Rachel Maddow: Bill O'Reilly is "a race-baiting f*ck."

I would say Maddow's biggest sin here is stating the obvious.

Amen

Rachel has something O'Reilly wishes he had: true intelligence.

Rachel: nail hit head again! You Go Lass!

Sophi thanks for this I missed it earlier!

and maddow said that anybody in favor of the AZ law is a bigot. she's just another talking head spewing a personal agenda, much like those on fox and cnn.

and maddow said that anybody in favor of the AZ law is a bigot

Link? Proof of any kind?

why is it that lefty has to use racism to make a point...because they can and when racism goes away lefty will not have a point...so therefore lefty will continue to use racism as a tool to make themselves look superior to the Republican or conservative........I say It is time to end racism....how about lefty can I get some agreement....been saying this message for how long now? which lefty would like to be the first to step and say yes to ending racism for once and for all?....To take responsibility and say we will no longer use that kind of language because it continues to keep racism alive.... but what is your answer...wait I remember?

We will stop bringing up race when the right stop using it as a political tool to stir up division and fear

or you remeber this lefty quote:

And please don't deflect to the racism in the 60's. Simply put, it is condemned by today's Left

yet you still use racism....or maybe this lefty quote:

The only thing more ridiculous than a black Republican is a gay republican

and that concudes tonights episode of racial remarks that explain whY Harry Reid is a lefty(all posts from on the vine)...so is this the type of language that suits you...then you too can be in the Harry Reid fan club.....No go ahead and start thinking about real positive ideas like EndingRacism.

Wait a Sec here!

Are you talking about how FOX and it's Ilk is headed to oblivion! and just playing with everyone here!

We get it,, and Maddow Nailed IT !

Silly man. Fox isn't going into oblivion. CNN is history! :-)

Way to show some class people.

Silly man. Fox isn't going into oblivion. CNN is history! :-)

Fox's largest demographic goes into oblivion at the highest rate. I don't think even fox fundamentalists could argue with that...they're 65 and up.

With black viewers, Primetime Fox is already in oblivion - 1.38% black viewership v 19-20% at msnbc and cnn.

me @1.3

Proves that liberals can dish it out but they can't take it.

You're such a classy guy micrometer.

micro

Wrong word choice. The 'f' word is waaaaay more PC than the word you chose. Personally I do not think this is a liberal thing (and I am no liberal).

Righties are scared of Maddow. Her intellect terrifies them.

I this is what liberals call intellect, I pitty each and every one of you.

Humm chad.cullum

Middle Class AMERICAN! people are seeing who the freaking lunatic and idiot hate lovers are.

As in history a SMALL group cry out and claim they are right in using McCarthyism.

WE SEE YOU !

billy racism isn't just walking around calling people derogatory names for everyone to see, its the way you think about and treat people based on their race. In this day and age most racist are smart enough to know that they don't want to be labeled racists so they don't go around calling black people N's, but they think it and they say it when they are around like minded people.

so when the right wing says lets stop all the racist talk what they really mean is I'll stop calling people racist names to their face and you guys stop calling me racist...

I'm sure you already know this but I thought you should know that we do also :D

Rachel has huge balls Bill O'Reilly will get one of his viewers to kill her like he did Dr. Tiller.

Maybe we should all worry about worry about what we are and stop trying to unintelligibly label people as racist just because the party they align with. If it is fair to call all republicans racist, it is also fair to call all democrats dumb-asses. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

No one has called all republicans racist. You've made that up in order to manufacture umbrage.

See 1.22 Maybe I should have said right wing instead. Sorry.

Who is Rachel Maddow? Is that the guy after Olberman? People Really watch Msnbc? WOW too Funny.

Darn that O'reilly. How could he infer that our sweet Rachel could be a rapper/muslim convert? That's crazy. She can't rap and as far as I know Muslims are not very tolerant. O'reilly missed on this one again. FOX News just makes up stuff. Now I am convinced. .Thanks, Soph

Amir Junaid Muhadith (born Chauncey Lamont Hawkins, June 20, 1975 in Harlem, New York) better known by his stage name Loon, was an African-American rapper formerly part of P. Diddy's Bad Boy Records, where he released his self-titled debut album, Loon. He has also made many guest appearances on songs of the R&B and hip hop genres.

