Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Marcia Pappas fights like a girl.

I first encountered her name tonight on the HickTown Press blog. Marcia Pappas, head of the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women, attacked Sen. Ted Kennedy Monday for the crime of endorsing Barack Obama.

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal,” reads a NOW press release.

Kennedy’s endorsement “is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation – to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.”

Even the liberal Huffington Post describes this as a “rant.”

But that’s not the mind-blower.

NOW’s Teddy Kennedy press release has drawn attention to a January 11 manifesto from Marcia Pappas titled: “Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President.”

Gang bang? As the Field Negro says, “that was some tacky shit.”

Beyond tacky, I’d say. Approaching psychotic. I count eight exclamation points in the thing. And multiple spelling errors.

In her very first paragraph, by way of clearing her throat, Pappas refers to the playground taunting of little girls, and to sexual harassment in the workplace, and to “that movie where Jodie Foster portrayed the true story of [a] woman who was ganged raped in a bar while others looked on and encouraged [it]. ...”

“In short,” quoth Pappas, “gang raping of women is commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically.”

And who, pray tell, is guilty of the metaphorical mob rape of Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama, of course! And John Edwards. Heck, John Kerry too! Read the damn thing for yourself.

Ms. Pappas threw this Molotov cocktail after Sen. Clinton’s surprise victory in the New Hampshire primary, which cranked up the competition to another level.

Now, I’m not saying that Marcia Pappas is an agent of the Clinton campaign. But Pappas did spend 10 days in Iowa volunteering for Clinton. (She’s on the far left in the picture above.)

And Pappas certainly understands the power of words. She said so herself, in a 2005 radio interview with upstate New York talk-show host Scott Leffler. Click here to hear a 1-minute snippet on my Vox audio stash. (I promise, it will amuse you!)

Marcia Pappas also understands the seriousness of actual rape (not the metaphorical kind), because NOW successfully lobbied the New York state legislature to remove the statute of limitations in rape cases.

And via that, Ms. Pappas professes to understand the game of hardball politics – especially how to “manipulate” and “embarrass the hell out of” male politicians. Click here for a 2-minute audio bite from a symposium last April at Albany Law School. Pappas speaks on the subject of “Violence Against Women.”

“It’s really easy to embarrass politicians [in] election years,” she boasts. “Keep that in mind. Timing is, like, key.”

Add it all up and it’s plain to see: the NOW “gang rape” press release was a calculated political smear, with Pappas dealing the gender card from the bottom of the deck. She should be held to account for her outrageous, inflammatory rhetoric.

And Hillary Clinton should repudiate Marcia Pappas. Like, now.

37 comments:

justjudith said...

great post. i have often wondered what to make of the women's movement. when i was growing up, now made a lot of headlines but nobody i knew was part of it. which brings me to the issue that i still feel: does the women's movement include black women? i know it's supposed to in theory, but in my eyes, this lady and the ones in the past sounded like extremists and often missed the plight of the woman of color. maybe it's just me but using the word rape sounds manipulative to me.

odocoileus said...

It's the (upper middle class white) women's movement.

Everyone else should just be quiet and do what they're told.

portiapm5 said...

I'm echoing justjudith and odocoileus, but in my view the women's movement was created in the image of white women.

The oft used phrase "blacks and women" (which has always irritated me to no end) was in most instances translated to mean black men and white women. Sometimes black women were lumped into the black category, but more often than not we were an afterthought.

Almost as if the category of "black people" did not include gender. It's really strange when you think about it.

It has been my experience that when people take a look at me, they see ethnicity first, then gender. I hope when they take a deeper look they see lots of other attributes, but my world view has been largely shaped because I'm an African-American, not because I'm a woman.

It's interesting to contrast the ranting of Ms. Pappas in her statement, to the more sober, dare I say sane, press release issued by the National office of NOW.

http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

Anonymous said...

I suppose "NOW" is the new way to spell "DAR". (I mean the bad ol' DAR of the 30's and 40's)

Same people, different times.

Where was NOW in the 90's? During the Clinton Administration?

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

"It's the (upper middle class white) women's movement."

*shrug* I think you're right, but without the "white". Consider the various times NOW has refused to support women in public issues, such as those involved with Bill Clinton. Basically if you're a wealthy ivy-degreed coastal liberal then NOW is for you. If not, then don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Personally most of this stuff makes me laugh. As a conservative and former Republican I'm well acquainted with the mishmash of identity politics that Democrats have made a staple of American politics.

