Hermin Cain Announces!!!!!!!!!

[Stephanie]

Anyone here who in the past tried to mitigate and excuse the 'racially insensitive' attacks on President Obama will look rather silly if they throw a fit over anything similar done towards Cain.
Granted, not that most of these people would care. Most of the rightwingers here are impervious to revelations about their lack of character and hypocrisy.

LOl, racially insensitive attacks on the boyking. The only one throwing fits was you lefties. So it is YOU ALL who will NOW be looking silly and your TRUE COLORS will come through with Mr. Cain. can't wait.

Well, here's Stephanie's reaction to the GOP'er who sent around racist pictures:

omg, I hope you survive this offensive picture (you've made up in your little mind)., I'm not sure you will.
and don't forget we are now suppose to be offended by, gasp,pictures of WATERMELLONS.

So I'm certain Stephanie won't be objecting to anyone giving Cain the same treatment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...d-ca-gop-member-sends-racist-obama-email.html

Nope I won't care. it's just a STUPID PICTURE. like I said again, get OVER yourself. You will not now or EVER take away my freedom of speech and expression with your whiny assed Faux outrage over a stupid e-mail with a stupid picture on it.

 

[Samson]

You don't think comparing Michelle Obama to a gorilla is racially insensitive?

Are you saying that Michelle Obama looks like all black people?

Or are you saying black people look like gorillas?

Why would you think these things?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This was no big deal to the Right around here. Not racist at all.

That was the consensus, with my apologies to the small number of wingnuts here who might have actually objected to this.

So it's safe to assume that the rightwing consensus here will be that similar attacks on Herman Cain won't be considered racist either.

 

[xsited1]

The fact that you have to ask confirms the validity of the rest of my post, the part you didn't quote.

You're missing a key piece of the puzzle. Racially insensitive remarks should not be tolerated, but your ilk have a penchant for seeing racism where none exists. The biggest example is how the word 'racism' is used to refer to anyone who disagrees with the policies of Obama. Unfortunately, the MSM seems to give these people a pass. The sad reality is that it's okay to call anyone who disagrees with a liberal politician's policies as a racist, but not the other way around. If you don't see this, then you're either not paying attention or living in denial. (Wait, weren't you the guy who said McCain was the most conservative member of the Congress in 2010? It all makes sense now.)

John McCain got a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for his 2010 Senate voting record.
Go refute them if you have a problem. The American Conservative Union

Uh, no. That was the National Journal‘s 2010 vote ratings and I've already said how bogus the results were. The NJ didn't even say which votes were used in its scoring and which it ignored. The only thing they said was that they used 96 out of 299 votes.

Try again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope I won't care. it's just a STUPID PICTURE. like I said again, get OVER yourself. You will not now or EVER take away my freedom of speech and expression with your whiny assed Faux outrage over a stupid e-mail with a stupid picture on it.

This makes no sense – only governments can attempt to preempt free expression.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't think comparing Michelle Obama to a gorilla is racially insensitive?

Are you saying that Michelle Obama looks like all black people?

Or are you saying black people look like gorillas?

Why would you think these things?

I didn't make the comparison. I was referring the Republican who did. So now you can pretend you never heard of that, and proceed.

 

[xsited1]

The fact that you have to ask confirms the validity of the rest of my post, the part you didn't quote.

You're missing a key piece of the puzzle. Racially insensitive remarks should not be tolerated, but your ilk have a penchant for seeing racism where none exists. The biggest example is how the word 'racism' is used to refer to anyone who disagrees with the policies of Obama. Unfortunately, the MSM seems to give these people a pass. The sad reality is that it's okay to call anyone who disagrees with a liberal politician's policies as a racist, but not the other way around. If you don't see this, then you're either not paying attention or living in denial. (Wait, weren't you the guy who said McCain was the most conservative member of the Congress in 2010? It all makes sense now.)

You don't think passing around pictures of a watermelon patch in front of the Whitehouse is racially insensitive?

You don't think comparing Michelle Obama to a gorilla is racially insensitive?

