Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: This is one way the Parties ARE different

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 29, 2012, 1:59 p.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Republican Attendees Threw Nuts At Black CNN Camerawoman, Called Her An 'Animal'

The Huffington Post | By Rebecca Shapiro and Jack Mirkinson Posted: 08/28/2012 10:44 pm Updated: 08/29/2012 9:28 am

Two attendees at the Republican National Convention were thrown out of the convention center in Tampa on Tuesday after throwing nuts at a black CNN camerawoman and saying, "this is how we feed the animals."

CNN reported that multiple witnesses saw it happen, and police immediately removed the two people from the premises. Former MSNBC and Current host David Shuster, who is attending the convention, tweeted about the incident earlier on Tuesday:

David Shuster @DavidShuster David Shuster GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying "This is how we feed animals." @TakeActionNews #TAN August 29, 2012 12:35 am via Twitter for iPhone Reply Retweet Favorite

Talking Points Memo then reached out to CNN, which confirmed that an incident had taken place in a statement it later sent to The Huffington Post.

"CNN can confirm there was an incident directed at an employee inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum earlier this afternoon," the statement read. "CNN worked with convention officials to address this matter and will have no further comment." There was no immediate mention of the attack on CNN's air.

The convention condemned the incident in a statement, saying, "Two attendees tonight exhibited deplorable behavior. Their conduct was inexcusable and unacceptable. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated."

The incident would be ugly anywhere, but it is especially troubling for a party whose nominee attracted 0 percent of the black vote in a recent NBC poll.

161 Comments

161 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

The one way parties are different in my opinion is that there is a population that always will vote for one of two sides, based on their view of how the party would act in their favor or ideals. However, both parties are financially supported by the same big money that in the end determines policy. So, the differences ultimately are not that different? A third party would be nice, and if not possible, then at least a balance of parties in each branch of government.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If only. I think the 2 parties are the same in their desire and efforts to keep 3rd parties out.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

No that isn't true!

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Looks like Vkag switched profiles.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Here's some.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-sierracluborg-perspective/

Of course you won't find that kind of thing in your State of Florida.

[-] -1 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

Simplistic, shallow and erroneous.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Racist republican bastards!

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

A few black faced pols don't fool intelligent people!

[-] 1 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

Are you saying those people waving the "BELIEVE" signs at the CONvention were not intelligent? What about the ones crying through the Reagan Porn video?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't think the R convention goers are convinced the party ain't racist. They did boo the Puerto Rican, and Sikh speakers didn't they? And there was the Delegation members who threw the nuts and called the black woman an animal. So I think they aren't fooled either!

Didn't see the reagan video.

[-] 1 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

Uh... I don't think they care, in fact, they'd prefer it.

The Reagan video had the most tear-jerking Love Story sound track, it was absolutely revolting, perfect for a Corporate Stooge CONvulsion.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They tried everything they could. I think they fell short. If repubs don't cheat they will lose.

The cheating is the biggest threat.

[-] 1 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

Why we have to get 'em registered and Voting!

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Without a doubt. It is the most effective way to slow the right wing destruction of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

...the only way to fly!

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

This election is theirlast gasp. The massive suppression, and the blatant lies I think are evidence.

They don't have enough angry white men to counter the growing demographics of progressives (LGBT, Immigrants, minorities, Young people, Women, elderly)

They know the end is near!

[-] 2 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but we have made this mistake many times before! After Nixon and Watergate, we thought we'd never see another Republican ever again. But they just did to Carter what they're doing to Obama, and they got right back in. They are truly the UNDEAD! No shame, no blame, no pain, no brain!! Just a blind Zombie lust for control, rape and pillage!!! They can't be killed!! They are not alive!!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are right to be suspicious. I think some of this is wishful thinking.

The numbers do lean towards progressives, and away from conservatives, but it is good to cautious & prepared.

[-] 1 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

Not suspicious, experienced.

And how about that beautiful tribute to the AMERICAN WORKER for Labor Day at the CONvention!!!???

