More Lies: "Biden on Romney: ‘They’re going to put y’all back in chains’..." What do you think?
XENON23
2012/08/14 20:04:28
Read More: http://freebeacon.com/biden-on-romney-theyre-going...
Read More: http://freebeacon.com/biden-on-romney-theyre-going...
"They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the—he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules–unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing…"
I have no doubt that the Right Wing Media will play games with this, pretend that the comment was meant literally, and even claim it was some sort of racist comment. If the conservatives (present company excepted, of course) would just ONCE actually listen to what people have to say rather than simply taking any comment on any subject and trying to twist it into some sort of "outrage" I think they might actually learn something
I heard him make the comment. He was talking to a basically black audience. And he complained that Romney and Ryan will unchain Wall Street. The he says ‘They’re going to put y’all back in chains’ The author didn't make an error, he said "ya'll".
If I were black, I would be insulted by his racist pandering.
When Obama said "You didn't do that!", the outrage had nothing at all to do with race. It was all about the insult to American entrepreneurship and business.
When democrat leaders recently attempted to abridge the first amendment rights of Dan Cathy, the outrage again had nothing to do with race.
Democrats do and say anti-American things everyday that nothing to do with race and we call 'em as we see 'em.
Now, the democrats also pull a lot of anti-black stunts as well. And when they do, they are called out on that as well. And with GENUINE indigence, nothing feigned about it.
No one tried to abridge Dan Cathy's first amendment rights. In fact, the whole incident was merely another demonstration of how clueless the Right Wing (present company excepted, of course) are about the First Amendment. Dan Cathy expressed a homophobic viewpoint. That's his right under the First Amendment. Other people reacted to his statement by making statements of their own, statements like "I won't eat at his restaurant because of his statements". That's THEIR right under the First Amendment too. The Right Wing Media seem to think that the First Amendment means that whenever anyone says anything, no matter how many people it offends, no one is allowed to disagree with it or express criticism of it. NO ONE has claimed that Dan Cathy didn't have the right to say what he said. The Right Wing is claiming that no one has a right to re...
No one tried to abridge Dan Cathy's first amendment rights. In fact, the whole incident was merely another demonstration of how clueless the Right Wing (present company excepted, of course) are about the First Amendment. Dan Cathy expressed a homophobic viewpoint. That's his right under the First Amendment. Other people reacted to his statement by making statements of their own, statements like "I won't eat at his restaurant because of his statements". That's THEIR right under the First Amendment too. The Right Wing Media seem to think that the First Amendment means that whenever anyone says anything, no matter how many people it offends, no one is allowed to disagree with it or express criticism of it. NO ONE has claimed that Dan Cathy didn't have the right to say what he said. The Right Wing is claiming that no one has a right to react to it.
What "anti-black stunts" has any democrat pulled in the last 40 years?
[PS - not a dig, but I think you mean "indignance" in your last sentence. Indigence refers to being poor. Indignance refers to feeling insulted or offended. ]
So, how do you tap dance around Rahm's threat to refuse a building permit to Chick Fil A? Cathy's remarks were never homophobic, not even if you stretch. Religious; yes.
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
As for Emanuel, I actually AGREE with you that it's inappropriate for him to suggest denying them a build...
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
As for Emanuel, I actually AGREE with you that it's inappropriate for him to suggest denying them a building permit. If he said "they're coming here but I wouldn't ever buy their food" that's a legitimate first amendment protected statement. But using government power to enforce his views is not appropriate. Cathy's "philosophy" clearly is homophobic, but as I said before, he has every right to be a homophobe if he wants to be.