NAACP demands DOJ, Secret Service investigate rodeo clown/Obama incident

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it also bad taste when a Bush 41 mask was used at a rodeo event and a bull ran over the dummy wearing the mask?

Should the NAACP have asked that this matter be investigated for inciting violence?

Was it also bad taste when Barak Obama was on SNL wearing a Barak Obama mask?

Does the NAACP have so little to do that they actually care about this?

Let's concede that all of those other incidents were national tragedies for which we should have annual moments of silence. Would that make Obama rodeo clown okay?

You inverted the logic there, Jeff. The takeaway from that is that the Obama Rodeo Clown is a non-issue. Just like it was a non-issue when a Bush 41 mask was used by some rodeo clowns. People make fun of Presidents all the time. For the NAACP to make a big deal of this makes them seem like morons. I'd rather see them do something good for some inner city crap hole than make noise about this stupid issue.

We don't live in a place where they stab you to death if you make an obnoxious cartoon of the President or the prophet Mohammed. That is a good thing, no?

If I inverted logic, then we come from a long line of illogical parents and teachers who taught us that two wrongs don't make a right.

You guys always act like terrible offenses were perpetrated against Bush without a word being uttered. In truth, thanks to the right-wing echo chamber, nobody could even look at Bush the wrong way without it becoming a national issue. Cases in point:

Moveon.org organized a contest in which anyone could enter a proposed advertisement. One contestant submitted an entry comparing Bush to Hitler. This ad was quickly removed from the Moveon.org website. Fox News went ballistic and several members of Congress condemned the video. Eric Canter called it "hate-mongering" (sound familiar?). Eventually, both chambers of Congress would pass resolutions condemning Moveon with Hillary Clinton voting in favor.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think the rodeo clown was an incident of inciting violence. But, if you have seen the video of what happen and do not feel that it was beyond the pale, then I don't agree with you either. The clown incident was not simply obnoxious. Have you seen the video? The announcer is really more to blame than the clown. He was getting the crowd wound up at the thought of the president being trampled by a bull ("he's go'in to git you, git you"). There is no way such an incident could have occurred with Bush as the target without all kinds of hell being raised by the right wing.

So, first, even if anti-Bush acts were ignored, that wouldn't make this incident right. But, second, those incidents were not ignored. Third, acting like this incident is comparable to every day joking about a public figure is ignoring reality.

[Anonymous]

i am still waiting for a plausible excuse for the fact that the clown had a broom up his back. please, someone explain how this is not an ugly reference to an ugly past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i am still waiting for a plausible excuse for the fact that the clown had a broom up his back. please, someone explain how this is not an ugly reference to an ugly past.

Ok I give. What do you think the broom is supposed the represent? Have you seen the entire video or just pictures?

[Anonymous]

On Monday morning, only NBC's Today deemed President Obama being mocked during a rodeo at the Missouri State Fair to be national news, going so far as to wonder if it was "Rodeo Racism" and playing a sound bite of one spectator declaring the incident to be "Like an effigy at a Klan rally." Neither ABC's Good Morning America nor CBS This Morning mentioned the local controversy. [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2013/08/12/nbc-hypes-state-fair-mocking-obama-klan-rally-not-news-cbs-and-abc#ixzz2cBavFpSO

Republicans love "klan rallies", freedom of speech and all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

On Monday morning, only NBC's Today deemed President Obama being mocked during a rodeo at the Missouri State Fair to be national news, going so far as to wonder if it was "Rodeo Racism" and playing a sound bite of one spectator declaring the incident to be "Like an effigy at a Klan rally." Neither ABC's Good Morning America nor CBS This Morning mentioned the local controversy. [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2013/08/12/nbc-hypes-state-fair-mocking-obama-klan-rally-not-news-cbs-and-abc#ixzz2cBavFpSO

Republicans love "klan rallies", freedom of speech and all that.

Apparently, Byrd did most of all and he was a democrat.

Might I suggest you brush up on history?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On Monday morning, only NBC's Today deemed President Obama being mocked during a rodeo at the Missouri State Fair to be national news, going so far as to wonder if it was "Rodeo Racism" and playing a sound bite of one spectator declaring the incident to be "Like an effigy at a Klan rally." Neither ABC's Good Morning America nor CBS This Morning mentioned the local controversy. [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2013/08/12/nbc-hypes-state-fair-mocking-obama-klan-rally-not-news-cbs-and-abc#ixzz2cBavFpSO

Republicans love "klan rallies", freedom of speech and all that.

Apparently, Byrd did most of all and he was a democrat.

