Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Santorum calls Obama Government N*gger

Posted 2 years ago on March 31, 2012, 2:06 p.m. EST by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

86 Comments

86 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

He definitely says "government nig..." and then stumbles and goes uhhh.

I don't get why this surprises anyone. He doesn't believe in equal rights or freedom and the guy openly hates gay people. He's a Grade-A Bigot.

[-] 4 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Is it just me, or is the MSM ignoring this? In the wake of the Trayvon Martin murder, the lack of charges against the murderer and the character assassination of both the dead boy and his mother this is downright chilling.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not to mention the afghanistan massacre

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You are correct of course. From what i see about the situation of Trayvon (and now Santorum) young black people are seething mad. the situation could easily "get out of hand". There are more rednecks with guns than Blacks with guns.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I just hope young Blacks don't take the bait. What the Oligarchs fear more than anything is unity between oppressed Blacks and and the oppressed Whites and liberals. They are afraid of coalition building, and will stop at nothing to prevent that.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

And isn't it strangely convienant for the 1% that racism is suddenly a hot issue again, dividing blacks and whites at this particular time. Oh, but as Shube said, I better look out, or next thing you know I'll be labeled a "conspiracy theorist." Someone might even say that I was suggesting different segments of the establishment might work in tandem in the interests of the Oligarchs.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yeah, calling Matt Taibbi, calling Alex Cockburn, calling Noam Chomsky-- shut this conspiracy nut up! ;)

"Someone might even say that I was suggesting different segments of the estblishment might work in tandem in the interests of the Oligarchs."

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yeah, right. Noam Chomsky is a "conspiracy nut." You see how it goes, and by today's standards they would be saying the same about Einstein. E = MC 2? what is that, some kind of communist code?

I think it was Jo McCarthy who really got the conspiracy fear going in America, and it's been hyped until people can't think straight anymore.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Chomsky is one of the McCarthyites witch hunting "conspiracy nuts" or in his case just doing his bit to isolate and ridicule the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIOA8Cyc4_Y

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Ho Hum . . . yawn.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what's the secret to telling a joke ?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

timing

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That's right.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You're right, and the rednecks have been waiting for a long time.

[-] 0 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

But somehow, just somehow, blacks kill more blacks than "rednecks" kill blacks. Go figure. Yeah, let's not have that conversation. LOL.

And yet the "rednecks" keep waiting. More blacks are killed by other blacks in a single year than were lynched by whites in the history of lynching. Go figure, let's not talk about that little uncomfortable detail either. LOL.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Reasonistheway, that is a conversation taking place in the black community. That community is beset by many problems. Are you trying to be helpful here?

[-] -1 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

Sadly, it isn't taking place. People have the same old narratives that they won't give up. The media at forst said Zimmerman was white, then I even saw "white hispanic". They just have to make it fit no matter what. That's why I made my point. It's a reality that gets you smeared as racist for even bringing up, despite its truth.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'm 66 years old. I've seen a change in the great divide in US sociology and politics go from white vs. not white to African American isolated from all others (not to deny racialist divides among those others).

Anyway a few things can be noted: 1- Zimmerman shot this kid and killed him and is walking around with his nine millimeter. Hopefully the whole story will come out but it looks like he got a special pass.

2- Zimmerman's father is a retired judge who is Jewish. Sociologically and by upbringing Zimmerman probably "white identifies" and does not experience the same insults that many hispanics do.

Violence against black people that is done with impunity can be done by other black people and it shows a racist bias in the system if not in the killer.

http://www.amsterdamnews.com/news/national/nypd-fires-black-sean-bell-cop-two-others-forced-to/article_aba0cc3a-79be-11e1-90dd-001a4bcf887a.html

Here's the cop who killed Sean Bell. Official racist violence carried out by a black cop.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/amsterdamnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/7a/07a367b8-79bf-11e1-b405-001a4bcf887a/4f7492755aa77.preview-300.jpg

[-] -1 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

Well, that's the point, the narratove has to be maintained no matter what. So, now one doesn't even have to be white for something to be pinned on whites. Sure, bcause they "white identify". Gotta tell you, I hadn't heard that one. No doubt I'll hear it more as the society changes but the narrative needs to stay intact.

