she is fixated on it and she is throwing shoes all the time. But all it does is make her look stupid.

          She repeats herself like the scene in blazing saddles with the campfire and all the cowboys eating beans....Yea just like bad beans...

          What you have to understand is that she is unbalanced and can not look at anything in a normal way. Perhaps she used drugs, had a serious head injury or its genetic. I just thumb down and move on because reading the other peoples responses is exciting, checking the links they provide makes me learn, something Olivia can never do, cause she is stuck in a rut.

          I don't give a shit what she says about me anymore, after last weekends racist comments, she is just a bigot, with an agenda, and she comes here to spew. I bet she pats herself on the back and tells whatever overweight ugly friend she has left about how she does battle with the right wing nuts. To here there is only liberals, and everyone else is a racist, bigot, homophobe, etc, etc, etc.

          She has gone to the dark side Obie Won Knobie....There is no return once you feel the power of the dark side...Hopefully she will find another website to do battle with the evil conservatives and bore them to death with her drivel...:)

          • Olivia is clinging to her president and the Muslim Cult to the point where she is fixated on it and she is throwing shoes all the time. But all it does is make her look stupid.
            ************
            Wrong. I'm merely defending the president and his wife from silly----and usually totally false----accusations that you loons have been fed by your favorite pundits.

            The rest of your post is just the usual childish insults ("She's stupid!" "She's brain damaged!" "I'll bet she has a fat ugly friend!" "I'll bet she passes a lot of gas!") and dumb accusations ("She worships Obama!") that you throw in whenever you can't debate an issue intelligently. Apparently you STILL haven't figured out that spewing such idiocies hurts you more than it hurts me OR the Obamas.

          • Good thing your on Obama's side..my goodness what would they do without your constant drivel and cheering them on. I bet without you they would be heartbroken and just give up and lay down and assume room temperature...Hey since you think your god, Can I get the winning lotto numbers? Dumbass.

          • MY wickedish humor?

            If you're gonna play Walter I'm takin' Sweet Daddy D's role!

            *waggles eyebrows*
            *sucks air through teeth after raisin' upper lip*

          • One more time: THE OBAMAS DON"T WANT OR NEED YOU TO DEFEND THEM. They are grown up peopl in public life. They are well aware that some will not like them. Get over yourself!

          • Okay now I spit out my coffee again, Damn you and your wicked sense of humor...I gotta go clean the screen..:)

          • I agree Notso. I've been here before. And i realize i broke my vow to oevilia not to use polysyllabic words...

            oh well...

            dt mo. :D

  • Olivia:”you’re placing a lot of importance on women’s looks”

    From the one who brought the subject up when criticizing the looks of Republican First Ladies.
    ***************
    Wrong. I never criticized the looks of Republican First Ladies, Lion---I criticized those who seem to expect First Ladies to appear prim and matronly. Well, okay, I did once say that Calista Gingrich looks like a superannuated chorus girl, but there's no way in Hades she's ever going to be a First Lady. ;)
    ********************
    The funny thing about Hillary Clinton wearing only pantsuits in 2008 was that she could only think of running for President but sacrificing her femininity and conforming herself to the male world.
    ****************
    You really are ignorant about women's fashions, aren't you? Hasn't it occurred to you that women have been wearing pants (yes, at work, too!) for some years now? And that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "conforming (oneself) to the male world")? More typically, it has to do with being able to bend, sit, reach, walk in a high wind, or run up and down stairs without risk of exposing one's underwear, or getting a run in one's pantyhose.
    ************************
    And you feminists are supposed to be such groundbreaking forward-thinkers.
    ********************
    No more so than anyone else, my boy. What we're "supposed" to do is lead our lives as we wish, without worrying about seeking the approval of men who have trouble letting go of male privilege. ;)
    **********************
    At least Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann refused to sacrifice their feminine identities in running for higher office.
    *********************
    I'll tell you what, Lion: Any woman who feels she's "sacrific(ing her) feminine (identity)" by wearing pants instead of a skirt has a mighty poor self-image to begin with. And any man who believes same has a mighty superficial image of what constitutes femininity.
    ******************
    Olivia:”Rachel Maddow seems to understand her gender just fine.”

    I, too, would put a qualifying, not too sure “seems” in there also. Only someone as deluded as you would not see Rachel Maddow’s deep problems with gender confusion.
    ********************
    What "gender confusion" are you talking about, Lion? She's a woman who happens to be a lesbian, and both understands and accepts it. "Confusion," I believe, is when a person refuses to accept his/her sexual orientation, and tries to pretend s/he's something other than what s/he is. Like Mark Foley. Or Larry Craig.

    It sounds to me that YOU'RE the one who's confused about gender. You seem to have some idea that it's all (and only) about conforming to selected fashion trends. Which, at the very least, is kind of a slap in the face to your kilt wearing buddy, don't you think? ;)

    • Olivia:"She's (Rachel Maddow's) a woman who happens to be a lesbian"

      No, she doesn't just "happen" to be a lesbian. She has a conflict which she needs to resolve. Cold mother, cold father, sexual abuse, whatever, something went deeply wrong in her life and her lifestyle and confusion about her gender witnesses to it.

