Senator Harry Ried (senate majority leader) is a racist.

Yes I know it is hard to hear but that is who is leading the democrat party.


"Harry Reid apparently feels that President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat and our nation's first African-American President, is too "light skinned" and speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.""


http://michaellonkouski.newsvine.com...entId=11633791


Havasucker after what you have said about me I know you where the first one that called for him to be removed from his leadership roll, right. I mean really you arte not a hypocrit are you (well we know you are).

REALLY SORRY TO HAVE TO INJECT ANOTHER SUBJECT INTO THIS INTERESTING POST BUT IT APPEARS THAT JOHN IS JUST TO0 CHICKEN TO ANSWER ANY OF MY QUESTIONS ON MY THREADS.
THEREFORE I AM DUTY BOUND TO CALL HIM ON HIS IGNORANCE ON HIS THREADS WHENEVER I CAN. SORRY AGAIN.

Hey john did you catch the quote i pulled up from you about hybrids? Do you want to change your mind on the day after the Hybrid Ford Focus won best car of the year and Ford and Toyota (not to menition all other car companies) announced platiforms for many more hybrids? LOL.

Just to jog your memory. Here is your quote john.

"HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LONGEST TIME (THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT HERE YET AND WONT BE
FOR 20 YEARS)..."

john never have i heard a more ignorant statement. Wow.

Harry Reid should be removed from his leadership role.

This may not have been the most racist thing that has been said about the President. But, those words should not have been uttered by the Senate Majority Leader.

In recent years other politicians, both Democrat and Republican have been removed from leadership roles for other racist like actions and this is no different.

This is the 21st century and it's time that we all become color blind as well as gender blind. A good person is a good person no matter what their race, religion, ethnicity, sex, or education.

While what Senator Reid said would not be considered overly racist if the average person would have said it. He is not the average person, he is a leader of Our Country. And our leaders need to choose their words more appropriately.

I understand that he apologized to the President and his apology was accepted. Now it's time for Senator Reid to give up his leadership role. The voters in his own state will have to decide if they want him to continue as Senator.

First to havasucker, I answered you 5 times everyone else gets it except you. That is why they dont trust what you put up anymore because they know you cant grasp what you read. Thats a problem you have to deal with.


Candelman I would tend to agree. The fact is there is nothing more I would like though then for him to just step down as leader as the democrat party and run for election in 2010. I think that is very fare.

The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, and Power Line's Paul Mirengoff are among the conservatives to recently reject comparisons trumpeted by other right-wing media figures of Sen. Harry Reid's controversial comments about President Obama to former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's past comments in support of Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. Hayes, Ponnuru, and Mirengoff join several civil rights leaders and other media figures in rejecting that comparison.

Some conservatives reject comparison of Reid's comments to Lott's
2008: Reid reportedly said that he "believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate" like Obama who is "a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect.' " In their book on the 2008 election, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin reported that Reid was enthusiastic about then-Sen. Obama's potential candidacy to challenge then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Heilemann and Halperin reported that Reid's "encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he later put it privately." From Heilemann's and Halperin's Game Change:

Years later, Reid would claim that he was steadfastly neutral in the 2008 race; that he never chose sides between Barack and Hillary; that all he did was tell Obama that he "could be president," that "the stars could align for him." But at the time, in truth, his encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he later put it privately.

Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than it hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination. (pages 35-36)

2002: Lott declared that the U.S. "wouldn't have had all these problems" if Thurmond's segregationist presidency campaign had been successful. In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) reportedly said of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign -- which Thurmond conducted on a segregationist platform: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Lott resigned his leadership in 2002 following the comment, but Republicans elected him as Senate minority whip in 2006.

Many conservatives in the media decried a "double standard" because Democrats criticized Lott. As Media Matters for America edition of NPR's Fresh Air, senior news analyst Cokie Roberts said, despite "Republicans comparing [Reid's comments] to remarks that then-Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott made," the comments were "very different" because Lott's comments were "made about how the world might have been better if Strom Thurmond, a segregationist at the time, had been elected president."

NY Times quoted Harvard Law professor Guinier saying comments are "not in the least bit comparable." In a January 11 article, The New York Times quoted Lani Guinier, "the Harvard Law School professor whose nomination as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993 was pummeled by conservative groups and eventually withdrawn by President Bill Clinton," as saying the comments are "not in the least bit comparable."

From the article:
Mr. Lott's remarks, Ms. Guinier said, seemed to be expressing nostalgia for the segregationist platform of Mr. Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, while Mr. Reid comments seemed to be addressing "an unfortunate truth about the present." That truth, she said, is that Mr. Obama would have had a more difficult time getting elected if his skin were darker and if he spoke in a dialect more identifiable as "black.