You seem to have trouble reading so let me help you out here:

Racially insensitive remarks should not be tolerated

There were a few isolated racially sensitive remarks and as I've highlighted for your edification, they should not be tolerated. Most of the charges of racism were nonexistent and were only used as cover for a failed presidency.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're missing a key piece of the puzzle. Racially insensitive remarks should not be tolerated, but your ilk have a penchant for seeing racism where none exists. The biggest example is how the word 'racism' is used to refer to anyone who disagrees with the policies of Obama. Unfortunately, the MSM seems to give these people a pass. The sad reality is that it's okay to call anyone who disagrees with a liberal politician's policies as a racist, but not the other way around. If you don't see this, then you're either not paying attention or living in denial. (Wait, weren't you the guy who said McCain was the most conservative member of the Congress in 2010? It all makes sense now.)

John McCain got a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for his 2010 Senate voting record.
Go refute them if you have a problem. The American Conservative Union

Uh, no. That was the National Journal‘s 2010 vote ratings and I've already said how bogus the results were. The NJ didn't even say which votes were used in its scoring and which it ignored. The only thing they said was that they used 96 out of 299 votes.

Try again.

You're lying.

From the ACU's website:

How We Pick the Votes…The American Conservative Union was founded in 1964 to promote the principles of liberty and the strength of the Constitution

As the nation’s largest and strongest grassroots conservative organization, the ACU serves as the umbrella organization for conservatives in America.

The American Conservative Union tracks a wide range of issues before Congress to determine which issues and votes serve as a dividing line to help separate those Members of the U.S. House and Senate who protect liberty as conservatives and those who are truly liberal.

As a result, the ACU Ratings of Congress has throughout its 38 Editions included a wide variety of issues covering votes on taxes, wasteful government spending, cultural issues, defense and foreign policy.

It should be noted that for the year 2010, the House and Senate leadership virtually shut down the amendment process through parliamentary maneuvering which prevented either House from holding roll call votes on many social and cultural issues of importance to conservatives.

The votes selected in this edition of the ACU Ratings of Congress are not always considered the “most important” votes as defined by others, instead the votes selected are chosen to create a clear ideological distinction among those casting them.

These ratings have throughout the years become a go-to guide to determine whether an elected official’s philosophical rhetoric matches his or her record. ACU’s purpose in this guide is to inform the public, in an unbiased way, on where individual members of Congress fall on the ideological spectrum.



Read More :: How We Pick the Votes | The American Conservative Union

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're missing a key piece of the puzzle. Racially insensitive remarks should not be tolerated, but your ilk have a penchant for seeing racism where none exists. The biggest example is how the word 'racism' is used to refer to anyone who disagrees with the policies of Obama. Unfortunately, the MSM seems to give these people a pass. The sad reality is that it's okay to call anyone who disagrees with a liberal politician's policies as a racist, but not the other way around. If you don't see this, then you're either not paying attention or living in denial. (Wait, weren't you the guy who said McCain was the most conservative member of the Congress in 2010? It all makes sense now.)

You don't think passing around pictures of a watermelon patch in front of the Whitehouse is racially insensitive?

You don't think comparing Michelle Obama to a gorilla is racially insensitive?

You seem to have trouble reading so let me help you out here:

Racially insensitive remarks should not be tolerated

There were a few isolated racially sensitive remarks and as I've highlighted for your edification, they should not be tolerated. Most of the charges of racism were nonexistent and were only used as cover for a failed presidency.

I guess you missed the part where conservatives are already pre-emptively accusing liberals of racist attacks on Cain.

 

[Seawytch]

Instead of "lying", would it not be more polite to say "misinformed"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I guess you missed the part where conservatives are already pre-emptively accusing liberals of racist attacks on Cain.

What’s amusing about that is liberals – like the rest of the nation – have no idea who he is, much less his race.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Herman Cain is a far rightwing Republican who cannot be elected because not enough Americans agree with his far right agenda.

Black, white, or chartreuse he is out of the mainstream of American politics. He cannot win the center in a national election and you have to win the center to win the election.

Of COURSE he appeals to the rightwing crowd, that 20 or 30 percent out there on the right end of the political spectrum.

