Sheila Jackson Lee says the debt ceiling battle is raaacist

by editor on July 18, 2011

We knew sooner or later someone would say it. It was just a matter of who and when. The results are in and those of you who had Sheila “Today we have two Vietnams side by side” Jackson Lee (D-Mars) in the pool, come claim your winnings.

The Hill has the story:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.

“I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? … In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”

We realize the Democrats don’t know much civics – for example, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-Fantasyland) thinks the 3 branches are President, House and Senate – but the debt ceiling debate is a legislative issue to be decided between the Democrat and Republican legislators, not Obama and the raaacists.

As for the leader of the Senate thing… Harry Reid did work tirelessly to bring President Bush down, but they were from different parties. But since President Obama is from Harry’s party … maybe Harry’s just a raaaaacist.

– Written by Bonfire of the Absurdities

Source: The Hill

Leave a Reply

276 Comments on "Sheila Jackson Lee says the debt ceiling battle is raaacist"

Notify of

CO2Insanity
Admin
July 18, 2011 6:49 am

IHTM should do a poll on how many readers like Oblivia vs. how many like Casey Anthony. I’m betting Anthony wins

hologram5
Member
hologram5
July 18, 2011 6:24 am

If she is going to continuously play the “Race” card then we need to play the “Smite Doucebag” card to counter-act the “Race” card. Hope she gets beat up in the process…

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 6:55 am

If she is going to continuously play the “Race” card then we need to play the “Smite Doucebag” card to counter-act the “Race” card. Hope she gets beat up in the process…
********************
Translation: “Let’s hurry up and hide all her posts so we don’t have to deal with any challenges to our false accusations or lapses in logic. Will it help if I fling a misspelled juvenile insult at her?”

Thank you, Keith, for showing so clearly how little logic or truth is behind your opinions. No wonder you’re afraid to see them challenged. 😉

hisham
Guest
hisham
July 18, 2011 5:49 pm

Quick! Grab your guns and protect yourselves, Oblovia’s going POSTAL!

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 19, 2011 9:06 am

I know she is acting like a serious bitch today or maybe a dick … Can’t tell which one of her personalities is shining through. Maybe the real Olivia got tired and this other progressive nut took helm.

drb
Member
drb
July 19, 2011 9:13 am

Oh that started last night. I think she is upset because she wanted to label me as a bigot/racist but couldn’t.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 6:48 pm

Quick! Grab your guns and protect yourselves, Oblovia’s going POSTAL!
*****************
My boy, I deal with life threatening emergencies every time I go in to work. If I can manage to do that without going into hysterics, there’s NO chance that I’m going to get excited about anything you far righters say on a message board. 😉

(But I’m enjoying the mental picture of frenzied far righters grabbing guns and shooting their computer screens.)

brm
Member
brm
July 18, 2011 8:49 am

“Translation: “Let’s hurry up and hide all her posts so we don’t have to deal with any challenges to our false accusations or lapses in logic. Will it help if I fling a misspelled juvenile insult at her?””

Uhm, Oblivious, it’s not all about YOU.

SJL was the one playing the race card.

Geez, wrap that loose fitting traditional garment a bit tighter, honey. You’re falling apart here.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 9:31 am

“Translation: “Let’s hurry up and hide all her posts so we don’t have to deal with any challenges to our false accusations or lapses in logic. Will it help if I fling a misspelled juvenile insult at her?””

Uhm, Oblivious, it’s not all about YOU.

SJL was the one playing the race card.

Geez, wrap that loose fitting traditional garment a bit tighter, honey. You’re falling apart here.

*****************
Well, Sugarplum, I guess it escaped your notice that I’ve been called a “doucebag,” and accused of “playing the race card” by more than one poster here. Standard antilberal tactics, especially against those with the audacity to suggest that white-on-black racism still exists in our society, and that (gasp!) some of it is coming from the RIGHT!!

That, by the way, is why I quote the previous poster in my own post—-to decrease chances of miscommunication.

You really are having a hard time letting go of that Muslim garment argument, aren’t you? That’s kind of sad. 😉

drb
Member
drb
July 18, 2011 10:00 am

This one is a hat trick

brm
Member
brm
July 18, 2011 9:52 am

“Well, Sugarplum, I guess it escaped your notice that I’ve been called a “doucebag,” and accused of “playing the race card” by more than one poster here…”

Well, my little liver spot, while there is certainly more than a grain of truth in those labels, there are times when you need to set aside your narcissism and pay a bit more attention. Comprehension counts!

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 9:43 am

No, you got busted for making personal something that had nothing to do with you.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 9:02 am

That is the funniest Olivia post yet. The dope thought Keith was talking about her and you called her out fast, Barb. Awesome. I’d give you three thumbs up if I could.

drb
Member
drb
July 18, 2011 9:06 am

Oh, but she has the best analytical skills ever…she says so herself!

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 9:20 am

Oh, but she has the best analytical skills ever…she says so herself!
**********************
No, never said that or anything like it. Perhaps I just seem that way, compared to those who think flinging childish insults equals political analysis. 😉

drb
Member
drb
July 18, 2011 10:46 am

flinging childish insults equals political analysis.

No one here made that claim.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 6:57 pm

flinging childish insults equals political analysis.

No one here made that claim.
**********************
Well, of course not!

