Sure he would. This whole video is him speculating that Carolyn Maloney will be the Democratic Party's ranking member in the finance committee, because that's who the banksters want.

And then he spends 5 minutes crowing about how right he is because an article got published in a newspaper that pretty clearly indicated banksters like her. So what? Only crazy Republicans think the newspapers work for the Democratic party.

Plus, every quote he took from the article was sourced to someone on Wall Street's side. Where's a source from, say, someone in the Democratic party who's part of the decision-making process? Nowhere to be found in Cenk's piece. But, in the article he's sourcing all this from, there's this:

“For Nancy Pelosi, Maxine is a three-fer,” said one congressional staffer, noting that it will be Ms. Pelosi who ultimately makes the determination if Democrats retake control. “She is a fellow Californian, she is an African-American woman, and it is her turn.”

And this:

“A lot of folks in the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] would not look too kindly on an outside challenge,” said one Capitol Hill lobbyist. “They want to go back to the seniority system.”

And this:

For her part, Ms. Waters seems confident her long service will carry her through. “Let me let you in on a secret: I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee,” she told the 2012 California State Democratic Convention last month. “Barney Frank is about to retire, and guess who’s shaking in their boots? The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street because Maxine Waters is going to be the next chair of the Financial Services Committee.”

Oh, so Nancy Pelosi, the CBC, and Maxine herself all think she's a lock? Well, that would kinda undercut Cenk's anti-Democratic spin, so he doesn't mention any of that.

Cenk's whole show seemed to just be a vehicle for bashing Democrats, often for things they aren't actually guilty of doing. Like...this whole thing about Carolyn Maloney, which is 100% speculation!

At this point he honestly seems to me like some sort of Karl Rove creation designed to depress Democratic turnout and liberal activism.

>> ^messenger:

Cenk would only say that Waters had sold out to the banks if it were demonstrably true. He's big on backing up his statements with facts. He would never just speculate that she "must have" sold out.

Yes, yes, Obama wants to go back to when African-Americans were slaves.

That...

was...

AWESOME!

Hey QM, I'll just respond to your quotes in order:

>>> As I reply in order.

-the old "white victimization by the race card" card. I don't buy it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, and even Ron Paul have become quite successful stoking anti-black resentment. I don't see them suffering because of it, unless you count that only a tiny minority among blacks will listen to them as fallout.

>>> The mainstream media has done a far better job creating class resentment, than the handful of conservative commentators have stoking "anti-black resentment", which even if there is such a thing, is dwarfed by anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-big government sentiment.

I assure you, black people, and any people know the difference between piss and rain water. They know racism when they see it, context and all.

>>> Based on the government school education and biased media of the past 50 years, a rational, fact-filled discussion on identifying racism' is just not possible. There's a lot of money in playing the victim. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

-The largesse of the elite doesn't change the fact that the racial makeup of the 1% is white. It also doesn't change the fact that the 1% is greedy.

>>> The 1% is greedy? Compared to whom? Aren't Black professional athletes and entertainers in the 1%?

-My point is, if you are going to put up unflattering statistics and facts about blacks, don't whine when unflattering facts about white people are brought up. Goose Gander.

>>> We have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts, and the FACT is that compared to their percentage of the population, Black males commit far more crimes compared to a similar percentage of Whites. That the libmedia covers up these facts isn't doing anybody any favors.
Where were these unflattering facts about Whites? Besides Ron Paul newsletters?

-I thought your original point is that sifters don't care about/endorse black extremist sifts. It looks like the sifters don't feel threatened by that video, and are using it to demonstrate the guy's kookiness.

>>> But the response would be far different if the racial roles were reversed, wouldn't you say?

What does it mean if a handful of people don't walk out and even clap? Does it impugn every African American?

>>> Of course not. But even calling those dummies who stayed to listen to that guy 'dummies' would be met with cries of racism.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.

>>> Ron Paul isn't endorsing racial discrimination. Isn't it odd that before the Civil Rights Movement, there had to be laws in place to ENFORCE segregation?

>>> To me, Dr. Paul's criticism about the abuses of power wrought by expanded government is valid.

As I posited earlier to Net, do you believe the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?











>> ^longde:

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.

Hey QM, I'll just respond to your quotes in order:

-the old "white victimization by the race card" card. I don't buy it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, and even Ron Paul have become quite successful stoking anti-black resentment. I don't see them suffering because of it, unless you count that only a tiny minority among blacks will listen to them as fallout.

I assure you, black people, and any people know the difference between piss and rain water. They know racism when they see it, context and all.

-The largesse of the elite doesn't change the fact that the racial makeup of the 1% is white. It also doesn't change the fact that the 1% is greedy.

