I live to harass republicans!!!!!!!

Father of Nine, perhaps you should stop spending so much time on the computer and do more to take care of your 9 kids.

Jesus is coming. Look busy.

@A Father of Nine, Most of what you way presupposes the existence of that which I reject. Whereas your faith predicates the existence of God; that Jesus is the Son of God; that (presumably) the Bible is the Word of God, my faith predicates that the Universe came into existence without the need of any kind of Supreme Being. Furthermore, I believe that one can live by a code of ethics with an understanding of right and wrong without being associated with a religion, much less a deity. Moreover, I believe that mankind created the ideas, first of gods, in a Pantheistic sense (e.g., Hinduism, the Greek or Roman Pantheons, or the Norse Valhalla) each each individual god created as a way of abdicating from finding a scientific explanation of how the world works. Secondly, with God in the monotheistic sense as a non-scientific "explanation" of how the earth & heavens were created, then subsequently, the various forms of life on earth, with humanity as a special case.

Another argument against the reality of religion in any kind of metaphysical sense is that almost all the wars mankind has ever engaged in has been in the name of opposing religions, e.g., the Crusades, when in reality, those wars were fought for reasons having to so with access to vital resources, which boils down to economic reasons. So, phrases such as "for the greater glory of God" or "Allahu Achbar" become empty of meaning.

Moreover, right now, in the USA, Social Conservatism, as practiced by Rick Santorum, for example, is being used in an attempt to justify violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to justify government intervention in the right of a woman to have access to health care as a relationship between the woman and her doctor by presuming that a woman can't have has informed consent without government help. While I agree that late-term abortions should be illegal with no exceptions, other than that, I firmly believe in the woman's right to choose. Since I also agree that abortion should be an option of last resort (i.e., being both pro-choice and pro-life), family planning and affordable access to contraceptives are essential to minimizing the number of abortions performed.

Right Chuck. And here is the problem with most Religions. It is not enough for followers of many doctrines to just simply believe what they believe and be a peace with it. Most Religions seem to have this imperative to declare that any one who does not follow their doctrine is going to hell. This of course means that a person would have to follow every single religious doctrine that threatens hell for disbelievers because if you only believe in one religion and you are not believing in other religions which state you will go to hell for not believing in their doctrine.

Kind of like Pascal's Wager you know ?

What can I say! Ed you once where a Righty and you saw the light and for this you are blessed! GOD BLESS YOU ED!

Let's get to work!

I rather be photographed hugging Bell than a republican. I wonder in his life time who OBAMA MIGHT BE PHOTOGRAPHED GIVING A HUG.......Wow, good thing no photographer is following any of us around to TRY and BLACKMAIL us every day of the week.

YOU KNOW THIS IS JUST another palin trick to make the president look like an American terrorist. These republicans need to take a closer look at themselves.

Here is a link to a video clip of President Obama's film " The Road We've Traveled " :

https://my.barackobama.com/page/share/road-traveled-be-the-first-to-see?action_code=FgxRWxYUOVIKQV0YBF0HVU4J&td=TVFdj9MwEPwrlp9A4lJvPnpN7oWXAhI6kO5OVxBFlhtvGlMnjhy7oCL--62vhUPyy8zO7Oyuf3MclLG84aFHj7OaezWo8aCgroq3-1TLWjfwN_xkJlKtaihqQh618dgGGX0yEyPlTlnrwgW5Kcij0bwZo7WE9zEB_vX-4-HLh_q0dratYm_vqsd1t4SKLLOLvkXS5AJyUUAuf-zk-vY-leLuX5Xg1LsR_3aeg6NhZGcszrz59p0Ysx_jJDvnB_kcWq3KkmyDf0bQFZ3KywoSZc8UrJQou2tiWo8qoNThMsiVKK6gYJA3lWgEvCjMJJXWnmTXIoNVneU5ZEX5Iogzeqn2OKZWt-5krFXbRZUJ9mpjRu1-zuzTA1tmcMM2nzfL8ob5YwMiE1n-mr3H9uC2C5pA0AP2jq7duV_bxVmQUno1BUo4L0BE2ndUw38XBHbnlGYPXh3RomY7ZPTLrDN-Dml5p6PFi-V8NP7nCQ

Check it out and pass it on !

TRFjr and all the other Republicans that post on this forum, here's your sign:

Obama is a fine president - you can hide behind a lie for awhile, but the truth of your indecency will find you with its consequences.

What lie are we hiding behind i want facts not your delusional liberal opinion

every one has an opinion but conservatives can back theirs up with facts

If you think Prof Bell isn't a Radical racist then explain these quotes he has made

" My Moto in life is I live to harass white people "
" Farrakhan is a great hero of the people"

"Jews would only help blacks for a sense of self-preservation"

If a conservative ever said "my Moto in life is I live to harass back people" would you call that racist ?

If a conservative ever said '"Jews would only help blacks for a sense of self-preservation" would you call him an anti Semite

Dam right you would

hell you try to call us racist for something as simple as not agreeing with Obama

Blah, blah, blah rant rant rant

all void of the real facts, only distorted, out of context , misconstrued verbiage.