      Olivia:"It sounds to me like YOU'RE the one who's confused about gender."

      Though not perfect, my parents did a reasonable job and so I have no confusion about my gender. But you as a militant Pro-Abortionist lacking a maternal instinct for the helpless unborn don't seem to understand what true femininity entails. When a woman is lacking in empathy, sympathy and compassion for the most innocent human beings imaginable, she is a caricature of a woman at best. I think you destroyed a good deal of your warmth by embracing radical feminism. Now go drink the blood of the unborn, Countess Dracula.

      • Olivia:”She’s (Rachel Maddow’s) a woman who happens to be a lesbian”

        No, she doesn’t just “happen” to be a lesbian. She has a conflict which she needs to resolve. Cold mother, cold father, sexual abuse, whatever, something went deeply wrong in her life and her lifestyle and confusion about her gender witnesses to it.
        *****************
        Old wives' tales, my boy. Homosexuality isn't caused by cold mothers or sexual abuse, nor is it an emotional disorder. In this area, as in many other areas, your thinking is about 50 years behind the times. You need to realize that political pundits are not mental health professionals, and stop going to them for information on behavioral health (and medicine, and theology).
        ******************
        Olivia:”It sounds to me like YOU’RE the one who’s confused about gender.”

        Though not perfect, my parents did a reasonable job and so I have no confusion about my gender.
        *******************
        I didn't say you did. I said you were confused about gender, period, in your stated belief that women who wear pants lack "femininity." Gender isn't something that comes on and off according to one's garments. And, incidentally, femininity isn't a quality that's awarded to women by men, based on how well the woman conforms to a man's expectations.
        **********************
        When a woman is lacking in empathy, sympathy and compassion for the most innocent human beings imaginable, she is a caricature of a woman at best.
        **********************
        And when a man---or woman----grandstands about "saving innocent babies," yet refuses to accept societal responsibility for those same "babies" once they're born and have needs that cost money, s/he's a bigger caricature yet.
        *********************
        I think you destroyed a good deal of your warmth by embracing radical feminism.
        **********************
        And here, just like clockwork, comes the high drama and name calling. Right wingnut discussion tactic #258: when you're losing ground in an argument, accuse your opponent of loving to "kill babies."

        I have no lack of "warmth," my boy, or femininity, either. What I do have, that you obviously lack, is enough respect for women to recognize that they don't need to look to a rather ill-informed man on a discussion board to tell them how to run their lives. If that recognition bruises your ego, I'm sorry, but someone needs to set you straight (no pun intended) on that issue.

        • Oh, Oblivious! Look here! Another Muslim extremist captured while trying to plot mass murder in the USA! This one in Tampa!
          Oh, guess what? I hate this guy and he’s WHITE!!! So there goes your RAAACIISSSTTT commentary!

          http://www.irreverentview.com/national-politics/terrorist-targets-tampa#more-3562

          Terrorist targets Tampa
          Terrorist: “pay back” time for wrongs done to Muslims

          By Chris Ingram

          The Islamic terrorist who targeted Tampa with his hate hailed from the Baltics where radical factions aren’t all that radical — rather they are the norm. I’ve done consulting work in the region, and I can tell you the culture is a divisive breeding ground for extremists.

          According to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI (click here to read), accused terrorist Sami Osmakac said, among other things, that he wanted to “pay back” for wrongs done to Muslims. “We all have to die, why not die the Islamic way?” “…they can take me in 5 million pieces.” The accused planned to take hostages, targeted Ybor city bars, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office operations center, and bridges between Tampa and St. Pete. At one point he told an FBI informant, “I know a lot of places where it gets real crowded.”
          This guy is seriously messed up in the head and could have inflicted serious harm on a lot of innocent people — just because they don’t worship Allah. Congratulations and ‘thank you’ to the FBI and other lawn enforcement for catching this him.

          Now it’s time for out elected officials to get serious about securing our borders and doing what is most effective and least expensive to prevent terrorism — profiling. Last time I checked, there haven’t been any incidents of terrorist attacks or planned plots of such attacks from 83 year-old grandmas, or five year-old kids — but that doesn’t stop the TSA from strip-searching them at the airport.

          • Oh, Oblivious! Look here! Another Muslim extremist captured while trying to plot mass murder in the USA! This one in Tampa!
            Oh, guess what? I hate this guy and he’s WHITE!!! So there goes your RAAACIISSSTTT commentary!
            ****************
            Just because you're a racist doesn't mean you're not capable of being a religious bigot as well, Poopajoe.

            Especially when you boast about hating a man about whom you know nothing, other than what FAUX News chose to tell you about him. That displays not only your bigotry, but also your profound gullibility.

