What has Eric Holder wrought?
-
It's an interesting question. You're right, and given that this is what cartoonists *do*, it would be disingenuous for anyone in the Obama camp to play the race card whenever he's depicted in a cartoon. But, my understanding is that it's not Obama who is upset, it's people outside his camp who are complaining, and that obviously having a President of color to try to caricature without being accused of racism is a minefield that's blowing up all over the place.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Obama is far too cool and intelligent to become publically involved in any of this. He has plenty of surrogates who will fight those battles for him. You can bet though that every possible negative spin on Hussien will be related to racism, somehow, someway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Obama is far too cool and intelligent to become publically involved in any of this. He has plenty of surrogates who will fight those battles for him. You can bet though that every possible negative spin on Hussien will be related to racism, somehow, someway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Assuming that Obama is behind these attacks, it just brings race into the political games that both sides have always played, so I don't see it as a big issue if you are right.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
"I'm a registered Democrat" as if you were an insider just upset with the current.
well, as a natural born citizen of the US of A I do happen to consider myself an insider that is upset with the current.
Synaptrik wrote:
Its good to have some truth once and a while with the heaping spoonfuls of sophistry.
where in this thread have I been deceptive? point in fact, I am angry at those that make a living out of race baiting - the reason for initiating this thread as well as the first of my recent focus.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
well, as a natural born citizen of the US of A I do happen to consider myself an insider that is upset with the current.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
point in fact, I am angry at those that make a living out of race baiting - the reason for initiating this thread as well as the first of my recent focus.
Fair enough and valid points.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
where in this thread have I been deceptive?
Not in this thread. Regarding sophistry, just your use of "I'm a registered Democrat" when arguing against the left. It appears that you are a disgruntled democrat arguing to save his party, when I assume that you are a conservative first, and registered as a democrat for reasons you've already mentioned. Operation Chaos. And, you're entitled. But sophistry it is to use the phrase "Registered as" instead of "I am" to disguise intention. Clever use of language while remaining truthful. But, again, you're entitled. This is one reason though, that I open primaries will bear much collateral damage.
This statement is false
-
[Message Deleted]
:laugh::laugh:
-
Assuming that Obama is behind these attacks, it just brings race into the political games that both sides have always played, so I don't see it as a big issue if you are right.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Assuming that Obama is behind these attacks,
I didn't say he was behind them. I said he can remain completely detached and things will be done at his behest without him doing anything at all. The entire mass of all major media resources would all fall on their swords for the man. They have too much invested in him to allow him to fail. Where ever Obama goes, so go they.
Christian Graus wrote:
it just brings race into the political games that both sides have always played, so I don't see it as a big issue if you are right.
It would be a big deal if we lived in anything remotely resembling a fair and open society. We don't. There is a massive, one-sided attack upon every single possible source of opposition to the left. Conservatism, traditional American values and principles, have all basically been hobbled, bound, gagged with a big "NAZI" sign hung around its neck by a pack of happy, gloating collectivists.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Assuming that Obama is behind these attacks,
I didn't say he was behind them. I said he can remain completely detached and things will be done at his behest without him doing anything at all. The entire mass of all major media resources would all fall on their swords for the man. They have too much invested in him to allow him to fail. Where ever Obama goes, so go they.
Christian Graus wrote:
it just brings race into the political games that both sides have always played, so I don't see it as a big issue if you are right.
It would be a big deal if we lived in anything remotely resembling a fair and open society. We don't. There is a massive, one-sided attack upon every single possible source of opposition to the left. Conservatism, traditional American values and principles, have all basically been hobbled, bound, gagged with a big "NAZI" sign hung around its neck by a pack of happy, gloating collectivists.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I think the difference is that the attacks on Bush were based on his behaviour. I have to say that the first thing I thought when I saw the cartoon was that it was grotesquely racist. Then I thought, there's no way they (editors of the WP) could have meant that. Maybe they're just dumb. But maybe they are just hiding behind that and they really are a bunch of thugs. Maybe so, maybe not. Either way the decision to print it was a decision designed to cause conflict and bring out the worst in people, and should not be applauded.
Smokie, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules. www.geticeberg.com
-
I think the difference is that the attacks on Bush were based on his behaviour. I have to say that the first thing I thought when I saw the cartoon was that it was grotesquely racist. Then I thought, there's no way they (editors of the WP) could have meant that. Maybe they're just dumb. But maybe they are just hiding behind that and they really are a bunch of thugs. Maybe so, maybe not. Either way the decision to print it was a decision designed to cause conflict and bring out the worst in people, and should not be applauded.
Smokie, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules. www.geticeberg.com
melchizidech wrote:
I think the difference is that the attacks on Bush were based on his behaviour.
No, they were based upon a leftist assault against American conservatism. Its called propaganda.
melchizidech wrote:
I have to say that the first thing I thought when I saw the cartoon was that it was grotesquely racist.
Of course you did. You're well trained.
melchizidech wrote:
Then I thought, there's no way they (editors of the WP) could have meant that. Maybe they're just dumb. But maybe they are just hiding behind that and they really are a bunch of thugs. Maybe so, maybe not. Either way the decision to print it was a decision designed to cause conflict and bring out the worst in people, and should not be applauded.
Or maybe they were making a perfectly valid political point.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
melchizidech wrote:
I think the difference is that the attacks on Bush were based on his behaviour.
No, they were based upon a leftist assault against American conservatism. Its called propaganda.
melchizidech wrote:
I have to say that the first thing I thought when I saw the cartoon was that it was grotesquely racist.
Of course you did. You're well trained.
melchizidech wrote:
Then I thought, there's no way they (editors of the WP) could have meant that. Maybe they're just dumb. But maybe they are just hiding behind that and they really are a bunch of thugs. Maybe so, maybe not. Either way the decision to print it was a decision designed to cause conflict and bring out the worst in people, and should not be applauded.
Or maybe they were making a perfectly valid political point.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course you did. You're well trained.
I suppose you consider yourself the last man on Earth?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course you did. You're well trained.
I suppose you consider yourself the last man on Earth?
One of the few...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
One of the few...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It's a big world. Not all of them are brainwashed, although many of them do hold differing opinions to you. Live with it.
-
One of the few...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.