Doesn’t mean, though, that they don’t do it. 😉

drb
Member
drb
July 19, 2011 3:38 am

Yeah, well your interpretations and translations generally don’t match up with reality.

drb
Member
drb
July 18, 2011 8:51 am

You know she has to flatter herself.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 6:15 am

Perhaps from Jacksons point of view opposing obama’s huge dept could be racist.
Obama did promise to “redistribute” the wealth. Jackson may have just spilled the beans.
**********************
He proposed to “spread it around a little bit.” Not the same thing as “promising to redistribute” it.

I always get such a kick out of far righters, trying to pretend that they’ve never heard of sliding-scale income taxes. All of you reading this have benefited, all your lives, from that kind of “redistribution.”

Let me remind you, too, that for all your griping about our tax system being mean to rich people, there’s no shortage of Americans trying hard to get into that upper tax bracket. In fact, there was no shortage even when tax rates were much higher on the nation’s wealthiest.

Seems to me that it’s YOU, not Obama, who are trying to “redistribute” the nation’s wealth. And one shining example of that effort is the right wing’s defense of the very low capital gains tax rate—-the one that the truly rich (those who live off of investments rather than working for a living) benefit most from.

Jim Stewart
Member
Jim Stewart
July 18, 2011 7:52 am

Is there a difference between “spread it around a little bit” vs “promising to redistribute”? In either case you’re taking from the achievers and giving to the non-achievers.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 8:27 am

Olivia is more illogical than ever today. She also demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of the origin of wealth. If she and the rest of the liberal side were really interested in “fairness” they would go after the non-income generated wealth of the uber wealthy. How about the generational wealth of the Rockefeller family, the Carnagies, the Heinz family, the Fords etc. etc. Could it be that these families very generously contribute to the Democratic Party as a form of paying for protection?

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 4:40 am

“How about the generational wealth of the Rockefeller family, the Carnagies, the Heinz family, the Fords”

The Gore’s? 😉

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 19, 2011 8:57 am

The Heinz family wealth benefited Kerry, and the bulk went into the hands of a gold digging wife who is an elitist jerk. So I dont know what Blolivia is so mad about there. The Rockefellers are now irrelevant pretty much and so are the Carnegies and I don’t know if I remember correctly but he died without a penny or maybe it was another one. A lot of these men actually did A LOT of good for society. A great deal of hospitals, libraries, museums, wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for rich people. I don’t get the lets hate rich people thing. They can be as bad or as good as anyone else…

Those who chose to leave money to their descendants do so because they care for them. I mean wow rich people loving their descendants? That is so odd! That money was already taxed no need to tax it again it is penalizing people for having been lucky to be born into a family that cares for their future well being. I call that envy. It cannot be escaped, but that is why a lot of these celebrities and moguls go to the countries where those taxex are minimal in comparison to the countries they come from.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 5:59 am

“How about the generational wealth of the Rockefeller family, the Carnagies, the Heinz family, the Fords”

The Gore’s?
********************
Another wacko who doesn’t know how to use apostrophes. I swear, half of you guys slept through grade school.

As I said before, I’m in favor of ALL inheritance income being taxed. And so, for that matter, are a lot of wealthy liberals. I know it’s hard to comprehend, but we just don’t tend to go in for that “I’ve got mine—-scr*w you” mentality. Go figure, huh? 😉

brm
Member
brm
July 19, 2011 6:24 am

“Another wacko who doesn’t know how to use apostrophes. I swear, half of you guys slept through grade school.”

This is a GRAMMAR board because I SAY IT IS!, says our troll.

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:39 am

Attacking spelling and punctuation is the last resort of someone losing an argument.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 9:01 am

Attacking spelling and punctuation is the last resort of someone losing an argument.

*******************
I’m not “attacking”—-just correcting. Why so defensive?

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:12 am

Another wacko who doesn’t know how to use apostrophes.

Translation, “I just like nitpicking when I have nothing constructive to say, I’m a liberal”.

perlcat
Member
July 19, 2011 6:12 am

“Another wacko who doesn’t know how to use apostrophes”

Rich coming from an idiot that hasn’t mastered the quotation mark.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 8:59 am

“Another wacko who doesn’t know how to use apostrophes”

Rich coming from an idiot that hasn’t mastered the quotation mark.

******************
Of course I have, Perlcat. The mere fact that I refuse to bow to the Message Board Nazi’s demands that I arrange my posts as HE prefers doesn’t mean I don’t know how. Sometimes, refusing to conform to someone else’s expectations is simply a matter of being assertive.

By the way, you missed a comma in that sentence. 😉

perlcat
Member
July 19, 2011 9:24 am

It was a sentence fragment — therefore, you missed the whole point. As always. Shortly after comes the doubling down.

As to “message board Nazi”, it is a token of respect to ensure that the quote you have mentioned is clearly separated from your response and is attributed to the originator. However, you haven’t ever managed to do that — instead, you feel that Strunk & White and several hundred years of good grammar, style and proper attribution just don’t apply to you. Ed and Ad are not “Nazi’s” — you’re just dense and opinionated without a shred of awareness of that simple fact.

Your quotation style illustrates perfectly your inability to deal with opinions other than your own, and explains the hours of typing you do attempting to prove your opinion is “correct”. You have arguments because you thrive on discord without any actual intent to persuade or convince. I’d describe you as a ‘Madame DeFarge’ — for your zealotry and tireless, humorless labors pursuing people who happen to have opinions you dislike. However, it is inadequate — you’d have to be the love child of DeFarge and Javert to be totally described. That, and DeFarge had actually had a wrong done to her at one point. You’re just what and who you are.

