• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MSNBC is Sick

Videos are powerful. Hard to spin.
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
In my opinion, this kind of media is contributing to the hateful rhetoric in political discussion. I think ALL of us, regardless of political lean, need to call out the race baiters in this campaign and demand clean honest debate on the issues.
Click to expand...

If you don't think the American south was a sick society prior to 1965, then you know nothing of american history. 1965 saw the passage of the Voting Rights Act, which closely followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Learn a little history before making silly statements. Blacks were still being murdered for trying to register to vote as late as 1964 in Mississippi. The commentator was exactly right - Santorum's speech was coded racism.
 
tessaesque said:
I really don't think "food stamp president" is a dog whistle. Food stamp usage went up under Obama. It would be no different than calling Bush the "Middle eastern war president". It's merely a characterization based on some event linked to the period of time in which that person lead the country.
Click to expand...

Tess, forego the "racial slur" implications of that statement. I think that the more appropriate context was a partisan political slur. The financial and market institutions fleeced America for over a decade. The consequence was a level of unemployment that rose higher than any other period in my lifetime...and I'm getting up there. Lets put it this way. FDR was still in office when I was a itty bitty kid.

Given the consequences of this fleecing and the ensuing unemployment rising to incredible amounts...why would it be a surprise to anybody that the food stamp usage would not rise with the unemployment?

It's not rocket science or complex mathematics to follow along with the stream of events that led up to such high unemployment.

If anybody is to blame...look at the facts. Two pieces of legislation was enacted that allowed the insane activities by our banking and market institutions that led to a really bad economic crash. Both pieces of legislation was created by Phil Gramm of Texas. CLINTON SIGNED off on those...allowing them to become LAW.

He knew exactly what he was signing off on.

To be very clear. I'm not an Obama fan.

But the facts...are the facts. We can all ignore the chain of political events. We can play like every time a president changes in the White House that there is an automatic line drawn in the sand and that they automatically are responsible for all of the political acts of the previous members of government over the last 232 years.

But that's not how it works.

"The food stamp president" comment was a political ploy to create an unrealistic image ...linked to Obama. But that's politics...and that's Newt's kind of politics. If he jumped up 10 ft in the air...he couldn't slap a snake on the belly...in my humble opinion.
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
My views are clearly expressed throughout this thread.

What is sick is this is passed off as worthy programming. I think this entire "code" crap is sick. Finger pointing without a reason.
Click to expand...

You are correct about your views being clearly expressed. You're another Far Right poster.

Anybody who doens't recognize the phrase 'states' rights' as being code for opposition to Civil Rights and equality knows next to nothing about american history, or knows it but chooses to ignore it.
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
If you don't think the American south was a sick society prior to 1965, then you know nothing of american history. 1965 saw the passage of the Voting Rights Act, which closely followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Learn a little history before making silly statements. Blacks were still being murdered for trying to register to vote as late as 1964 in Mississippi. The commentator was exactly right - Santorum's speech was coded racism.
Click to expand...

A larger percentage of republicans voted for the CRA than dems. Senator Byrd, Dem and former KKK Grand Kleagle, filibusted to try to stop it. Blacks were being murdered by the kkk, an arm of the democrat party.

I was there.
 
Wiggen said:
You are correct about your views being clearly expressed. You're another Far Right poster.

Anybody who doens't recognize the phrase 'states' rights' as being code for opposition to Civil Rights and equality knows next to nothing about american history, or knows it but chooses to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the Fed Govt should run everything and we should just eliminate the individual states?
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
A larger percentage of republicans voted for the CRA than dems. Senator Byrd, Dem and former KKK Grand Kleagle, filibusted to try to stop it. Blacks were being murdered by the kkk, an arm of the democrat party.

I was there.
Click to expand...

Neither party had enough votes to pass the Civil Rights Act and it took a bi-partisan effort. A majority of both parties supported them.
 
