"Is the Presidency Driving Us Nuts?"

Skeptic Bob said:

I am all for cutting the power of the Presidency by a LOT. The War Powers Act needs more teeth and the scope of Executive Orders needs to be reigned in.

Click to expand...

Executive orders should be banned

If they want something changed, make a law, and get it passed in Congress

Why do we need a quick way to bypass the legislative branch?

Harshaw said:

I've been on that beat for years. We're a republic. The President is a servant. He's there solely as the chief administrator, to carry out what Congress enacts.

Click to expand...

How do we get back to that?

nota bene said:

Thank you for a very good summary of what those who respect the Constitution want. I hope it's not too late. I think the way you explained "king" is also very good, but I think you should add back "laziness" to many of those who want a monarch. They've relinquished their own obligation to be informed and aware. I never cease to be surprised by the number of people I meet who have no idea at all what's going on, not here and not in the world. They just don't care. And maybe they don't really mind at all just accepting whatever comes along or simply doing as they're told because this makes their lives easier?

Click to expand...

It does make their lives easier. Just take a few days of holiday away from the constant ugly media drumbeat of politics and see how much more at peace with everything and comfortable you are. But we who do care and are responsible citizens won't do that for long.

I don't worry about the apathetic, uncurious, and disinterested group. Few of those bother to vote even and at least they aren't being brainwashed by a dishonest media and the hatemongerers. (It is problematic when they are tapped by opportunists who give them a name on a slip of paper with a bribe and send them in to vote for somebody.)

I worry most about those who have given up their ability to think for themselves and are swayed by and/or even eagerly grasp whatever is fed to them by that dishonest media and the hatemongerers who parrot it again and again not to mention that hateful stuff that is just made up. Many of those people do vote. And they are to the point that they would allow this country to be destroyed rather than give up their hatred and vitriol of a king of the wrong royal line. And that is scary.

Perotista said:

Congress has ceded on its own many powers to the presidency. You add to those the powers congress has ceded to other agencies within the government, you end up with a less than co-equal branch of government. Congress can still be a pain in the butt, but only if the majority party in congress isn’t of the same party of the president. Add to that that today the members of congress of the same party of the Administration or of the president are more a part of that administration than of the institution of congress. They try to give the president everything he wants and wishes for. It’s like those members of congress of the president’s party are working for the president and not the people who elected them or whom they are supposed to represent.

A lot of congress’s problems is basically a weak Speaker and a political party mentality. I’m old enough to remember when Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House. If the president tried to infringe upon the powers of congress, old Sam wouldn’t have it. It didn’t matter if the president was of Sam’s party or not. By god and the constitution, Sam would fight ceding any powers to the administration. Sam wouldn’t stand for the phone and a pen, he’d make the president go through congress as the constitution provides. Mike McCormick pretty much followed suit along with Carl Albert. But they were no Sam Rayburn. After them, ceding power and giving the president everything possible became the norm.

Congress could still exert itself, but the odds on that are astronomical. Those of the president’s party are too busy playing footsie for the president. Yes, treating the president as a king being the king’s/president’s knights.

Click to expand...

Excellent post. As at an example, look at DACA. President Obama accepted his role as King and took care of the 'dreamers' absolving Congress of any responsibility whatsoever for that.

President Trump, not so willing to be King, rescinded President Obama's executive order overriding Congress and informed Congress of what THEIR existing law required. He agreed to not enforce it for six months which would give THEM time to come up with a law to deal with the dreamers. The six months are almost up and Congress has not addressed the issue at all until now.

The Democrats, who don't really give a damn one way or the other, are safe demanding amnesty and citizenship for the dreamers knowing full well they won't have to actually do it because the GOP will be crucified by their constituents if they agree to amnesty/citizenship even though they too don't really give a damn one way or the other.

So now they are all fumbling around to come up with something they can pretend is doing something without actually having to do something. Gutless, irresponsible, hypocritical feckless self-serving all.

And the haters in the MSM, social media, and on message boards are blaming President Trump all the way. He is the illegitimate king who didn't fix it even though constitutionally and legally, it is not his problem to fix.

ReverendHellh0und said:

Let me ask you. Was it trump and trump alone who accelerated it or was it a media chomping at the bit to attack the next republican as they did bush II who when trump rose up to them and matched them in thier fervor both caused the increase rise in hostility between not only the media but the left and the right?