          • Once again my bitch fails to click a link to find out the source of a story. It came from the Tampa Tribune, but our resident scrunt wouldn't bother to find that out when it's so much easier to just claim FOX news put it out and therefore it deserves no credibility.
            If you were any more stupid, you would forget to breathe!

          • Once again my bitch fails to click a link to find out the source of a story. It came from the Tampa Tribune, but our resident scrunt wouldn’t bother to find that out when it’s so much easier to just claim FOX news put it out and therefore it deserves no credibility.
            ***************
            Wrong again. Clicking on the link takes you to an opinion piece CONCERNING the Tampa Tribune news article, written by a guy who's described as being "a frequent pundit on FOX News and CNN."

            "Pundits" are not a reliable news source, Poopajoe, and it's irresponsible to treat them as such. Again, you lose this argument-----since you're again demonstrating your inability to tell the difference between objective reporting and a highly subjective opinion.

          • So then what you're telling me is that because someone that is a pundit on FOX news reports a legitimate news story from the Tampa Tribune, it is no longer a valid news story?
            My God, you are too fucking stupid to live!
            The ONLY reason I used that link is because I didn't have the link to the Trib article, and I wanted to see how far you would go to defend a radical Muslim by trying to discredit a MSM news story!
            Here's a little light reading and viewing for you, stupid bitch!

            http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/jan/09/6/feds-man-planned-terrorism-attacks-in-tampa-ar-345330/

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us/florida-man-charged-with-plotting-strikes-in-name-of-islam.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57355150/alleged-extremist-terror-plot-foiled-in-tampa/

            http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/09/v-fullstory/2581898/alleged-terror-plot-targeted-tampa.html

            http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/39921

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgcvtci23AE&feature=related

          • The ONLY reason I used that link is because I didn’t have the link to the Trib article
            ************
            THen you should have waited until you had an unbiased news account. Why the big haste to post it, if you didn't have the right link?
            *************
            and I wanted to see how far you would go to defend a radical Muslim by trying to discredit a MSM news story!
            **************
            Calm down, Poopajoe---you're off on a tangent again, that has nothing to do with my point.

            I never denied that the guy sounds violent and radical. What I DID do was to remind you that (1) there's a good possibility that the man is mentally ill; (2) there's NO evidence that the Muslim community aided, abetted or encouraged him in this. (In fact, your own article---the first one of the bunch---says just the reverse); and (3) as usual, you bigots are taking one anecdote, and trying to use it to condemn at least 1 1/2 billion people.

            I think you need to cut down on the sauce, my boy. You've flown off the handle at me before, as the result of misunderstandings. It's that snap judgment thing again----you and your fellow far righters have been programmed to think you have to come up with a strong opinion on EVERY issue, whether or not you've got the facts in front of you.

          • Once again, my bitch, you are backpedaling. You attacked the source of the story without even checking on it. The story is totally legit and you, in your haste to defend a Muslim, went off on the tangent you accuse others of.
            Time to gget your meds reevaluated.

          • I think that anyone who chooses to blow up themselves or others can certainly qualify for the insanity label. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they fit themedicolegal term. They certainly understand right and wrong. And I am not giving every loser who decides to make a name for himself the out of being insane. If he were mentqlly ill, I have no doubt the father would have been trumpeting that fact to the skies. SO, what we have is a self centered, egotistical person who has fallen for the idea that GOd will reward him if he murders a bunch of people. And since HE STATES he is doing it a "payback" for "the wrongs done to Islam" then it sounds pretty much like that is his belief system. So yes, I condemn him. I also condemn honor killings, wife beating, child marriage, the denial of equal rights to women and rape. You don't have to agree, that's just what I believe, and it happens that Muslims (even American Muslims) practice at least some of that. SO.

          • “I never denied that the guy sounds violent and radical. What I DID do was to remind you that (1) there’s a good possibility that the man is mentally ill; (2) there’s NO evidence that the Muslim community aided, abetted or encouraged him in this. (In fact, your own article—the first one of the bunch—says just the reverse); and (3) as usual, you bigots are taking one anecdote, and trying to use it
            to condemn at least 1 1/2 billion people.”