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Missed that too. Last night? So dishonest! from the anti unions party, and vulture capitalist outsourcing candidate.

What a big brother 1984 doublespeak fairy tale

[-] 1 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

You didn't miss it, they did.

[-] -1 points by derrickhamilton (-56) 2 years ago

The outcome is most likely already decided. The republicans and the democrats work together, not against each other. They serve the 1%.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaah So the dems are working against the interests of their own parties success?

Yeah that makes sense! Their all the same. No hope. No point in voting!

Let's find a corner to crawl into.

[-] 0 points by derrickhamilton (-56) 2 years ago

The dems and the republicans are both right wing parties. They have more similarities than differences. Who said there wasn't hope in voting? What's with the assumptions? There are third parties.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The party duoploy prevents 3rd party access/success.

You don't know that?

Maybe we should change the political system to allow 3rd party access before we spin our wheels and split the progressive vote to help the right wing wackos.

[-] 1 points by derrickhamilton (-56) 2 years ago

The only thing that prevents 3rd party success is lack of votes. The duopoly exists only because Americans always vote right wing, either democrats or republicans. They never support left wing alternatives.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So the progressive caucus is right wing? Wow I guess we have agree to disagree.

Have you ever listened to Bernie Sanders.?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What about the progressive caucus, Are they any good? Maybe a good place to start?

[-] 0 points by derrickhamilton (-56) 2 years ago

They are essentially right wing. A tool of the 1%.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think the party duopoly control of the primaries and debates, and money in politics have a big effect on 3rd party access! Other issues as well.

But lack of votes is certainly a major problem. (more of a symptom of the above unfairness) Much must change before those votes will come to 3rd parties.

We MUST agitate for major election/campaign reform. Otherwise we're just splitting the progressive vote and playing into the 1% diabolical plan.

[-] 0 points by derrickhamilton (-56) 2 years ago

The progressive vote is only for third parties. Voting for the republicans or the democrats is anti-progressive.

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Well if THAT isn't a racist statement, I don't know what is...

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Then you don't.

cross burn much?

[-] 0 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

"We see the world not as it is, but as we are." Your comment says it all about who you are.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thank you very much for your very valuable opinion.

Good luck in all your good efforts. Lets agree to fight racism wherever it is!

Elect non racist progressive, Vote out racist republicans!

Peace, & Solidarity!

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Justoneof99

Follow the money, and then it's enough said.

When we look close enough, we can see the content of one's character. Mia has the content of a typical conservative. We know the deal - redux.

So, Justone, do you have any point or are you a shill for nothing?

You know, just wondering if you got one you hiding from us. We ALL want to know!

Repeat after me.....................

Come Together NOW

Nuff" Said?

[-] 2 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Just trying to shine a little light of truth into the dogma that is so easily accepted as the way things are.

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If you want to understand what message a political party is actually conveying, listen to their rank and file. Have a beer with them. Then you will hear all you need to know. No doubt these two republicans had had a snort or two.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I wasn't surprised! I was surprised that CNN hushed it up, & didn't allow the camerawomen to be interviewed. Why should the story be covered up?

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

CNN needs "access" and so cannot piss off big players or they won't get interviews and scoops. That's a major reason press corps is so tame. Also they'll come under intense attack for being too "liberal." It's been said reality has a left bias. Can't have that!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're right. it's pretty screwed.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Don't fall for this side-show nonsense. CNN will report anything so long as they don't have to focus on Obama's actual record; which is the only thing that matters.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You think treating human beings like animals because of their race is "side show non sense"? Or are you questioning whether this actually happened?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

I am saying that it is foolish to be distracted by the reprehensible behavior of a couple idiots instead of focusing on the critical issues facing this country.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Racism is pretty critical if you're not of the white race.

Are you of the white race?

I thought so!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

Zero percent of african americans? And yet I was accused of lying by one poster when I stated that over 90% of african american's voted for Obama in 2008 both in the primaries and in the general election.