Might I suggest you brush up on history?

Oh one deceased racist democrat disproves everything!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
On Monday morning, only NBC's Today deemed President Obama being mocked during a rodeo at the Missouri State Fair to be national news, going so far as to wonder if it was "Rodeo Racism" and playing a sound bite of one spectator declaring the incident to be "Like an effigy at a Klan rally." Neither ABC's Good Morning America nor CBS This Morning mentioned the local controversy. [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2013/08/...news-cbs-and-abc#ixzz2cBavFpSO

Republicans love "klan rallies", freedom of speech and all that.


Apparently, Byrd did most of all and he was a democrat.

Might I suggest you brush up on history?

Yes Byrd changed, the racist who did not joined the Republican Party. Know your history indeed. The sad thing is, the current Republican Party totally embraces racism and racists. If you say you are a conservative/republican, people think you are a racist. Also, if you are a racist, the conservative/republican party openly welcomes you.

[Anonymous]

The sad thing is, the current Republican Party totally embraces racism and racists. If you say you are a conservative/republican, people think you are a racist. Also, if you are a racist, the conservative/republican party openly welcomes you.
[Report Post]

Hi Harry. Could you give us your source?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

The sad thing is, the current Republican Party totally embraces racism and racists. If you say you are a conservative/republican, people think you are a racist. Also, if you are a racist, the conservative/republican party openly welcomes you.
[Report Post]

Hi Harry. Could you give us your source?

Seriously? It is amazing how many people are not familiar with what is fairly recent history.

Okay, folks, for the "Democrats were members of the KKK and are the real racists" crowd, here is a brief outline of the facts (off the top of my head, so forgive any errors).

After the Civil War, northern carpetbaggers who were largely Republican (remember who was the ruling part of the time) went to the South and achieved political authority. In reaction to this, southern whites largely became Democrats. Many, if not most of those whites were racist and proceeded to make life difficult -- particularly where voting was concerned -- for southern blacks.

Post World War II, there were a number of efforts to end racial discrimination such as desegregating the military and ending poll taxes. These efforts were primarily led by Democrats and supported by moderate Republicans. In reaction, white southern Democrats began leaving the Party. The best example of this was Strom Thurmond, who established the Dixiecrat Party and ran for President.

As the civil rights movement grew, both parties were split between supporters and opponents of the movement. White southern Democrats either evolved in their views to become either supportive or at least tolerant of the civil rights movement, or left the Party. For example, Robert Byrd joined in a filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but voted in favor of the the Civli Rights Act of 1968. In contrast, the aforementioned Strom Thurmond conducted the longest filibuster in history in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and then left the Democratic Party after passage of the 1964 act to become a Republican.

Prior to the civil rights movement, the Democratic Party had become so pervasive among white southerners and after 1964 the migration of white southerners to the Republican Party so common, it is hard to find any southern Republican from the late 60s until recently who hadn't been a Democrat previously. In addition to Thurmond, Jesse Helms had once been a Democrat. Even the sainted Ronald Reagan had originally been a Democrat. These guys like to say that they didn't change, the Democratic Party changed. What they don't say is that what changed was the Party's position on civil rights.

Republicans attempted to capitalize on the disaffection with the Democratic Party's stance on civil rights among white southerners. Nixon pursued the "southern strategy" which has now become the foundation of Republican politics. As much as some Republicans would like to wish otherwise, there is no separating race from this strategy. You see today in southern efforts to gerrymander minorities, implement hurdles to voting, and take other steps to mitigate minority political power.

The result of the above is that today, Republicans trying to burnish their "anti-racist" credentials have to point to dead white men such as Abraham Lincoln and Robert Byrd. Democrats need only point to Rand Paul who quite recently said that he would have voted against the civil right act or a host of southern governors who are currently signing bills aimed at reducing voting among minorities.

[Anonymous]

JSteele,

The comment said the "current" Republican party is racist.

[Anonymous]

The sad thing is, the current Republican Party totally embraces racism and racists. If you say you are a conservative/republican, people think you are a racist. Also, if you are a racist, the conservative/republican party openly welcomes you.
[Report Post]

Just curious. Which party does the only African American US Senator belong to?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

The sad thing is, the current Republican Party totally embraces racism and racists. If you say you are a conservative/republican, people think you are a racist. Also, if you are a racist, the conservative/republican party openly welcomes you.
[Report Post]

Just curious. Which party does the only African American US Senator belong to?

