Random Political Thoughts

[136 or 142]

A Canadian and a guy with a James Spader avatar- I deserve better stalkers than this.

Unfortunately Archie Bunker is dead, Meat(ie) Head.

[NowhereInTime]

A Canadian and a guy with a James Spader avatar- I deserve better stalkers than this.

A good ol' boy with a whole can of sanctimony, a bag of toilet paper diplomas from Bullshit U,  who first calls himself 3octavefart then meatiepie?

This forum, nay this world, deserves better posts than this.

[NowhereInTime]

Stalin killed far more people than Obama in his dream of "Socialism in One Country" etc, at least up until now. Who knows what the future holds with Islamic rebels running crazy and the Obama Doctrine of open-borders allowing so many criminals into the country, but Obama is still playing catch-up with Uncle Joe. And, yes, Obama likes to play golf but don't be fooled- he certainly has an agenda and a "cause" which is the ruin, he calls it "fundamental change," of the country.

To call you insane would be a gross understatement.  Your opinions are the unfounded ravings of a madman obsessed with nonexistent threats and racial hegemony.

[NowhereInTime]

The bill will come due later for Obama's crimes, as the bills often do.
And I used to think that was true- that he had some overarching objective- but now I think he just doesn't give a bleep.
He sure doesn't show it.

"Obama's crimes"?  You and your fisting buddy Obersturmfuhrer Albrecht ought to do a screenplay about "The Crimes of Obama". I love lunatic fiction.

[3OctaveFart]

Now I know why Paper*Boy and Sardondi don't bother wasting any game on Daily Kos scrubs like you two.

[albrecht]

1.Dumbya also killed far more people than Obama.

2.It's too late for Obama to ruin the country, Dumbya and his big Dick already did that.

1. Obama's chances are getting better though with the Obama Doctrine of open-borders and his radical Islamic rebels running rampant. If they get, as they claim they are doing, some bio-chemical weapons or building a 'dirty nuke' from the medical/industrial isotopes they have seized in areas they now control- in which case their body-count could increase dramatically.

2. Maybe, but neither Bush have been President in quite some time! In case you haven't noticed. (Hint: the guy giving the speech has a distinctly different skin-tone and speaking cadence and refers to himself in just about every other sentence.) At some point, and I think it will only happen the next time a Republican is elected President (or personally for people when someone in their family is killed or raped by a precious illegal, a "youth", or an Islamist,) Obama will have to own his "reset" button, open-borders, support for radical Islamists, race-baiting, and economic/regulatory policies. Who knows though? It could be that there is some privso in TiPA, TPP, and other secretive treaties that Obama (and several other politicians in both Parties) wants could make it illegal somehow to criticize him or the government in general?

[136 or 142]

 Maybe, but neither Bush have been President in quite some time! In case you haven't noticed. (Hint: the guy giving the speech has a distinctly different skin-tone and speaking cadence and refers to himself in just about every other sentence.) At some point, and I think it will only happen the next time a Republican is elected President (or personally for people when someone in their family is killed or raped by a precious illegal, a "youth", or an Islamist,) Obama will have to own his "reset" button, open-borders, support for radical Islamists, race-baiting, and economic/regulatory policies. Who knows though? It could be that there is some priviso in TiPA, TPP, and other secretive treaties that Obama (and several other politicians in both Parties) wants could make it illegal somehow to criticize him or the government in general?

1.Satan Ronnie hasn't been President for nearly 30 years now and yet Rethuglics still have wet dreams over him.  Similarly, Rethuglic politicians continued to bring up Jimmy Carter for at least 20 years after he left the White House until it finally dawned on them (Republicans are notoriously stupid) that the only recollection most Americans had of him was due to his involvement with Habitat for Humanity.

2.Rethuglic politicians also tried to make Bill Clinton into a whipping boy even to the point of convicting him for having sex, or for not having sex.  However, as he presided over a period of peace and prosperity, unlike his Rethuglic predecessors, he left office with high approval ratings.

3.More importantly though, in regards to the impact of Dumbya and his big Dick. It was they, not Obama, who created the conditions for ISIS (or ISIL) first by illegally invading Iraq based on fraudulent reasons and then by firing the Iraqi military.  If anybody is the father of ISIS, it clearly is them.