So, even blacks killing blacks reveals simply white badness. That's great. No matter what happens, it all just gets tied back nice. No sense revisting things with that power of rationalization.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

In the old South if a Black man killed another Black man that would usually be no big deal as far as the law went. Why? Racism, systemic racism. The dead man's life just wasn't deemed worth a big effort.

Also Zimmerman apparently was being treated by the law like the son of a retired Jewish judge . How? His blood/urine wasn't screened. The lead detective wanted to charge him but the County prosecutor came to the station-house on a rainy Sunday night to overrule him. The blood of the dead boy was screened for drugs and alcohol however. I would surmise they didn't find anything in the dead child's blood or it would be all over Fox News and you'd be bringing that here.

[-] -1 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

Psst, here's a secret: Al Sharpton doesn't give a shit about blacks killing blacks because there's no monry it in. White greivance pays, that other stuff, not so much. The liberal media is there all the way. The care about maintaining the narrative, white people are bad, very bad.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I don't know what Al Sharpton cares about in his heart nor do I care. How does Sharpton become the subject here? An unarmed black kid was gunned down by someone who was advised by a police dispatcher to leave the kid alone. That someone has been free and walking around apparently with a gun for going on five weeks since and all the white supremacists can talk about is Al Sharpton, fake pictures on facebook and an empty bag of weed. Go to hell.

[-] 0 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

Police dispatchers aren't authorities on the law and aren't authoritiies anyone is bound to listen to.

It's just entertaining to see it play out. He's white, no white hispanic, no, it doesn't matter because it was the white culture. It doesn't matter what happened, the story of white racism and black victimhood was already written. It just needed, once again, to be trotted out. Just like you did.

See you at the next protest of a black on black or a black on white crime. LOL. Yeah, won't happen, I know.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Film director Spike Lee has apologized to a Florida couple and agreed to pay their expenses for fleeing their home after they were harassed when he retweeted an address that was described as the home of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain who shot Trayvon Martin.

"Spike Lee did the right thing," the couple’s lawyer, Matt Morgan, tweeted. "The McClain’s claim is fully resolved. Thank you Spike!!!"

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10921391-spike-lee-apologizes-to-florida-couple-agrees-to-pay-for-retweeting-their-address

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You're right Trevor. To me what makes this dangerous is the game the racists play of accusing black people and their supporters of "playing the race card" and "plausible deniability" (fake of course). I wonder if Santorum just slipped over his tongue or if this was deliberate.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I think that the Republicans see it as expiedient to whip up racial hatred right now. So much can be understood when we see that the 1% have whole institutions, such as "The Heritage Foundation" - many such institutions with thousands of paid strategists who work tirelessly to 'spin" events through their monopolized media outlets.

This is not in any way said to downplay the horror and despicable murder of Trayvon Martin, but these devious bastards can literally use just about anything to their advantage with so much power to manipulate public perception.

It really is all about creating divisions, and if they think letting Zimmerman off the hook will help in that effort to divide us than they will certainly do so.

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

So the republicans are behind the whole justice for Trayvon movement?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, each individual Republican independently planned the Trayvon Martin Killing.

I guess some of us can think in abstractions, about the results of intentions, and world-views upon reality and then there are people who are . . . well . . . just Blank.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Please explain. You start with insult. How pleasant. You say that republicans are at fault for racial violence. How?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I didn't start out with an insult. I merely started out by stating a fact. Some can think in terms of abstractions and some cannot. Your question is based upon logical falacies so utterly rediculous as to make no sense at all, and you expect me to simply answer it as a serious question?

In other words, to spell it out for you, the 1% Republican media can choose what to focus on - Trayvon Martin's murder- and what not to focus on - national strike in Spain, or Occupy actions all over the US, for example.

That is called manufacturing conscent, or in this case, dischord.

PS Sorry for being so short tempered, but it makes me mad when I see them use something like this to their advantage. Rather than focus on the unity of OWS and the Black Community, as witnessed in the demonstrations in NY, among other places. (They don't want us to see that at all) they simply foucus on furthering racial divisions. It's not that everyone shouldn't protest against Trayvon's murder - they should. It's just that these damn bastards have the gall and the know-how to spin EVERYTHING to their own advantage.