NAACP's Shelton: "Lott was actually supporting and embracing the agenda of Strom Thurmond, which was a segregation agenda." On the January 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, NAACP Washington bureau director Hilary Shelton said Lott's and Reid's comments are not the same because "Lott was actually supporting and embracing the agenda of Strom Thurmond, which was a segregationist agenda as he ran for president as a Dixiecrat. For him to hold those up and say, 'I wish I'd been able to support him, if he had become president our country will be a better place on a race relations issue,' raises some major concerns. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is someone that has fought for racial inclusion. He's fought for fairness, and he's fought for democracy for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity -- to the point he's even put his political career on the line to take some very courageous positions."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john

first to havasucker, i answered you 5 times everyone else gets it except you. That is why they dont trust what you put up anymore because they know you cant grasp what you read. Thats a problem you have to deal with.


Candelman i would tend to agree. The fact is there is nothing more i would like though then for him to just step down as leader as the democrat party and run for election in 2010. I think that is very fare.

---

No you havent responded to my questions. liar. Put it up here for all to see. A. Respond to your statements that the technology for hybrids wont be viable for 20 years or more. B.Respond to my asking you to provide the quote you said about me saying "several times" that hybrids will be 25% and 30% of the car market in 10 years" and acknowledge that i provided you with my quote that hybrids will be 10 to 12% of the market by 2020.

If you respond to none of these in your next answer it will be clear that you dont intend to. Though i think its quite clear already. :)

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atypical

The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, and Power Line's Paul Mirengoff are among the conservatives to recently reject comparisons trumpeted by other right-wing media figures of Sen. Harry Reid's controversial comments about President Obama to former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's past comments in support of Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. Hayes, Ponnuru, and Mirengoff join several civil rights leaders and other media figures in rejecting that comparison.

Some conservatives reject comparison of Reid's comments to Lott's
2008: Reid reportedly said that he "believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate" like Obama who is "a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect.' " In their book on the 2008 election, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin reported that Reid was enthusiastic about then-Sen. Obama's potential candidacy to challenge then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Heilemann and Halperin reported that Reid's "encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he later put it privately." From Heilemann's and Halperin's Game Change:

Years later, Reid would claim that he was steadfastly neutral in the 2008 race; that he never chose sides between Barack and Hillary; that all he did was tell Obama that he "could be president," that "the stars could align for him." But at the time, in truth, his encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he later put it privately.

Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than it hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination. (pages 35-36)

2002: Lott declared that the U.S. "wouldn't have had all these problems" if Thurmond's segregationist presidency campaign had been successful. In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) reportedly said of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign -- which Thurmond conducted on a segregationist platform: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Lott resigned his leadership in 2002 following the comment, but Republicans elected him as Senate minority whip in 2006.

Many conservatives in the media decried a "double standard" because Democrats criticized Lott. As Media Matters for America edition of NPR's Fresh Air, senior news analyst Cokie Roberts said, despite "Republicans comparing [Reid's comments] to remarks that then-Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott made," the comments were "very different" because Lott's comments were "made about how the world might have been better if Strom Thurmond, a segregationist at the time, had been elected president."

NY Times quoted Harvard Law professor Guinier saying comments are "not in the least bit comparable." In a January 11 article, The New York Times quoted Lani Guinier, "the Harvard Law School professor whose nomination as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993 was pummeled by conservative groups and eventually withdrawn by President Bill Clinton," as saying the comments are "not in the least bit comparable."

From the article:
Mr. Lott's remarks, Ms. Guinier said, seemed to be expressing nostalgia for the segregationist platform of Mr. Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, while Mr. Reid comments seemed to be addressing "an unfortunate truth about the present." That truth, she said, is that Mr. Obama would have had a more difficult time getting elected if his skin were darker and if he spoke in a dialect more identifiable as "black.

NAACP's Shelton: "Lott was actually supporting and embracing the agenda of Strom Thurmond, which was a segregation agenda." On the January 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, NAACP Washington bureau director Hilary Shelton said Lott's and Reid's comments are not the same because "Lott was actually supporting and embracing the agenda of Strom Thurmond, which was a segregationist agenda as he ran for president as a Dixiecrat. For him to hold those up and say, 'I wish I'd been able to support him, if he had become president our country will be a better place on a race relations issue,' raises some major concerns. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is someone that has fought for racial inclusion. He's fought for fairness, and he's fought for democracy for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity -- to the point he's even put his political career on the line to take some very courageous positions."