It is very humorous to see you attempting to correct others’ grammar. Pot, meet kettle.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 4:44 pm

It was a sentence fragment — therefore, you missed the whole point. As always. Shortly after comes the doubling down.
***********************
Irrelevant, Perlcat. There still should have been a comma after “rich.”
**********************

As to “message board Nazi”, it is a token of respect to ensure that the quote you have mentioned is clearly separated from your response and is attributed to the originator. However, you haven’t ever managed to do that —
*********************
Balderdash. I separate quotes from my own words with a row of asterisks. Anyone with a grain of sense can see who said what. And it’s certainly clearer that way than just posting a comment, without providing a clue as to which poster it’s meant for—which is what 90% of the posters seem to do here.
*********************
instead, you feel that Strunk & White and several hundred years of good grammar, style and proper attribution just don’t apply to you.
*********************
Oh, stop whining. Unless you can produce evidence that Strunk & White have produced a specific format for proper message board quote-and-response posts, you’re simply name dropping.
**********************
Ed and Ad are not “Nazi’s”
**********************
I agree completely. The plural of Nazi is “Nazis”–—not “Nazi’s.” I’m embarrassed to see that apostrophe there, since that’s not a spelling error I would usually make. Typing too fast, I guess. 😉

*********************
you’re just dense and opinionated without a shred of awareness of that simple fact.
************************
My boy, we’re ALL “opinionated” here. If we weren’t, why, what earthly sense would there be in coming here? 😀
***********************
Your quotation style illustrates perfectly your inability to deal with opinions other than your own, and explains the hours of typing you do attempting to prove your opinion is “correct”.
*******************
Can you name one poster here who spends time attempting to prove that his/her opinion is INcorrect, Perlcat? Your accusations are rather lame. Certainly, I like to offer evidence that my views are correct. That’s the whole point of a discussion. Didn’t anyone ever explain that to you?
********************
You have arguments because you thrive on discord without any actual intent to persuade or convince.
********************
Wrong. I argue because I see a lot of misconceptions and bogus assumptions being bandied about on this website. No, I don’t expecte to “persuade or convince,” but it’s my intent to show another side to the stories that so many posters here swallow unquestioningly.

If that’s a problem for you, or you don’t like my posting style, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read my posts. All you have to do, in fact, is wait five minutes, while the usual gang fall all over themselves trying to “hide” them. 😉

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:30 pm

Oblivious, all that typing, and for what?
Just so I can give you the 3rd thumbs down?
Don’t you realize that the more pontificating you do, the less likely it is that we will even read your blather?
Basically, this is what we do with your posts……..

brm
Member
brm
July 19, 2011 5:18 pm

Uhm, Obloviate dear,

Not to put too fine a point on it …but nobody gives a shit.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 3:29 am

Olivia is more illogical than ever today. She also demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of the origin of wealth. If she and the rest of the liberal side were really interested in “fairness” they would go after the non-income generated wealth of the uber wealthy. How about the generational wealth of the Rockefeller family, the Carnagies, the Heinz family, the Fords etc. etc. Could it be that these families very generously contribute to the Democratic Party as a form of paying for protection?
***********************
When did I ever say that I didn’t want to see inherited wealth taxed, Kick?

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy
July 19, 2011 3:46 am

Of course you are for inherited wealth taxed, because it is #3 on the “10 Pillars of Communism”.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 5:57 am

Of course you are for inherited wealth taxed, because it is #3 on the “10 Pillars of Communism”.

*******************
No, I’m in favor of taxing inherited wealth because it makes more sense than (1) getting even deeper into debt, or (2) giving a free pass to the nation’s wealthiest, and expecting the financially struggling working class to pay for it.

Inheritance taxes are nothing new under the sue, Dany. It just makes you look foolish when you try to pretend Obama invented them, or that their purpose is to turn the nation communist.

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy
July 19, 2011 2:05 pm

If you are getting deeper into debt, you stop needless spending.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 4:24 pm

If you are getting deeper into debt, you stop needless spending.
*************************
“Needless spending” being a right wing euphemism for “stuff that I don’t want to have to pay for, even if it’s necessary.”

Responsible families trying to pull themselves out of debt don’t just look for ways to cut spending. They also look for ways to increase revenue. And sometimes that requires those with the biggest paychecks to make the biggest contributions. What a concept, huh?

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy
July 20, 2011 8:16 am

Needless spend is sh!t we can’t afford, & is probably UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Have you ever noticed when liberal leftist progressives are axed what they would cut, the 1st thing out of their mouth is the military? Almost every single time, & THAT is 1 of the few things the federal gov’t IS SUPPOSED TO DO. That IS in the constitution. Most of the sh!t the left supports cannot be found in the constitution as it’s written. All I ever hear is the “commerce clause” & the “general welfare clause”. There is a contitution that says what can & cannot be done, & more people are looking to it, & people who want to use it to defuse the problems the nation is facing.

drb
Member
drb
July 20, 2011 3:48 am

Thirds! Great day in the morning.

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 20, 2011 4:39 am

You should get lots, I did a bunch of 2nds

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:16 pm

“Responsible families trying to pull themselves out of debt don’t just look for ways to cut spending. They also look for ways to increase revenue.”

