Barack Obama

A Modern Timeline of Liberals Claiming That Opposition to Obama = Racism


Oh, Jacob, you've done it again!

08/23/08: Jacob Weisberg, Slate: "Racism is the only reason Obama might lose."

08/07/09: Paul Krugman, New York Times: "[T]he driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that's behind the 'birther' movement, which denies Mr. Obama's citizenship."

09/13/09: Jimmy Carter, MSNBC: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man[.]"

01/19/10: Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: "[T]he Tea Party movement [is] perhaps the saddest collection of people who don't want to admit why they really hate since the racists of the South in the sixties insisted they were really just concerned about states' rights….[I]n Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

03/27/10: Frank Rich, New York Times: "How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn't recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht….The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."

10/19/10: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: "Tea Party ranks [are] permeated with concerns about race and national identity….Tea Party organizations have given platforms to anti-Semites, racists, and bigots. Further, hard-core white nationalists have been attracted to these protests, looking for potential recruits and hoping to push these (white) protesters towards a more self-conscious and ideological white supremacy."

01/25/11: State Rep. Jim Moran (D-Virgina), Al-Hurra: "[GOP success in mid-term elections] happened for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. It happened because the Southern states, the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.  In this case, I believe, a lot of people in the United States don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is liberal, who wants to spend money and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society."

08/22/11: Rep. Andre Carson (D-Indiana): "Some of these folks in Congress would love to see us as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me…hanging on a tree."

03/27/12: Dahlia Lithwick, Slate: "And now we know the [Supreme] court is worried about freedom: the freedom to live like it's 1804."

06/04/12: Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Washington Post: "By attacking labor unions, flooding Wisconsin with outside cash and trying to cleanse the electorate of people who don't look, earn or think like him, [Wisconsin Gov. Scott] Walker has taken aim at more than a single campaign cycle or a series of policies; his real targets are the pillars of American progressivism itself."

06/08/12: Cassandra Jackson, Huffington Post: "[T]he war on affordable health care is a war on Blacks and Latinos."

And now, full circle, comes today's other installment, from our old friend Charles P. Pierce in Esquire magazine:

In so many ways, the path [Barack Obama] has to walk to re-election is similar to the path he has had to walk through his life. It was hard not to notice the subtext present in all those earnest warnings about hurting the fee-fees of our financial titans. The president was stepping out of his place. The president was being uppity again.

This is also the case with what is perhaps the most noxious idea out there: that Barack Obama "failed" in his promise to "bring the country together," and that he is now — Glorioski! — campaigning like he wants to be president all over again. He is engaging in politics. Mother of mercy, I swear David Brooks is just going to break down and go all to pieces on PBS some evening over the president's betrayal of his role as the country's anodyne black man and, of course, his upcoming role as black martyr to incivility and discord. It is his duty, dammit, to be all the things that people like Brooks wanted him to be so that he could lose, nobly, and then the country could go back to its rightful owners.

Still no convincing explanation for how the racist Teabagging Republicans could have fallen so hard for Herman Cain, but I think the most salient point is one noted by (gasp!) David Brooks: Barack Obama is consistently much more popular than his policies. Mitt Romney has been consistently less popular than his. That's a mighty odd way for a country to express its racism.

Two bits from me from the racially contentious late summer of 2009: "The Race War That Isn't," and "Are Tea Parties Racist?"

NEXT: Charles C. Johnson on Ray Bradbury, Enemy of the State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let me be the first to say… RACIST!

  2. What… no contribution by our very own Tony?

    I am disappoint.

  3. The true racists voted for Obama for no other reason than that he wasn’t a white man.

    1. Yerp, everyone I know was all, “I’d like totally vote for McCain and stuff, but he’s so like white, ya know! Eww.”

    2. Including Reason’s own writers?

      1. the white guy most closely mirroring King Obie I was Edwards. Doubtful that many Reasonoids were drawn in by him. Obama talked a good game, fooled a lot of people, and won more votes because of his race than he lost.

    3. Um, no. Black people voting for a black man, one in the same party they always overwhelmingly support anyway, because he is black, is not racism but at worst racial pride. It is perfectly legitimate to support electing the first black president for that reason, assuming you’re already in the party. It’s a not-meaningless symbol of progress.

      Defining racism isn’t an intellectual exercise of pointing out deviations from colorblindness. Racism is harmful race-based prejudice. And white people rarely ever have to worry about suffering from racism.

      1. So if I voted for McCain because he was the only white front-runner for president, it wouldn’t be racist?

      2. I was referring to Tim Cavanaugh, Tony-puppet.

      3. not racism but at worst racial pride

        Racism vs. racial pride. Is there a difference? White pride is automatically white racism, right? Or no?

        1. Yes. There are fascinating subtleties in race politics.

          1. So… black pride =/= racism?

          2. There are fascinating subtleties in race politics.

            AKA double standard. Neither fascinating nor subtle.

          3. There are fascinating subtleties in race politics.

            And, amazingly, they always wind up with anyone to the right of the Gang of Four being racist. To us unsophisticated louts, it’s almost like it’s more about politics and not race.

          4. Is “subtleties” a synonym for “hypocrisies”?

      4. Defining racism is easy, Tony:

        : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

        What it doesn’t mean:

        “Whatever the fuck we liberals want it to mean when it fits our argument parameters.”

      5. Racism is harmful race-based prejudice.

        Wasn’t voting for Obama definitionally harmful to McCain? If one does it because Obama was black, isn’t that a perfect fit for your definition of racist?

        1. Voting for Obama was harmful for all of us.

          1. Speak for yourself, white boy.

      6. And white people rarely ever have to worry about suffering from racism.

        As long as they don’t walk down MLK.

        1. Or apply to a selective college. Even worse for Asians.

  4. Some of my best Facebook friends are black.

    1. Some of my Facebook friends are even Irish!

      1. Episiarch, your cultural sensitivity knows no bounds. You’re like a modern day Rosa Parks, if she were a huge asshole.

        1. Rosa Parks?!?

          I do Hide all their posts, though. I mean, the last thing I want to see is the yammering of a bunch of drunk Micks.

