GREAT JOB!

I agree! things are taking way to much of a turn!! and Palin and her speeches are a big part of the problem!!

Michael Allred says, "Keep spreading the word with dignity and reason."

I'm trying...

--
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

I with you! keep it up!

What racism?

I'm speaking of hate filled comments being yelled out at Palin's stump stops. "palling around with terrorists" and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign. McCain actually stopped a woman here in MN last week that was saying Obama was an Arab. He's not. His ethnic background is Caucasian and African. Given the fact that the US has a history of assassination it's disturbing to see her allowing this hate filled rhetoric on the campaign trail.

Here's some links about Palin and racism:

[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

--
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

You said "racism".

That William Ayers is the Tim McVeigh that got away (who lived and thrived to invest his bomb-planning ideas into Chicago educational systems) is not relevant to the fact that you said "racism" where there has been none.

Let's see. Your first link has less crediblity than the Drudge Report. Your second is a link to the first. The third link proves my point, not yours. The fourth does not expand on the first and is equally unsubstantiated. The fifth is "he said that she said" which sounds more credible than the first but isn't something I would generally blog about without greater substantiation (especially given the testimony of her Press Secretary, and I'm the guy who claims no journalistic integrity or obligation to cite sources).... so it's emotinally gut-wrenching, I guess, but not particularly useful.

And the last one has nothing to do race. It's also from the Huffington Post, which made that big deal about rape kits in a city where the policy never came to play as described. Meaning that if I haven't heard about some Repub hyper-vitrioles saying this stuff from other sources, I wouldn't believe that it ever happened.

So you have two instances, with a cheap attempt to make it seem like six. The first instance is as persuasive to me as the story about John Kerry's adultery in 2004. The thing with the jazz musician can be, at bloody best, an accurate recounting of someone being stupid in their twenties.

But in the meantime you yourself have highlighted a VP candidate correctly mentioning political alliances with members of a political machine that include literal unrepentant domestic terrorists, which would have happened regardless of Barack Obama's mother's skin color was more obvious than his father's in his own pigmentation.

But if we really want to assert racism on the part of this Arizonan and this Alaskan because some faceless nameless overenthusiastic ill-informed crowd-filler said something ethnically inaccurate that the Arizonan went to lengths to correct....

So he stopped a faceless non-associate who likes him so that means he's the cause or a catalyst or even a part of "Racism".

Of course, if want "doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans" to be racist, then you have to go grab a cosmic cube and change the wills and speech of every candidate in the last two centuries. The charge that your opponent is "out of touch" or doesn't share your point of view or perspective or values or "doesn't see the" country like the common American does is an expression that is part of a tactic that is as old as electoral politics.

I mean that Thomas Jefferson leveled a version of this charge at John Adams. Walter Mondale used it against himself. FDR was skilled at moving politics that worked with American attitudes, so he was certainly free to imply that his own opponents were the opposite, and he was certain good to immunize himself from the charge. Woodrow Wilson made a point of creating a political climate where one was with the American populist mood or against it. John Kerry accidentally created an image-wall around his own self so much that images of him with guns seems incongruous. John Edwards formed the "two Americas" campaign narrative in three separate election campaigns in four, five years so he could level the charge that his partisan opponents were part of one American and ill-acquainted with the needs, desires, and character of the other.

If Barack Obama does or does not see this country in a manner similar to his countrymen is a matter of history and accuracy. But saying that he does not share my vision of this country, or yours, or anyone's, is an old, historically effective tactic. If you believe it's racist, then the race you don't like is the human race.

If we're afraid that a President or a Presidential candidate will be "assassinated" then you're barking up the wrong tree. Homicidal over-ambitious domestic nutjob criminals or hostile foreign nationals do not spring forth from the crowds of over-enthused blind-headed Republican (or Democrat) fools. They're typically loners or moved by an agenda with a larger element of loyalty to a non-American political doctrine.

Mind you, how can we as Americans be worried about fools in public crowds and not be concerned at all about the cultural contributions with these elements? There is the novella Checkpoint ([link]). Then there was that docudrama "Death of a President" that I am not sure was ever released... was it?

[link]

[link]

[link]

Both tales focus on removing President Bush.

But while those are in poor taste I question whether they will lead to an assassination in three months... and those will reach more folk than the fools in crowds yelling sentiments that no mainstream (American) political leader encourages.

(I remember terrorists in Afghanistan failing to kill Vice President Cheney, or at least those bad guys getting killed in front of the base he was visiting; I remember stupidheads mourning that he was not killed. That's a healthy reflection upon American culture)?

Of course there is also the topic of Presidential assassination in general floated by right-wing guys like Joel Surnow and Tom Clancy and in those cases the dead were Republicans, Democrats, and struck as a general loss to the country.

I can think of two if not three attempts on President Clinton's life and for the most part, with the exception of the sexual scandals and antitruth crimes he was a relatively non-controversial President.... and certainly did not carry a major grudge from the American people when that fool tried to drop a plane on the White House ([link]) or that stone stupid idiot ran at the place with a pistol trying to shoot it up ([link]).

We may have an unhealthy fascination with the topic.

[link]

Or we may live in a country where, again, foreign nationals take shots at our leaders. [link]

So yeah, we have a country where people like to take shots at our leaders for whatever reasons. [link]

You want to build a serious argument that Republicans now are fanning the flames of "hatred" and assassination and racism and that Barack Obama is the target or may be the target of exceptional acts against an American President? Try harder. Or better yet. Do. Do not. This is no try.

Although all of the above aside, leveling charges of "racism" where none exists is a horrible, terrible, destructive thing, and only causes gaps of trust where trust should exist and over-saturates the airwaves and society with a charge that should only be leveled when it can be leveled seriously and definitively. Otherwise it deafens us all to the alert when genuine racism occurs.

There is real racism and we cannot protect against it if every little ineffectual bigot is focused on, hunted, and quashed... and we certainly cannot effectively watch for it if emphasizing the relationship between figures in Chicago is politics is suddenly a racist act.

Well, you're obviously entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I do vaguely remember being 26 and I also thought I knew everything. Experience and life changes things. It did for me at any rate. I don't think that Republicans now are fanning the flames of "hatred" as a group per se. There are Republicans I admire. I think that there are people (neither Democrats or Republicans, really... just people) that can't get past their own sociological experiences and knowledge for whatever reason.

In my opinion, Gov. Palin should do exactly what Sen. McCain did on Friday here in Minnesota and correct people instead of spouting the Theatre of the Absurd that seems to be her raison d'etre. Honestly, I've just lived through eight years of having someone I don't admire running things. I don't want to do it again. I just don't think much of Palin or her rhetoric as a person and I would gladly tell that to her face.

Thus, I am a proud member of Comic Industry for Obama.

In my view it looks, smells, and behaves like racism. I am sorry if that doesn't sit well with you. Thank you kindly for taking the time to respond and tell me that you don't think much of me or my opinion.

--
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

You have too much time on your hands, my friend. And you use far too many words to get your point across.
Sarah Palin is an insult to women. You may not get that, because you are a man. I'll give you that. But seriously, I think you have taken one too many classes at school. You need to get out and live a little.
Have you ever been to Detroit? And no, I don't mean Grosse Pointe. I'm talking about Cass Corridor, or Palmer Park. Go ask one of the black women there what they think about good ol' Sarah and her comments. Ask them what McCain meant when he said "that one over there" during the debate. Don't talk shit. Go ask. You don't see it as racist, because it's not the world you live in. It's not your reality. Go fuck yourself - while people all over our country deal with euphemisms designed to disguise the ugly truth.