It's a shame that the police escorted the two individuals out. It would have been much more proactive for the convention to make examples out of them then to have the police do the work for them.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yep Zero percent of likely African American voters for Romney, 94 percent for Obama. Even McCain got 4%. Could it be Mormonism is better understood among black people than among whites?

http://tinyurl.com/8w8pamg

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

I think it was NBC that did a one hour special on mormonism. They even found a couple of african americans among them. They seemed happy, and accepted.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'm not going to psychoanalyze anyone. To each one's own unless it impinges on the legitimate rights of others.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They should be arrested and held without bail for 3 days, in a cage and fed like animals by having their food thrown at them. It should be filmed and put online, for maximum humiliation.

[-] 2 points by kaiserw (211) 2 years ago

careful, encouraging violence from law enforcement has very predictable outcomes, and you won't like it. "Be careful what you wish for..."

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're right. I guess I didn't really mean it.

What if we had the black women treating them badly?

I guess that's not really right either.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

lol, as long as we can assume the accounts we are hearing are correct, I think that's a great idea.

The republican convention should have had them arrested instead of simply escorting them out of the convention center. Now the next test is, will any conservative sites condemn what these two did?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nope!

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

I guess the rationalization will be these were two loners who had nothing to do with the convention. I suppose the next step would be to see how everybody was reacting around the two people who were arrested.

If they were booing, or were the ones who called the police, than it would be unfair to associate the action with the convention.

So if there is video of the incident, I would suggest focusing less on the two people who caused the incident, but instead focus on the reaction of those around the two people.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think focusing on the 2 racist republicans who perpetrated the crime is just fine thank you very much.

I mean I'm not against seeing how others behaved around them, but I wouldn't give these 2 racist republicans a pass.

So no to the "focusing less" on the 2 racist republicans, but yes to seeing how the others behaved.

Let me know what you find.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

It matters more how others around them reacted versus what those two did.

From a disruption mode of operating, it takes just a couple of people to disrupt a rally or protest and make everyone else look bad.

I think as OWS followers we would relate to that point, no? If in turn we are quick to judge what two people did as having more merit than the perhaps 30 people who witnessed it, we become guilty of the very thing we condemn when it occurs at an OWS rally.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What the 2 racist republicans did was MORE important because they treated a fellow human behind like shit. Maybe you have never been treated that way but guess what it matters! So the attempt at deflection is an epic fail.

Find out what the others did if it is that important to you. Let me knoe if you so desire. but I disagree that it matters more. It don't!

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

So the next time two OWS protestors throw rocks through windows and start fires, while the other 99% of protesters were marching peacefully, the entire group should be judged by the actions of those two, according to you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I ain't judged an entire group of anything. WTF R U talkin about?. The 2 racist republicans were only representing themselves. I've told you repeatedly the crowd around I no nothing about nor do I care to.

The repub party has decades of racist evidence we could use to show what kind of party they are generally. but it still wouldn't they are all racists.

In fact all republicans aren't racists!

But aren't all racists republicans?

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

It's funny you should ask that. When I see all of the car burnings and violence after a professional sports team wins a championship, I see Obama voters, (if they vote at all), not Hillary Clinton voters.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That sounds racist too. What about the most consistently violent fans in the world of sports. European futbol? Who you seein then? I bet you ain't even lookin 'cause it doesn't fir your little narrative.

Cross burn much?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

I'm talking in the U.S., and I was not implying any one race did the car burning or looting either, I see a rainbow coalition of Obama voters doing it.

Hillary Clinton voters are the ones who have their own small business, work a job, or are caretaking for a family member and so on and don't have the inclination to destroy or loot.

It's more of a function of age.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And the dem caucus suppressed elderly vote because the dems were trying to keep elderly from voting for who

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ageism? That's horrible. can you site an example?

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

The 2008 democrat caucus contests were designed to favor the younger voter in a myriad of ways. The events were usually at night, in the dead of winter in February, standing room only at times.

NO way a senior could have handled that.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh we weren't talkin about race on this "repubs are racist post"?

Doesn't make any sense. You opinion that Obama voters are more inclined to destroy and loot is based on what? And the sports example what is that about?