          1. Next, you’re going to tell us that you friended a bunch of garlic-eaters too.

            1. Why would I Friend vampire hunters?

              1. Because you hate the Twilight series more than most? Especially after Warty made you go down on him in the theatre?

                1. I chose to do that, Sudden. So I wouldn’t get beaten.

                2. Especially after Warty made you go down on him in the theatre?

                  When I heard that story, it was Dave Coulier, not Warty.

              2. You sparkle, don’t you?

            2. If you mean Dagos, then Episiarch is actually one of them. One wonders how he manages to type when his fingers are always covered in olive oil.

              1. I have a special keyboard.

              2. Dagos? No, I meant those filthy Wops and their thin-crust pizzas.

                You were probably thinking about those stinkin’ Guineas.

                1. “Greeks are just Jews without money.”

                  1. “Greeks are just Jews without money.”

                    So poor Jews invented democracy?

                    That makes a weird proto-racist kind of sense actually.

          2. Okay, maybe not Parks.

            How about the anarchist’s answer to MLK except you just plagiarize old Futurama episodes. And you have affairs with Star Trek behind Star Trek’s back.

            1. If she didn’t want me to cheat on her why did she have such a hot sister?

              1. Futurama was the most blandly unfunny show of our generation.

                1. True, but it beats the Akbar Jeff show that Groening launched in a parallel universe.

                  1. Damn correction thing that won’t allow me ampersands! That’s “The Akbar and Jeff Show that Groening launched in a parallel universe …”

                2. Congratulations, Jim. This is a thread about people who identify all Obama opponents as racists, and you’ve still managed to make the most retarded comment. You’ve really outdone yourself.

                  1. Do you think, Hugh, that Jimbo can ever get the help he needs?

                    1. Jim doesn’t have any problems that can’t be solved by getting hit by a bus.

                    2. I’m not the only one who thought so. It was fucking cancelled, after all. RATINGS PWN’D!

                      In all seriousness though, my opposition to Obama does mostly stem from my intense hatred for people of color.

                    3. Uh, it was on for five years, Jimbo. Your beloved Cop Rock didn’t even last one.

                      I’m thinking Hugh might be right about that bus.

      2. It doesn’t count if they died while in your sex dungeon.

      3. “All right… we’ll give some land to the niggers and the chinks. But we don’t want the Irish!”

    2. You lyin racist! I suppose they wear hoodies too?

  5. I’m sure there are racists who oppose Obama for being black. I’m sure I’ve denounced every one of them I’ve come across every time I’ve seen them.

    …and I still think Obama sucks.

    1. That just proves you are a crypto-racist.

  6. Let’s see a show of hands of all those that would vote for Romney if he held all the same views but he was a democrat and black.

    Uh huh.

    1. So…if he was Obama?

    2. Dope and Mange?

    3. If he was a white Hispanic tranvestite who was formally a black female member of the communist party of Lithuania, then that might get my vote. Actually, to not vote for him/her… ummm… would be a hate crime, I think.

      1. I only vote for cisgendered aromantics. And they can’t be singlets either.

        1. Don’t forget demiplatonic otherkin.

        2. And don’t forget the deaf-mute Japs!

    4. If a viable Democrat started talking like Romney….

      Fuck I guess I would vote for him.
      Hell i think i might vote for a democrat that talked like Clinton at this point…

      Note: I am voting for Gary Johnson. Romney has zero chance of getting my vote.

      Note: I am very confused as to what the point of this question is.

      1. Note: I am voting for Gary Johnson

        Amen, bro, welcome to the dark side!

      2. Note: I am very confused as to what the point of this question is.

        I just like to take any chance I can to fuck with Romney supporters. Four years of aggravating Obama fanbois has made the sport stale. There’s a new game in town and I’m a ready to go out needlin’.

        1. I just like to take any chance I can to fuck with Romney supporters.

          I am not sure that there are any here..

          Is anyone here going to vote for Romney? And if you do are you going to be in anyway enthusiastic about it?

          1. I had a Romney voter sighting here yesterday, can’t remember the thread because I was still blind with rage from the Rand Paul endorsement. But it was the same lesser of two evils argument BS that most of us are well past sick of.

            1. lesser of two evils argument BS

              So the commenter was not enthusiastic? ie not a supporter.

            2. I was still blind with rage from the Rand Paul endorsement.


              Rand is playing the long game in the big leagues.

              Liberty is usually gained by spilling seas of blood…a bit of messy politicking I think we can handle.

              Get over it.

              1. Get over it

                I will get over it JC, and I am not stupid, I fully understand what Rand is doing. I was fully on board with Ron Pauls idea of taking over the GOP as the best Libertarian pathway from 2007 until just recently when I started having one foot in that camp and the other in the 3rd party option camp. I am about ready to put both feet in the 3rd party option. Rand didn’t help me go back the other way. I am about ready to say fuck the GOP. So, you can say get over it, but getting over it might not be in the way you think.

            3. Tulpa fer sure.

              I think maybe SIV, and if I’m wrong forty lashes, so sorry. If not, eat a rusty dick.

              John will bitch about it, but he’ll vote gop because although Obama does a warboner good, Romney does a warboner GRRRREAT!.

              Various people popping in, giving the lesser of two evil fuckin’ shit.

              1. It wasn’t Tulpa, and no way SIV will vote for Mittens. I don’t think…

                1. The only Republican I ever voted for in a general presidential election was John Anderson(running as an Independent) in 1980 when I was 18. Unless you want to count Ron Paul in ’88…

                  1. SIV, if what you say is true then I must sincerely apologize for insinuating that you’d vote for Romney. It’s an insult of the highest order for a pro-liberty person. Do you think that you, and all of your scantily clad women, could find it in your heart, and their bosoms to forgive me?

                    1. Don’t worry GBN, besides the fact that SIV knows the Libertarian code for not having to apologize for everything we say like the big tent PC wussies, he is probably afraid that you will kill him in battle while fighting naked and then eat his heart. (:

              2. Just to be clear, I said I would only consider voting for Romney if it was revealed that he is a Satanist. Then it isn’t really a question of the lesser of two evils any longer.

            4. I think his name was Tulpa (or White Tulpa or whatever the fuck his handle is after the 2012 Registration).

              1. The name changed because the old name was reserved for a now-nonexistent email.

                I don’t see how Lo2E is something you get sick of any more than gravity is something you get sick of, either. It’s unfortunate but it’s how things work.