Born in a Christian family, Chauncey Lamont Hawkins changed his name to Amir Junaid Muhadith after converting to Islam. He recently travelled to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the holiest and most sacred site of the Islamic religion^[1], to perform Umrah. He has since ended his career from rap, and right now is focusing on seeking knowledge and giving Da'wa.

Silly man. Fox isn't going into oblivion. CNN is history! :-)

I figured this. Fox is so far removed from actual history that they can't even let themselves die. Shameful.

Who is Rachel Maddow? Is that the guy after Olberman? People Really watch Msnbc? WOW too Funny.

Obvious troll is obvi... Ooh shiny object! *runs away*

"A race baiting f--k"?? Ha!

A better description of O'Reilly hasn't existed till now. Here's a man who would not have a carreer on T.V. if not for FOX, who regularly produces and promotes dishonesty and hate, being called out AFTER he refers to one of his better prepared and HONEST competitors as a "loon", and conservatives here are upset about it?

Ha! and double Ha!! What the hell do you conservatives expect when one of your "heroes" lashes out in such a crazy manner? Maddow must be on the right track when O'Reilly calls her names. She kicked his ass again!!

Rachel is the best. Stating the obvious , yes...but if not her ...then who??

Billo became famous as a race baiting F*UK and he still relies on that to keep his racist fan base riled up.

Rachel has something O'Reilly wishes he had: true intelligence.

A penis?

Ok, that does it. I've had it.

F**k off with all this "duhh, liberals are douches" and "conservatives are racist, evil, tossers" etc etc etc.

It's so f**king boring. Every single damn topic involves what some absolute insignificant wanker said about an issue, and very rarely centres around the issue at all. Hell, I've seen topics that are about someone's comments on someone's COMMENTS! Trust me, for what I've seen, this appears to be a very American disease. Failure to address this polarisation will result in disaster.

This is why cable news is f**king s**t. It's all about personality. "Anderson Cooper 360", "The Rachel Maddow Show", "The O'Reilly Factor", "Hannity" and whatever Glenn Beck's show is called.

Newsflash, supposed news anchors (of course, all the above do is promote opinion), no-one gives a f**k what you think. Your level of narcissism is astonishing. Having trained as a journalist, it pains me to see these people make themselves the centre of attention.

Of course, then we get to what they report about, which, all in all, appears to be, in the vast majority of cases, nothing of real importance. A lot of it is just highlighting what someone on the other side has said.

I'm left-leaning, but, please, I emplore you: Stop falling into the cable news' hands. They want you acting in a tribal fashion and supporting a team, because then they can get you as viewers. That's their modus operandi.

However, for the record, Fox News is by far and away the worst offender. Bill O'Reilly frequently boasts about ratings (great job, supposed journalist) in some sort of perverse penis measuring competition. Maddow may be more restrained, but she's just the anti-Bill O'Reilly.

Don't even get me started on Keith Olbermann. He's a grade A d*ck.

End of rant. Much better...

Is this the best you on the left can do ? You must still be sore from the a$$ kicking that Greta gave Gloria the other night. I guess crying racism and backing illegal immigration is the only way you can keep your base and get them out to vote. They certainly aren't showing up this November because of the cluster#*&$ policies that are being jammed down our throats. Evidently trying to separate and divide the country on race is the only thing you guys have left. What a pity you can't win with your minds and must resort to shooting your mouths.

It's not so much that republicans are racists.

It' more accurate to say though that all racists have become republicans.

Rachel speaks the truth about Bill. Like it or not, it is the truth.

My, my, what a creative use of verbage. Rachel Intelligent? Yeah, right. Now I know why some refer to her as "Rachel Madcow". I think she is an angry white woman.

It' more accurate to say though that all racists have become republicans.

If this statement is true, then there must not be any Dems left.

Maddow is a paid political hack. She helped destroy Air America and now she's destroying MSNBC.

Rachel has something O'Reilly wishes he had: true intelligence.

#1.4 - Mon Oct 4, 2010 4:59 PM PDT

O'Reilly has something Rachel wishes she had: an audience

Maddow is a paid political hack. She helped destroy Air America and now she's destroying MSNBC

No $hit, now name me one shill on Fixed Noise that isn't?

But the biggest difference, Maddow is intelligent, Faux "News" counters with Sarah Palin and Glen Beck. Hell, even O'Liely's claim to fame prior to joining the Fauxies was Inside Edition. He was a friggen tabloid journalist.