He has been the "only" for just a couple of weeks. But the current African American Senator was not elected and is the first Black Republican Senator since the Civil Rights movement caused the transition in white southern party identification I discussed above. I commend Governor Haley for appointing Scott, but let's hope it was simply not an effort in tokenism to give cover to the Party's racists. It will be interesting to see how he does at the polls.

[Anonymous]

I think Tim Scott was elected to the House from a district that was primarily white. Your history lesson was correct, but times have changed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The sad thing is, the current Republican Party totally embraces racism and racists. If you say you are a conservative/republican, people think you are a racist. Also, if you are a racist, the conservative/republican party openly welcomes you.
[Report Post]

Hi Harry. Could you give us your source?

Seriously? It is amazing how many people are not familiar with what is fairly recent history.

Okay, folks, for the "Democrats were members of the KKK and are the real racists" crowd, here is a brief outline of the facts (off the top of my head, so forgive any errors).

After the Civil War, northern carpetbaggers who were largely Republican (remember who was the ruling part of the time) went to the South and achieved political authority. In reaction to this, southern whites largely became Democrats. Many, if not most of those whites were racist and proceeded to make life difficult -- particularly where voting was concerned -- for southern blacks.

Post World War II, there were a number of efforts to end racial discrimination such as desegregating the military and ending poll taxes. These efforts were primarily led by Democrats and supported by moderate Republicans. In reaction, white southern Democrats began leaving the Party. The best example of this was Strom Thurmond, who established the Dixiecrat Party and ran for President.

As the civil rights movement grew, both parties were split between supporters and opponents of the movement. White southern Democrats either evolved in their views to become either supportive or at least tolerant of the civil rights movement, or left the Party. For example, Robert Byrd joined in a filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but voted in favor of the the Civli Rights Act of 1968. In contrast, the aforementioned Strom Thurmond conducted the longest filibuster in history in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and then left the Democratic Party after passage of the 1964 act to become a Republican.

Prior to the civil rights movement, the Democratic Party had become so pervasive among white southerners and after 1964 the migration of white southerners to the Republican Party so common, it is hard to find any southern Republican from the late 60s until recently who hadn't been a Democrat previously. In addition to Thurmond, Jesse Helms had once been a Democrat. Even the sainted Ronald Reagan had originally been a Democrat. These guys like to say that they didn't change, the Democratic Party changed. What they don't say is that what changed was the Party's position on civil rights.

Republicans attempted to capitalize on the disaffection with the Democratic Party's stance on civil rights among white southerners. Nixon pursued the "southern strategy" which has now become the foundation of Republican politics. As much as some Republicans would like to wish otherwise, there is no separating race from this strategy. You see today in southern efforts to gerrymander minorities, implement hurdles to voting, and take other steps to mitigate minority political power.

The result of the above is that today, Republicans trying to burnish their "anti-racist" credentials have to point to dead white men such as Abraham Lincoln and Robert Byrd. Democrats need only point to Rand Paul who quite recently said that he would have voted against the civil right act or a host of southern governors who are currently signing bills aimed at reducing voting among minorities.

Enjoy:

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2005/02/history_of_the_.html

"Many, perhaps even most, ordinary Democrats and Republicans have no idea of the relative histories of their parties. They know only what has been fed to them by a media intent on showing Democrats in only the best light, and by a school system even more biased.

Democrats believe that their party has always been the "party of civil rights"; that theirs was the side that fought against slavery, and for equal rights, citizenship, and the right of blacks to vote, even women's suffrage. In fact, they have been on the wrong side of every single one of these civil rights issues, and more--much more."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Enjoy:

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2005/02/history_of_the_.html

"Many, perhaps even most, ordinary Democrats and Republicans have no idea of the relative histories of their parties. They know only what has been fed to them by a media intent on showing Democrats in only the best light, and by a school system even more biased.

Democrats believe that their party has always been the "party of civil rights"; that theirs was the side that fought against slavery, and for equal rights, citizenship, and the right of blacks to vote, even women's suffrage. In fact, they have been on the wrong side of every single one of these civil rights issues, and more--much more."

That article simply confirms everything I wrote. Republicans who want to stress their party's commitment to civil rights can write a great history. They just have to stop that history in 1968. I love this sentence: "Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster.". They simply leave out that Strom Thurmone, one of the main Democrats who led that filibuster, became a Republican. They also leave out the fact that a Republican, John Tower, joined in the filibuster. Finally, they leave out that the majority of Democratic Senators voted in favor of the Act. The Civil Rights Act was Democratic legislation. Because it caused southern Democrats to defect, they needed help from the Republicans to defeat the filibuster. At that point, white southern Democrats abandoned the party in great numbers and have been Republicans ever since.