BTW let me ask a different kind of question. A lot of blacks aren't happy about illegal aliens and the negative impact that unrestricted hispanic migration has had on black communities. What do you guys feel about that?

And do you think Obama, if elected to office, is going to actually help blacks? Or merely take them for granted?

Simply put: What do you expect from an Obama Presidency?

Just curious.

Lola Gets said...

This is just one of the reasons I have never been a die-hard feminist: theyre too polarizing. I prefer a womanist standpoint.

L

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, I agree that was some extremely crass shit.

Reminds me of Clarence Thomas' extremely misplaced "high-tech lynching" comment.

Another, as you say, Molotov cocktail designed to induce guilt.

Well, this is what I have to say to NOW if that's their position: don't demean your worthy work by engaging in such childish tactics.

memomachine, I'm gonna actually agree with you on something you posted re: Barack. But I wouldn't limit it to what's he gonna do for Black folks but the 99% who don't belong to the Have Mores. He's more compromised by corporations than is being let on.

But with the dropping out of Kucinich and Edwards, he's now the best candidate of those left standing. And he can thank Oprah for that.

Damn, I need a shower after agreeing with that crazy muthafucka.

Undercover Black Man said...

I prefer a womanist standpoint.

Lola: Thanks for not spelling that with a 'Y.'

Barack. ... He's more compromised by corporations than is being let on.

Word? How so, DeAngelo?

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, re: Barack being compromised.

Look at how much money he's raised. It ain't all Oprah's money. And I know his campaign says a lot of the money comes from small donations.

Would love to see the hard evidence because that's a lot of cash.

After Bush got re-elected, I wrote a piece called "Head-In-The-Sand Nation." In it I asked, "What's the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe?"

If a great bulk of your cash comes from faceless corporations, whose interests are you going to protect?

I'm not a Barack fan necessarily. To me, he's a crossover candidate. Sorta reminds me of Michael Jackson when he transformed from a Black artist to this adrogynous alien who nobody seems to understand.

Well not that bad. But Barack has gotten away from his roots.

And please UBM audience, don't mistake my point. I'm not one of those who says Barack isn't "Black" enough.

Barack started off as a "For the People" candidate. By "The People," I'm referring to the majority of us who are already experiencing a recession and will soon (hopefully not) find ourselves mired in a depression. That includes all but the one-percent Have Mores.

But his corporate line on Iraq, although he initially opposed it, his lack of leadership in speaking out against any of the Bush Administration's trampling of the Constitution, his failure to advocate universal health care that doesn't involve insurance companies, and his stated admiration for how Ronald Reagan took this country in the direction of his (Reagan's) vision, to name a few, caused me to write the line that he's a corporate candidate.

Corporate candidates get all the press in the corporate media. You didn't see Kucinich getting headlines in the media, did you? Unless it was to distort his belief that he might have seen a UFO. He got disinvited to critical debates as the primaries heated up, didn't he?

Edwards spoke a grassroots platform but his haircuts got more attention in the corporate media.

While Hillary and Barack get a lot of media attention because they would represent the first time either a woman or Black person would potentially serve as president, they are both corporate candidates.

I hope I'm wrong since there's a great possibility that either one could end up being our next president.

But if your answer to the question, "under your presidency, will there still be troops in Iraq in 2013?" is "We don't know what the situation will be in Iraq in 2013, so it's possible we might still be there." You're serving corporate interests. Cuz the People want our money re-directed from that fuckery and funnelled back into the economy.

Pulling out of Iraq will be the real economic stimulus. Not a fucking $600 check that Bush keeps emphasizing American families need to "spend" as opposed to "save" or "invest."

Where's Barack on that issue? Where's Barack on a higher minimum wage? Where's Barack on helping working poor and middle class keeping their homes? Where's Barack on increased layoffs? Where's Barack on unionism?

A lotta fluffery and idealism. Short on leadership.

I'll vote for him, unfortunately, because there isn't a candidate that has a potentially better conscious.

Finally, related to my latest piece on The Wire, he's been corrupted by campaign contributions and the notion of becoming President.

If he wins, let's hope he finds his way back to innocence. That's gonna be hard.

Michael Fisher said...

Sheeeet. That ain't nuthin'. How about Maureen Dowd's rant about Obama as a little emotional black boy?

