1. Yes, very nice Tokenism by the GOP by having a few token minority and female speakers...and all it took was for them to be running against a black candidate AND for one of their own to issue a misogynistic statement so vile that even those within the Old Flannel Suits club, it seems, agreed he went just a tad too far.

2. If they were chanting "don't feed the animals," you don't think that strengthens the argument for it being racism...Democrats are known as quite a bit in the zeitgeist, and have plenty of derogatory synonyms in the Republican lexicon, as it were, but "animal" generally isn't one of them...

While disgusting racial slurs comparing blacks to animals have been used so frequently through the centuries that I don't think I really need to dwell on a point that seems rather self-evident, now, do I?

You hate it every time race comes up in a political discussion, Stressedlines, and insist that race doesn't factor in.

When it was immigration, you insisted that the GOP wasn't being anti-Latino (despite an overwhelming about of policy proposals and statements to the contrary, including a gem by Bill O'Reilly last night on Eva Longoria's being scheduled for the DNC--"Why is she there? Is she afraid of being deported?")

And now, despite Romney reiterating the racist and erroneous Birther jab at Obama for the sole purpose of firing up a portion of his base that responds to rhetoric that is both factually incorrect and racially offensive...

Sorry, Stressedlines:

Politics ARE racial oftentimes, and especially in an election season involving a black President, a white Mormon challenger, and huge policy issues surrounding Latino immigration and so on.

This was racist, acknowledge it as such, and that, while it doesn't necessarily paint the whole party with its singular brush stroke, the series of brush strokes the GOP has painted over the course of this election season has steadily been one of alienation:

They have alienated the Black vote, largely.
They have alienated the Latino vote.
They have alienated the LGBT vote.
They have alienated an enormous portion of the female/feminist vote.

That the RNC found it politically prudent to have at least some minority representation to desperately try and make up for the fact hey have alienated these blocs doesn't surprise me at all.

It also doesn't make the GOP progressive racially or accepting--it makes them politicians making a strictly political move, nothing more, nothing less.

"did they chuck nuts cuz she is black, or cuz she is a democrat?"

One of these is obvious by looking at someone, one is not. Camera operators tend not to converse much.

This story still isn't substantial enough. We don't know who the people involved were. Were they delegates? Are we certain they were Republicans? Could they have been agent provocateurs?

If she is a mayor, then she had to have [people VOTE for her. yes or no?

next question, who are these 2 people who did it. Also, why no mention that things were also throw at other CNN employees (by these same 2 morons)? Why is that left out?

When did i say the GOP was not being anti-latino? I went back to look for such a thread, can you show me it? You accuse me of it, I am curious when I said it.

Blah blha on the birther jab, whiel obama in his own books runs out "white men thisa" and "white men that" in not so friendly ways. Please. The media is 100% bias in this country, which is why I dont watch TV any longer. It is a pukefest.

WHO ARE THESE TWO PEOPLE. I want NAMES!!!!!


Easy enough to plant 2 people to start some $hit.

again sacred, they said they were also chucking things at other CNN employees, but the focus was one jsut the one. So, maybe the story focused on the black employee, but it appears CNN was the target in general.

Did you see the crowd's response to Condoleeza Rice? They loved her, too.

And Susana Martinez, the hispanic governor of NM?

Wow, these Republicans have lots of articulate, exciting minorities.

Lots exciting articulate minorities who hew closely to the extremely racist party line on race relations in the USA. You've held up your small handful of examples. It's not a good start it's just straight up tokenism. Now follow it up by explaining why some 94% of black voters vote democrat.

Don't jump to conclusions. You can't rule out the possibility (and in my opinion, high likeliness) of those nut-throwers being liberal/Democratic plants.

See my comment in the other thread. If the same sort of people were speaking at a Democrat convention, it would be "celebrating our diversity" and "celebrating their accomplishments" and "look how the Democrat party has helped minorities." It wouldn't be tokenism then, would it?

Why do black voters follow the Democrats so much? Beats me, honestly. They've gotten nothing for it. If anything, they should start to mix it up, so Democrats quit taking them for granted.

"Don't jump to conclusions. You can't rule out the possibility (and in my opinion, high likeliness) of those nut-throwers being liberal/Democratic plants." - You should at least have have some tiny shred of evidence before leveling an accusation like that.

The Democratic Party would certainly frame it that way. I'm not saying the Democratic party isn't racist, or doesn't indulge in the same racist nonsense as the Republican Party, but I think it's fair to say they do it less. And it's a little bit different when "black people" is actually a constituency that exists for your party.

Second of all dipplayer, assuming you aren't black yourself, you're not really in a position to evaluate whether or not Democrats have done anything for the black population. Really, it's up to the black population to make that determination.