Obviously I disagree. And you probably don't want to explain.

So good luck in all your good work.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

There was a lot of ageism that went on in 2008, but it was not covered and instead there were allegations of racism against Obama and sexism against Hillary Clinton. What was really going on was ageism.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

I'm not implying that overall Obama voters are more likely to destroy and loot, I did imply that it is more likely to find Obama voters of all races looting and destroy that when it comes to championship celebrations versus other presidential candidate supporters.

Although I will admit it is probably not provable.

I just think the same mindset that was thrilled at all the ways one could trick an older Hillary Clinton voter into not voting in the 2008 caucus contests is the same mindset that would turn over a car during a celebratory time. It's funny to them.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sorry you're not makin any sense

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Then those who throw urine on police and others should also be arrested, held without bail for three days, in a cage and have urine thrown on them right? Equality.

Except when equal treatment doesn't suit your purposes right? Like when two or three protesters act out in a public event and OWS members scream "They do not represent us! They are PLANTS!" But 2 people acting out in another public event and OWS screams "They represent all Republicans (the entire party according to the title of this thread)! They couldn't possibly be plants!".

Please note that the entire GOP floor erupted over and over in cheers and applause during the speech of Mia Love-the mayor of a small city in Utah, who just happens to be black.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So racism is the same as assaulting the police?

your reaching.

I am against throwing Urine at police. They may have been plants, but my 1st instinct is that they were just immature, angry young people who maybe had a bad experience with the police. Imagine that, Police abuse.

I don't think the racists in the article were plants. Just your average everyday republican. I mean the party is running racially coded lies about gutting welfare/work rules. Repubs have been playing to the racist "silent majority, religious right" with the "southern strategy that Nixon started for decades.

You don't think a few black faced politician fools smart people do you? I saw where the convention moved the Hawaiian, PR, & Samoan delegations to the front in order to hide the fact that they are color deficient. Are you fooled by that charade?

I don't think all republicans are racists, but aren't all racists republicans?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I'm asking you why YOU consider the assault on ONE person to be different than the assault on ANOTHER? Aren't we all equal? Are police officers "lesser" beings in your opinion that black people? Is assaulting them "less" of a crime? Why aren't you treating ALL assaults on ALL people EQUALLY?

Question-if the convention wanted to HIDE something-such as you suggest they wanted to hide some "color deficiency"-wouldn't they move it to the BACK??? The cameras are all up FRONT. And if the good people of Hawaii, PR, and Samoa SELECTED their delegates personally, what in the hell right do you have to say they didn't do it "correctly" because there isn't enough "color" in them? Seriously.

And I'm reaching......wow.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I didn't say the delegates weren't chosen correctly. Have you lost all sense of reality. I didn't mention how the delegations were chosen. Those delegation which are normally in the back and not seen were moved to the front because they included people of color.

Get it? The convention was moving the people of color to the front inan effort to show they had more than just white people. Smart people aren't fooled.

The 2 attacks in question had one major difference. The repubs called the black women an animal. That is racist. The urine throw was just stupid kids commiting a crime. I mean the truth is throwing urine is worse than throwing peanuts. but to call a fellow human being an animal makes th peanut throwing republican crime worse.

I should repeat though I am against the urine throwing and I bet they were arrested. The peanut throwing racist republicans probably got off but they should definitely been arrested.

So they racists got off and the urin ators were arrested. Is that what you prefer.?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yep mostly people of color in the unemployment court

maybe they get tagged more

for a government more bent on stopping fraud than helping people

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

First the RNC convention made the statement that what happened was " deplorable behavior. Their conduct was inexcusable and unacceptable. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated."

Second, that you or anyone else says that those delegations were moved to the front for that reason does NOT make it true, no matter how much you WANT/HOPE/BELIEVE that it is.

As far as I can find, the party affiliation of the "attendees" who threw the peanuts has not been revealed, nor has it been proven that they were invited or approved Republican attendees. If you know differently, please show me where that has been determined.