Stay at your fake news if you want to be happy, but if you come here, you best be able to handle the truth!

I will ask again what real facts please enlighten me what is the truth and the facts to back it up

You say we lie and lie but when we ask what is a lie you have nothing no proof of the so called lie

TRFjr get lost right wing

"My Moto in life is I live to harass white people "

Professor Bell was quoting a black woman in the south who had soem considerable trouble with racist white people there. Professor Bell himself worked for the NAACP as an attorney and fought cases in Mississippi and Alabama. He saw the most virulent type of racism imaginable. While his statement could have been better worded, what he meant was racist white people.
" Farrakhan is a great hero of the people"

Like it or not, Farrakhan is a great hero to many black people. In fact, much of Farrakhan's message is devoted to self help and self determination. The one comment he made that seems to get so much play these days is one that he allegedly made some 20 years ago or more. It was an alleged statement that Judaism was a gutter religion. To be sure there were many jews who supported the civil rights movement, and there were many who participated in the exploitation of blacks. Jews dominated the movie industry and were comfortable with the depiction of blacks as lazy and shiftless.

"Jews would only help blacks for a sense of self-preservation"

In some cases this has been true. The important thing to remember here is that Professor Bell's comments come in light of his personal experience during the civil rights movement. Interpreting them in light of today's environment is not totally appropriate.

The other thing to remember is that Professor Bell's comments are a reaction to racism. He is not positively asserting that any race is inferior. he is commenting on the actions of some in other races that were not conducive to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness on the part of blacks.

Thank you AL, your input is greatly appreciated.

THE OTHER SIDE
OF MY LOOKING GLASS

One day I passed through my looking glass
and found myself in a great morass
where down is up and up is down
and criminal creeps are bestowed with crowns

Evil is worshiped as holy and great
and the truth of Christ's love is turned into hate
Kindness and joy are put down and mocked
and the way to ascend is deliberately blocked

Those of the light are crushed by oppression
outcast, harassed and beset by depression
Discounted as freaks are the spiritually gifted
while angry, deceitful dark folks are uplifted

On the side I came from truth is not an illusion
and people don't live in distorted confusion
So I planned an escape from this great morass
to get back to that side of my looking glass

But instead of returning to where I came from
I arose to a place where the two sides are one
I discovered a pathway between dark and light
where all at one time there is both day and night

Neither distinction is treated with deference
and heaven and hell have no frame of reference
There's just one direction here that I can find
it's forever and always toward the Divine

Copyright 2010

#2.6:

"Jews would only help blacks for a sense of self-preservation"

In some cases this has been true. The important thing to remember here is that Professor Bell's comments come in light of his personal experience during the civil rights movement.

Do you know where this quote comes from? Googling it results in dozens of links with that phrase as part of this sentence:

Derrick Bell also says that Jews would only help blacks for a sense of self-preservation.

So you see, it's not a direct quote. Here's the following sentence:

Bell also called Anne Frank “the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy.

Apparently, that's a quote from a review of Bell's sci-fi short story, "The Space Traders".

Perhaps most galling is Bell’s insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust — as close to a saint as Jews have.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/02/reviews/971102.02kosinst.html?_r=1

That's a very willful misreading of the story. Bell doesn't accuse Jews of only helping blacks out of a sense of self-preservation. However, he does portray "many" Jews as also being concerned that they will become scapegoats in the absence of blacks. Breitbartians try to connect this to the real-life civil rights movement, and claim that Bell is really saying that this was the motivation of the Jews who participated in the civil movement. That makes no sense. If they feared that they would take black's place as scapegoats, why would they help in trying to remove blacks from scapegoat status? Now, I would say that some of them did recognize their self-interest in helping blacks. After all, by protecting the rights of blacks, they were protecting their own rights, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm black, and I support the rights of women, LGBT, Latinos and other minorities primarily because it's the right thing to do, but I also know that by supporting their rights, I'm protecting my own.

Regarding Anne Frank, in the story, the Jews who band together to oppose the "sale" of blacks to the aliens call themselves the Anne Frank Committee. That's it. In fact, Bell portrays Jews as acting heroically, and they suffer for their support of blacks:

Retaliation was quick. Within hours, men and women listed as belonging to the
committee lost their jobs; their contracts were canceled; their mortgages foreclosed;
and harassment of them, including physical violence, escalated into a nationwide
resurgence of anti-Semitic feeling. Groups on the far right, who were exploiting the
growing support for the Trade, urged: "Send the blacks into space. Send the Jews
into Hell." The Jews who opposed the Trade were intimidated into silence and
inaction. The leaders of Rabbi Specter's group were themselves forced into hiding,
leaving few able to provide any haven for blacks.

Let me add that I'm not trying to shoot you down. I just figured that you hadn't sussed out that particular distortion yet.

Plantsmantx,

great post above!

Thanks, suzette. I appreciate you saying that:).

Father of nine.....as a Christian.....I say

you are breaking a rule of the vine......it is called........