The whole of media is race baiting because they don't want us to talk about the important things. If we talk about the important things, we might figure out that right and left, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal don't mean anything at all. We might realize through our conversations that the average republican and average democrat actually believe primarily the same things (with the exception perhaps of some key "moral" issues that they often use to keep us confounded and discombobulated when they aren't trying to convince us that all poor slackers are minority democrats and all racists are white republicans). We might realize that just as many millionaire CEOs are democrats as are republicans. We might just realizes that just as many thieves in this country belong to the party of "yes we can" as to the party of "No". We might just realize that the people we are really trying to take our country back from are the media F*$#s, all of them, every single one of whom believe they have some authority to supplant our NEWS with their highly-biased and unethical drivel along with countless stories about this imbalanced celebrity or that rich little skank and her lack of undergarments, because they are paid by the corporate yucks to do so (hello, advertising pays for the news, people, and the last I checked, it wasn't the average American out there buying all that advertising, it was the same companies that are purchasing our representatives and turning them from statesmen to politicians, but I digress)! Not to mention the fact that they truly believe we are all too ignorant and/or stupid to hear what is really going on in this world and decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, what is black and white.

JUST TELL US THE NEWS ALREADY!

Typical Democrat (left).

Someone says something you can't defend, you resort to name calling.

Funny thing is, most people see this and that's why your party will take it in the arse this November.

Sucks to be on the losing side and stuck in the past but you get what you voted for, now deal with it.

Lu,

In alot of moral issues I actually agree with the right wing. There are just some moral issues in which I completely disagree with the right so much that I could never back them up. And as far as Economics go I can't see how anyone that makes under 100k a year can even think to support Republican economics, never mind most of us that make 50-80k a year as a household.

If the time that Bush spent in office taught us anything it was that the trickle down effect DOES NOT WORK. You can sit there and hope and wait for the scraps from the wealthiest Americans table all you want...

Wow, you guys are nice.....So I guess this is just a "liberal circle jerk of hatred." How is O'Reilly a race baiter? By stating the obvious fact that 91% of black people blindly support the president soley based on race? They do. There was a time when this independent might have voted for a democrat in an election, but since the hatefilled leftists have hijacked the party, there is no chance anymore.

toxic did you not see how many blacks have historically voted democratic every other election??? maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on racial polls made by racists?

91% of black people blindly support the president soley based on race?

Source? Where is your source to back up this statistic?

the obvious fact that 91% of black people blindly support the president soley based on race? They do.

Really?

Again?

Willful ignorance and juvenile resentment are the only reasons that this stupid-ass theme gets repeated. The racist is wherever Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly happen to be and possibly wherever someone is vacuously nodding his or her head in agreement with their race-baiting screeds.

Does anyone know what Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann and Michael Steele have in common other than being black?

Anyone?

OK, I'll tell you, but you need to pay attention or you might miss it.

Ready? Here it is.

All three of the above-mentioned black politicians lost the black vote to their white opponents. They didn't just lose the black vote, they lost it by landslide margins. These black politicians got smoked, spanked, and crushed. Black voters rejected these black politicians in droves. Black voters supported the white opponents of those black politicians by overwhelming margins. Neither Blackwell, Swann nor Steele garnered more than 20% of the black vote.

So in case some brain-dead, resentment-filled moron didn't get it the first or the second or the third or the fourth time the Newsvine community has had to respond to bull$h1t statements from bull$h!t people like Limbaugh:

Black people consistently vote their interests, not their race. Mitch Landrieu garnered over 60% of the black vote in his mayoral win in New Orleans. The Chicago Defender - a black owned newspaper - endorsed Richard Daley over Congressman Bobby Rush. Black people have a long and well documented history of not only voting for white candidates, but voting for those white candidates even when they are running against a black opponent. Black people have been voting for white candidates for 140 years. These votes went overwhelmingly to white republicans for almost a century. They went overwhelmingly over to democrats once republicans became the party of racial resentment. Those votes will stay in the democratic column as long as people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly blather on in their racial resentment and as long as people like ToxicChemist ignorantly repeat such garbage. People on the vine can wallow in their racial resentment to their hearts content, but it does not change the fact that they could not be more wrong in their assessment of the black vote.

Rachel is right. Bill O'Reilly is indeed a race baiting phuk. So is Limbaugh. The CoH does not allow me to share well-deserved sentiments about viners whose blind resentments make them willing conduits for the dissemination of abject ignorance.

