So Tell Me Again How This Is Not About Race
A sickening bumper sticker that was seen really says it all.
Despite what the teahadis, Curleys, and Rushbos say, the election of Barack Obama has always been about the color of his skin.
Tags: Barack Obama, racism, Tea Baggers
so you saw this bumper sticker with your own eyes?
If you’re asking, Phil, because you think the photo isn’t real… it existed. The site that carried it, Stumpy Stickers, has dismantled. The link will show you a screen shot from their page.
And it looks like the maker has shut down his website.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/
Jinx! You owe me a soda, LE! đ
I will agree with you that is definitely an appalling bumper sticker, but which do you think is worse one yokel with a bumper sticker or an entire administration with an agenda?
Have you read anything about Professor Derrick Bell or Bell’s Critical Race Theory? (if you don’t know what CRT is try Google) Our president studied under Bell at Harvard, he then taught Bell’s CRT to students in Chicago, and now many in his administration (along with two supreme court judges) use Bell’s ideology to make race-related decisions in our country.
So… You’re saying Harvard should not have given him tenure? Yea.. Harvard just hands out tenure to any old crackpot… right?
And I suppose the Tea Party has a competing theory? …oh yea… the bumper sticker!
Dangermouse: Here’s a much more nefarious conspiracy: Have you ever heard of the Federalist Society? It’s a conspiracy among conservatives in the judiciary to interpret the Constitution in an “originalist” way, which as we have seen means “lets us rule against anything we don’t like because it’s not conservative.” This conspiracy leads you straight to the Roberts Supreme Court.
Look it up and be afraid — very afraid.
You know, Dangermouse, if you had any idea how academics actually works, you’d understand that what top-level people–especially in the social sciences and the humanities–do is throw out big, challenging, and dangerous ideas to butt up against the status quo. Critical race theory, like feminist studies or neocolonialist economics before it, provided a serious critique of major assumptions about how justice is or is not being served in America for a large section of our population. Derrick Bell is justly important for the dialogue he created, and while–like Charles Beard’s economic interpretation of the Constitution or Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier theory or even WEB DuBois use of Marxist economic theory to re-interpret Reconstruction–not all of his details will hold up, his contribution to American legal thought is pretty damn secure.
“the election of Barack Obama has always been about the color of his skin.”
I agree. I know people that voted for him just because he is half black.
And I know white people who vote for white people. What is your point, FBH?
I think he’s saying people who may have wanted Obama to win, in part because they liked the idea of a (finally) non-white president are the same kind of racist as the bumper-sticker.
I guess im a horrible racist because yes, one of the reasons i wanted Obama to win was because i wanted to see a black president. I am as bad as the NASCAR fan who ones that SUV….
btw, what are the ducks in that sticker above his GOP id about to do?
FYI Ben we have a sociologist at DSU who has been polling NASCAR fans at Dover Downs on politics for many years. One of the things he discovered that astounded him is that Barack Obama’s approval ratings among a randomly selected sample of 200-300 NASCAR fans every year since 2008 has hovered at around 45%, which is far higher than most stereotypes would place it.
One of the reasons I preferred Hillary to Barack in terms of the Democratic nomination in 2008 was that I thought it was more important to have a female president than a black male one. So I can’t throw stones at you for the idea; I think it motivated a lot of people in both directions.
A recent study found that Obama lost 2-3% of the popular vote in 2008 because of the color of his skin. Carry on RWNJs about a dead guy though I’m sure it will help you in November. I really have no idea why some cons think a replay of the charges they leveled against Obama in 2008 will play better this time around.
I think it is a lot more complicated than either side is admitting. Race was a contributing cause on both sides, yes, but the question that has to be asked is — “Did it change votes?” For example, I have no problem admitting that one reason I supported Obama was that i wanted to be a part of electing the ‘First Black president’ — but I would have voted Democratic anyway as I have in every national election since 1968. And the racists — and yes, there are stil a lot of them — voted against Obama, but does anyone think they would have voted for Hillary, Edwards (without the scandal), Dick Gebhardt or even Evan Bayh?
