Obama's Ruby Ridge?

[Diogenes]

I do find it interesting we have two major influential compassionate politicians respresenting the Democrats who are absolutely shocked there could be an African American who looks and speaks such as our President does.

It is sort of a window in to their thinking isn't it because apparently it sounds like to me anyway they are confusing President Obama with another stereotype all together.

[Cherry Kelly]

Diogenes -- I too prefer facts. Stated them quite often. RE-Bundy - yet we have people sho didn't listen or read - but believed only what the media pushed...sadly.

Also seems that some don't bother to see which party gave our friends (blacks) freedoms, the voting - etc. It was GOP - not DEM.

Just the same - Obama is half black, half white - yet seems to ignore his wife half. (Also a pix of O out golfing instead of attending the funeral of his favorite - illegal aunt. Supposedly he even lived with her for a short time - college years.) Why aren't people talking about that? dunno- don't care at this point of time.

Just like why aren't people talking about Reid's statements -- calling people terrorists, or lying about problems with ACA claiming those people are liars --

CAN we say if its something anti GOP - they will run off and on and on and on about them, but if its something bad about a DEM -- sweep it under the rug. SAD!!!

[Diogenes]

Diogenes -- I too prefer facts. Stated them quite often. RE-Bundy - yet we have people sho didn't listen or read - but believed only what the media pushed...sadly.

Also seems that some don't bother to see which party gave our friends (blacks) freedoms, the voting - etc. It was GOP - not DEM.

Just the same - Obama is half black, half white - yet seems to ignore his wife half. (Also a pix of O out golfing instead of attending the funeral of his favorite - illegal aunt. Supposedly he even lived with her for a short time - college years.) Why aren't people talking about that? dunno- don't care at this point of time.

Just like why aren't people talking about Reid's statements -- calling people terrorists, or lying about problems with ACA claiming those people are liars --

CAN we say if its something anti GOP - they will run off and on and on and on about them, but if its something bad about a DEM -- sweep it under the rug. SAD!!!

CK - off topic but was in the garden last night and you and your peppers crossed my "wandering" mind:D

Anyway this is what I find interesting - if a Dem is egregious then we say "oh they are all the same" no goods, blah, blah, blah. If it happens to be a Republican then the Republican party is racist, against women and Gays and all of the rest.

When I listen to Mr. Bundys comments I hear a man lamenting the plight of the Black people in general - that is what I hear. Truly when I first heard the Sterling conversaiton - I laughed at the absurdity of this 81 year old man and his 38 year old GF and how stupid and unintelligent they both came across to me. At first blush I thought it was his male ego upset that a friend of his has called to tell him his GF was with a Black man. Then as I read more about him which is documented relative to race and discrimination I thought well I guess it was more that just his male ego. I have seen nor heard of anything concrete which would make me think Mr. Bundy is a racist.

In general in life I feel a person's actions are the ultimate test of how one truly believes and feels.

I am simple minded - I know.

[Raggedyann]

Anyway this is what I find interesting - if a Dem is egregious then we say "oh they are all the same" no goods, blah, blah, blah. If it happens to be a Republican then the Republican party is racist, against women and Gays and all of the rest.

There is nothing stopping you from bringing to light things the Democrats say that are racist, against women and Gay bashing. I'm sure they're out there. Maybe their opinions don't come to light because they aren't so stupid as to announce their views to all and sundry with the belief that all and sundry will agree with them.

The Republicans have not been stifled in the land of airing political opinions. In fact, the loudest and most famous voices on the air are Republicans and according to the ratings polls, they have the largest listening and viewing audience. And this may even be to their detriment. All those over educated snobbish pricks, that currently hold the title of leader and their progressive followers, are listening too.

[Diogenes]

There is nothing stopping you from bringing to light things the Democrats say that are racist, against women and Gay bashing. I'm sure they're out there. Maybe their opinions don't come to light because they aren't so stupid as to announce their views to all and sundry with the belief that all and sundry will agree with them.

The Republicans have not been stifled in the land of airing political opinions. In fact, the loudest and most famous voices on the air are Republicans and according to the ratings polls, they have the largest listening and viewing audience. And this may even be to their detriment. All those over educated snobbish pricks, that currently hold the title of leader and their progressive followers, are listening too.

RA,

Precisely because I truly do believe both parties are in it together I simply don’t bother to start a thread based upon proving a point here and there about the Dems - BUT that doesn’t stop me from posting a counter to your points regarding the Republicans.

