46 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
....a famous New York Daily News headline of the 1970s:
"Obama To Detroit: Drop Dead."
And to think of all those good Obamabot union workers who are getting thrown under the bus...
Well, Obama did say he'd have more
flexibility after his second term election. He's just flexing a bit.
I told you Obama was a Republican. Ford to City Drop Dead.
Now as it happened that isn't what Gerry Ford actually said. That's the Daily News headline writer's version of Ford's declining to bail New York our.
So Ford was a good guy because he was a Republican who refused to help, but according to the Republicans here, Obama's a bad guy for doing exactly the same thing.
Get the feeling there's a consistency problem here? Or is it a colour problem? White guy good, Black guy bad, to paraphrase George Orwell who understood the "newspeak" of Republicans where words mean one thing applied to one of their own and the opposite to an opposing party.
Orwell also predicted a state of permanent war which seems to be the agenda being employed since 9/11. Everyone is against the United States so we have to be on guard against everybody. Let's check out every traveller with a "naked scanner". Let's bug every phone call. Lets collect every e-mail and every internet search, and invade everybody's privacy to protect us against a tiny fairly conspicuous minority.
In 1970, on my way back to Michigan from Toronto's Mariposa Folk Festival where I helped conduct a blues and ragtime guitar workshop, I watched as American Customs removed every person of colour from the bus before sending us on our way. I thought that attitude was over, but apparently not.
You do know there's a word for a double standard like that you've all bought into, don't you? "Gimme an H, gimme a Y, gimme a P, gimme an O, gimme a C, gimme an R, gimme an I, gimme an S, gimme a Y. What's that spell? HYPOCRISY, I can't hear you HYPOCRISY What? HYPOCRISY Right on!"
I wonder if Country Joe McDonald expected that one. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.
Ford was a creepy Prez who also
thought a lot like Nixon. I didn't like either one of them, never forgave Ford for pardoning that scumbag the day he took the oath, and certainly didn't think that NY should be bailed out back then and still don't think it should have been. Dems have been bankrupting cities across the country for decades and decades (to steal your line), nobody cared enough to take off those rose colored glasses, and today we have the consequences, just as we had the consequences to pay over Carter and Clinton's housing crap. Now BO wants to do it all over again........what's that definition of insanity again?
Are you suggesting that because Republicans/Conservatives are against bailing out Detroit that it's because of race? If so, you're a typical liberal who screams race for every 'no' a conservative votes. Funny how nobody on your side (AS or JJ for example, or even BO or Oprah) is saying a word about three black kids on a bus beating a white kid to oblivion and breaking his arm, while a black bus driver stood by and didn't do anything except yell and call dispatch.......and no kids on the bus did anything either except use their cellphones to take videos to post. But stupid, stupid Oprah, who is black and doesn't know her own history, is equating TM with Emmitt Till right along with AS. Can you spell HIPOCRISY?
The Nixon pardon
When that happened I was pretty outraged also. I was sure it was prearranged by the two of them. As time has passed, I've moderated my opinion on that. I now think that Ford genuinely wanted to avoid what would have been an international spectacle. Nixon had already resigned in shame, and was destined to go down in history as the president who resigned in disgrace the night before his inevitable impeachment.
Your second paragraph barely makes any sense. I saw the footage of that beating. It was awful, and the bus driver left his job within a couple of weeks after it happened. I've seen nothing suggesting a racial motive. My understanding was that the victim had told school officials that one or more of his attackers had tried to sell him drugs. The other boys were probably angry at having been snitched on. Race, as far as I can tell, was not a factor.
I love how you can blast other people for their supposed bigotry and then use the phrase "typical liberal" in the same sentence though.