MSNBC chose to either cut or talk over the speeches made by every minority speaker except Nikki Haley. Racists!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That the RNC made a statement seems to be proof they were convention attendees. Do you think the RNC makes statements for every racist act.?

Like maybe by reflex?

And if the your RNC knows the right response why do you continue defending these 2 racist republican morons?

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

The RNC did NOT make a statement.

"The RNC referred POLITICO to GOP convention spokesperson Kyle Downey for comment."

The statement made came from Kyle Downney-convention spokesperson.

There are plenty of people "attending the convention" who aren't Republican delegates. Crew, staff, volunteers, etc. And even if they ARE Republicans, it doesn't mean that anyone else in attendance shares their point of view on race.

Show me where I've defended ANYONE-in particular the two people who allegedly acted this way? The only thing I'm defending is the use of logic and reason towards every other "attendee" who did NOT participate in such behavior. Just like I would against ALL OWS protestors being branded as criminals because of the actions of a few. It's called fairness and equality. Show some.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

OWS is not full of racists so I don't see the connection.

Well the 2 were part of delegation that has been reported on currenttv. The convention spokesperson was an RNC guy.

They were republicans. You are defending someone. Or we wouldn't be conversing. I didn't say all repubs are racists. I DID say all republicans are not racists.

So I don't know what you are talkin about because I think maybe YOU don't know what you are talkin about.

Just take the rep convention spokesmans lead. Denounce this horrible racism by these 2 republican delegation members and be done with it.

You still haven't done that. Do you think it was ok to treat the good decent hard working American women like shit.?

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I denounce racism by ANYONE including these two idiots.

I also denounce YOU treating ANY "good, decent, hard working American man, woman or child like shit" simply because they are different from you-politically, racially, religiously, economically, or socially.

That you "don't see the connection" between your behavior and theirs says a lot.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well I'm glad you finally denounced your fellow republicans racist behavior.

Too little too late perhaps, but welcome none theless. I however have done nothing but call the racists, racists.

My comments on the republican party referred to their policy positions. You haven't stated I was incorrect so I guess you know I was right.

You also haven't said you are not proud of these policy positions so I guess you ARE proud of them. As well you should be!

Good luck to you in all your good work.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Wow. Talk about "black and white thinking". (not a racial reference)

Since I haven't stated one thing, it automatically means the opposite.

It's called a false dilemma in logic. In psychology they call it splitting.

In America we just call it stupid.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaaah name calling. That always come when they substance runs out. I gues you are spent. I win!

Your silence on the republican policy positions I listed is deafening that's all.

Please refrain from the insulting schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You're right. I shouldn't pick on school children who had no substance to begin with. My bad.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"school children"? more insults? c'mon. no need for this abuse. Don't be a sore loser.

Good luck in all your good work.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The police are government officials, representatives of our civilization in fact, supposedly held to a high standard of conduct - higher than what others are expected to attain. When so many of them abuse the people they allegedly serve and their comrades cover for them and refuse to enforce the law, what are people to do? I mean it pisses me off too.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Even MSNBC agrees with me:

The plan was to shut up Ron Paul supporters during the nomination process. :

"But when a hurricane botched the RNC's well-laid plans, convention planners were sent back to the drawing board to keep party dissent out of the media limelight. The solution: Rigging the seating arrangements."

"Delegations from Nevada, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota and Oklahoma—states with large Paul movements—have been moved to the outer edges of the convention floor. Delegations from the Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa will now occupy prominent positions front and center."

"PROMINENT positions front and center". All racists might well be republicans-they might well not be too. You can't prove any such thing. But it appears that all bigots hate republicans.

[-] 0 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

Well the Democrats would throw nuts at the white male and call him a bigot.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nah never happen. Progressives are about tolerance and inclusiveness, Love and happiness.

Republican/conservatives are anti womens rights, anti immigrant, anti minority, anti native American, anti Social sec/Medicare, Anti LGBT. Anti everything c'mon. you know it's true

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"Progressives are about tolerance and inclusiveness, Love and happiness."