        2. You mean you found some actual Romney supporters? They really exist?

      3. If a viable Democrat started talking like Romney….

        Fuck I guess I would vote for him.

        I think i am going to have to take that back. Romney is horrible on immigration he is horrible on the drug war he is horrible on wars, he is horrible on the military budget. basically if you improved all that and still kept slightly better then Obama on the debt, spending cuts, low taxes and he was a black democrat then i would vote for him.

        Also I would vote for a black Clinton….or a black JFK.

        Actually I think a black Carter would be an improvement over Romney and Obama.

        Black Carter would legalize pot I think.

        1. You think a white Snoop Dogg would legalize it?

          1. You think a white Snoop Dogg would legalize it?

            You mean Woody Harrelson?

            Yes I think he would.

          2. Snoop Dogg would legalize stuff, even if he pulled a Michael Jackson and for some reason felt the need to be whitey. He came out and supported Ron Paul.

      4. I’m voting Johnson, too, but only because he’s a nice tanned pink hue.

    5. Er, so your question is “if Romney was black and running unopposed, would you vote for him”?

      Who is he running against? A white Republican Obama?

  7. a very abridged list there.

  8. I am disappointed that Janeane Gerofalo was not in there with her Tea-Baggers are redneck racists

    1. I seriously think she is the origin of the whole tea-bagger racist meme.

      She really deserves credit.

    2. What I find amusing is that by calling Tea Party members “Tea-Baggers” as an insult, they are essentially being homophobic, as if there is something wrong with that…

      1. Not only that, but who did they think they were bagging? Were they admitting to getting redneck balls dipped in their mouths?

      2. How’s it homophobic? That could just as easily be a hetero sex act.

    3. Janeane Garofalo got her breasts reduced so that people would take her seriously. Obviously, it didn’t work.

      1. She should have gotten her self righteous idiocy reduced while she was at it.

  9. “Still no convincing explanation for how the racist Teabagging Republicans could have fallen so hard for Herman Cain”

    It was cover to make themselves appear to not be racist. As Jeanine Gurafolo put it while providing an ironic example of the psychological principle of projection.

    1. psychological principle of projection.

      Wasn’t her argument something along the lines of Cain would do what the pirates wanted him to do and therefore he was some stooge uncle tom.

      Which is weird cuz I am pretty sure most voters always vote for the guy they think will do what they want him to do.

      Also is it even possible to be a stooge uncle tom when you are the President of the United States?

      Uncle Tom was not given the deed to the plantation was he?

      Seriously I do not know I never read the book.

      1. If people would actually read Uncle Tom’s Cabin they would realize that the epithet Uncle Tom to describe a race-traitor is a misnomer since Uncle Tom in the novel is pretty heroic and mentally resists his master.

        The term originates from bastardized minstrel show versions of Uncle Tom’s Cabin that play into sterotypes.

      2. That’s okay. I doubt Janeane ever read any book.

  10. I bet the race card players really love this:

    Taki’s Magazine

    I find it pretty amusing myself.

  11. Barack Obama is consistently much more popular than his policies. Mitt Romney has been consistently less popular than his.

    It’s settled then. When Romney loses, I’m blaming anti-Mormon bigotry.

    1. When Romney loses, I’m blaming

      The stupid neocons that have taken over the GOP.

      1. I am giving credit (not blaming mind you) to Gary Johnson voters.

        God bless em all.

        1. If you have been around the net for the last couple of days on other sites, I think that GJ has just picked up a lot of support. There are lots of really pissed off people who were either going to write in RP or not vote, who have jumped onto the Gary Johnson train because they are so enraged about Rands endorsement of Mittens. Yeah, RP senior is not junior, but the association is too strong. Johnson already had my vote, as I didn’t see the write in thing as a winner. But now, I think that Rand has killed his chance at Libertarian support in a 2016 run. I always thought that Johnson was the most likely new torch bearer for the liberty movement after Dr. Paul retires, but now I am sure of it.

          1. I’ll have to disagree with you there, even as the one who more than likely “broke the news” of the endorsement last night on HR. It really is a long-game strategy (although his voting on the farm bill today really throws a thorn into the works). The endorsement definitely sucks, but if it gets him a great speaking spot at the National Convention to introduce himself and the liberty platform, that will be worth it.

            After all, an endorsement is just words. For all we know he will write in his dad, himself, or cast a vote for Gary. The trick is to casually endorse Romney but then secretly get Ron Paul’s vast support base to move towards Johnson for this election, before resetting in 2015 for Rand.

            1. GB, he also did it with that grinning asshole Hannity sitting there with his nose up Mittens arse, saying ‘oh, if you say what I think you are going to say’. It was sickening, fucking nauseating. Hannity was funny a couple of times when he called Obama ‘the one’, but outside of that he is an insufferable dickhead in the mold of Bill O’Reily *barf*

          2. But now, I think that Rand has killed his chance at Libertarian support in a 2016 run.

            Well, maybe big-L libertarian support. I’m sure all 1200 of you will stay home in 2016.

            But small-l libertarian support? Hell no. Back here in reality either Obama or Romney will be President next year, and Romney is obviously the lesser evil there.

            1. and Romney is obviously the lesser evil there

              And why would that be? Care to explain?

              1. Not really.

                1. Not really.

                  So, you don’t know why.

                  Got it.

                  1. So, you don’t know why.

                    You can believe that if it makes you feel good to believe it.

                    But I just don’t see much point in trying to convince a guy who is, in his own words, “filled with rage” simply from hearing someone endorsed Romney, that there are reasons to vote for Romney. 🙂

                    He has self-identified as being beyond reason.

                    1. To clarify — he’s saying not only that Romney is the worse choice, but that the very idea that Romney might NOT be the worse choice is so far beyond the pale that anyone suggesting it is to be shunned.

                      So, eh, color me skeptical that he’s open to hearing a differing view.

                    2. Yes, I have self identified as beyond reason because I care about what someone does, without explanation, that I formally thought represented all of the same Libertarian principles that I do.

                      On the other hand if I would believe in pseudo science non-sense and call everyone that doesn’t agree with me deniers, or believe that going around the world and mass murdering innocent civilians in the name of a war on terror and call everyone that disagress with me, unpatriotic, then I would be the poster child for reason.