S P A M M I N G

To the original post author: Then why are you watching?? I am a die hard liberal and you would never catch me watching Fox News. You are not going to be converting anyone who watches Ed, Rachel and Lawrence so please keep your nastiness to yourself. Spew it over on the Fox forums.

Plantsmantx:

My whole point is that I think that the right is willfully misinterpreting Professor Bell's comments by taking them out of context.

As to the Jews, there have been negatives and positives. In Chicago, for example, when blacks moved into jewish neighborhoods, Jews fled. However, they left their businesses and continued to take money out of the community. Interestingly, Jewish merchants have since been supplanted with Arab merchants.

As I mentioned, Jews dominated the movie industry and were complicit in the horrendous depictions of blacks on the silver screen.

It was a Jew, Alan Bakke, who fought against affirmative action in California.

Now, having said that, there have been many Jews who were friends of teh civil rights movement and who have fought for equality for blacks. So, I am not condemning an entire group. What I am saying is that we always need to review the facts and make our judgements accordingly.

Few things in life are absolute. We need to recognize that fact. The right needs to recognize that those who fight racism are not racist for fighting racism. But, they do not. They rush to Dr. King's "content of character" quote to justify making no reference to racial distincitons in treatment. Convenient. But, just as the have taken some of Dr.Bell's comments out of context, so do the take the quote from Dr. King. That was one part of the speech. You notice they do not quote the part about the check being returned marked insufficient funds.

Yes, I understand. In other words, Jews are people. I was speaking to the specific charge made by Bretibart's minions.

The right needs to recognize that those who fight racism are not racist for fighting racism.

The right does recognize that. Acting as if they don't is just a rhetorical ploy. As for then acting as if that one passage from that one speech is the only thing King ever wrote or said, check #4.6.

There's not one thing truthful about your comments and certainly no humor either.

DemElizabeth; There was nothing in the statement derogatory toward anyone. (Other than Fox news) Mrs. Bell would have never been on the show if it had not been for Fox to begin with. Ed is like everyone else in the respect that they place people on the show to highlight what they think are injustices or play to current events to bring attention to something. Fox was the catalyst for this appearance. Now with that said, he was doing something noble when Fox was doing the opposite. Highlighting how arcane Fox news is and how they are manipulating something good into something perverse is not untruthful. So I will respectively disagree with you.

How ridiculous to assume that Mrs. Bell wants to be on TV in order to defend the reputation of her late husband!!!!!!!!

It is incredulous that you say fox has done her a favor. What a farce and a putrid assumption on your part for suggesting such.

Get a dictionary. And yes, the lying of foxnews should always be exposed.

so how is teaching racist and anti Semite views something good

And what Fox has reported on is quotes from professor Bell so how is that a lie

so are you saying Proff Bell is a lie

I am pretty certain, you have not read the writings in their full entirety.

The Bible states : " anyone who does not hate their mother, father, brother or sister is not worthy of me......." Now -- put that in context!

Do I need to read Mein Kampf from cover to cover to realize Hitler was an anti Semite ?

so how is teaching racist and anti Semite views something good
And what Fox has reported on is quotes from professor Bell so how is that a lie

See #2.6 and #2.10. Not you, TFRjr- I know you can't be convinced. I'm talking to other people...those who don't have a vested interest in trying to make Derrick Bell out to be a monster.

t1,

your post #3,

are you serious about Ed wanting to get on fox?

Ed has walked off an interview on fox.

i can assure you that Big Eddie has not requested several times to get on hannity and oreilly.

Mr. Bell fought fought for equal rights just like any other African American

who felt they were treated badly by the majority of white people in America

back in the 50 and 60's.......and because of people like you we still have to

fight for those rights today.....in 2012. KKK

WAKE UP t1 ......you pick on a man who is dead?

fatherofnine,

do you agree with franklin graham who said that gingrich and santorum are "saved", but doesn't believe that our president is a christian, "you'd have to ask him".

so when you write above they likely are saved, are you referring to hannity and palin, or do you refer to Mrs. Bell, as well?

Great points Suzette.

"he is commenting on the actions of some in other races that were not conducive to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness on the part of blacks."

Al-2739446 used his above comment in defense for Prod Bell Racist comments

and that just goes to show you he doesn't even know what racism is

Prof Bell judged a race on how some from that race treated him in the past. That is racist

Its like me saying a black person stole my bike so all black people are thieves

Didn't Rev M. King say to judge a person by the content of his character and not the color of his skin

You and Prof Bell both should read and follow the example of Rev King

Prof Bell lumped all whites and Jews into his racist hate and all the research i have made of Bell he never once said some whites or some Jews

You can try and say he didn't mean all, but if he didn't mean all whites and all Jews he would have at least once said so

Still S P A M M I N G nine?

Al-2739446 is right. He's commenting on the actions of some. You're trying to take on the mantle of victimhood by making it "all".

Prof Bell lumped all whites and Jews into his racist hate and all the research i have made of Bell he never once said some whites or some Jews

Aren't Jews white? It's strange, but I've run across that wording several times from people accusing Bell of being a racist and anti-Semite. It's quite telling.

