DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on June 13, 2008, 01:01:16 PM
-
Tackling Five Modern Myths Created by Liberals
John Hawkins
Friday, June 13, 2008
In recent years, liberals have mastered the art of lying. A lefty blog writes a story, then two dozen other blogs pick-up. Next thing you know, the libs in the mainstream media are echoing the charges that started in the blogosphere without mentioning that they're false.
At that point, we're in a Catch-22 because liberals very seldom challenge lies about Republicans, no matter how obvious they may be, and when conservatives point out inaccuracies, it's treated as immaterial because we "must" be biased. Since the mainstream media works this way and is so heavily slanted to the left, it makes it very difficult for conservatives to get their side of the story out.
Then, a few months later, after the lies have been repeated ad nauseum, even conservatives who are uninformed may start to mistake the untrue charges for the truth. That's why these modern liberal myths, like the ones you are about to read, need to be countered with the truth.
George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: This is actually one of the most easily disproved myths because after looking at the same intelligence George Bush was given, many prominent Democrats said almost the exact things Bush did about Iraq's WMDs.
For example, here's Hillary Clinton,
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
Now here's John Edwards,
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
They weren't tricked by the Bush Administration and they weren't part of some cover-up designed to lie us into war. To the contrary, they looked at our intelligence reports and came to the same conclusions the Bush Administration did. That's why both of them voted for the war. If the Democrats were honest, they'd be willing to admit that Bush told the truth.
Al Gore would have won the election in 2000 if all the votes had been counted: The problem with this assertion is that all the votes were counted after the fact -- by mainstream media organizations that are hostile to the Bush Administration. What was their conclusion? That George Bush would have won had the unconstitutional full recount been allowed to go forward.
The Miami Herald did a recount and here's the headline and the first paragraph from their article describing the results,
"REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH
Republican George W. Bush's victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward."
There was also a 2nd recount done by eight media groups. Here's what the New York Times, one of the participants, had to say about it. Again, I am quoting the headline and the first paragraph,
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward"
So, the reality is that even if the unconstitutional recount of the Florida ballots had gone forward, Bush still would have won the election.
George Bush's "16 Words" in the 2003 State of the Union were a lie: This was the statement which led to the Valerie Plame scandal. It was as follows:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Later the White House said this assertion was "incorrect" and George Tenet added that those words shouldn't have been in the speech. From there, that egomaniacal jackass, Joseph Wilson, publicly made himself into the main character of a story he was only tangentially involved in and things snowballed from there.
However, the British Government did believe Saddam Hussein had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," and moreover, a "separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said...that the US also had similar information from 'a number of intelligence reports.'" In addition, the British Butler report concluded that Iraq did try to buy uranium in Nigeria in 1999 and that George Bush's 16 words were "well-founded."
After reading that, you can only conclude that the Bush Administration's mistake was not in lying, but in prematurely declaring that the "16 words" weren't correct.
Bush made 9/11 happen on purpose or let it happen on purpose: This loony conspiracy theory has been floating around for years despite the fact that,
"The 9/11 attacks, or at least parts of those attacks, have been investigated by the 9/11 commission, the CIA, FBI, FAA, FEMA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Popular Mechanics, and countless mainstream newspapers -- among other sources."
Start considering the size of the conspiracy that we're talking about here, folks. Not only are we talking about the people who planned and executed the attacks, we're talking about the firemen, policemen, and medical workers who helped out in the aftermath. At least some of them must have been able to figure out what was going on. Then we're talking about all the people who investigated the attacks, who are from every background, religious sect, walk-of-life, and political party you can imagine. Yet, all of these people, tens of thousands of them, are supposed to be participating in a massive cover-up? Meanwhile, the Bush Administration can't even seem to keep the details of highly classified intelligence programs from being publicized in the New York Times. It's just not possible that a conspiracy of that magnitude could exist, which is why no rational and intelligent person buys into these wacky 9/11 conspiracy theories.
There is a consensus on man-made global warming: Because the global warming alarmists can't give a good answer to many of the most basic questions that people have, they've simply been claiming that almost every scientist believes they're right. The idea here is that people will think, "They may not be able to make a case for what they believe, but if all those scientists agree with them, they must be spot-on!"