-My point is, if you are going to put up unflattering statistics and facts about blacks, don't whine when unflattering facts about white people are brought up. Goose Gander.

-I thought your original point is that sifters don't care about/endorse black extremist sifts. It looks like the sifters don't feel threatened by that video, and are using it to demonstrate the guy's kookiness. What does it mean if a handful of people don't walk out and even clap? Does it impugn every African American?>> ^quantumushroom:

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:
Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.

>>> It's fair to say that when a White non-liberal even mentions race, no matter the context, s/he's a racist. That's just the way it is. FOX be damned, liberals still run the mainstream media and that's their M.O.

On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate.
>>> How much money has "the oligarchy" spent on the war on poverty? 5 trillion. What percentage of that money has gone to directly aid Blacks, who make up only 13%-14% of the American population?
But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.
Facts is facts, however unpleasant. You would think those that are trying to fix the problems would be grateful for accurate data. They might even see the fall of the Black family unit coinciding 'somehow' with the rise of the welfare state.
Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those.
http://videosift.com/video/Exterminate-White-People-Off-of-th
e-Face-of-the-Planet
>>> Yeah, he's likely a lone kook, but why aren't people walking out?

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:
Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.


>>> It's fair to say that when a White non-liberal even mentions race, no matter the context, s/he's a racist. That's just the way it is. FOX be damned, liberals still run the mainstream media and that's their M.O.


On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate.

>>> How much money has "the oligarchy" spent on the war on poverty? 5 trillion. What percentage of that money has gone to directly aid Blacks, who make up only 13%-14% of the American population?

But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.

Facts is facts, however unpleasant. You would think those that are trying to fix the problems would be grateful for accurate data. They might even see the fall of the Black family unit coinciding 'somehow' with the rise of the welfare state.

Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those.

http://videosift.com/video/Exterminate-White-People-Off-of-the-Face-of-the-Planet

>>> Yeah, he's likely a lone kook, but why aren't people walking out?

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:

Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.

On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate. But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.

Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those. Is it the Louis Theroux one?

>> ^quantumushroom:

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.
Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people?
In his speech to the NAACP, Wright speculated that, "Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style. They have a different way of learning." The comments were labeled as racist,[85] and likened to eugenics. This initiated a revival of the controversy, which had been slowly waning. --wikipedia
Obama stated that he was aware of Pastor Wright's controversial comments, and had personally heard "remarks that could be considered controversial" in Wright's church, but denied having heard the particular inflammatory statements that were widely televised during the campaign. Obama was specifically asked by Bill O'Reilly if Reverend Wright had said white people were bad, to which Obama replied "no." In his book Dreams from my Father, Obama had quoted Reverend Wright as saying in a sermon "It's this world, where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where White folks' greed runs a world in need."
To me it's just another ridiculous Obama fable that in 20 years he heard "nothing unusual".
When running for President, I don't think you'd want to be associated with a church where a d1psh1t shouts "God damn America!" from the pulpit, and "Reverend" Wright went on a vitriolic tour calculated to destroy Obama when the latter left his church.
Also, we've got more than one sift of Blacks demanding White people be exterminated and liberalsifters couldn't care less, because only Whites and non-liberals are truly racist.

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.

Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people?

In his speech to the NAACP, Wright speculated that, "Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style. They have a different way of learning." The comments were labeled as racist,[85] and likened to eugenics. This initiated a revival of the controversy, which had been slowly waning. --wikipedia

Obama stated that he was aware of Pastor Wright's controversial comments, and had personally heard "remarks that could be considered controversial" in Wright's church, but denied having heard the particular inflammatory statements that were widely televised during the campaign. Obama was specifically asked by Bill O'Reilly if Reverend Wright had said white people were bad, to which Obama replied "no." In his book Dreams from my Father, Obama had quoted Reverend Wright as saying in a sermon "It's this world, where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where White folks' greed runs a world in need."

To me it's just another ridiculous Obama fable that in 20 years he heard "nothing unusual".

When running for President, I don't think you'd want to be associated with a church where a d1psh1t shouts "God damn America!" from the pulpit, and "Reverend" Wright went on a vitriolic tour calculated to destroy Obama when the latter left his church.

Also, we've got more than one sift of Blacks demanding White people be exterminated and liberalsifters couldn't care less, because only Whites and non-liberals are truly racist.

I posted this once before, so I am simply reposting this. What do you make of it? Am I a lesser person because of my views? Is the amoral world of politics shadier because it uses race everyday to achieve its agendas, both for and against minorities?

If you wish to be elected, and pander to racists, but then use your power to remain neutral or even help the cause, what then? And if you were racist 20 years ago, but never again benefited from it, does it really matter?

I am all about forgiving though--all people, even the worst of the worst (Just remember that too.)


