Tuesday, January 6, 2009

What A Circus!

Democrats refuse to seat a legally appointed, but supposedly "tainted" black man to the U.S. Senate.

So how come Chris Dodd, the senator from Countrywide, gets to stay?

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

last night colbert played a montage of news reporters and politicians using the word "taint", unaware of the double meaning

January 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I'm more interested in the hot news that Sanjay Gupta is being appointed Surgeon General - is this a "Tahnks You" from the Obama administration to CNN for letting him skate free on just about everything?

January 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Although the playing of the Race Card has been despicable, it has been fun to watch the Libs who always play that disgusting game be on the receiving end of it for once. Lol…
Ill. black racist Rep. Bobby Rush and others should be charged with ethnic intimidation for their bullying leveraging of the Race Card. And the racist Congressional Blacks Caucus should be ignored. They seem to think that Burris’ brown skin is qualification enough for him to be granted the seat.
What ever happened to judging a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin? See, that’s been nothing more than a scolding of whitey all along. They don’t really mean it, certainly not when they stand to benefit from leveraging their race.


Dodd and Frank should be arrested and dragged from Congress and jailed.

January 7, 2009 at 11:16 AM 
Blogger Parker said...

Disney does a better job of presenting cartoon characters than does a congress with a 9% approval rating.

January 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM 
Anonymous Aaron Proctor said...

Well, I guess cigarettes will be pretty much illegal soon with Gupta in that role.

January 7, 2009 at 4:31 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, r wants there to be NO black senators. how is that representative (of anything other than his own white racism)?

9% approval for congress means nothing, since 90% of them keep getting reelected by majority in their districts. 9% is the approval for all the "other" congressmen.

January 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM 
Anonymous r said...

And Burris is selfish. He’s pressing ahead for himself and his own ambitions, not for the people of Illinois. How many times do voters out there have to tell him No in the voting booth until he understands that they don’t want him in higher office?

January 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

"so, r wants there to be NO black senators."

Of course, it's always nicer when they're actually elected, right?

January 8, 2009 at 7:07 AM 
Anonymous r said...

No one has said that. We just don’t want a senator seated only because he is black. We already have an affirmative action president, isn’t that enough?
And look what happens when we get a bunch of blacks in Congress. They go tribal and form racist groups like the congressional blacks caucus and get to playing their black-for-black racist games.

January 8, 2009 at 11:02 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

anonymous-iano, you're not proposing affirmative action in the senate chambers, are you?


I'm part lithuanian, I don't think there's any of my bretheren in the senate, I'm playing my own race card!

January 8, 2009 at 12:36 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And look what happens when we get a bunch of blacks in Congress. They go tribal"

are you f@%#ing kidding?

going tribal? seems like you are going klan

January 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

steve, there are 100 senate seats, which makes it pretty easy to work out the percentages.

1 black senator = 1%. blacks are about 13% of the usa population, so 1% (or 0%) is not very representative.
i'm not saying there should be exactly 13 black senators, but 10 to 15 would certainly be more representative of the makeup of the country. 1 or 0 is an embarrassment and a disgrace.

in the house of "representatives" the republicans currently have NO black members, and have only two black republicans in the past 50 years. the dems have about 40 current black congressmen.

lithuanian or "part" lithuanian isn't even a race, it's a nationality (like italian, german, french, british) and still pretty darn white, so pretty much all your white brethren.

January 9, 2009 at 3:34 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

I am back. Burris should be seated as that is what the law requires. However, Reid and many of his brethren in the Senate, including Biden, aren't in the tank for affirmative action appointments. Remember that during the primaries Biden injected race into to primary with his comments about the clean black man. If race doesn't matter to them, why do they always mention it?

"R" is right about how the blacks can band together and have a "black caucus", and that is fine, while at the same time the sky would be falling if there was a "white caucus". Perhaps anoniano can explain how or why that is ok, without name calling.

I am surprised though that there isn't an indian or asian caucus in the House, and why there isn't an Asian or Indian member in the Senate (I am not sure about the House). It seems so unfair under these lib standards.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottsshields.com

January 9, 2009 at 6:14 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there already is a white caucus. it's called the gop.

you aren't sure "why" there is no asian caucus? really? could it have something to do with the lack of violence by the white police and white population against asians, whereas the black suffered under violence and jim crow laws to take away their voting rights?

i guess you are the slip-and-fall kind of attorney, not the civil rights kind.

January 9, 2009 at 10:38 AM 
Anonymous r said...

anonymous-iano, you're not proposing affirmative action in the senate chambers, are you?

Yes. That is exactly what apologists like Dishonest Dave Diano advocate. And it is in part due to their White Guilt:

1 or 0 is an embarrassment and a disgrace.

No it's not, DDD. Such racial scorekeeping in 2009 America is the disgrace.

January 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, if congress was 95% black, you would be complaining that there weren't enough whites? yeah, right.
you are already complaining because the majority of the country overwhelming elected 1 black man after 43 white presidents.
i think you should move to a whiter country for the next 8 years.

January 9, 2009 at 12:17 PM 
Anonymous r said...

A guilt-ridden apologist like you would no doubt think a 95% black Congress as just great. I think you should move to Africa, DDD.

January 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Using Anon-iano's statistical abilities to its logical conclusion, there should then never be a black president. Now that there is, affirmative action should stop!

BTW, I will support him, but not his lib policies, because I am an American and he will be my President too. If he fails we all fail.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

January 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM 
Anonymous r said...

See, when whites hold power as a group they do not –ever- get to playing racial politics games as blacks always do when they hold power. So really there is no comparing the two. One is clearly worse than the other. And, yep, racist. But apologists always give such black racism a pass.

January 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM 
Anonymous r said...

BTW, I will support him, but not his lib policies, because I am an American and he will be my President too.

With all due respect, Mr. S, (and I mean that) I am so sick of Righties always taking the high road. Look where it's gotten us.
Me, I intend to show our new Affirmative Action Radical Lying Leftist President exactly the same level of respect the LibDems have shown Bush over the course of the past eight years.

January 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home