You made my point exactly, Josh
even though you said it makes no sense. The FACTS are that this attack was no more racially motivated, for the reasons you cited and for the reasons the COP who investigated cited, anymore than the GZvsTM death was, and yet AS, JJ, BO, and every freaking liberal out there have ALL claimed that it was, even though the COP who investigated said it wasn't, testified to that effect, and it was proven in court that it wasn't. And now we have other celebrities like stupid Oprah saying it was. So....if THAT case was considered to be racially motivated and involved all of those people because it was a "White Hispanic' vs a Black......how come THIS case isn't drawing their attention, since it was THREE Blacks vs ONE white kid?
Can you spell HYPOCRICY???????????????
What "facts," Toni?
Are you privy to information that the rest of us aren't?
And the anger in the Zimmerman case wasn't just over whether Trayvon Martin was profiled; it was also about the fact that enormous pressure had to be put on the Sanford PD to even arrest the man who admitted shooting him. You can't ignore the long history of bias in this country's justice system when looking at these situations, Toni. Well, I suppose you can, but you shouldn't.
why are you, and
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson continually ignoring the high rate of murders BY young black men and those mostly against other black people? Where's the fervor of purpose to do something about that?! If all of you put half the energy into solving that situation as happens everytime some white or hispanic person defends himself against a black person and actually succeeds, then all of you might actually accomplish something. Liberalism in today's world is just playing the blame game and tossing the race card around, must have a full deck of them to work with too.
Nobody is ignoring it, James
Are the police refusing to arrest people in those murders? Are the murderers being acquitted?
Where's the marching?
Where's the big wigs getting black people all whipped up emotionally about it? Nowhere.
You are so two-faced, Josh
You want facts from me about the bus beating......I GAVE them to you......it wasn't racially motivated, it was because the white kid ratted out the black kids regarding dope sales.
As for TM.......there were also statements made by the COP who investigated the case, and HE said it wasn't racially motivated. Per your own statements, it was people like AS, JJ, and BO who put pressure on to prosecute a case that they knew they couldn't win BECAUSE IT WASN'T racially motivated AND it was self-defense but they all caved to the liberal pressure FOR NOTHING but wasted taxpayer money. Just because there is still bias in this country doesn't mean that every 'white hispanic' who harms or kills a black is because of race,you idiot......and yet it doesn't stop you freaks from pushing that divisive button EVERY freaking time. BUT let it be a black on white or black on black harm or killing, and crickets are everywhere......
Unlike you, Toni.....
........I take each case individually and don't hold one case up against another to try to rationalize my opinion about it. That's what the law requires too, by the way.
Amazing that you were once a moderator, considering the content of that post.
Amazing is how horribly intolerant you've become
and it shows with every ugly commented post YOU make, Josh. I could point out a hundred of your posts where you have deliberately insulted me for no reason whatsoever rather than actually debate a topic.
Any you didn't take the TM case based on facts, Josh..you immediately jumped on the race bandwagon before anybody even knew anything about what happened. BO did the same thing over the Cambridge 'stupid' cops, but because he's so 'cool' he got away with it just like he did with Fluke and TM. Didn't matter that the cop who investigated the TM case KNEW it wasn't racially motivated and that he KNEW it was self-defense, because that's what cops DO, Josh....they INVESTIGATE and not jump to conclusions.
You jumped....you were wrong....and you liberals just can't stand being wrong....but you'll keep on doing it because you CAN because the liberal media will keep covering for you. That's racist and pathetic. Especially now that three blacks against one white kid isn't getting the same liberal crap you threw at GZ because he was a 'white Hispanic' who 'stalked and attacked' a black man.....even to the point that TM was portrayed right up until the trial as a 'teenager' with a picture showing his as a 12-yr old.....and NOBODY in the liberal media bothered to stop and investigate TM and HIS background and get a current picture showing how much bigger he was than GZ and HIS background was pretty crappy compared to GZ.
And if you think that it's rational for people like Oprah and AS to compare TM with ETill, you're crazier than what you just spouted about rationalizing opinions and how the law requires that you not compare. Every single liberal out there was immediately drawn to comparing GZ to some whacked out KKK wanna be cop who was out there hunting down blacks to kill....even to the point of inventing a new ethnic group for him (white Hispanic).