"You know I am racist right? I don't like it--but that is how life has formed me... A group treats me with hate, I treat them back in kind motherfucker... The same reason I hate redneck country bumpkins... much like the hate spewed against Cops, Conservatives and the religious on this site, now that I think of it. (Oh, and it's also the reason I am fine with African Americans. For the most part I have had great experiences with most.)

Now, there are limits. I don't allow it to affect the way I treat people--all are equal. I don't teach it to my children. And I don't preach it.

But to blame Paul for writing (Perhaps he did or did not, I don't care) a paper years ago is utterly ridiculous. People change, who knows. You certainly don't. All I know is he hasn't wrote new hate since then, or at least it isn't widely known.

And, I might add, politicians have done far worse... Like John Edwards."

Listen, I'm not super anal about this type of stuff, as long as a sincere attempt is made to adhere to the guidelines.

What I am trying to avoid is defining Africans by what others have done to them, rather than what they have themselves done. I think this may be a little subtle, but it's an important line.

So a vid about people wantonly murdering african americans would not quality. A vid about african american(s) fighting against racism would qualify.

I would accept the MLK video, given his unquestionable social/cultural impact.Edit: Also the MLK vid would qualify under history and politics of the african diaspora.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^longde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_diaspora>> ^NetRunner:
Just out of curiosity, who are "diaspora members" in this context?


So a video extolling the contributions of African-Americans to America's history would be appropriate for Africa, but a video of, say, MLK talking about the nature of the bigotry aimed at African-Americans is not?
Or maybe the latter would go in both Africa and equality?
Just trying to think ahead to the kinds of cases that will wind up coming before the Siftpreme Court.

>> ^longde:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_diaspora>> ^NetRunner:
Just out of curiosity, who are "diaspora members" in this context?



So a video extolling the contributions of African-Americans to America's history would be appropriate for *Africa, but a video of, say, MLK talking about the nature of the bigotry aimed at African-Americans is not?

Or maybe the latter would go in both Africa and equality?

Just trying to think ahead to the kinds of cases that will wind up coming before the Siftpreme Court.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

gandalf is right! - ron burgundy Paul is a Anti-war candidate, unless of course all members of congress agree by a large percentage to invade Iran or Syria, then it's just fine & dandy. & what are the chances of THAT happening?...



Actually, he is still against war and is for dialog... I think he has stated that in EVERY speech and debate he has ever made... Face it, that argument of yours is superficial at best and beneath you Mr. Truth...

In fact, Paul goes on to include sanctions in the category of war--something "anti-war" hypocritical advocate as an alternative to war. (Like tazing someone in the head 20 times instead of shooting him...)

@marinara

I will only support DTF if he gives out free promotes to me!

@dystopianfuturetoday

You know I am racist right? I don't like it--but that is how life has formed me... A group treats me with hate, I treat them back in kind motherfucker... The same reason I hate redneck country bumpkins... much like the hate spewed against Cops, Conservatives and the religious on this site, now that I think of it. (Oh, and it's also the reason I am fine with African Americans. For the most part I have had great experiences with most.)

Now, there are limits. I don't allow it to affect the way I treat people--all are equal. I don't teach it to my children. And I don't preach it.

But to blame Paul for writing (Perhaps he did or did not, I don't care) a paper years ago is utterly ridiculous. People change, who knows. You certainly don't. All I know is he hasn't wrote new hate since then, or at least it isn't widely known.

And, I might add, politicians have done far worse to obtain office than pander to the racist elements. (I still don't condone it.)

@Diogenes, by "whitewash" I mean he's trying to make ugly antipathy towards blacks look like altruistic behavior towards blacks through dishonesty.

And while I largely agree with longde, I do have to point out that a big part of the proper context is that Newt was asked about the criticism he's receiving for saying:

"I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Newt then translates this into being attacked for "citing statistics," which is total hogwash. Specifically, hogwash that he's using to whitewash what he'd really said.

And I'll gladly cop to saying hyperbolic-sounding things, but that's because we're in a situation where outright insanity and hatred from a Presidential candidate gets them a standing ovation from the crowd, and most people think there's nothing to be concerned about.

Oh, and @bobknight33, it's racist to pretend that the NAACP (and black voters generally) are only demanding food stamps, and hadn't even considered the idea of demanding jobs.

Visit the NAACP website, you tell me, does it look like they're just looking for government handouts?

In case you're curious, here's what the NAACP said in response to Newt.

I don't take recitation of those statistics as being racist in itself. Again, I'm using context. I know people who actually work in poor and ethnic communities that use such stats as a benchmark or as a reason to call folks to positive action.