This is what I am certain you dislike Republicans intensely and it’s clear from everything you post. You may find the Dems annoying but still and all you hold them on a higher level no matter the deed.

It’s true the Liberal voices have not done well via radio as evidenced by Air America and then you can look at the TV ratings of MSNBC and they are dead last. So if you go by that I guess you may think the Conservative message resonates but it doesn’t and it doesn’t because there are too many of us in the US taking from the system and we have been broken down into tribes and we don’t vote anymore based upon what is good for our country - we vote according to our own personal needs. Our politicians pander to those needs and because of this we don’t vote or think like Americans any longer.

Have you ever heard or thought of the type of discrimination which has been refereed to as “soft bigotry and low expectations”?

That is the United States Welfare system in a nut shell and also describes a goodmany of our public schools. This is the philosophy I believe the vast majority of Democrats perpetuate, promote, push and fund time and time again. Also the Republicans are eager to grovel for votes so they push this as well. I find this type of bigotry more appalling than that of say a Donald Sterling because it is so subtle. It’s not in your face but it’s destructive in a much more insidious way.

Donald Sterling is a Liberal Jewish Democrat and yet by your standards and apparently factual evidence, he is a racist. Does that make all Democrats racist? No it does not so why do you think when a right wing nut case makes a stupid comment, that is automatic documentation the Republican party is racist in its’ entirety?

To state the Dems don’t announce their views to all and sundry is total nonsense. For one how about Sandra Fluke during their recent Presidential convention? Or this - you just happen to think if they say they agree with “marriage equality” that means they are fair and compassionate folks and those who disagree are homophobic. Maybe those homophobes simply have religious beliefs which preclude them from feeling comfortable with such unions. But you write them off because you feel their belief system is grounded in fairly tales so you write them off as homophobes.

As far as those Progressive snobbish PR**&S - that is Fans and your term for Progressives - not mine.

You and Fan refer to Republicans as asshats or worse - you won’t hear me referring to those far more Liberal on this board in such a derogatory way - frankly I find it classless and childish.

[Raggedyann]

Edited to say now I understand more about the highly prized nomination of Stirling - according to records he is a Dem and has a record of supporting Dem candidates.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/26/race- ... r/?print=1

Donald Sterling is a Republican, not a Democrat -- but does it matter?

The Donald Sterling controversy had much of the right wing vibrating this weekend with the revelation that the purported arch-racist Sterling was (gasp!) a Democrat. This shed little light on the Sterling affair, other than to underscore the ancient truism that some public scandals are so explosive that for at least a period of time one can write or say anything one wishes about them without fear of contradiction.

Cue, for example, the National Review, whose headline read: "Racist Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Has Only Contributed to Democrats."

Nice try, National Review. Here's the truth: Sterling is a registered Republican and has been at least since 1998. As I divulged via Twitter on Sunday night, that information comes from the official database of California voter registrations. A readout of Sterling's registration record is here, collated to the Clipper owner's official residence in Beverly Hills and his documented birth date, April 26, 1934. (Yes, he turned 80 on Saturday.)

After I tweeted this fact on Sunday, scads of conservatives tweeted their doubts, pointing out that the voter database is not public, so why should they believe it? Actually, the registration database is public --you just have to know a lot about the subject to obtain his or her party registration.

So doubters are welcome to check the official Los Angeles county registrar's website, here. Plug in Sterling's name, house number (808), zip code (90210) and birth date from our readout (or track them down yourself) and have fun.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... z30KJd3VPR

[Cherry Kelly]

Does anyone care one way or the other whether Sterling is "registered" in CA as GOP or DEM?

The 81 yr old had his phone conversations taped by the 38yrold? female who is - if one digs into her - a 'golddigger' - who uses her body to go after men who are millionaire, billionaires. She has even lauded it.

The fact that Sterling is married - it does appear that his wife knows about his 'affairs'.

NOW making racist comments is nothing new. Gee are we going to hold every individual to the same standard? Even blacks who make racists comments about whites or asians or others? When illegally taped via a phone call? When they say something to an audience? WHAT? Or just go after certain ones only.

Action has been taken in this. Now I am wondering how many other owners will be gone after for similar remarks?

[Diogenes]

CK,

This is the most honest and refreshing account of this situation. The hypocrisy is called out and that is always refreshing because people knew how he really felt by his documented actions but the money trumped and even the flaky NAACP was about to honor him.

