People who use false accusations of racism to attack people and further their own agenda are the worst of the worst.. Lowest of the low...

Michale

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/opinions/ta-nehisi-coates-attack-on-bernie-sanders-mcwhorter/index.html

It's a good read.. Especially impacting because it comes from the mind of a Left Winger....

Racism isn't to blame for the black people gunning each other down over tennis shoes and turf....

Why are there so many black people in prison over drugs?? Not because of racism but rather because of black leaders in Congress wanting to clean up the black communities...

Until such time as the black community AS A WHOLE takes a look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they are a bigger part of the problem....

Only then can things start to change...

It's easy to ignore one's own culpability for a problem.

It takes REAL courage to stand up and admit, "Hmmmmmm Maybe *I* need to make some changes.."

Michale

Michale

that's an awfully grand generalization.

Really??

Why do white racists hate black people??

Because it validates them as a superior human being...

When you rip away all the felgercarb and crap, that is what racism is at it's base...

A way to feel superior while putting others down...

I see no difference as to whether we're talking about race or political ideology..

But I am a simple knuckle-dragging ground pounder.. What do I know about hoity-toity political correctness... D:

Michale

When the Left Wingery refers to Republicans as "terrorists" I don't bother looking for any rational or logical thought..

Because there ain't none.. :D

not to put too fine a point on it, but i'd wager that most political animosity is not actual hatred but just run of the mill anger, which would dissipate the instant said person shows evidence of changing their mind to the preferred way of seeing things.

Maybe we could examine the irrational hatred, eh??

The problem is, no one will cop to it, even in the immediate aftermath of it being spewed.... :D

Michale

that's an awfully grand generalization. couldn't some of the animosity on the left toward republicans be a perception that their policy decisions hurt people and promote unfairness in society? and wouldn't a conservative feel more-or-less the same about democrats?

JL

Hatred or actions based solely or nearly solely on a person's race...

no, our definitions are not the same. first of all, mine is complicated. i believe in more than one correct definition, and ONE of the correct definitions IS a system of unequal "de-facto" privileges in society, that white people have and people of color do not.

If a black person kills a white person BECAUSE they are white, that is just as racist as if it were the other way around...

that's another exceptional circumstance that doesn't hold true when it comes to smaller, subtler decisions, like who to hire, who to admit to a university, who to sell a house, who to invite over for supper, who to pull over for minor traffic violations.

in benign, ambiguous situations, intentionally favoring the group of higher privilege is racist, while intentionally favoring the group of lower privilege is not, unless it stems from actual hatred. again, murder and higher felonies are the exception that proves the rule.

JL

Rut Roh, Raggey...

Obama scrooed the pooch...

Michale

Are our definitions of racism the same??

My definition is is simple...

Hatred or actions based solely or nearly solely on a person's race...

I agree that there are other definitions that may be valid..

But not Mr Pilgrim's last one..

Michale

HATE isn't about changing other people's minds..

Do you think Weigantians hate Republicans (those that do) in an effort to change the Republican's minds??

No, they hate Republicans as a means of self-validation.

the reason mr. pilgrim used multiple definitions is that they're all legitimate ways of looking at it.

With respect to Mr Pilgrim, the latter "definition" seems to be borne of a desire to justify a certain ideology and to create a false-cover to shield racist black people...

If a black person kills a white person BECAUSE they are white, that is just as racist as if it were the other way around..

Michale

That's what we refer to as "the exception that proves the rule." being dead is the only thing preventing the Republicans from changing their minds. The black people are dead and they're still black.

So, now we know what David Pilgrim's definition of racism is..
What's yours?? :D

the reason mr. pilgrim used multiple definitions is that they're all legitimate ways of looking at it.

So, now we know what David Pilgrim's definition of racism is..

What's yours?? :D

Or should that be, "What's your's?" heh

Michale

The WHY can be different, I grant you...

But the HATRED can be, and often IS, the same irregardless of the WHY.. Here in Weigantia, we have seen the EXACT same intensity of hatred towards Republicans as there exists towards a different race...

Put another way...

If a scumbag psychotic goes into a crowd of Young Republicans and starts blowing people away because he hates Republicans..

Is that any different than a scumbag psychotic who goes into a crowd of black people and starts blowing people away because he hates black people??

Are the black people any more dead or the Republicans any less dead because the WHY of the hatred is different??

That's what I mean when I say that your's is a distinction without a different..