If he has good at heart, when has Newt actually worked for positive change in this community that he so soundly criticizes? Obama was a community organizer in poor areas of Chicago. As a legislator he sponsored bills that directly helped people in poor areas and people in the black community. So, when he uses such stats--and he actually does have a history of telling all types of crowds to stick to a work ethic--Obama doesn't come off as a ne'er-do-well.

I know people who work at youth outreach centers and soup kitchens in DC. Noone has ever seen ol' Newt drop in to help. I've never heard of him sponsoring a bill to help the poor of DC, though he can rattle off all the problems those people have. As a longtime legislator and one-time speaker of the house and someone who lived in the DC area at least part time, he's had plenty of opportunity to lend a hand, but hasn't chosen to do so.

The guy's a professional speaker, but I've never heard of him browbeating poor whites. Hell, he's in South Carolina; he has plenty of chances to tell white people to get off welfare and food stamps. He could have used the stage in the video to do so. But, no, he has to pick on blacks to play to a white crowd.

Newt has such a well known public, political and legislative history that you don't have to troll youtube to see where he's coming from. The people who gave him a standing ovation certainly know.

>> ^Diogenes:

@longde
you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies
forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself
i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself
perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line
now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race
so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected
here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."
taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive
i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s
but again, i could be wrong...

@longde

you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies

forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself

i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself

perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line

now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race

so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected

here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."

taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive

i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s

but again, i could be wrong...

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Racism" has multiple definitions. Part of definition #1 at Dictionary.com works for me. Racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement."
This is really the starting point for all the discussions to follow. You can only believe one or the other following statements:
1) The __________ race, taken as a whole, is inferior to other races and standards of society, and always will be. There is no way the ______ race can or will ever "make it" without outside help.
2) The __________ race, taken as a whole, facing historical challenges, is fully capable of the same achievements as other races. The most that society can give to anyone--aside from temporary financial aid--is equality of opportunity.
I believe the second statement, and not because I secretly want to end all government assistance for Blacks, Whites or anyone else.

Heh, the very definition of a false dichotomy. That said, you pretty obviously believe #1, not #2.

For proof, just re-read what you say in the rest of the comment:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The stats I listed show a disproportionate use of welfare services and out-of-wedlock births for Black Americans. There are additional stats indicating disproportionately high incarceration rates, specifically among Black males.
My interpretation of these FACTS is there is something seriously wrong with modern American Black cultural values, primarily a lack of personal responsibility.
If Newt, in his quote, was addressing only Black Americans, it was likely because of their disproportionate use of welfare services to their being only 13% of the population...and possibly he was attacking the overall acceptance of unsustainable welfare dependency as the norm. NO ONE of ANY race should be satisfied enough to live forever on handouts, and after 50 years of the welfare state and now whole family generations on welfare, isn't enough enough?

Let's cut the crap about "if" Newt was talking about black people -- he was, and so were you, and are again in this post. You are very clearly saying #1: that African-Americans apparently are inferior to other races, because their race can't even "make it" with 50 years worth of help, and that the rest of us should just cut our losses.

To go back to your false dichotomy, let me just add an option #3:

3) The __________ race, taken as a whole, is fully capable of the same achievements as other races, given the same opportunities. However, they don't get the same opportunities, because they are being treated by the rest of the society they live in as if they were inherently inferior. This is because, contrary to popular belief, racism isn't dead. As a result, it is easy for people to look at overall statistics, and proclaim that the inferiority is real, since the members of the __________ race tend to be poorer, have lower life expectancy, less stable families, lower grades, etc. People who point to these statistics as if they are some sort of justification for ending government services that are made available to all who are in need, regardless of race, are only perpetuating the stereotypes that are so harmful to this race.

What's more, I haven't even gone back and pushed back on your so-called factual rebuttal to the premise of the cartoon way back up at the top of the page. It's still true that more white people collect food stamps than any other race. It's still true that white people are the majority of medicaid recipients. It's still true that white people are the majority of recipients of subsidized housing. Hell, it's even primarily rural whites, as opposed to urban whites (hence the bit about "backwoods meth-heads").

Yet anytime the right talks about these programs there's always some sort of comment about minorities who participate in them, and usually they talk about these programs as if it's only minorities who rely on them, which isn't even close to true. Yeah, minorities wind up needing these programs disproportionately more than whites. But that's because they're disproportionately poorer than whites on average. So what? Unless you're trying to win support of racists, what the fuck does the race of the people participating in these programs have to do with the worthiness of the effort itself?

If you think welfare is bad for economic reasons, then just say that. Don't try to spin a program that takes from the rich to give to the poor and make it sound like it's actually about black people voting to make the government steal money from whites to give to blacks so they can keep being lazy.

That's what the cartoon's point is. That's why your response pissed me off so much.