PDA

View Full Version : The regime plays it's last card!



LWW
07-16-2011, 08:33 AM
http://joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/FR/race_card2.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president, why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. 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?

I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one.

Read between the lines, what is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?

I hope someone will say that what it appears to be is not in fact accurate," said Lee. "But historically it seems to be nothing more."
-Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)-</div></div>

HOW PATHETIC! (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/171807-sheila-jackson-lee-suggests-congress-complicating-debt-ceiling-because-obama-is-black)

Sev
07-16-2011, 10:20 AM
Well look who is saying it. No surprise there.

Soflasnapper
07-16-2011, 12:08 PM
It would actually be better if she were correct. At least then, we'd have a chance that a whiter Democratic president could get a modicum of cooperation and good will governance in partnership with the GOP rump caucus.

However, and what is worse, this doesn't relate to the color of this president, but the fact that the modern day GOP considers every Democratic president illegitimate, and someone to totally oppose, as opposed to working with him. (See, Clinton).

This is far worse a situation than base racism.

LWW
07-16-2011, 02:30 PM
I don't care how the GOP sees the democrooks.

I see them as the party of robbers, gangsters, pedophiles, common criminals, tax cheats, welfare loafers, mentally deranged, terminally naive, graft ridden, soft on crime, anti US interests, corruption laden nits that are completely beholden to special interests.

Other than that, they aren't too bad.

Qtec
07-17-2011, 01:48 AM
I think she's got a point. Just look at the hatred that comes from LWW and his posse. Its not normal. This hatred was there LONG before he actually became POTUS and LONG before he had even done anything as POTUS.

First it was the religion card. Obama was a Muslim.[Fox ran for 2 weeks on the debunked madrassa story.]
Then the 3 year campaign to see his BC. [ ie, he's not one of us. ]

Beck, the poster boy for the 'Tea Party', said this.........and he was still their poster boy afterwards!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beck: Obama has "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people" </div></div> watch (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907280008)

I could go on with another 20 examples showing overt racism from the RW media but as soon as you mention something like that, you get accused of playing the race card by the RW! How crazy is that. Pointing out their racism is playing the race card.

What's been exceptional about this presidency is the total lack of support from the other side to get things done. From day one they have made it clear that their main objective is to take Obama down.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sen. McConnell: Making Obama A One-Term President Is My Single Most Important Political Goal </div></div> watch (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mcconnell-making-obama-a-one-term-president-is-my-single-most-important-political-goal/)

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Look at it from an Afro-American's point of view.</span>

The first ever 'black' Pres - with a hugh mandate for change - gets the cold treatment from the GOP who go into stall mode. <u>They don't have any majority so they bring Govt to a halt. </u>They offer endless amendments etc and then vote against those amendments when they are up for a vote. They never argued in good faith.

They watered down the the HC bill, they watered down the Wall St bill and they try to de-fund everything they can.

Combine this with the total media assault on Obama from Fox, RW pundits etc and you have to admit, its pretty extreme.

Black Americans may have good reason to think that,

"Mitch admitted it, he doesn't give a rats a$$ about how real Americans are suffering, getting that upity n----r out the WH is his main priority."

Q...?

LWW
07-17-2011, 03:18 AM
Translated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The regime says it,

I accept it,

That settles it.

Q...?


</div></div>

I especially love how you blame Fox for the stories originated by the Hillary camp.

Your doublethink skill grows stronger with each passing day.

Soflasnapper
07-17-2011, 10:52 AM
All of that is accurate. However, I think the racial aspect is simply another handy tool for 'otherness,' and if it were not available, you'd have seen a very similar 'he's not one of us' propaganda campaign using other parameters.

The tag 'San Francisco Democrat' as code for gay-loving, chablis-drinking, countercultural advocating out of the mainstream of American culture Democrats long preceded Obama's rise, dating back at least to the Houston Republican convention hatefest with Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Pat Buchanan leading the rhetorical parade.

Carter's Democratic Party was smeared as the party of 'abortion, acid, and amnesty.' The Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, lay minister, and born again Christian Carter, eventually outflanked for the evangelicals' support by a divorced Hollywood playboy type who rarely ever went to church services and who preached instead a gospel of self-interest and greed, and hatred and scorn for 'the least among us.'

From the GOP's perspective, they had to do something. O had a large majority gained over several election cycles before he added to it, and they were marching right over the GOP, getting almost all of their legislative victories before they even had the 60 vote margin in the Senate, by pealing off the 2 to 4 remaining moderate votes in the GOP Senate caucus.

Passing bills the very week the Congress was sworn in, and looking like they'd get their agenda put into law despite near-unanimous GOP opposition.

They couldn't just say we are opposing this guy with the electoral mandate given him and his party because we are the other party and that's what we do. They had to make him and the party's agenda (which they ran on and received a big mandate to pursue) evil, suspect, 'the other.' They used whatever tools they had, race one of the prominent ones, but I would argue not out of an inherent racism themselves, but because of its existence just below the surface of national discourse, making it a powerful tool.