            Olivia, you are truly uninformed. No hyperbole. Not
            opinion. FACT. The story was national news. *****************
            And, AGAIN, I'm not denying that the story was national news. I'm addressing your unfortunate tendency to jump to conclusions about such stories.
            ******************
            you live under a rock, you could not have or should not have missed the story. So the link poppa used or did not use is irrelevant. You denied the
            story out of a reflexive need to defend the
            indefensible,
            *****************
            But I didn't "deny" the story, my boy. Now, I've corrected you on that point three separate and distinct times, so don't you think perhaps you ought to stop beating that particular dead horse?
            *****************
            As far as your points go….maybe he is mentally ill. We do not know.
            *****************
            Exactly. But you went ahead and jumped to conclusions about him anyway.
            *****************
            Someone had to have radicalized
            him so there most certainly had to be outside influence. Maybe not from the local Muslim community but via the Internet or other means.
            *****************
            Well, first of all, no, a mentally ill person doesn't have to have been "radicalized" by someone else to become violent. And, second, you can find many extremist crackpots on the internet who preach violence, and neither all nor most of them are Muslims.
            ******************
            No-one is condemning all 1.5 billion Muslims
            *****************
            Why, sure, they are. I see nasty condemnations of Muslims every day on this board, Kick. Don't sit there and try to tell me you haven't. :D
            *****************
            but I absolutely condemn the radical Muslim who intended to blow up cars and kill people. You should too. Check out John Updike’s final book, “The Terrorist”. Eerily similar to this plot.
            *******************
            I do condemn violence and plots to commit violence, whether the would-be committer is a dark skinned Muslim from the Middle East, or a light complected American who professes to be a Christian. But you seem to be forgetting that, in this country that you claim to love so much, we don't go around "condemning" the accused without due process of law. Not for all the eerie John Updike novels in the world.
            ***************
            You simply must do better than label everyone a racist and bigot, little girl. Do you like to embarrass yourself so often?
            ****************
            Sorry, my boy, but I'm not a bit embarrassed to stick up for due process---or to speak out against bigotry wherever I see it.

          • "I never denied that the guy sounds violent and radical. What I DID do was to remind you that (1) there’s a good possibility that the man is mentally ill; (2) there’s NO evidence that the Muslim community aided, abetted or encouraged him in this. (In fact, your own article—the first one of the bunch—says just the reverse); and (3) as usual, you bigots are taking one anecdote, and trying to use it
            to condemn at least 1 1/2 billion people."

            Olivia, you are truly uninformed. No hyperbole. Not
            opinion. FACT. The story was national news. Unless you live under a rock, you could not have or should not have missed the story. So the link poppa used or did not use is irrelevant. You denied the
            story out of a reflexive need to defend the
            indefensible,

            As far as your points go....maybe he is mentally ill. We do not know. Someone had to have radicalized
            him so there most certainly had to be outside influence. Maybe not from the local Muslim community but via the Internet or other means. No-one is condemning all 1.5 billion Muslims but I absolutely condemn the radical Muslim who intended to blow up cars and kill people. You should too. Check out John Updike's final book, "The Terrorist". Eerily similar to this plot. You simply must do better than label everyone a racist and bigot, little girl. Do you like to embarrass yourself so often?

          • Poppa, these stories did not originate in Chicago nor did they come from approved sources. They are of no value. :)

          • Author: Sidekick
            Comment:
            Are you denying the story? Are you that stupid? I live in Tampa. This story is all over the place because the accused was allegedly targeting very high profile targets and he cited his religion and his belief that he must get vengeance for Muslims overseas as his motive. Period. You embarrass yourself again. Pathetic.
            ****************
            To quote Judge Chamberlain Haller: "Once again, communication has broken down."

            Nowhere did I claim that this incident didn't take place, Kick. My point is that you righties, as usual, are barging forth to assign blame as quickly as possible, WITHOUT KNOWING THE WHOLE STORY.

            Now, stop blubbering about murderous Muslims and use your head for a minute. If it were possible to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth simply by reading a pundit's feelings about a newspaper account, what would be the point of holding police investigations and courtroom trials? What would be the point of psychiatric examinations, if self-important lay people could accurately judge a total stranger's mental health, simply by reading a right wing opinion piece? ;)

            I have to laugh at the arrogance you display every day on this board, when you're obviously incapable of noticing how YOUR reactions are being manipulated. It's so utterly predictable and Pavlovian: when you hear that a Muslim is implicated in a violent crime, you immediately jump to the conclusion that (1) he's perfectly sane, and (2) his religion directed him to commit said crime. And, when you hear that the Obamas are enjoying any sort of luxury (dinner out, a vacation, a White House reception, nice clothes or a successful visit abroad with other heads of state) you jump to the conclusion that they're thumbing their noses at the taxpayers.

            It's the same old bigotry, now masquerading as "We have to keep Amurrica SAFE!" instead of "We have to keep our women SAFE from them blacks who think they're just as good as you or me!" And it's encouraged by pundits who egg you on to pass judgment as hastily as possible, armed with minimal information.....and lots and lots of religious prejudice.

          • She does not know the difference between Fox News and a local network affiliate, which is where the father's quote that I mentioned came from.

          • She does not know the difference between Fox News and a local network affiliate, which is where the father’s quote that I mentioned came from.
            ******************
            The father's quote is not the issue, Kick. The issue is that you righties are citing an opinion piece, instead of the original news article----and letting the opinion piece dictate your reaction to the incident, instead of reserving judgment until you hear the whole story.

            That is the very essence of the concept of prejudice. Now do you see why I keep referring to you as bigoted?

          • Are you denying the story? Are you that stupid? I live in Tampa. This story is all over the place because the accused was allegedly targeting very high profile targets and he cited his religion and his belief that he must get vengeance for Muslims overseas as his motive. Period. You embarrass yourself again. Pathetic.