When there are twice that many of you, maybe then you can get a guy like Cain elected.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, and don't you rightwingers talk about food-stamps.

Democraps assume you're talking black folks when you talk about food-stamps.

Just like mentioning the word poverty, the poor, or anything that relates to people in the lower income tax bracket.

You're a racist because we know when you say these things you're talking about black folks plain and simple.

HOW DARE YOU!!!!

 

[Jack Fate]

If you liked the "gift" we gave you on Nov 2, 2010, just wait for the "gift" we give you on election day next year.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Instead of "lying", would it not be more polite to say "misinformed"?

It might be polite but then I would be lying. He was not misinformed since I originally referenced the source of my information.

Lying is when you state something you know to be untrue. I think that applies here.

 

[mudwhistle]

Instead of "lying", would it not be more polite to say "misinformed"?

It might be polite but then I would be lying. He was not misinformed since I originally referenced the source of my information.

Lying is when you state something you know to be untrue. I think that applies here.

You're lying.

 

[Seawytch]

Looks like Cain is already blowing it...

But this morning on Fox News Sunday, Cain showed just how limited his understanding is of the Middle East peace process. Asked by host Chris Wallace what he would be prepared to offer Palestinians as part of a deal, Cain responded, “Nothing.” Just moments later, Cain was dazed and confused when Wallace referenced the issue of “right of return” of Palestinian refugees:

WALLACE: Where do you stand on the right of return?

CAIN: The right of return? [pause] The right of return?

WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.

CAIN: That’s something that should be negotiated. That’s something that should be negotiated.

Wallace then helpfully (There's the good Fox host, trying to tee it up for him) offered Cain a definition of “right of return” — “Palestinian refugees, the people that were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able to or should have any right to return to Israeli land.” Cain again showed his lack of knowledge, veering completely off his pro-Likud script. “I don’t think they have a big problem with people returning,”

GOP Contender Herman Cain Demonstrates Clueslessness On Middle East Policy, Confused By ‘Right Of Return’

 

[Wry Catcher]

gop just got their black friend...sad

You're the one who just brought up race. What does skin color, ethnicity, have to do with anything?

Hillary ran, McCain needed to find a woman (any woman, even one who believed she could see Russia from her porch); Barrack won, the GOP needs a black candidate (any conservative black man will do).

The issue is not race, it's all about tokenism. The GOP is overwhelmingly white in a nation becoming more diverse each year, to win it needs to change the perception that it is intolerant of Americans of color, the GLBT community, and non-Christian creeds.

Good luck, no one will believe painting a tiger with polka dots will fool anyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Herman Cain is a far rightwing Republican who cannot be elected because not enough Americans agree with his far right agenda.

Black, white, or chartreuse he is out of the mainstream of American politics. He cannot win the center in a national election and you have to win the center to win the election.

Of COURSE he appeals to the rightwing crowd, that 20 or 30 percent out there on the right end of the political spectrum.

When there are twice that many of you, maybe then you can get a guy like Cain elected.

For those of you Cain fans who can tear yourself away from the race card and actually debate the substantive issues about Cain,

the above is your chance.

 

[Jack Fate]

Looks like Cain is already blowing it...

But this morning on Fox News Sunday, Cain showed just how limited his understanding is of the Middle East peace process. Asked by host Chris Wallace what he would be prepared to offer Palestinians as part of a deal, Cain responded, “Nothing.” Just moments later, Cain was dazed and confused when Wallace referenced the issue of “right of return” of Palestinian refugees:

WALLACE: Where do you stand on the right of return?

CAIN: The right of return? [pause] The right of return?

WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.

CAIN: That’s something that should be negotiated. That’s something that should be negotiated.

Wallace then helpfully (There's the good Fox host, trying to tee it up for him) offered Cain a definition of “right of return” — “Palestinian refugees, the people that were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able to or should have any right to return to Israeli land.” Cain again showed his lack of knowledge, veering completely off his pro-Likud script. “I don’t think they have a big problem with people returning,”

GOP Contender Herman Cain Demonstrates Clueslessness On Middle East Policy, Confused By ‘Right Of Return’

Right of return is a joke. It's like reparations....not gonna happen.