(02-02-2012 01:53 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 10:54 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  I hate to repeat myself in such a short timeframe but why would any sane, rational person give a flying hoot about anything Rachel Maddow says or thinks?

Some people might find it entertaining.

Why would any sane, rational person give a flying hoot about anything Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh says or thinks?

Who brought them into the conversation? You just assumed. And you know what happens when you do that.

(02-02-2012 10:10 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Not only does Rachel have the audacity to call Gingrich out on his racist comments, but she's a gay too! That really pisses you guys off doesn't it?

The fact that "she's a gay too!" doesn't piss me off, it just makes me feel sorry for her. The pissed-off part comes from her (and other people) dishonestly pretending to believe that certain comments are hostile to black people, when in reality those comments are hostile to a dysfunctional welfare system that retards economic growth for black people and non-black people alike.

Quote:He's not even hiding behind racist code, like Reagan did with "state's rights"

"States' Rights" is neither racist nor code; it is a very forthright reference to the non-racial issue of how power is divided in America's federalist system of government. As for Reagan himself, he understood very clearly that the federal government had swallowed up too much power at the expense of the states, and his political use of that phrase was an admirable and appropriate way to illustrate the fact. However, I think the reason liberals really resent his using it is not for the principles at stake, but simply because he was so politically effective at it, carrying 44 states and 49 states in consecutive presidential elections, and then helping his own VP carry 40 states in the next election after that. Good for Reagan, and good for America. If other GOP candidates like Dole and McCain had understood this issue as Reagan did, they would have fared better at the polls themselves. There is a lesson here for Mitt Romney, too, but I doubt he will have the presence of mind to learn it, much less to act on it.

Quote:when meddling Yankees made southern states give up slavery, Jim Crow and segregation

Ah, the "meddling Yankees". They really are the most loathsome tribe in America, and I confess, the chance to cite chapter-and-verse on their dishonesty, hypocrisy and venality is tempting. But time is short and it's not the kind of subject about which people are going to change their mind, so I'll leave that one alone for now.

Quote:

Quote:"I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," Gingrich said.

How is this an attack on the administration exactly?

That particular quote is less an attack on the administration than a request/offer to appear before one of the administration's groups of proxy-supporters and defend himself against the dishonest attacks which people like Maddow have made.

Quote:The fact that "she's a gay too!" doesn't piss me off, it just makes me feel sorry for her.

Me too, considering the intolerant society she's had to grow up and live in.

Quote:The pissed-off part comes from her (and other people) dishonestly pretending to believe that certain comments are hostile to black people, when in reality those comments are hostile to a dysfunctional welfare system that retards economic growth for black people and non-black people alike.

She's not dishonestly pretending to believe anything. Telling the black community to want paychecks is racist and hostile to black people. If Gingrich was criticizing the welfare system he would have said something along the lines of, ""I'm prepared, if the Department of Health and Human Services invites me, I'll go to their offices and talk about why the regulations need to be rewritten." Or, "I'm prepared, if Congress invites me, I'll go to their hearings and talk about why the Temporary Relief for Needy Families Act, which I helped write myself in Congress, needs to be rewritten."

But of course, that's not what he said. He was chastising blacks.

Quote:"States' Rights" is neither racist nor code

It is very much racist and code, used by Strom Thurmond and George Wallace to battle the civil rights movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_righ...de_word.22

Quote:During the heyday of the African-American civil rights movement, the term "states' rights" was used as a code word by defenders of segregation.[2][24] In 1948 it was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by white supremacist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond.[25][26] Democratic governor George Wallace, of Alabama, who famously declared in his inaugural address in 1962, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"—later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!"[27] Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[27]

In 2010, Texas governor Rick Perry's use of the expression "state's rights", to some, was reminiscent of "an earlier era when it was a rallying cry against civil rights."[28] During an interview with The Dallas Morning News, Perry made it clear that he supports the end of segregation, including passage of the Civil Rights Act. Texas president of the NAACP Gary Bledsoe stated that he understood that Perry wasn't speaking of "states' rights" in a racial context; but others still felt offended by the term because of its past misuse.[28]

When politicians use that term they're consciously associating themselves with those civil rights opponents with a wink and a nod. Gingrich is smart enough to know this.

Now I'm not suggesting you're a segregationalist, or Gingrich for that matter. You might have very legitimate reasons to support federalism. But those terms are loaded and besmirched beyond repair.

Quote:That particular quote is less an attack on the administration than a request/offer to appear before one of the administration's groups of proxy-supporters and defend himself against the dishonest attacks which people like Maddow have made.

Gingrich's racist remarks caused Maddow's attack, not vice versa. And I don't know about the NAACP being an Obama administration "proxy supporter." Why, because the president is black? And the quote had nothing to do with defending himself, but rather to scold the black community.

(02-02-2012 03:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't know about the NAACP being an Obama administration "proxy supporter." Why, because the president is black?

That's part of it, although more so because the president is a liberal and a Democrat.

(02-02-2012 03:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:The fact that "she's a gay too!" doesn't piss me off, it just makes me feel sorry for her.

Me too, considering the intolerant society she's had to grow up and live in.

Ah. Again, the intolerant are the victims of intolerance.

I hope to one day be able to forget ever reading the rest of your bull****.

(02-02-2012 04:15 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 03:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:The fact that "she's a gay too!" doesn't piss me off, it just makes me feel sorry for her.

Me too, considering the intolerant society she's had to grow up and live in.

Ah. Again, the intolerant are the victims of intolerance.

I hope to one day be able to forget ever reading the rest of your bull****.

Gays are intolerant? How so?

Quote:That's part of it, although more so because the president is a liberal and a Democrat.

Regardless, it wasn't a message to the administration, but rather the "African American community."

(02-02-2012 10:10 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Not only does Rachel have the audacity to call Gingrich out on his racist comments, but she's a gay too! That really pisses you guys off doesn't it? And to top it off, an uppity black joins the chorus!

When Newt Gingrich says the black community should want pay checks and not food stamps, that's racist. He's explicitly saying black people are lazy and don't want to work. He's not even hiding behind racist code, like Reagan did with "state's rights" (a rallying cry from the pre-Civil War south through the civil rights movement, when meddling Yankees made southern states give up slavery, Jim Crow and segregation) and "welfare queens." No, he's bypassing all that nuance. Blacks don't want paychecks. And it's no coincidence he said it in South Carolina either; just another instance of his pandering to the locals, like his lunar colony promise on the space coast. I don't know if Gingrich is a racist at heart, but his statements are promoting racism for political gains and he certainly knows what he's doing.

No Way!!! She's such a babe. I guess next you're going to tell me that ESPN babe Pam Ward is gay.