Unless you disagree with them in any way or try to explain to them that it's wrong to generalize, stereotype, accuse entire groups of people for things that are not true. THEN there is no tolerance, inclusion, love or happiness offered. Oh wait....that's the defintion of bigotry isn't it. Weird.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who did that and when?

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"Republican/conservatives are anti womens rights, anti immigrant, anti minority, anti native American, anti Social sec/Medicare, Anti LGBT. Anti everything c'mon. you know it's true"

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How is listing the policy positions of the republican party generalizing, or stereotyping.?

Is any of that wrong? Aren't you proud of your party positions. Don't you agree with all that?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Please show me the policy positions of the Republican party which demonstrate on their own merit (without your spin) that they oppose:

All rights for women (using standard and accepted definition of the term "women's rights") All immigration (at all-legal or illegal-no matter what) All minorities (defined as "A relatively small group of people, esp. one commonly discriminated against in a community, society, or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion") All native Americans (aren't they a minority?) All Social sec/Medicare etc of any kind All LGBT EVERYTHING.

Is any of that wrong? Is this YOUR position on their positions? Do you agree with all that?

Or were you again, generalizing and stereotyping, the policy positions of the Republican Party to suit your own agenda?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

AAaaahh Ha ha ha. Oh ok. So then you disagree! You can say that. I don't have to educate you. I know this party for 40 years. I state what I have seen. You can look at your VP nominee budget and personhood amendment for much of the proof. Read the platform for further proof.

I can't help you if you don't know their basic positions. I think you do though. Most likely you are just too embarrassed to discuss it honestly.

I understand, these positions are so anti people it is embarrassing.

Good luck in all your good work.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The cameraman was most likely portrayed as an animal because some Republicans think CNN has a liberal bias.

If at the democratic convention people threw nuts at a black fox news cameraman, would you think it was because of racism, or political bigotry?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Never happen.

you said "portrayed"? where did you get that from? the racist republicans in question said to the women "this is how we feed the animals". Wasn't a portayal. It was a racist slur!

So your playing down of that fact is a clumsy attempt at defending the racist republicans, but transparent. And the weak attempt to distract, & deflect by using KarlRovian tactics of blaming the opponent (Dems) for your failure is also transparent. LMFAO.

I mean I know all republicans aren't racists, but aren't all racists republicans?

[-] 1 points by cactus (1) 2 years ago

not all racists are republicans

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Are you sure? Have you taken a tally? How do you know?

[-] 3 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

VQ. Come now, you can't make a blanket statement like that. As you know, If you go back just in near history, the south was democratic and very racist. This was just two morons being morons. Don't make it more than it was.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Which blanket statement are you referring to? And what does the racists in the dem party half a century ago have to do with anything?

And to say they were just 2 morons" glosses over their racist act. We don't have to cover for this kind of behavior just because you support repubs.

Be honest! they were 2 racist republican....... morons!

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

Yes, they were two racist republican morons. But you also inferred above that all racist are republicans, which you know is not at all true. That's like me saying "have you taken a tally of democrats, how can you be sure?". You know what I meant.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I posed a question. I made no such blanket statement. You sir are twisting my words.

The only blanket Statement I made was that "all republicans are not racists"

So you are sadly mistaken.

Check this new bit out whatta ya think of this one.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-little-republican-racism-and-voter-suppression-i/

[-] 1 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

I'm not a racist I just don't think we should have an affirmative action president who is incompetent in the job. He would never be there if he wasn't black.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You sound like racist. Are you sure you ain't 'cause your Obama comments are certainly untrue and all about his race. Isn't that the definition.

[-] 1 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

What's not true, why did he get accepted to Punahou?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nothing you've said is true. It's just right wing racist lies.

[-] 1 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

He got accepted to Punahou through affirmative action. That's a fact.

He didn't have the grade to go Ivy League so he went to Occidental, that's a fact.

He transferred to Columbia, how?

He was elected to the Presidency with the highest percentage of black votes in our history, that's a fact.

Do I need to go on?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please don't I ain't really interested.

How about GWBush did his families connections help his moronic ass get into college?

That doesn't bother you I bet.