Now it's not us (black and white) against them (the 1%) it's once again black vs. white, and the integration of the demonstrations is completely ignored. Why? Well now that's pretty plain to see.

It makes me furious!

[-] 0 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

So the average republican voter is behind this racial violence. You truly have an ego problem. You seem to expect other members here to read your mind and understand your propaganda. What a pleasant person you are.

[-] 3 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

it's not the average joe it's the spin put out by professionals working at conservative think tanks.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That's right. You have seen the man behind the curtain.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

since the mid 80's, dude!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Good for you!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I apollogized for being short with you, and will do so again. But when I see the way this kind of tragedy is used to further divide people it really makes me mad!

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

GypsyKing you make a point. these people are playing a game of three dimensional chess. If they spin things, my question would be "can they make things happen?" Get too deep into that and you get tagged a conspiracy nut.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

If you say 1+1 = 2 you get tagged as a conspiracy nut. That's how we have been conditioned to think that 1+1 = 3, if that's what the media tells us to believe.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That's their game. Conspiracy theory doesn't have any real meaning. Every case is simply an individual case that must be decided upon the weight of it's indivitual evidence. Calling something a "conspiracy theory" neither proves or disproves it, but simply attempts to put certain lines of reasoning beyond the bounds of "thinkable thought."

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Marxists are against "the conspiracy theory of history" meaning they deny that the overall trend of history is caused by conscious conspiracies. Anyone who denies though that conspiracies happen and effect specific events is nuts.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I think they're right about the conspiracy theory of history, in general, but I also think people tend to deny the level of power that exists when a handful of people are basically in charge of ALL the institutions of a society.

When all the mechanisms are in place, from "think tanks" that create ideas, to the media that spreads them, to the police who enforce them . . . In a situation like that it's like saying that Russians who thought Stalin was orchestrating events were "conspiracy theorists," whatever that means.

I still say that the concept of "conspiracy theory" itself has been created through that very process I reffer to. When you really think about it, it has no meaning. Sure there have always been nutcases shouting about the coming of the Kracken, or whatever, but how they can use this notion of "conspiracy theory" to lump those people in with those who question the official explanation of the Kennedy assassinations, for example - that seems like mind control to me.

Furthermore, think of the power of it! All the media has to do is call something a conspiracy, and everyone immediately assumes it's crazy. That's POWER to shape public oppinion.

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You got that right GypsyKing ! Noam Chomsky, Matt Taibbi , Alex Cockburn, are you hearing?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That's right.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

no way it was deliberate. Like you said, it would be too easy to just play that clip over and over again as a campaign ad against him, and people are MUCH more sensitive to racism than to homophobia.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I wonder if it was a bid to take Rush's job? He knows he isn't gonna be president.

[-] 2 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

Nah no way he said it. He is still a homophobic bigot, but he'd never commit political suicide like that. If you watch the video he goes "nig" then pauses, then goes "umm". It didnt even make sense in the sentence.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I see your point... the only thing that doesn't make sense is how many words start with "nigg" ? Kind of an odd random stumble. We've already seen the guy blow up and yell at someone telling them what they said was "bullshit" ...which is not very presidential.

I don't really care what he said or says in the future. He's already proven a long time ago that he should not be allowed near the white house, and like previously mentioned is a proven bigot based on his stance toward the LGBT community.

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

He shouldn't be allowed near the white house, but i don't think he is a racist, or more specifically, that he did not say that. Not even Fox would take his side, and maybe he was clearing his throat, or coughing up phlegm, or whatever.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If it was deliberate that means Santorum calculates that it helps him, maybe not to become president (that seems a very remote possibility now anyway) but let's say, oh, the next Rush Limbaugh?

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

nah, racism against blacks is taboo, more so than racism or prejudice against other groups. nobody would use racial slurs like that towards a black man while running for office, but calling gays fags or being racist towards other ethnic groups (unfortunately) doesn't get the same outrage.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Didn't make sense"? I'm afraid it did make sense, a very bad sense indeed.

[Deleted]

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Not another racist.