                      Yeah, there are reasons to vote for Romney, and none of them have anything to do with supporting liberty, which is why I got involved in politics, and will remain.

                    3. formerly, GD it

                    4. Case in point.

                    5. He has self-identified as being beyond reason.

                      Maybe…but his question was sensible and he is not the only one reading this.

                    6. You can believe that if it makes you feel good to believe it.

                      Here’s what I believe: the lesser of evils is still evil.


                    7. And?

                      I mean, I get it. I was in to the whole “both parties suck so I’m just going to vote for the Libertarian Party in protest” when I was in college. Then I grew up.

                      In the real world, libertarians are a minority of voters. The lesser evil is the best we can hope for.

                2. That’s what I thought, cause you can’t, right? RFLMAO

              2. Romney’s the lesser evil because he gives the impression of wanting to help improve things, not destroy them. He’s a business guy; the country is much like another ailing company that needs help.

                Sure, he believes in active govt, but they ALL do. I think the big L effort could use a few more Johnsons have had similar track records at the state level. One state is isolated, but several having done what he did in NM with similar results would be tough to ignore.

                1. I stand by the idea that Romney is the greater of two evils because he’s though of as the “lesser of two evils”. It’s because he is the Republican nominee and has the facade (insert fancy “c”) of being conservative/small government/pro business whatever that he is more dangerous. That’s why Republicans can’t live down 8 years of Bush: he was touted as a major conservative prior to 2000.

                  1. Obama actually seeks to harm the country. There is no calculus under which you can say the same about Romney. Reagan was a major conservative, too, but no one is trying to live him down. And Bush’s first 5 years or so were marked by economic growth and job creation. They were also marked by some stupid govt largesse more befitting Dems.

                  2. “That’s why Republicans can’t live down 8 years of Bush: he was touted as a major conservative prior to 2000.”

                    “compassionate conservative”. He also campaigned on federal intervention in education. He was never the “ultra conservative” or “ultra right wing” politician the left painted him as.

                    And while you’re worrying about a Romney pulling a nixon-goes-to-china stunt with social programs like Bush did, let’s remember his opponent handed the healthcare system to Reid Pelosi.

                2. I don’t care about the lesser of two evils.

                  Politically if the candidate is not what i want then he does not get my vote. In the long run this is the best strategy for libertarians. If we consistently vote for the Gary Johnsons of the world and in real numbers (say 5 to 10%) then any challenger can see that is a group he wants to push him over the edge to victory.

                  As a minority libertarians only power is to not give support to the lesser of two evils.

                  They got to give you something…if they give you nothing then you should not give shit back.

                  Romney would have to legalize pot or something of equal value…but if you give him votes willy nilly then the next guy will never see those votes he could capitalize on.

                  With the lesser of two evils you are just pissing your vote away.

                  1. By the way John is an asshole for voting for Romney if he does.

                    he lives in god damn Texas.

                    Any libertarian who gives their vote away in a deep blue or deep red state is fucking asshole.

                    Your vote does not and cannot matter in those states. Team Red or Team Blue establishment is always going to win. Those are the best places to fly your team liberty flags.

                    1. Are there more than one John here? I thought he lived in DC or Maryland.

                    2. John’s from MD, which is like Team Midnight Blue. Almost totally Pitch Blue.

                    3. So, actually, a vote for Romney is kinda like voting against TOTUS.

                      FWIW, I went w/ RP in the primes but am going GJ in the general election.

                  2. JC, it took me nearly 5 years after realizing that I was Libertarian to see this fact. I finally did, and I hope a lot more of us wake up to this. No more voting straight GOP ticket. They want to not take us seriously? Fuck them, they are not getting any more of my votes. Don’t get me wrong, I will vote for a Republican who I am convinced is strongly Libertrarian leaning. Besides that, it is LP all the way.

                    1. Right on, man.

                      You know what voting for the lesser evil gets us?

                      The current state of our country.

                  3. You say they’ve “got to give you something”, but you just said you refuse to vote for the lesser evil.

                    So what does “offer you something” mean? Offer what, exactly?

                3. Obama gives the same impression. I was just listening to the arse today on c-span radio on my commute home. He was blaming everyone but himself for the economy. I told you what to do Congress, and you just won’t do it. It’s your fault because you won’t listen to my great wisdom. So when Romney says he has the solutions, we just believe him? Why? Romney is a war mongering statist police state supporter. And I am going to vote for him. LOL, really funny shit, that.

                  1. Romney is a war mongering statist police state supporter.

                    an assertion based on? Nothing, that’s what. Yes, he’s said the Team Red thing about supporting Israel but, first and foremost, Mitt is about the business side of things. The economy is not doing too well; four more years of Obama will not help. Not liking a nuclear Iran is a long way from attacking.

                    National movements are built from the local/state level up. There are some TP types in Congress, more making their way into state houses and city councils. Romney has a track record of success, and he has had a couple of things that raise a flag. Obama has nothing but the latter.

                    1. wareagle, I would love to have this conversation with you again in 2 or 3 years if Romney wins. Let’s see what you think then. Romney will NOT change the current course that the BushObama agenda have set in motion. Romeny will continue/expand foreign wars. Romney will continue/expand the fascist destructive WOD, Romney will continue/expand the attack on civil liberties(NDAA). I am 100% certain of that. Talk to me in 2 or 3 years if we still have the right to comment openly on the internet. I doubt it, but I hope so.

                    2. hyperion,
                      you may be right and, if so, I will admit to having been wrong about Romney. My calculus this go-round is simple – another four years of Obama will be a disaster, plus all the things you list.

                    3. wareagle, the only way to stop this slide into tyranny is to elect real libertarian candidates at all levels of government. I can’t even recogize the country that I grew up in any longer. It is beyond sad, but our founders warned us of this.

                    4. first, such candidates have to run and then, they have to be credible enough to win. I think Ron Paul’s legacy is to have laid the groundwork for that. Separately, there is the continuation of the TP, which keeps putting forth credible candidates.

                      Agree with you on the state of the country. I just think it is going to take a while for a national-level effect. One benefit with folks like Walker in WI is that states make good incubators for smaller govt ideas. I realize he is not a big L type, but he seems to recognize the problem upon seeing it.