Looks like them racist ass white women are ten times more dangerous than their male counter parts

Racist White Girls' motto: If you can't screw a Nigga, screw a Nigga.

susie said...

Regardless of her race this chick is just shrill.

Like totally.

All I could think when I heard that Kennedy threw down for Obama was, "like that's a good thing?"

I don't have a lot of respect for the senator from Massachusetts, I think he's a rich white guy with a drinking problem who talks a lot without really doing much except riding on a legacy that's not really his own.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmmm.

1. Speaking as a conservative I'm both amused and bemused by all this. For about 100+ years the Republican party was the party that best, of an admittedly bad bunch, represented blacks. Then came the 1960's and all of a sudden it turned around 180 degrees.

Weird how all this works.

The reason I write this is because the divisions breaking apart black voters from establishment Democrats are similar to the divisions breaking apart conservatives from Republicans. Or at least conservatives have the feeling that the GOP likes our money and votes, but would otherwise really rather we shut up and go sit in a corner between elections.


2. "memomachine, I'm gonna actually agree with you on something you posted re: Barack."

Actually what I was thinking is that Obama might be in the process of being "set up". Not by any cabal or individual but rather by unreasonable expectations. A lot of people don't realize that a President doesn't really have all that much power. And what power he has, domestically at least, is often eroded quickly.

If Obama got into office it might be that far too many people won't take into account the built-in limitations of the office and expect/demand more from Obama than he could really accomplish. Consider Katrina. Bush is universally reviled for not sending in federal troops. But under federal law the President doesn't have the authority to send federal troops anywhere without a specific invitation from the state's Gov. It's called the Posse Comitatus Act. Enacted precisely to prevent a President from becoming a dictator with federal troops. But Gov Blanco refused to invite federal troops into NOLA unless they were put under her command. But federal law doesn't allow a state governor to command federal troops because a state governor isn't in the federal chain-of-command.

It's a bit of a chicken-egg situation, but it's useful to show the limitations that are placed on a President.


3. "Damn, I need a shower after agreeing with that crazy muthafucka."

Welcome to the Dark Side young padawan.

:)


4. "But his corporate line on Iraq, although he initially opposed it ..."

Iraq's a tough subject though I think we're doing a lot better now. *shrug* we need Iraq. Iraq is an opportunity to show Arabs a different way to live. To show that there is a way to bridge Islam and a modern democratic society. Otherwise sooner or later we'll have to contemplate a war of extermination. This War on Terror will only go on as long as Americans are patient. If that patience runs out, then people will die in 7 digit numbers.


5. "Bush Administration's trampling of the Constitution"

There's a lot less "trampling" than most people assume. Seriously. What "trampling"?


6. "his failure to advocate universal health care that doesn't involve insurance companies"

You mean like Britain? Where 5,000 people stood in line for 300 spots for a dentist? Universal healthcare works only in two ways. Either by taxing insanely, to pay the full bill of taking care of everyone. Or by rationing the healthcare.

Look at Britain. They're thinking about not treating smokers, overweight people and the elderly or very sick. In the Netherlands they routinely kill babies diagnosed with any defects without even telling the parent. Or asking their permission.

Good luck with that.


6. "Ronald Reagan took this country in the direction of his (Reagan's) vision"

He did win the Cold War.

...

*shrug* All I can do is offer the ancient Chinese curse:

May you get everything you want.

:)

Undercover Black Man said...

DeAngelo, you hit on two killer points: 1) Obama as "crossover" phenomenon. I need to study the pop music business to get a clearer understanding of what's happening with Barack.

2) The "Wire" connection. This exact same thought hit me yesterday: I'm getting all excited about Obama... as if I've forgotten the grand thematic lesson of "The Wire" -- the institution is always bigger than one human being. The institution always wins.

The idea that Barack Obama's gonna ride into town on a white hat and clean up the town... In our brains, we gotta know that's horseshit. Institutional Washington will always be what it is.

Which brings me back to point #1: Is the Obama phenomenon (the Oba-menon) all about a pop-star thing?

Anonymous said...

nemomachine said:
"You mean like Britain? Where 5,000 people stood in line for 300 spots for a dentist? ...
Look at Britain. They're thinking about not treating smokers, overweight people and the elderly or very sick."

