Chris Matthews throws race card, he reports

[BodybyFisher]

Can you imagine this? According to Chris Matthews and Cynthia Tucker, the protestors are not protesting that they down like the government run health care bill that has not been read, they are 45 to 65% of them are racists!!!!! MSNBC has hit bottom over and over.

I want you all to think to yourself WHO is it that continues to raise RACE over and over (Typical White Person, White Men's Greed, Drives a world in need, etc etc). These people are pathetic

Who are the real racists? Democrats can't stop bringing it up. Cynthia Tucker said there is no way to judge what's in the hearts of the protesters, and then she says more than half of them are racists??

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...ers-are-racists

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)

Cynthia Tucker: 45-65% Of Townhall Protesters Are Racists

By Mark Finkelstein

Created 2009-08-07 21:26

Are you opposed to ObamaCare? Willing to attend a town hall to express your disapproval? Odds are good you're a racist. Just ask Cynthia Tucker . . .

As Clay Waters has noted [0], Paul Krugman alleges that racist motives are at the heart of the town hall protests against ObamaCare. On this evening's Hardball, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was willing to get specific, estimating that "45 to 65%" of the protesters are motivated by racism.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...ers-are-racists

Links:

[1] http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/stat...NBCHBTucker.wmv

See this blog

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message858145/pg2

[MadeInAmerica]

How about one of the most powerful political, "leaders", our nation has, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, referring to millions of Americans as, "Thugs, mobsters and Nazi's"?!!!!! This is atrocious! For a, "leader", in our country to make statements like this reveals the true bitter hatred that is in the hearts of liberal/socialists! The Nazi's murdered millions of people, did NOT allow freedom of speech, BURNED books, caused a war on a global scale that killed over 50 MILLION people...and we have a person in our OWN government referring to freedom loving Americans as, "Nazi's"?!!!!!!

To express your Constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech, to demand your elected representatives in Congress and the Senate to vote the will of the PEOPLE and NOT just ONE PERSON, (the President), to hold your elected representatives responsible for their actions, to want FREEDOM and NOT socialism, to demand that the elderly receive the SAME medical care as someone in their 20's and not be allowed to DIE in order to, "save money", by this socialized health care fiasco that Mr.Obama is trying to ram down the throats of freedom loving Americans, this constitutes being a, "NAZI"?!!!

If THIS is being a, "Nazi", SIGN ME UP!!!

The liberal/socialists have opened a Pandor's box of hatred, lies and attempting to smear the good character's of millions of decent, freedom loving, hard working Americans and now it has back fired on them and is blowing up in their collective faces!

NANCY PELOSI NEEDS TO RESIGN!!!

[WarrenJ]

Can you imagine this? According to Chris Matthews and Cynthia Tucker, the protestors are not protesting that they down like the government run health care bill that has not been read, they are 45 to 65% of them are racists!!!!! MSNBC has hit bottom over and over.

Closeted racists have things that crawl up and down their legs. They have no idea what they are, but they like them. I hope it bites and leaves a bull's-eye rash (well, not really).

Regards,

Warren

P.S. Can anyone tell me why ANY congressional bill should exceed 1,000 pages in length. Is it possible that they might be trying to HIDE something in there? Is there any need for a bill to be more than one, two, or perhaps three pages in length?

Yeah, I thought not.

[BodybyFisher]

I dont know who it was but a few senators said they did not read it because you need 2 attorney's with you to understand it... Who wrote it I wonder

[Ranger]

This is no different than the big bail out. No one read it because it was too long. "Their staffers read it" so they claimed. Anyone remember that?

And I'm sure it is all written in legalese.

[stsjoe]

This is no different than the big bail out. No one read it because it was too long. "Their staffers read it" so they claimed. Anyone remember that?

And I'm sure it is all written in legalese.

I printed out a copy of the Cap and Tax Bill (working for the Power Co.) after 10 pages I had a headache, and didn't understand a word. The Federal Gov't is pulling the strings, if you (the States) don't do as told you loose your Federal dollars. Anybody read the 10th Amendment lately?

[BodybyFisher]

You gotta love this article:

- Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com -

Aren’t They Getting Tired of Calling Obama Opponents Racist?

Posted By Frank J. Fleming On August 17, 2009 @ 12:05 am In . Column2 01, Culture, Media, Politics, Race Issues | 124 Comments

I’m a little ashamed to admit it, but despite my constant mockery of everything Obama during the presidential campaign (what can I say, I’m a partisan hack), I now realize how much I actually bought into some of his absolutely empty hope and change rhetoric.