[-] 1 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

Why does there have to be moral relativism. Of course, Bush got into Harvard via his family. Was he experienced enough for the job of president, obviously no. However, he was the governor of one our largest states. I wished he had done a better job and controlled spending and didn't attack Iraq.

That has nothing to do with this election. Obama, like Bush, has shown that he is not qualified. What am I missing.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pres Obama is way qualified!

You are just a partisan.

[-] 0 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

He was less qualified than Bush when he entered office.

I am only looking at the facts and Obama has done a bad job. Forget all of the economic issues which are overwhelmingly apparent, he has failed to move to bring the country together and forced through his agenda on a party line vote. Adding to that is he has pursued a class warfare agenda that pulls us apart. He has aggresively pursued the wars and broke as many if not more rules of war. The amount of innocent civilians that are killed daily by drone attacks is striking.

So I don't see how you can say he is qualified.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I did copy & paste anything.

We disagree. I recognize all our problems are rooted in pro 1% conservative policies.

You blame Pres Obama for everything.

Peace, Good luck in all your goodefforts.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago
  • The economic problems are a result of the worst recession since the great depression and was created by Bush and has 1% plutocrat friends.

  • Only the repubs have failed to come together with the Pres who won big in 2008. The decided at that time to derail the recovery and work against the country. He made many compromises, but they behaved like spoiled kids.

  • He has not pursued class warfare he simply supports asking the wealthy to pay their fair share in contributing to the recovery.

  • He has ended 1 (& ending the other) Bush Oil wars. He has reduced US military killings from Bushs million+ to thousands.

You're spewing a lot of anti dem partisan campaign rhetoric. Just meaningless republican talking points.

[-] 1 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

I am the one spewing campaign rhetoric. You copy and pasted this. Come on, what type of conversation is that.

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

Vacca is just speaking the truth. Affirmative action is a designated policy of many organizations in this country. How is that racist.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How about this one, you wanna blame something else for this one.:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-little-republican-racism-and-voter-suppression-i/

[-] -1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

How is it racist to ask somebody to prove who they are before they vote? You can't take money out of bank without ID, or drive a car, or travel on an airplane or leave the country.

This is crazy.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

None of those rise to the level of the right to vote. Airplane we ask for ID to prevent a terrorist attack, Banks is not govt but business. None of these examples compare.

It is racist because the republicans have used there law making powers to target certain groups.

Understand?

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

That's the point, the vote is more important so shouldn't we make sure there is no fraud? Do you forget Kennedy in 1960.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

There is NO fraud! Repubs have used those lies to impose new requirements on certain groups right before the election to suppress the dem vote.

[Removed]

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whatta ya gonna do? It is what it is. We will engage whatever comes.

"ain't no mountain high enough...."

"let all within hearing be warned...!! I will endure!!!"

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

Kennedy - 1960?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Don't be immature. are you 12 yrs old?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

NO!

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

All right, woman up.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

These days republicans can't win without cheating! Bush II cheated. And I bet the tea party extremists in 2010 did too.

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

How did Bush cheat?

You lost in a land slide to the Tea Party. Man up and accept the decision by the people. Your ideas are out of the main stream.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Republicans can't win without cheating!

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

Well, Reagan, Bush, Bush II and the 2010 Congressional races would say that you are wrong.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Half a century! Stop. That proves the point.

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

Well, that one caused the election and there have been enough rumours of others that you have to eliminate any chance of fraud.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I am more concerned about who is counting the ballots.

[-] 0 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

The same way it was racist to use literacy tests in the Jim Crow south.

[-] -1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

No comparision. ID's just eliminate fraud.

[-] 1 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

Formally, literacy tests just ensure that voters are qualified. No explicit racism is involved. But what was the intent? Look, you aren't that dumb. Everyone knows what's going on, you included.

Your problem, IMO, is that you really aren't on board for fighting racism. You worry about reverse discrimination. You feel like affirmative action is wrong. You just don't acknowledge how damaging racism is and has been, so you want everyone to be polite and ignore the topic. What you need is not new ideas, but an attitude adjustment. Get angry at racism!

