Don't ya know, those signs are all by liberal plants. Besides, there are a lot of educated bigots around, and education and class don't necessarily go together.
You're absolutely right, JC. And education and smarts don't necessarily go together either. There are lot's of PhDs walking around who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.
Education and INTELLIGENCE don't necessarily go together, you know. Let us remember that our previous President held sheepskins from Harvard AND Yale.My dad called them "educated fools." I call them the scum of the Earth.
Such wits: A combination of John Kennedy and Adlai Stevenson. One sign is correct, though: Article VIII of the Constitution states explicitly the requirement to cut taxes and spending now.
There's not necessarily a contradiction. It's possible for a movement to contain a fairly high proportion of educated people and also contain enough ignoramuses to account for all the stupid signs, misspellings, etc.While making fun of them is enjoyable and a legitimate tactic, it's important not to commit the error of believing one's opponets are dumber than they really are. That can be dangerous.
And we certainly don't want to sound elitist! Rather than "smart" maybe we should say "crafty?" ; )
The sign calling Mr. Obama a "spoiled brat" is especially rich.Mr. Obama was raised by a single mother, and his maternal grandparents. He went to good schools on scholarships. And attained everything he has through the dint of his own hard work and intelligence.OTOH, let's talk about George W. Bush--a legacy student at Yale. He couldn't get into UT at Austin's law school, but somehow managed to get into Harvard's MBA program. He failed at all his business endeavors, and his father's cronies bailed him out of all his failures.But Mr. Obama is a "spoiled brat."There's a lot of that meme going around the 'nets.There's one in particular that has two consecutive blogposts: one on Eric Holder--where the blogger calls him an "arrogant bastard" and the newest post on President Obama where the blogger labels him "arrogant."Arrogant = uppity, (if you know what I mean.)All those intelligent, educated, successful, and powerful men of a certain skin color are annoying the hell out of the rabid right bloggers/tea baggers.
Maybe that last sign maker should have gone the Ted Kennedy route and just called Obama "Osama Bin Laden"Shaw said: "The sign calling Mr. Obama a "spoiled brat" is especially rich."That is pretty bad. I agree with your point on that, even with the comparison with George W. Bush in general. Then Shaw says: "and the newest post on President Obama where the blogger labels him "arrogant."I'd find it hard to really object a lot to anyone who calls ANY President "arrogant". No one gets to that office by being humble! "Arrogant = uppity, (if you know what I mean."No one with any idea of what words mean would equate the two. However, to short circuit your attempt to fabricate racism where none exists, I will point out the fact that a Google search on arrogant george W bush compared to one on arrogant Barack Obama only produces slightly fewer hits for Bush, and that is because Bush is old news and old web pages fade. By your logic, they are all racists for saying Bush was arrogant.I scanned all of the signs at a tea party rally a couple of weeks ago. None of them got personal on Obama, or called him a Muslim. The worst was a sign calling for tar and feathering (in general, not of anyone or even any group). That was by far the worst, really. There were more signs about Bart Stupak, a white politician, than there were about Barack Obama. More proof that the tea party movement is racist against white people, I suppose.Anything's possible in the world of imagination where racism-free dissent is seen as racism. A world where logic, meaning, and intent don't work at all.
Oh, ugh, frankly, if that's the bunch that wants their "power" known, then we all might as well bag it and call it a day. We can light the campfires with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, because if teabaggers ever get control of this country, this place will look like a third world shithole in about a year.
Arrogant is just a euphemism for uppity when applied to people of a certain color. And they're both euphemisms for Nigger. Translated, that means racist.
Leslie,You're absolutely right there,sad to say.
dmarks wrote:"By your logic, they are all racists for saying Bush was arrogant."That's your logic. Let me see if I can explain: Contextually, there's a big difference between an angry white carrying a sign calling a black president "arrogant" and anyone calling a white president "arrogant." Are things a little clearer now? If not, I suggest you begin reading up on the last 400+ years of American history, especially Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights movement. I'd be happy to recommend some titles. A word of warning, though: These will be serious, heavily researched histories that took years to write. They won't be quickie polemics dashed off by usual gang of idiots."I scanned all of the signs at a tea party rally a couple of weeks ago. None of them got personal on Obama, or called him a Muslim."Typical 'bagger logic: "Scan" a single rally and extrapolate what you didn't see -- or missed -- to a general conclusion that defies what everyone else has seen in across-the-board news coverage. I can go out on YouTube right now and find any number of examples of what you didn't see. You know it and I know it, so what's the point of arguing otherwise? As Groucho Marx said, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?"