Removable Mind said:
Tess, forego the "racial slur" implications of that statement. I think that the more appropriate context was a partisan political slur. The financial and market institutions fleeced America for over a decade. The consequence was a level of unemployment that rose higher than any other period in my lifetime...and I'm getting up there. Lets put it this way. FDR was still in office when I was a itty bitty kid.

Given the consequences of this fleecing and the ensuing unemployment rising to incredible amounts...why would it be a surprise to anybody that the food stamp usage would not rise with the unemployment?

It's not rocket science or complex mathematics to follow along with the stream of events that led up to such high unemployment.

If anybody is to blame...look at the facts. Two pieces of legislation was enacted that allowed the insane activities by our banking and market institutions that led to a really bad economic crash. Both pieces of legislation was created by Phil Gramm of Texas. CLINTON SIGNED off on those...allowing them to become LAW.

He knew exactly what he was signing off on.

To be very clear. I'm not an Obama fan.

But the facts...are the facts. We can all ignore the chain of political events. We can play like every time a president changes in the White House that there is an automatic line drawn in the sand and that they automatically are responsible for all of the political acts of the previous members of government over the last 232 years.

But that's not how it works.

"The food stamp president" comment was a political ploy to create an unrealistic image ...linked to Obama. But that's politics...and that's Newt's kind of politics. If he jumped up 10 ft in the air...he couldn't slap a snake on the belly...in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

If it were said on it's own, maybe. But it was followed up with "I want to be the pay check president." I took that to mean "his policies have not bettered your household. My policies will." It's campaign rhetoric, sure. But I think people made far too much out of it than needed to be made.
 
justabubba said:
if you are a dog, you will hear the whistle


since you asked, i suspect you are a dog. probably one of very fair complexion
Click to expand...

Did you change your mind about wanting to talk about my complexion?
 
tessaesque said:
If it were said on it's own, maybe. But it was followed up with "I want to be the pay check president." I took that to mean "his policies have not bettered your household. My policies will." It's campaign rhetoric, sure. But I think people made far too much out of it than needed to be made.
Click to expand...

Yeah, too much was made out of it.

The funny part...Newt, would his policies have produced a better result...had he been president voted in in Nov 2008? I completely think not.

Here's something I read by an ex-republican chief of staff for a capitol hill member...and an ex-VP for the nation's largest real estate lobbyists organization.

“Newt is a legend in his own mind,” a long-time GOP consultant states. “He’s right when he says no one comprehends him. No one understands why he still doesn’t get it. Even his own party wants nothing to do with him.”

Gingrich fails to realize that he is a product of the system he now derides, a classic political opportunist who rode voter discontent into a GOP majority in the House in 1994 and then — in traditional Washington style — abandoned most of the promises that brought him and his party that victory.

His “Contract With America” promised “wholesale change” to the way Washington worked: Term limits, an end to packing bills with Congressional pork and a dismantling of the old boy network on Capitol Hill.

But — one by one — those promises fell by the wayside. Term limits hit the dumpster first, driven by the reality that power had an expiration date under such change. Under Gingrich’s brand of “leadership,” the House passed a massive transportation bill packed with pork and the new speaker packed House committees with his cronies.

The Speaker who promised a returned to ethics and honesty resigned under a cloud of scandal of an affair and a book deal that padded his bank account. His second-in-command, Texas Congressman Tom Delay, found himself under indictment and quit in disgrace.

But disgrace in Washington is a short-term affair. Delay beat the rap, got rich as a Washington power broker and appeared on “Dancing With the Stars.” Gingrich and his latest trophy wife ran up huge bills at Tiffany’s, paid off those bills with fat cat contracts with FreddieMac and other government agencies and ran for President.

But voters beyond the beltway don’t buy into the Washington way of doing things and they don’t see Gingrich as an outsider who can bring change to the system. They see him as just another political hack whose bloated, puffy face and $5,000 suits represent the overweight, bloated, get-rich-quick way of political wife.

