American politics and news thread 2.0

Jack Wade wrote:

CJB wrote:

I'm sure if a black Democrat was called a nigger, Wade would need proof before declaring it was a conservative...

12 million jobs? Romney's ambitious, I'll give him that.

CJB wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

CJB wrote:

I'm sure if a black Democrat was called a nigger, Wade would need proof before declaring it was a conservative...

Sorry. I was drunk when I posted that response.

Goldblumin'

The spinning mullet is oddly hypnotic.

CJB wrote:

I'm sure if a black Democrat was called a nigger, Wade would need proof before declaring it was a conservative...

It's nothing that they have never heard before. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell were both called "house niggers" by Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte back in the Bush-43 administration. If the insult was coming from a redneck...from a stereotypical "hillbilly" that just hated all black people, they wouldn't have bothered to make the distinction between a nigger and a "house nigger"; they'd all just be considered niggers. That's why Jack's demand for proof that it was written by a liberal is so transparently shameless and intellectually dishonest.

Incidentally, other words that are now code for "nigger" according to Chris Matthews include "golf" and "Chicago".

Mark Steyn:
And so it goes with American racism: The less there is, the more extravagantly the racism-awareness lobby patrols its beat. The Walmart carding clerks of the media are ever more alert to those who "appear to be" racist. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews declared this week that Republicans use "Chicago" as a racist code word. Not to be outdone, his colleague Lawrence O'Donnell pronounced "golf" a racist code word. When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell observed that Obama was "working to earn a spot on the PGA tour," O'Donnell brilliantly perceived that subliminally associating Obama with golf is racist, because the word "golf" is subliminally associated with "Tiger Woods," and the word "Tiger" is not-so-subliminally associated with cocktail waitress Jamie Grubbs, nightclub hostess Rachel Uchitel, lingerie model Jamie Jungers, former porn star Holly Sampson, etc, etc. So by using the word "golf" you're sending a racist dog whistle that Obama is a sex addict who reverses over fire hydrants.

On the matter of those racist dog whistles all these middle-age white liberals keep hearing, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it very well: "The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it's intended for somebody else," he wrote. "The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog." And a very rare breed at that. What frequency does a Mitch McConnell speech have to be ringing inside your head for even the most racially obsessed Caucasian NBC anchorman to hear the words "PGA tour" as "deep-rooted white insecurities about black male sexuality"? That's way beyond dog-whistling, and somewhere between barking mad and frothing rabid.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/racist-370103-white-dog.html

http://gotopless.org/



I'm sorry, but there is no way I could get any work done if women were allowed to go topless. Most men probably don't need to go topless either, but that's a different issue. It women were allowed to go topless, car accidents would sky rocket. Buses would crash into sidewalk cafes. Sex crimes would increase. It's just a really bad idea.

And once you allow women to go topless, the next thing these people are going to start demanding is the "right" to go bottomless. It never ends.

I think it's a good idea.

Control wrote:

I think it's a good idea.

The red head at the beginning of that video I linked to....if you Google this Go Topless Day demonstration that took place in front of The White House last week, you'll find an almost perfect rack on her (she's the exception, by the way). But that's the problem. If all women looked like her, we'd never get any work done. All of our attention would be drawn to their chest.

And does this new topless movement mean that girls under 18 can be topless in public as well?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

http://gotopless.org/



I'm sorry, but there is no way I could get any work done if women were allowed to go topless. Most men probably don't need to go topless either, but that's a different issue. It women were allowed to go topless, car accidents would sky rocket. Buses would crash into sidewalk cafes. Sex crimes would increase. It's just a really bad idea.

And once you allow women to go topless, the next thing these people are going to start demanding is the "right" to go bottomless. It never ends.

Totally. And who let them out of the kitchen to do this in the first place?

Indeed. They should all just play bridge together in one of their homes too.

I have a generally favourable disposition towards tits.

I am generally in favour of this particular political movement ... jiggling and bouncing are forms of movement, right?

Lor', God Bless America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POiXd47MCHo&sns=fb

Don't open this one, CBJ. I challenge anyone else to listen to this man and not doubt the official story of 9/11.

Jack Wade wrote:

Totally. And who let them out of the kitchen to do this in the first place?

Granted, the red-head is beautiful and her breasteses are fantastical. But she's the 1%. The rest of them look like this:



If you can get past the insanely hot red-headed woman and look at the deeper issues, one of the women says that 'they should have the same rights as men do'. And that's the problem. Women and men ARE different. We are different physically, emotionally, mentally....you cannot have by natural law the same rights and privileges and entitlements as everyone else when there is so much difference between genders, races, cultures, and ethnicities. The Constitution does not guarantee equality in outcome; only equality in opportunity and to prevent the government from denying to you your inalienable rights that God gave you.