Yes, that is right, but they do it by EARNING IT! The government doesn’t earn it, they confiscate it, and they don’t look for any way to cut spending, they just spend more!

“And sometimes that requires those with the biggest paychecks to make the biggest contributions.”

When a family is trying to pull themselves from debt, the paychecks are already stretched to their limit, you can’t contribute more than what you have.

Families don’t have the option of “raising the debt limit” when they can’t pay their bills. They have to cut spending, pay the bills, go bankrupt, or lose everything.
The government could take a lesson from that.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 19, 2011 5:18 pm

“Responsible families trying to pull themselves out of debt don’t just look for ways to cut spending. They also look for ways to increase revenue. And sometimes that requires those with the biggest paychecks to make the biggest contributions. What a concept, huh?”

You mean they look to increase revenues through the government taking from one and giving to another. Most people are compassionate and are fine with offering TEMPORARY assistance. The issue becomes when People A take from People B to give to People C as a matter of course.

drb
Member
drb
July 19, 2011 6:14 am

7th 3rd!

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 8:56 am

Hollywood people can spend 100K given out a party for charity and actually take in 20K and most if it is due to the idiots that go there in order to be around the “stars”… Pathetic.
**********************
You’re not kidding it’s “pathetic.” I’ll remember how much you despise that sort of thing, next time you come crowing in here about what a huge turnout Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin got for their latest Hey-Look-At-Me rally.

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 10:30 am

Apples and Oranges Oblivious.
Charity event vs Political rally. Can you tell the difference?

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 19, 2011 9:00 am

Blah blah blah I am glad Ii got the first on that one and I will give a kiss and a hug to the one that gives you the third on your turd. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin gives large percentages of their money to charity… how much money do you donate to charity uhm? Or you just let Uncle Sam do all the charity giving for you? I am not crowing about anything either… You don’t know me. Also they dont get paid for their rallies, You are a bitch Olivia. Or maybe you are a dick… I can’t tell your personalities get are muddled. You are pathetic, don’t act like you are better than me or as if you are going to remind me of whatever. Please know your place you are the joke of the site. You apport nothing. Go wipe your mouth there is a lot of diarrhea that came out of it today.

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 19, 2011 10:52 am

To Barb R *smooch* (((Barb R))) LOL good job!

drb
Member
drb
July 19, 2011 10:11 am

I’ll give you one, too

brm
Member
brm
July 19, 2011 10:06 am

“I will give a kiss and a hug to the one that gives you the third on your turd”

Pucker up, Kimmy!

Turds!

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 19, 2011 8:46 am

Wow… you are killing it today!

brm
Member
brm
July 19, 2011 7:08 am

“7th 3rd!”

Call 9-1-1, drb!! You are ON FIRE!

tee hee

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:11 am

Can anyone give me a good excuse for inheritance taxes other than “we need the money to keep from going even deeper into debt”?
Taxes have already been paid on this money when it was earned, taxing it again is just penalizing the families of the productive to support the non productive.
If the money stays within the family, it shouldn’t be taxed again. We know that this tax is nothing new, but just because everyone does it, doesn’t make it right.
“I’ll tax the pennies on your eyes” is a very revealing lyric. Even the Beatles, who libs like to claim as one of theirs, complained about oppressive taxation. Why do you think they moved here? The tax laws were more favorable than those in England.

perlcat
Member
July 19, 2011 6:17 am

It certainly causes a *lot* of misery — I know several family businesses that sold out and let all of their employees go so they could pay the taxes.

However, that ghoul Buffet makes out all right. Also, people like Obloviator get a smug buzz, having defeated those wealthy dry cleaners and hardware store owners, while their buddies the Soroses, Heinzes, and what-not shelter the money and don’t pay a dime..

After all as libs, they don’t actually have to *help* the little guy — they just have to say they will help them. They live out the motto “When people appear to need help, appear to help them.”

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:33 am

Just like those caring and philanthropic rock bands that hold a concert and donate the proceeds to charity. Instead of just donating money themselves, they get the little guy to pay for it while they get all the credit!

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 19, 2011 8:45 am

Hollywood people can spend 100K given out a party for charity and actually take in 20K and most if it is due to the idiots that go there in order to be around the “stars”… Pathetic.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 8:24 am

Is there a difference between “spread it around a little bit” vs “promising to redistribute”?
***********************
Of course there is. And you know exactly WHAT that difference is, or you’d be directly quoting him, instead of paraphrasing. 😉

hisham
Guest
hisham
July 18, 2011 6:42 am

It is always refreshing to hammer a troll.

Paden
Member
Paden
July 18, 2011 5:42 am

Perhaps from Jacksons point of view opposing obama’s huge dept could be racist.
Obama did promise to “redistribute” the wealth. Jackson may have just spilled the beans.

deepthinker
Member
deepthinker
July 18, 2011 5:17 am

To challenge barry on any thing, those on the extreme left call racisim. It’s not racist to challenge a positioin of an elected official its or duty and our God given right to do so. Just check with Hillary as she has stated several times in speeches.

SJL needs to face reality (might not be possible) that there are people who do not agree with or will go along with this president and his communist agenda. Yes I said communist agenda. Read the writings of Marx, Leinn and Mao, barry is in lock step with them.

I guess I’m a racist because I will challenge barry and company at every turn. Even though I have Black friends, Asian friends and Gay friends along with many from all walks of life, race, religon and origin.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 6:02 am

SJL needs to face reality (might not be possible) that there are people who do not agree with or will go along with this president and his communist agenda. Yes I said communist agenda. Read the writings of Marx, Leinn and Mao, barry is in lock step with them.