Please report to the stormtroopers website at once.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the dems and the pubs are playing the race card for attention

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

"THE GROUND TRUTH" ; The Human Cost Of War - Sometimes the greatest act of courage is to tell the truth ... ((VIDEO))

Posted 4 days ago on March 19, 2012, 9:37 a.m. EST by shadz66 (2985) This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"THE GROUND TRUTH" : The Human Cost Of War.

Sometimes the greatest act of courage is to tell the truth ...

In the opening scenes of Patricia Foulkrod's powerful documentary, we're introduced to a number of young soldiers who speak candidly and powerfully about the motivations that led them to join the military. As their stories unfold, we hear their surprised reactions to boot camp and combat training as they were taught to dehumanize their enemy, to

"KILL HADJIS and RAGHEADS."

"The Ground Truth" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ground_Truth ) - is a documentary film, that should be watched by everyone who has a friend, relative or loved one who's served - or is about to serve - in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Video - Runtime 78 Minutes) : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15319.htm .

~

fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I was a draftee in 1967. Basic Training was certainly "sock and awe" for the new recruits and it was meant to tear us down and then replace the old us with killers. No doubt it's changed in some details since then but I'm sure the basics of basic haven't changed.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

negative labellings of a type of human makes it easier to kill them

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The dehumanizing names are a part of it, and there's more. Even with this training and dehumanization, most soldiers tried very hard not to kill anyone.

http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

The psychology and realities behind it

By William S. Frisbee Jr.

Hollywood is great at making war seem so simple and strait forward. It makes the watcher believe that people kill each other because they are told, because it is kill or be killed, the enemy is hated or whatever. Hollywood tries to make us believe that all soldiers fire at each other, desperately attempting to hit and kill each other. While there is some truth in the matter, it is mostly wrong.

An excellent book to read on this subject is "On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Dave Grossman. I highly recommend you read this book as it goes into great detail on the subject, much more than can be covered here.

When most people talk about killing, they are like virgins talking about sex. You can talk about it all day, you can fully understand the mechanics involved but when the time comes there is so much more involved than the person thought.

When bullets start flying emotions start running high and that can have a powerful effect on how a person sees things. Five hundred combatants can see five hundred different things. In war every fighter see's things differently. The movies like to make people think that the world is black and white, not different shades of gray.

A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.

In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn't shoot down a single enemy plane.

In Korea, the rate of soldiers unwilling to fire on the enemy decreased and fifty five percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. In Vietnam, this rate increased to about ninety five percent but this doesn't mean they were trying to hit the target. In fact it usually took around fifty-two thousand bullets to score one kill in regular infantry units! It may be interesting to not that when Special Forces kills are recorded and monitored this often includes kills scored by calling in artillery or close air support. In this way SF type units could score very high kill ratios like fifty to a hundred for every SF trooper killed. This is not to say these elite troops didn't score a large number of bullet type kills. It is interesting to note that most kills in war are from artillery or other mass destruction type weapons.

If one studies history and is able to cut through the hype, one will find that man is often unwilling to kill his fellow man and the fighter finds it very traumatic when he has to do so. On the battlefield the stress of being killed and injured is not always the main fear.

Fight, Flight, Posture or Submit

In the animal kingdom, most animals do not kill others of their species with very, very few exceptions. Humans are like animals in this regard, we don't want to kill each other and sometimes we behave like animals, especially in combat.

When animals confront each other they begin by posturing. They both attempt to intimidate the opponent into believing it is inferior and in danger. At this point they may fight, or one may submit or flee, and when they do fight it is very rarely to the death. When one submits it exposes some vulnerability to the enemy, like its throat.

Humans are not much different. Firearms are an excellent method of posturing, they are loud and dangerous, and the bullets zipping by overhead can be terrifying to the enemy. They provide a primal release when fired and can give the shooter a feeling of power. Posturing is very evident in combat tactics. War cries are a form of posturing. A battle cry cannot kill, but it provides a primal release and can intimidate the enemy. Bullets slamming into the ground or wall near a trooper can be frightening and when they are put there by some screaming 'maniac' it is much more terrifying.

