A Kos writer -- no, I will not link to the diary -- has picked up on Larry Johnson's story about the alleged video showing Michelle Obama railing against "whitey." Most of the comments are hilariously hypocritical: The Kossacks call Johnson a smear-monger, a hater, unhinged -- and, of course, a racist.
Of course, I've been called a racist too, even though I voted for Obama and may well vote for McKinney. The term "racist" has been redefined to mean "anyone who doesn't like the Obamas."
And the Obots wonder why the Hillary-voters are going to stay home en masse in November! Why should they support those who denigrate them?
Back to the video. As you know, I've theorized that the video is both real and fake. That is to say: If (if, if, if) it exists, the woman on screen may not be Michelle Obama, even if she looks very much like her. If you scroll down to my post, I discuss at length a previous deception of this sort; I also discuss motive. (I can think of an earlier precedent, involving a proposed fake audio tape. Oddly enough, "Gordo" played a role in this story as well.)
In light of this theory, one Kos commenter made a rather perceptive comment. "Whitey" is not a term of opprobrium which sees much use among black people these days. I recall hearing it in the '60s and '70s, but not in more recent times. "Cracker" is fairly common. "Whitey" sounds like something that a bad white fiction writer might put into the mouth of an angry black character.
Side note:
The gods of slang really should give us a proper anti-white derogatory term. None of the contenders I've heard so far has any power to annoy, let alone to infuriate. "Whitey," "honkey," "cracker," "redneck" -- cah-MON, who really cares? "Albino" is kind of clever. "Pink boy" might have worked, if the SubGeniuses had not taken it. "Milky" is rare, but serviceable. Might I suggest "cum stain," "bukkake boy," or "Clorox"?
When you seek to do verbal harm, consult the Eye-talians. We're even better at that stuff than we are at oil painting. My professional fees are available upon request.
13 comments:
Question!
-If the video is real, do you wish someone would make the effort to publicize it because that would help to defeat Obama?
-If the video is fake but good enough to pass the first go around, do you wish someone would make the effort to publicize it because that would help to defeat Obama?
beeta, you offend me. I may play rough at times, but when have I ever given the impression that I would applaud the use of a fake video for a serious purpose, even if that purpose were to defeat a candidate I don't like?
I did not mean to offend.
But you don't seem to be very convinced that such video is real, yet, you are speculating as to what the effect of it surfacing might be.
I wondered and I asked. Your answer is noted.
BTW, you have questioned Obama's views on SS and speculated on his willingness to privatize it. I ran across this recent comment of his:
"Let me be clear, privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it, it's a bad idea today," Obama said. "That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate and that's why I won't stand for it as president." [...]
Obama said McCain would push to raise the retirement age for collecting Social Security benefits or trim annual cost-of-living increases. Obama has rejected both ideas as solutions to the funding crisis projected for Social Security in favor of making higher-income workers pay more into the system."
Of coarse all politicians lie (GW said the US should not be in the business of nation building when he was a candidate in 2000), but that is another subject.
As you imply, actions speak louder than. If Obama wants me to trust him with the American economy, as it faces its greatest crisis since the Depression, he should divorce himself from Goolsbee, Liebeman and Cutler. I want to see THAT. No words of his will suffice.
There was, in recent memory, a president who faced a similar economic predicament. I believe that Hillary may know how to contact him.
I don't get your point then. If "whitey" is no big deal, why get so offended?
Clearly you never got called whitey by a gang of blacks, physically larger than you, who mean to beat the crap out of your white ass. Or rape you, as happened to two friends of mine. Six blacks for four hours.
j, I didn't say I WAS offended. I can't be offended by a video that I have not seen and which may not even exist.
Even if it does exist and is genuine, I may not take it seriously. But that would be my personal reaction. Without doubt, such a video would have national repercussions.
I probably should not have allowed the "beat the crap out of your white ass" comment through. I know such things happen. On the other hand, we all know that terrible crimes have been committed upon black people. I can't become angry at any subdivision of humanity, although I've become utterly disgusted with homo sapiens as a species.
Your aside about perhaps voting for McKinney was interesting. I've been thinking that if Obama is nominated we could see a real surge in votes for the Green Party this year. Voting for a black female candidate would be the perfect revenge for all those who have been called racists for not voting for Sweetie.
