Johnny M said:
Maddow is doing exactly what she claims Fox News and the Right are doing, just from the opposite Point of View. She is misconstruing the entire reasoning for each story to fit her ‘black vs white’ agenda. She and many members of the Left are the one that can only see stories in black and white.

Black Panthers: Organziation that is proud in its racism against whites… case of voter intimidation documented on tape thrown out before it even gets to court.n.

Damn skippy! We’re comin’ to get ‘cha. BOO!!!!

All your word games don’t change these facts. You can continue to spin and contradict yourself — and your view on whether you can make generalizations about parties seems to change all the time — but I am not making generalizations i am simply reporting the real historical facts. And I reported those facts in response to the generalizations tossed around by leftists on this board. So if you want to stop people from making generalizations about political parties, you should get together with the other leftists who post here and implement the policy with them.

“Cobra, you can’t have it both ways. When I am responding to sweeping generalizations about conservatives, I point out that the Republicans were behind woman’s suffrage and antitrust laws.”

AGAIN, you’re equating “Republican” with ‘conservative”, and although you may wish it so, that’s NOT the definition of either. The Southern Democrats who opposed Civil Rights (Dixiecrats) were NOT “Liberals.” They were CONSERVATIVES, and were the bedrock of the GOP when they switched parties after the CRA of 1964 passed.

There are any HOST of “Moderate” Republicans in today’s arena, from Scott Brown to Arnold Scwartzeneggar to Tom Kean to Arlen Spector. Rudy Giuliani is considered a “liberal” Republican based on his social views.

And what point are you really trying to get across? That I would’ve supported Stephen Douglas over Lincoln in 1860 because of Party Affiliation?

Dandee writes:

“My listening to FoxNews, especially Megyn Kelly, has never given me the opinion that she is trying to tell me that we should be afraid of the Black people. She most certainly is NOT a racist. “

How the hell do you know what Megyn Kelly is or isn’t? What–because you see her read a prepared script on television, you know what’s in her mind and heart? I know what I seen on Fox News for YEARS…an ENDLESS LOOP of attacks on minorities, particularly African-Americans. Now, does that attract an audience?
Lynchings certainly did back in the day, right?

There is a difference between covering a story and BECOMING the story.
There is a difference between a 30 second synapsis and repeating the same video 48 times a cycle.
There is a difference between including a story in a news rundown, and making that story the most IMPORTANT STORY ON THE PLANET, despite two wars and an oil disaster in the gulf.

When this has been REPEATEDLY done by Fox News, whether it be Reverend Wright, Duke Lacrosse, ACORN, Van Jones, New Black Panther Party, Shirley Sherrod or the “fist-bump” shared by the Obamas (remember the Fox News–”terrorist fist-jab” incident?) to the objective observer, it ceases being “news” and becomes a digitized D.W. Griffith “Birth of a Nation” remake.

–Cobra

So pick which view you really believe. Either you make generalizations about party or you don’t. But don’t switch every hour based on what ideological point you want to make on any given day. Meanwhile my points stand: The Republicans were behind woman’s suffrage before the Democrats. The Republicans were in favor of equal rights for African-American before the Democrats. The Republicans supported antitrust legislation before the Democrats. Those aren’t opinions, just the facts.

“When the Left decides that it will build its media agenda around charges of racism, it undermines its own credibility as a source of plausible policy options. But when these smears go to the point of trying to rewrite history, and distort who supported giving women the right to vote, who advocated antitrust laws, who tried to prevent passage of early Civil Rights legislation, etc., you will see me call folks on these distortions.”

You aren’t following this closely enough and your analysis is suffering.

Sure there were Republicans who ONCE supported suffrage. There were also Republicans who were against it, and are against equal pay for equal work TODAY.

Sure there were Republicans who ONCE advocated antitrust laws. There were also Republicans who were against it, and are deregulation hawks totally in the tank for multinational corporations TODAY.

Sure there were Republicans who JOINED with Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Fair Housing Act of 1966. There were also Republicans, like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Barry Goldwater who were AGAINST the CRA, and there are folks like Tom Tancredo who want to bring back literacy tests TODAY.

It’s not that simple to just pigeon-hole folks based upon PARTY alone.

—Cobra

When the Left decides that it will build its media agenda around charges of racism, it undermines its own credibility as a source of plausible policy options. But when these smears go to the point of trying to rewrite history, and distort who supported giving women the right to vote, who advocated antitrust laws, who tried to prevent passage of early Civil Rights legislation, etc., you will see me call folks on these distortions.

So I am not going to sit by and let you play a game in which the Left gets to decide which parts of the Republican party’s history are really Republican. The Republicans were advocates of woman’s suffrage before the Democrats. The Republicans were advocates of granting equal rights to African-Americans before the Democrats. The Republicans were behind antitrust laws before the Democrats. If you don’t like those historical facts, there is nothing I can do about it.

“Cobra, I think I understand your position. Republicans are bad. Except when they are good. And then they really must be considered as Democrats. On the other hand Democrats are good. Except when they are bad. And they need to be considered as Republicans.