4.If Obama is truly supportive of Islamic extremists, I'd say killing them isn't the best way for him to send them his love.

5.If Obama truly has a policy of open borders for the reasons that you have previously claimed that he has, then why did Bush I, Bush II and Satan Ronnie also have a policy of open borders?  Bush II even let in far more of them than Obama has over a similar period of time.

6.The only case I'm aware of of a politician literally trying to make criticism of the government something close to illegal was shortly after September 11 when Bush's Press Secretary (who I would certainly consider a politician, and he obviously speaks for a politician) after the comments by Bill Maher said that "people need to think carefully before they speak at this time." (or something like that)

The only recent cases I've seen of a fear campaign being used to shut down debate was in regards to the run up of Dumbya and his Big Dick's illegal Iraq War when it was made extremely difficult for people to criticize the impending war.  I'm aware there was some press that reported that what Dumbya's admin was saying to justify the war were either outright lies or, at best, half truths, and that there were young people who did protest (as long as they did so in official protest areas), but there is no question that those who criticized the impending war by name were made to feel extremely uncomfortable in exercising their free speech.  Certainly the Johnson Admin also did this, so this isn't entirely a partisan thing.

The only case of outright censorship  by a private organization I'm aware of, whether there were political connections or not, was Clear Channel's disgusting treatment of the Dixie Chicks, although Clear Channel claims it was some other company and not them that were behind this.  Again, I don't know if Clear Channel (or whoever was behind it) were asked by the Cheney Administration to make an example of the Dixie Chicks, but certainly Clear Channel are well known to be major supporters of the Rethuglic Party (I don't know anything about the political leaning of the company they say was really behind it.)

7.As to the possibility of another Republican President, given the increasing amount of Rethuglic members and party supporters and even the number of Rethuglic Presidential candidates who are adopting your loony conspiracy theories, I don't think we will have a Rethuglic President after 2016 and probably not after 2020 either.

[136 or 142]

Now I know why Paper*Boy and Sardondi don't bother wasting any game on Daily Kos scrubs like you two.

Meat(ie) Head,

This coming from a reject from Town Hall (Or is Free Republic still the 'it' place for stupid people?)

I don't know who Sardondi is, sorry.

[albrecht]

Maybe, but neither Bush have been President in quite some time! In case you haven't noticed. (Hint: the guy giving the speech has a distinctly different skin-tone and speaking cadence and refers to himself in just about every other sentence.) At some point, and I think it will only happen the next time a Republican is elected President (or personally for people when someone in their family is killed or raped by a precious illegal, a "youth", or an Islamist,) Obama will have to own his "reset" button, open-borders, support for radical Islamists, race-baiting, and economic/regulatory policies. Who knows though? It could be that there is some priviso in TiPA, TPP, and other secretive treaties that Obama (and several other politicians in both Parties) wants could make it illegal somehow to criticize him or the government in general?

1.Satan Ronnie hasn't been President for nearly 30 years now and yet Rethuglics still have wet dreams over him.  Similarly, Rethuglic politicians continued to bring up Jimmy Carter for at least 20 years after he left the White House until it finally dawned on them (Republicans are notoriously stupid) that the only recollection most Americans had of him was due to his involvement with Habitat for Humanity.

2.Rethuglic politicians also tried to make Bill Clinton into a whipping boy even to the point of convicting him for having sex, or for not having sex.  However, as he presided over a period of peace and prosperity, unlike his Rethuglic predecessors, he left office with high approval ratings.

3.More importantly though, in regards to the impact of Dumbya and his big Dick. It was they, not Obama, who created the conditions for ISIS (or ISIL) first by illegally invading Iraq based on fraudulent reasons and then by firing the Iraqi military.  If anybody is the father of ISIS, it clearly is them.

4.If Obama is truly supportive of Islamic extremists, I'd say killing them isn't the best way for him to send them his love.

5.If Obama truly has a policy of open borders for the reasons that you have previously claimed that he has, then why did Bush I, Bush II and Satan Ronnie also have a policy of open borders?  Bush II even let in far more of them than Obama has over a similar period of time.