                  2. And what the hell is Rand’s ‘long game strategy’ that everyone brings up?

                    If there is zero dissent among the GOP ranks, how the fuck is that going to change anything. Hell, Rand’s getting elected was spit in the eye of the status quo. If he’s going to endorse the worst republican this side of Orrin Hatch what kind of message does that send? Maybe, “Give us your worst party hacks and we’ll throw our weight behind them because we have a super duper secret libertarian moon base plan hahaha!”

                    You motherfuckers think that Romney is going to dismantle the TSA because the junior senator from tennessee endorsed him?

                    HA! Double HA!

                    1. Kaintucky. But, I agree with you 100%. I would be proud to fight naked with you in the coming revolution, bro. (:

                      Whorin Snatch. The guy that wants to punch Libertarians in the mouth. I really wish he would try it just once. It’s been too long since a prune juice addicted, depends wearing, old curmudgeon got the crap kicked out of him on national TV.

                    2. Hey man, just stand up and be somebody.

                      Har har.

                      And anytime someone mentions the ‘lesser of two evils’ hammer their fucking asses.

                      You don’t fix the problems caused by the lesser of two evils with the lesser of two evils. It’s simple fucking arithmetic.

                    3. Damn right, man. No more lesser of two evils. Gary Johnson 2012. Math class finished for this semester, shools out for summer.

                    4. A vote for a 3rd party is the same as a vote for Obama.
                      Good work, morons.

                    5. STFU moron! Take your lefty propaganda and kiss Romneys arse, while you are being buggeerd by Rachel Madcow. That is your fantasy, right?

                    6. Bullshit.

                      A vote NOT for Obama OR Romney, is a vote neither of them get. This “half a vote” or “throwing your vote away” or “it’s only gonna help [insert Team Mascot] win/lose”… all that’s bullshit, too.

                    7. I don’t think so.

                      If GJ starts polling at even 7 or 8%, with The One and Romneybot running neck and neck, both teams are going to have to try to win over the swings. I actually think Johnson could make this at last really interesting.

                    8. What an insightful remark! I’ve never heard that before. So all those people who voted for Lincoln in 1860 were really voting for somebody else? Who knew?

                    9. schools, not shools. Wifey told me to quit postin or drinkin, one of … Meh… I never listen to the wimins folk… not even the one that I sleeps wit.

                    10. I think that ‘nando’ is an inside job; don’t take ‘im too seriously.

                      I’ve been drinking all day and you make perfect sense.

                    11. A vote for a 3rd party is the same as a vote for Obama.
                      Good work, morons.

                      Good. If those ratfucking republicans want my vote they’re gonna have to go more Ron Paul and less White Obama.

                    12. Romney really may be the lesser of two weevils, but I’m still not fucking voting for him.

                      Why vote for evil when you can vote for “not evil”?

                    13. And what the hell is Rand’s ‘long game strategy’ that everyone brings up?

                      A serious POTUS run in 2016 or 2020.

                    14. And a Romney endorsement helps that how?

                    15. And a Romney endorsement helps that how?

                      He is pushing for the Republican nomination in 2016 or 2020.

                      Probably not a good idea to alienate yourself from the party you hope to get a nomination from.

  12. You also could have quoted Joe from Lowell, Matt. He had some real gems.


      2. I don’t think I’ll ever sleep again.

      3. I was hardly paying attention to his comments that day.

        I had no idea how much of a classic it would later become.

        1. holy shit joe was the original tea-bagger.

          And, finally, people pretending not to know this, or who get their panties in a wad because I dared to notice this, can suck my balls.

          There, that’s my mission: to get you to suck my balls. Happy?

    1. You want me and Auric to go up to Lowell and force Joe to read Reason again, Ludovico style? tarran, xenia, and libertymike can tag along if they want.

  13. If Obama loses, and if there’s rioting, I hope these fucksticks’ cars are the first ones to have their windshields busted.

  14. Amazingly, Moran’s answer actually contains two pieces of truth:

    “a lot of people in the United States don’t want to be governed by one who is liberal, who wants to spend money”

    1. Yeah, I left out the ellipses. D’oh.

  15. Racism?
    If you have no sound argument and your record is pure shit all you have left is ad hominem.

    What is interesting is that they started off with the AH attacks before the record of shit, before captain zero even got in office. They knew they had no argument and probably that the record was going to turn to shit. For the left it really is all about being in power. They dont care what the results of their rule is as long as they rule.

    1. It seems like those kinds of responses come when a group has had power for a while and has lost the ability to explain and/or defend their positions. So Civil Rights people were called communists and now Obama’s critics are racists.

      1. Raven Nation as in Baltimore Ravens?

        If so, then I’m starting to have hope for MD after all. Quite a few regular commenters here hail from the Old Line State.

        Go Fighting Schowalters!

        1. No, sorry. Taken from a now-defunct sci-fi show. However, I think the Os are in line for a WS win since Showalter’s record is basically: turn around a really bad team, get fired, two years later team wins WS.

  16. Well, obviously people who don’t like Obama are racists. There’s absolutely nothing objectionable about his policies or goals, so the only remaining answer is racism.

  17. Yeah, yeah, yeah, if you’re white and oppose Obama, you’re a racist. If you’re black, brown or Muslim and oppose Obama, you’re an Uncle Tom.

    And the Tea Party is racist the Liberals claim. I guess the blacks, Hispanics, Asians and the gay couple wearing the “LGBTs for Ron Paul” T-shirts I saw at the Tea Party Express rally in Austin I was at last month didn’t get that message.

  18. You know, I kinda want Romney to win just for the off chance that the media will actually do their job and report about what the POTUS is doing.

    Note: I was going to write in RP, but I am now really thinking of voting for Johnson.

  19. It is certainly true that a certain portion of anti-Obama sentiment is race-based. You can’t claim it’s nonexistent.

    And when you read any article about any member of the Obama family linked on the Drudge Report, you learn quickly that racist feelings exist, if only among almost all readers of the Drudge Report.

    1. it is at least equally true, if not more so, that a certain portion of the proObama sentiment is race based. You can’t claim it’s non-existent.

      1. He does not claim that part of Obama’s support being racially motivated does not exist, he claims voting for someone based on their race is a good thing when liberals do it.