Give us the links to the research you've made. I'm particularly interested in the "research" that proves he was an anti-Semite. As I pointed out in #2.10, the Bretibartians' charges of anti-Semitism are all based on one source- "The Space Traders". To be more precise, they're based on a willful, gross misreading of "The Space Traders".

You and Prof Bell both should read and follow the example of Rev King

Why do you say that when AL-2739446 clearly said "some in other races"? You pulled that out and pasted it, so you couldn't have missed the qualification. I guess you just decided to pretend it didn't exist.

As for MLK... talk about willful misinterpretation. If one only went by rightists, one would think that the only thing MLK ever wrote or spoke was that one passage from that one speech. Let's look at what you said, because it's also quite telling:

Didn't Rev M. King say to judge a person by the content of his character and not the color of his skin

Well, yes- because if you judge a black person by the color of their skin, you're naturally going to judge them harshly, right?

You know, the "I have a dream" speech wasn't the first time King used the "content of character" language. Here's another instance in which he used it- in a way that is much more resistant to willful misinterpretation:

I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. This will be the day when we bring into full realization the American dream—a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character; a dream of a nation where all our gifts and resources are held not for ourselves alone, but as instruments of service for the rest of humanity; the dream of a country where every man will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality. That is the dream...

http://www.afscme.org/union/history/mlk/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-on-labor

Get it? He's not saying one should try to pretend "color" doesn't exist. He's saying...well, exactly what he said. I don't think it requires interpretation. It's crystal clear. Ironically, many of the people who cite the "content of character" line characterize it as King advocating for "colorblindness, and reveal that they're doing exactly what King talked about- arguing that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character.

Get it? He's not saying one should try to pretend "color" doesn't exist. He's saying...well, exactly what he said. I don't think it requires interpretation. It's crystal clear. Ironically, many of the people who cite the "content of character" line characterize it as King advocating for "colorblindness, and reveal that they're doing exactly what King talked about- arguing that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character.

Excellent!!! I remember a situation at work where I was having a discussion with a white executive. Ironically, he was in charge of developing a department called "emerging markets." Anyway, one of his concerns was what term to use when referring to someone who was black. His distress centered around the two terms black and african-american. He apparently knew enough to dismiss colored and negro.

So,he asked my opinion. I said why not use the person's name? Needless to say there was much coughing and flustered talking. I said to him that when you constantly refer to people as a part of a group, you diminish their individuality and relegate them to your perception of the group. Once again, recognition of my blackness does not require that you mention it.

I went on to tell him that none of us are colorblind. We all see it. The trick is not to place values on it. It is kind of like seing one guy in a brown suit and another in a black suit. I notice it, but make no value judgement on it. It is what is in the suit that counts.

So what action was taken because of Mr. Bell's writings? More blacks were hired at Harvard? As opposed to millions being slaughtered?

I do not appreciate for one second the constant trivialization of the most horrific event in history, the holocaust. Stop it!

DemElizabeth; I have no idea why you find these comments in conflict to the point of the interview or your thoughts on this matter, and believe we have a failure to communicate. So I will leave this here. It appears you are looking for a reason to attack without understanding the message. If you have read any of my articles you will see I fully support the president, human rights, disabled children, and the right as citizens to advance in our society.

"Ed is just looking to get on Fox..." That is not supportive. "Fox doing a favor.... These are not the way I preceive support. Maybe further explanation in the future would help the communication.

I have to live here in the South and work everyday with a bunch of wacko's that watch fox everyday. Maybe, after retirement, I can move to a part of the country that is more 'normal' and liberal friendly- having to watch how I say things constantly is stressful at times. This forum allows me to support and defend President Obama without it costing me my job, so if I was over-zealous and offended you- my apologies to you for the offense.

I also want to say, that I am so thankful that we have an excellent president in Mr. Obama. We democrats and independents got it right. We fought hard for him in the primaries and in the general, it is a complete mark of shame on America for an American President to be so vilified- to the point of not even recognizing he is an American citizen?

The republicans insult all democrats when they insult President Obama because we choose to elect him.

We love our radicals! Jesus was a radical, he went against the establishment of his day.

Obama/Biden 2012

Lying us into 2 conflicts is indefensible. But then when a right wing, white President does it, it's ok. NOT

What the heck Larry? We had UN sanctions for intervention in Libya. Did the UN approve the invasion of Iraq?

Let me make it easier for you - NO.

Did President Obama start the Afghanistan conflict? No.

But he does have a plan to end it!

I think larry was referring to Bush and his 2 wars, afganistan and iraq.

there are no bush wars; he's been gone for years. lib losers who continue things they cry about are comical

you mean Dems have been carrying out a war based on "lies" since becoming a majority of the government in november of 2006?

2007 the Dem's came in. Bush wars yes. Bush lied and went to war and he didn't care.

i saw an apologist for racism; i see another one called a darton

And we get another word definition challenged tea bagging republican who once again shows just how uniformed and ill educated they are. Heres a clue, look in a mirror and you will see a racist.

For decades the liberals whined because nobody was doing anything about human rights violations in Iraq. Bush decides to do something about it and liberals are still whining. btw Congrats to that soldier that snuffed out 16 Islamos. He should get a medal for knowing how to fight a war. GITERDONE!!!

you need to remove your head from your 4th point of contact and do a personal inventory of your self.

