Comments Posted By Kim
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 10 Comments


CWR Said:
2:14 am

"Clearly some conservatives, including the current chair of the RNC, are offended as well."

That is assuming that the current chair of the RNC is conservative. Which is obviously not the case. He is obviously a Republican in Name Only (RINO).

It seems like the RNC has been captured by the Left. After all how do you explain McCain getting nominated? The party establishment shoved him down the throats of everyone else even though he was practically as Leftist as Obama was. On the major issues there were practically no difference. No wonder then when left with a choice between a Republican Leftist and a Democratic one they would pick a Democratic Leftist. After all if McCain is just like a Democrat, might as well choose the real thing.

Comment Posted By Kim On 29.12.2008 @ 01:38

Agree with him or disagree with him there is one thing you can say about Mike Duncan. He has become a divisive figure in the Republican party.

We don't need such a divisive figure as head of the RNC. We need someone who won't be as controversial and who when controversies do erupt will be sophisticated and delicate enough to make sure such controversies don't hit the news wires harming the GOP even further than it has been harmed by Bush and McCain.

Duncan has shown he lacks such discretion. And therefore if he doesn't have the decency to resign he needs to be forced out.

He just isn't politically refined enough to know how to work behind the scenes before things erupt. We need a RNC leader who knows how to built up instead of tear down the members of the party.

Comment Posted By Kim On 28.12.2008 @ 22:51

Mike Duncan the stupid white guy led the RNC.
Right into one of the most devastating political loses in History.

Oh Mike Duncan the stupid white guy was just a political hack.

If he is not removed we will not get the Whitehouse back

Comment Posted By Kim On 28.12.2008 @ 22:30

Here's the words again. Again the parody is having Al Sharpton sing the words and the words come from an opinion piece that David Ehrenstein, a Leftist, wrote in the Los Angeles Times in March 2007

And remember this is exactly the attitude Jesse Jackson displayed against Obama.

SHANKLIN (Sharpton impersonator): Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.

Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper

Said he makes guilty whites feel good

They’ll vote for him, and not for me

‘Cause he’s not from the hood.

See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,

Or me, or Farrakhan

Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.

Not come in late and won!

[refrain] Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

Some say Barack’s “articulate”

And bright and new and “clean.”

The media sure loves this guy,

A white interloper’s dream!

But, when you vote for president,

Watch out, and don’t be fooled!

Don’t vote the Magic Negro in –

‘Cause — ’cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice

And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.

It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,

And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.

There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’ around money, no phoning money.

Now, Barack going to come in here and –

Comment Posted By Kim On 28.12.2008 @ 22:22

Anyone who doesn't really understand what this parody is about doesn't deserve to be involved in the RNC (and are likely the reason we lost so pathetically).

It was a parody of an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times in March 2007 by David Ehrenstein titled ‘Obama the ‘Magic Negro.’ So if Negro is now a word as bad as the other one then blame David Ehrenstein. In DAVID EHRENSTEIN's opinion piece (by the way Ehrenstein is a Leftist) Ehrenstein said that the reason whites will support Obama whereas they didn't support Al Sharpton and earlier Jesse Jackson was because unlike them, Barack "really wasn't authentically black". This is what Ehrenstein wrote in the Los Angles Times and he pointed to the fact that his mother was white and he was raised by his white grandparents as prove of the statement. To him it seemed that whites saw him as "the Magic Negro" because they could vote for him and assuage their "white guilt" without actually having to vote for an "authentic black man".

Was the ARTICLE racist? You bet, but again it was written by a LEFTIST. And indeed it did reflect the feeling of many in the so called "Black Leadership" who saw him as just sweeping in from Hawaii or wherever whereas they spent the long hard years working in the black community. This was seen most clearly in the anti-Obama statements that Jesse Jackson made when he didn't know the mike was on.