Based upon the logic of the women protesting at this event, they'll start demanding that urinals be put in bathrooms so that women who want to stand up while pissing can have that opportunity.

I seriously doubt there's a huge WOMEN FOR URINALS movement going on.

Control wrote:

Good God...

I'm telling you man, I know some of you think it's a good idea that women be allowed to be topless in public like a man (I'm not sure where these places are that men are allowed to be topless other than jogging in parks or on the beach; anywhere else and it's just kind of gross, and even where it's "appropriate" it's still a risky proposition if you're not in shape), but you haven't stopped to think of the long-term ramifications. Besides the very real possibility of being confronted with ugly tits attached to an even uglier woman, or the inability to get any work done, or the amount of car/plane/train crashes that will inevitably results from the operator straining their neck to see a pair of big juggs walking by......the worst part of it all is that the mystique will be gone. Once topless women become an accepted, normal part of society, we'll never look at breasts the same way. They'll become ordinary and mundane. Without the mystery involved of having to imagine what she looks like underneath her clothing, the art of seduction will be lost. Men won't have to work to get a woman out of her clothes. Sales of GIRLS GONE WILD will plummet because...we'll, they're already wild and they're already naked. You'll have to put out videos of women putting their clothes back on: GIRLS GONE TAME.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Once topless women become an accepted, normal part of society, we'll never look at breasts the same way. They'll become ordinary and mundane. Without the mystery involved of having to imagine what she looks like underneath her clothing, the art of seduction will be lost. Men won't have to work to get a woman out of her clothes. Sales of GIRLS GONE WILD will plummet because...we'll, they're already wild and they're already naked. You'll have to put out videos of women putting their clothes back on: GIRLS GONE TAME.

So what?

Drax wrote:

Don't open this one, CBJ.

Commander Blow Job?

Pointing out that Obama spends a lot of time golfing is officially wacist:

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell said Wednesday that a reference to President Obama’s golfing in Sen. Mitch McConnell’s upcoming RNC speech is an attempt to link the president to Tiger Woods and his “lifestyle”:

MARTIN BASHIR: We have seen an early draft of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration. Can I quote something from you? “For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems, he hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He has been working to earn a spot on the PGA Tour.” How about that?

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there. He is trying to align to Tiger Woods and surely, the — lifestyle of Tiger Woods with Barack Obama. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. They find every way they possibly can to –

BASHIR: Lawrence — don’t you think — don’t you think that what he’s really trying to do is to suggest that the president is not paying attention to the central issues that come with the responsibility he has? Is he really – Mitch McConnell really making a connection with Tiger Woods who, of course, has become infamous for chasing various cocktail waitresses around Las Vegas and so on?

O’DONNELL: Martin, there are many, many, many rhetorical choices you can make at any point in any speech to make whatever point up want to make. If he wanted to make the point that you just suggested and I think he does want to make that point, they had a menu of a minimum of ten different kinds of images that they could have raised. And I promise you, the speech writers went through, rejecting three or four before they land order that one. That’s the one they want for a very deliberate reason. That — there’s – these people reach for every single possible racial double entendre they can find in every one of these speeches.

BASHIR: You really believe that about Mitch McConnell?

O’DONNELL: I know these people are insensitive. I know the speechwriters are insensitive. I know the way they work. They do not have the same sensitivity level that other speechwriters do. But when you get to the Tiger Woods reference, there were people in the speech writing room, I know this, without a shadow of a doubt, who said wait a minute, do we really want to go there? Do we really want to go to Tiger Woods and the vote in the room was yes, we do. Mitch McConnell agreed to do it.

BASHIR: Wow. Things are getting lower and lower by the day.

Not sure what O'Donnell was talking about, but I hope Mitch McConnell was equally critical of W.'s vacation time.

O'Donnell's the MSNBC equivalent of Billy O'Reilly.

It just depends what side you want to get a dose of bullshit from.

Democrats set to move Obama's big speech from 74,000-seater outdoor stadium to 20,000-seater indoor arena

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198206/Democrats-set-Obamas-big-speech-74-000-seater-outdoor-stadium-20-000-seater-indoor-arena.html#ixzz25Wl11R00

Eh...I'm finding that hard to believe. Shirley the opportunity for a free ticket to the convention, and a free bus-ride, is worth going, no? I'd do it and I don't even care for President Obama. I mean, the Panthers generally sell out the stadium and they posted a losing record last year. I just find it hard to believe that the Democrats can't fill the stadium.

Having said that...their main stage at the Time Warner Cable Arena is quite striking. I like the interior much more than I liked the Republican's stage dressing. I like the mostly black interior, with the lights looking like twinkling stars, and the neon colors outlining the platform. Reminds me of the Emperor's chamber in Return of the Jedi.