Demothenes, I have to wonder why we don't all vote on morals, demanding that every politician list outright his/her stance on the moral causes so that we could choose solely on that basis, rather than this fictional left and right/conservative and liberal nonsense that means nothing. The reality is the idea of the republican moral vs the democrat moral is a fallacy. These are lines that have been drawn by media, not by the individuals themselves who run for office. I'd be willing to bet that fear of the media spin keeps most politicians from admitting to their actual morals (i.e. why a republican congressman is suddenly outed as gay--how can he be gay? he's republican). Obviously, morals are personal. Through media they have crept into our political venue, when our laws are not meant to be moral, only ethical, and ethics are based not on what you or I believe is right, but on what is collectively acceptable at the time.

This is why the anti-abortion stance is always portrayed as a religious idea and never as the idea that ethically we should give innocent unborn children at least the same rights to life as we give convicted criminals or that ethically we should view the irresponsibility of unplanned pregnancy with the same disapproval and demand for accountability as we view the irresponsibility of driving while under the influence and inadvertently committing manslaughter. The birth or abortion of a child is purely at the whim of the would-be mother, because it is her body, which is a ridiculous responsibility to give a woman who is either distraught because she was maltreated and abused (abortion is right in the case of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy would endanger the woman's life) or who was too irresponsible to use sufficient protection or better yet not have that sort of relations with a man she had no intent of having a child with. Even the would-be father is not given the right to refuse his responsibility, but if the woman chooses not to abort, he is stuck with a financial burden for the next 18 years (and while I hate to speak ill of my gender, I do believe that some women have children just because they are trying to trap a man into marriage and when that doesn't work have the child just to spite him, in order to make him pay for years, not for not wanting the child, but for not loving her). There are many reasons beyond the moral "it's a sin" reason why the abortion laws should be changed, and all of these reasons are ethical. Perhaps it should be against the law to commit the act of procreation without absolute intent to procreate on the part of both parties, but it is easier to allow for the creation and destruction of a life we assume is not really "living" than it is to demand personal accountability, self-respect, an intelligent personal dialogue involving the question "Am I Really Ready To Have A Child With THIS Person" prior to the act, not after, and incredibly high standards before we accidentally go off all willy-nilly and create someone who was never given a choice about whether or not they wanted to be created--it just happened to them--nor the choice of who they would be created by and will be forced to put up with as relatives for the rest of their gosh forsaken lives (some people might very well WANT to be aborted, if given the option--so maybe there is an ethical claim to the idea that abortion for unwanted pregnancy should be enforced). We can't look beyond what the media tells us to see though.

In the end, we cannot look at the R or D after a candidate's name and know what they truly stand for as an individual. The media never tells us what they truly stand for unless it is to slander them. Does it really matter whether or not a politician is pro death penalty or anti repeal of DADT? I say it cannot really matter, first, because each individual has at his heart his personal morals and our representatives are not elected to govern on morals, they are elected to represent their constituents and if enough constituents write a letter telling the representative how to represent, those constituents will win out because ultimately the representative wants to keep his job. And second, the media assures the public never knows enough about what is going on to really make an informed decision. They keep us juxtaposed by calling on our personal morals, when morals have nothing to do with the thing. Only ethics do, and ethics are never personal.

dwillie

THANK YOU ! ! !

Well said.

A new Gallup poll shows just how racially divided the country has become over the President. The poll shows a whopping 91% of Blacks supporting Barack Obama as compared to only 36% of Whites.

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/10/04/gallup-fifty-five-point-difference-in-support-of-president-obama-among-blacks-and-whites/

Andy, It was a Gallop poll reported at the beginning of October, but it was also reported by Rassmussen....why not do your own homework instead of asking others to do it for you.

I'll spell out the significance of it for you. The only demographic that actually supports the president in substantial numbers now are the blacks who have historically voted for the party who will more likely give them handouts for sitting on their collective asses instead of making something of their own lives. It's called "personal responsibility", demosthenes.

Interesting I'm black and voted for the President and still stand by him, as do many other friends and family I know and they work, been working most of their lives. @!$%# I've been working since I was 15. Maybe I should tell them to make something of themselves and stop being lazy?

bonos -rama , righties are terrified of Madcow's balls not her intelligence,

Obama was voted in because of his color.

Simple statement, backed by facts.

Most black Americans voted for him and we all know they all agreed with his policies. (sarcasm)

Still, in the face of a total failure of an administration and other countries laughing at our government, the black community still backs him in overwhelming majority of numbers.