What gets missed is that there are four possible positions in an election, not two. A voter can vote Democratic, vote Republican, vote third-party, or stay home — (the last includes voting but leaving the Presidential line blank). And what matters is the switches that occurred in 2008. And it wasn’t as much switching between parties — or the minor factor of third parties after the Nader debacle of 2000 — but the voters who moved between “stay home’ and vote Democratc — less so for Republicans then, that was in 2010.
A lot of them had ‘given up on politics’ — both black and white — but returned to voting to be a part of the whole FBP thing. And a lot of them would have returned to inactivity no matter what, and a fair number of them probably are disappointed with Obama. (Fortunately, the Republicans are running a candidate who can be counted on to have a “Dukakis in the tank” moment at least once a news cycle but in a close election, I think a lot of Democrats — at least Democratic bloggers — would be hurt by their assumption that the 2008 electorate would be the ‘norm’ instead of one articifically pumped up. At the same time, they are ignoring the Republican stay homes this year and conceding states and Congressional races that we can easily be compettive in.)
“You know, Dangermouse, if you had any idea how academics actually works, youâd understand that what top-level peopleâespecially in the social sciences and the humanitiesâdo is throw out big, challenging, and dangerous ideas to butt up against the status quo.”
So Steve, since you know how academics really work, would you find it acceptable for a professor to (in the name of bucking the status quo) extol the virtues of Nazism? And if you are OK with that, would you yes/no have some issues with a president who happened to learn from that teacher and then go on to teach the same thoughts on white supremacy, and then continue on to the presidency of our country? It’s less about the professor and more about his most famous student BHOjr.
I also find it interesting that you supported Hillary, after-all it was her campaign that started the “birther” issue about Barack Obama Jr….not the Cold Case Posse.
Dangermouse,
I didn’t say I supported Hillary for President, I said I preferred her over Obama.
There are lines–like Holocaust denial and David Irving–but for you to class Derrick Bell in that area only suggests that you haven’t looked at the discussion of CRT in the academic press. Yes, I do know how academics work because I am one.
Here’s the rub: academic fee speech involves dangerous, uncomfortable ideas, and a society that flees them rather than engaging them is not preferrable.
I think Barack Obama has been a disaster in many ways as president, and have said so here before–but I don’t think you can make the case that Dr Bell, Reverend Wright, or whats-his-name the former Weatherman is any more material than the fact the George H W Bush once employed a Campaign Director who was a Holocaust Denier who created a whole fake academic journal to prove that Hitler didn’t murder any Jews.
Why does the mere thought of discussing potentially radical ideas so scare you?
The Duck(s)is lighting on a pond between several decoys just in time to be shot by a hunter with his Benelli shotgun which seems to impart to me a Bona-fide member of the NRA owns this vehicle and PROUDLY displays all stickers attached.
Steve, the thought of discussing radical ideas does not scare me, putting them into practice as national policy does.
Dr. Bell, Rev. Wright and William Ayers were all pivotal in forming our president’s world view (radical teacher, radical pastor, and self-labeled radical terrorist), the GW Bush employee was an employee…btw, I am not a huge GWB fan either.
“Hereâs the rub: academic fee speech involves dangerous, uncomfortable ideas, and a society that flees them rather than engaging them is not preferrable.â
That sounds nice but how open-minded are most academics to rational discussions involving uncomfortable ideas like: man-made global warming, health care, religion, racism, energy policies, taxes, marriage, abortion, etc.
I will agree with your opinion that our president has been a disaster (though I would imagine my reasons greatly differ from yours)
The most obvious thing about the bumper is that the owner is obviously a disgusting racist. It’s less obvious (the usual attempt at stereotyping, notwithstanding), that the owner is a conservative, tea party member, or Republican. Some of the most despicable bigots I have known were Democrats, some of whom hunted, and belonged to the NRA. Then again, I am from the county that continues to elect John Atkins.
@DM “That sounds nice but how open-minded are most academics to rational discussions involving uncomfortable ideas like: man-made global warming, health care, religion, racism, energy policies, taxes, marriage, abortion, etc.”