6.The only case I'm aware of of a politician literally trying to make criticism of the government something close to illegal was shortly after September 11 when Bush's Press Secretary (who I would certainly consider a politician, and he obviously speaks for a politician) after the comments by Bill Maher said that "people need to think carefully before they speak at this time." (or something like that)

The only recent cases I've seen of a fear campaign being used to shut down debate was in regards to the run up of Dumbya and his Big Dick's illegal Iraq War when it was made extremely difficult for people to criticize the impending war.  I'm aware there was some press that reported that what Dumbya's admin was saying to justify the war were either outright lies or, at best, half truths, and that there were young people who did protest (as long as they did so in official protest areas), but there is no question that those who criticized the impending war by name were made to feel extremely uncomfortable in exercising their free speech.  Certainly the Johnson Admin also did this, so this isn't entirely a partisan thing.

The only case of outright censorship  by a private organization I'm aware of, whether there were political connections or not, was Clear Channel's disgusting treatment of the Dixie Chicks, although Clear Channel claims it was some other company and not them that were behind this.  Again, I don't know if Clear Channel (or whoever was behind it) were asked by the Cheney Administration to make an example of the Dixie Chicks, but certainly Clear Channel are well known to be major supporters of the Rethuglic Party (I don't know anything about the political leaning of the company they say was really behind it.)

7.As to the possibility of another Republican President, given the increasing amount of Rethuglic members and party supporters and even the number of Rethuglic Presidential candidates who are adopting your loony conspiracy theories, I don't think we will have a Rethuglic President after 2016 and probably not after 2020 either.

Wow, and I though only "rethugs" could rant nonsense!
I totally agree with you about the immigration policies (and some other policies) of Reagan, Bush(es,) Clinton, and most obviously this character Obama. Though, really, the end of the country was set in stone in 1965, we are just witnessing the winding down. Obama with his Obama Doctrine of open-borders and even letting go people (and relocating them at tax-payer expense) of cartel members, rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, etc or the immigration without background checks of Muslims (and funneling them to places all over the country) is simply trying to ramp up that "fundamental change" of the country he promised and so desires.

But history is beside the point. Obama is in charge now. His policies and goals are the only ones that are, real, issues. We can bitch all we want about "what should've been done" but this will get us nowhere as long as we have a captain at the helm who is intending for the ship to go down. (And, somehow, I suspect he is not going to go 'down with the ship' but buy a nice place in Hawaii or somewhere.)

Regarding censorship, you must have gotten a more recent public school education! You never heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? Espionage Act? Logan Act? Sedition Act? Just to mention a few! And a private company or channel, etc is not censorship, in so far as a 1st Amendment, they can broadcast what they wish. Many, if not most, news websites frequently censor comments and self-censor (hence when another person is killed or raped they are called, euphemistically "youths" or in the case of the precious illegals called "undocumented" when some of them do their usual antics of DUI accidents, rapes, and murders. (Oh, wait, the FCC- who now under Obama's aegis says it should regulate the internet  also- does censor that, so I take that back, a bit.) In other countries, so far not here but likely soon, censorship is a lot more frequent and even by statute. Whether it is the "hate speech" claims or the more standard restrictions against government criticism it is fairly standard around the world. Even here, though, for now, it is usually tort-based there is self-censorship based on legal risk assessment- but this isn't "censorship" that is government based (it could be argued, I guess, in a way it is vis-a-vis the legal system) but at least not expressly by the government statute, regulations, or code. Though, these secret trade deals Obama is pushing (along with some in both Parties) might have such in them. As do some troubling aspect of the NDAA, Patriot Act, Freedom Act and other bad stuff started by Bush and expanded (by Executive authority and agencies by Obama and his minions and by legislation by this often corrupt Congress) and extolled by Obama--- who was all about "change."

[136 or 142]

Wow, and I though only "rethugs" could rant nonsense!
I totally agree with you about the immigration policies (and some other policies) of Reagan, Bush(es,) Clinton, and most obviously this character Obama. Though, really, the end of the country was set in stone in 1965, we are just witnessing the winding down. Obama with his Obama Doctrine of open-borders and even letting go people (and relocating them at tax-payer expense) of cartel members, rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, etc or the immigration without background checks of Muslims (and funneling them to places all over the country) is simply trying to ramp up that "fundamental change" of the country he promised and so desires.