Hate is hate..

All things being equal, the WHY is not relevant..

Michale

That's a distinction without a difference..

there's absolutely a difference. bias against a political view is earned, because political views are PURELY a choice, and can be changed at any moment. ethnic groups are what you were born - religious groups are a bit more murky, because even though you can convert to a different religion, membership isn't purely voluntary - there are barriers to entry and exit, and a long history of incredibly unfair and irrational discrimination. if someone can cease to be the target of a barb by saying, "hmm, maybe i'll change my mind," or what have you, then yes, it can still be biased and/or narrow-minded, but it doesn't really qualify as bigotry.

JL

i'm pretty sure that's not the case. perhaps this will help:

Can blacks be racist? The answer, of course, will depend on how you define racism. If you define it as “prejudice against or hatred toward another race,” then the answer is yes. If you define racism as “the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race,” the answer is yes. And if you define racism as “prejudice and discrimination rooted in race-based loathing,” then the answer is, again, yes. However, if you define racism as “a system of group privilege by those who have a disproportionate share of society’s power, prestige, property, and privilege,” then the answer is no. In the end, it is my opinion that individual blacks can be and sometimes are racists. However, collectively, blacks are neither the primary creators nor beneficiaries of the racism that permeates society today.
~David Pilgrim, Curator, Jim Crow Museum

http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/march09/index.htm

I completely agree..

And yet, all we see around here is "Republicans are terrorists!!!" and "Republicans are liars!!!" and "Republicans are criminals!!!"

Why not speak out against that form of bigotry??

Because it's ACCEPTABLE bigotry...

, i think there's no doubt in most people's minds that jimmy carter was a better person than richard nixon, but i think nixon was a better president.

Once again, I completely agree.. Carter was a failed leader.. Nixon, his obvious faults notwithstanding, was a great leader...

that said, there's a huge difference between bias against a political party and bias against an ethnic group. the former is based on a belief set one strongly disagrees with; the latter is based on bigotry and nothing else.

That's a distinction without a difference..

Or, as Spock would say, "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."

as to your insistence on a definition of racism so narrow that it pretends the five hundred years leading up to 1970 never happened, i think you'd best quit while you're behind.

Probably because this discussion has gone on for quite a long time.... I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to..

My definition of racism is the same as yours.. The only difference is that I apply it equally, regardless of whether or not we're talking about Republicans or Democrats.. You still don't want to discuss Bill Clinton's racism, for example...

however, anyone who were to read your posts out of context would think you were, because you use the same argumentation they do.

Not at all.. There are factual elements of a racist's arguments and I do incorporate those parts (emphasis on PARTS) into my own argument.. The logic, objectivity and accuracy of those parts of the argument do not lose any of the veneer, solely because some asshole racist uses them at one point or another..

Take, for example, the argument of THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.. Regardless of whether or not you advocate the concept, the argument itself is a valid point of discussion. Hitler himself often used that argument, as you might well imagine..

Should we discard that argument SOLELY because some megalomaniac scumbag used it at one point in time???

"Good talk..."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS

:D

Michale

i think political party is irrelevant to how good or bad someone is, but i reject the notion that one can't differentiate on an individual basis. of course i think democratic POLICY measures tend to be better; otherwise i wouldn't be one. however, that's got nothing to do with who's a better public official, both of which may be unrelated to who's a better human being. for example, i think there's no doubt in most people's minds that jimmy carter was a better person than richard nixon, but i think nixon was a better president.

that said, there's a huge difference between bias against a political party and bias against an ethnic group. the former is based on a belief set one strongly disagrees with; the latter is based on bigotry and nothing else.

as to your insistence on a definition of racism so narrow that it pretends the five hundred years leading up to 1970 never happened, i think you'd best quit while you're behind.

i've seen and read enough over the years to know that you're NOT one of those folks who SAY they'd have no problem living next door to a black family but who would vacate the second it actually happened. however, anyone who were to read your posts out of context would think you were, because you use the same argumentation they do.

JL

http://www.eonline.com/news/732196/the-fresh-prince-of-bel-air-s-janet-hubert-slams-jada-pinkett-smith-for-calling-an-oscars-boycott

So, let me get this straight..

Smith, Spike Lee, et al want to nominate people SOLELY because they are black..

Hmmmm Isn't that.. well... yunno.. RACIST!??

Michale

How is that any different than the majority of Weigantians not liking Republicans??