          • She doesn’t know the difference between a newspaper and a bedpan.
            ***************
            Sure, I do. It's just that this particular opinion piece would be more appropriately used as a bedpan than as an unbiased news source.

          • "This story was put out by the FBI! How is that an opinion piece?"

            Simple. It's not her opinion. She lives in a strange world, where her opinion is immutable fact, and immutable facts are opinions that she can vanquish by tilting at them.

            Don Quixote, meet your descendant, Dumb Quixote.

          • My Dear Sweet Olivia, I'm absolutely certain that this man was actually going about his business in Tampa, collecting unwanted items to distribute to poor children, and doing volunteer work in battered women's shelters, when the FBI and Fox News, in a joint operation, set him up to take the fall for some Christian who was about to try to kill as many people as he possibly could.

          • My Dear Sweet Olivia, I’m absolutely certain that this man was actually going about his business in Tampa, collecting unwanted items to distribute to poor children, and doing volunteer work in battered women’s shelters, when the FBI and Fox News, in a joint operation, set him up to take the fall for some Christian who was about to try to kill as many people as he possibly could.
            ****************
            Nowhere did I state or imply that I think that was a possibility, my boy. As usual, you're grossly exaggerating my position, in a lame effort to make your bigotry look more logical.

            My point again: none of us have enough information about this person to know what motivated him. It's very possible that he was mentally ill----a common factor is mass shootings, and one which you're conveniently ignoring in this case.

            Classic right wing extremist: charge in like a mad bull, ready to fling accusations and blame, armed with almost no information, but plenty of prejudices and snap assumptions.

          • The accused's father claims, on the local Fox affiliate website, that his son had gotten really religious lately. Plotting to mass murder equals getting more religious?

          • The accused’s father claims, on the local Fox affiliate website, that his son had gotten really religious lately. Plotting to mass murder equals getting more religious?
            **********************
            If the person is mentally ill, that certainly could be the case.

            Oh, but, if he's a Muslim, he couldn't possibly have been mentally ill, right? Because that doesn't fit the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck stereotypes. @@

          • ‘thank you’ to the FBI and other lawn enforcement for catching this him."

            my unabashed and unsupportable translation- 'thank you' to the FBI and other law enforcement personnel for catching this muslim."

        • Olivia, You can save all that babbling bullshit, I still think Ralphy Madcow has a penis......and Chris Matthews doesn't.....

          • Olivia, You can save all that babbling bullshit, I still think Ralphy Madcow has a penis……and Chris Matthews doesn’t…..
            ****************
            I'm not surprised that you think that, since you seem to have a preoccupation with men's genitals. Men who go around parading their supposed moral virtues often do, you know.

        • Olivia:"nor is it (active homosexuality) an emotional disorder"

          The average homosexual acting out has between 100 and 500 sex partners during his life. Glad you don't think there's an emotional problem there. I watched a good friend of mine waste away from AIDS. What a miserable death that has to be seen to be believed. Throw his body onto the pile of aborted babies you care nothing about. And too many active homosexuals believe propagandists like you who convince them that nothing is wrong as they engage in compulsive and even anonymous sexual encounters. You live in Oz.
          I don't put the link up for you, so you needn't comment on it. I put it up for anyone wanting more information.

          http://www.catholictherapists.com/sexuality/the-gay-identity-fact-or-fiction.html

          Olivia:"I have no lack of 'warmth'"

          Oh, quit kidding yourself you cold-hearted Pro-Abortionist. When PsychoDad greets your posts with a "Ni!" I always get a laugh, but the point he makes about your lack of feminine warmth is real.

          • The average homosexual acting out has between 100 and 500 sex partners during his life. Glad you don’t think there’s an emotional problem there. I watched a good friend of mine waste away from AIDS. What a miserable death that has to be seen to be believed. Throw his body onto the pile of aborted babies you care nothing about. And too many active homosexuals believe propagandists like you who convince them that nothing is wrong as they engage in compulsive and even anonymous sexual encounters. You live in Oz.
            I don’t put the link up for you, so you needn’t comment on it. I put it up for anyone wanting more information.

            http://www.catholictherapists.com/sexuality/the-gay-identity-fact-or-fiction.html
            ******************
            You've got to be kidding. This man has some serious personal issues with homosexuality, Lion. By his own admission, he was attracted to men, not women, for most of his life, and is now celibate. In this self-revelation, he's made it clear that, if he doesn't meet a woman whom he'd like to marry, he'll remain celibate. And, let's face it: this guy is no spring chicken. If he hasn't yet found a woman whom he loves enough to marry by now, it's probably not going to happen.

            In other words, you have a guy here who was obviously attracted only to men throughout youth and adulthood, but who's now accepted the notion that homosexuality is sinful. (Not the same thing as embracing heterosexuality.) He reminds me of some of the alcoholics and addicts we used to see when I worked in the CD field. They'd get inspired, and immediately want to go out and become CD counselors, so they could encourage everyone else to follow in their footsteps. That's not recovery, my boy. That's a need to have one's own choices validated by others.

