...it's why I never could and still can't understand all the whining and complaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXeKrbtMz2M
This blog has moved to www.didyoucheckfirst.wordpress.com. Hope to see you there.
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Perry's Bigoted Christian Ad

I couldn't believe this was real when I saw it.
http://youtu.be/3K1o78mQjYU
Maybe I can get the conversation started by asking some questions based exactly on the things he says.
1. What is so wrong with gays serving openly in the military?
Have we been attacked since repeal of DADT? Have their been mass resignations? Are the well-armed and well-trained gays suddenly forcing straight servicemen and women to engage in homosexual acts at gun point?
How about we all grow up on this question and stop acting like sex is the only thing that matters or that it's anyone's business but the people involved?
2. Who is keeping anyone from celebrating Christmas openly?
I haven't seen any jack-booted Obamanators rounding up and burning Christmas trees. Christians just seem to be acting like selfish children (again) by not acknowledging that theirs is NOT the only holiday being celebrated at this time of year.
Besides, this whole "season" is mostly about commerce.
3. Prayer in school is a resolved issue.
It flies in the face of separation of church and state. Everyone knows that. If you want your kid to pray in school, send him to a private school that allows open prayer, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever.
How come you never hear Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Druids or whatever whining about this?
4. Obama's war on religion?
What war? Where? Against whom? Being waged how? Everyone knows what he's implying here: that scary half-black Barack HUSSEIN Obama is really a Muslim, and we all know what that leads to next, right?
Yep. The birth certificate.
5. What Liberal attacks against religious heritage?
No one I know denies the role religion has played in our cultural and national development.
In fact, we liberals seem to be the ones who have to keep reminding people like Perry about that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution.
Look, I get it. Everyone gets it. Faith plays an important role in many people's lives. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong, IMHO, is the endless attempts by zealous Christians at rewriting history to somehow claim that it was because we were and are a predominantly Christian nation as the only reason we grew strong as nation and now is how we can somehow regain whatever it is they claim we've supposedly lost.
This ad is just another example of incredibly irresponsible and erroneous hyperbole meant to rile up a segment of the GOP base. It makes me roll my eyes in wonder at what in the world has happened to the GOP and how it is that rational Republicans aren't outraged by Perry.
In my book, the only thing separating a guy like this and a mullah in the tribal regions of Afghanistan is which "flavor" of monotheism he wants to see become the law of the land....at any cost.
Labels:
bigot,
Christianity,
DADT,
GOP,
liberal,
monotheism,
racism,
Rick Perry,
school prayer
Monday, July 5, 2010
Special Comment: Teabaggers and Racisim.
I went to my first tea party (notice the terminology) rally this weekend sponsored by the Southwest PA Tea Party.
Had to see for myself. Video of the MC (I guess that's who he was) and their featured speaker, some talk show/commentator who fills in for Savage and Doyle (tells you everything you need to know about him) named Jeff Kuhner from DC, are at http://www.youtube.com/user/PeaceIsPatriotic.
I know some of you won't believe this, but I went with an open mind. These people are, after all, locals and neighbors. The event was only a few miles from my home. I wanted to see and hear what was being said. I wanted to find some common ground.
I did. I'm as pissed off as anyone about the state of affairs in this country. I was hoping to hear solutions and rational ideas mixed in with the anger and frustration. Surely, my neighbors weren't the same idiotic racists and blindly loyal conservatives I've seen on TV and the Internet at all the other tea party rallies. Surely, they weren't the stereotypical "tea baggers" with their thinly veiled racism and complete lack of understanding of the facts about how we got to this sorry state in America and whom I've come to hold in utter contempt and disdain.
Not here. Not my neighbors.
Sadly, I was wrong. The common ground was all too thin. The stereotypes are all too true.
This was a gathering of angry white Christian rednecks only. It was sad to see and hear how completely uninformed these people are. They blame Obama for everything; from being a socialist and a Marxist (2 different things, of course), to wanting amnesty for illegals (he doesn't), to the financial and economic crisis (don't even make me say it), to not having capped the oil well. They want people "back on their knees" and praying only to their Christian god (lower case intentional).
It was sad to see this live, in-person, and first-hand. It's sad to see just how easily duped some people are. They hear only what they want and cheer on cue....like at the mere mention of Ronny Reagan.