So much for their character and insight.

http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-k ... ar-racism/

[Diogenes]

Donald Sterling is a Republican, not a Democrat -- but does it matter?

The Donald Sterling controversy had much of the right wing vibrating this weekend with the revelation that the purported arch-racist Sterling was (gasp!) a Democrat. This shed little light on the Sterling affair, other than to underscore the ancient truism that some public scandals are so explosive that for at least a period of time one can write or say anything one wishes about them without fear of contradiction.

Cue, for example, the National Review, whose headline read: "Racist Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Has Only Contributed to Democrats."

Nice try, National Review. Here's the truth: Sterling is a registered Republican and has been at least since 1998. As I divulged via Twitter on Sunday night, that information comes from the official database of California voter registrations. A readout of Sterling's registration record is here, collated to the Clipper owner's official residence in Beverly Hills and his documented birth date, April 26, 1934. (Yes, he turned 80 on Saturday.)

After I tweeted this fact on Sunday, scads of conservatives tweeted their doubts, pointing out that the voter database is not public, so why should they believe it? Actually, the registration database is public --you just have to know a lot about the subject to obtain his or her party registration.

So doubters are welcome to check the official Los Angeles county registrar's website, here. Plug in Sterling's name, house number (808), zip code (90210) and birth date from our readout (or track them down yourself) and have fun.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... z30KJd3VPR

I think this is good because now MSNBC can report this with full rigor and besides everyone knows Republicans are racist so really no surprise here.

[BenSlain]

And then Joe weighed in as he was in awe also.

Now that was cringe worthy!

[Fan]

As far as those Progressive snobbish PR**&S - that is Fans and your term for Progressives - not mine.

You and Fan refer to Republicans as asshats or worse - you won’t hear me referring to those far more Liberal on this board in such a derogatory way - frankly I find it classless and childish.

Obama is an asshat too, don't cast your net too far. Both parties are complete shills and puppets of their corporate masters. I am a political nihilist, not a subversive agent for one or another.

Stand for a moral belief if that makes you happy, but not a person or party or label.

As to classless, well yes, I am classless. I like that. It is what makes the the kind of person to be able to step in and do what needs to be done, damn the politics, damn the game. I don't really care how people see my first impression. I don't believe in that. Being classy is a way to shut people up. Say what you want, and be frank. Don't play games, have conversations. Use the language you would normally use.

Childish? Doesn't that just mean I am having more fun with this, and, well, everything?

[Raggedyann]

This is what I am certain you dislike Republicans intensely and it’s clear from everything you post.

This is true Dio. I do not like the current brand of Republican. However, I do respect conservative philosophy's and in an ideal world where true liberals and conservatives were representing the US, there would be a productive balance. This is not the case. The Republicans have morphed into a caricature of themselves and the Democrats are Republicans in sheep's clothing.

If I were an American I would be stuck voting Democrat, as they still have some semblance of social fairness, as in separation of church and State. There are too many rigid thinkers in the Republican party that believe there should be no separation, and frankly, this would frighten the hell out of me.

[kbot]

If I were an American I would be stuck voting Democrat, as they still have some semblance of social fairness, as in separation of church and State. There are too many rigid thinkers in the Republican party that believe there should be no separation, and frankly, this would frighten the hell out of me.

Was listening to a story on the radio, I think, yesterday, where the topic was the plaint of the atheist concerning prayer in a public setting - in this case, in town hall meetings, and legislative sessions here in Massachusetts.

The case went to court (of course), and the judge in this particular case noted that prayer at public events, such as town meetings, actually predates the founding of the US. From the time of the earliest colonists, prayer has been, historically, factually (even "scientists" should appreciate the irony here) a large part of the make up of our society.

So, rather than throw out nearly 400 years of precedence, the judge decided that, the issue isn't "prayer" in public, the issue revolved around what was perceived to be an overwhelming tilt towards Christianity and Christian-based prayer. Again, NO surprise here because the country as a whole is overwhelmingly Christian. This is akin to examining water molecules and complaining that there is no, say, xenon, in a water molecule.

So, the judge, rather than caving on the issue ruled that, prayer is allowable, provided that the government does not establish that ONLY a Christian prayer be said.

Fair enough - the judge opened the pre-legislative sessions to ANYONE to offer a prayer. Do what you want. Pray whatever prayer YOU want to pray (or none at all, if that is YOUR wish when YOU choose to lead the opening of the session - just get up and yak up storm - holding to the same time limits as everyone else).