Newt Gingrich may think he’s the smartest guy in the room but — in reality — he’s just another political failure who can’t read or represent the will of a fed-up electorate. ~ Doug Thompson ~
Click to expand...

I have to agree with his assessment and comments regarding Newt.
 
Captain America said:
Well, in all fairness, they do make a valid point. I am certain FOX wouldn't have passed on a similar oppertunity to bash Obama.

But you're right. Cable news sucks.

I agree about the sensitivity meter is America being way too high. Folks need to lighten up. That includes the sensitivity meter to propaganda channels like MSNBC and FOXNews. We all know they're tabloid television. Why the uproar? I don't recall Americans getting so upset over the crap printed in the National Enquirer. These two networks aren't much different IMO.
Click to expand...

Because largely they aren't news. They spend most of there time with political entertainers. Not sure why anyoen would take any of them seriously.
 
Wiggen said:
Anybody who doens't recognize the phrase 'states' rights' as being code for opposition to Civil Rights and equality knows next to nothing about american history, or knows it but chooses to ignore it.
Click to expand...

That's such a lie.
 
nota bene said:
That's such a lie.
Click to expand...
Well it isn't entirely true, but it's not a coincidence that states' rights have been and are often used an excuse to deny equal rights to minorities.
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
Do you believe the Fed Govt should run everything and we should just eliminate the individual states?
Click to expand...

If life was so great in the South prior to 1965, why did we need a Civil Rights Act? Maybe because of this?

Mississippi civil rights workers murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In answer to your question, no - I'm perfectly willing to leave the small stuff to the states. Important things, like civil rights and international relations and trade and defense and 'promoting the general welfare' I prefer to leave in the hands of the Federal Government, instead of a pack of Mississippi rednecks.
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
A larger percentage of republicans voted for the CRA than dems. Senator Byrd, Dem and former KKK Grand Kleagle, filibusted to try to stop it. Blacks were being murdered by the kkk, an arm of the democrat party.

I was there.
Click to expand...

That was when the Republicans actually allowed moderates in their party. After 1965, the South became solidly Republican and many southern democrats switched parties. Thank God.
 
Wiggen said:
If life was so great in the South prior to 1965, why did we need a Civil Rights Act? Maybe because of this?

Mississippi civil rights workers murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In answer to your question, no - I'm perfectly willing to leave the small stuff to the states. Important things, like civil rights and international relations and trade and defense and 'promoting the general welfare' I prefer to leave in the hands of the Federal Government, instead of a pack of Mississippi rednecks.
Click to expand...

Your last comment is inflammatory and racist. Did you change your mind about wanting to discuss the complexion of my skin?
 
nota bene said:
That's such a lie.
Click to expand...

Depends on the context in which it is being used. If we're talking about the Civil War and slavery, for instance, "the South was just fighting for their states' rights" is often a refrain we hear. Yeah, the "state right" to retain the "peculiar institution" of slavery.

If we're talking about the civil rights era, "states' rights" was used to justify maintaining Jim Crow era practices.

Now of course there are plenty of other situations in which states' rights is not used in such a fashion (for instance, if we're simply talking about the increase in federal power at the expense of the states in plenty of non-race-related issues), but it's a common narrative when it comes to coded racist speech.
 
Wiggen said:
That was when the Republicans actually allowed moderates in their party. After 1965, the South became solidly Republican and many southern democrats switched parties. Thank God.
Click to expand...

That's the usual liberal spin and theory. The election of 1968 doesn't back it up. Humphrey and Wallce split the south. Do you remember George Wallace? He was a former Democrat Gov of Alabama segregationist who ran for President.

1968 Presidential Election
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
Your last comment is inflammatory and racist. Did you change your mind about wanting to discuss the complexion of my skin?
Click to expand...

Please note that "Mississippi rednecks" are not a race of people :prof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom