Of course, Barack Hussein Obama could rape Ann Romney on national tv and 99% of the people here would not only be cool with it, they blame Romney saying that the rich, white b**** asked for it.
Don't know about 99% of the people on this board would be cool with that, but we do know republicans would be cool with it. Signed, Todd Akin
Ben Domenech, via The Transom: This Obama speech from 2007 received a flareup of attention yesterday thanks to a Drudge siren. http://vlt.tc/htz The speech is notable, as with so many other items released this cycle, not for what it says about Obama – that he panders to audiences’ prejudices with regularity – but for what it says about the media which chose to treat him with kid gloves in 2008 and is largely dedicated to his reelection effort today. The standing of media within the populace has continued to sink not just because of the dropoff in quality thanks to the troubled financial realities of the industry, but because their biases on coverage are no longer hidden and can constantly be second-guessed. This is a very new development—this is only the second presidential election where YouTube exists—and it is likely to be a permanent one which simply flips ideology depending on the occupant of the White House. But it is rare indeed to see a political figure for which most of the media will do cartwheels so eagerly and without request.
I know. I can't believe this utterly shocking, earth shattering, very important news story is okay with people. How can they not see that this 2007 speech is the most important political event in the history of our nation?
Sean Hannity, The Daily Caller, and Drudge Report spent hours hyping a racially explosive secret video of President Obama. But the bombshell clip turned out to be a public speech from June 2007 that was covered by the major networks, including FOX News, at the time. more
Aren't you even a little embarrassed about the way you pee'd your pants over this whole episode? Just a little?
I am personally discussed with his dual personality. He is obviously pandering to the blacks of America. It's almost like he enjoys it, planned it. Like he's laughing at everyone else. That video of him using two different handshakes stinks to high heaven for a president. The two different speaking styles says the same. The truth is he's neither black or white. Just a con.
What, exactly, is wrong with that speech? He's pandering to his audience, which every politician does. Yeah, it makes him appear less than genuine. But most of us already knew that.
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
1. the central story about Katrina & the Stafford act is a lie. 2. the story about the LA Riots omits the central fact that most of the 53 people killed were killed because of their skin color...and they weren't black, the LA riots are a tragedy, not because of why they were rioting, but because of the fact of the riots. 3. his shout out to rev wright gives the lie to his later attempts to distance himself from trinity united and its pastor 4. the entire minstrel act is an bald attempt to pander to, and exploit, his audience's sense of racial grievance and white guilt.
