Democrats Can't Be Racist, Can They?

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, April 27. 2014

Democrats Can't Be Racist, Can They?

Watching Face the Nation now, and they are discussing the Don Sterling racism situation. Which is good, after all, the media has covered Bundy's obtuse behavior, trying to make his racism more important than his legitimate claims of government overreach. Several clips of people, including Obama, speaking out against Sterling's statements, were shown. Some called for the NBA to "do something" to Sterling.

However, the show spent all of maybe 20 seconds discussing Sterling with Dem. Senator Clarie McCaskill before she shifted the discussion to a bill she is working on. I wonder why?

Oh, here it is! Sterling has a 100% track record of Democratic donations.

In addition, Sterling has another honor ~~to look forward to~~ which will likely be pulled.

Personally, I thought Doc Rivers' son, Jeremiah, had the best response.

Posted by Bulldog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 10:49 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Agreed that Jeremiah Rivers had the best take, yet, can't help but wonder if this is all in support of a generous palimony settlement.

#1 walt moffett on 2014-04-27 11:44 (Reply)

My first reaction to this was that it is an odd attitude for the owner of an NBA team to have.

My second thought was wondering if he would be required by the NBA (under pressure from the perpetually outraged) to sell his team? So far I have not read any indication of that. Were he a heavy GOP donor I imagine he would be under intense pressure to sell.

#2 feeblemind on 2014-04-27 12:06 (Reply)

Disappointed in Fox/Hannity, et al

First: they jumped on the Bundy story without filling in the details-the man owed many years of grazing fees, the BLM had started bullying tactics many years ago, etc.

Second: when it looked like they Fox/Hannity would look bad because of Bundy's reference to the African/American situation they did what the libs do all the time--they jumped the gun and started yelling racist--so they could be the first to make the claim. Today Mr. Kurtz and others explained that it was because they could not let the conservative movement be made to look bad and they knew that once those remarks were made the dems would use them against FOX. Soooo. . .with weak spines they became the same as the enemy-corruptible.

I believe the issue with Bundy is a question of rhetorical use of the language. I may not have heard all of the details, so please excuse me if I am missing some information.

Here is what I believe the man was trying to say and you tell me if it was racist and what makes it a racist comment?
Speaking from a life and personal tradition of ranching/farming his frame of reference as to what constitutes the ideal situation is ranching/farming. I believe he (Bundy) was referring to a pretty nice picture--daddy working the farm (in this case cotton crop) stay at home mom at home raising children (very popular with today's conservatives), little backyard garden (very popular with today's liberal youth). Then what I heard was him ask was a political question: "weren't they better off that way than they are under today's president?" That wasn't to my mind a racist question--there are a hell of a lot of people out here in the US asking the same question--weren't we better off under ???? From his personal experience, I believe Bundy was referring to life in a rural agrarian economy. Did he say it well? No--did FOX news interview him without first attacking the man--not that I have seen. I believe two wrongs never make a right and this time Fox got it wrong twice!! The conservatives and the Republicans have a lot-- A LOT-- of work to do before they win another election. That work has got to be a systemic review of their whole platform!

#3 another one on 2014-04-27 12:18 (Reply)

It gets confusing out here in the rural/agrarian community!

The land that is managed by the BLM is done with the intention of preserving the land as is and generating income for both the rancher and the government. That is the agreement between the government and the citizens of the US. When your local BLM agent oversteps the parameters of fair play that is an issue for the courts and the press.

What is so confusing is that the liberals want to preserve as much open space and food growing land as possible--they are right to do this given that the population has exploded the way it has. At the same time some among the liberal camp want wind farms for the son, and some among the conservative camp want less land under government control. Geez d'ya think some kind of agreement can be worked out here--better grazing practices on the part of the rancher, and increased fees from the rancher. More support for the long term stability of their contract with the government--more respect from the local government reps in their daily working together to maintain soils, and the terms of the contract would be a big improvement. Do the dems use local government employees to harass local people of course they do--they do it in the cities as well as out here. It's just that out here the land and it's use is fundamental to who we are as a nation, and oh so so desirable! It's time for the politicos of both sides to curb their personal envy and start behaving with good intensions to preserve what we have--a constitution and a healthy range land. Now that can't be too hard can it ?

#4 apple pie on 2014-04-27 12:49 (Reply)

The fact that Obama felt he had to get his face into it demonstrates that at the core he is just another race-baiter.

And it gives him something self-righteous to talk about so he won't have to address any of the disasters he has created in this country and abroad.

#5 Jim on 2014-04-27 17:39 (Reply)

Are people ever going to learn the difference between their and there. No public school education has won out.

#6 rbm411 on 2014-04-27 19:08 (Reply)

And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
But it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only

#7 Seth on 2014-04-27 19:13 (Reply)

I was listening to this story on the NBC Nightly News. At the end of the story they issued a disclaimer: "NBC has not authenticated this audio."

In other words, NBC has not determined that an audio clip provided by a concubine who is being sued by her patron's wife is actually the voice of her patron. But they're going to base a continuing news story on it.

Has ANYONE proven that this is this guy's voice yet? Or is advancing the narrative more important than actual facts?

#8 RonF on 2014-04-28 13:02 (Reply)

Yes, it's been authenticated. He says it was part of an (apparently successful in PR terms) blackmail attempt on her part.

After all, who tapes conversations besides people with an agenda?

Frankly, I think he sounded drunk.

#8.1 Bulldog on 2014-04-28 13:53 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, April 27. 2014

Democrats Can't Be Racist, Can They?