KILLING , Murdering 16 Civilian people does not deserve a medal of any kind unless its the metal of a jail cell.

You don't win wars using "surgical strikes" to protect civilians and being a politically correct Democrat if you want to win a war.You punish your enemies by making their lives unbearable. That includes killing women, children and the elderly. I want an enemy soldier to know that while he's fighting on the front his family is being slaughtered back home.

Another keyboard commando who has no ideal what oppression and suppression of an occupied country creates. Here is a hint when The Nazi's occupied France the French Resistance was born, which did its best to make the Nazi's pay dearly for their occupation of France. Good lord why do you think during Nam the military had started a program called winning the hearts and minds of the people of Viet Nam, in the hope of making the people believe the US were their friends instead of occupiers, it was US military blunders like burning villages that ruined that image.

Who Just remember, we lost the war in VietNam. When we start a war we should do what we have to do to win it, or not start it at all. During wars liberals should stay under a rock.

so if you disagree with a black racist that means you are a white racist? ignorant much?

you are painting Bell as a racist, the same way repubs do to President Obama. i believe there is history about Bell that you are not aware of. read Plants post above #2.10.

i am not an african american, but as a woman, i have only a small understanding of bigotry toward minorities.

it looks to me, from what i have heard on fox, and from you all here, that you are judging Bell without all the information. or maybe you do have all the information and are still judging him.

painting Bell as a radical fits right in with the rest of your propaganda in regard to President Obama.

First they don't know how to use the word racist. Secondly anyone left of Adolf is a radical in their book. I remember how back in the 60's the left would use quotes from Adolf speeches the righties would start cheering and clapping "Right On" then look dumb struck when they learned who they were cheer leading.

try getting your GED before posting please

Try getting past the 4th grade before you try posting before telling another to get a GED. That your reading skills and word comprehension skills are at or below a 4th grade level is very telling.

you have nothing to back that up; but the other lemmings loved it!!!!

this is the kind of lib moron that tells you all yo need to know about the Left. this blog isnt open to only left-wing lemmings like you who only want to preach to each others choir. but the fact that you think it should be that way speaks volumes. you are a hypocritical loser unable to take in an opinion different then the one you and your ilk holds

and the fact that you believe you have to be white to be on the right just means you losers on the left are admitting to being ignorant brainwashed lemmings blinded by politically-correct left-wing ideology and race-card politics

boiz,

you all come here just to stir the pot.

It is the tail end of a full moon and Mercury Retrograde. The right-wing ranters are out in full form. Let them rant. It just reminds the rest of us what we are working so hard to over come. Actually, the fact that they are here just shows you we are making great headway in America away from what their demented beliefs are and that MSNBC is a great place to find encouragement for all of us to keep leaning forward.

a loon using astrology to determine others are crazy? lol leftnuts are a hoot!

boiz,

interesting that you bring up reagan's favorite topic: ASTROLOGY. he was more concerned about his "readings", and what his "psychic" saw in her "crystal ball", than he was about AIDS. he was so OBSESSED with astrology, that he would cancel appointments based on what his "psychic" told him to do.

he was so obsessed with the end of the world, and astrology, that when he and nancy bought a house with the number 666, they had the number changed.

i do hope you see the hypocrisy in your comment above. like so many other things, you might not be informed of reagan's history, and i want you to have another piece of the puzzle.

i would never call reagan a loon. i have heard the sound of a loon (minnesota state bird) many times, across a minnesota lake in summer, and it is hauntingly beautiful.

you must get your name-calling advice from bill oreilly; loon is one of his favorite words.

No Reagan was an insane doddering old fool caught up in delusions created by his dementia. Ironic that the righties admire a mad man who was demented to the core isn't it.

jeers to mindless liberal idiots and white progressive losers being used as tools; totally devoid of any survival instinct, let alone common sense and decency

I love the way these reps fight back against the truth. They are so good at the spin they begin to believe it themselves.

You might want to read Mr. Bell's books...... "Faces at the Bottom of the Well." and "And We Are Not Saved." Try putting yourself in his place as a black man back inthe 50, 60, and 70's.......I think you would have been fighting for your rights in some way. That is if you have a back bone to do it.

Mr. Bell was just another black man commited to the goals of racial justice.

boiz,

here again, another ignorant wing-nut, who doesn't know the history of hitler, the nazi's and communism.

you all twist the truth, fitting it in to your demented way of thinking to use it against President Obama and the democrats. you all have fed your base with persistent propaganda. ever since President Obama took office we have heard nothing from the right but inflammatory rhetoric, rhetoric that excites their base.

i have never seen such hatred toward any american president, although Bill Clinton is a close second. but this is different, mostly based on the fact that wing nuts don't like the fact that our president is black. this dirty little secret, that wing nuts deny, is exposed daily in the repub party, AND THEY DON'T EVEN TRY TO HIDE IT, though they will and do LIE about it.

in 2010 campaigns, the repubs campaigned on jobs. then when they got into office, they pushed through their wing-nut agenda on unions, voter rights, AND WOMEN.

never before has the repub party used such dirty tricks to try to stop a DEMOCRATIC President from being re-elected. it is so obvious to everyone what they are doing.

they all say they are christians, why don't they just tell the TRUTH?