            But, even though this guy is neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist, and even though his ideas about homosexuality fly directly in the face of medical and psychiatric research findings, you regard him as The Expert----because what he claims is what you (for whatever reason) so badly want to believe. (I won't ask you why this is such a hot button issue with you.)

            The accusation that I don't care about the sick and dying is a cheap shot, and rather silly. Caring for the sick and dying is my profession, Silent. Yes, AIDS is a nasty disease (although we have much more effective treatments today than we had 20 years ago). So are gonorrhea, genital herpes and chlamydia----but I don't see you using those as a means to scare heterosexuals into giving up sex.

            Your claim that the "average homosexual acting out" has 100-500 sex partners is laughable at best. It's just one more clumsy right wing effort to assign a scary-sounding stereotype to gay people, in hopes of scaring people straight. In fact, gay people are pretty much like straight people: some are faithful to one partner throughout their lives; others are more promiscuous. Why is it that you never seem to be able to argue a position on any issue, without resorting to scare tactics and ugly stereotypes?

          • Olivia:"Your claim that the 'average homosexual acting out' has 100-500 sex partners is laughable at best."

            "100-500 sex partners DURING THEIR LIFE", not concurrently. The promiscuity all too common in the homosexual lifestyle is from a study published in the link at the end of this post. 28% of homosexuals in that study admitted to more than 1,000 sex partners during their life. It's not a scare tactic to report the unpopular truth about this lifestyle which you either don't know about or refuse to find out about.

            ("The Health Risks of Gay Sex", John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.)
            http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

          • Olivia:”Your claim that the ‘average homosexual acting out’ has 100-500 sex partners is laughable at best.”

            “100-500 sex partners DURING THEIR LIFE”, not concurrently. The promiscuity all too common in the homosexual lifestyle is from a study published in the link at the end of this post. 28% of homosexuals in that study admitted to more than 1,000 sex partners during their life. It’s not a scare tactic to report the unpopular truth about this lifestyle which you either don’t know about or refuse to find out about.
            ********************
            PROMISCUITY is a "lifestyle," Lion. Homosexuality is not.

            If all or most homosexuals were indeed as promiscuous as you claim (and your link didn't provide the study itself, so we can't see how it was set up, who responded to it, or what steps were taken to make sure the data was accurate and representative of the entire gay population), then it doesn't make sense for you righties to deny them the right to marry, does it? Why, in fact, would so many homosexuals WANT to commit themselves to a life partner, if their lives were all (and only) about casual sex with hundreds of people?

            You said that 28% of homosexuals reported over 1000 partners? Assuming this 33 year old study is accurate (which, as I said, is debatable, since your article doesn't provide the specifics), what percentage of heterosexuals have multiple sex partners? Do you have any idea, or are you just assuming that promiscuity is the exclusive domain of gay people? (As a nurse who's involved in the diagnosis and treatment of STDs, I can vouch that that's not the case!)

          • For years homosexuality was considered an abberration. In the 20th century, iot was identified as a mental disorder. Recently it has been designated a "lfestyle choice" or alternatively, and inborn, hard-wired fact of life. There has been no research to locae whre that hard wiring comes from, we are taking the word of the homosexuals as fact. Whatever it really turns out to be, homosexuality does not further the propagation of the race, and as such is a bioological abnormality. I struggle to discern what is the right thing for homosexuals, but it is a much more complicated situaton than you give them credit for. The reality at this time, is that while there are many committed couples, there are far more promiscuous gays, with as many as 10-20 partners in ONE NIGHT. Does every gay do this? of course not. But enough do that the risk of STD's is high, not to mention the emotional toll. Heterosexuals may have many partners, but not usually THIS many, and they are suffering with STD's and emotional fallout as well. Either way, it is not a healthy approach to life.

          • Whatever it really turns out to be, homosexuality does not further the propagation of the race, and as such is a bioological abnormality.
            *******************
            If that's the case, then infertile adults would also have to be labeled "biological abnormalities."

            I guess you could do that, if you're looking for a subtle way of insulting them, but what's the point? We're ALL "biological abnormalities" in one way or another, either as a result of birth defects (even very mild ones) or surgical removal of organs, or medical problems. Be that as it may, it's not a valid excuse for trying to stereotype gay men.
            *********************
            I struggle to discern what is the right thing for homosexuals, but it is a much more complicated situaton than you give them credit for.
            ********************
            Perhaps the problem you're having here is that it isn't your place to "discern what is the right thing for homosexuals." How about tending to your own life, and letting them live theirs?
            ********************
            The reality at this time, is that while there are many committed couples, there are far more promiscuous gays, with as many as 10-20 partners in ONE NIGHT. Does every gay do this? of course not. But enough do that the risk of STD’s is high, not to mention the emotional toll.
            ******************
            And your evidence that there's a higher incidence of STDs in the gay community is......?