I mean, we ALL have our bigotries... I am a full on bigot.. There are MANY MANY groups of people I don't like and I am not shy about admitting it.. Ad nasuem.. :D

Bigotry, in and of itself, is not evil or not even an issue.. The issue is denying the bigotry when it is so glaringly obvious.

Michale

Not in so many words.. But there is a plethora of evidence whereas you castigate the Republicans for this, that and the other thing, while giving the Democrats a pass for similar or identical this, that and the other things..

"I promise you this, that and the other thing!!"
-Gilligan

:D

To me, that implies strongly that you believe that Democrats are better than Republicans..

If I am in error, if you agree with me that Democrats are no different than Republicans in the better/worse departments, then I stand corrected and humbly apologize for my presumption....

but based on all the available evidence, i still feel quite secure asserting that donald trump is significantly more of a bigot than you, me, liz and the greater part of weigantia.

I disagree... But that's what makes this fun.. :D

Michale

...and you have evidence of my making such a blanket statement? if so, please allow me the opportunity to clarify, or if necessary, retract. my family contains both democrats and republicans. i am a democrat because being one gives me the highest likelihood to participate in the nomination of candidates likely to take office with views more similar to mine.

no, i'm not pure and perfect in treating all people with equal respect and credence, completely free from bias, nor are any of us. but based on all the available evidence, i still feel quite secure asserting that donald trump is significantly more of a bigot than you, me, liz and the greater part of weigantia.

JL

But I understand why you can't concede it... :D

Michale

That is utter nonsense, Michale.

And, that is very sad news about Glenn Frey ... I'm going to find out more right now ...

The problem with that course of action is that "meaningful dialog" is nothing more than a euphemism for "ditto... ditto... ditto... yea.. uh huh... yea.. yer right yer right.. exactly!!" etc etc etc...

But hay.. If THAT's what ya'all want, nothing but an echo chamber with no dissent or REAL discussion...

Far be it from me to deprive you of that.. Have a ball.. :D

Michale

Glenn Frey just died...

Another musical genius has left us.. :(

Michale

If Chris writes about MLK Day, tonight, then I would sincerely hope that you do not take this thoroughly unenlightening and wholly sad excuse for discussion there.

Just continue it here, if you must and let the rest of us try to engage in a meaningful dialogue on the new thread, where serious comments from you would be more than welcome.

Martin Luther King's dream, which was on the verge of becoming a reality, as much of a reality as one could hope for in an imperfect world, was set immeasurably back. On this MLK Day, we should all consider how to reverse that.

Obama *IS* the Black Lives Matter movement...

Michale

How Would Dr. King Have Felt about 'Black Lives Matter'?
https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/01/17/mlk-versus-blm/

Michale

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/17/clinton-no-individual-too-big-to-jail-tweet-backfires.html?intcmp=hpbt2

:D

Michale

To be perfectly fair to you, you ARE the least bigoted of all the Left Wing Weigantians sans maybe the Grand Poobah hisself...

But simply saying "Democrats are better than Republicans" *IS* a textbook example of a bigoted statement...

intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

For further clarification...

Embracing Bigotry
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/embracing-bigotry_b_1834954.html

Michale

Strong disagreement with Obama's ideas amount to racism...

Which brings us back to the dilemma I mentioned in comment #79 :D

Michale

Oh, wait ...

Why not??

Strong disagreement with Obama's ideas amount to racism...

As MANY here have flat out stated...

How is that any different??

But, to answer your question..

Many Weigantians have used the broad brush to paint ALL Republicans with the actions/comments of a few Republicans or even a SINGLE Republican...

"Republicans are liars"...

"Republicans are crooks"...

"Republicans are terrorists"...

Sound familiar??

Textbook definition of bigotry...

Michale

Surely, you don't believe that strong disagreement with Republican ideas amounts to bigotry, do you?

Oh, wait ...

No bigotry against Republicans?? :D

Are you SURE??? :D

Michale

i don't recall mentioning anything on the subject. are you sure you aren't thinking of someone else? the only topic i've weighed in on here is that trump is demonstrably a bigot.

Like I told Joshua, no more a bigot than you or I..

you can speak for yourself on that count, but i can safely say i'm less bigoted than trump.

JL

Every criteria you come up with, every parameter you try to establish to incriminate Republicans, when applied to Democrats "prove" the EXACT same thing....