But history is beside the point. Obama is in charge now. His policies and goals are the only ones that are, real, issues. We can bitch all we want about "what should've been done" but this will get us nowhere as long as we have a captain at the helm who is intending for the ship to go down. (And, somehow, I suspect he is not going to go 'down with the ship' but buy a nice place in Hawaii or somewhere.)

Regarding censorship, you must have gotten a more recent public school education! You never heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? Espionage Act? Logan Act? Sedition Act? Just to mention a few! And a private company or channel, etc is not censorship, in so far as a 1st Amendment, they can broadcast what they wish. Many, if not most, news websites frequently censor comments and self-censor (hence when another person is killed or raped they are called, euphemistically "youths" or in the case of the precious illegals called "undocumented" when some of them do their usual antics of DUI accidents, rapes, and murders. (Oh, wait, the FCC- who now under Obama's aegis says it should regulate the internet  also- does censor that, so I take that back, a bit.) In other countries, so far not here but likely soon, censorship is a lot more frequent and even by statute. Whether it is the "hate speech" claims or the more standard restrictions against government criticism it is fairly standard around the world. Even here, though, for now, it is usually tort-based there is self-censorship based on legal risk assessment- but this isn't "censorship" that is government based (it could be argued, I guess, in a way it is vis-a-vis the legal system) but at least not expressly by the government statute, regulations, or code. Though, these secret trade deals Obama is pushing (along with some in both Parties) might have such in them. As do some troubling aspect of the NDAA, Patriot Act, Freedom Act and other bad stuff started by Bush and expanded (by Executive authority and agencies by Obama and his minions and by legislation by this often corrupt Congress) and extolled by Obama--- who was all about "change."

I am aware of some of those things. When I edited the statement I must have accidently removed the word 'recent', which I used subsequently. I meant to say:
The only 'recent' case I'm aware of of a politician literally trying to make criticism... Sorry!

I agree Clear Channel is a private company and can play or not play whatever it wants (though I believe there may be some restrictions on this when it has a monopoly on radio stations in a small town, though obviously that is nowhere near the concern it used to be pre-internet.)  The issue is whether the company was asked by its friends in the Cheney Administration to punish the Dixie Chicks, which would make it censorship.  I don't have any evidence of this if for no other reason than I don't believe it was ever investigated (not that I know who could have led such an investigation.  I don't know if it's criminal and even a Democratic led Congress at the time would have had better things to do), but there were certainly allegations made at the time, though it would hardly be the first time people have come up with loony conspiracy theories, in fact one such person posted several loony conspiracy theories here just a few minutes ago.

So, anyway, let's try a little quiz:

Which President was in office at the start of the 'Great Recession' and which President was at least partly responsible for that recession thanks to his administration failing to regulate the people correctly blamed for causing it?:

1.Bush (Cheney)
2.Obama

Which President was in office during the recovery from this 'Great Recession', a recovery helped along thanks to the President's stimulus spending legislation and the actions of the Federal Reserve?

1.Bush (Cheney)
2.Obama

A correct answer to these questions will hopefully cause you to reevaluate which President 'ruined' American and which President tried his best to get that country back out of the ruin.

[136 or 142]

136 or 142-
Are you out of your fucking mind?
I attempted to have a discussion with you and you kept boringly belching forth what your teacher said in some intro course you once took. When you grew impatient you then hurled the first insult.
I'm a counterpuncher, not an attacker.
I'm done with you, have a nice week at summer school.

I must admit I was a little off base in that I did in fact 'hurl the first insult.'  I allowed the fact that Meat(ie)head is generally a wanker to lead me to believe that he had made a number of insults, when, completely out of character, Meat(ie)head had done no such thing.

[albrecht]

I am aware of some of those things. When I edited the statement I must have accidently removed the word 'recent', which I used subsequently. I meant to say:
The only 'recent' case I'm aware of of a politician literally trying to make criticism... Sorry!

I agree Clear Channel is a private company and can play or not play whatever it wants (though I believe there may be some restrictions on this when it has a monopoly on radio stations in a small town, though obviously that is nowhere near the concern it used to be pre-internet.)  The issue is whether the company was asked by its friends in the Cheney Administration to punish the Dixie Chicks, which would make it censorship.  I don't have any evidence of this if for no other reason than I don't believe it was ever investigated (not that I know who could have led such an investigation.  I don't know if it's criminal and even a Democratic led Congress at the time would have had better things to do), but there were certainly allegations made at the time, though it would hardly be the first time people have come up with loony conspiracy theories, in fact one such person posted several loony conspiracy theories here just a few minutes ago.

