Personally, I think it would help Repubs if they quit acting like blacks aren't making a reasoned decision to vote for Dems. They act like blacks are just a bunch of sheep, voting for Dems just because it's the “black” thing to do – whatever people's actual reasons for voting Dem, it's insulting to carry on as if people aren't thinking, and black folks feel it.

Personally, I think it would help Repubs if they quit acting like blacks aren't making a reasoned decision to vote for Dems. They act like blacks are just a bunch of sheep, voting for Dems just because it's the “black” thing to do – whatever people's actual reasons for voting Dem, it's insulting to carry on as if people aren't thinking, and black folks feel it.

I agree that the word “conspiracy” shouldn't automatically be considered a
bad word. One thing I do get concerned about is Obama supporters start
thinking in the paranoid state the nutty rights are in, i.e. “Obama wants to
take our guns away, the Homeland Security Dept is tracking political
alliances, etc…you know the drill.

My belief is that President Obama is very intelligent and analytical. I
firmly believe he won't fall for “Curveball” intelligence. i.e Iraq. Hope
you recall who “Curveball” was!!!

Personally I think it is just bad taste to do this on July 4.

I think being a part of that demographic requires you to draw a line on what you consider flat-out racist and what you can/will tolerate. The thing is that once you draw that line, you have to stick to it.

My personal on Rush, Glenn (who I do occasionally listen to), Malkin et al., is that they're providing an entertaining view on their political philosophy. So in that, they're no different from Howard Stern, with the exception that they occasionally-or maybe better said, rarely-make a vaild point. Do they cross the line? At times, and often, the first time I hear about it is from a blog like JJP.

When that line is crossed-and for every person, it's different-then you have to stand up and say something. What happens when you do that, though, is you're either labeled a troublemaker, a whiner, or told to lighten up; that it's just commentary. And it may just be commentary or satire…but for us, it's a little different. Because for the few of us actively working to sell the GOP to blacks and other minorities, when we take the party's message to those communities, that “commentary” or “satire” is often the first thing mentioned as a reason not to support the GOP. Those charges are almost impossible to argue against.

How do I deal with it? I've learned that, regardless of whatever consequences, when I feel something's inappropriate, I should say something (full disclosure: I haven't always done that). At the same time, I realize that there's some elements that I have to work with to accomplish an end goal, simply because they have resources that I currently don't. So there is a certain tolerance-or a tacit acceptance-of statements and goings-on that I'm not sure I'd be as tolerant of under different cirumstances.

And I work-albeit quietly-to show that the undercurrent isn't as deep now as people make it out to be. That's done by associating with people who don't wear their feelings of racism on their sleeve, and by trying to educate elements of the GOP on what they can and can't (should/shouldn't?) say. Because even if it doesn't offend me personally, if others are complaining, it's a problem.

Seems as IFF, all of a sudden, Limpballs is trying to REDUCE the SEVERITY of the “pirates's” actions by using a “sympathy term” – -”teenagers.”

Annnnnd, he's attempting to defame the PRESIDENT by implying that he ordered the shooting of a “teenager.”

Would Flush have been so “sympathetic' toward a “teenager” who attacked anyone else??

I! THINK! NOT!!

Spare us the FAUX-sympathy!

thnx

Nevermind. I think I know. Something on the lines of coon-lover, perhaps?