    2. You’re absolutely right, a portion of it is race-based.

      Now go back and read those comments. They do not indicate a portion…they indicate that any and all opposition to Obama OR his policies is, in fact, thinly veiled racism.

      1. I think even the purveyors of the racism meme would agree that there are legitimate policy differences one can have with Obama that are not racist…as long as they come from other blacks and from the far left. Van Jones, for example, has valid, non-racist critiques of Zero. Tom Sowell, OTOH, does not.

    3. Yeah, but the fact that 99% of blacks will vote FOR him has nothing to do with race, right? That’s what I thought, hypocrite.

    4. You can’t claim it’s nonexistent.

      Tony there are crazy people.

      By that same token I can claim that there are racists voting for Obama for racist reasons.

      And yes i mean white racists who hate black people who vote for Obama. It happened and it will happen in November. How can I possibly make this claim?

      Cuz i know there are crazy people and they do crazy shit. It exists…

      …and it does not mean jack shit that it does.

    5. T o n y|6.8.12 @ 9:24PM|#
      “It is certainly true that a certain portion of anti-Obama sentiment is race-based. You can’t claim it’s nonexistent.”

      Yes, shithead, I’m sure you can find someone who hates the guy because he isn’t pure white.
      Just like I’m sure you can find someone who hates you because you’re gay rather than hating you because your an ignoramus.

    6. T o n y|6.8.12 @ 9:24PM|#

      “And when you read any article about any member of the Obama family linked on the Drudge Report, you learn quickly that racist feelings exist, if only among almost all readers of the Drudge Report.”

      Really, shithead? ‘Any article’ shithead? ‘Almost all’ shithead?
      Prove it, shithead.

    7. I’ve lived in Texas for many, many years. I remember the day before George Bush defeated Ann Richards in 1994 to become Governor. All the polls showed that Bush was going to win.

      I was listening to a call in talk show on the radio about noon, when a caller said that the only reason that people were going to vote for Bush was because he’s a man. The host didn’t say much in response. I, on the other hand, would have told that caller that he’s an offensive idiot. Rather than consider the possibility that people may have had honest differences of opinion, he just labeled all opponents as sexists. That made him offensive. What made him an idiot is that he obviously didn’t put much thought into his claim, cause if he had, he probably would have also tried to explain why those same people that were going to vote for Bush were also going to vote for Kay Bailey Hutchison.

      Of course, insulting your opponents is easier than thinking.

  20. “The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.” – Peter Brimelow

    1. So everyone with any intelligence or facts to wield is a racist, because the only way you could lose an argument with a liberal is if you are one of them, or an uninformed idiot, or both.

      1. exactly. The default, standard-issue response to anyone not drinking the Obama tea is race, as if no one ever disagreed with a president before a black one was elected.

          1. So, you’re a brain-dead lefty. Knew that.

          2. So, do you fantasize about her taking you with a giant dildo or what? I mean she is rather manly looking, and if you’re a mangina lefty, I am sure you are into that.

            1. You’ve got him pegged, Hyperion.

              /no homo

          3. “dominates her time slot?” Is there a single MSNBC show whose ratings get close to Fox’s worst-performing product?

  21. OT:

    Proudly participating in a news hoax pretty much kills your credibility as a journalist, doesn’t it?

    1. environmental activists are liars? no way.

      1. No way! They love mother Gaia, and you hate the childins, don’t you?

  22. I live in Mississippi and I will admit that much of the oppositIon in this State is racially motivated. Much of hi support is, too. Obviously, that doesn’t describe every republican or libertarian (or democrat), but it is present and undeniable. For what it’s worth I can’t stand the guy so it’s not like I am defending him or claiming that the only people who support and / or defend him are racist; I do, however, think that denying it plays a role with some is a little naive.

    1. As Mississippi Republicans would first oppose Obama on ideology and party-affiliation I assume you are saying white Democrats are the racists? How many white Democrats are there in the Magnolia state who won’t be voting to reelect Obama?

    2. that sort of shit argument just pisses me off. It is based on cheap stereotypes rather than reality. Perhaps much of the opposition is based on the state being largely conservative, leaning Repub, and other factors that would make it difficult for any Dem to do well regardless of color. That never seems to cross some folks’ minds, does it – that people who are neither Dem nor liberal may not support someone who is.

      1. I probably didn’t explain myself very well. All I was trying to say is that I have met people who begin criticizing obama with racist comments, which leads me to believe some of their dislike of him IS racially motivated. I have also met black people who begin defending him by saying that the only reason anyone disagrees with obama is because they are racist, which is also racist IMO. And yes, i would say that white and black dems in MS are more racist than R’s.

  23. Obama is blaming the EuroZone for a shitty economy and is saying that economis recovery lies in their hands.

    By blaming the Europeans for the lack of economic recovery is nothing hateful xenophobic fear-mongering, which has no place in modern discourse.…..PV20120609

    1. economis — economic

      nothing hateful — nothing but hateful

      My rage at this injustice has clouded by typing.

    2. He is blaming the Eurozone for supporting the same big spending Keynesian economics that he himself touts? Oh, yeah, they didn’t spend enough of the tax payers money that they don’t have. Tax and Spend more, and then borrow some more. Idiot.

  24. 01/19/10: Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: “[T]he Tea Party movement [is] perhaps the saddest collection of people who don’t want to admit…

    Keith who? Hahahaha.

    1. The only person smarter than Rachel Maddow, that’s who.

      1. all that intelligence, and? Fired by the Al Gore network which no one watches, after being fired by MSNBC which has a marginal audience. Burning bridges is not sound career strategy.

        1. I don’t know. The guy made millions basically ranting on his own video blog for a few years.

          In a way he’s the worst kind of capitalist, preying on legions of suckers with his defective product.

          1. “In a way he’s the worst kind of capitalist, preying on legions of suckers with his defective product.”

            And, as a failed capitalist, he’s now out of business.

      2. Presented for your amusement:

        Nando|6.8.12 @ 11:01PM|#
        “The only person smarter than Rachel Maddow, that’s who.”

        ‘Nuff said.

        1. I got up and was eating some corn chips for a snack and read that….now I have a corn chip on my screen.

          Jesus nando, how do you come up with that shit? Like malaprops, that kind of horseshit takes a special talent.

          1. “Jesus nando, how do you come up with that shit?”]