So, anyway, let's try a little quiz:

Which President was in office at the start of the 'Great Recession' and which President was at least partly responsible for that recession thanks to his administration failing to regulate the people correctly blamed for causing it?:

1.Bush (Cheney)
2.Obama

Which President was in office during the recovery from this 'Great Recession', a recovery helped along thanks to the President's stimulus spending legislation and the actions of the Federal Reserve?

1.Bush (Cheney)
2.Obama

A correct answer to these questions will hopefully cause you to reevaluate which President 'ruined' American and which President tried his best to get that country back out of the ruin.

You seem to have that infantile mentality that because one person, side, idea, or action is bad than the other guy, side, Party, idea, or action is good. When, in reality, both are bad! Obama couples the corruption of "too big to fail," crony capitalism, run-away spending, and foreign wars WITH the additional bad items of support for very radical Islamists "springers" (now turned terrorists,) coming up with an Open-Border Doctrine and stirring up racial animosity to further destabilize and Balkanize the country, and a foreign policy that, if viewed by a 3rd party or visitor from another planet, would seem to have a 3rd World War between major powers and a race, ethnic, class, and religious wars for the others as an end-goal. His economic policies likely is holding the economy back from any real recovery but it is hard to tell since his government "readjusts" the numbers and changes the goal-line so often. Certainly for immigrants the employment numbers have gone up. Interestingly, the unemployment numbers for his core-constituencies are very bad but he knows they will support him no matter what, so why bother. And they are useful foot-soldiers.

[136 or 142]

You seem to have that infantile mentality that because one person, side, idea, or action is bad than the other guy, side, Party, idea, or action is good. When, in reality, both are bad! Obama couples the corruption of "too big to fail," crony capitalism, run-away spending, and foreign wars WITH the additional bad items of support for very radical Islamists "springers" (now turned terrorists,) coming up with an Open-Border Doctrine and stirring up racial animosity to further destabilize and Balkanize the country, and a foreign policy that, if viewed by a 3rd party or visitor from another planet, would seem to have a 3rd World War between major powers and a race, ethnic, class, and religious wars for the others as an end-goal. His economic policies likely is holding the economy back from any real recovery but it is hard to tell since his government "readjusts" the numbers and changes the goal-line so often. Certainly for immigrants the employment numbers have gone up. Interestingly, the unemployment numbers for his core-constituencies are very bad but he knows they will support him no matter what, so why bother. And they are useful foot-soldiers.

Given that I've criticized Obama several times here and elsewhere, I don't believe that is the case.  If he had truly done any of the things you accuse him of, I certainly would oppose him.  As The Bard said after reading newspapers articles about him: "I'm glad I'm not me."

[albrecht]

Given that I've criticized Obama several times here and elsewhere, I don't believe that is the case.  If he had truly done any of the things you accuse him of, I certainly would oppose him.  As The Bard said after reading newspapers articles about him: "I'm glad I'm not me."

Haha. The question I like to ask if "how many are ok?" To me, even just one young girl raped by an illegal or person killed by a Dreamer is enough to say: stop the Obama Doctrine and secure the border. Apparently for policy reasons (or to further whatever secret agenda,) Obama, and his supporters, are fine with many, many deaths, rapes, and other crimes done by illegals- and legal immigrants who weren't properly vetted or just overstayed their VISAs. Even if securing the border and not releasing "minor" criminals (like DUI, assault, etc) would at least eliminate some deaths and injuries. But Obama, under his Doctrine and crazy court orders, even lets cartel/gang members , rapists (even of children) and killers go!) And, be aware, that it is no longer just a "border state" problem as the administration ships illegals to other parts of the country.

To me, we have enough mayhem and crime already. W already have enough problems with our schools and economy. No need to import MORE dangerous and uneducated people, unless there is some other agenda or goal in mind.

Why do we (under all recent Presidents) spend trillions to help secure borders half-way around the world but ignore ours?

[NowhereInTime]

Now I know why Paper*Boy and Sardondi don't bother wasting any game on Daily Kos scrubs like you two.

Sardondi?  I see he lurks occasionally but hasn't drawn his sword here in quite some time, FartiePie.