Huh?? Academics LOVE to talk and write about all of those things. Do you know any academics? I sure do…
No more racist than the Congressional Black Caucus. This is Hillary Clintons car.
And Tidewater is an asshat. Why is the CBC racist, schmuck?
Danger Mouse said: “Dr. Bell, Rev. Wright and William Ayers were all pivotal in forming our presidentâs world view”
I know BO must have said that because otherwise that’s the only way you could know that. Just like I nor anyone else knows who was pivotal in forming your world view. Only you can know that unless you have shared that information. So, unless you can link to source material, such as an interview or writing from BO that identifies that statement as true, it can only be categorized as your opinion.
So please consider this a request for a link that quotes BO in either speech or written word, regarding your statement.
Why am I a smuck and an asshat for pointing out the obvious?
A- Racism, sexism and socialism is all you Obama freeks got. We voted for the Zero in 08 to prove we aren’t racist. We will vote against him to prove we are not stupid in 2012.
Now go fall in a box of glitter you freek
“That sounds nice but how open-minded are most academics to rational discussions involving uncomfortable ideas like: man-made global warming, health care, religion, racism, energy policies, taxes, marriage, abortion, etc.”
and what, exactly is your definition of a “rational discussion” about those things? “GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE!!!” “PRAY IN SCHOOL, BUT ONLY TO JESUS” “GAYS ARE BAD”
Freek? Smuck? Another English teacher weeps. Vote however you want, tidewater, but it won’t prove what you claim.
LE: Yes I do know several academics (some are teachers at UD) and you are right they do love to talk and write about the issues I listed HOWEVER they are unable to speak logically if one mentions certain topics…Israel, Santorum, OWS, drilling for oil or (heaven forbid) mention the name Sarah Palin. So yes I know and am friends with academics but those topics and others they are unable to rationally discuss how someone could possibly support any of those opposing viewpoints.
@p “Another English teacher weeps.”
I’m not so sure. It’s only called “English” in the upper grades. Maybe another Writing teacher is weeping.
@DM “they are unable to rationally discuss how someone could possibly support any of those opposing viewpoints.”
I think you got that backwards. They do rationally discuss. Just because someone argues that your position is untenable, does not mean that they cannot understand how you support your position. We apparently understand you far better than you understand us.
his yiddish teacher is definitely having a Conniption.
Dave, I would suggest you look at the actions/policies of our president over the past 3+ years. Actions speak louder than words. Look at who he listens to for wisdom and advice… Ayers continues to visit the WH and Dr. Bell had visited the WH several times as well. Obama currently employs Jim Wallis as his “go guy” for religion and Wallis proclaims Jesus was a Socialist.
And Socialist Ben, thank you for providing an excellent rant rather than discourse. BRAVO.
@DM “…proclaims Jesus was a Socialist.”
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” == Socialism.
Have you read the sermon on the mount???
Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
How is it possible that modern Christians in America don’t have a clue about Jesus? One would think Jesus was all about gays and abortion and carrying weapons and denying rights to people…
The right wing has truly twisted Jesus into something very ugly indeed… and that’s worse than anything the Romans ever did to him.
LE: maybe you need to learn how read before bashing someone with a differing point…. of course you have also proven yourself and others like Ben are unable to LISTEN before attacking.
I said my “academic” friends CANNOT discuss they only talk, rant, attack…that is hardly what I would consider discussion. Discussion involves both parties explaining their points and then defending their opinions with facts/experiences.
Have you read the GOP’s sermon on the mount???
If you know anything about the ministry of Jesus, that line pretty much sums it up.
You can twist the Bible to mean ANYTHING you want if not read in the full context.
Just for one individual? I find your religious beliefs shallow and personally convenient. Why not just say, Following everything Jesus said is hard and would impact my quality of life, so I’m going to pick and choose what I want to believe.
Oooh, you had second thoughts on that comment, DangerMouse. You know, the comment in which you said Jesus (Matthew 10:21) was only speaking to one individual. Not quick enough on the delete button – better luck next time.