***************************
Please give five examples of specifically communist policies that Obama (not “barry”) has pushed for. And, when I say “specifically communist,” I mean COMMUNIST, not just liberal or irksome to Big Business.

And don’t even bother pretending that you’ve read ANY of Marx’s, Lenin’s or Mao’s “writings.” If you had, you’d never be making such an ignorant accusation.

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 18, 2011 6:40 am

Two turds in a row… !!!

hologram5
Member
hologram5
July 18, 2011 6:27 am

Yes I have tool, I’ve also read Mein Kampf and understand this probably better than YOU since my ancestors came from Germany around that time. The Dem’s brownshirts act EXACTLY like the jackboots did then. YOU are one of them with your ill-gotten logic. Go pray to whatever deity you worship, you’re gonna need it.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 6:49 am

Yes I have tool, I’ve also read Mein Kampf and understand this probably better than YOU since my ancestors came from Germany around that time.
*******************
Now, where have I heard that kind of goofy logic before? I’ve got it! It reminds me of “I have a good grasp on Russian foreign policy because you can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska.”

So you think that having German ancestors makes you inherently better able to comprehend Hitler’s ramblings? That’s illogical enough. But what’s even more illogical is your insinuation that, because you have German ancestors and claim to have read Mein Kampf, that somehow validates Not-So-Deep-Thinker’s vague insinuation that he’s read the writings of three communist leaders.

Let’s stick with facts and logic, shall we? I’m still waiting for him to produce five examples of specifically communist policies that Obama has pushed for…..and, not surprisingly, he hasn’t responded.

Mind you, I fully expect that, if anyone responds to that challenge, it will be the usual vague insinuations that any policy that isn’t 100% pro-Big Business must be “communist.” That’s the theory they’ve been fed by their media heroes, and, by golly, they’re going to stick to it come Hell or high water.

drb
Member
drb
July 18, 2011 7:32 am

thirds!!

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 7:32 am

Nationalizing huge swaths of the auto industry would be a good place to start. The GM bondholders were literally robbed by the federal government. Very Chavezesque, don’t you think? Do not hand me the crap that the two companies would have ceased operating with the bailout. That assumes a Chapter 7 and both could have gone into Chapter 11. There they would have reorganized and shed the union contracts and legacy costs, which of course is the direct opposite result that Obama and his union constituents wanted. That the UAW ended up with 17% ownership of GM at the expense of the original shareholders is banana republic tactics at best.

You are more shrill than normal today, Olivia. Everything ok?

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 9:10 am

Nationalizing huge swaths of the auto industry would be a good place to start. The GM bondholders were literally robbed by the federal government.
********************
The auto industry wasn’t “nationalized,” Kick, nor was any part of it. That’s right wing talk radio drivel.
********************
You are more shrill than normal today, Olivia. Everything ok?
********************
I think you’re just oversensitive, Kick. Contrary to the impression FAUX News tries to foster, we liberals are not a bunch of pantywaists, and we do know how to speak up when we’re confronted with lying, spinning, scapegoating, namecalling and ridiculous accusations.

But have no fear—-I’m perfectly calm and soft-spoken while I’m posting here. It doesn’t take a lot of effort, after all, to shoot holes in most of the nonsense being tossed around here. 😉

brm
Member
brm
July 18, 2011 9:25 am

FAUX News? Oh Oblivia, that’s SO FUNNY!!

Did you make that up yourself, you clever troll?? Or are you simply parroting left-wing propaganda? Nah, couldn’t be! You would NEVER do what you accuse us of doing!

hahahahahahahahaha!

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 9:32 am

You know what just kills me is that I Have worked in the auto industry for 22 years (including seven at GM) and this imbecile thinks she knows more about it than I do. Ignorant and arrogant to a level that is simply amazing. I’m working out of the house today and I just could not be more entertained between periods of doing, you know, auto industry stuff.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 3:26 am

You know what just kills me is that I Have worked in the auto industry for 22 years (including seven at GM) and this imbecile thinks she knows more about it than I do.
************************
No, I never said any such thing. In fact, I know nothing at all about car manufacturing. But “Hey, I used to work for a car manufacturer” doesn’t automatically endow you with any special insight about government interventions to a failing industry during a recession.

Unless, of course, you worked in upper management. But I seem to recall you saying you were a union member (you know, that organization of “thugs” that you like to bad-mouth, now that you’re no longer materially benefiting from their services)?

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:44 pm

Don’t you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself?

Why would she? It’s what she does best.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 19, 2011 5:12 pm

You seem to recall wrong. I have been in management (marketing and finance depending on the company). Currently, I am a senior manager on the financial side. Don’t you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself?

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 4:38 am

You should have stopped at………

“No, I never said any such thing. In fact, I know nothing at all”

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 9:24 am

Yes it was Olivia. You see when the government took equity and debt (bonds) away from the lawful owners and assumed ownership at pennies on the dollar that is nationalizing. Additionally, when a non appointed bureaucrat within Obama’s administration read: Auto Tsar, installed a CEO after eliminating Fritz Henderson that was the final step in a government takeover. That they have divested some of that ownership changes nothing about what really happened. in May of 2009.