---

I agree that Lott's mistake and Reid's mistake are two different mistakes.

My point is that nobody in a leadership role of Our Country should use a persons skin color as a way to describe that person. We are a nation of many different colors. When I was a kid we were taught that the United States is the "melting pot" of the world.

I just think it's time that we remove references to someone's color or sex or religion when we are thinking about them. We are Americans! We need to find a way to put other descriptions of ourselves to the side and simply remember that we are Americans. The leaders of our government could help us acheive equality by simply removing these sort of references from their own conversations.

I agree it should be that way; that racial references should be avoided. But one must analyze the intent versus a mere observation of racial differences. And that is what I believe Reid was doing from what we know. There are blacks and others who speak poorly. Like it or not if that's who you are, it types you. Humans will never be indifferent to what is unique about each of us. He was saying Obama didn't sound like that. And some blacks discriminate against other darker-skinned blacks.

To me it was a (poorly stated) observation from a person in a generation that should know better.

You know, I'm sure, that all this criticism from conservatives has NOTHING to do with the remarks. It is just the usual pile-on when they feel there is an opportunity they can exploit.

Adumbical so let me get this straight, you would say that what Lott said was worse. Oh yes thats right that means you know exactly what he ment when he said that. Because excuse me, I am sorry but I did not hear Lott expound on anything but "all these problems today". So you know which problems he was refering to, do you. Like all the race riots we had then,,,,NNNNN no there were no race riots then maybe it had to do with all the trouble of mixed marrages going on and all that trouble it was causing,,,,,NNNNNNNoo because there was no trouble from that ether. There where many things that where major problems then but you know I cant think of one racial problem that even comes close to the other ones. Or maybe Lott was just being nice to a 100 year old man and doing what most do during a celebration like the one Lott was at, yes thats right praise the man being honored. Then I guess you have to say everyone there at that celebration was also a racist. They all said nice things about him so they were all racist, right.

So then, since you can read minds what am I thinking right now.


Yea there is a difference and the difference is one, Ried said exactly what he ment and Lott at best you have to guess at what he ment.


Lets see Adumbical how would you defend Clintons remark: "This guy would be getting us coffee a few years ago." And please dont use the excuse Clinton was just saying Obama was not experienced enough because even I have said that many times and I have never said it THAT way. I heard it all from you libs from: Well because Obama was a first term senator that is what they sometimes do for the other senators with more terms under their belt. Just one problem with that, I know they both would have dozens of staff for just that kind of shit. I wont even get into the fact Clinton was not even a senator a few years ago. So how would Obama be getting Clinton coffee, except as a servant.

by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed

Washington - Skin color among African-Americans is not to be discussed in polite company, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's newly disclosed remark about President Obama -- that voters are more comfortable with him because he's light-skinned -- offended decorum. But it was surely true.
Color bias has always existed in this country. We don't talk about it because we think of color as subordinate to racial identification. There are African-Americans with skin so fair that only contextual clues speak to the question of race. I remember once looking up some distant cousins on my father's side. They were so fair of hair and ruddy of cheek that I thought I'd gone to the wrong house, until one of them greeted me in what I guess Reid would call "Negro dialect."

Forgive me if I am neither shocked nor outraged. A few years ago I wrote a book about color and race called "Coal to Cream," and the issue no longer has third-rail status for me. What I would find stunning is evidence that Reid's assessment -- made during the 2008 campaign and reported in a new book by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin -- was anything but accurate.

Advertising is a reliable window into the American psyche, so look at the images we're presented on television and in glossy magazines. The black models tend to be caramel-skinned or lighter, with hair that's not really kinky -- which is the way I'd describe mine -- but wavy, even flowing. A few models whose skin is chocolate-hued or darker have reached superstar status, such as Alek Wek and Tyson Beckford, but they are rare exceptions.

Skin color could hardly be a more conspicuous attribute, but we don't talk about it in this country. That's been a good thing.

I became interested in perceptions of color and race when I was The Washington Post's correspondent in South America. On reporting trips to Brazil, a country with a history of slavery much like ours, I kept running across people with skin as dark as mine, or a bit darker, who didn't consider themselves "black." I learned that at the time -- roughly 20 years ago -- fewer than 10 percent of Brazilians self-identified as black. Yet at least half the population, I estimated, would have been considered black in the United States.

This was because American society enforced the "one-drop" rule: If you had any African blood at all, you were black. In Brazil, by contrast, you could be mulatto, you could be light-skinned, you could be "Moorish" brown, all the way to "blue-black" -- more than a dozen informal classifications in all. Color superseded racial identification. In Salvador da Bahia, I met a couple who considered themselves black but whose children were lighter-skinned. The children's birth certificates classified them as branco, or white.