Meat(ie) Head,

This coming from a reject from Town Hall (Or is Free Republic still the 'it' place for stupid people?)

I don't know who Sardondi is, sorry.

Ha!

[3OctaveFart]

I like that name. You even managed to make me laugh. Here's one of those stinky fish they used to feed the attractions at SeaWorld.

[coaster]

I love when people get called out on their bullshit. The president of Spokane's NAACP, a victim of several "hate crimes" gets called out for lying about being black. She was basically walking around in black face. How hilariously ironic is that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-may-be-white/
in this video, after being interviewed on the "hate crime" the reporter asks her if shes black. hilarity ensues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Gb9kK8HGk

[chefist]

I love when people get called out on their bullshit. The president of Spokane's NAACP, a victim of several "hate crimes" gets called out for lying about being black. She was basically walking around in black face. How hilariously ironic is that.

LOL..."I don't understand the question."

[VtaGeezer]

LOL..."I don't understand the question."

Why didn't the other black person in Spokane out her?

[coaster]

It's no surprise that the NAACP is standing beside her, even though shes a con artist. She lied on official forms, and she got a free scholarship to Harvard for being "black". The hypocrisy of that organization is unbelievable.

[albrecht]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-balks-at-cost-mothers-agenda-for-michelles-italy-london-trip/article/2566187
Yet another tax-payer funded, though we aren't allowed to know the costs, separate vacation for Michelle, the daughters, and her mom.

[b_dubb]

Trooth.

[VtaGeezer]

It's no surprise that the NAACP is standing beside her, even though shes a con artist. She lied on official forms, and she got a free scholarship to Harvard for being "black". The hypocrisy of that organization is unbelievable.

She had a scholarship to Howard University, "the black Harvard".  But your version is better for this crowd..

[albrecht]

Trooth.

While maybe "troo" no sources can attribute it to Mark Twain. Clements did have some great things worth quoting though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/feds-want-nearly-4-year-sentence-for-republican-operative-convicted-of-illegal-coordination/2015/06/11/7ecbdc72-0ed0-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html
Ha, nice to see them "getting serious" now. Right, let us see how they handle the various Foundations....

[albrecht]

She had a scholarship to Howard University, "the black Harvard".  But your version is better for this crowd..

By the way, when will those "traditionally black" colleges and universities get some affirmative action programs, special racially-based scholarships, or quota systems for the non-blacks who are being discriminated against?  Or, if the non-blacks don't want to attend those schools, will a busing system, or some government method, to try to get some "diversity" in there?

[Up All Night]

I love when people get called out on their bullshit. The president of Spokane's NAACP, a victim of several "hate crimes" gets called out for lying about being black. She was basically walking around in black face. How hilariously ironic is that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-may-be-white/
in this video, after being interviewed on the "hate crime" the reporter asks her if shes black. hilarity ensues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u__W0Qa8v0k

[aldousburbank]

I love when people get called out on their bullshit. The president of Spokane's NAACP, a victim of several "hate crimes" gets called out for lying about being black. She was basically walking around in black face. How hilariously ironic is that.

The cracker who wanted to be a sistah. People like this dipwad give pinko commie bleeding heart do-gooder birkenstock liberals a bad name.

[Lunger]

I love when people get called out on their bullshit. The president of Spokane's NAACP, a victim of several "hate crimes" gets called out for lying about being black. She was basically walking around in black face. How hilariously ironic is that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-may-be-white/
in this video, after being interviewed on the "hate crime" the reporter asks her if shes black. hilarity ensues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Gb9kK8HGk

Didn't anyone just bother to look at her to see that she wasn't even remotely black?

[Yorkshire pud]

Didn't anyone just bother to look at her to see that she wasn't even remotely black?

It was done as parody, so why not for real? For real!! Sacha Baron Cohen used Ali G to highlight how awkward he could make mainly white people feel simply by telling and implying he was black-It's patently obvious he isn't unless you're blind. When you watch this, remember that those he interviews are the stooges. They absolutely believe him to be who he says he is.

http://youtu.be/BSMh9qS0OvE


http://youtu.be/CPX2Vfqards

[Up All Night]

Rachel Dolezal has resigned according to a letter from her which was posted Monday on the NAACP Spokane Facebook page.