Fascinating, iddn't it?? :D

Michale

He is credited by racist organizations for increasing the traffic at their web sites, and they are openly supportive of him.

So the racism of a specific group completely encompasses the person that said group supports..

Do you really want to go with that???

Michale

In your opinion.. :D Which I do respect..

But, see comment #63

Quality is variable... :D

Michale

“This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

Michale

In my experience, many conversations at the Huffington Post are unenlightened and unenlightening.

Sadly, we can say the same thing for much of what passes as "discussion" here, as well ...

Did the rioters in Ferguson etc invoke Obama's name as justification for their actions?

No... But these racist assholes did...

Romney Voter Visciously Attacked by Obama Supporters!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR2ZWYlG2os

So, tell me again how racism by scumbag racists implicates the person that the scumbag racists support??

If Trump is a racist because of what his supporters did, then Obama is a racist for the same reason...

For the record, you still haven't proved a Trump supporter did ANYTHING.. The link you posted is broken...

Michale

Obama invited them to the White House to congratulate them on their rioting..

That puts the peas in the same pod... :D

Michale

Perish the thought...

Michale

Like I told Joshua, no more a bigot than you or I..

including being a racist,

Of which you can provide absolutely NO FACTS to prove..

and so are many of his supporters -

Just as millions of Obama supporters who voted for Obama because he was black are racists..

Michale

I don't facebook, either ... just for the record.

Good morning, Joshua :D

Michale

Yes there is... But we're not talking about FACTS...

We're talking about ideological hysteria..

since trump never explicitly denied saying it

So, by not denying it, Trump is confirming it??

So.... In other words... SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

:D

RD?? What do you think??? :D

and you've already acknowledged the mountain of evidence that trump is a bigot in general

No more a bigot than anyone here, myself included...

As I said, you wouldn't like where that road lead... :D

heck, maybe trump is a secret muslim born in kenya.

Maybe he is a secret Cardassian...

There is as much proof of that as their is of Trump being a racist...

It's funny how ya'all demand "pedantic" facts when the accusations are leveled at Democrats..

But when the accusations are thrown at Republicans??

NO FACTS REQUIRED.. Hysterical innuendo is the order of the day...

since i don't facebook, i'm unable to participate at huffpo. their loss. ;p

"Indeed.."
-T'ealc

:D

Michale

since i don't facebook, i'm unable to participate at huffpo. their loss. ;p

JL

your comparison is not valid, because there is ample physical evidence available to the public that obama is christian and was born in hawaii.

trump's racist statement, on the other hand, has not been refuted by any counter-evidence. since trump never explicitly denied saying it, and you've already acknowledged the mountain of evidence that trump is a bigot in general, it's not exactly a stretch to lend credence to the statement. trump also tweeted an inaccurate visual, rated pants on fire by politifact, that claimed 81% of white murder victims were killed by blacks. there's ample factual evidence to support the claim that trump has made racist comments.

heck, maybe trump is a secret muslim born in kenya. that hypothesis is better supported by the publicly available evidence than similar statements about obama.

JL

For what?? The ignoring of the 600 3am phone calls?? I would say Hillary is to blame for that..

That was a little joke, so don't answer it!

DOH!!! :D

There are better discussions to be had at the Huffington Post. And, that's saying a lot ... or not very much, at all. :(

That's probably a joke too, but I'll take a swipe at it..

"Better" is a relative term... Around here "better" means that ya'all have something good to talk about with regards to Obama and the Democrat Party...

When things are the pits for Obozo (I hate that, but couldn't resist :D ) and the DemcoRATS (ditto) then discussions around here are "worse"...

In other words, the rating of the "quality" of the discussion around here is directly tied to whether or not there is anything good to say about Democrats...

Oh.. and... Good Morning, Liz.. :D

Michale

That was a little joke, so don't answer it!

There are better discussions to be had at the Huffington Post. And, that's saying a lot ... or not very much, at all. :(

http://static.lakana.com/media.fox2detroit.com/photo/2016/01/17/78cents_1453069365251_730889_ver1.0.jpg

78 Cents a gallon gas!!!!

Michale

TRANSLATION: I have better things to do than to watch my incompetence and arrogance getting 4 good Americans brutally murdered.....

:^/

Hillary had 600 3am Phone Calls.. She let the machine pick it up....

Michale

Trump's ALLEGED racism...

Stereotyping based on race is racism, and the thing you are debating engages in it too, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

By all means, please point it out.. :D

The denials are thus not only an attempt at self-serving deception, but are invalidated merely due to the source.