When Barack Obama said he was a post-racial candidate, I initially believed him. He seemed different from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are incapable of seeing any issue as something other than a conflict between two races. I thought that while his election would be bad for a lot of issues I cared about, it might actually be worth losing on those issues just to move past silly race issues.

Yes, quite naive.

For me, the first indication that Obama was not at all post-racial was finding out what a racist loon his preacher for twenty years was. While I never actually thought Obama hated white people, it was disturbing how easily he tolerated that issue to gain street cred in Chicago. And what should have been obvious is that someone who is that cynical and opportunistic about race issues is going to be even more so when fighting for and wielding more power. Except now he has the entire national media with him.

So here we are: A black Democrat has been elected president, and suddenly all the positions on health care and taxes conservatives have always had are now racist. And I have come to the now obvious conclusion that America can never become post-racial while electing Democrats.

Liberals have always had a problem debating with conservatives. They don’t really understand conservatives’ attraction to individualism and honor and responsibility enough to be able to come up with coherent responses when people say they want low taxes and a small government. All liberals know is that they are very smart, and everyone else is very dumb for not seeing how smart they are and that they should run everything. So they come up with childish name-calling, such as “conservatives are greedy” and “conservatives are evil” to try and shut up what they don’t understand. And they find there is nothing better than the cry of “racism.”

No one likes to be called a racist — it’s about the same level as being called a pedophile — and it’s great for liberals to use, because there is very little defense for the charge. You are basically guilty until proven innocent — and you can’t prove yourself innocent. When called a racist, you can say, “No, I am not a racist.” To which the liberal can respond, “Though you try to hide it, I think deep down you are.” And there’s not much else you can do except maybe punch the guy in the face. But if the guy calling you racist is a minority, that itself might be de facto racism.

Now, even liberals know that if people were arguing with, say, Hillary Clinton about health care, they’d look pretty stupid crying racism. But now that they have a black president and all politics can be traced back to him, they’re free to cry racism for absolutely any political opinion contrary to Obama’s positions. And with public opinion already turning against the president and no other arguments left, that’s what they’ll do.

Why did people join in tea parties to protest runaway spending? Racism, says Janeane Garofalo to a nodding Keith Olbermann. Why are people against a bloated government takeover of health care? Racism, says Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. MSNBC anchor Carlos Watson said that “socialist” is the new “N” word. Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution declared 45% to 65% of town hall protesters racists. Representative John Dingell compared protesters to the KKK.

It’s pretty mindless, though some try to dress it up to look smart — as liberals love to do. (It was almost entertaining to see Phillip Kennicot in the Washington Post [1] try to show that depicting Obama as the Joker is racist, when in as many steps he could have just as easily shown it was commentary on how Obama is like Kevin Bacon). Still, it’s the debate equivalent of liberals covering their ears and screaming, “Shut up! Shut up!” And why not when they know that if the debate actually centered on the specifics of health care, or Obama’s spending, they would lose big?

But here is an opportunity for Obama to really show he’s post-racial. He could say that people who toss around charges of racism at everyone who disagrees with them are nothing but poison to a political debate. They are as useful to the issue of race as having a Ku Klux Klan member on TV, ranting undisputed. But Obama can’t speak out against mindless charges of racism, because if the Democrats lose the issue of racism, they lose everything.

As the Prop 8 controversy in California demonstrated, the Democrats enjoy a lot of minority support while at the same time ignoring their values. Instead of courting minorities on the issue, they just point to the other side and say, “Well, you can’t vote for them, they’re racist.” Thus we are at a point where someone’s “blackness” is questioned if he doesn’t share the same politics as a rich, white liberal.

If we really became a post-racial society and race was no longer an issue, what would the Democrats’ pitch be for their policies? If they actually had to argue against the idea of limited government and individual power on merit, basically all they would have is, “We’re really smart, and you’re stupid, so let us control everything.” That will attract those who want to be part of the elite ruling class and some weak-willed individuals, but the majority of people of all races would find it insulting. Without cries of racism to silence actual thought on the issues, they’d be a fringe party. And that’s why we will never have a post-racial society while electing Democrats: because post-racial is also post-the Democratic Party.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doesnt-the-le...onents-racists/

URLs in this post:

[1] Phillip Kennicot in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9080503876.html