I scanned all of the signs at a tea party rally a couple of weeks ago. None of them got personal on Obama, or called him a Muslim.Why is it I always hear this from Klanbagger apologists, and yet, can refute it personally?I've stood in the periphery of 3 Klanbagger rallies, and I promise you, the racist and misspelled signs were the dominant feature. Did I just happen to go to the wrong 3 rallies, or what?
Jolly said: " Did I just happen to go to the wrong 3 rallies, or what?"Probably. You might have been at Klan rallies, hence your mention of the Klan. It's not my fault you had no idea what you were doing or where you were.-----------K said: "Typical 'bagger logic: "Scan" a single rally and extrapolate what you didn't see -- or missed"I didn't miss anything. You are lying, pure and simple. But that is par for the course who for those who attempt to claim that mere dissent is racist."They won't be quickie polemics dashed off by usual gang of idiots."You mean like the idiots who claim that after many years of people commonly calling white presidents "arrogant", it is somehow racist when a Black president is treated just like the white ones and called "arrogant" too? This word has nothing to do with the 400 years of slavery/etc. If there's any racism here, it is among those like you who are making this claim. Those who play the race card.
dmarks,you're being obtuse.Let me give you a test.If someone were to place a noose on the doorstep of an African-American's home, would it be as loaded with meaning and history if the same thing were left on a white American's porch?If you think the answer is yes, then may I refer you to the fact that thousands of African-Americans' were lynched with impugnity for decades by their fellow white Americans. Some white Americans were, too--but usually it was white Americans who defended A.A.s- and they were called N****r lovers.As for the "arrogant" label put on any African-American who is outspoken, successful and hold opinions different from others, someone put it this way: "The history of prejudice in this country has used “arrogant black man,” really “Uppity Niggah” as a means of describing black men who did not know their place at the bottom of the pecking order and as a justification for harshly punishing them. Similar situation to someone calling me a Jew “Christ Killer.” That this is not understood is astounding."(I found this somewhere on the 'net but can't remember where.)I find it strange that you find racism and sexism where none exist (my saying that the Tea Party people are mostly white male Republicans) and you don't see it when people label Mr. Obama as "arrogant."This blog had a discussion on it. It may enlighten you further.
Since plenty of Jews are not Zionists and are even anti-Zionist, I fail to see how being anti-Zionist equates with being anti-Semitic. But I'm sure you'll explain that.I take, dmarks, that you're not interested in educating yourself.
I am, and I know well about the phenomenon of self-hating Jews who have no problem with the annihilation of Israel and its mostly Jewish population.
Shaw: I am being direct and clear.As for the noose question, you are making an analogy. So let's keep it apt. The arrogant word and other words are commonly used against white Presidents and politicians.So, in your noose example, it would be the same in a situation where it was common to depict and threaten white men with nooses. But it's not: your analogy is invalid."Some white Americans were, too-"No, you are flat out wrong and being "obtuse" with your analogy.The vast majority of lynching victims were black. However, the word "arrogant" is a very common word, used against Bush as much as against Obama. "As for the "arrogant" ....someone put it this way:"Your quote does make a good point on the word uppity. THAT is one of the problem words, not arrogant. There's a big difference between words used against everyone and words used just against blacks.You can make a great case about the use of the word "uppity" to describe Obama. A word which, unlike "arrogant", has been used hardly ever for white Presidents.Again.... google for arrogant George Bush. It proves that this word is non-racial. "I find it strange that you find racism and sexism where none exist (my saying that the Tea Party people are mostly white male Republicans) and you don't see it and you don't see it when people label Mr. Obama as "arrogant."Nothing strange. One involves race/sex, and the other does not. Here we go again:1) Bashing people for their sex and race has more than a hint of racism. The same is true of those who use Obama's skin color as part of an argument against him, like it is for those who use tea partier's race and sex as part of arguments against them.2) Treating a black president the SAME as a white president and calling him "arrogant" (just as white presidents are called) has no racial dimension. "Arrogant" is not "uppity" or a noose symbol: it is commonly used to describe white people. Extremely common.I suppose if we did want to be actually racist on this, we could treat Obama differently because of his skin color and never call him a word used commonly against white leaders.