Obama the racist ?

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because historically it virtually always switches after an election like we had (overwhelmingly Democratic up and down the ballot). Geesh, even regular GOP positions went Dem in 2008. So those ought to automatically revert back to GOP. And then there is the typical "get the other party in" that normally happens every midterm.

You do realize that the average number of Senate seat pick-ups in an off year is about 2-3 so if the GOP can pick up 8-10 that's a huge win !!

[joeydb]

When the Democrats lose the House and possibly the Senate, and conservatives say now "Obama and the Democrats can sit in the back.", that will be OK, and will not be considered racist, right? Everyone agreed?

After all, all we did was change the subject of the sentence to "Obama and the Democrats" from "The Republicans", merely selecting the politically opposite group.

And we all know intellectually that whether the statement is discriminitory cannot depend on who said it.

It also cannot be racist when the author of the statement, Mr. Obama, was saying it in reference to an erroneous conclusion: that his party would retain power. When his party is actually out of power, intellectually he must accept that.

I'm sure we won't see any hysterics if someone should dare to utter the paraphrase of his original quote.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by geeker2

You do realize that the average number of Senate seat pick-ups in an off year is about 2-3 so if the GOP can pick up 8-10 that's a huge win !!

Absolutely. They'd control the Senate. That would be huge for the GOP. That's what was predicted last year during August.

But they've already lost that.

Looking at the 12 seats up for grabs this year (that should be "gimme" seats for the GOP this year) - they needed to win 10 of them. They can't do it.

CA has gone to Boxer for sure in the last couple days. And as of today, Joe Miller (Alaska) is suddenly losing by big definitive margins (the "I lied" thing and the handcuffing of the reporter). Murkowski (R) is a write in - but as Miller is falling, the Dem is picking up. That seat is now considered "officially lost" to Joe Miller - the question is Murkowski or Dem on election day.

Those two are the nails in the coffin (which already had several). It doesn't matter any more that Colorado (R-Buck now only up 0.4) and Illinois (R-Kirk up 4) and Nevada (crazy whackjob Angle up 3) are still up for grabs.

FiveThirtyEight predicts the Dems have 52 to 53 Senate seats now.

The GOP lost the Senate at the primaries, when the Tea Party candidates were chosen over more electable moderate GOP - now it's just a matter of how much they lose.

But the GOP will take over the House - but it seems barely. They will have a major immediate challenge after January - they will have to make a decision within three months on voting to enlarge the federal deficit so we can pay our current bills, or having us go broke and default. It will be fun to watch them backtrack.

Keep hope alive!

[Riot]

When the Democrats lose the House and possibly the Senate, and conservatives say now "Obama and the Democrats can sit in the back.", that will be OK, and will not be considered racist, right? Everyone agreed?

It's really sad that people today constantly demonstrate they don't know anything about civil rights history.

^^

Captain Hindsight

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's really sad that people today constantly demonstrate they don't know anything about civil rights history.

How is that a rebuttal of the argument?

The whole point is if someone finds the "sit in the back" phrase objectionable, then don't use it! Then people won't be motivated to return the insult. But the hypocrisy of "I can say the phrase to you but you can't say it to me" is absurd.

As for civil rights history, many Americans are well-versed in it. Here's a part that isn't publicized as much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African..._States_Senate

Which party seated black congressmen and senators first? Not the Democrats. What party was Lincoln from?

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by joeydb

How is that a rebuttal of the argument?

The whole point is if someone finds the "sit in the back" phrase objectionable, then don't use it! Then people won't be motivated to return the insult. But the hypocrisy of "I can say the phrase to you but you can't say it to me" is absurd.

As for civil rights history, many Americans are well-versed in it. Here's a part that isn't publicized as much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African..._States_Senate

Which party seated black congressmen and senators first? Not the Democrats. What party was Lincoln from?

Which party has Black, Latino, and Female candidates? Which party calls the other party's female candidates whores and bitches? Unfortunately the Senate races this time around are in Democratic stronghold States. 8 seats in the Senate would be a huge pick-up. In 2 years the Repubs could pick up a lot more seats. The Repub candidates Riot considers moderate are liberals who would vote with the Dems anyway. That is the whole point of knocking them off in the primaries. That message goes out to the Repubs. The Dems will get their message next Tuesday (hopefully). And yes Obama is a racist. Calling on Latinos to "punish their enemies" is only the latest clue. Not prosecuting the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation was another.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

How is that a rebuttal of the argument?

The whole point is if someone finds the "sit in the back" phrase objectionable, then don't use it! Then people won't be motivated to return the insult. But the hypocrisy of "I can say the phrase to you but you can't say it to me" is absurd.

As for civil rights history, many Americans are well-versed in it. Here's a part that isn't publicized as much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African..._States_Senate

Which party seated black congressmen and senators first? Not the Democrats. What party was Lincoln from?

you're a conservative.