Skip to main content

Here We Go Again

So I watched Chris Matthews turn into a foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid dog, screaming racism, because Republicans have referred to President Obama as the "Food Stamp President".  And because Republicans have mentioned that maybe, President Obama has weakened the bi-partisan victory of welfare reform.  I'm still scratching my head.

I don't understand how you accuse someone of racism, when they never injected race.  It wasn't Republicans who said "they're gonna put y'all back in chains".  They stated a fact.  Under this President more people are on food stamps than have ever been on food stamps in the history of the country.  He is, by all facts, the Food Stamp President.  What does that have to do with race?

The only answer I can come up with, is that Chris Matthews believes that most of the food stamp recipients are.... black.  This isn't something the Republicans have said.  It's not something that President has said.  it's something Chris Matthews has said.  Who's the racist?  Where is the outrage?

I remember back in the 2008 election, I was told, with no facts to back it up, that I wouldn't vote for Barck Obama, because I was scared of putting a "darkie in the whitehouse".  This was coming from a liberal democrat.  All I could think was no conservative that I knew would EVER use the term "darkie' and yet, this person used it like it was nothing.  Who's the racist?

The idea espoused by Democrats, that Black People can't succeed without the help of the government, that Women can't succeed without the help of the government (Julia anyone?), to me, is the height of both racism and sexism.   Liberal pundits scream racism over food stamps, and no one sees how racist their view is?  They are the ones assuming that food stamps=black, not conservatives.

Where is the outrage?

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Observations 10-26

I generally stick to writing my own stuff, not posting the writing of other people. My whole point in having a blog is to have my voice heard. Maybe that's a little narcissistic. You will have to decide. I have, however, decided to have a feature in this blog called Observations, where I take something I've read, and share it with you. Then I'll make my own comments. (I can't not comment. It will kill me haha.) So, from this morning's reading: From Mary Mapes's monster Share Post Print October 26, 2008 Posted by Scott at 7:04 AM In 2004 Mary Mapes was the celebrated CBS News producer responsible for stories that had won her the recognition of her peers. In September that year she produced Dan Rather's 60 Minutes II report on President Bush's military service that was exposed as fraudulent the following day. CBS commissioned an internal investigation (the Thornburgh-Boccardi report) demonstrating in detail

The Taking Down of a Soundbite.

I saw this cartoon this morning on Facebook, and I thought "wow, what a bunch of fallacies."  This cartoon embodies the majority of Democratic Talking Points since 2008 (with a notable absence of the "War on Women" theme... hmm... wonder why).  The thing with this cartoon is, many of these arguments can't be boiled down into signs.  They aren't bumper sticker slogans.  They are real issues, with much deeper thought processes.  I'm going to take just a few. 1) We want dirtier air and water so CEO's can make more money. This issue has to do with the Environment.  It stems from things like the Kyoto Protocol, and various other internationally pushed treaties to help prevent Global Warming, er um... sorry, Climate Change.  Recently our President made a deal with China, whereby we cut our Greenhouse Gas Emissions, while they commit to maybe, possibly, making changes 20 years down the road.  The problem with all of these solutions is that they cost

When Feelings (and apparently Justices) Don't Need Facts

I have a few questions about the vaccine mandate that no one seems to be able to answer.  The mandate makes little sense to me, because of these questions. If those who want to be vaccinated, are vaccinated, and the vaccines effectively protect against serious illness and death in most cases, then what is the compelling interest in forcing the vaccine on people who don't want it?   We now know (despite previous statements to the contrary) that the COVID-19 vaccine does not prevent a person from catching and spreading the virus.  If you need proof of that, look to major sports in the US.  Despite the vast majority of players being vaccinated, COVID has spread like wildfire through the ranks of the NBA, NFL and NHL.  It got so bad in the NFL that they changed their policies. So, if a vaccinated person can spread and catch the virus, how exactly does the mandate protect anyone?   Does the mandate violate equal protection under the law by requiring vaccine mandates for business with 10