This may be why so many rounds were fired in Vietnam without any real hits. (52,000 shots to score 1 hit? Our troops weren't that bad at shooting!). US troops were in many cases superior at posturing. However, when it comes down to it, when the crunch comes, many people, regardless of how tough they sound in the barracks, find it hard to kill their fellow man and prefer to posture when possible.

Fire superiority means one side has postured successfully and has intimidated the enemy. In the Civil War there are cases where yelling matches have been held and the loser has retreated, simply because they were intimidated by the other side's battle cries. (This happened in the woods where they couldn't see each other but superior units retreated from inferior units because of effective posturing on the other side.)

The military does not recognize this as posturing, per se, they call it intimidating the enemy.

This does not mean all soldiers are trying to scare the enemy rather than kill him. A few may actively try to kill the enemy and this is where a great many of the casualties come from. Like the one percent of fighter pilots that killed forty percent of the total enemy killed.

Fighting is another option and then both sides will make an effort to kill each other. One side may submit, but for humans on the field of battle this is the most dangerous option because prisoners are often killed in the heat of battle, and not always on purpose! Fleeing becomes the best option and even this is very dangerous.

Distance from the other human directly affects how easy it is to kill him. Bomber pilots don't have trouble laying waste to kilometers of land and killing hundreds or thousands because they don't see or hear the dead or dying. For infantry units, this takes on a different aspect, they see the fear in the other person's eyes, the sweat on his brow, the pain in his face, the blood spurting from the wound, the desperate cries for help or mercy. The enemy becomes very real and vivid, the enemy becomes someone with hopes, dreams, fears, a mother, a father, maybe a wife, just like the shooter. In a way the shooter can see the enemy as little different than himself and killing that enemy soldier is like killing oneself. This is why infantrymen are more traumatized by war than any other field.

Wars are about humans fighting each other, it is horror and chaos, fear and trauma. This is why the shooting rate among troops is lower than most people would think. People will be willing to face death and dismemberment more willingly if they didn't have to kill anyone. Medics for instance are notorious for risking life and limb to save someone while a regular trooper may stand by doing nothing but fire impotently at the enemy.

When a soldier flees he becomes a back. Again, humans are like animals. If you run from a dog it will chase you down and bite you, maybe kill you. Humans are like that, to run from a human high on adrenaline is an open invitation to be chased and killed. This is why the most dramatic casualties occur during a retreat. Troops no longer look into the eyes of a terrified foe like himself, he sees a back, prey that is fleeing from him and is much more willing and able to shoot him in the back. A fleeing soldier is no longer somebody, he is something, he is prey for the soldier behind him.

Killing a soldier that is submitting is a very frequent occurrence because the killer may be high on adrenaline, is in a highly emotional state and may not realize his foe is surrendering. Then there are the psychopaths that are quite willing to shoot down surrendering troops and these individuals are in every military.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

thanks

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Santorum also thinks the government should control what happens in the bedroom. He also calls individualism "radical."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lLOi2DdV44

[-] 0 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

Attempted Hate Crime. Charges should be brought up immediately.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 2 years ago

Upon further thought. I wish to put forth this idea. Santorum is not using the word nigger in a racist context. Obama is not a believer in personal freedom. He is a believer in having as many people dependent on the government as possible. Anti-business and anti-corporate. That only leaves Big Brother in Washington DC, and many, many individuals say no to that

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 2 years ago

Obama has his supporters. Santorum has his. Let's see where the chips fall. Bipartisan compromise has clearly not worked.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The whole two party electoral system hasn't "worked" for the majority. that's why #OWS was born.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

I am finall on the side of you Socialist Occupy people. Isn't this the narcissist that wants to eliminate pornography by law? Why? Because he has enough followers of the wonderful little fairytale book, the Bible? I am sure he has stroked his own junk to some grade B porn in his lifetime. Why does he want it eliminated? Because his Jeebus said casual sex and promiscuity is "evil" and "wrong". That is why I can't be a Republican. I like their fiscal agenda but......... They claim to "want to get the government out of our lives." Yeah as long as we follow the values system and self deprivation of pleasure that they derive from their Fairytale book.

