Dems Hate Oreos....does Party Trump Race?
 

Not to bore everyone with state and local politics, but I found the following to be quite interesting. Actually, "disturbing" is a better word, yet the behavior outlined in the article below is being defended by Democrat leaders.

Get it? Black on the outside, white on the...........nevermind.

Sickening.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro...054r_page2.htm

Yeah, it's always amusing to me how just because someone doesn't buy into the black voting plantation mentality they are labeled an "Uncle Tom".

So, uh...."Black Democrats" say there is nothing wrong with this? Oh, wait. You mean "The Black Democrats" in this article are representative of all black democrats. Just like Ann Coulter is representative of all conservatives, right?

Give me a break.

Please don't post Washington Times propaganda. It destroys any credibility you might have.

Ah the Rev. Moon. How many GOP blind followers will fall into following that man?

Again as posted numerous times, why would I trust ANYTHING that comes from a paper where the owner has given nuclear subs and millions upon millions of dollars to N. Korea's leaders? Let alone claim himself to be what was it....... grand ruler of the universe?

Ann Coulter? What does she have to do with the price of tea in China? AC is an OpEd writer, not an elected official. Who cares what she says? Don't hijack this into an Ann Coulter/Michael Moore thread please. At the very least, RTFA.

Is that the same as GOPers believing that if you are rich and a Democrat then you are a traitor and don't deserve the money you have?

Or that if you have certain social and political beliefs and you are a white male, you are a communist who doesn't deserve to live in the USA?

Just wondering, because there are certain people in this forum who have posted such things in response to my posts.

Just like you must be a stupid bible thumping bumpkin ignoramus if you didn't vote for John Kerry???

Your concept of reality is highly warped if you think any of the aforementioned white people get it nearly as bad as a black republican.

I hoped I was here before the "Washington Times Sux" crowd arrived, but apparently not.

As someone who lives in Maryland please note that everything said in that article is true. Just because it comes from the Washignton Times doesn't make it less so (especially with some of the crap being passed as legitamite sources in other threads).

The Democrats, of all kinds, in this state fear Michael Steele because he is a successful black man who is also a Republican. It is also embarressing to them that his is the highest-ranked African-American in the history of state politics, and it took a Republican governer to make it happen.

It is an absolute travisty that not only does the Democratic Party have to resolve itself to such slander and libel in order to defeat this man, but that based on my experiance in this state there is nothing to show that the majority of the African-American community in the state will do anything other then buy it.

I see lots of straw men being burned.

Is the article true or not is my only question.

If it's true, it's reprehensible, regardless of what Ann Coulter has said recently.

Each of the events has been reported in local media outlets since they happened, so yes they are true.

with some/considerable risk of being misunderstood...

i'm not that charitable to queers who support canidates who are obviously harmful to the interests of the community. Their personal gain comes at the price...one that we're not willing to pay. They want the gains that came at such a hard price, the right to be in public life without being completely destroyed...but they're willing to trade in anti-gay rhetoric to get a few votes. It's gross.

Now, i'm not in a position to judge if this mans politics are "anti-black" or not...

but i could understand the feeling of betrayal if his policies were seen to be so. oreo or (diet queer) is a nasty thing to say...collaborating with harmful policies for personal gain is a nasty thing to do.

Martin,

I understand what you are saying, but it seems that isn't what is happening.

That is, unless you blindly believe that dems are for minorities and repubs are against them.

My personal view is that each party uses them like they use everyone else, i.e. to get elected.

I am irritated with the dems on this since it seems to me that they pander and plain out condescend to them (whitey got you down! vote democrat!) to get votes.

There is one intelligent reply by a liberal. At least martin tried to think of a reason, try to place some context or reasoning behind this. Too bad he's drowned out by the "Washington times propaganda anne coulter is the devil" chant.

When the democratic party can come together and actually get a unified message out telling america and the African-American community what they stand for and why they should vote democrat, maybe, just maybe, the party will have a chance in the future. Somehow I don't see that happening. Until then the democratic party will continue to be run by the "bush lied" "bush hates blacks" and "no blood for oil" crowds. Am I missing someone?

Anyhow...back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

It is VERY true. Democrats of all races, particularly elected ones, are condoning the actions of some black officials who racially slurred, and assaulted Maryland's Lt Governor with oreo cookies, because they are practicing hate approved by the democrats.