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't Trump and Trump alone who accelerated it, and I've said on here many times that the media, both sides of government, and ultimately the people of America on both sides have been hopelessly irresponsible in their involvement in the escalation of polarization in your country. However, let me ask you...do you not think the tack that Trump chose to rise to power was a catalyst of sorts? For me his rhetoric set the bar so low that literally anything goes, and the vast majority of what came after has been reactionary. Yes, the media has gone after him like other, but it would appear that's because he provides material like no other. The media has always been there, as have the left and right politicians and voters, yet, from my own recollection, we've never seen the level of divisiveness we've seen, not even under Obama.

So, by way of answering your question, it takes a cast to put on a production, but Trump definitely is the star, and that matters. Case in point, who do you hate more...the guy that punches you in the arm, or the guy that kicks you in the nuts and bangs your wife?

ReverendHellh0und said:

Then you have what started under obama where everyone who disagreed with him was a raging racist continued under trump. for example. Is haiti a desirable place to live or is it a less than desirable place to live? If it's the latter, if I call it a "****hole" is that racist? What makes it racist? See these leaps your side makes doesn;t help you. it makes people role thier eyes.

Click to expand...

As I said above, I'm not going to debate the racist position, I'm rather enjoying our current civil chat, and talking about racism is what started our brawling... For what it's worth, to say a place in particular is a **** hole, so long as you're not doing so from a position or office that demands class and global diplomacy, is not racist on it's own, in my opinion. But this wasn't just talking about Haiti... All of Africa was implicated, and if it wasn't intentional, or even subconscious racism, it certainly could be construed as a racist statement, which is why the president of the most power nation in the world should have the brains to refrain from that kind of rhetoric and generalization, in my opinion.

ReverendHellh0und said:

Like when shiela lee jackson bumped a first class passenger she immediately cried racism that the woman bumped dared complained, turns out the lady she bumped turned out to be a human rights activist and a democrat. Hear me on this tangent, you have people on the left making constant false charges of racism, you have a media caught in lie after lie on **** like this that trump really could be satan hitler of the SS in charge of a fascist takeover of the US, but no one would know due to the fake reporting and the zeal to call people racist. do you not see this?

Click to expand...

See, I just don't feel that individual acts of stupidity justified by claims of racism means that racism doesn't exist, in the same way that I don't feel that the individual acts of individual asshole spiritual leaders entirely negate the positive contributions of the Church. I don't deny that people muddy the waters by using the issue of racism selfishly to paint themselves as victims to get stuff...it happens, and it's deplorable (that word!), but my reaction is to dismiss the individual, if after trying to understand them I can only conclude that they were acting selfishly, not the cause in general. I don't believe false claims of racism are happening, and I think there are plenty of real world examples where racism happens for real, based on the statistical evidence I have presented to you in the past. And to bring it back to the topic, I think that the leader of a nation should have an adequate sensitivity towards that reality to ensure that at least he or she is "politically correct"...if anyone should be, it's a politician. They are there to represent all the citizens they have power over, and have to at least consider all their concerns and realities.

Rev, I won't blow smoke up your ass, and suggest that it is only one side or the other...if I ever came across that way, I was doing a bad job of communicating. But the role Trump plays in the gong show that has become the political dialogue in America is unique, incendiary, and seemingly out of control. Whatever good he may do (I struggle to see it, but am open to the possibility) is overshadowed by that, in my opinion.

OlNate said:

No, it wasn't Trump and Trump alone who accelerated it, and I've said on here many times that the media, both sides of government, and ultimately the people of America on both sides have been hopelessly irresponsible in their involvement in the escalation of polarization in your country. However, let me ask you...do you not think the tack that Trump chose to rise to power was a catalyst of sorts? For me his rhetoric set the bar so low that literally anything goes, and the vast majority of what came after has been reactionary. Yes, the media has gone after him like other, but it would appear that's because he provides material like no other. The media has always been there, as have the left and right politicians and voters, yet, from my own recollection, we've never seen the level of divisiveness we've seen, not even under Obama.

So, by way of answering your question, it takes a cast to put on a production, but Trump definitely is the star, and that matters. Case in point, who do you hate more...the guy that punches you in the arm, or the guy that kicks you in the nuts and bangs your wife?