Guess what happened? The prayers continued, and they continued to be virtually, exclusively Christian prayers because the community where this occurred is predominately Christian. Duh......... .

Non-Christian prayer was offered by non-Christians when they opened the session. Did any of the Christians object? If they did, they certainly didn't stamp their feet, threaten to take their ball and go home and then sue over it.

Did the atheists offer any kind of opening? Anything? Nope. Not one word. Not one "Good morning sunshine" to borrow a line from Hair, the musical.

Nada

Zero

Zip

Did any of the lawyers who got paid well to present the case offer anything at any session? Please, don't make me laugh....

Thankfully common sense prevailed. The judge noted that, by allowing prayer, they weren't establishing prayer. The court was doing exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution allows for - and that is the FREE EXPRESSION OF religion.

Unfortunately, many people don't view things that way. It would have been one thing if the atheists involved in the case had exercised THEIR RIGHT after the suit to get up at the meetings and say SOMETHING, and exercised their freedom of speech, but, apparently, all these individuals wanted to do was restrict the free speech of others......

[Diogenes]

This is true Dio. I do not like the current brand of Republican. However, I do respect conservative philosophy's and in an ideal world where true liberals and conservatives were representing the US, there would be a productive balance. This is not the case. The Republicans have morphed into a caricature of themselves and the Democrats are Republicans in sheep's clothing.

If I were an American I would be stuck voting Democrat, as they still have some semblance of social fairness, as in separation of church and State. There are too many rigid thinkers in the Republican party that believe there should be no separation, and frankly, this would frighten the hell out of me.

I'm not sure who it is in the R party you are referring to and also I'm not so sure most of us really understand what that clause means in it's entirety.

I think it's more about the US never becoming a Theocracy and the Congress never imposing one religious belief over another . But truthfully I would love to speak with a real Constitutionalist as this clause causes such consternation for folks.

[Raggedyann]

Was listening to a story on the radio, I think, yesterday, where the topic was the plaint of the atheist concerning prayer in a public setting - in this case, in town hall meetings, and legislative sessions here in Massachusetts.

The case went to court (of course), and the judge in this particular case noted that prayer at public events, such as town meetings, actually predates the founding of the US. From the time of the earliest colonists, prayer has been, historically, factually (even "scientists" should appreciate the irony here) a large part of the make up of our society.

So, rather than throw out nearly 400 years of precedence, the judge decided that, the issue isn't "prayer" in public, the issue revolved around what was perceived to be an overwhelming tilt towards Christianity and Christian-based prayer. Again, NO surprise here because the country as a whole is overwhelmingly Christian. This is akin to examining water molecules and complaining that there is no, say, xenon, in a water molecule.

So, the judge, rather than caving on the issue ruled that, prayer is allowable, provided that the government does not establish that ONLY a Christian prayer be said.

Fair enough - the judge opened the pre-legislative sessions to ANYONE to offer a prayer. Do what you want. Pray whatever prayer YOU want to pray (or none at all, if that is YOUR wish when YOU choose to lead the opening of the session - just get up and yak up storm - holding to the same time limits as everyone else).

Guess what happened? The prayers continued, and they continued to be virtually, exclusively Christian prayers because the community where this occurred is predominately Christian. Duh......... .

Non-Christian prayer was offered by non-Christians when they opened the session. Did any of the Christians object? If they did, they certainly didn't stamp their feet, threaten to take their ball and go home and then sue over it.

Did the atheists offer any kind of opening? Anything? Nope. Not one word. Not one "Good morning sunshine" to borrow a line from Hair, the musical.

Nada

Zero

Zip

Did any of the lawyers who got paid well to present the case offer anything at any session? Please, don't make me laugh....

Thankfully common sense prevailed. The judge noted that, by allowing prayer, they weren't establishing prayer. The court was doing exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution allows for - and that is the FREE EXPRESSION OF religion.

Unfortunately, many people don't view things that way. It would have been one thing if the atheists involved in the case had exercised THEIR RIGHT after the suit to get up at the meetings and say SOMETHING, and exercised their freedom of speech, but, apparently, all these individuals wanted to do was restrict the free speech of others......

Obviously Bill Maher wasn't there.

I can understand why a non religious person would choose to keep their mouth shut in a setting where they might be heavily outnumbered. We don't like to start riots, we just want to live a life not dictated by rules written in an outdated book about a sky daddy. Sorry but that's how I see things.