The democrats are scared shitless, because Michael Steele, an effective, charismatic, popular, and republican african-american is muonting a very serious challenge to the democrates stranglehold on the two Senate seats of Maryland.

Anyway this apparently happened in 02 during the gubernatorial race, and has resurfaced, and quite wide spread, in the last few days on local news and talk radio, where prominent elected leaders of the democrat persuasion have given tacit approval of ~this~ particular hate. Most voters, on the other hand seems to be quite dismayed, and so far Kwesi Mfume, also in the Senate Race, came out in the last few days against it.

Here ladies and gentlemen is another example of approved democrat hate. Since the washpost doesn't tow the democratic hate rhetoric, it gets labeled as irrelevant and credibility destroying. Rediclulous.

I think this comment speaks volumes about the poster and the dying ideology of failure and irrelevance that is subscribed to.

What a thoughtful, introspective, and enlightening contribution. Your opposition thanks you.

-bear

this is quite possibly the most heinous example of how partisan politics has divided, make that splintered, america. If everyone would like to see just how much the dems and reps would work together in a completely bi partisan way, just vote independent next election in 06. I 'GUARANTEE' that once americans start electing someone OTHER than the two major parties, you'd see dems and reps come together in collusion to find even more ways of keeping 3rd party candidates out of contention.

If it is true and since you are there and I respect your take on it, then all I have to say is this is pathetic, gives Dems a bad name but is NOT what all Dems. believe or feel.

Anyone has the right to believe however they choose and NOONE should ridicule, laugh at or personally attack another for their beliefs.

As for the Times, it maybe a very legit paper, but as long as Rev. Moon owns it and is giving millions and aid to N. Korea and calling himself the "grand ruler of the universe" it holds no weight with me. Just as I am sure some of my sources hold no weight with some of you, GOP.

Personally, the way the title is the whole thread was developed to be a "see how evil Dems. are" thread which leads to the Us vs them. IMHO.

like titling a thread "look another bush crony scandle" isn't at all us vs. them. Is there an emoticon for *sigh*?

Well, that thread at least started out with a legitimate article by the AP. I will admit that there have been other threads started on the basis of shady sources, but those are usually opinion pieces, whereas this is presented as a straight news piece. The individual events did happen, but like a bad Michael Moore documentary, they are misrepresented and distorted in order to serve an agenda.

I agree with Lebell that there is something to discuss here, but it's hard to do so on the basis of a misleading and dishonest article.

can someone tell me how this is indicitive of all democrats? some black democrats of done this... does that mean all democrats are like that? This article needs to say which black democratic leaders said this not "black democratic leaders" who is that what does it mean? does leaders mean 2 people or does it mean all of them? this article was written with a slant, what is says may be factual but also missleading.

At the same time you don't get much condemnation from the left. Even on this board, the first things heard were how the times in a propaganda piece and then stuff about anne coulter. That says something about democrats right there. Shame? Fear? something.

The only thing to "condemn" here is the credit report incident, not because it was racially motivated, but because it might have been illegal. It was wrong and the staffers who did it should be fired. Most of the other stuff is old news, even though the article tries to mislead people into thinking it happened recently.

not even the overt racisim? you don't think thats worth condemning?

I guess i wonder if this is racism since 1) it is done by the same race 2) it doesn't make blanket assumptions about everyone in that race.

to me racism means judging someone based on the color of their skin. ie since he is black he is a junkie. this is a case of black people unhappy with one of their own and using common terms within the black community to describe this guy. Is it silly? Yes it is stupid. Is it racism? I don't know.

What overt racism? Steele and the Republicans have used his race to win votes, so why can't the Democrats point out that Steele is out of touch with the black community. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as you're not calling him names or throwing things at him.

And it can be dangerous to do so, anyhow. For instance, is seeking to abolish affirmative action anti-black? Likewise, is seeking to overturn hate crime legislation anti-women or anti-minorities or anti-gay? Or could there be a lack of bigotry in the motivation to do so?

It may be that good intentions lead such politicians to make decisions that aren't worth the damage they do to a particular group, but that doesn't make them anti-thatgroup. Unless you're trying to dilute the phrase to the point where it means something other than what one generally would assume it means, in which case you have a responsibility to elaborate on what is meant by "anti-black".