As I said above, I'm not going to debate the racist position, I'm rather enjoying our current civil chat, and talking about racism is what started our brawling... For what it's worth, to say a place in particular is a **** hole, so long as you're not doing so from a position or office that demands class and global diplomacy, is not racist on it's own, in my opinion. But this wasn't just talking about Haiti... All of Africa was implicated, and if it wasn't intentional, or even subconscious racism, it certainly could be construed as a racist statement, which is why the president of the most power nation in the world should have the brains to refrain from that kind of rhetoric and generalization, in my opinion.



See, I just don't feel that individual acts of stupidity justified by claims of racism means that racism doesn't exist, in the same way that I don't feel that the individual acts of individual asshole spiritual leaders entirely negate the positive contributions of the Church. I don't deny that people muddy the waters by using the issue of racism selfishly to paint themselves as victims to get stuff...it happens, and it's deplorable (that word!), but my reaction is to dismiss the individual, if after trying to understand them I can only conclude that they were acting selfishly, not the cause in general. I don't believe false claims of racism are happening, and I think there are plenty of real world examples where racism happens for real, based on the statistical evidence I have presented to you in the past. And to bring it back to the topic, I think that the leader of a nation should have an adequate sensitivity towards that reality to ensure that at least he or she is "politically correct"...if anyone should be, it's a politician. They are there to represent all the citizens they have power over, and have to at least consider all their concerns and realities.

Rev, I won't blow smoke up your ass, and suggest that it is only one side or the other...if I ever came across that way, I was doing a bad job of communicating. But the role Trump plays in the gong show that has become the political dialogue in America is unique, incendiary, and seemingly out of control. Whatever good he may do (I struggle to see it, but am open to the possibility) is overshadowed by that, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

It was well past time to blow up the FAILED INTELLIGENTSIA.....Trump did a very good deed.

OlNate said:

This is actually a fantastic point, I agree with all of it, great post. Unfortunately, the power of the cult of personality that Trump has created has driven a division that far exceeds what a president should ever be able to do. When folks hate each other over which political party they support, something's wrong. Disagree, sure, it's been that way forever...but the hate I see, and correct me if I'm wrong, between supporters of different leanings is out of control. My honest prayer for you guys is that the next president you get is mind numbingly boring...you guys could use the break.

Click to expand...

Oh no, not Jeb Bush.

Lovebug said:

Oh no, not Jeb Bush.

Click to expand...

The Great White Hope who at test time turned up completely clueless.....A COMPLETE embarrassment to the Intelligentsia.

Where are the apologies to the nation for that?

nota bene said:

As usual, I think you've nailed it. Yes, a strong, independent Speaker protective of Congressional power might be the medicine for what ails Congress.

Click to expand...

That video about says it all. I first became interested in politics watching the democratic and republican conventions on TV back in 1956. With Eisenhower as president he would have Rayburn and LBJ, LBJ then senate majority leader over to the white house three times a week to discuss how to get IKE's agenda through congress. That's something you won't see today.

The video spoke of Rayburn working closely with IKE, JFK learned also and he along with LBJ work closely with Everitt Dirksen, then Republican senate minority leader to help get their agenda through congress. Cooperation was key. Different era back then. definitely not as partisan. It was a time when I think both parties leaders put country ahead of party. I can't remember any party line votes back then. But times were different. Each party had its liberal and conservative wings. Perhaps that made compromise easier.

AlbqOwl said:

Excellent post. As at an example, look at DACA. President Obama accepted his role as King and took care of the 'dreamers' absolving Congress of any responsibility whatsoever for that.

President Trump, not so willing to be King, rescinded President Obama's executive order overriding Congress and informed Congress of what THEIR existing law required. He agreed to not enforce it for six months which would give THEM time to come up with a law to deal with the dreamers. The six months are almost up and Congress has not addressed the issue at all until now.

The Democrats, who don't really give a damn one way or the other, are safe demanding amnesty and citizenship for the dreamers knowing full well they won't have to actually do it because the GOP will be crucified by their constituents if they agree to amnesty/citizenship even though they too don't really give a damn one way or the other.

So now they are all fumbling around to come up with something they can pretend is doing something without actually having to do something. Gutless, irresponsible, hypocritical feckless self-serving all.

And the haters in the MSM, social media, and on message boards are blaming President Trump all the way. He is the illegitimate king who didn't fix it even though constitutionally and legally, it is not his problem to fix.