Danger Mouse: There is nothing you can say about any of the issues you listed that we haven’t heard roughly 1 million times before. There is no need for discussion about subjects like Bill Ayers and Derrick Bell. YOU need the discussion because, like most conservatives, you are woefully underinformed. We don’t.
@DM “I said my âacademicâ friends CANNOT discuss they only talk, rant, attack⌔
That makes no sense whatsoever…. But then again, you probably think that I’m ranting and attacking.
Here’s an attack:
I’ve read all that you’ve written above, and you come off as an intellectual lightweight unable to hold your own in a serious debate. Sure you can spout right wing talking points, but I’ve yet to see an original idea spring from your fingers. You’re welcome to keep trying, but I honestly think your clock has been cleaned… Maybe you should try an easier forum?
@p “Not quick enough on the delete button â better luck next time.”
So he did have an original thought, and then disowned it. Amazing.
Continue to insult all you want LE, you still seem unable to converse without putting another view down. It’s this arrogance that makes you unable to think outside your bubble of friends on this little blog…
pandora: FYI, i changed my answer so it spoke to all those misusing scriptures to suit their own needs. my original response was only for you. but thanks for not being judgemental & snarky in your post đ
Your point, DangerMouse, as far as I can tell is that people/academics who don’t agree with you rant and rave and attack. You’ve given no examples. You demand thoughtful conversation when you offer none.
They are out in droves lately arent they?
Luntz must have upped his paid troll staff since so many people are finally waking up to the evils of conservatism.
ok dangermouse. let’s have a “rational conversation” you pick the topic and hit me with your best opening statement. Im very interested to see what you come up with.
It’s an election year, Ben. Buckle up. đ
DM: If you take the point of that bit of scripture to be anything other than the generalized statement Jesus says at the end — clearly NOT something intended for an audience of one, but a widely applied lesson taken from the specific example — then you are worshiping at a fake Christian church. Probably an “evangelical” one or one that preaches the “prosperity gospel.”
dear geezer, the young man Jesus is talking to in that verse was very religious and followed all the “rules” ;however, he still held onto his wealth ahead of Jesus…money, political power and image were more important to him. It wasn’t only about the money…it was where he put his security, for many it’s money but for others it could be health, job, politics…etc but not Jesus.
“for many itâs money but for others it could be health, job, politicsâŚetc but not Jesus.”
And yet, that’s not at all what Jesus said. Nothing is said in the passage about image or political power. What part of “rich man” was unclear?
Your church is lying to you to make you feel better about what Jesus said, but they are denying him as clearly as Peter did.
More from today’s reading of GOPâs sermon on the mount:
Matthew 5:2-12
If you know anything about the ministry of Jesus, that section pretty much sums it up.
read deeper geezer..if you see the deeper message you can see my point. Just because I disagree with you do you really need to slander my church? My church is saying it’s a lot tougher than just money, it’s giving everything (heart,mind,soul).
The only verse that can be used as a foundation is “all have sinned and fall short”…Romans 3:23-25.
It’s not about the money, it’s about Jesus and who he is in our lives.
Read the gospels and Jesus never found a rich person as a worthy follower. They are so unworthy that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. The church has compromised the clear teachings of Jesus about the perversion that extreme wealth brings to a person simply because the church now often benefits from the riches largesse. It’s simply a question of not biting the hand that feeds you.
Well put Dana. American Christianity is a textbook oxymoron.
All the religions of the world, while they may differ in other respects, unitedly proclaim that nothing lives in this world but Truth.
Mahatma Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mahatma Gandhi
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”-Mahatma Gandhi
Sad, but too often true.
Tidewater – open a dictionary, look up the word schmuck, and you’ll see your likeness looking back at you. And learn how to spell, troll.
Yeah, DM, a lot of churches preach that, because that way we all fall short. Jesus preached nothing of the sort. He didn’t preach that we all fall short — he identified specific sorts of people he blamed for the situation of the world he inhabited. He didn’t say “sinners are the meek.” “Blessed” were the meek, and the poor in spirit, and all the rest. He didn’t condemn them at all. He didn’t say they fell short.