Fee fie Foe thumb

I see the rantings of a re reg trollish one

be he live or be he dead

I know the mods will soon toss him out on his head

Anyone else smell the reeking oil burning panhead 56.

Man what an infestation of haters have arrived on this thread......

be he red or be he blue

they want to fight about a man who's dead.

What does all of this come down to

It started because brietbard though he had a cue

anything to start more blind hate

two dead men in a water gate.

************

willared says "I like gritts."

Of course Mr. Horowitz's calculated ranting is not new. Accusations of "Black racism" or "reverse racism" have been in vogue since Ronald Reagan first popularized these terms during his tenure in the White House. President Reagan, who professed to never having seen racism in his life, was hell bent on eradicating what he considered to be encroachments on the rights of White people as a result of policies aimed at remedying discrimination against Blacks. Reagan was the most prominent point person for the White backlash, the counter attack designed to undermine the gains of civil rights movement.

By definition, racism is the capacity/power to translate prejudice/bigotry into custom, policy or law. Black people have not had the predisposition or the power to oppress White people in this country.

http://www.black-collegian.com/african/archives/whitey1299.shtml

So we see once again how the insane rantings of that demented old doddering fool Reagan is still repeated today by people to dumb to either understand the world or just to dumb to change their beliefs.

racism - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

It has nothing to do with who has the power

But i will play your game
Prof Bell used his POWER as a tenured professor at Harvard by trying to force them to hire a black women as a tenured professor. he tried to have Harvard hire someone not based on the qualification of that person but on the persons skin color

So the man had a cause..........does that make hugging him and admiring his tenacity a crime.......come on? Hope fully we have made some progress in giving up our unforgivable past and moving forward on this race and hate behavior. If we don't we are doomed.

If you would educate yourself on Prof Bell cause you would then understand the problem

Prof Bell believed you will always have racism and inequality as long whites remain in power and the only way to solve the problem is to remove whites from power

Obama did more then admire and embrace Prof Bell racist views and teachings he believed and campaigned for them

Obama believed in the racist teaching enough Bells books was required raiding in his college classes as a professor in Chicago

Obama "open your hearts and minds to the words of professor Bell"

Prof Bell is just another radical anti Semite racist from a long list that Obama had deep ties with
Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Louis Farrakhan and the Black Panther Party just to name a few

And you are still wrong there never was nor is their likely to be reverse racism until the whites are a minority in congress so far congress is filled with good old white boys. So all of your hysteria is based on lies fears and projections of yourself.

Hitler never mentioned or advocated the mass murder of Jews in Mein kampf but we all know what happened when he obtained absolute power

Now Im not saying that Prof Bell wanted to Mass murder Jews or whites but do we know what he or anyone else who bought into is anti Semite and racist teachings would do if they obtained absolute power

A little history lesson do you know Hitler made man of the year in 1938 by time magazine for the great accomplishments he made on the behalf of the German people

Give us the links to the research you've made. I'm particularly interested in the "research" that proves he was an anti-Semite. As I pointed out in #2.10, the Bretibartians' charges of anti-Semitism are all based on one source- "The Space Traders". To be more precise, they're based on a willful, gross misreading of "The Space Traders".

New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, that is not available online. Among other remarks, Bell denounced Henry Louis (Skip) Gates for writing a New York Times op-ed condemning black anti-Semitism:

"I was furious. Even if everything he said was true, it was inexcusable not to mention what might have motivated blacks to feel this way, and to fail to talk about all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can."

Bell’s view of Khalid Muhammad? “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” both Farrakhans and Muhammads veiws are about as anti Semite as you can get

Those are just a few remarks that would fit on this post now i can post paragraphs from his books with the underlaying message of anti Semitism but i feel you get the point
And by the way I'm not the only person who will label Prof Bell as an anti Semite there has been dozens of leaders in the black community who feel the same way

New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, that is not available online.

Ah, that one. Yeah, I looked for it online. New York, 1994? That's interesting.

So, what I see here is Bell excoriating Gates for...what, exactly? Writing an op-ed that condemned black anti-Semitism in general? Was it prompted by some event?

"I was furious. Even if everything he said was true, it was inexcusable not to mention what might have motivated blacks to feel this way, and to fail to talk about all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can."

He's pretty specific there- not "Jews", but "Jewish neoconservative racists". What? Is it racist to acknowledge the existence of that sort of person?

And...there's still the matter of the whole, original article not being available. The Breitbartians and other rightists have already distorted enough things about Bell, other prominent black people, and hell- black people in general for me to presume good faith on their part.

Bell went on to say, “Now, that wouldn’t excuse anti-Semitism, which is awful, but it would at least provide a context for this anger…”

That's the paragraph immediately following the one you pasted. I can't disagree with that.

“We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.”