I live in the UK, and you are exaggerating just a *tad*. lol. It's not as bad as all that. I've had no problem getting dental care (the latter of which working adults pay for privately anyway) nor general health care. And if I want a bit extra or a bit quicker, I can always go private.

Rationing takes place in every healthcare system, whether its publicly or privately funded. Resources are finite. Medical professionals always have to make choices about who to treat and who is worth treating. So either doctors or insurers decide. tant pis either way.

And if people do get turned away by the UK National Health Service (which does not currently happen and is not likely in the foreseeable future), then they can purchase their own private medical insurance. Which would mean what? A *minute* percentage of the UK population in the same position as 100% of the American population.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

memomachine, I knew you'd expose yourself.

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War? That's the stupidest bit of propoganda. First, there was no war. Second, by the time Reagan got into office the Soviet Union was already suffering economically was experiencing internal political dissension. Reagan had nothing to do with that. Nor did any other U.S. President. Hell, by the time the Soviet Union broke up Reagan couldn't remember his own name. George Bush was running the country.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, I have to put your thought about the Institution always winning in my pipe and reflect on it. I think may be right about that.

Do a piece comparing Obama's rise to the rise of a crossover pop star.

Crossover pop music got big in the 80s. And it was synthesized drum machines and cheesy-sounding synthesizers. There was virtually no phat bass lines and no screaming loud guitars. Evertyhing was kept in the middle. Prime example besides Michael Jackson: Kool & the Gang. Kool & the Gang went from tight but raunchy horns over thumping bass lines and scratchy guitars to smooth vocal Muzak.

Parliament foresaw the Placebo Syndrome that crossover pop was.

Crossover pop was backed by huge corporate record companies that got BIG airplay on corporate-owned radio stations.

And here we go with the same.

What's really the difference between any of the candidates? One side is about God, guns, anti-abortion and no gay marriage, while the other side is afraid to say out loud its for much of the same.

I hope Nader jumps in and wins.

Anonymous said...

Memomachine "War of extermination"? This is why conservatives send chills down my spine.

Undercover Black Man said...

Prime example besides Michael Jackson: Kool & the Gang.

Yep. How sad was that? EW&F went for it also... and hit the jackpot with "Let's Groove."

George Clinton never, ever tried to go the crossover route... and for that he deserves much respect.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, just about every prime time funk band went disco and then tried crossover. None of 'em succeeded at it.

George incorporated some those elements but ALWAYS had the phat bassline and silly serious lyrics.

Prince might've done the best job of appealing to the crossover audience without totally compromising his artistic vision - with the exception of that Raspberry Beret album that was just outright sad.

I recall reading an interview with Keith Richards in '88, I think it was either in Rolling Stone or the defunct Musician magazine. On the issue of synthesized instrument overindulgence, he said, "And you Black guys, what are you doing using drum machines? You should be ashamed of yourselves."

Damn right, but not just brothas but any self-respecting drummer. For instance, listen to Isaac Hayes' Joy. The brotha on drums maintains the same tempo on the high hat for FIFTEEN MINUTES. Listen to Fela, the guitar and the drums play the same shit for FIFTEEN TWENTY MINUTES. Fuck Wynton Marsalis, that's musician discipline.

I guess, we kinda went off subject from Marcia Pappas'. Kinda like weed-infested discussions where the conversation goes all over the place but makes sense at the same time. Not that I would know anything about smoking weed.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

1. "I live in the UK, and you are exaggerating just a *tad*. lol. It's not as bad as all that. I've had no problem getting dental care (the latter of which working adults pay for privately anyway) nor general health care. And if I want a bit extra or a bit quicker, I can always go private."

Really? I read a few blogs maintained and written by NHS *doctors* and *nurses*. And what I wrote was not an exaggeration.

One reason why infant mortality rates in the USA are higher than in the UK or Canada is that we routinely spend resource to try and keep infants alive that the UK and Canada routinely allow to die. We also maintain a greater number and more extensive premie wards which is why so many Canadian mothers with premie babies have their children in the USA.

*shrug* it's all about bureaucrats and costs.

2. "And if people do get turned away by the UK National Health Service (which does not currently happen and is not likely in the foreseeable future), then they can purchase their own private medical insurance. Which would mean what? A *minute* percentage of the UK population in the same position as 100% of the American population."

Actually most people here get their healthcare either from government services or from healthcare through their employer.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmmmm.

@ DeAngelo Starnes

1. "memomachine, I knew you'd expose yourself."