Still think this isn't about race? Think again....

If he was white, a majority of blacks in this country would NOT be backing him and most of the left wouldn't either. People can't say squat about him without being a race baiter or racist.

Sad, I used to think being a racist was bad, now it's just a term for people who don't agree with Obama. A badge I am proud to wear now, thanks to the left.

Interesting I'm black and voted for the President and still stand by him, as do many other friends and family I know

Of course you do LadyLis, of course you do.

funny thing is I think it would be great if they did run on their own ethics and beliefs instead of having to belong to one group or the other. By belonging to the group they are expected to vote the same way the group does with their personal ethics coming in a close second.

However, if there were no R or D and people just ran based on their ethics etc. How many candidates do you think there would be in the end? I mean right now if you aren't a R or D as a candidate you may as well stop wasting your time. But if there were no more R or D there would probably be 6-10 candidates for President, maybe 5 of which would be really popular.

The way things are now like it or not atleast the person who wins the Presidential candidacy won it with the majority of Americans voting for him. I think that if there were too many candidates and someone ended up president with say 20-25% of Americans voting for him it would be a travesty. I mean he would be running our country when only about 1/4th of the country supported him...

Obama was voted in because of his color.

Patrick, YOU LIE! It will still be a lie no matter how many times you say it.

Simple statement, backed by facts.

A simpleminded statement, backed by nothing but stupidity. You offer no facts and you ignore the facts already presented (1.46 for example) that expose your thesis nothing more than the hate mongering that it is.

Most black Americans voted for him and we all know they all agreed with his policies.

Do you have any idea of what policies Obama had that black people disagree with? Of course you don't.

...the black community still backs him in overwhelming majority of numbers.

President Obama remains infinitely better than the alternative. Besides, hating the President and calling him Marxist/Socialist/Muslim/Nazi would put the black community in the same camp as the stupid people. This isn't the first time that black people disagreed with most white people. The majority of black people have been in disagreement with the majority of white people for the first 340 years that black people have been in the Americas. Black people were correct then and correct now. Apparently the majority of whites are just as unenlightened now as they have been since Jamestown.

If he was white...

...black people would still be supporting him just as they continued to support President Clinton throughout the whole whitewater/lewinski waste of time. Your ignorance of history is no excuse for making completely stupid statements that have no basis in fact.

I used to think being a racist was bad...A badge I am proud to wear now.

And it fits you so well. You clearly didn't vote for him because of his color and no amount of your silly deflections will obscure this fact. You've exposed yourself and confirm it with every post you make. It is clear why most black people avoid the republican party. No thinking, self respecting black person would ever want to be anywhere near you if they didn't have to.

Patrick-1112710, regarding post #1.53:

Obama was voted in because of his color.

Simple statement, backed by facts.

That is not a:

Simple statement, backed by facts.

That is Bullsh!t, backed by a phony Racist narrative.

Most black Americans voted for him and we all know they all agreed with his policies. (sarcasm)

So Patty, you claim to know what - Most black Americans - were thinking when they voted for Candidate Obama, and you - sarcastically - imply that it was because of the color of his skin and not because - they all agreed with his policies.

If that were true; then it begs the question, why then; didn't the majority of the African American Electorate vote for - Shirley Chilsom/ Jessie Jackson/ Alan Keys/ Al Sharpton - when they ran for the Presidency? Why did they vote in the majority for the white candidate instead.

Still, in the face of a total failure of an administration and other countries laughing at our government, the black community still backs him in overwhelming majority of numbers.

There is no - total failure of the Obama Administration - and - other countries are not laughing at our government - your assertions are merely the typical, transparent daily spin that is manufactured by the fox propaganda network.

The Obama administration has not had total failure in its 18 months of existence. It has been stifled by the unreasoning cynical calculation of Republican Obstructionism, remember when your obese leader - Rush Lardbutt - said that he wanted the President to fail? that has been the Republican strategy all along, the party of [No!] believes in party before country, and the dumb Racist narrative that you are pretending to be the un-assailable truth, is all part of the effort to create the impression of total failure and the fear mongering lies that the sky is falling now that we have a - black President who the black people put into office - like no whites people voted for him.

Despite all of the road blocks and all of the un-relenting personal attacks against Our President, his administration has not been a total failure as you falsely claim in your post.

Still think this isn't about race? Think again....