That was Saul of Tarsus. He never met Jesus, and pretty much made up a bunch of stuff he attributed to visions of “the risen Christ” — claims I put in the same file where the claims of Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard reside. Compare the Jesus of the gospels with the Christ of Paul and you’re clearly dealing with two distinct philosophies. I try to follow the former.
Well said, Geezer. Paul deradicalized the message of Jesus by trying to simultaneously making it consonant with Judaism and and Greco/Roman culture. (Augustine tidied up the loose ends.) While Jesus thought about principle and message, Paul thought about numbers of converts. Paul was a bean counter.
MJ, I don’t need more than an 8th grade education to beat your stupid ideas into the ground.
And if I don’t want to get shot, I stop when a law enforcement officer asks me to stop. Why run from the man?
Stupid kid got himself shot.
The guy was NOT a law enforcement officer and was instructed by law enforcement to leave him alone. Middle School genius
im not gonna stop for self appointed Jr deputy dipshit. if a cop… a real cop… not some washout with a hard-on for guns and a fear of black men…. tells me to stop, i’ll make sure he has the right to do so, then cooperate… maybe.
what you’re suggesting is that everyone submit to the fat man with the biggest gun… the NRA dream realized.
Tidewater, thank you for proving that you teabaggers are a bunch of uneducated idiots. My guess is that you don’t even have an 8th grade education. Let me guess, you’re the fat kid who got bullied in 1st grade and now you have a gun and think you’re a big shot. Hate to break this to you, but you’re not.
hey now. most fat kids who got bullied in 1st grade have turned out to be liberals who hate bullies. Tide was likely the guy who bullied the fat kid and now probably works for the bully.
DangerMouse: on 19 March 2012 at 9:15 am: “Ayers continues to visit the WH and Dr. Bell had visited the WH several times as well.”
If you do a little bit of research you discover two things. First Ayers and Wright have not visited the President and two, the visitor list combines the official list of those visiting the President and/or staff and those taking a WH tour. Wright apparently went on a tour and the Ayers is a different Ayers (including a different middle initial. Here is my source material, but there are plenty of sources: //hotair.com/archives/2009/10/30/no-bill-ayers-didnt-visit-the-white-house/
Second. I don’t want you to think I am giving Obama a pass on his record, but will not play fast and loose with the truth. That’s why when someone says something that sounds fishy, I check it out, regardless of who said it. There are a great many people whose worldview is shaped by what the read. The problem is they limit themselves to those things that are comfirmatory of their world view. If you would just open your mind, be a little sckeptical, and do your own research you would discover that many things you read on the sites you do frequent are not exactly as they seem.
Is it any wonder that certain sites spin the facts to suit their need? But what is a wonder, is that many people blindly accept that spin. I suppose that’s why the Nigerian scam is so successful – people are just way too gullible. I encourage you to not be one of those people. I know it’s hard to take the time to find the truth of things, but honestly, the truth will set you free.
Gee MJ I don’t see the same outrage about all the killings in Wilmington and Phily by stupid idiots.
Seems you have selective reporting in a sad and pathetic attempt to start a race war.
Is that what you want? A race war. Would that make your day?
You are just another lilbtard POS
“Gee MJ I donât see the same outrage about all the killings in Wilmington and Phily by stupid idiots.”
What makes you think they’re stupid idiots? Most of them are independent businessmen taking steps to protect their markets. That’s a lot different than a racist asshole — oops, no offense to you, Tidwater, you’re not the racist asshole in question — targeting a kid for being black.
We’re not the ones “starting” a race war. This is just like the “class war” — Republicans only think it’s a war when someone fights back.
But I won’t call you a piece of shit. That would be an insult to shit.
It’s amazing how many visitors to this White House have the same names…Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, Malik Shabazz, Bertha Lewis (ACORN CEO) and Jodie Evans of Code Pink. Guess it’s just coincidence.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2010/01/08/Obama-Funder-Jodie-Evans-In-White-House-Visitor-Log-days-after-Code-Pink-Hamas-Trip
Geezer & Dana: Do you both pick and choose which sections of the Bible work for you and go from there? If you remove Paul from the New Testament it’s really short and missing a lot of important information. Do you believe the whole Easter story?