You people are pathetic in your drive for divisiveness.
You have no facts Toni. You never do. And no links either.
I can spell HYPOCRISY, but apparently you can't Toni.
We part company there Josh. Nixon should have been impeached
what did Nixon do that was so bad
in the entire scheme of things. He upset Democrats by doing even less than the NSA is doing everyday of every week of every month of the year. Oh wow, he pranked the Democrats during an election, peeked in their diary, LOL. He then lied about it to keep out of trouble. Obama lies everyday just to foment trouble. Nixon had to deal with daily stonewalling and backstabbing of American concerning Viet Nam from monkey faced Carl Albert and "Ichabod Crane" Mike Mansfield. It was like Congress being run by the organ grinder and his monkey.
He subverted the Democratic process by attacking Ed Muskie
personally, unfairly, and falsely using his very own Dirty Tricks gang, His Dirty Tricks agents attempted to illegally spy upon the Democratic Campaign Office despite the election already having been decided in the Republican's favour. He denied covering up the burglary after the fact which is Obstruction of Justice and a felony. Then there's that suspicious missing 17 minutes erased over 30 times on Rosemary What's her name's tape The financial irregularities in his campaign were criminal and extensive. Most of his closest White House Staff ended up in the Federal Tennis Camp and Country Club for Republican Offenders and Wall Street Criminals. But that was only the few that could be charged and convicted. The GOP Dirty Tricks Brigade are still in action, their training school, the one that trained that ******* that set up Acorn still exists and still trains people in what Donald Segretti called Rat-****ing. So we know that the attitudes of anti-democratic actions are still ruling the Republican Party. The evidence for all of this is clear and public, deny it though you certainly will. And that's just what I remember off the top of my head, and all of it was "a Cancer on the Presidency" and entirely a Republican problem. I seem to remember that the place the Dirty Tricks Crowd was trained is called the Liberty Institute with Orwellian twisting of the meaning of words.
Imagine what you'd have said if Al Gore or John Kerry's Campaign people had bugged the Bush Campaign Offices? You'd still be screaming that all Democrats were crooks (Oh, I forgot, you do that already, no matter what the evidence or lack of it) that the election was tainted which it was but the other way, against the Democratic candidates. That the Democratic candidates should be in jail, that all Democrats should be investigated and probably jailed and the National Republic of the United States should become a one party state under Bush as effectively it has complete with extensive violations of the civil liberties of everyone in the United States. Probably for life. Sieg Heil, James.
Ah, boys will be boys.
I'll admit Republicans aren't as slick when they want to pull a stunt like that when compared to Democrats. As I see it, someone got caught with their hand in the cookie jar while the other side gets away with cookies all the time. Anyway, what was so important the Democrats had to hide it till AFTER the election?
So you think ...
the federal government should spend more to help the people in Detroit?
I really had the idea that you (like most Republicans) prefer the government to spend less. Well, never too late to change your mind for the better.
I believe this just denotes a change of change of posture
when compared to Obama's insistence on bailing out the auto industry there. During this past election, Obama's campaign rival, Mitt Romney, suggested it would have been better to let the auto industry go through a managed bankruptcy process. He took severe criticism for expressing that thinking and it probably cost him some votes. There are some now who claim Obama's show of no desire to intervene is a flip flop of sorts...an admission that bankruptcy is not a bad idea. As well, Detroit and the US auto industry are considered to be a single entity. Making cars built Detroit and there's not much to sustain the city should that industry fail. It would appear that the Detroit bailout only delayed the inevitable. Detroit has a lot of poverty which comes with plenty of drugs and related violence. Poverty centers drain any cities coffers. Unfortunately the city doesn't have a lot of wealthy people in its tax base. Chicago also has huge poverty and drug violence problems but also has a great number of wealthy persons keeping the city alive.
In any event, Obama's relative silence on the city of Detroit's financial problems after bailing out it's only major industry does cause one to wonder about his motives.