            And your evidence that being left alone to live their lives as they choose (instead of being cajoled, legislated or shamed into playing a heterosexual role) causes an "emotional toll" for homosexuals is.....?

            One of the features of disease (a term that includes psychological as well as organic disorders) is that it doesn't remain stable over time. If homosexuality were indeed a disorder, we'd be seeing progressive emotional instability in all or most homosexuals over time----but we're not.

            I do have to snicker a bit, though, when you and Perlcat and Lion piously claim that homosexuality somehow causes sexual promiscuity. You do realize, don't you, that, when right wingers oppose the idea of same sex marriage, they're in effect denying them one of the best ways possible to encourage fidelity and longterm commitment?

          • Olivia:"cold mothers"

            I'll give a specific example of how a cold mother can sometimes lead to lesbianism. Ellen DeGeneres accidently let the cat out of the bag years ago. She said that as a child her mother would never hold her, kiss her, or hug her. Did she try to find missing female affirmation through sexual experiences with females? After admitting this Ellen quickly tried to put the cat back in the bag under pressure from gay activists, saying her mother's coldness had nothing to do with her lesbianism.

            Ellen was also sexually molested by her new stepfather at 16. Was she so traumatized by this act that she wants nothing to do with males?

            Ellen has been "married" the past few years to actress Portia de Rossi. de Rossi says that she herself suffers from sexual identity confusion. She also blames her anorxeia on her lesbianism, which makes one wonder why she stays in such a lifestyle.

            A previous girlfriend of Ellen DeGeneres was Anne Heche. Anne Heche's father was a violent sexual abuser. Did she want nothing to do with men after such treatment resulting in her ending up in a relationship with Ellen? She eventually had a breakdown in which she was wandering a neighborhood in Hollywood. She left Ellen, got help, and eventually married a man and had a child. She is now divorced though.

            If you truly are a psychological nurse, Olivia, how sad that your ideology will not allow you to admit what is going on with many very troubled people with same-sex attraction. If they let out troubled backgrounds like this, would you "snicker" at them the way you "snicker" at perlcat, Rose and me?

          • I notice you carefully avoided the part of my answer where I noted that heterosexuals are often promiscuous with the same resulting emotional toll and risk of STD's. Guess that didn't fit into your diatribe. And yes, biologically speaking, someone who cannot propagate is a biological abberration. In the biological world, sex is for reproduction-and reproduction alone. A way to ensure the continuation of the species.
            As I said, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality. I was certainly taught growing up that it was wrong. But at the same time, it canno be wrong wihen 2 people love each other. SO I'm torn. At least I have the guts to admit it. And it IS my problem when I have to vote for changes in law regarding homosexuals and their unions.

          • While sociologists have documented the phenomenon of gays having many partners during their "coming out" phase, Olivia simply will not believe it. It has not been her experience that she could find that many people to find her attractive on that basis in her entire lifetime, so clearly all those sociologists are wrong.

            My take on it is that if Olivia ain't catching fish, she needs to check her bait.

          • While sociologists have documented the phenomenon of gays having many partners during their “coming out” phase, Olivia simply will not believe it.
            ****************
            I didn't deny that ANY gay men have multiple partners, Perlcat. My point was that (1) trying to generalize about someone's sex life, based purely on his/her sexual orientation, is nothing more than plain old-fashioned stereotyping, a favorite right wing pastime; and (2) many HETEROSEXUALS are promiscuous, too----but I don't see any of you blaming THAT choice on "cold mothers" or claiming that as reliable evidence that heterosexuality is inherently defective.

  • Flashing scotsman/RHG never claimed to be Scottish.
    ****************
    Look at the new screen name he chose for himself, Rose.
    **************** He has repeatedly and consistently referred to himself as American.
    ******************
    And Obama has repeatedly and consistently referred to himself as an American, but that doesn't stop the racist far right from accusing him of being an impostor from Kenya, has it?
    *******************
    His screen name is irrelevant. I am not a flower, but I use sa rose as a screen name.
    ********************
    Yeah, but do you go around boasting about dressing up in rose petals and leaves? :D

    You miss the point, honey pie. Flash has made it clear that he wants to identify himself with Scottish culture. Which is perfectly fine----EXCEPT when he starts in on the Obamas as not being genuinely American. Then I'm going to point out his blatant hypocrisy, no matter how hard you try to defend it. I'm funny that way. ;)

    As the Bible says, “Judge “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

    I’m simply judging Flash sternly, as he regularly tries to do to our president and First Lady.

