| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2009 10:02:31 AM · #951 |
That's one of many signs floating around the Tea Bag show.
The Columnist Clarence Page said something interesting in that he felt people are taking out their rage on Obama based on other factors. For example, they don't like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...the Welfare System (including Corporate Welfare), fear of government which are all very fair game...I don't like them either BUT it's all getting dumped on this President.
It is clear that he's taking hits for a lot of things that shouldn't be attributed to him. He could be doing a much better job BUT people were burning him in effigy within weeks of him taking office. That's over the top behavior and not even close to normal by our own twisted standards.
All I've been saying is that things are so much deeper than the discussion that's on the surface and there's plenty of evidence to back that claim. Not everybody who disagrees with the President is a racist...or a full blown racist but I believe there are both strong and subtle currents moving the debate that are unrelated to the topics at hand.
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 10:07:23. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 10:20:57 AM · #952 |
Yeah, it'a a stupid sign. Tacky, tasteless, but i don't know if I'd call it racist? It's obama's face on what i guess is a witch doctor? I've seen stranger and far more offensive Bush photoshop jobs. Also keep in mind that the joker sign was made by an Obama supporter for fun (then others used it) and the obama with a hitler mustach is the laroushers.
Just like the left has their embarassing members, the right has some too. There are racist and there are fanatical religious types, but to paint all with that brush is a stretched stereotype, and ironically very much like racism. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 11:23:14 AM · #953 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Tacky, tasteless, but i don't know if I'd call it racist? It's obama's face on what i guess is a witch doctor? |
Yes, it's Obamas face on an African Witch Doctors body. I won't tell you how offensive it is because it's pretty clear. I won't arugue with you if you don't find it racists or see what it implies.
I think Bush's verbal gaffs and general bumbling made him a beautiful target for comedians. I mean, it was like an open faucet that wouldn't shut off.
There was one mess up after another and another and another...
"If we do not succeed, we run the risk of failure"
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. OBGYN's aren't able to practice their love with women across this country".
(I can't stop laughing)
Bush didn't read the newspapers...he admitted that he didn't like reading much at all. I find it hard to compare the two men on almost any level. At least on an intellectual level there's no contest and that's one thing that makes that poster even more offensive. You might not like Obama and that's fine but to reduce him so, is again, way over the top.
Anyway, I think Bush was treated far worse overseas than he was here. Bush massaging Merkel got pretty good play abroad and then there was the shoe throwing incident and violent protests wherever he showed up (G8's etc). Perhaps Bush was just "misunderestimated"?
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 11:31:55. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 12:32:30 PM · #954 |
Tacky, strange, tasteless, and counterproductive, yes. Would I carry that sign? Never. Racist, not in my opinion but I can see how some people would consider it racist in our ultra sensitive society.
If the sign said âget the (insert racial slur here) out of officeâ or even âdonât trust our black presidentâ then Iâd say itâs without question racist. Comparing him to a monkey? Racist because it's used as a racial slur, but it wasnât racist when they called and photoshopped Bush as a monkey (I know, two different meanings).
Racism, in my opinion, is treating someone different (better or worse) because of their race. Bush had bad photoshop jobs done on him, so did Hillary. Now Obama gets it. Sure you can call it racist and maybe the person that did it meant that way, but is it racist if they put Hillary's face on the witch doctor? The witch doctor may look strange to you, but they are real in african culture. Do you think there is something strange or offensive about witch doctors or being compared to one? Is it a bad thing? I thought they were leaders in the tribe and highly regarded? Please explain why you think the sign is racist, and not just stupid.
But again, you are saying because you thought Bush was laughable or horrible or whatever it was all okay. You fail to see that some people see Obama the same way. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 12:42:48 PM · #955 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Racism, in my opinion, is treating someone different (better or worse) because of their race. Bush had bad photoshop jobs done on him, so did Hillary. Now Obama gets it. Sure you can call it racist and maybe the person that did it meant that way, but is it racist if they put Hillary's face on the witch doctor? The witch doctor may look strange to you, but they are real in african culture. Do you think there is something strange or offensive about witch doctors or being compared to one? Is it a bad thing? I thought they were leaders in the tribe and highly regarded? Please explain why you think the sign is racist, and not just stupid. |
This is actually a thought-provoking post. I think maybe the issue here is, 'what is the distinction (if any) between racial stereotyping and actual, overt racism?'...