For people like you of course it is.

If he was white, ...

Actually Patty, his mother was a white American girl from the mid-west and his father was an African man from Kenya.

... a majority of blacks in this country would NOT be backing him and most of the left wouldn't either.

... and if my grandmother had 4 wheels she'd be a bus. I figured I'd throw that in, since were making ridiculous speculations that don't prove anything or reveal any truths.

People can't say squat about him without being a race baiter or racist.

People say more then squat about Our President every day with out let up, no one is stopping anyone from saying what they think. Some of Our Presidents critics are sincere with valid points to make. Then there are the Racist's Morons who only make personal attacks and say nothing of substance that would add knowledge or useful information to the national conversation. It is all together fitting to call them out on their Racist Bullsh!t.

Sad, I used to think being a racist was bad, ...

Hmm ...... Ya know Patty, some how I doubt that.

... now it's just a term for people who don't agree with Obama.

That is a pretty lame attempt to excuse your Dumb Racist assertions Patty. But then again Dumb and Racist usually goes together doesn't it.

A badge I am proud to wear now, thanks to the left.

Yeah right ... blame the left for your Racist Rants.

Demonsthenes, perhaps we the people should require an outing of our representatives (and would be representatives) on all the major issues so that individually, instead of voting republican or democrat, we can vote for who best truly represents our values. Since a person can be primarily republican or democrat with a swing in the middle on issues on which they diverge, the two party system can then remain, but we won't have to wait for voting records to out them, as there would be full disclosure from the beginning. We would want to know not just how the person stands on an issue, but why, so that we are certain that person really has to consider their beliefs at the foundation and be capable of justifying them, even if that justification does not stand as right to others. This would also require us as voters to consider our own stands on issues and our reasons for our own beliefs. This would give us the opportunity of determining what really matters to us, so that if a candidate believes primarily as we do, but diverges on one key issue that is very dear to us, we can weigh whether or not that issue is enough of a reason for us to vote instead for someone who diverges more from our beliefs but on issues that are not as dear.

This idea of placing one or two ads here and there in order to communicate in thirty seconds or less the ideals one holds is highly flawed. Sometimes the only information you receive about a candidate is the advertisements of the other side telling you what one bad thing they have done, in an attempt to sway you. It's completely wrong.

I say if you want to represent the people, you should be willing to stand on your principles from the start. Once you've gotten the job just because you had a little R or D after your name on the ballot is not the time for you to be deciding what you really believe, and it is not the time for your constituents to be finding out who you are.

We cannot trust the media to give us this without tainting it--the media is all arrogant these days and they really are corporate-owned puppets anyway. I think it should be part of the requirements though, so that every person who is eligible to vote knows where the candidates stand.

So many misinformed people, it's sad... much like the state of this great country.

Coincidence? I think not.

You guys need to read more than MSNBC.

Like they say in the X-Files, "the truth is out there". Sadly, you won't look for it.

So, live in your little "Obama can do no wrong" world. Meanwhile, the rest of us will ensure he is a one term failure and the shift of power goes back to where it belongs.

You guys had your chance and it cost this country trillions with no end in sight.

And btw, being called racist used to be a bad thing. Now it is used for anyone who disagrees with your Messiah. Sad. I used to think it was a bad word, now I wear it like a badge of honor thanks to the left.

And you, Patrick, present the other end of the problem.

When did the " True Americans support Bush" idiology shift to the " True Americans oppose Obama" idiology? Your posts only prove that the right can be and is just as divisive as the "liberals" republicans so love to complain about.

P.S.: Why is it the only people who refer to Obama as a "messiah" are people who don't like the guy?

...being called racist used to be a bad thing. Now it is used for anyone who disagrees with your Messiah. Sad. I used to think it was a bad word, now I wear it like a badge of honor thanks to the left.

You wrote this already. It is just as stupid and revealing now as it was when you wrote it the first time. It won't become any less stupid the more you repeat it. Being called a racist is still a bad thing. Worse, however, is doing, writing and saying things that confirm the charge.

So many black people don't like republicans because the republican party has so many people like you, Patrick.

dwillie, regarding post #1.61:

You wrote this already. It is just as stupid and revealing now as it was when you wrote it the first time. It won't become any less stupid the more you repeat it. Being called a racist is still a bad thing. Worse, however, is doing, writing and saying things that confirm the charge.