Since you brought Romney into this....
.....remember also that after expressing the opinion that the automakers should be allowed to fail (in an op-ed piece titled, Let Detroit Go Bankrupt), he tried to take credit for what Obama did instead.
His predictions in that piece were off the mark too:
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
The opposite happened. GM is doing better than ever and the quality of their cars has actually improved.
As for federal assistance to the city, I'd agree that they need the help, though I'd also say that it would have to be part of a long-term plan to revitalize the city and not just handing them a check.
is doing better than ever.......says you. The majority of their profits are from overseas and truck sales....If they were doing as well as people are led to believe by this Administration, they would have repaid the tax payers what they still owe them and bought back their own shares that the Fed still owns.
If they really are doing better than ever, they would invest in their own city, help clean it up, put more people to work, and get the city back into some fiscally sound state again.
They won't do any of that......most of the city's debt is from union obligations (along with some really, really bad 'investments' by Dems who have controlled the city for over 50 years now) and GM is NOT going to get into the middle of a union war.
"They would invest in their own city"
Why would they, when they can enjoy the benefits of outsourcing, which is one thing that helped destroy Detroit in the first place.
Obama wants to remove the tax incentives companies currently enjoy for outsourcing and reverse them, making it more attractive to bring those jobs back here. One more example of his diabolical plot to destroy the country, apparently.
He talks a good story
when he knows that it is something that won't happen, Josh.......because at the same time he says he wants to remove those incentives to make it 'more attractive to bring those jobs back', he is also at the same time and in the same breath saying he wants to tax those corporations even more. He's perfectly happy painting corporations as evil, greedy entities and that it's Republicans that are holding up all of his agendas. He hasn't yet taken any responsibility for the economy and the jobs situation not changing and actually getting worse since he has taken office, even with a one trillion dollar stimulus and numerous QE's and weekly money being printed by the Treasury/Fed Reserve to dump into the economy, increasing our national debt without a backward glance as to what this country will look like when he finally leaves.
It's not just "the Administration" saying GM is doing well
GM is saying it too. So is Consumer Reports, which has been giving better reviews of at least some of their cars than they have in ages.
Now you're saying it won't happen, when in your previous post you asked why GM isn't doing it.
GM IS making money
and bragging about it, Josh. They just aren't saying WHERE nor are they cutting checks to buy back their stock or repay the taxpayers.
I asked why GM isn't investing in their own community. You would think they would be grateful enough for the bailout that since they are making money again, that they would, out of guilt and appreciation alone......YOU said that BO wanted to give them incentives, along with other businesses, to bring the jobs back here, and I told you why that wouldn't happen. It's easy for this prez to talk on the campaign trail about things he would 'like' to see happen but when push comes to shove he doesn't actually DO anything about making it happen. It's far easier to talk about 'want to' and then blame everybody but himself when things don't happen. He is NOT a prez who wants to get into the weeds and get his hands dirty trying to hammer things out, Josh....he much prefers delegating the work to others so he can stay as far away from the 'blame game' as possible. He's been doing it since day one......plausible deniability is everything to him.
A good leader is SUPPOSED to delegate
One of the biggest criticisms of Clinton was that he micromanaged. Bush was a big delegator too, or is that only a bad quality when "BO" does it.
I don't think GM has ever been known for its compassion. Remember what their outsourcing did to Flint, MI? I know you don't think much of Michael Moore but did you see "Roger & Me?" And that was in the 80s, long before the company or the economy started failing. Did they look like they cared in the least about the community they were in?
There is a huge difference
between delegating and making yourself 'above it all' by deliberately creating the illusion that you care and yet distance yourself from it all........We're still waiting to see where he was when Benghazi was hit, Josh. Remember the Clinton campaign ad of 'who do you want to answer the phone at 3AM'? According to records and testimony submitted so far, BO never even GOT the call........now THAT'S really distancing yourself.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)