Well, I can comment on the decay of black families, the high unemployment among blacks, the poor education level, etc.

And, what, are Republicans not allowed to try and make a play for black voters? Why wouldn't Republicans want to reach out? Isn't that smart politics? Why not let young black people see a Mia Love or a Condoleeza Rice and be impressed?

How easy is it, really, to plant two people there? I tried to find out how to get tickets to the convention, which is still running today, and all their page and e-bay and the normal outlets could get me was a list of who was invited to be physically present, namely the delegates, alternates, and press.

And we can't have it both ways: either a number of CNN people were attacked meaning these two were part of a large group or it was an isolated incident which is the only way the "two person plant" conspiracy theory works. And even then, it's pretty tenuous.

ha a plant. right. Republicans are funny.

Then again it was only 2 people, hardly representative.

Then again, you invite a shitton of conservatives from the boondocks to portray your party as salt of the earth things can get... salty

oh, stressedlines started the whole "they were a plant argument.

Shocking.

In the words of a texas politician

If ignorance ever goes to $40 a barrel, I want drilling rights on that man's head.

Santa, you fucking liar. I never said that, I simply said "how hard is it to do that" Fucktard liar again.

There is 1000s' of people tthere, is it not POSSIBLE?

How many staffers are there, and how many crew techs for liberal media outlets, etc.

Give the libs SOME credit, they could 100% pull this simple shit off if they wanted.



Give me the 2 names of these guys, who were kicked out for throwing nuts at some people. is it THAT hard to get names?

What are the names of these "delegates"?
Who are all those "witnesses" and why can't you quote them?
And, WHO is this poor African-now-American woman behind the CNN camera, and where is an actual QUOTE from her?

Journalism is dead because so few have critical thinking skills.

Reports here say that the biggest funders of the republican Party are the Wall St. instituions, headed up by Goldman Sacks. While the Democrats have Google and Microsoft on board and, very interesing to me, a couple of universities. Can someone please explain how and why universities fund presedential candidates? It appears a little strange from over here.

If I played the stock market and thought Obama would win, I would definately buy Google and Microsoft and short Wall St (Goldman, Morgan etc.), and visa versa if I fancied Mitt. After all he who pays the piper calls the tune. Does anyone know if this strategy has any record of success?

Apolgies for perhaps posting in the wrong thread.

I stopped listening to Mafialligator when he said that I hated transsexuals since I wouldn't want to have sex with one. I suggest you all stop listening too.

Reposted from the other thread where Invictus posted exactly the same message.

I never said you hated transgendered people I said you had a prejudice against them because you said that you would lost interest in someone otherwise appealing if you found out they were transgendered. What is this, lie about things I said day?

Seriously, I feel like if everyone just read my posts more closely, instead of just jumping to the most extreme conclusions as soon as you see the first word, I might not end up arguing with everyone so much.

The other thing I said in the debate to which Invictus is referring is that it was transphobic to say that transwomen aren't really women. Which is sort of the functional definition of transphobia.

I'm the one who said you can't rule out the possibility of those people being planted. I wouldn't put it past Team Obama and their minions. Obama has ran the dirtiest, untruthful campaigns in recent memory. The bullshit in Obama's propaganda is so thick you could cut it with a knife. They clearly would not be above planting people at the GOP convention.

They're not women for the purposes of me being attracted to them, in the same way a 70 year old isn't. But apparently that's an unacceptable prejudice, which invariably means hate to the kind of people who would even make an issue of this. No need to pay attention to a person who is such a PCista as that.

That's not what you said in the debate in question. My question was, if you met an attractive, beautiful, charming woman, and you actually wanted to go home with her, and then you found out she was trans, would you change your mind? And you said yes. That is substantively different.
Also do you really actually think that 70 year old women aren't women? Seriously?

Seriously, I swear to god, every time anyone on these forums repeats something I've allegedly said back to me, it bears only superficial similarities to what I actually said. It's as if this website automatically uses babelfish to translate all my posts into Japanese and then back again before anyone else reads them.

Also "They're not women for the purposes of me being attracted to them, in the same way a 70 year old isn't." - Umm what? That's an incredibly sexist thing to say.

The entire issue is based around sexual attraction. I'm just as attracted to 70 year old woman as I am to transsexuals. Not at all. If I found out someone was a transsexual that would be a deal breaker. I wouldn't be violent or anything monstrous like that, but I would leave. You say that no wanting to sleep with a transsexual means someone hates them. That's ridiculous. I don't want to have ex with a dude, do I hate men? Ugh. I've wasted enough time with your nonsense.