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

I am not worried about reverse discrimination. I believe in treating everybody fairly and the same, not having the government engineer outcomes that are distorted.

I don't want to avoid the topic, you folks do. You will not admit that Obama is an affirmative action president.

Maybe instead of getting angry at racism you can get angry at bad behaviour such as black on black killing. Maybe you can get mad at the teacher's unions that produce sub par schools especially in the black areas. Maybe you can get mad at governments that build subsidized housing blocks that are nothing but prisons for the poor. If you want to get mad, get mad at bad behaviour, not good behaviour.

[-] 0 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

I wonder why someone like yourself posts here. You seem completely swallowed up by what appears to me to be the usual right wing brainwashing. I do admit to a certain curiosity about how specific victims of your disease exhibit the symptoms. Why, for instance, no accusations about communism? I'm guessing that will be your final dismissive shot, but this was your 'engaging in dialogue' voice?

You know, if you're looking for a leftist to talk to, I'll try to hold up my end. You raised a number of things. Affirmative action, for instance. I couldn't care less what Obama does. I'm not an Obama supporter. You're talking to the real left in here. What we want is not more tokenism, but genuine equality. What your side wants is the appearance of a fair fight, so that the winners' privileges will be legitimated.

I'm a little surprised at my willingness to waste words on an obvious racist.

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

You want equality of results not equality of opportunity. There is a big difference.

The left hasnt been able to manage anything besides ordering coffee.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Or they can just hide the fraud by refusing to show tax records like Romoney does.

Actual voter fraud among us proles is infinitesimal.

Among "illegals", it's even smaller.

'Splain that Lucy.

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

Romney's tax records are filed with the IRS so are you saying that they are fraudulent and the IRS is looking the other way?

I have no problem with him not releasing his personal financial information as it is personal.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Nope.

I'm saying he's hiding voter fraud on his part, as to what State he voted in when.

I think he should move to the Caymans anyway. He doesn't like it around here.

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

We need him, he is actually qualified to be President.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think when you discuss an issue by focusing on race lends itself to a racist approach. The president is white and black. What does it matter what race he is. Forget his race if you can. Obviously we have no affirmative action in electing the president. He won fair and square. It's not about his race. If you make it about his race. sounds racist to me.

Hey if the Hood fits!

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

The government and the universities all focus on race. It is a stated policy to admit students of color. That is how Obama got ahead. This is reality, what is the problem.

He would not have been President if he had stayed at Occidental College.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please thats an old racist talking point. Everyone gets in on their own merits fair and square. White people ain't hurt by black people attending college.

They may not like it but they gotta get over it already. It's so 19th century.

[-] -1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

What are you talking about everybody getting in on their own merits. It's a stated policy of the institutions to admit on race, not on merit. You just don't want to discuss it. It is not racist.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh get over it already. Everyone deserves to get in who gets in, and nobody gets a free ride on grades. They all do the same work. Minorities and women are still not accepted as often as white men anyway. Stop crying hunger with a loaf of bread under your arm.!

Don't be a big baby!

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

You obviously didn't attend an Ivy League school because you are sorely mistaken. Obama is an affirmative action president and wouldn't have been in the position he was in, if he was not black. That's reality.

I'm not crying hunger, I got in on my merits.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Hard work, clean living?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No college for me. couldn't afford! Barely got outta high school! but I know that all people who get into ivy league work hard for it, and deserve it. Maybe Pres Obama would have been discriminated against without some effort not to discriminate but he deserved it as much as any other race.

Sorry. We disagree. Racism would have prevented him from excelling but affirmative action prevented that criminal racism.

[-] 1 points by Faraujo (-4) 2 years ago

He went to Occidental first. How do you go from a two-bit school to an Ivy League?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Such a wonderfully racist statement.

Did you say the same thing about your first female boss, that wasn't your Mother?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please refrain for the dishonest obscene offensive comments.

Focus on positiveness. It is like affirming.

Peace & Love.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

You're so considerate, Andrew.

I wish more boys were like you.