And you don't want me exposing myself.....


2. "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War? That's the stupidest bit of propoganda."

Right. Good luck with that.

Fact is that the USSR threw in the towel because of Reagan. I know liberals like you would rather pretend that it wasn't Reagan, but the reality is that it was Reagan who won the Cold War. That you don't like it and want to pretend otherwise is an example of how liberals really live in a pretend world.


3. "First, there was no war."

Right. Korean War. Vietnam. 1970's terrorist groups. Afghanistan. Proxy wars all over the world. Sure. Right.

I guess all those Civil Defense programs the USA engaged in were ... what?


4. "Second, by the time Reagan got into office the Soviet Union was already suffering economically was experiencing internal political dissension."

Yeah that's the new liberal meme. Of course you don't have any evidence to back you up. Just bullshit.

Here's a clue: When Reagan called the USSR the "Evil Empire" liberals fucking freaked out. Why? Fear. Liberals feared what and how the USSR would respond. Reagan was universally condemned for antagonizing the USSR by liberals.

So Starnes, you're full of shit.


5. "Reagan had nothing to do with that."

Reagan showed the upper echelons of the USSR that they could not compete either militarily or economically with the USA. That each and every single day that passed the USA would become stronger and the USSR would become weaker. He showed this by implementing sound economic policies that reversed the insanity of Carter, remember "Stagflation"?, and through that economic strength was able to revitalize the US military at only the cost of about 4.5% of GDP.

While the USSR was spending upwards of 35% of GDP just maintaining it's existing military, let alone expanding or improving it.


6. "Nor did any other U.S. President."

Other than Reagan? No. Why is that?

Another reason was that Reagan was the first, and ONLY, President who said we could defeat the USSR ... and that we should.


7. "Hell, by the time the Soviet Union broke up Reagan couldn't remember his own name. George Bush was running the country."

Just like a liberal to insult the memory of a great man simply because he followed a different ideology. Even now you can't bring yourself to acknowledge in any way that greatness.

And people wonder why I generally find liberals to be disgusting.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

"Memomachine "War of extermination"? This is why conservatives send chills down my spine."

Don't be a bigger dumbass than your mother made you.

Liberals view the world as they wish it was.
Conservatives view the world as it is.

The fact is that the majority of the "War on Terror" is because we're not willing as a nation to engage in wholesale slaughter of people. Instead of killing millions, or even billions, we're trying to identify specific individuals and kill them, and thus leave the rest of the Islamic/Arab world intact.

But you'd have to be an idiot not to realize that this is a *choice* made by Americans. And this choice is entirely dependent on the patience and hope by Americans that this approach will work. The alternative is genocide.

Consider the Japanese. Do you think the nuclear bombs killed the most people in Japan? I assure you that the massive firebomb raids on Japanese cities killed far more people than the nuclear bombs did. The nukes were to convince the Japanese leadership that they couldn't win. Firebombs were specifically use to kill as many Japanese people as possible. Estimates are that possibly as many as 100,000 Japanese died from a single B-29 firebomb raid.

Wikipedia

Consider the invasion plan for invading the Japanese homeland. During planning the use of nuclear weapons was incorporated into the invasion plans along with the use of chemical weapons.

Wikipedia

Such deployment of WMDs would've resulted in enormous civilian casualties. In addition to this was the expectation that Japanese civilians would fight alongside Japanese soldiers and that the invading troops would have to simply kill every single living Japanese capable of combat.

Why? WHY? Why was the USA willing to consider the absolute and utter destruction of the Japanese people and the genocide involved?

Because the American people had absolutely no patience for any other approach and were not willing to even consider the alternative plan of blockading and bombing the Japanese into submission.

...

Americans today aren't all that different from Americans of that era. It's only been 60 years. And the dynamic that operated then, a war of survival, could still operate now. As long as Americans are convinced the current approach can work, then they'll have the patience to endure. If they lose faith in this approach *and* terrorists become successful enough to convert the WoT into a war of survival, then all bets are off.

...

I'd also like to note that conservatives, such as myself, support the current efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the WoT in order to AVOID the alternative.

I'm writing that explicitly because some people have trouble with reading comprehension.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

memomachine,

I like you in a perverse sort of way. Because you're an easy target for ass-beating.

From your posts, I fancy you kinda hate the piercing the Reagan veil.

You picked on the wrong muthafucka, cuz I ain't ashamed to dance on that flip-flopping senile bastard's grave.