Pattys stupid writing:

Patrick-1112710 - post #1.59:

...being called racist used to be a bad thing. Now it is used for anyone who disagrees with your Messiah. Sad. I used to think it was a bad word, now I wear it like a badge of honor thanks to the left.

You beat me to it dwillie I was going to point out the idiocy of making a dumb racist comment twice, (as I said before, dumb and racist do go together; thanks for proving my point patty)

You did an excellent job of pointing it out yourself dwillie.

Wow tedgarcia.

Your post was both racist and illiterate. I guess the two do tend to go hand in hand.

Because you know only black people receive assistance checks.

Not Asians, Whites, Hispanics, etc.

Only the Black people receive welfare.

I guess the band of ill mannered, woefully tactless and classless white people in line at the grocery store the other evening screaming, yelling, spitting and swearing at the clerk because their food stamps didn't cover the bill (as if it were her fault) were actually black people in white make-up?

Riiiighhhhhhhhht. Ok. then.

tedgarcia, I marked your post 1.62 as inflammatory and of no value. Too bad there wasn't a menu item called "racist" as that is the most accurate description of your garbage.

May you be pulled over by an Arizona cop.

wilgramax & dwillie -

I'm sorry but I'm just telling it like it is. I'm not making this up; I've read about thie plight of the blacks in America. Racist? Why is it that when someone tells the truth about blacks you are a racist. When you disagree with Obama and his socialist agenda you are a racist. Tell me, is it not true that more blacks are on welfare than white or any other ethnic groups? Is it not true that more blacks vote Democrat because Democrat is suppose to be the party for the poor? Stop playing the race card and face reality.

At some point, the democrats are to be blamed for the black mentality which is "the gov't is my refuge and salvation". The democrat's policy is to keep people on welfare roll thereby assuring them of a voting block. This policy, I believe, have a deleterious effect on the black community becasue it fosters complacency and laziness to better themselves. When you get almost everything, why bother working and that's the reality.

So, dont' call my post racist and illiterate, for telling the truth. If you think I'm wrong, then make your counter point. Don't shoot the messenger, please.

You are the one playing the race card and you lie with nearly every post, tedgarcia. I'm not sorry to tell you that the only "like it is" you're telling is whatever you read on Stormfront, which is the most appropriate form for your sick, twisted, willfully ignorant and hateful ramblings. It is you and people like you who are helping destroy this country and what you know about the so-called "black mentality" wouldn't fit inside a thimble. The reality is that you harbor resentments and attitudes that are stunningly and disgustingly malevolent, more appropriate for the America of Bull Connor and George Wallace. You are a walking anachronism; representative of an ugliness that people are stunned to see and reluctant to acknowledge the existence of.

Black people vote democrat because the republican party is filled with people like you. Your repulsive views are unworthy of nothing but the most explicit derision and disdain. They certainly aren't deserving of reasoned dialogue and only the CoH prohibits a full-out airing of the truth of your character.

dwillie - You said I lied in all my post, but you didn't say what lie did I make. Is it not true that percentage wise more blacks are on welfare than any other ethenic group. I understand why it's that way and I would blame the white democrats for that. Like I said the democrats are more inclined to maintaining the welfare status of their constituients, because it assures them of a voting block. Is it not true that a large majority of blacks tend to vote democrat? You have to face the truth, man. It's not that blacks hate republican, blacks expects democrats to look out for them. I'm sure you know of Obama's agenda of "spreading the wealth". That's what the blacks want, right? That's why over 90% of blacks voted for Obama. That's a fact. I blame the stupid white democrats who thinks that welfare is the right solution to uplift the black community. Democrats are the party for foodstamps, while the republicans are for paychecks. Democrats want to take care of your needs, while republicans want you to work for it. I'm a proud republican and no doubt you are a democrat. Are you proud to be a democrat? I'm sure you are.

Like I wrote before, Stormfront is the most appropriate place for your garbage, tedgarcia. There are no words that appropriately describe the hatred, ignorance and malevolence of your posts and obviously your perspective. There is no engaging in a reasoned discussion with you because you don't hold reasoned views. There are no questions you could ask that are worthy of an answer because your questions come from the most disgusting of places. There is nothing worthwhile in your offerings and if the pride you have in being republican isn't dwarfed by the embarrassment republicans should feel about your presence, then the republican party is truly unworthy of leadership.