Click to expand...

The constitution gives congress the power over immigration. Not the president. Although if a hard vote is required, congress is all too ready to pass on that vote and let the president do whatever. Congress doesn't want to get the folks back home mad. Now if each representative would listen to the folks back home, each senator from the folks in his state, act and vote accordingly regardless of the issue, there would be no getting the folks back home mad.

AlbqOwl said:

I have always believe that up to the TR administration, the government was pretty much in check and operating mostly constitutionally--there were occasional veers off the straight and narrow but for the most part, those elected to high office maintained constitutional principles. It was the Teddy Roosevelt that turned things on their head. He was the first to reject the concept that elected officials can do only what they are authorized to do by the Constitution. He pushed a concept that elected officials can do anything that isn't specifically forbidden by the Constitution. And he, like FDR, packed the court system with judges who would not interfere with that concept. He was the first 'king' in what would become pretty much an unbroken line of them, each assuming more personal power as time passed.

That is what started the snowball rolling. Slowly and unobtrusively at first on a very gentle incline. But subsequent Presidents did nothing to reverse that interpretation and it got a huge shove in the FDR administration. Ever since then it is been picking up mass and velocity until it has become the massive, unmanageable, unknowable, and uncontrollable entity that the U.S. government is today.

I honestly think President Trump was elected as our last best chance to smash it to smithereens or at least fragment it so that we could begin reclaiming our constitutional protections and a government by the people. I still believe, perhaps without putting it into the words I would use, that he has the same instincts. But he likely won't be allowed to accomplish as much as we who voted for him had hoped.

Click to expand...

Well so far he has undone a lot of those powers that obama abused.
He has pushed things that should be in congress on congress to fix.

The only way to reclaim constitutional protections is to file review suits in court.

Now, just imagine where we'd be if we'd started this process of disassembling executive ascendancy during the Bush years. But no...

ludin said:

Well so far he has undone a lot of those powers that obama abused.
He has pushed things that should be in congress on congress to fix.

The only way to reclaim constitutional protections is to file review suits in court.

Click to expand...

That won't work unless we have courts that operate as the Founders/Constitution intended and most don't. You can't tell me the Supreme Court is serious about constiuttional integrity when vote after vote after vote splits 5/4. President Trump intends to appoint judges and justices who are constitutionalists instead of activists but if the haters are successsful in regaining the Senate in 2018 and putting their own guy in there in 2020, we might as well hang it up. The Constitution will be lost to us I'm afraid forever. And the fecklessness of the Senate GOP majority is not conducive to keeping that majority.

Perotista said:

That video about says it all. I first became interested in politics watching the democratic and republican conventions on TV back in 1956. With Eisenhower as president he would have Rayburn and LBJ, LBJ then senate majority leader over to the white house three times a week to discuss how to get IKE's agenda through congress. That's something you won't see today.

The video spoke of Rayburn working closely with IKE, JFK learned also and he along with LBJ work closely with Everitt Dirksen, then Republican senate minority leader to help get their agenda through congress. Cooperation was key. Different era back then. definitely not as partisan. It was a time when I think both parties leaders put country ahead of party. I can't remember any party line votes back then. But times were different. Each party had its liberal and conservative wings. Perhaps that made compromise easier.

Click to expand...

Maybe it did. And in their absence, there does seem to be more polarization. But, as you've pointed out, Congress folk of the majority party didn't see themselves as in service to the President, as "the king's men."

Watching the video is well worth the time of all those taking a serious part in this thread's discussion. Whether it's a memory jog or a history lesson, what a reminder of how to lead while getting along. Until you brought up "Mr. Sam," I just hadn't thought about what a difference would be made with this kind of independent yet cooperative leadership that answer to the people rather than to the President. I'm really grateful you made this powerful point.

nota bene said:

Maybe it did. And in their absence, there does seem to be more polarization. But, as you've pointed out, Congress folk of the majority party didn't see themselves as in service to the President, as "the king's men."

Watching the video is well worth the time of all those taking a serious part in this thread's discussion. Whether it's a memory jog or a history lesson, what a reminder of how to lead while getting along. Until you brought up "Mr. Sam," I just hadn't thought about what a difference would be made with this kind of independent yet cooperative leadership that answer to the people rather than to the President. I'm really grateful you made this powerful point.