He fucked this country. His domestic policies are bearing fruition in what has the potential to be catastrophic depression. I hope I'm wrong, too. And if I am, I'll gladly wear the "Full of Shit" label.

You've bought the hype about Reagan's bringing down the Soviet Union. He didn't have shit to do with the Soviet Union's demise. The Soviet Union's internal political and economic policies did. Just because he grandstanded over that demise doesn't begift him that credit. Live with that!

You wanna talk about smearing a person's legacy. Let's talk about what he tried to do with MLK. MLK's words breathe truth in this One Percent Have More economy. More so than Reagan's words.

"Ask yourself, are you better off now more than you were before?"

Ask the 99% that question that flowed from your hero's words. Check the answer of all but the Blind, Stupid, and Selfish.

Fuck Reagan, fuck Bush, fuck his fucking son, and fuck Cheney. They couldn't let go of the Nixon debacle. And now they try to clean that shit up at the expense of our future.

Let me ask you a question, escapee of the rice fields. After you strip away the selfish gains you think you made, is society better off because of Reagan?

And going with your premise that Reagan won the Cold War, why are we in a this so-called War Against Terrorism? Why are we always in a war? Is it because we pick fights? Where's the focus on elevating the betterment of American people?

Ding! to memomachine.

dez said...

^Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

^dez, lol! 1984 like a muthafucka!

Folks to re-read that joint and see that's now.

I'm gonna take my own advice this weekend.

Brave New World, too.

dez said...

^It's been 1984 for way too long now. Enjoy the novels :-)

DeAngelo Starnes said...

^dez, flipping through my old paperback copy this weekend while doing some meditative things that should be left unsaid (hint: bathroom).

That shit, I mean, book is baad.

Undercover Black Man said...

And going with your premise that Reagan won the Cold War, why are we in a this so-called War Against Terrorism? Why are we always in a war?

And the same military-industrial Bechtel/Halliburton type corporations seem to profit coming and going. Ain't that a coincidence?

The War on Terrorism rhetoric is definitely giving me Red Scare flashbacks.

Undercover Black Man said...

Also, DeAng: If I didn't have a toilet, I wouldn't read books at all. ;^)

DeAngelo Starnes said...

^Dave, how you gonna expose your boy? lol!

Listening to Jimmy G. and the Tackheads. Some cool stuff on that George Clinton production. Not a classic though. But it was something for those who suffered through the crossover 80s.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ "Clockwork" is the cut. I really like that album.

elle said...

damn, deange, how you dissed that punk bitch memomachine with the facts is tight. In 1979, the USSR's southern border was suffering from ethnic strife,between Afghanis,Uzbeskis,etc. A fact repugs ignore.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm

@ DeAngelo Starnes


1. "I like you in a perverse sort of way. Because you're an easy target for ass-beating."

Just don't go thinking we're going to go select "our" style of china.

2. "From your posts, I fancy you kinda hate the piercing the Reagan veil."

And?

3. "You picked on the wrong muthafucka, cuz I ain't ashamed to dance on that flip-flopping senile bastard's grave."

Show me what you got. But don't play the Junior Varsity on this one. Because if you've got nothing I'm not going to hold back.

4. "He fucked this country. His domestic policies are bearing fruition in what has the potential to be catastrophic depression. I hope I'm wrong, too. And if I am, I'll gladly wear the "Full of Shit" label."

Utter bullshit!

Reagan's two terms were a complete 180 degrees from Carter, remember that "malaise" speech?, and heralded a new and vibrant economy. The shit happening NOW is from Clinton and the Democrats who junkpiled the credit standards for mortgage borrowing in order to fluff up minority home ownership.

NY Post

So far you've offered nothing but opinion. And a lousy one at that.

5. "You've bought the hype about Reagan's bringing down the Soviet Union. He didn't have shit to do with the Soviet Union's demise. The Soviet Union's internal political and economic policies did. Just because he grandstanded over that demise doesn't begift him that credit. Live with that!"

Blah blah blah.

No facts. No supporting evidence. Nothing.

Tear Down This Wall!

6. "You wanna talk about smearing a person's legacy. Let's talk about what he tried to do with MLK. MLK's words breathe truth in this One Percent Have More economy. More so than Reagan's words."

Any examples? Nope.

Smearing? As in signing MLK's national holiday? Yeah that's "smearing".