DOGS BARKING CAN'T FLY HOME WITHOUT UMBRELLA
-Jumpin' Jack Flash

:D

Michale

Yes, the evidence put forth by those who believe Obama is a Kenyan-borne muslim is ridiculous...

But that doesn't necessarily make it untrue..

You see how ridiculous the argument is when applied in a situation that is contrary to the chosen ideology??

The FACT is there is absolutely NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to indicate that Trump is a racist... There is MORE evidence that indicates Bill Clinton or Harry Reid is a racist....

If Trump still had the -D after his name would the Left Wingery be playing the race card??

No, they would not...

Michale

I am speaking, of course, of gun control...

Any law that will actually have ANY effect on gun violence that is also in keeping with the 2nd Amendment HAS BEEN PASSED...

So, the ONLY way for Gun Control nuts to achieve their goal of a gun ban is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, gut the 1st Amendment and severely restrict the 4th and 5th Amendments...

So to the anti-gun nuts of the Left Wingery, I say this..

Shut up about gun control until you are willing (and ready) to take the steps to gut the US Bill Of Rights...

Michale

Here is just one lovely tale of a Trump inspired beating, with a metal pipe, of a latino:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvB

And Obama supporters destroyed Ferguson and Baltimore..

Does that mean Obama is a racist???

Michale

By reality..

You have ONE single hearsay piece of evidence that Trump said ONE THING racist..

If Trump is such a blatant racist as ya'all believe, wouldn't there be a plethora of statements??

Let me ask you this..

Let's say you find a single racist statement that is factually from Trump.

Would that make Trump a racist??

Because, if so, then Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton are also racists..

Funny how NO ONE wants to address the racist statements from Democrats, eh?? :D

It's all about the '-D' / '-R'...

That's the ONLY factor here...

Michale

by whom? yes, the quote attributed to trump is hearsay. but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue. considering all the other bigoted statements he's made, it's not exactly a stretch.

JL

Just as, for those who are ideologically pre-disposed to think Obama is a Kenyan-Born Muslim..... Yes.. "evidence" exists..

Michale

And that evidence has already been refuted..

But, I'll give you this...

For those who are ideologically pre-disposed to think Trump is racist.. Yes... "evidence" exists....

Michale

It may be worth pointing out that there is a bit of a conflict of interests in your debate on Trumps racism.

Stereotyping based on race is racism, and the thing you are debating engages in it too, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
The denials are thus not only an attempt at self-serving deception, but are invalidated merely due to the source.
Birds of a feather.

A

It's funny that you (and Hillary's campaign)) are saying that Bernie's online ad was aimed at Hillary.
Sounds like an admission to me.

Hillary (Chelsea) gets the prize for lying about Bernie.
Bernie gets a dishonorable mention for telling the truth about Hillary?
And since you admit the ad may or may not qualify as negative, your "no negative ads" violation admonition seems questionable.

It is also interesting that Bernie telling the truth about Hillary gets mentioned without the substance of the ad getting any discussion whatsoever. Not very wonky, and it sort of glosses over a core truth.
Yes, the ad was aimed at Hillary.
But, it was also aimed at the majority of elected Dems including Obama, (not to mention ALL Repubs).
So, your "disingenuous" claim about Bernie should have at least been qualified. The ad wasn't only aimed at Hillary. Not by a long shot.

The Wall Street coddling wing of the Dem party is a problem that needs to be addressed, and glossing over that reality is a disservice to your readers.

It's not about being pro-business or anti-business, it's about the (anti-capitalist)corruption on Wall Street feeding (anti-democratic)corruption in politics to avoid any legal action to prevent or prosecute Wall Street corruption.

Bernie believing that we need to deal with the corruption in both arenas while Hillary merrily plays along and milks the corruption for all it's worth is a rather big distinction that MUST be pointed out.
I hope Bernie returns to the subject in the upcoming debate. Repeatedly.

Can't say I condone or appreciate your classification of Hillary's lying about Bernie as potentially a "good thing" either CW.
That bit made me very sad, and definitely puts a dent in your approval numbers.
That rationalization to justify her seedy behavior has been reverberating through our Establishment for too long... and the negative effects of it are plainly visible.