I will try to remember that.”

felixw,

With all due respect… I want to be genuine with you. This isn’t just about PARTY. Not EVERY Republican that ever lived has been “conservative” (by your definition) and not EVERY Democrat is a “liberal” (by your definition). Most politicians in EITHER party fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, and support policies or platforms. That’s why Clinton can sign Welfare Reform, Nixon can sign Affirmative Action, Reagan can sign Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and Obama can surge troops in Afghanistan.

gordonbloyershow writes:

“What color were the slaves in Rome? “

Many colors. They had an EMPIRE, remember?

“What color were the Jewish slaves in Egypt? “

Debatable. They were probably the same color as folks who were indigenous to the region, which means they probably looked more like Cheech Marin than Chuck Heston.

“Did you know there were BLACK slave owners in New Orleans before the Civil War?”

And??? There were Blacks who fought for the Confederacy. There were Blacks who helped track down fugitive slaves. There are Blacks who work for Fox News Today.

I have contempt for all of them, too.

–Cobra

Ninety percent of the people on Earth are decendant from slaves. What color were the slaves in Rome? What color were the Jewish slaves in Egypt? What color were the serfs in the British Empire? What color are the slaves in China?

Did you know there were BLACK slave owners in New Orleans before the Civil War?
Do liberals know anything?

I will try to remember that.

I will even say, that even though I disagree with Sarainitaly on most things, I think she’s brought thought into this and has been respectful herself. Kudos to you all.

sarainitaly said:
well, I found one….

Peace Out
Bush’s Iraq surge drew howls of fury from the left. Now that Obama wants the same for Afghanistan, where’s the peace movement?

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/16/peace-out.html

What about this:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121290&sectionid=3510203

Heck, even FNC,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/30/anti-war-left-protests-obamas-afghanistan-war-strategy/

Also,

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57689.shtml

Then, there’s the rest of the article that tries to explain the reason (easy to ignore, it was towards the bottom, though again, I’ve seen protests, and they are in Washington. They may not be all left though, and therefore, yes, you have a solid argument there in that the protesters may not be the left. But then again, are the right protesting?)

1. The first is the most obvious: The partisan factor. Liberals certainly don’t like seeing more Americans march off to battle. But when it comes to Obama, the old saying seems to prevail on the left: “He may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.” Antiwar demonstrators were eager to shame and embarrass Bush, but many liberals would rather apply behind-the-scenes pressure on Obama. With the president fighting to pass health-care reform, stop global warming, and reform the financial system, few on the left want to make inadvertent common cause with the likes of Glenn Beck in eroding the president’s political capital.
2. Then there’s what you might call the “good war” dilemma. During the 2008 campaign Democrats argued in near unison that Afghanistan was a worthy conflict, in contrast to an illegitimate and immoral fight in Iraq. Whereas the left saw Iraq as the product of Bush’s sinister deceptions, the Afghanistan campaign has long enjoyed broad legitimacy thanks to that country’s direct link to the September 11 attacks. When Bush cited 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify fighting on in Iraq, the left simply got more angry. This time, the argument actually works. One case in point: liberals who opposed the Iraq War were emboldened by the support they drew from military veterans who hated the war. Today, the liberal veterans group VoteVets.org is quiet on Afghanistan, saying it acknowledges the strategic importance of defeating the Taliban.
3. To a distant American viewer, Afghanistan simply doesn’t inspire the visceral horror of Iraq in its most violent days. Western viewers have largely been spared ghoulish videos of beheadings and charred bodies. Spectacular car bombings, which make for gripping television footage, are far less common in Kabul than they were in Baghdad, and there are fewer reporters there to cover them. In the Taliban, America is fighting a relatively defined enemy, and we don’t feel caught in the middle of an uncontrollable civil war as we did in Iraq. Moreover, civilian deaths in Afghanistan, while troublingly high—they reached a peak of 261 in May—are dramatically lower than they were in Iraq in 2006, when there were 3,159 in July alone. And while U.S. casualties have risen to tragic new levels (77 dead in August), that figure peaked at 131 in Iraq in May 2007.
4. Finally, there’s the fact that, to those who listened carefully, Obama did, after all, warn Americans that a hard road lay ahead in Afghanistan—and that he was determined to follow it. Some people may not have absorbed the implication of Obama’s view that Afghanistan is “the central front in the war on terror,” or his vow that he would quickly send more troops to the country. But it was clear where Obama stood then, and thus difficult for liberals to scream betrayal now.

Permatiltx said:
Also, check out that Newsweek article which brings up a lot of info on anti war protesters. Just have to look is all.

well, I found one….

Peace Out
Bush’s Iraq surge drew howls of fury from the left. Now that Obama wants the same for Afghanistan, where’s the peace movement?

Notably absent are the sort of theatrical protesters who routinely disrupted Bush-era congressional hearings on Iraq. (At one 2007 hearing, a member of the infamous antiwar outfit Codepink lunged at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with fake-blood-covered hands.) By comparison, when it comes to Afghanistan, the antiwar left has been remarkably docile. There are no mass demonstrations in the streets, no vigils outside the White House, no shrieking activists haranguing startled members of Congress in Capitol Hill hallways.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/16/peace-out.html

sarainitaly said:
The point was, however, to show the side by side footage that was indeed edited by msnbc, to crop out the black guys head.