I think that it is easy for us to accuse the "Blacks" of living on welfare. Blame the "Illegals" for taking our jobs. It is real easy to point a finger and become angry. Most people who write about blacks being on welfare, are either on it themselves or have a family members who are. Some people think that if blacks were not on welfare, their welfare checks would be more. They blame the "illegals" for taking jobs they don't want, since it's a lot easier to blame the illegals, than the ones who are employing them.

In all fairness, Obama did not promise to 'spread wealth'. What he said is that he would give a tax cut to middle class Americans who is making under $250k a year, which he did. He also said you should be willing to pay a little more taxes if you make more. How is he trying to spread wealth? Because Beck, Rush and Hannity said so?. Remember they are the ones that want this country to fail.

If the Republicans are the party of paychecks, why did they vote NO on the bill to bring jobs back to the US while the democrats voted yes? Obviously the republicans want to keep jobs out of the US, so more people will try to get food stamps rather than jobs so they can blame the Democrats.

It's amazing to see how gullible we are, that we can't see that politicians are using lies and innuendo to make their case and we buy it.

Newt Gingrich says do as I say not as I do. I will lie and betray anyone, anytime, just not you. This is the man that went after Clinton, while he divorced his wife while she was in a hospital bed fighting cancer, because she would not accept his mistress. NOW he is using the food stamp, paycheck drivel and the uninformed are buying it. He will say whatever to sell his books.

Republicans are so against Americans right now, it's nauseating. I respect Michelle Bachman because although she is a little nutty, she is pro life and fosters kids, proving that she is for all life, the unborn and born.

I am an Independent. I will support any politician that supports the American people. Right now the Republicans are oppressing poor people, by keeping jobs out of the country, discouraging employment and blaming and belittling people that have to get food stamps to survive. They are blaming this administration for rescinding the tax cuts for the top 2%, claiming it will hurt small business. Not true. The small business they are talking about are the ones like Cindy McCain small business where she earns 6 million a year. The large law offices that makes millions. The large companies that are made up of S corporations and together they rake in billions. These are the ones the Republicans are protecting at the expense of the middle class.

People need to stop being proud Republicans or Democrats and become proud Americans.

tedgarcia, you don't belong in polite company.

wilgramax, what's a polite company? Oh I know, it's a company who is afraid to tell it like it is, a company who wants to be politically correct It's a company who don't want to face the truth. It's also a company who gets personal when it cannot make an intelligent comment about the subject. And that's the wilgramax & dwillie Co.

tedgarcia, you haven't made an intelligent comment yet and no one expects for you ever to start. Stormfront awaits you with open arms, so you can hang out with likeminded people for whom, like you, need to hate as much as they need to breathe.

The article may be a little outdated, but they were saying the same thing as tedgarcia then too.

The untold story: whites and welfare

Across the board, in nearly every category, Whites, not Blacks, comprise the majority of Americans on the public dole. But why, despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise, does the negative stereotype stubbornly cling to Blacks? "[Because of] the legacy of racism," says Dr. Berry, "the definition of us as the 'other,' the negative. So that when you think of something negative in society, you think of Black people. When you think of something positive, you think of White people."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n10_v50/ai_17361016/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.22

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/welfare01b.htm

This article is surprising about welfare.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=477

This article is about Blacks and the New Deal.

Tedgarcia, that post above me is actually correct. Like many narrow minded racist polls out there they try to trick you into thinking that the majority of people on welfare are minorities especially blacks. The truth of the matter is that they throw that out there as a percentage, for example they'll say 30% of blacks are on welfare where only 15% of whites are on it, so more blacks are on welfare, what they forget to tell you is that there are ALOT more whites in America then there are blacks, so when you count the individuals that are actually on welfare and mark their race the majority of them will actually be white...

also as to the idea you had about a war between the haves and the haves not... I think the have nots would win on sheer numbers alone thanks to the last 8 years of "the trickle down effect".

Based on the 2006 TOTAL population of each respective race in the United States, it is:
5.27% white* (5.27% of the white population is on welfare)

27.78% black* (27.78% of the black population is on welfare)

11.47% Hispanic* ** (11.47% of the Hispanic population is on welfare)

Another way to look at this data is based on the total number of people who receive welfare. It is:

39% white 11,661,000 of 29,900,000 recipients

38% black 11,362,000 of 29,900,000

17% Hispanic 5,083,000 of 29,900,000

I didn't put this on here to say "White people are the ones on welfare" or anything like that just trying to disprove the racist ramblings of an idiot.