However, while there is a consensus that the earth warmed a small amount over the last century, there is no consensus on whether mankind is responsible, whether the warming will continue, and whether the consequences will be serious if it does. In fact, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating the following:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Maybe you agree with that or maybe you don't, but what should be beyond dispute at this point is that there is certainly no scientific consensus on global warming.
http://www.townhall.com/ (http://www.townhall.com/)
Copyright ? 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
-
Good article, Rich. (now we get to watch the likes of Xo, Brass, and Tee illogically and irrationaly claim otherwise, despite the overwhelming evidence fo the contrary). I would have to add the distortion about "tax cuts for the rich", but then again that's a myth that's been pushed long before Bush
-
<<Al Gore would have won the election in 2000 if all the votes had been counted:>>
This schmuck can't even get the so-called "liberal lie" straight that he's supposed to be contradicting.
Try this: "Gore woulda won if all the votes were counted AND the black vote had not been deliberately suppressed by "purging" the voting rolls and intimidating black voters on the way to the polls."
-
<<Al Gore would have won the election in 2000 if all the votes had been counted:>>
This schmuck can't even get the so-called "liberal lie" straight that he's supposed to be contradicting.
Try this: "Gore woulda won if all the votes were counted AND the black vote had not been deliberately suppressed by "purging" the voting rolls and intimidating black voters on the way to the polls."
One lie at a time.
The supression of the black vote is a diffrent lie and need not be combined .
-
>>Try this: "Gore woulda won if all the votes were counted AND the black vote had not been deliberately suppressed by "purging" the voting rolls and intimidating black voters on the way to the polls."<<
No need to try that sort of rubbish. We try and address the truth, not delusions..
-
We try and address the truth, not delusions..
=====================================================
You would not recognize the truth if it bit you on the tallywhacker.
Not that we should rule that out, though.
-
I find this interesting that first the conservatives lie by misrepresenting the complaints about the Florida election count, then when the actual documented objections are presented, lie again by denying the truth of the objections, and then lie yet again by citing the allegedly fantastic nature of the objection as the reason it was never presented accurately in the first place.
Is there anything these folks DON'T lie about?
-
I find this interesting that first the conservatives lie by misrepresenting the complaints about the Florida election count, then when the actual documented objections are presented, lie again by denying the truth of the objections, and then lie yet again by citing the allegedly fantastic nature of the objection as the reason it was never presented accurately in the first place.
Is there anything these folks DON'T lie about?
The truth is out there , but the proof isn't.
We had Newspapers do the count to spite the court , they found it made no diffrence.
BTW all of the people who were turned away from a polling place have sued and each one has won ten billion dollars each!
Or any other imaginary amount you ant to award these imaginary people.
-
What is this crap about "tackling" myths?
Gore got more votes. Juniorbush was simply put in office by an antiquated Constitution and a compliant Supreme Court, and we all have suffered two terms of the bungling, warmongering stubborn incompetence of a fool.
If Juniorbush thought5 there were WMDs, he was stupid and misinformed, and so was everyone else who bought this lie.
His statement about "sought uranium on Africa" was immaterial rto the subject, since Saddam did not actually acquire uranium in Africa. Why didn't the speech say "Niger"? I am sure because his handlers were worried about how he might pronounce "Niger": nigger or Nigeria, either way, it would have been a disaster.
There are very few experts who do not think that there is such a thing as global warming. Whatever its cause, it will bring at least some unwelcome changes, and just because humans diod nto cause it does not mean that they cannot prevent it from being catastrophic.
-
The truth is out there. For liberals the truth is like Holy Water to a vampire.
The votes were counted by the NYTImes. The result was the same. No black were kept from voting, that's been proven. Only wild eyed delusional leftists with visions of tallywhackers dancing in their heads still spout that kind of nonsense.
-
The truth is out there. For liberals the truth is like Holy Water to a vampire.
Kryptonite to Superman
-
The truth is out there. For liberals the truth is like Holy Water to a vampire.
Kryptonite to Superman
Silver to Werewolves.