Faux News… that;’s a good one. Did you just make that up?

perlcat
Member
July 18, 2011 9:18 am

Yes, the vast majority of your posts are self-refuting. I’ll give you that.

brm
Member
brm
July 18, 2011 8:44 am

“You are more shrill than normal today, Olivia. Everything ok?”

It’s the evil twin. The Oblivia we know and love (to taunt) is actually quite polite.

THIS Oblivia, as you say, is shrill and screeching. Channeling her inner Hillary Clinton, perhaps?

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 8:47 am

It does play to the theory that Olivia is actually multiple posters. Either that or maybe she needs to refill the lithium prescription. Same lack of logic though.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 10:38 am

It does play to the theory that Olivia is actually multiple posters. Either that or maybe she needs to refill the lithium prescription. Same lack of logic though.

*******************
Here it comes: that ultrapopular right wing strategy of accusing opponents of having a psychiatric disorder, instead of addressing their posts.

If I’m that illogical, Kick, why are you unable to refute what I’m saying? Surely that would be more productive than all these silly insults? 😀

drb
Member
drb
July 18, 2011 10:50 am

thirds!!!!

brm
Member
brm
July 18, 2011 10:45 am

“If I’m that illogical, Kick, why are you unable to refute what I’m saying? ”

How “convenient” of you to miss Sidekick’s post of 7:32 am. 😉

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 5:01 am

Given this definition (which is common to most or all dictionaries and sociological texts), it’s NOT racist to comment that racism exists, and/or that a particular individual or group is being targeted by it.

But it’s very popular among the far right to claim that even mentioning the POSSIBILITY of bigotry is “racist.” That’s sheer nonsense, of course, but it’s the only way some can think of to stifle any dialogue about race related issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So if we follow your logic, then there is no racism. Phew, glad that is settled. SJL is not a racist or a race baiter because the “far right” is not racist when they accuse her of being racist or a race baiter.
************************
No, that conclusion has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that racism is still alive and well in the U.S. today—–but it’s become taboo to admit to harboring racial prejudices. Today, it’s much more fashionable to use code words and insinuations.

Unless you can point to examples of Sheila Jackson Lee repeating ugly stereotypes about white people, or suggesting that white people are inherently inferior to black people, any accusations of her being racist are just empty name calling.

juandos
Guest
juandos
July 18, 2011 4:34 am

Every so often someone needs to put a fist of reality into the face of this silly sweat hog to remind her how stupid she is…

Courtesy of WeaselZippers: Flashback: Every Dem Senator Including Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Limit In 2006

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy
July 18, 2011 3:00 am

My guess is Jackson-Lee is the racist. Every time she makes news about whatever, she is bitching about race. She is obsessed, & I believe she is projecting.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 4:06 am

My guess is Jackson-Lee is the racist. Every time she makes news about whatever, she is bitching about race. She is obsessed, & I believe she is projecting.
************************
A racist is someone who believes (1) that race is a primary determinant of character and potential, and (2) that any given race is inherently superior or inferior to another.

Given this definition (which is common to most or all dictionaries and sociological texts), it’s NOT racist to comment that racism exists, and/or that a particular individual or group is being targeted by it.

But it’s very popular among the far right to claim that even mentioning the POSSIBILITY of bigotry is “racist.” That’s sheer nonsense, of course, but it’s the only way some can think of to stifle any dialogue about race related issues.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 4:56 am

Given this definition (which is common to most or all dictionaries and sociological texts), it’s NOT racist to comment that racism exists, and/or that a particular individual or group is being targeted by it.

But it’s very popular among the far right to claim that even mentioning the POSSIBILITY of bigotry is “racist.” That’s sheer nonsense, of course, but it’s the only way some can think of to stifle any dialogue about race related issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So if we follow your logic, then there is no racism. Phew, glad that is settled. SJL is not a racist or a race baiter because the “far right” is not racist when they accuse her of being racist or a race baiter.

hisham
Guest
hisham
July 18, 2011 6:38 am

Careful Sidekick, that too much information for Oblovia to mull over in one sentence.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 7:23 am

Sure, hisham, by her own convoluted logic both sides simply cancel each other out and there is no racism. She should be ecstatic.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 8:41 am

Sure, hisham, by her own convoluted logic both sides simply cancel each other out and there is no racism. She should be ecstatic.

*******************
Another example of right wing loony logic: the idea that racial discrimination on one side “cancels out” racial discrimination on the other.

Either a person harbors racist views or s/he doesn’t, Kick. It doesn’t get “cancelled out” or cease to exist, just by arguing that the other faction is guilty of the same thing. That kind of mentality (“But, mommy, she started it!”) belongs with quarreling preschoolers, not adults discussing political differences. 😀

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 8:44 am

Hey Olivia, it is your logic not mine. God, you are an idiot.

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy
July 18, 2011 4:11 pm

I don’t get why people get exercised about what she says/thinks. I really don’t. Even when she has’nt even commeted on a story, people reference her, & it makes no sense. She gets off on wind-up posts, & then watching the reaction. It amazes me, & my hunch is that there is more to it then meets the eye.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 19, 2011 5:06 pm

It’s fun.

RockingHorseGuy
Member
July 18, 2011 7:54 am

No, she doesn’t want both sides to cancel each other out. Her side has to win. And if racism is one of the tactics they choose to fight with, then so be it. But her opposition better not try calling her on it.