Yeah, I don't think it's a question of being "anti-black" so much as being out of touch with the black community. Steele has consistently taken positions and supported politicians that are overwhelmingly opposed by the black community.

They're unhappy with one of their own because he isn't acting as someone with his level of skin pigmentation should. I could see this hair-splitting if the term 'oreo' didn't essentially mean "someone who isn't acting like I would expect them to, given their skin color".

Obviously, it would be a different matter if he were ordering all other black people onto prison camps. There would be a line somewhere, past which you could confidently say, "he's a black guy who's anti-black". But I kinda doubt Steele crossed that line.

Wrong. I condemn anything of this nature. The problem is that the OP's thread title implies that if you're a democrat, then this describes your attitude. Which is a pompous, uninspired and inaccurate viewpoint. It has nothing to do with Ann Coulter - OBVIOUSLY - and I wouldn't have used her as an example of anything at all if the OP hadn't lumped all democrats into the article's absurd portrayal based on what some idiots in Maryland did. but look how you react when you are generalized in that way. Same way I do.

while i think is stupid and childish of the the black democrats in the article, it's not racist. it's an inappropriate way of expressing their dislike/disgust at a political oppenent who they see as a black man out of touch with black values/community. it's not the most mature way of going about it, but considering the 10 second attention span of many americans these days, it's probably more effective than saying 'candidate x is bad because of yadda yadda yadda.'

Sorry, missed this.

It's possible he's "out of touch". It's also possible that he simply disagrees.

I will say this: both Rep. Ben Cardin and Kwaese Mfume, the main Democratic senate candidates, have condemned this behavior.

To those who say this isn't "racist" because both sides are the same race, all I can say is that doesn't the fact that the black Democrats believe that their view is the ONLY possible view and anyone else who is black and disagrees is an "oreo" come off as more racist then the actual statements?

Actually i was thinking about that very thing when i posted earlier. Assumeing that he should believe the same as all black people is silly and is racist. But saying he is out of touch with the black majority is not racist. Now throwing oreos is increadibly stupid but i'm pretty sure the democratic leaders wern't the ones doing that.

Here's the thing...i regularly decide if i think a politician is anti-queer. There are two levels. Are they willing to trade in anti-gay rhetoric to get elected? There is a huge industry in sending out homophobic fund raising material "TEH GHEYS ARE TRYING TO STEAL YOUR CHILDREND!!!" and the like...

Are they in support of, or silent assent to anti-queer political movements. FMA or ban on civil unions, opposing hate crime laws, etc...

As a member of a community, i make choices and decisions in conversation with that community, if a politician stands for us or against us. Now, it's not a 100% thing...there are in fact hard core republican queers. I think they're flipping loons to think that this makes them safe or isn't tantamount to treason...but that's another post. The point is that the political desires and needs of minority (racial or whatever) communities often align to a significant degree. If a canidate ran on a hyped up campaign of welfare "reform" and "tough on crime" while cutting job programs and education funding...

I'd tend to think that that would signal a participation in racist rhetoric, and agreement and assent to policies that are at least functionally and perhaps structurally constructed as anti-black.

And here's the thing in my view. Sending out "OMG TEH GHEYS!!1one" propaganda is clearly anti-gay. Agreed with you on that level. But opposing hate crime laws? Opposing gay marriage? No, not so clear. Neither position requires bigotry.

What I'd like to get clear is whether "anti-gay" and "anti-black" refer to bad consequences or bad intentions. If the former, then Steele could be fair game for the term, but it should be made clear that the term doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Steele's character. He could just be wrong without being a traitor. If the latter, then I think you grossly overgeneralize in your labeling of certain political positions as 'anti-thisgroup'.

i disagree with you about the line...i think that opposition of full citizenship isn't just a political stance that isn't a character issue.

if you expect to get your rights from kissing the ass of the institution, and for everyone else like you to suffer the effects of being social debris...

i think that's treason.

But perhaps they don't see it as "opposing full citizenship" or "getting rights", and perhaps they hold to their politics for reasons other than ass-kissing. Why do you make these assumptions?

For clarity, is treason necessarily an intentional act or can it be wholly unintentional?