But when Darrell Issa said this was the very most corrupt administration ever, THAT wasn't racial. A propaganda lie, yes, but not one using race as its basis. (Issa's walked that back to a great degree.)

LWW
07-17-2011, 11:09 AM
That was one of your best delusions ever.

Let me get this straight.

According to you, they were getting everything done that they wanted done even though they didn't have 60 votes in the senate ... and then they couldn't get anything done because they didn't have 60 votes long enough.

That one brought a tear to dear leader's eye.

Soflasnapper
07-17-2011, 12:54 PM
That is true, however much a tiny brain may find it incredulous. One thing happened, and then the other thing happened.

It was the very success of Obama/Reid/Pelosi in putting through agenda items very quickly, using the stray maverick moderate Republicans to GET THE 60 VOTES needed to proceed to a vote (not to win the vote, note well, once the vote was allowed, even 51 was sufficient for passage), that caused the GOP to begin to enforce strict party orthodoxy and lockstep voting sufficient to eventually require the 60 votes for proceeding on anything be acquired some different way.

This was so PARTICULARLY on health care reform, as DeMint had identified it as potentially O's 'Waterloo,' that if they could stop him on THAT, he would be gravely weakened. That they tied that thing up needing 60 and forcing the stray NE Republicans to stick with the GOP orthodoxy, bottlenecked up a lot of the time and legislative agenda.

So an Olympia Snow, a Susan Collins, or a Charles Grassley, who as late as April '09 had been saying that of course, as the personal mandate had been the GOP policy they put forward after the Heritage Foundation had created it in the Clinton health care fight as an alternative, there was a BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS (he said), that the mandate was the way to go-- all decided they HAD to oppose what they'd previously, just recently, proposed or supported.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Years before Senator Hatch was ostentatiously restoring American liberty by repealing the law he now calls “clearly unconstitutional,” he sponsored legislation to enact it. So, too, have Republican Senators Bob Bennett, Kit Bond, Richard Lugar, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Mike Crapo, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg, and Chuck Grassley. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In 2009, Grassley told Fox News that “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.” And yet, the idea that began with Republican President Richard Nixon and the conservative Heritage Foundation </span>has managed to become the epitome of the big government bogeyman. Republican politicians from every corner of the country are voting in unison and lining up on cable news shows to decry the abomination that is . . . their own idea.

So what, really, is the problem with the individual mandate? Well, the idea belongs to President Obama now. And that means it must be bad.

This type of turnaround is not new. For the past two years, Republican political strategy has clung unwaveringly to a dogma of fighting tooth and nail every single thing the President proposes whether or not they originally disagreed. The attitude has been one in which the will to oppose drives which ideas are adopted, rather than the other way around. Health care reform, more broadly than the mandate, mirrors virtually identically the Republican reform proposal from 1993. Yet, conservative politicians and commentators have trashed the legislation as “a government takeover” of one-sixth of the economy, a statement the nonpartisan website politifact.com called the “Lie of the Year” and vowed to repeal it. </div></div>

LWW
07-17-2011, 01:36 PM
Actually ... what weakened Obama worse than anything was passage of OBAMACARE.

But, you do live in an alternate universe of imagination.

Soflasnapper
07-17-2011, 06:33 PM
More than the continuing bad economy? Don't think so.

I'd say, more than either heath care reform, OR the bad economy, it has been the relentless media attacks at unprecedented levels, not seen even in the Clinton years until the impeachment period.

LWW
07-18-2011, 02:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it has been the relentless media attacks at unprecedented levels, not seen even in the Clinton years until the impeachment period. </div></div>

That is an astounding level of disinformation there.

The reality is that the media has never carried the water for a POTUS in the modern era as they have for this one.

What chaps the left's collectivist arses on this is that there are actually a handful of sources that aren't card carrying members of the Obamedia.

Grow up.

Qtec
07-18-2011, 04:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of that is accurate. However, I think the racial aspect is simply another handy tool for 'otherness,' and if it were not available, you'd have seen a very similar 'he's not one of us' propaganda campaign using other parameters. </div></div>

I agree, but this time the racial aspect was/is available and has been played to death. Sometimes subtly like 'he's not a real American', to overtly like in the case of Beck.

I agree also that they went after Clinton from the start and were willing to bring him down any way they could.

What we do know about the present GOP is that they have no ethics and no morals. They will use any means to divide the country because that's the only way they can ever win. Playing the race card is all part of the crusade. The end justifies the means.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-19-2011, 05:24 PM
You make a good point.

And as an aside, it helps explain why Obama refuses to 'get in their faces' and take partisan attack lines. First, of course, it would go against his bipartisan/post-partisan brand, which promised to bring us all together.

But secondly, can you imagine what would be done with the 'angry black man' frame if he took on that attack dog mode?

Beds would be wet across the conservative bedrooms.

LWW
07-20-2011, 02:16 AM
Gone shark jumping again I see.