            Easy. Nando is the only person dumber than Maddow, that’s how.

      3. Tallest man in Oz?

    2. He has this big TV deal with the Great Goracle, it’s a hit, it’s taking over the airwaves like wildfire, everyone is watching… oh, wait, no one watched and now the two comrades hate each other…. ooops.

    1. That’s the best post you’ve ever made, Nando. Keep it up.

  25. Please spade or neuter your politicians. Thanks!

  26. er spay. me dumb

    1. I think “spading” might be good for politicians, too

      1. Or piking, that would be good too.

        1. Clubbing works wonders.

      2. Bumper sticker idears:

        I ? My Elected Officials


        ? Your Government

    2. HA!! Closet racist!!


    3. Nah, beating them with a shovel sounds about right.

  27. This is like the worst chat room EVER.

    Also – racist.

  28. I’m going to wager that the grand majority, if not each and every person and organization quoted above, supports racial quota systems. Oh, excuse me, “affirmative action”.

    1. right. and liberals will constantly accuse you of racism if you oppose racial preferences JUST like reasonoids will constantly make racial claims about those who oppose open borders

      btw, i personally support affirmative action. i do not support ANY race (or gender) based preferences

      one can have one w/o the other

      racial preferences are a subset of affirmative action, a subset that is both unconstitutional and bad policy

      1. btw, i personally support affirmative action.

        when coupled with

        i do not support ANY race (or gender) based preferences

        Does. Not. Compute.

  29. I continue to find it absurd that people divide humans into arbitrary groups based upon secondary physical characteristics and call it “race”.

    I guess a term that would describe such people who divide humans into arbitrary groups based upon secondary physical characteristics would be racist.

    Me, I just see people as people. Is that so hard?

    … Hobbit

    1. That’s something racist White Americans say

      1. White Hobbit Americans. You racist.

        1. fwiw, did tolkien ever describe skin color when it came to hobbits?

          iirc, he made some distinction between different families in the shire, (baggins, sackville baggins, etc.) as having somewhat different characteristics, but i do not recall if their skin color was ever mentioned. their hairy feet, yes. skin color?

          i’m curious. most people from my generation probably had their visual image of a hobbit primarily from the (not half bad) animated hobbit movie

          can somebody answer this? did tolkien ever mention or even imply that hobbits had fair skin?

          again, i seem to remember some descriptions about “ruddy’ skin or something, which IMPLIES white, but again, just not sure.

          the lord of the rings does, to SOME extent, have fair skinned characters seem more sympathetic and iirc orcs and several other “bad” races are described as dark skinned.

          i am certainly not implying he was racist btw

          1. I am pretty sure Sam was black….and gay.

            Frodo was gay as well along with Pip and Merry.

          2. Nor beards, either.

            … (he true) Hobbit

          3. LOTR was part of Tolkien hobby of developing “English” based mythos. Hobbits track as English country folk. Generally goodhearted but not very worldly.

      2. Notice how the fucktard capitalizes “white”. Typical liberal projectionist.

      3. In keeping with the theme of the night:

        only in Boston,
        After it bothered the fathers of daughters starting to blossom, so now I’m catchin’ the flack
        From these activists when they raggin’, actin’ like I’m the first rapper to smack a bitch, or
        Say faggot, shit, just look at me like I’m your closest pal, the posterchild, the motherfuckin’
        Spokesman now for…

        White America, I could be one of your kids, white America, little Eric looks just like this,
        White America, Erica loves my shit, I go to TRL, look how many hugs I get, white America, I
        Could be one of your kids, white America, little Eric looks just like this, white America, Erica
        Loves my shit, I go to TRL, look how many hugs I get…

    2. Yes, but you can get kicked out of any or all of these groups by espousing non-leftist politics. Just ask Ann Coulter or Ward Connerly.

  30. i find it ironic that this article decries the race card crap used so often against obama opponents

    WHEN so many reason columnists (and commentators) use the race card to attack those who are pro-border enforcement etc.

    iow, it’s perfectly ok to play the race card as long as it’s one of reason’s pet issues

    sure, there are plenty of people who oppose obama who ARE racist, and many of them oppose him at least partially because he’s black.


    but making such broad sweeping statements about obama opponents is in itself bigoted, as reason points out

    similarly, there are plenty of open border opponents who oppose open border policies because they are racist.

    but the same caveat applies.

    ironic as fuck

    1. I don’t think the closed border types are racist. I think they are that dangerous mix of arrogant and stoopid to think that they know better than I with whom I should associate with.

      And with all those dumb enough to believe they know how to live my life better than me, they can self-fuck with the business end of a rusty claw-hammer.

      1. i can appreciate your lack of race card throwing.

        to me, a closed border says nothing about who you can ‘associate’ with.

        you can associate all you want with somebody from a different country, and they are free to visit the US as long as they follow the rules, rules that pretty much every other nation on earth sets – iow entry criteria, etc.

        heck, canada won’t even let you enter if you have a recent DUI for instance.

        but i think you are engaging in a ridiculous framing

        LOTS of policies are there (like drug policies) because people think they know better than you how to live your life. iow, they don’t think you should be free to choose what goes in your bloodstream

        i see this as not the case with border politics. i see it simply as a matter of does one believe that a sovereign nation should have borders that have SOME sort of rules as to entry, etc. ?

        i DO. i could not care less who you associate with. that is entirely not the issue.

        1. Calm down, Mr. Monkey you’re all over the place. Jeeze man, the meth goes in the evidence locker, not yer nose. Har, har.

          I would keep people out that pose an imminent threat to the citizens of the US, but other than that I think that employers should be able to hire whoever economically makes sense to them and landlords should be able to rent to whomever they’d like.

        2. Where are these Reason writers and HnR commenters who support closed borders of which you speak? AFAICT, pretty much every regular here supports open borders, I think.

          1. I’m not an open borders guy, but I’m all in favor of making it easier to get into the US and to become a citizen. I think our system now is a disgrace. But if you don’t enforce the borders, you really don’t have a policy.

            1. Fuck…joke names, how do they work?

        3. you can associate all you want with somebody from a different country, and they are free to visit the US as long as they follow the rules, rules that pretty much every other nation on earth sets – iow entry criteria, etc.