Regardless, considering the bolded, italicized part above, surely you can't be that naive? No matter how *you* choose to spin it, the effect of the image on the poster is to equate Obama and his health care initiative with primitive sorcery, and I know perfectly well you realize that and are just stirring the pot up here.
R. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 12:56:04 PM · #956 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I know perfectly well you realize that and are just stirring the pot up here. |
Just a minute here.....
Where's the Robert *I* know who always strives to see the best side of everyone????
You're always calling me on the carpet for being a meanie!
You're just.......anti-[i]JEB[/]!!!
I'm tellin' MOM!!!!
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 12:58:51 PM · #957 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I know perfectly well you realize that and are just stirring the pot up here. |
Just a minute here.....
Where's the Robert *I* know who always strives to see the best side of everyone????
You're always calling me on the carpet for being a meanie!
You're just.......anti-[i]JEB[/]!!!
I'm tellin' MOM!!!! |
I'm pretty sure everyone is Anti-Jeb.
Oh wait, I'm supposed to not say anything. They're going to hurt me again.
:P |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 01:04:34 PM · #958 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Being in the Sons of confederate veterans does not make you a racist. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
From their site:
"The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built."
Unless of course, you happened to be black.....
Also:
"Membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans is open to all male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces."
Surely can't be havin' them pesky women having a voice in anything, either.
So......being in this organization doesn'take you a racist.....it kind of means you support being a white MALE.
That's *SO* much better! |
Originally posted by Niten:
I'm hardly an expert on the group. But its pretty closed minded to make a bunch of assumptions. I'm sure there are racist there just like there are some here and everywhere. I tend to believe we all are racist on some level or to at least some small degree. |
If you want to call me closed minded because I assume about a group that supports slavery and specifically excludes women, you go right ahead.
That is NOT a group that has fairness and equality in mind.
Explain to me how this works in their mission statement, emboldended above, PLEASE!!!
How can they profess liberty and freedom, and rights under the Constitution when their very membership excludes an entire gender?
Yeah, their name is Sons, but you cannot have equal rights without it being for ALL citizens regardless of race and gender.
I know what a rattlesnake looks like, and I don't have to be bitten by one to know it will do me harm if it does.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 01:06:00 PM · #959 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I know perfectly well you realize that and are just stirring the pot up here. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just a minute here.....
Where's the Robert *I* know who always strives to see the best side of everyone????
You're always calling me on the carpet for being a meanie!
You're just.......anti-JEB!!!
I'm tellin' MOM!!!! |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'm pretty sure everyone is Anti-Jeb.
Oh wait, I'm supposed to not say anything. They're going to hurt me again.
:P |
Who's they???
I wanna buy 'em a beer!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 01:11:27 PM · #960 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Niten:
Being in the Sons of confederate veterans does not make you a racist. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
From their site:
"The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built."
Unless of course, you happened to be black.....
Also:
"Membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans is open to all male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces."
Surely can't be havin' them pesky women having a voice in anything, either.
So......being in this organization doesn'take you a racist.....it kind of means you support being a white MALE.
That's *SO* much better! |
Originally posted by Niten:
I'm hardly an expert on the group. But its pretty closed minded to make a bunch of assumptions. I'm sure there are racist there just like there are some here and everywhere. I tend to believe we all are racist on some level or to at least some small degree. |
If you want to call me closed minded because I assume about a group that supports slavery and specifically excludes women, you go right ahead.
That is NOT a group that has fairness and equality in mind.
Explain to me how this works in their mission statement, emboldended above, PLEASE!!!
How can they profess liberty and freedom, and rights under the Constitution when their very membership excludes an entire gender?
Yeah, their name is Sons, but you cannot have equal rights without it being for ALL citizens regardless of race and gender.