Click to expand...

You're most welcome. Being an old fart, I have seen politics change immensely. From a debate about substance, ideas, visions, solutions with hardly no, none, personal negative attacks to almost all negative personal attacks with no substance. Back then the negative was basically what a candidate did while in office, not personal life stuff and no name calling.

Sure, there was the flower girl ad in 1964, only shown once by the LBJ folks. That was enough. Most of the adverse stuff in 1968 was within the Democratic Party. McGovern was labeled the peace dove candidate in 1972, few knew George was a WWII bomber pilot hero.

Reagan was the cowboy and so on. But nothing like we have today. Here is an example of an IKE political ad I was brought up with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4IX5jBc4Q

AlbqOwl said:

That won't work unless we have courts that operate as the Founders/Constitution intended and most don't. You can't tell me the Supreme Court is serious about constiuttional integrity when vote after vote after vote splits 5/4. President Trump intends to appoint judges and justices who are constitutionalists instead of activists but if the haters are successsful in regaining the Senate in 2018 and putting their own guy in there in 2020, we might as well hang it up. The Constitution will be lost to us I'm afraid forever. And the fecklessness of the Senate GOP majority is not conducive to keeping that majority.

Click to expand...

I agree it is a problem. Courts have become political not judicial which is of major concern to me.
That is when freedom starts being lost.

The up coming scandal and trial of Hillary and the Obama Administration will show how the executive branch weaponized its power, against American citizens and political opponent, and used that power for personal gain. Drain the swamp addresses this corruption in the executive branch, under president Obama and his secretary of state Clinton.

If you haven't been following the research being done by Sara Carter, it turns out the Obama Injustice Department in conjunction with the FBI, used a known fake dossier as an excuse to spy on Americans. The Obama administration had also used the IRS to target right wing political groups. The things that Richard Nixon did was small change compared to this. The worse scandals in US history is about to make the front page.

Consider the number of laws and regulations that came from the Executive branch and from regulatory agencies under Obama. These have been scaled back, by the Trump team, thereby reducing the power of the executive branch. In 2016, Obama and the bureaucracy created 3,853 regs, or 18 new regulations for every law created by Congress, for a record 97,110 pages of red tape.

If Trump was interested in more power for the executive branch, he would try to break Obama's record. Most of Trump's Executive orders reduced regulations thereby taking power away from Washington and the Executive branch. Trump and his followers are ahead of the curve, being proactive to concerns many are just starting to see.

ludin said:

I agree it is a problem. Courts have become political not judicial which is of major concern to me.
That is when freedom starts being lost.

Click to expand...

Yes. When the courts no longer support the Constitution but bypass it by inserting their own sociopolitical intentions into it and that is then regarded as law, we have pretty well lost the country. We are no longer a government of the people but are subjects to the dictatorship of a small unelected oligarchy that can do anything it wants to anybody.

The Trump presidency sure is driving me nuts. Every once in a while, Trump releases a funny tweet, but that's about it of the good things.

nota bene said:

Jay Cost at National Review argues that in fewer than 70 years, we have developed a “pervasive sense of presidential omnipotence and omniscience,” the notion that a President is all-powerful and everywhere, and that this may be driving us all crazy. In a republic, centering government power around one person and making that person a celebrity superstar is not very republican, he says, and adds:

The fact that any president could rile up the nation as Trump has is an illustration of how overgrown the executive power has become. The notion of “coequal branches” is a 20th-century invention. For most of the nation’s history prior to the Great Depression, the president played second fiddle to Congress. This was by constitutional design. The Framers envisioned the legislature, not the president, as the fount of republican authority, and they designed a government accordingly.

Cost observes that when Teddy Roosevelt reinvigorated the Presidency, his opponents mocked him for it, and he blames “Progressive Democrats” assuming power under Wilson and certainly under FDR for “giving the president a leadership role that he had only occasionally possessed before.”