As for the song, it was POINTING OUT THE RACISM IN THE ARTICLE. It was sung from the viewpoint of Al Sharpton who himself had been a Democratic candidate for President. So, no the song isn't racist.

Anyone who can't understand this parody is either very unaware of what has been going on politically or is very dense or both. Parody does take a little degree of sophistication which I guess Robert “Mike” Duncan lacks. We don't need stupid people like him in the RNC who would totally take something like this out of context and actually attack the base that it is supposed to be his job to build back up. If the RNC keeps on attacking those who would otherwise support the party then they can forget about ever winning in any serious way nationally ever again. But perhaps they feel comfortable being the party out of power.

With idiots like Robert “Mike” Duncan in charge, they can forget about me sending them any money. They would probably use that money to attack me anyway.

(By the way, why is "Mike" such a better first name than "Robert". Nothing against Mike, it's a fine name but so is Robert and if Robert's his first name then what's the deal).

Comment Posted By Kim On 28.12.2008 @ 22:14


If no WND are found, then that's it. We'll need to take a full inventory of the propaganda propagators -- just for the record.

Comment Posted By Kim On 2.08.2006 @ 00:26


these blanket statements have little meaning as they cannot be simplified to a single element of either yes or no. the last five years have been intensely preoccupied with considerations of "right" and "wrong" with regard to Iraq, among other things, in radio shows, political debates, books, articles, films, conversations --- by every side of the fence... so to speak. Democrats supported the invasion, initially. there have been a million steps and stances. its just not that black and white.

I think the more interesting question when it comes to seemingly blind allegiance and fiery debate is how do people compromise their differences when those differences are so utterly fundamental to the structure of a person's thinking. Like someone telling me I should fear god because of hell, obviously; and me replying that i just don't believe there is a hell.

history will always be biased according to those beliefs and the only way to get a view of what happened is to read the left, the right, and the middle. what seems to be happening now is to just ignore that the other side is valid in any way.

i don't think the world necessarily wants the US to be brought down. its very clear that any nation (even when the us was run by democrats) will work at first to preserve its own strategies and interests. however, like the fear of corporate exploitation, i think the world would just like to know that the US will not simply piss -at their leisure- on everyone else in order to do so.

and being that we all occupy the same planet and the residents of each nation just very arbitrarily happen to find themselves there, it doesn't seem like that extreme a request now, does it?

ben: i wasn't trying to bring up WWII, i should have prefaced that with eg. but since we're talking about it, that war is a good example of revisionism in mainstream american history; look at even the debate on why the bomb was dropped at all -- but really, could you imagine that they would have dropped the bomb on europe? that would have been so much crazier than dropping it on an island.

Comment Posted By kim On 2.02.2006 @ 19:38

When you talk about truth but so categorically ignore the fact that all your sources come from the same side of the fence, your credibility is invalidated. (the US would never have defeated the Nazis without the Russians. Its just a fact. intelligent republicans have no problem admitting that.) And though we may love the republican party above all else, nothing can be accomplished without acknowledging the fact that everybody thinks that their own system of belief is right and they generally have some backing for that. calling people whiny babies just makes you look like a sophmoric sequestrum. unless, of course, you think the world is run by rush limbaughs and bill o reillys (however, like michael moore and you, i will not deny their comedic value)

Comment Posted By kim On 2.02.2006 @ 14:52


The medium is the medium and the message is the message.

Equivocations like "the medium is the message" are characteristic
of Leftist thinking: it's sublimely self-confusing, a little hit of
Orange Sunshine in the form of words.

Comment Posted By Kim On 27.08.2005 @ 10:15


Mike said:

"There’s another that is not mainstream but deserves about a 0.5."

Yeah, those guys are completely nutty. Even better, anyone who disagrees with them is first insulted in the most purile manner, then their IP address is banned for 'repeating right-wing orthodoxies'. Obviously, differing opinions make their house-of-cards world view become wobbly.

Comment Posted By Kim On 31.05.2007 @ 23:38

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page