A

there's also evidence to support the assertion that trump's a racist. you discounted that evidence as uncorroborated, because the quote was attributed to him by someone who doesn't like him. i would say that trump's well-established generalized bigotry against gender, religion, ethnicity, and so forth certainly tend to tilt the scales of believability in favor of that quote being valid.

JL

Obama thought lying about people keeping their healthcare plan was ALSO the "right thing to do"...

Obama's opinions one right and wrong are worth less than a cup of warm piss...

So the Republican leadership pulled a stunt that is part of the reason why Trump is doing so well - they took the anti-Obama-everything votes but did the right thing for the country.

In YOUR opinion..

I'll be here to remind you about that when Iran starts killing innocent Americans..

Michale

What you call "legalistic reasons" is simply nothing but the facts..

You want to call Trump a bigot, fine. You have evidence to support that..

But you have, NO ONE has... ANY facts to support a claim of racism against Donald Trump...

essentially your argument is that trump is not a racist per se, just a non-differentiated bigot.

Exactly..

And, if you want to make the TRUMP IS A BIGOT argument, be my guest..

But I don't think you'll like the result. :D

a/ your objections weren't mostly pedantic (i.e. Muslims aren't a race, etc.)

Oh come on!! What YOU call "pedantic" is called FACTS by most people...

Basically, what you are asking me to do is ignore the FACTS, ignore reality and just agree that Trump is a racist because "everyone says he is"...

Seriously!!??

b/ Many of his supporters weren't outright racists (and bigots of other hues if you insist).

I thought we were talking about Trump...

Silly me...

Michale

Yea... It's ALL the Republican's fault..

Obama is pure as the driven snow.. :^/

You missed the point. The point was Obama was open about his support for the deal, and he thought it was the right thing to do. The Republicans also knew it was the right thing to do but that the Israelis and most of their base would reject it (the Israelis because Bibi want a fight with everybody, and the base because heaven forbid Obama might get some credit). So the Republican leadership pulled a stunt that is part of the reason why Trump is doing so well - they took the anti-Obama-everything votes but did the right thing for the country.

I'd have a lot more time for the "Trump isn't a racist" argument if:

a/ your objections weren't mostly pedantic (i.e. Muslims aren't a race, etc.)
b/ Many of his supporters weren't outright racists (and bigots of other hues if you insist). Here is just one lovely tale of a Trump inspired beating, with a metal pipe, of a latino:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvBKWxxPvFcAJ/story.html

essentially your argument is that trump is not a racist per se, just a non-differentiated bigot.

yes, numerous people presented copious evidence, and you unilaterally declared that evidence invalid, for various legalistic reasons. (e.g. there's no such thing as racism against mexicans, because mexicans aren't a race). Or, trump's racist statement against blacks and jews wasn't real because it was attributed to him by somebody with an axe to grind. the evidence for trump's bigotry may not reach the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but there's certainly more than a preponderance of evidence. using the evidentiary standard for a civil trial, you'd lose.

JL

Unsurprisingly, no such statements have been found...

But it does illustrate how partisan myths can take on the veneer of fact, eh?? :D

Michale

Obama is pure as the driven snow.. :^/

Funny how that always is the case, eh? :D

Michale

Obama wanted the deal but knew the Republicans couldn't give it to him in an open vote, so he sat down with the remaining adults in the Republican party and put together a process that allowed them all to vote against the deal later, but still have it go thru based on the need for a super majority in both houses to reject it.

The low information types then got to watch all their committed politicians rant and rave against the deal without us letting the best chance we've had to defang the ME in generations slip by.

Remember, Obama could not have done the deal with Iran without the shady deal the Republican leadership cut with him beforehand.

So Republicans can rant and rave but they only have their own leadership to blame. Boo hoo.

Ya'all are going ga-ga over Iran releasing American hostages and such...

Totally giving Iran a pass for *TAKING* the hostages in the first place!!!

Party Loyalty supersedes ALL over considerations, I guess..

Michale

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-negotiating-free-americans-iran-u-blinked-sanctions-172640511.html

Michale

People have been saying that for the LAST couple decades.. :D

Michale

Michale

Thus the power the Middle East (ME) has held over the rest of the world since the 1970's will gradually but inexorably diminish over the next couple of decades. They will give us some shocks along the way - the energy business can't survive the shipping lanes in the Gulf closing down just yet for example, but remember that one of the reasons the Gulf states had power was that they provided reliable oil flows and we ignored their beheadings, 9/11, etc.