    ******************
    Those 2 phrases are contradictory. First you say judge not, then follow it buy saying you are judging Flash.
    ******************
    Pssssst-----I'll let you in on a little secret, Rose. I'm not REALLY judging Flash, because I don't particularly care if he wants to describe himself as Scottish rather than American, or if he wants to brag about wearing a kilt. I'm just pointing out his hypocrisy. Get it now? ;)
    *******************
    And again, what the PRESIDENT does is a little different than what the rest of us do. He is the representative of America acrosss theglobe, for better or worse. I never saw Kennedy trying on “traditional dress” from anywhre, even an Irish kilt, depite being a second generation American. I Inever saw ANY President feel the need to dress as other than an American.
    *****************
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_flvBI2iuCqo/S6CkmLDlxyI/AAAAAAAAACA/3mmrDVykrJE/s400/irishReaganImage6.jpg <-----Here's one sitting president who didn't mind parading his ancestral roots, Rose.

    And here are a few more (as well as First Ladies) who happily posed in foreign dress while still in office:
    http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/jintao_putin_bush.jpg
    http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2007-10-25-25nlook1.jpg
    http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/imperial_watch/oh_noez.html

    I found these examples after about two minutes of searching. Gosh, do you think maybe there might be others that you missed? :D

    Be that as it may, Obama wasn't the president when he tried on that Kenyan costume. That picture was taken in 2006. Are you now going to say that you think anyone who's EVER worn "other than an American" dress, even for a few minutes, should be barred from the presidency? :D)
    *******************
    I have seen a couple of first ladies do so, but not the President. As I told you before, we all have reasons for why we rag on the Obamas. COntrary to you belief, they are not RACIAL, they are behavioural.
    *****************
    Nonsense. You righties spend a LOT of time bitching about the First Lady, for doing things that other First Ladies have done without a whimper of protest from you. And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, I see a LOT of old racist stereotypes trotted out here, in reference to the First Couple. As the saying goes, don't pee on my leg and try to tell me it's raining.
    *******************
    ANd you running to defend them as if they were children isn’t going to make it any better. It just reinforces what we think.
    *******************
    But my poor, deluded, bigoted Rose, I wouldn't need to "run to defend" them if you and your band of wingnuts weren't "running to attack" them 24/7, armed with the flimsiest of excuses. And, let's face it: there's no reason that handing you a reality check should "reinforce" bigoted delusions. As usual, you're merely using me as an excuse to indulge said bigotry. ;)

  • a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

    so...an obama portrayed as royalty is racist? fuck all this shit...

    • a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

      so…an obama portrayed as royalty is racist?
      ***************
      Either you're very dense, or intentionally misunderstanding. The racism is in the attitude---the attitude that says, "She has NO RIGHT to do the same things that other First Ladies have done!" "She's fat and ugly and outspoken and hates men, and is dishonestly living like a queen off the taxpayers!" (See "Welfare Queen" stereotype.) "She never worked at a real job!" (See "c**n" stereotype.) "She tries to dictate what I can eat, and what I can't!" (See "Blatant Lie" definition.) "She's an embarrassment to Amurrica, because she doesn't know how to dress well!" (See original racist "Puttin' On The Ritz" lyrics.) "How DARE she go on vacation or eat at a nice restaurant, or stay at a nice resort!" (See pre-Civil Rights Act Jim Crow laws.) "How DARE she speak up in public, or express her feelings, or or call attention to herself in ANY way??" (See pre-Civil Rights Era rules of proper etiquette for domestic servants.)

      As I've pointed out numerous times, it's no longer fashionable for racists to brag about their racism. Nowadays, the trend is to angrily deny one's bigotry, and then to sneak in nasty little racially charged remarks under the radar. And, deny it though you might, this particular thread (like all the other threads about Michelle Obama, which are started about every two minutes around here) is teeming with such insinuations.

      • "As I’ve pointed out numerous times, it’s no longer fashionable for racists to brag about their racism. Nowadays, the trend is to angrily deny one’s bigotry, and then to sneak in nasty little racially charged remarks under the radar."

        What? You mean like you've been doing in almost every comment I've ever read of yours?

        And correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the original issue was whether or not the portrayal of Mrs. O that was the topic of the article was racist or not. The whole "uppity negro" thing just ain't flying; nobody buys it. So unless you can come up with some legit reason why it's racist.... umm... it's kinda time to cut your losses and shut up. And as far as Moochelle "not being able to do the same things as other First Ladies"... all I have to say to that is that no other First Lady in recent memory has presided over the kind crap-hole the country is in right now. Our leaders should be setting an example to live by, not setting an example to show us all the behavior of royalty.

        • And another thing. I don't recall, although that doesn't mean she didn't, mobamamama supporting the troops, until AFTER DADT was rescinded.
          To me, this is just plain outright sucking up.

          "if you don't play my way i'm taking my ball and going home."

          if anything the potus and flotus are divisive influences, NOT unifiers.
          Therefore, they do not represent the Union of the U.S., nor any true American, thus they deserve every ounce of recrimination and acrimony that can be poured upon them. Unfortunately, they control, I expect with the help, if not the blessing of Soros, the lamestream media. This is a bad thing, because the media are biased and more interested in making a buck and pres policy than Anybody on Wall St. IMO.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015