Once again, the following paragraph:

Why exactly were we supposed to appreciate them? Quoth Bell: “While these guys talk a lot, they don’t do anything. The new crop of leaders are going to be a lot more dangerous and radical, and the next phase will probably be led by charismatic individuals, maybe teenagers, who urge that instead of killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”

Note how he seemed to relish this prospect even as he tut-tutted it. Note also how almost unimaginably wrong he was. For no marauding gangs of black teenagers went around killing white people after he spoke; in fact, the ongoing crime drop that followed his words had its most remarkable impact in black communities, where the number of murders fell, by some counts, as much as 80 percent over the decade that followed.

Now, you probably know that I don;t agree with all that, but the point is that Bell said this in the context of criticizing the "Farrakhans and Khalid Muhammads", and that particular strain of strain of black militancy in general. He was basically saying "Hey, we maybe we should appreciate the lull before the storm, because it's going to get even worse". If you consider that he said that in 1994, at the height of the violent crack/gang era, it's not an altogether unreasonable opinion. And come on- Podhoretz has no way of knowing whether he said that with relish of dread. He's reading the written word, just as we are. Not only that, but I wonder what he'd find if we read Podhoretz's opinions on the future of black militancy around the same time? Do you think he was predicting the improvement in the situation that he condemns Bell for not foreseeing? I doubt it.

Now- see what I mean about not being able to presume good faith on the part of the Breitbartians...or anyone else using these snippets to try to prove that Barack Obama is an anti-Semitic racist??

The hypocrisy on the left never fails to amaze me

They can take a benign statement like "entertainer and chief" and they say that is a racist remark and anyone who says it is a racist, Yours truly Mr Ed has even went as far as editing a tape where someone said "a black cloud over Washington" was racist referring to the black cloud as Obama but if you watched the full video that person said the economy the very next sentence

But when one of your own make a blatant racist remark like" I live to harass white people" they say it was taken out of context and that isn't what he really meant its not racist

now you can do your best to try to explain away his racist and anti Semite remarks but it wont work with the 5 minute sound bites and the many liberal civil rights activist saying Bell is an anti Semite and a racist your will lose

I want you to do this litmus test

I want you to take Prof Bells comments and replace black with white and white with black and then read them. Would the left be outraged if a conservative said it after the switch? would you defend a conservative and say it was taken out of context ?

hell no you wouldn't

The Gospel of Thomas

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Should be (Not help or want to arrive) Oops!

No if you vote against your own best interests then you are an idiot. If you support a failed system you are an idiot. If you think Reagan was anything more then an insane doddering old fool suffering from delusions caused by dementia then you are an idiot. If you think saying that both parties are equally guilty of where we find ourselves today you are an idiot. If you think all of the problems come from spending then you are an idiot. If you think that cutting Social programs is going to solve the countries problems you are an idiot. If you come onto a left leaning blog spewing right wing garbage you are an idiot. If you claim reverse racism you are an idiot. If you are whining that you got called an idiot for any of these things you are an idiot.

No if you vote against your own best interests then you are an idiot.

If you presume to know what my best interests are, you're an arrogant idiot. Thanks for proving one of the points I posted above.

If you support a failed system you are an idiot.

This IS a failed system. If you can't see that you're the idiot.

If you think Reagan was anything more then an insane doddering old fool suffering from delusions caused by dementia then you are an idiot.

Thanks for proving yet another one of my points above. My opinion of Reagan is not much different than yours is.

If you think saying that both parties are equally guilty of where we find ourselves today you are an idiot.

If you think pointing your finger at the other party and placing all the blame on them makes your party look great, you're just being arrogant again.

If you think all of the problems come from spending then you are an idiot.

Again, you're not listening. I think all our problems come from spending borrowed money, not spending.

If you think that cutting Social programs is going to solve the countries problems you are an idiot.

If you think funding social programs with money we need to borrow to do it is going to solve all our problems, you're an idiot.

If you come onto a left leaning blog spewing right wing garbage you are an idiot.

Once again, thanks for further proving the point I made above.

If you claim reverse racism you are an idiot.

If you think favoring groups of people based on the color of their skin is not inherently racist, you're an idiot.

If you are whining that you got called an idiot for any of these things you are an idiot.

I'm not whining. I'm delighted you crawled out of the woodwork to jam your foot down your throat once again and prove everything I've said to be true. Thanks!

Your the idiot if you think a countries debt isn't a problem. just look at Greece

Your the Idiot if you don't think reverse discrimination isn't a problem just ask all the people who was turned down for a promotion, being hired, being denied admission to a collage thinks to affirmative action because it wasn't based on their qualifications but because their color of their skin

Your the idiot if you don't think if we don't do something with social programs now there will be anything left when our children grow up

You can be the Idiot and ignore all the facts that you want because they go against your failed ideology but in the long run all you got to do is look to the countries who tried it and see how they have failed

And your 'ideology' of killing medicare, medicaid and SS plus even more tax breaks for the top 2% which creates an even higher deficit is the answer? Now thats the definition of ignorance.

And your 'ideology' of killing medicare, medicaid and SS plus even more tax breaks for the top 2% which creates an even higher deficit is the answer? Now thats the definition of ignorance.