He also notes that FDR’s admin was the first to exploit mass-communications technology. With successive admins, “Presidential exposure has scaled up accordingly.” His opinion:

I think one reason for these bipartisan manifestations of presidential derangement syndrome is the mythological foundation of the modern presidency. A core operating assumption of the office is that one human being can possibly speak for the national interest generally understood. That is fanciful. At most, the president will always express a particular view of the national interest, thereby creating the potential for cognitive dissonance in a sizable minority of the country. Because he is now able to speak to us so often, this mental discomfort can be nearly constant for his opponents. And because he is now so powerful, he also makes it seem to them that he is ruining the country. Trump & Obama Derangement Syndrome Rooted in Myth of President as King | National Review

I’m with the author: I too hope that the “lemonade” here is that perhaps the Trump administration is exposing institutional flaws that will lead to the scaling back of the Executive and the reformation and restoration of the Congress.

Click to expand...

"The most powerful office in the world" is a tag that no president labeled for himself. US presidents have always been expected to lead the country and they do - if they have the personal ability: FDR had that ability, Trump does not. So HIS presidency is driving US crazy, yes. Did Reagan speak for the country? or would have been better that he kept his mouth shut? Did FDR speak for the country in his Big Three meetings, or should HE have stayed home and kept his mouth shut?

Abbazorkzog said:

Now, just imagine where we'd be if we'd started this process of disassembling executive ascendancy during the Bush years. But no...

Click to expand...

Yeah, executive overreach is entirely Bush's fault. :roll:

How about if we had never started it in the first place?

AlbqOwl said:

Yes. When the courts no longer support the Constitution but bypass it by inserting their own sociopolitical intentions into it and that is then regarded as law, we have pretty well lost the country. We are no longer a government of the people but are subjects to the dictatorship of a small unelected oligarchy that can do anything it wants to anybody.

Click to expand...

All 3 branches utterly disregard the Constitution. The Legislative passes illegitimate legislation like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, the Executive branch enforces that illegitimate legislation with glee and enthusiasm, and the Judiciary usually remains silent when viewing these transgressions.

reinoe said:

What is the presidency doing that they haven't always been able to do in the past 30 years?

Click to expand...

Make the president look like an idiot because of his tweets?

Harshaw said:

Yeah, executive overreach is entirely Bush's fault. :roll:

Click to expand...

Nowhere in my post is that remotely asserted.

How about if we had never started it in the first place?

Click to expand...

Agreed...

OlNate said:

No, it wasn't Trump and Trump alone who accelerated it, and I've said on here many times that the media, both sides of government, and ultimately the people of America on both sides have been hopelessly irresponsible in their involvement in the escalation of polarization in your country. However, let me ask you...do you not think the tack that Trump chose to rise to power was a catalyst of sorts? For me his rhetoric set the bar so low that literally anything goes, and the vast majority of what came after has been reactionary. Yes, the media has gone after him like other, but it would appear that's because he provides material like no other. The media has always been there, as have the left and right politicians and voters, yet, from my own recollection, we've never seen the level of divisiveness we've seen, not even under Obama.

So, by way of answering your question, it takes a cast to put on a production, but Trump definitely is the star, and that matters. Case in point, who do you hate more...the guy that punches you in the arm, or the guy that kicks you in the nuts and bangs your wife?

Click to expand...

Here's a better analogy, who do you hate more, the guy that punches you in the face, or the guy constantly wispering in your ear that he also ****ed your wife, killed your dog, and wants to murder your children? The media is the latter. Pretending to be your friend, but instead of telling you the truth about your enemy, just wants to rile you up to get into another fight.

Trump is a loud mouth, uncouth mother****er, no one denies that. but the **** you get fed by the MSM makes it impossible for people to understand who he really is and what he really wants. They have become unbelievable.

As I said above, I'm not going to debate the racist position, I'm rather enjoying our current civil chat, and talking about racism is what started our brawling... For what it's worth, to say a place in particular is a **** hole, so long as you're not doing so from a position or office that demands class and global diplomacy, is not racist on it's own, in my opinion. But this wasn't just talking about Haiti... All of Africa was implicated, and if it wasn't intentional, or even subconscious racism, it certainly could be construed as a racist statement, which is why the president of the most power nation in the world should have the brains to refrain from that kind of rhetoric and generalization, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, syria, yemen, south america, et all were named. Look at dick durban's parsed words. He did not say "yes that's exactly what happened", the little **** weasly said "everthing I heard so far in the media is true". it changes the context if he's calling all those countries ****holes, and do you think he wouldn't?

Discussing racism is fine, even trying to attach it to people who I don't agree are is fine. Trying to suggest I am, which is what happens often, by several people, usually gets you the business. I am about as anti-racist as one could get. I defend that.