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 18, 2011 1:35 pm

If Obama was white and he was bi-polar she would be screaming that people are hating on him, because they are hating on people with mental diseases. That he is courageous for going for the presidency while being bi-polar and that the mental disease haters are bad people. It doesn’t matter whatever she has to say or do to continue her crazy politics she will do it. Racism is just a tool in the hands of these people.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 5:51 am

If Obama was white and he was bi-polar she would be screaming that people are hating on him, because they are hating on people with mental diseases. That he is courageous for going for the presidency while being bi-polar and that the mental disease haters are bad people. It doesn’t matter whatever she has to say or do to continue her crazy politics she will do it. Racism is just a tool in the hands of these people.
*******************
Well, first of all, I don’t accuse anyone of “hating ON” others. “Hate” doesn’t take a preposition.

Second, Obama is NOT bipolar (and, if he were, it’s highly unlikely that he would have gotten as far as he did on his own), so your accusation is pointless.

Third, I would never be so silly as to label people “mental disease haters.” That’s just childish name calling, and sounds much more typical of your buddies than it does of me. 😉

And, fourth, you’re not doing a very effective job of explaining WHY you don’t believe Obama is targeted by racism in any way. Flinging insults at those who believe he is isn’t a refutation—-it’s just a lame attempt to avoid talking about it.

drb
Member
drb
July 19, 2011 6:13 am

second hat trick

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:03 am

Not even smart enough to grasp a hypothetical Oblivious? You really are a sad one.

brm
Member
brm
July 19, 2011 6:18 am

“Not even smart enough to grasp a hypothetical Oblivious? You really are a sad one.”

Nah. She just lives up to her name.

😉

gibsmesum
Guest
gibsmesum
July 18, 2011 2:47 am

The first thing incompetent blacks do is scream “rayciss” at anything they don’t like – haven’t you figured that out by now? And you people keep electing these damn moronic, idiotic, black fools.

You get what you deserve. Gnomesayin?

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 18, 2011 6:42 am

And what do you call the white democrats who are AS incompetent or more than this woman? I guess because they are white they get a pass right? You are a fool.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 2:43 am

And what do you call the white democrats who are AS incompetent or more than this woman? I guess because they are white they get a pass right? You are a fool.
*********************
First, what’s your evidence that she’s “incompetent” in her position?

So far, you righties seem to be focusing on this one issue—-the fact that she suspects racism has something to do with the peculiar lack of respect shown Obama by his political opponents in Congress.

Odd that you’d be SO dismissive of that suggestion, and so eager to see this woman discredited for daring to suggest it. Why is that such a hot button issue for you, who claim to be of black ancestry yourself?

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 4:28 am

she suspects racism has something to do with the peculiar lack of respect shown Obama by his political opponents in Congress.

So then I guess it was racism when congressional opponents of GWB showed an even more glaring lack of respect toward him? She suspects racism when someone opposes Obama’s positions, but Bush used to be called stupid, retarded, and worse when he was President, but that’s OK because he’s one of those vile conservatives!

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 19, 2011 5:42 am

So then I guess it was racism when congressional opponents of GWB showed an even more glaring lack of respect toward him? She suspects racism when someone opposes Obama’s positions, but Bush used to be called stupid, retarded, and worse when he was President, but that’s OK because he’s one of those vile conservatives!
*********************
Wrong. As I pointed out earlier (which you Bush fans conveniently ignored), Bush enjoyed sky high approval ratings after 9/11. It was only later, when it was discovered that he’d maneuvered us into an expensive and unwinnable war on carefully edited evidence; that he’d trashed our international reputation; that he’d tried to cram his personal religious views down everyone else’s throat; that he’d badly underestimated the dangers of slashing infrastructure maintenance budgets (e.g., Lake Pontchartrain levees), appointed cronies to high level positions that they weren’t qualified to handle and driven our economy into a ditch, that he forfeited all that respect.

But you forgot about all those misdeeds, didn’t you? 😉

drb
Member
drb
July 19, 2011 6:12 am

thirds #5 for today

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 6:01 am

Changing the subject again? Diversion doesn’t work on us dumbpling!

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
July 19, 2011 4:23 am

Hat trick!

YT
Member
YT
July 18, 2011 9:01 am

They don’t need a special name because incompetant democrat is a redundant term. SJL deserves special attention because her race is her motivator aside from the fact she is a mouth-breathing retard without a helmet (aka democrat). If she had more than 2 brain-cells to rub together she would still behave the same way. If not, she wouldn’t be a black democrat but instead a republican or independent that happen to be black. See the difference?

KimmyQueen
Guest
July 18, 2011 1:31 pm

Oh I know the difference… the point is that she is a democrat/progressive period. They are ALL fools, they all use race for something or another. There are many white progressives who continually state that Obama is being hated on because he is black. It is because they are Progressives. Period.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 1:44 pm

Oh I know the difference… the point is that she is a democrat/progressive period. They are ALL fools, they all use race for something or another. There are many white progressives who continually state that Obama is being hated on because he is black. It is because they are Progressives. Period.
**************************
Oh, sure—-the vicious racist stereotypes and accusations aimed at Obama AND his wife are pure coincidence, right?

P.S. Glenn Beck lied to you. Most of us liberals are happy to refer to ourselves as liberals, and don’t bother with that “progressive” label.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 4:01 am

The first thing incompetent blacks do is scream “rayciss” at anything they don’t like – haven’t you figured that out by now? And you people keep electing these damn moronic, idiotic, black fools.