As more non-ME energy sources come on line (oil from Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, shale; gas from fracking; solar; wind; etc.) ME's power will fade.

A good thing for the good guys (that's us).

No one said that SA is "squeaky clean"..

But compared to Iran, they are...

I always find it hilarious to see the Left Wingery twist themselves into pretzels defending Iran..

SOLELY because Obama's legacy is so intertwined with the myth that Iran is our "friend" now.. :D

Michale

The ruling dynasty in SA are supplying money (we are talking real money here - estimates start at the tens of billions of dollars and go to to over two hundred billion dollars) and arms to their terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond to this day. They are also in bed with the Wahhabis who supported the 9/11 terrorists. It was really inconvenient, back in the early 2000's when SA turned out to be sponsoring terrorists that ended up killing almost 3,000 Americans, so there was a whitewash (I'm not blaming Republicans for this, a Democratic president would have done exactly the same thing - we needed their oil more than justice for 3,000 Americans). However it is very naive to think that SA is squeaky clean and Iran is all bad.

""More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups." And it's not just the Saudis: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are also implicated in the memo. Other cables released by Wikileaks outline how Saudi front companies are also used to fund terrorism abroad." - Wikileaks of U.S. diplomatic cables

Don't recall any bowing...

SA is not THE State Sponsor of Terrorism..

You want some links to the investigation into the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists, or where Osama came from?

Yea, and all Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists.. :D

Michale

Democrats are the adults??? :D

Michale

You mean like Saudi Arabia? You want some links to pictures showing President Bush bowing to, holding hands with and man kissing the Saudi King?

You want some links to the investigation into the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists, or where Osama came from?

The Iranians are no better, but they are also no worse, and are trying to be helpful at the moment. For example contrast the fast return of our sailors this week with the humiliation and apologies Bush had to undergo to get our airmen back from China in April 2001. Iran also released four U.S. prisoners today (remember them, the ones that the nitwits in congress said should block the Iran deal until they were released, well guess what the adults were doing behind the scenes).

The Sunnis and the Shi'ites are going to go at it. We can and need to stay out of this war as much as possible, and be seen as useful to both sides so we have future leverage. We don't care much about Saudi oil any longer, especially if we can dump Iranian oil on top of the current glut, so this is a perfect time to play both sides. It is why Trump is wrong - there are smart people in Washington, they just can't talk about what they are doing otherwise not smart people, like The Donald, will blow it.

As opposed to the Democrat Party and their PEACE AT ANY COST mentality...

Michale

So, throw honor and integrity out the window and jump into bed with THE number one state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that executes gay people..

Well.... uh.... OKaaaayyyyyyyy

Republicans = Enemies replace with "Children"

And Democrats are the grown-ups??!??

Shirley, you jest.. :D (Just doesn't have the same effect written :D)

Michale

Now that we're friends with Iran, can't we just let them take care of ISIS eradication?

Iran = Friend replace with "Convenient ally"

Republicans = Enemies replace with "Children"

I think that is exactly what is happening. There is a shadow alliance between the Kurds (who don't want to upset Turkey), Iraq (who don't want to appear anti-Sunni), Iran (who don't want to appear to be controlling Iraq or collaborating with the West) and the U.S. (who don't want to appear to be collaborating with Iran).

If only Putin would grow up and stop grandstanding then Russia could actually be useful - but don't hold your breath.

Now, so long as the children running for the Republican nomination stick to their 'carpet bomb' mentality, the shadowy alliance can continue. If somebody gives them the idea that they can win votes by vilifying Iran constantly then they could screw things up. This is why we shouldn't give fireworks to children or the White House to Republicans.

Iran = Friend

Republicans = Enemies

Left Wingery "logic" at it's finest...

Maybe the Left wants to put a wreath on Stalin's or Pol Pot's grave, eh? :^/

Michale

This is not a subject anybody but those two want to talk about, but it has also opened the door for Bernie to attack Cruz on "shady big bank money" while obliquely attacking Hillary.

Trump has his next target. Cruz is a slimy little oink, but I'm not sure he timed his attack at the right time - too long for Donald to tweet at him until Feb 1st.

Er.... Make that a STINGING rebuke.. heh

Michale

Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until the NNL filters are cleared.. :D

Michale

Michale

Michale

How is that any different than Democrats decrying and castigating income and tax loopholes but then turn around and use those EXACT SAME loopholes to make themselves richer??

Answer: It's not...

Michale