-
Broccoli to Bush 41
-
Lima Beans to sirs :P
-
<<No black were kept from voting, that's been proven. >>
Really? Where?
-
See, you have no idea what you're talking about Mike. You're uniformed and don't even give a damn. you just repeat the template. the people who made the allegation admitted it never happened. Jeeezzz ... and you've been repeating that nonsense for nearly eight years.
-
<<See, you have no idea what you're talking about Mike. You're uniformed and don't even give a damn. >>
Sure I give a damn. I invited you to show me where it was "proven" that no blacks were kept from voting and you failed to do so.
<<you just repeat the template. >>
Yeah, but sourced to the Vanity Fair article that outlined the charges and the evidence. Which is more than you ever did in support of your thesis.
<<the people who made the allegation admitted it never happened.>>
Vanity Fair published a retraction? I don't believe that. When?
-
Why in the world should I waste my time trying to confince you of anything? I remember it. I was here. You're up there. I'm sure lots of folks in here remember Black groups having to admit after the fact that nobody ever stopped them from voting. It's simply a fact.
Read something other than Communist web sites for a change.
-
<<See, you have no idea what you're talking about Mike. You're uniformed and don't even give a damn. >>
Sure I give a damn. I invited you to show me where it was "proven" that no blacks were kept from voting and you failed to do so.
I also assert the same thing , no person has ever come forward with a realistic complaint, in an environment in which a book deal on such a subject would net a million and a suit against the guilty agency would be political dinamite usefull to a very welthy party organisation , I consider the total lack of court case or persons woth standing tro complain as proof that this alligation was entirely imaginary.
Asking for further proof is like asking for proof that there is no Sasquatch .
-
Election year 2000: A million black voters disenfranchised?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39936 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39936)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 12, 2004
1:00 am Eastern
By Larry Elder
? 2008 Laurence A. Elder
Tell me again: Which of the presidential candidates calls himself a "uniter" and not a "divider"?
"Don't tell us that the strongest democracy on earth," said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in a recent speech for the NAACP, "that a million disenfranchised African-Americans and the most tainted election in American history is the best that we can do. Don't tell us that we already see the purging taking place down in Florida. Don't tell us we don't have a right to expect an election in the United States that sets an example of democracy to the world. We can do better, and we will." A million disenfranchised African-Americans?
Really?
Peter Kirsanow, an attorney and black Republican, sits on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Kirsanow joined the commission after they completed their investigation of the allegations of voter fraud, manipulation or deliberate suppression of the vote in Florida.
Larry Elder: Peter, John Kerry said a million black voters were disenfranchised. I assume he means all over the country, not just in Florida, in the year 2000. Is that true?
Peter Kirsanow: No, absolutely not. This kind of rhetoric has been trafficked in for the last going-on-four years now by a number of individuals. It's kind of surprising that a presidential candidate would actually do the same. But, as you may recall, before the polls were even closed in Florida during the 2000 election, activists had descended upon the state and already were proclaiming that voters were being disenfranchised, harassed, intimidated.
In fact, some people were saying that dogs and hoses were being used on black voters and that tens of thousands were either being obstructed from going to the polls or otherwise harassed. There was a six-month investigation by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission ... also an investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department ... There was absolutely no truth to any of those allegations ... not one person who was intimidated ... [or] had their vote stolen. There was no disenfranchisement ... no truth to any of those allegations.
Elder: Kerry continues to say this. Nobody seemed to call him on it ... or challenge him. It's just unbelievable.
Kirsanow: It's one thing when you have kind of fringe individuals, people on the far left or far right ... but when you have the person with whom we hope to invest the highest degree of authority and credibility saying those kinds of things, it's disturbing ... The problem here is that, from the very beginning, a number of myths flowed from the 2000 election.
People who are in a position of authority and responsibility, who should be dispelling those myths, fan the flames even more ... It just so happened that Florida's vote was so close, and the electoral vote so crucial to the outcome of the election, that it provided anyone who wanted to try to suggest that the outcome was somehow tainted with a remarkable opportunity to engage in partisanship.
Elder: Isn't it insulting and condescending? You are making a lie in order to get people to embrace your point of view and to have hostility toward the Republican Party based on a falsehood.