The Brazilian system minimized racial friction on an interpersonal level. The American system fostered such friction, through formal and informal codes that enforced racial segregation. But our "one-drop" paradigm also created great racial solidarity among African-Americans, while maximizing our numbers. We fought, marched, sat-in, struggled, and eventually made tremendous strides toward equality. The most recent, of course, was Obama's election, which is difficult to imagine happening in Brazil -- or, for that matter, in any other country where there is a large, historically oppressed minority group.

Brazil has now begun addressing long-standing racial disparities through affirmative action initiatives. But the upper reaches of that society -- the financial district in Sao Paulo, say, or the government ministries in Brasilia -- are still so exclusively white that they look like bits and pieces of Portugal that somehow ended up on the wrong side of the ocean.

American society's focus on race instead of color explains why what Harry Reid said was so rude. But I don't think it can be a coincidence that so many pioneers -- Edward Brooke, the first black senator since Reconstruction; Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice; Colin Powell, the first black secretary of state -- have been lighter-skinned. Reid's analysis was probably good sociology, even if it was bad politics.

Much worse, as far as I'm concerned, was the quote the new book, "Game Change," attributes to Bill Clinton. In an attempt to convince Ted Kennedy not to support Obama, Clinton is supposed to have said that "a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

I guess the one-drop rule can still trump Harvard Law.

Yea Adumbical the only problem I see here is that you actually believe in that crap you just put up. Thats right just keep trying to defend Reid and try to say what he did was any different then what Lott did.

There is only one thing that is different and that is how each of the two men was and is treated.

The only thing different is what democrats said Lott has to do (step down from his leadership) and what they say about Reid.

The only thing different is the standard democrats have.


Thats OK because the people see it and will not put up with it. I guess you and they did not learm your lesson after NJ. and VA. because you are about to get another lesson in Massachusetts. Yes thats right, just keep telling yourselves all those people in those town halls were nothing but right wing grandmas and grandpas. I guess Massachusetts is full of nothing but a bunch of right wingers, right.


P.S. Who was it that warned you dumbasses this would happen, thats right it was me. Yup just amazing isn't it, proven to be correct again. Nothing special just simple common sense that anyone with a brain could figure out. Thats why I call you guys dumbasses and twits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john

Yea Adumbical the only problem I see here is that you actually believe in that crap you just put up. Thats right just keep trying to defend Reid and try to say what he did was any different then what Lott did.

There is only one thing that is different and that is how each of the two men was and is treated.

The only thing different is what democrats said Lott has to do (step down from his leadership) and what they say about Reid.

The only thing different is the standard democrats have.


Thats OK because the people see it and will not put up with it. I guess you and they did not learm your lesson after NJ. and VA. because you are about to get another lesson in Massachusetts. Yes thats right, just keep telling yourselves all those people in those town halls were nothing but right wing grandmas and grandpas. I guess Massachusetts is full of nothing but a bunch of right wingers, right.


P.S. Who was it that warned you dumbasses this would happen, thats right it was me. Yup just amazing isn't it, proven to be correct again. Nothing special just simple common sense that anyone with a brain could figure out. Thats why I call you guys dumbasses and twits.

---

Wikipedia
See also: Narcissism and Malignant Narcissism

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."[1]

The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.[2] Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness. It is also colloquially referred to as the god complex.[

Diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV-TR = 301.81)
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3.believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4.requires excessive admiration

5.has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6.is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7.lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8.is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

9.shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Like I said Adumbical dont bother us with your personal problems.

I get your other problem. If you cant answer the question at hand then try attacking the messenger. I also read "Rules for Radicals". So get a clue that dumb crap wont work on me.

So try taking on the question at hand or if not that one then why dont you answer this one:

How is it when Strom Thurmond was a segregationist he was a democrat. Yes thats right so to believe Trent Lott was doing anything more then just praising a man they were honoring is to believe Lott would have voted for a democrat.

Now pay close attention to the dates:

"He also ran for the Presidency of the United States in 1948 as the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidate."

"At first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican, switching parties."

"He conducted the longest filibuster ever by a lone U.S. Senator in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957".


See the dates you twit.

So now try and answer that for me, dumbass know your history.



P.S I really should not have to mention Sen. Byrd and which party he belongs to (democrat) and the fact he was the head of his KKK faction. So then going from YOUR OWN WORDS we can then conclude any democrat that praises Byrd is a racist correct.