I'm not suggesting killing medicare, medicaid and SS. Those systems are bankrupt. I'm suggesting it's already dead and it needs to get in the ground before it starts to smell.

Tax revenues of any kind no matter how much you tax or who you tax won't even make a dent in what we owe. Ignorance is not bothering to do the math. Total annual tax revenue as it stands is roughly 3 billion dollars annually. On February 14, 2011, President Obama released his 2012 federal budget request. The report updated the projected 2011 deficit to $1.590 trillion.

What's 1.59 trillion minus 3 billion? Answer: not nearly enough tax money to cover even the interest on this figure.

Arguing not enough taxation of the rich is ridiculous. What's going to happen is they're going to borrow more money from the Federal Reserve (which creates currency out of thin air) via quantitative easements to cover all of this.

It's a house of cards, and when OPEC decides to start trading oil in some other currency than dollars (it's already being discussed,) the party is over for us. China is taking our debts and selling them to banana republics in exchange for power grids, lithium mines, and oil fields. They are beginning to realize our money is worthless, so they're trading our empty promises for tangible resources that are actually worth something in trade.

As for your first sentence, try taking it way from the senior citizens like Ryancare wants to and see what happens. Oh, that right, all the teabagger are on record for supporting it. See ya at the polls! As for the rest of that BS, why did we prosper so much with the clinton tax rate? You fools are just licking the boot that kicks you and looking out for the top 2% thinking your one of them...Pathetic.

see footnote below. already anticipated this response.

as for the rest, if you can add and subtract you can see taxation will never work to fix this.

Then answer my question. We were in a recession when Clinton took over. By increasing the tax rate from 35 to 39% the country prospered. Why was that?

Love it when you 'intellectuals' grab for straws and get nothing but thin air. If you see a radical it's probably because you're looking out your own back door.

People have been saying that BS since day one SS was put into effect and guess what? It's still here. Nice to know people like you think SS is a burden which should be done away with and to hell with the elderly, the poor, and widows who can't feed thier children. Isn't that the definition of a 'teabagger'?

That may be your definition of it. And hanging a label that's a meaningless generalization on me isn't scoring you any points on the reasoning scale.

People on SS right now are starving, so how is that helping anything at all? The prices of everything isn't increasing, the value of a dollar is going down, and as long as it keeps going down from injecting worthless currency into a bankrupt system, those checks for the poor people are going to buy less and less.

If you can't see that these systems are bankrupt you need remedial math. The fact that it's still here holds about as much weight as the belief that real estate would always be a safe investment. Just because it hasn't collapsed yet doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.

I wish you'd stop putting words into my mouth. SS is not a burden, it's more like a scam at this point and making people reliant on something that is beyond broke is not doing them any favors.

So the answer is to just do away with all those programs because you don't think they are worth sustaining.... Nice to see you are ready to throw the elderly, poor and disabled under the bus for the sake of your's and the Kock bro's portfolio. Sorry bud, your in the minority.

So the answer is to just do away with all those programs because you don't think they are worth sustaining.

That's not what I said. What I said was, funding an already bankrupt system with more borrowed money created from thin air is unsustainable. If you want to run some numbers by me that will prove otherwise I'm all ears.

It's got nothing to do with what I think. It's about the impending collapse of a buy now pay it back never system. We can't continue to pay our debts with borrowed money.

Hey John even funnier is that they believe that the republicans will stop taking FICA taxes out of their pay checks and let them invest it any way they want on the stock market, They sure do assume a lot especially when it comes to the feeding the greed for republicans wealthy masters. Medicare part D is a perfect example of what happens when republicans fix programs that aren't broken.

You're delusional if you think Medicare wasn't broken before Part D. It certainly was beyond broke before Part D.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the math on how any of these systems can be sustained given our current level of debt. So far, nothing but more GOP finger pointing.

No your delusional in thinking that the future will be the same as it is today. There is no math that will predict what will happen in the future. The only math used are numbers based on yesterdays unemployment numbers to predict the economy 30 years from today. Another words for the next 30 years unemployment remains the same as today, the number of deaths remain the same as today and the number of live births remain the same as today with no changes what so ever in any of these numbers. If you think you will be able to predict the future with math just shows you lack the ability to understand reality, we live in a ever changing word and already since the GOP put out their doom and gloom death of SS and medicare in 30 years, it has been pushed back 5 to 10 years with the economic growth under Obama, so the math the GOP used is out dated as is the talking point of the debt remaining the same as it was when they made their prediction. Why is that? With more people paying into FICA since job growth started improving that means that once again SS is building up a surplus. With more people working that means more tax dollars being collected now if we get rid of the GWB tax cuts we will be back on track paying off the GOP debt. BTW your gold standard nonsense is just that nonsense as there isn't enough gold to handle putting the US back on the gold standard. Btw, why is it you non rich people who worry about money being created out of thin air yet the wealthy aren't bothering to worry about it they are just busy grabbing as much as they can.

Oh and another thing for you to think about, gold is only as valuable as what people decide its value is. So in other words gold is only as valuable as people make it.