Frankly, I never heard her speak at length until recently. I was impressed. I can't listen to Obama talk for forty seconds without wanting to throw shoes at my monitor. Hillary? Two, maybe three minutes. But Cynthia...? The "shoe" reaction didn't kick in (so to speak) until the fifteen minute mark. And that's when she wrapped up!
Joseph--
I would be such a happy neighbour if you (and many others) ended up voting Green. I know you said a few months ago that I was being an idiot when i said i wish your system was more like ours in Canada, where we have multiparties (but sadly now too many on the left not enough on the right). But with Bob Barr on the right of McCaine and McKinney on the left of Obama, maybe there's some hope for you?
But if that LaRouche commenter-guy is right, and there is an "anybody but Hilary" MO in the cabals and shadows of the government-- the she would be a great anybody, kinda like one of those "be careful what you wish for" curses...
But she could really generate some steam if she gets a majority of Hilary supporer/defectors from the new Democarian party, and if there was some steam, a lot of college political 'radicals' may migrate to McK because she's not only got everything BHO has but is also eco logical, which is cool. Green is hot these days. ...and as far as what CNN likes to call "the black voters" (which to a large degree originally feared that BHO wasn't black enough)--they'll totally dump BHO for McK is she start t build momentum-- she is the cool black woman; she punched a cop, she's the only one in the government who has been trying to find out who killed Tupak Shakur-- she Cynthia would kick Baraks ass in a debate!
I don't want to ruin your party Joseph, but from what I remember, Cynthia is also a 9/11 "tranny" !
You are wrong, my bravely Anonymous "friend." Although she has called for a new investigation into various issues -- such as whether the Bush administration received advance warning -- she has never explicitly embraced the CD theory. She HAS gotten far too close to the wackiest elements within the Troofer movement, as when she gave an intro to Dr. Steven Jones and asked David Ray Griffen, of all people to testify before a committee hearing.
I would not be surprised to learn that she has personally leaned in this direction. Maybe she even drank the tranny fluid. But from what I can see, she has been careful about her public statements.
John Judge was on her staff for a while. He's not a tranny. Naturally, the tranny movement decided that he was a CIA spook. The whole fucking conspiracy milieu -- which I know well -- is utterly disgusting.
John Judge may or may not believe as the trannies do.
I haven't seen him comment on anything but the Pentagon no-plane claim. He rebutted the notion that no plane hit the Pentagon by referring to his own personal friend, herself a flight attendant who somehow got access to the crash site there and was able to identify personal effects of several other flight attendants she knew. One macabre detail was a severed hand or finger with a piece of jewelry she recognized as belonging to one of her friends who was allegedly flying that route that day.
However, just as Colin Powell promised a most thorough white paper on the Bin Laden links to 9/11, which would remove all doubts and definitively prove that case (and SOON!, although 6-1/2 years later we don't have it even yet), so too did Judge say that he would SOON! provide the woman's name and bona fides to prove his story was correct.
And again, so far as I know, we have nothing to any of that yet from Judge, some 6-1/2 years later than his promised full disclosure was due.
So the theory is a) there never was such a person, and Judge was a witting purveyor of a cover story, or b) she did exist, but could not be credibly placed where she claimed to have been, which Judge found out. (It is fairly incredible that civilians would be wandering around that crash/crime site, seeing dead bodies, at least civilians who didn't work at the Pentagon.)
Can you shed any light on Judge's promised revelation of the personal details of his friend that he said would remove all doubt about his story, why he didn't do so, and whether he has ever done so since?
...sofla
sof, I used to know John somewhat, and I can tell you that he has been the target of the most ludicrous rumors imaginable. I don't know the specifics of what you are talking about, nor do I much care. I imagine it's the sort of thing that matters very much to the crazies and which normal people don't see as worthy of much discussion.
I WILL say -- and this is a completely separate subject -- that John has a maddening inability to correct himself when he recalls something incorrectly. I saw a recent interview in which he states that Orwell's "1984" was originally titled "1948," which was the year of the book's composition. He's been saying that since -- well, since 1984. And it's not true. In manuscript form, the book was originally called "The Last Man in Europe." It was first published as "1984: A Novel."
Post a Comment