How I hope Romney runs on the ayers/wright nonsense. The only people who care about that stuff are wing nuts who aren’t going to vote for Obama anyway.
DM: It’s not like I’m skipping around. Yeah, it’s just four gospels. So what? What “important information” is it missing?
It’s essentially the same Bible Thomas Jefferson favored — concentrating on Jesus’ teaching, minus all the hooey about miracles. So I guess that no, I don’t buy “the whole Easter story.” But many of the post-resurrection Jesus sightings didn’t involve anything actually miraculous, so I have tried for years to figure out exactly what’s going on. Makes it easy to re-read.
Paul’s ideas were very different from Jesus’ — not least because Paul decided to preach to gentiles, and told them they didn’t have to become Jews to follow Christ (kind of a big deal considering the, um, entrance requirement for adult men converting to Judaism). Yes, many of the most-quoted Biblical lines come from Paul, but a nice writing style doesn’t really make up for perverting the original message.
The lesson of the Reformation was that we don’t have to accept the teachings of any one set of Biblical interpreters. I base my belief on that which we know and that which can actually occur. I don’t have to believe in magic to think a message of loving your neighbor, especially the least of them, is one worth following.
DM: The Breitbart link is to a 2009 story about a Code Pink person who visited Hamas in Gaza. It’s referred to in the story as a “terrorist” group; it’s actually the elected government in Gaza.
What I find humorous is that you think these people are more destructive to the country than the compost heap of GOP clowns in Congress. I consider Paul Ryan a far greater threat to my future than any terrorist could ever be.
You have to love how how Tidewater shows his true colors and is representative of what the GOP has become. A race war? If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Tidewater was channeling Curley the Fatman.
Comment by DangerMouse on 20 March 2012 at 10:53 pm: “Itâs amazing how many visitors to this White House have the same namesâŚJeremiah Wright, Ayers, Malik Shabazz, Bertha Lewis (ACORN CEO) and Jodie Evans of Code Pink. Guess itâs just coincidence.”
DM, Adding names to the list does not validate your original statement about Wright and Ayers and your assertion that they were “pivotal” in Obama’s world view. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but it does not make it real just because you think it.
What is telling, is that when faced with information that refutes your assertion, you launch into a search for additional validation. At a minimum what should have happened is that you would begin to question the sources of information that you used in the first the place. Is your opinion so cemented that it allows you to ignore questionable and incorrect information when it validates your opinion? See that’s the troubling part. Truth is truth. It’s non-partisan. Truth doesn’t take sides. But non-truths do take sides because they are created with that very purpose. Do yourself a favor, don’t change your opinion, but start validating your facts. When one of favorite sites says something, check it out elsewhere. Make sure it’s real.
Dave, teabaggers refuse to do research. They just parrot the talking points given to them by FAUX News and Rushbo. To hell with facts.
I don’t think Danger Mouse is a teabagger. He’s not being nasty. Rinsing out a brainwashing is a delicate process, MJ. Go a little easy on him.
If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck……….
yeah, just like how not all arabs are terrorists, but all terrorists are arabs.
That’s my point. It doesn’t.
You might want to remind him, MJ, of how many times Jeff Gannon, or whatever that gay pin-up boy from the right-wing “news” service’s fake name was, visited the White House. It was in the dozens.
“Most of them are independent businessmen taking steps to protect their markets.”
LOL!!!!
Yeah, sometimes the truth is inconvenient but it doesn’t make it any less true. The scientific method has validity even when applied to politics. I hope DM will be interested enough in the truth to do a little research, not just for information that agrees with his opinions, but to determine whether his opinions can withstand scrutiny.
I think that’s my biggest gripe with the fringe right is their proclivity for using facts that validate their opinion and when they can’t find any, they create the “facts.” It is this lack of concern for the truth that is troubling.
Glad you got the joke, QP.