I know what a rattlesnake looks like, and I don't have to be bitten by one to know it will do me harm if it does. |
Just for the record, there are a lot of private male-only groups. Just as there are private female-only groups. There are also private gay-only, private black-only, private Jew-only, private age-dependent only, the list goes on. Equality does not apply to private clubs/etc. Freedom also means being able to have private organizations that are free to exclude anyone they want to. I think sometimes you get so hung up on this 'gung-ho for women!' idea that you try to apply it to situations it's not exactly warranted. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 01:15:29 PM · #961 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Racism, in my opinion, is treating someone different (better or worse) because of their race. Bush had bad photoshop jobs done on him, so did Hillary. Now Obama gets it. Sure you can call it racist and maybe the person that did it meant that way, but is it racist if they put Hillary's face on the witch doctor? The witch doctor may look strange to you, but they are real in african culture. Do you think there is something strange or offensive about witch doctors or being compared to one? Is it a bad thing? I thought they were leaders in the tribe and highly regarded? Please explain why you think the sign is racist, and not just stupid. |
This is actually a thought-provoking post. I think maybe the issue here is, 'what is the distinction (if any) between racial stereotyping and actual, overt racism?'...
Regardless, considering the bolded, italicized part above, surely you can't be that naive? No matter how *you* choose to spin it, the effect of the image on the poster is to equate Obama and his health care initiative with primitive sorcery, and I know perfectly well you realize that and are just stirring the pot up here.
R. |
I agree that the morons carrying those signs are possibly racist and that they possibly meant it that way. And thanks to those morons anyone opposing obama is being aligned with the KKK now. But I seriously don't see that sign as racist. Just stupid. What is so offensive about a witch doctor? When the left photoshopped Bush and Rice on the the bodies of witch doctors (look it up) I thought the same. Just stupid. No one cried racism? And in case you forgot, Rice is black too.
edit to add:
Maybe some look at the witch doctor and think of some silly primitive culture to laugh at and would be insulting to be compared to or aligned with? Thatâs the culture, thatâs the way it was and still is in places. If anyone thinks that culture is embarrassing or insulting to be aligned with maybe they have a racist issue? There is nothing wrong with that culture and it should not be deemed offensive or racist. And no, Iâm not stirring the pot. You should be proud of your culture, not ashamed or offended to be linked to it.
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 13:37:54. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 01:17:28 PM · #962 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Just for the record, there are a lot of private male-only groups. Just as there are private female-only groups. There are also private gay-only, private black-only, private Jew-only, private age-dependent only, the list goes on. Equality does not apply to private clubs/etc. Freedom also means being able to have private organizations that are free to exclude anyone they want to. I think sometimes you get so hung up on this 'gung-ho for women!' idea that you try to apply it to situations it's not exactly warranted. Just a thought. |
I won't deny I'm a pretty avid feminist......blame my gender guilt for the unnecessary struggles that women deal with every day at the hands of men.
That is merely one of the glaring inconsistencies of the SCV spouting liberty and equality....the other being that this comes from a group whose ancestors fought to keep black Americans enslaved.
It's just ridiculous to not be fully cognizant of what they are saying by their very existence.
Back to......I don't have to be bitten by a rattlesnake to know it's dangerous.
ETA: The private male-only groups you offer up most certainly are not offering themselves up as the upholders of the American way of liberty and freedom. They are merely exercising their right to those pursuits.
A group excluding the very thing they profess to uphold is simply hypocritical.
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 13:20:22.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 02:12:43 PM · #963 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Racism, in my opinion, is treating someone different (better or worse) because of their race. Bush had bad photoshop jobs done on him, so did Hillary. Now Obama gets it. Sure you can call it racist and maybe the person that did it meant that way, but is it racist if they put Hillary's face on the witch doctor? The witch doctor may look strange to you, but they are real in african culture. Do you think there is something strange or offensive about witch doctors or being compared to one? Is it a bad thing? I thought they were leaders in the tribe and highly regarded? Please explain why you think the sign is racist, and not just stupid. |
This is actually a thought-provoking post. I think maybe the issue here is, 'what is the distinction (if any) between racial stereotyping and actual, overt racism?'...
Regardless, considering the bolded, italicized part above, surely you can't be that naive? No matter how *you* choose to spin it, the effect of the image on the poster is to equate Obama and his health care initiative with primitive sorcery, and I know perfectly well you realize that and are just stirring the pot up here.