          Which is what we call ‘interfering with the freedom of association’. If the States says “You can definitely do X, you just have to go through steps A-V to get there, and even if you do, we can forbid that association altogether” that’s not ‘freedom of association’.

          Also, the fact that ‘other kids do it too’ is not an argument in your favor. Did your mother teach you nothing?

          I have reasonably and rationally evaluated the claims of the border control crowds, and unless the first words out of their mouths are “imminent dangers and diseases only”, then they’re engaging in some form of bigotry.

          If I want to take a private plane to Mexico, hire Jose the Famous Chef to come work in my house, and fly him back up here, all with no taxpayer dollars, what business is it of yours?

          1. dunphy is a staunch supporter of Stop and Frisk. Do you think for a second that he gives a fuck about freedom of association when he can’t get the other basic freedoms like the 4A correct?

            1. such utter rubbish, sloopy.

              i am a supporter of the concept of rule of law.

              iow, i may not agree with the miranda decision, but i don’t lie or cheat to get around it, – iow i respect rule of law

              i do not agree with MANY aspects of the law regarding stop and frisk (i certainly agree with terry v. ohio) but again, i recognize that (unlike you), it is not ok to violate people’s right as understood by case law when i personally think it’s not a violation and vice versa.

              i don’t support a guy convicted of a nonviolent felony being restricted from carrying a gun. but i’m certainly not going to ignore that crime if i see it occurring.

              you take a cafe view towards rule of law. when it restricts cops, you want it strictly adhered to and violators strictly punished.

              when it comes towards stuff you disagree with, then well… meh

              maybe you want an army of cops who violate rights as long as they think those rights were incorrectly decided by the scotus.

              some sort of half-assed bitchy little anarchist wanking i guess

      2. I think they are that dangerous mix of arrogant and stoopid to think that they know better than I with whom I should associate with.

        That and they are racists

    2. Not just the borders – every time it mentions wars, it uses the oh so clever remark about bombing “brown people”, which basically describes all of the world except Sub-Saharans and people from maybe 1/4 of Europe (Germans and Nordic types)

  31. The president was stepping out of his place. The president was being uppity again.

    Holy shit. Is he responding to something, or, as I suspect, is he introducing these images himself? If so, that’s pretty gosh darn racist.

    It’d be like responding to, “I don’t like Obama” with, “What, because he likes fried chicken? Because he just wants to hang out on the porch all day? You disgust me!”

  32. Charles P. Pierce deserves a punch in the face. Or at least have someone knock that stupid hat off his head. He gets to write from his abode in the whitiest white parts of the country(I don’t know this for a fact, but I bet it’s 100% true) where he lives and he can say with a straight face that other people are racist.

  33. fwiw, i recall reading a metric assload of posts from people at DU, Kos, etc. about how amerikkkkka was too RACIST to ever elect a black man president (or a half-black man or whatever), and obama thus would not win, etc

    i am reasonably confident that these people did not make public mea culpas

    1. racism is inherent to the white kulture of amerikkka. Only the enlightened can break free of the chains.

      1. I briefly had a great-uncle; he lived about three months before he died.

        He was white.

        Therefore… he was racist.

        /liberal logic

    1. Wow, is this person living in the ’60s or something?

  34. Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News apparently snapped out of a four-year long coma yesterday and immediately started typing:

    “There will be so many things to talk about with Obama vs. Romney from here to November, but the one that nobody will want to talk about very much in polite society, even in what has a chance to be the meanest presidential campaign for all times, is race.”

    1. Coma’s over, brain damage lingers.

    2. Lupica is a big time sports pundit. That makes him, by definition, a tremendous concern troll

  35. Good post.You did a good work,and offer more effective imformation for us!Thank you.
    mens sunglasses
    Oakley Sunglasses Sale

  36. Nothing short of tragic that the first black president is a white liberal. A post Acheson social democrat, even.

    1. You misspelled “Acheron”.

  37. He said, “The President is Near!”

  38. Gotta just love dem bought and paid for politicians lol.

  39. Do these people in UEFA even know what the word “abuse” means? Call it heckling, call it something else, but I hardly consider a bunch of drunken Russian morons yelling bad words to be “abuse.”

    Also FTA: Concerns have also been raised about “Russian Empire” flags waved by some fans at the stadium, seen as deeply provocative in parts of Eastern Europe that used to be under Moscow’s thumb.
    “The display of the Russian imperial flag in itself does not have to be seen as an incident,” said Pankowski.
    “Nevertheless, we know the flag is often used by some right-wing extremists and therefore its display can often be accompanied by discriminatory slogans and chants.”

    Jesus, Europeans are a bunch of pussies.

    1. I’m confused.

      Was it the Soviet Flag or Russia’s current white blue and red flag or some different “imperial flag”.

      1. never mind….._Rusia.png

        One thing about imperial eagles is i have to say is that at least our imperial symbol has the dignity to keep its tongue in its mouth….and you know have only one head.

  40. All you need to know about our “tough national security” president:

    In November, American airstrikes killed 24 Pakistani troops at two Afghan border posts. The U.S. has said it was an accident, but the Pakistani army claims it was deliberate.
    Pakistan retaliated by kicking the U.S. out of a base used by American drones and closing its border to NATO supplies meant for troops in Afghanistan. Negotiations to reopen the route have been hampered by Islamabad’s demand for much higher transit fees and Washington’s refusal to apologize for the deaths of the Pakistani troops.
    The U.S. has attempted to bridge the difference over money by offering to repave highways used by the supply trucks, said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
    But Pakistani officials have made clear the route will not reopen without some kind of apology. The U.S. has expressed its regret over the incident but has refused to apologize for fear it could open the Obama administration up to criticism by Republicans upset with Pakistan.

    Yep, totally concerned with protecting the homeland, BO is.

  41. When is Herman Cain getting a job on Fox News? I think it’s a perfect fit.

    1. Herman Cain is replacing the retiring Neal Boortz on his Atlanta-based, widely syndicated radio show.

  42. as Patricia explained I’m alarmed that you able to make $7823 in a few weeks on the computer. have you seen this site makecash16.c om

  43. Hey, liberals! (And by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, State-fellating coercion junkies.) If a Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams were running for president against, say, Hillary Clinton, would you vote against him? I thought so–racists!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.