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

You are a very disturbed person.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I want to see the transcripts - that will tell the story - it seems like the video sound had a "static break".

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

He said that, because that's what bigots do.

It always comes out, sooner or later.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Just to let you know I deleted my last comment because it obviously was interpreted in a way opposite to my intention. I am not sympathetic to racist politics. Anyone I offended, I do apologize.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It doesn't make a difference. My statement still stands.

Santorum is a proven bigot, and he's one of the best the (R)epelican'ts have to offer.

What's that say about the rest of them?

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Maybe I'm confused. I thought you were objecting to what I had said.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That was in another post, but my statement still stands.

You knew it's meaning when you asked it.

So no. I don't believe for a second that you are confused.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yes, I did know its meaning. I was responding to a comment that Santorum's "stumble" "didn't make sense" and I was being rhetorical and sarcastic. Sarcasm backfired here. Again my apologies to all.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Apology accepted.

There is however, no doubt in my mind that the slip by Santorum was authentic.

It was his own racism shining darkly, emboldened by his feeling empowered by his parties open acceptance of his bigotry of LBGTs.

What does this really say about the (R)epelican't party?

[-] 2 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

Santorum did not stumble. It was a direct political affirmation of belief to scare a group of voters to group behind him. It was pretty smart of him, he is not the front runner and has nothing to lose. He is throwing all in and going for it.

The selective audience he is targeting is the highest voting populace year after year. Older white wealth voters or 1% They not only vote but write big campaign checks from their corporate boards. Then direct their corporate backed new shows to slam the competition.

The 1% are using a non political affiliated parties guidelines against you.

Occupy the vote!!!

Start now

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yepperz, Santorum is a bigot appealing to other bigots.

That's been the gist of his whole campaign.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

the republican party is the party of "the angry white guy." the democratic party is the "more effective evil."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Barack-Obama-is-the-Mo-by-Glen-Ford-120324-930.html

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I don't agree with this op ed.

Further, I'd rather hear what you have to say.

How do you feel about the bigotry expressed in the current (R)epelican't campaign?

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The R attacks on Obama are disgusting.

The R's are obnoxious in their racism. They took the "solid south" that used to be "D" through appeals to white chauvinism. Their appeal is to the smugness of non black people.

Even giving Obama every benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions (certainly not his deeds) the electoral system does not offer any way out for the majority and definitely not for the poorest and most downtrodden. The whole system has to be upended by action. I don't know if #OWS will be the vehicle that sees this through, but for sure right now they are on the front line and doing "God's work". Were my circumstances and health different I'd be right there with them. I wish them all success.

As for people who will vote for Obama, I know they want things to get better. I am with them in their hopes. Just for them to feel better and stronger I hope Obama wins. But I just know that with the Dems and with the system as it is they will be disappointed and betrayed. The answer is in the streets, in the factories and the campuses, not in the voting booth.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thanks.....:)

That was refreshing, and I agree almost 100%.

My disagreement, lies in the voting booth.

This movement will take some time to find it's true legs.

To this end, I think it is perhaps even more important to watch what is going on in the States, where buying government is cheaper and more effective in the long run.

I feel that it is there that the "right" is pushing the hardest to divide us.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I see no contradiction between #OWS not endorsing any candidates and individuals who identify with #OWS voting as they see fit, even campaigning if they think that will help. Electorally in 2012 a #OWS endorsement would be the kiss of death anyhow. Let each follow her/his conscience in this matter and keep occupying.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I agree 100%.

The movement is too young to allow itself to fall into the teabagger trap.

It needs to remain focused on 2016, as it originally planned.

[-] 0 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

Smart plan. World Solidarity!

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Obama is in over his head. He was completely inexperienced four years ago and he doesn't understand why the economy is not growing faster just because he ordered it. You saw from his comments the other day regarding Russia that he wants to give away the house to Russia and effect income redistribution here in the US in his second term.

He is a closet socialist who doesn't believe in liberty or the American dream. I fear we are in for a period of slow growth and high unemployment for awhile.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26864) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If you were wondering if Sanatation . . um Sanitorium . . . Sanatarium about his being a white supremacist?

No need to wonder anymore.

Definite Hater.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

DKAtoday I agree.