R. |
I also thought this was... I won't call it thought-provoking, but an "interesting" post to say the least. In my opinion, this image of Obama isn't just racial stereotyping, it's negative racial stereotyping, which is what makes it racist. It's negative for the reasons you stated, associating Obama's health care proposals with primitive (read: crude, unsophisticated) witchcraft (read: magical, not science-based), certainly not positive characterizations of what the vast majority of Americans would like their health care system to be.
And the fact that LoudDog sees it as tacky, strange, tasteless, counterproductive and stupid, but then tries to negate any negative racial connotations is again, let's just say, very interesting.
If in your opinion, LoudDog, this isn't racist, can you point to an image that you WOULD consider racist?
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 14:16:48. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 02:24:06 PM · #964 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Yeah, it'a a stupid sign. Tacky, tasteless, but i don't know if I'd call it racist? It's obama's face on what i guess is a witch doctor? I've seen stranger and far more offensive Bush photoshop jobs. Also keep in mind that the joker sign was made by an Obama supporter for fun (then others used it) and the obama with a hitler mustach is the laroushers.
Just like the left has their embarassing members, the right has some too. There are racist and there are fanatical religious types, but to paint all with that brush is a stretched stereotype, and ironically very much like racism. |
Another aspect of this debate I find interesting is it resembles other debates about racism when the subject is discussed generally and some whites feel they are being singled out or "painted with a broad brush" as racists. I'd like to know, why the defensiveness? What makes you think that anyone is accusing you in particular of being a racist? It seems like the conversation can never get beyond this stage because those who are defensive have to deny that racism exists at all or is of such minor significance that there's really no point in talking about it. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 02:37:03 PM · #965 |
Judith Polakoff "If in your opinion, LoudDog, this isn't racist, can you point to an image that you WOULD consider racist?"
LoudDog"If the sign said âget the (insert racial slur here) out of officeâ or even âdonât trust our black presidentâ then Iâd say itâs without question racist. " |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 02:42:28 PM · #966 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And the fact that LoudDog sees it as tacky, strange, tasteless, counterproductive and stupid, but then tries to negate any negative racial connotations is again, let's just say, very interesting.
If in your opinion, LoudDog, this isn't racist, can you point to an image that you WOULD consider racist? |
Something can be tacky, tasteless, strange, awful... and not be racist. Even if it involves a black person. I think that's my whole point.
Obama as a slave, being forced to the back of the bus, tied to a post being beaten, being burned on a cross... All clearly racist images. Lots of captions could make any image racist. All negative hateful things. What is negative and hateful about a witch doctor. Primitive, sure, bad, no. Just my $.02. You don't have to agree and I hope you don't think I'm a racist.
would it be racist to photoshop my head on something significant in my culture? Or even a witch doctor? was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 02:51:03 PM · #967 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-)
I have a healthcare debate question - I scanned through the endless partisan bickering in this thread and couldn't find any mention of it, but it probably was discussed at some point - If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 03:12:00 PM · #968 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-)
I have a healthcare debate question - I scanned through the endless partisan bickering in this thread and couldn't find any mention of it, but it probably was discussed at some point - If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
That has been asked but not answered. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 03:14:40 PM · #969 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Racism, in my opinion, is treating someone different (better or worse) because of their race. Bush had bad photoshop jobs done on him, so did Hillary. Now Obama gets it. Sure you can call it racist and maybe the person that did it meant that way, but is it racist if they put Hillary's face on the witch doctor? The witch doctor may look strange to you, but they are real in african culture. Do you think there is something strange or offensive about witch doctors or being compared to one? Is it a bad thing? I thought they were leaders in the tribe and highly regarded? Please explain why you think the sign is racist, and not just stupid. |
that's the whole subtelity of racism. Sure there are still some isolated tribes in africa, with their witch doctor, but to consider that they are representative of african culture is a big no-no. It's like saying that a redneck (you know, the one wearing a hunting shirt to his wedding) is a good representation of a US citizen.
But racist or not, this is stupid and does not have its place in civilized debate. But sadly, today's big trend is to attack the person, not the ideas. If someone disagrees with Obama's plan because he feels it is a path toward socialized medecine, it's alright. But instead of yelling "Socialist!" like people used to yell "Witch!", he should explain why he feel that socialized medecine is a bad idea and what he would prefer instead.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 03:22:50 PM · #970 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-) |
That's just WRONG!!! LOL!!!