I have news for you, my neighbors. Chants of "USA, USA" and dressing up in colonial costumes does NOT make you a patriot. You are an embarrassment to me, this part of PA and the real Americans who see you for what you really are.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Comparing Reid and Lott is Right-Wing Grasping at Straws
To compare Reid with Lott is disingenuous.
And in case anyone else shares this with you, the words "light skinned Negro" never, never, NEVER appeared together in Reid's statement. If one wants to question whether or not Reid is somehow a racist, they should at least start with a truthful and accurate quote. Let me help.
This is what the Wall Street Journal reported at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126316391149723551.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop:
Mr. Reid, who supported Mr. Obama's candidacy, said in private remarks during the campaign that the country was ready for a "light-skinned" African-American president with "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
That's a world away from saying "light skinned Negro" and it's an entire universe away from Lott honoring a man who ran for president on a platform that included segregation.
Let me put this into a formula that anyone can understand: segregation = racism = hatred = stupidity.
-> Reid supported Obama then and supports him now.
His comments were the ill-chosen words of at least two generations ago and meant as a compliment. No one, including me, is arguing that they weren't wrong by today's standards of an advanced and enlightened civil society, nor were they within the standards of what we commonly refer to as political correctness. Standards of political correctness, I might add, most conservatives seem to rail against at every turn. In fact, I'm a little surprised there aren't actually cheers coming from the Right for his lack of p.c. Trying to have it both ways, maybe?
-> Thurmond wanted to segregate blacks.
It's a fact that it was part of his platform for president. Lott's words on Strom in 2002 were, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/)
It's clear that Lott liked Thurmond, was proud of him, and thinks America would have been better had Strom been elected president in 1948. A segregated America would have been better????? Job discrimination, lynchings, poll taxes, and segregation would have been better???? Is that not racism??? See http://www.gallup.com/poll/7444/gallup-brain-strom-thurmond-1948-election.aspx for how far we've come since 1948 and some insight into why Lott's comments were so egregious. I really can't fathom how someone in Lott's position could have made such remarks if he wasn't at least somewhat racist himself.
So, just how plain confrontational does the Right have to want to be to even begin to compare Reid to Lott? I think that's grasping at straws.
And in case anyone else shares this with you, the words "light skinned Negro" never, never, NEVER appeared together in Reid's statement. If one wants to question whether or not Reid is somehow a racist, they should at least start with a truthful and accurate quote. Let me help.
This is what the Wall Street Journal reported at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126316391149723551.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop:
Mr. Reid, who supported Mr. Obama's candidacy, said in private remarks during the campaign that the country was ready for a "light-skinned" African-American president with "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
That's a world away from saying "light skinned Negro" and it's an entire universe away from Lott honoring a man who ran for president on a platform that included segregation.
Let me put this into a formula that anyone can understand: segregation = racism = hatred = stupidity.
-> Reid supported Obama then and supports him now.
His comments were the ill-chosen words of at least two generations ago and meant as a compliment. No one, including me, is arguing that they weren't wrong by today's standards of an advanced and enlightened civil society, nor were they within the standards of what we commonly refer to as political correctness. Standards of political correctness, I might add, most conservatives seem to rail against at every turn. In fact, I'm a little surprised there aren't actually cheers coming from the Right for his lack of p.c. Trying to have it both ways, maybe?
-> Thurmond wanted to segregate blacks.
It's a fact that it was part of his platform for president. Lott's words on Strom in 2002 were, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/)
It's clear that Lott liked Thurmond, was proud of him, and thinks America would have been better had Strom been elected president in 1948. A segregated America would have been better????? Job discrimination, lynchings, poll taxes, and segregation would have been better???? Is that not racism??? See http://www.gallup.com/poll/7444/gallup-brain-strom-thurmond-1948-election.aspx for how far we've come since 1948 and some insight into why Lott's comments were so egregious. I really can't fathom how someone in Lott's position could have made such remarks if he wasn't at least somewhat racist himself.
So, just how plain confrontational does the Right have to want to be to even begin to compare Reid to Lott? I think that's grasping at straws.
Labels:
Harry Reid,
Obama,
racism,
Strom Thurmond,
Trent Lott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)