Yes. They cropped out the head, much like they do fat people and children. Tommy’s screencap of the CNN video shows the whole fellow and he appears in a CNN photo that I linked from my response to writer. I can’t actually recall right now, which network I used for the live coverage, but there were lots of people trying to get a mic in his face for a comment, so he was all over the television that day.

PS) If you go back to the links that I offered writer, the MSNBC video of the guy standing in the New Hampshire churchyard also spent a lot of time lingering over the gun and showing his sign. There are a few shots of his face and he’s fullscreen for his interview with Chris Matthews, but most of the live shot was of his gun.

Magister said:
but because there’s no loyalty oath, I don’t know that all the “chapters” agree with the same things I do and I know that I don’t agree with every little group.

which is why i never joined, either. i totally support their efforts, and the fact that they are getting involved, and that they are trying to *throw the bums out” but I am not hitching my wagon to any group, ever again.

MichelleF said:
Where are all the anti-war protesters now, Cobra?

Sara, that my friend is an excellant point!

Actually quite active. Rachel Maddow (you know, the liberal shill for Obama) is opposed to the war and has done commentaries on speaking out against it. Also, check out that Newsweek article which brings up a lot of info on anti war protesters. Just have to look is all.

Cobra said:
Then you would agree that the Tea Party movement is selective in its outrage and overwhelmingly motivated as an anti-Obama manifestation?

nope. didn’t say that either and I didn’t say they were most pronounced during Bush. It took years of debt and spending and dropping poll numbers on the Iraq war and bailouts to get some people to finally rise up.

notsofast said:
Yes, barry used it quite well during the campaign when he warned that they will tell ya I don’t look like the other guy son the dollar bill, he’s got a funny name, etc.

Pure RC play by Barry.

Wait, he’s saying that he was saying what they’ll come after him with (and they did do the name thing) but did he say this in a speech. I know you hate supplying links but I’m curious if he said this in private or out in the open. And did John McCain said “Well, there gonna come after me about my age.” (He might not have said it but he could of, seems possible) would that mean he played the age card. Just confused is all.

IOW: I don’t hate or dismiss the Tea Party. I don’t agree with some of that which some members believe, but because there’s no loyalty oath, I don’t know that all the “chapters” agree with the same things I do and I know that I don’t agree with every little group. (If the Tea Party had taken my advice and sought out some Perot vets, they might have remained a force, but because they’re completely disorganized and have been falling apart lately, their importance have become less)

And though we could go off on a whole discussion about Tea Party politics and the topics raised in your comment, I really don’t feel like doing it at this time. I hope you understand and if you’re interested, you can do a site search via Google to find some of my previous words, but I didn’t mean to imply that I necessarily agreed with whatever conclusion Contessa, Dylan and unknown fellow reached. I was just defending the mistake.

yweston said:
Because I work and have for 46 years this September.

If you have been working for “46″ years , and if I generously stipulate that you began working at 14, wouldn’t you look more like Shirley Sherrod, than your avatar ?

The point was, however, to show the side by side footage that was indeed edited by msnbc, to crop out the black guys head.

Sara, that my friend is an excellant point!

My statement to you:

“Then, by YOUR argument, the Tea Party should’ve been most pronounced all through the Bush Administration, when a budget SURPLUS was turned into a DEFICIT, and TRILLIONS of dollars were borrowed to fight two wars and Medicare Subscription Drug package.”

Your response was to offer up Ron Paul and his cult following in 2007. Your response was lacking.

sarainitaly writes:

“where did i say they were?”

Then you would agree that the Tea Party movement is selective in its outrage and overwhelmingly motivated as an anti-Obama manifestation?

felixw writes:

“Cobra, you don’t think that Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative President? Or do you simply twist words around to mean what you want them to mean on any given day.”

YOU, felixw, and your fellow right wingers would ATTACK Teddy Roosevelt if he was around today because he favored National Healthcare, National Parks (enivornmentalist) and the breaking up of trusts, monopolies and corporate overreach.
More than likely, he would be labeled a “RINO”.

I still haven’t seen any of my conservative friends respond to the FACTS about the BUSH DOJ in regards to:

““From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.”

…when they’re screaming bloody murder about a black guy in a funny hat with a stick in front of an urban voting poll.

–Cobra

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Like when Jon stewart caught Sean Hannity editing footage together of Glenn beck’s rally and a much smaller tea party rally? It goes both ways, my friend. No excuse for that sloppy work either.

That quote was from Tommy, btw.

Yes, it goes both ways. When the HELLO will you people admit IT!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8HeJuBcI3Y

All we hear from the left is faux fox, faux fox, fox lies, fox lies. Look in the mirror MSNBC!

sarainitaly said:
Cobra said:
The Tea Party was NOT “most pronounced” in 2007.
Fox News was NOT constantly airing, promoting and advocating Tea Party rallies in 2007.

Where are all the anti-war protesters now, Cobra?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harmon-leon/saturdays-obamas-anti-war_b_505432.html