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I have a healthcare debate question - |
I'm sorry, we've moved on.....come back later when it cycles 'round.
Or perhaps try your friendly neighborhood religion thread.....surely they'll be glad to answer your question.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I scanned through the endless partisan bickering in this thread and couldn't find any mention of it, but it probably was discussed at some point - If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
I'd be afraid of collusion to keep the prices where they are, or perhaps higher.
The insurance companies would take the stance that medical costs keep soaring, never mind that it *could* be insurance company driven, or possibly you'd see these bare-bones policies, just major medical with high deductibles popping up for the cut-rate customers who'd be willing to play Russian Roulette with their health by waiving certain types of benefits like long term cancer care.
Couldn't you see it now?
A menu a là McMedicine.....I'll have the Major Medical with a side of Optical, hold the Dental and Long Term Dialysis.
Then what would happen to that guy when his kidneys shut down......would he be thrown into a pool that'd be government, or insurance company funded, or would he merely die slowly and painfully at home knowing he gambled and lost?
Edited for fat fingers...
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 15:29:28.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 04:26:30 PM · #971 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
Sure, let's drop whatever consumer-protections are now in place -- I'm sure the insurance companies will fall all over themelves to change their behavior 180° from that of the past 40 years or so ...
You know what insurance companies are worried about? With significant reform, what about all those thousands of new unemployed people who'll be out of their previous jobs of denying claims (about 30%) or searching out reasons to recind policies...
An unregulated, for-profit insurance company is required by law to charge as much in premiums and pay out as little in benefits as possible. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 04:46:51 PM · #972 |
T.R. Reid: 'The Healing of America'
Perhaps most importantly (to this discussion here, anyway), he points out that those other "wealthy countries" with universal health care do not all have "socialized medicine" -- some have a national health system, some use a mixture of public and private, and some use private insurance and health care facilities, but under strict regulation. All of them provide care for all their citizens at a lower cost than the USA spends to leave millions uninsured and thousands of families bankrupt.
Link to mp3 audio
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 16:48:57. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 04:52:17 PM · #973 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
Sure, let's drop whatever consumer-protections are now in place -- I'm sure the insurance companies will fall all over themelves to change their behavior 180° from that of the past 40 years or so ...
You know what insurance companies are worried about? With significant reform, what about all those thousands of new unemployed people who'll be out of their previous jobs of denying claims (about 30%) or searching out reasons to recind policies...
An unregulated, for-profit insurance company is required by law to charge as much in premiums and pay out as little in benefits as possible. |
A couple thoughts on this - first of all, it is impossible to take seriously someone with the "they're ALL greedy and evil" attitude. You are part of the problem of having a reasonable, fact-based discussion. Secondly, I did not mean to suggest that one act would solve all the problems - I was just looking for any arguments against doing it as part of any proposal. You say this would "drop consumer protections" - I don't know enough about why there is no interstate insurance market, but I assume it has something to do with state's regulating their own markets, hence your comment. My thought on that is that uniform federal regulations would replace state regulations as part of the reform effort. Like I said, I don't know the history, but it baffles me why we can buy auto insurance nationally, but not health insurance. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 05:02:14 PM · #974 |
I was trying to make the sarcastic, hyperbolic nature of my comments obvious ...
No they are not all greedy bastards, but health insurance company CEOs apparently make more (on average) than oil company, investment bank, or big pharma execs ...
As with environmental standards, I'm OK with a national standard of it adopts the most stringent of the state regulations, however I'm sure that the $200 million or so the health industry has spent lobbying Congress so far this year is at least partially an attempt to make sure that it is the weakest standards which are incorporated into any such legislation. It's not much of a "reform" if a deal with the Feds takes away someone's current protections against insurance company abuse.
Please listen to Mr. Reid's interview -- it's not a matter of an extremes being the only solutions, but the system we have now has been proven to not work -- it's time to try something else. Why not look at the various ways other countries have made it work, and build on their experience? |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 05:41:59 PM · #975 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-) |
Racist if done to Rice; to Bush, no. Why would you expect the answer to be different for Rice? What's amazing is that you and LoudDog obviously feel it was racist when done to Rice, but can't admit the same when Obama is the target. |
|