Reagan's reservations about MLK included:

A. King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."

Myths of Martin Luther King

So who is **smearing** whom?

B. MLK was a communist. That is a fact. Like it. Don't like it. I really don't give a fuck.

But Reagan was committed to fighting against communism. Which is why Reagan went from an A-list actor (true) to a B-list actor. He was largely blackballed by a very communist Hollywood.

So again, you're full of shit.

7. "Ask yourself, are you better off now more than you were before?"

Well? Are you?

8. "Ask the 99% that question that flowed from your hero's words. Check the answer of all but the Blind, Stupid, and Selfish."

More bullshit.

9. "Fuck Reagan, fuck Bush, fuck his fucking son, and fuck Cheney. They couldn't let go of the Nixon debacle. And now they try to clean that shit up at the expense of our future."

yada yada yada

You're really boring the fuck out of me. You realize that right?

10. "Let me ask you a question, escapee of the rice fields. After you strip away the selfish gains you think you made, is society better off because of Reagan?"

Rice fields? Actually that's true. As a 4 year old child I DID have to work in my maternal grandparent's rice field. It was that or starve.

How very bigoted of you. Then again most racists and bigots I know are black. So. Par for the course.

11. "And going with your premise that Reagan won the Cold War, why are we in a this so-called War Against Terrorism? Why are we always in a war? Is it because we pick fights? Where's the focus on elevating the betterment of American people?"

Oh 9/11?

You're a real dumbass.

12. "Ding! to memomachine."

You wish.

This is another example of the lame-ass "debating" by liberals.

You bore me

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ elle

"damn, deange, how you dissed that punk bitch memomachine with the facts is tight. In 1979, the USSR's southern border was suffering from ethnic strife,between Afghanis,Uzbeskis,etc. A fact repugs ignore."

Which is irrelevant because they are ALWAYS involved with ethnic strife and have been that way for centuries.

Look at the Chechens. Look at how the Russians dealt with them.

Notice anything?

elle said...

ethnic strife that heated up during the 70s and 80s, with the formation of groups like the mujahideens(with the help of the U.S. government). And even though its true their has been ethnic strife for centuries, the fact the Ruskies chose to wage useless military campaigns in Central Asia that caused economic problems for the U.S.S.R. contributed more to the soviet collapse of the late 80s than whatever the Gipper did with his grandstandin ass.

mary alice m. said...

Yikes, I missed out on the gang rape stuff. I took my link to NOW off my blog after that one. I never intended to support Clinton due to Iraq. Maya Angelou advised woman not to become mirrors of men ("...of those men who value power above life, and control over love")in the quest for equality.

To paraphrase "violence against women anywhere is violence against women everywhere". Those Iraqi women that came to the USA to plead with Hillary are our sister's across the sea.

If I wanted someone without compassion and empathy, there are any number of men to vote for; I expect more from a woman. I will vote Cynthia McKinney come November if the Clintons are anywhere on the Democrat ticket.

mary alice m. said...

How I happened upon this blog post this afternoon is one of those circles. Looking for info on the UDC, United Daughter's of the Confederacy, took me to an old news clip about Mike Pappas. I am trying to find out if he and Marcia are related.

When Marcia said Kennedy committed the ultimate betrayal of women, she set the feminist movement back decades. Via web comments, men wondered if they are allowed not to vote for Hillary based on little things like voting records; their wives are calling them sexist; other's think: that is a good reason women should not have the right to vote~vote based on gender.

The comment was an insult to people like Governor Sibelius who also endorsed Obama. Is she betraying herself? Am I?

Both Clintons are chronic liars. I believe her lies are pathological~that she believes them. Her behavior has gotten worse, as the months since that endorsement passed. Iran is not "fantasize" and "make up" and a "non-issue".

She vowed to continue taking special interests money and now his her followers believe she plans to fight them. A quick check of Open Secrets online shows she takes more PAC lobbyist money than McCain. It lists, btw, $250. for Obama.

Interesting read and comments. Again my research has to do with an old ad that claimed Mike Pappas was "...involved with Pillar of Fire, founded by a zealous Ku Klux Klan supporter." He denied the charge; and his opponent denied responsibility for the ad.

All that due to info about Bill Clinton's support of the UDC. The UDC is not all that far removed from the KKK. If Obama is scrutinized due to Wright and others, the Clintons need to be judged by the same standards.