***********************
She’s right, you know. Debt ceiling notwithstanding (which is a separate argument), few presidents have been as intensely hated by the opposition as this man is. And, no matter how you try to pretty it up, one very big underlying reason (aside from the fact that the antiliberal propaganda machine is more powerful than it’s ever been) is racism.

That can easily be seen, when his detractors trot out all those ugly racially charged stereotypes. “Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people!” “Obama is a Muslim!” (All them blacks with funny sounding African names are, don’tchaknow.) “Michelle Obama is fat and arrogant and makes a pig of herself on OUR tax dollars!” (Thinly veiled variation of the “welfare queen” stereotype.) “We need to see Obama’s college transcripts, ’cause I bet he was an inferior student who got in on Affirmative Action!” “He was a community organizer, and ain’t that some kind of ghetto hustler?” “He and his wife need to go back to the ghetto!” (All black Chicagoans are from the ghetto, don’tchaknow.) “Obama is an embarrassment abroad!” “He wants to gouge white taxpayers and give all the money to ‘blacks’!”

It’s all there. I always get a kick out of far righters who try to pretend that that big smelly elephant ISN’T sitting in the middle of the living room.

It’s also a standard deflection tactic to argue, “She’s the racist, because she brought it up!” One isn’t a racist simply by bringing up the fact that racism is alive and well in the U.S. today. But I can see why those with racist views would try hard to stifle any such comments.

Thallus
Member
Thallus
July 18, 2011 5:34 am

Dear Ollie,

Were all the white folk that didn’t like or couldn’t stand “Bubba” Clinton racists too? Not withstanding Bubba’s claim of being the first “black” president, can it be policy or political philosophy the deciding factor of whether a president is liked or disliked rather than race? If not, then I guess you must consider me an equal opportunity racist.

Love,
Thallus

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 5:55 am

Were all the white folk that didn’t like or couldn’t stand “Bubba” Clinton racists too?
***********************
No doubt some were. But Clinton was just one of a long line of white male presidents of northern European ancestry, so white racism wouldn’t have entered into their personal feelings about him.
****************************
Not withstanding Bubba’s claim of being the first “black” president, can it be policy or political philosophy the deciding factor of whether a president is liked or disliked rather than race? If not, then I guess you must consider me an equal opportunity racist.
*****************************
You know, I could take you a little more seriously if you’d stop calling Clinton “Bubba.” (Ditto for those who insist on calling Obama “Barry.” If they are/were that bad as presidents, you should be able to state why, without playing cutesy little games with their first names.) Obviously, there are many reasons besides racial prejudice to be opposed to either of those presidents. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that racial prejudice doesn’t enter into the inordinate hatred aimed at the current president AND his wife.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
July 18, 2011 4:30 am

Were you alive when Bush 43 was president.?

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 5:42 am

Were you alive when Bush 43 was president.?

**************************
Yes. But don’t blame me—-I had nothing to do with it. 😉

Ruben
Member
Ruben
July 18, 2011 6:08 am

The point is that Bush was as “hated” for his policies as anyone “hates” Obama now. No one should mistake opposition for hatred.

I would allow, however, that there may be a small percentage that hate Obama for half of his ethnicity… but then the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam will always hate whites.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
July 18, 2011 6:37 am

The point is that Bush was as “hated” for his policies as anyone “hates” Obama now. No one should mistake opposition for hatred.
*************************
Wrong. However people felt about Bush being appointed president in 2000, he did enjoy enormous popularity directly after 9/11. It was only after he squandered that popularity (along with the nation’s financial stability, and international respect) that the resentment came pouring in.

Obama, in contrast, has been roundly hated by the right ever since he became the top contender for the DNC presidential nomination. (Before that, most of their spleen was vented on Hillary Clinton.) All of a sudden, the sexist remarks came to a screeching halt, and the racially charged accusations came pouring in. (Some of which I listed in an earlier post. It’s very telling that ALL of you chose to ignore those examples, preferring, instead, to “hide” that post and pretend it never happened.)
*****************************
I would allow, however, that there may be a small percentage that hate Obama for half of his ethnicity… but then the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam will always hate whites.
*****************************
SUCH a classic comment from the brainwashed far right. To them, everything bad is always somebody else’s fault—just as, to them, sacrifices are for somebody other than themselves to endure. They alone are immune to harboring any sort of bigotry (even when they repeat ugly stereotypes about selected minority groups)—-and anyone who says differently must be a bigot himself.

Oh, yes, that’s the charm of being a far righter. Their media heroes pump up their self-esteem until they actually believe that bigotry is a patriotic American value, and that anyone who dares to criticize THEIR attitude is the real “racist.”

Ruben
Member
Ruben
July 18, 2011 10:08 am

I’m not bi-polar… I’M BI-WINNING!

Thanks for the laughs, Olivia. Enjoying your day off?

drb
Member
drb
July 18, 2011 6:44 am

3RDS!

VelvetKevorkian
Member
VelvetKevorkian
July 18, 2011 2:46 am

This mental midget needs to be reminded of the 2006 vote when EVERY SINGLE DEM including Obama voted against it.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/debt-vote-flashback-every-single-dem-voted-against-raising-the-debt-in-2006/

RKae
Member
RKae
July 18, 2011 1:35 am

If the debt ceiling is such a precarious place to be, why did he sign a “stimulus” package that shoved us right up against it? Why no breathing room?

wpDiscuz