Kirsanow: The same kinds of statements are said to black audiences before every election cycle ... When I say "same," I mean distortions, falsehoods or myths that suggest one party is out to get you, or one party is out to discriminate against you. There are always these ads before an election cycle that a vote for a certain party is a vote for another person being lynched, or another black church being burned ...
For the last 15-20 years, I can remember before every election cycle, hearing that, well, the Voting Rights Act is about to expire and blacks won't be able to vote ... These things can get a kind of saliency because it was only 20 to 30 years ago that blacks were subject to poll taxes, literacy tests and other overt and appalling abridgements of voting rights ... for partisan advantage, there are some who seek to perpetuate that myth hoping that will energize the base.
John Fund, a Wall Street Journal columnist and author of "Stealing Elections," a new book on election fraud, agrees with Kirsanow. How did Kerry come up with 1 million? Fund says the million number came from a national extrapolation of the 57,000 Floridians who ? according to the August 2001 report of the Commission on Civil Rights (which used some statistical extrapolations, hypothetical scenarios, and so on) ? were denied the right to vote. The commission didn't repeat that number in their final April 2003 report, instead conceding that "it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement."
So is John Kerry intentionally misleading the public? "I think," said Fund, "he's creating an alternate conceptualization of reality."
Oh.
-
Election year 2000: A million black voters disenfranchised?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39936 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39936)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one Ritch , I was about to look for something like this , but I don't feel like I will find better.
-
<<I also assert the same thing , no person has ever come forward with a realistic complaint, in an environment in which a book deal on such a subject would net a million and a suit against the guilty agency would be political dinamite usefull to a very welthy party organisation , I consider the total lack of court case or persons woth standing tro complain as proof that this alligation was entirely imaginary.>>
That is just not true. I referred to an article in print that I had read in Vanity Fair magazine, Lanya took the trouble to track down the on-line version of the article and it was posted by her in this newsgroup. The article was very clear and contained many examples of people coming forward with realistic complaints of an orchestrated attempt to intimidate black voters en route to the polls and also of the private Republican-owned corporation hired to "purge" felons from the voter registration rolls, which operated in a discriminatory fashion to weed blacks out of the rolls. For example, when "mistakes" were made, the "mistakes" took legitimate voters off the rolls, but relatively few "mistakes" were made with white or Hispanic voters.
You are not going to get away with this kind of bullshit, plane. You can't say no one came forward with complaints when Lanya took the trouble to post an article here that had numerous instances of exactly those complaints that you now claim were never made. That's pure BS.
-
<<Why in the world should I waste my time trying to confince you of anything? I remember it. I was here. You're up there. I'm sure lots of folks in here remember Black groups having to admit after the fact that nobody ever stopped them from voting. It's simply a fact.>>
Sure there are some black groups who were never stopped from voting. I didn't claim that every single black was prevented from voting. Thousands were intimidated as the Vanity Fair article alleged, and they were enough (combined with the "mistakes" made by a Republican-owned private corporation hired by the Jeb Bush administration to purge the voter rolls) to tip the balance of the election to Bush.
<<Read something other than Communist web sites for a change.>>
I guess any web-site that prints details of the election theft, including Vanity Fair, is a "Communist web site." What a crock. When you have no facts at all to support your bullshit, resort to name-calling. "They're Communists." That is laughable. Communists WANTED Bush to win - - they knew he would fuck up the country worse than they ever could, and they were right.
-
<<Good one Ritch , I was about to look for something like this , but I don't feel like I will find better.>>
Sure, why deal in detail with the findings of three professional investigative reporters in a reputable mainstream magazine when you can find a black Republican Uncle Tom who will just deny the whole thing for you without even bothering to go into specifics. As just one example of their lying bullshit, look at his allegation that "some people" were saying that fire hoses and dogs were used to keep black voters away from the polls. That is such a crock - - there wasn't any such allegation in any account of the stolen election that I've ever read, certainly not in the most exhaustive investigation of the fraud that I've ever seen, which is the Vanity Fair article.
-
<<I also assert the same thing , no person has ever come forward with a realistic complaint, in an environment in which a book deal on such a subject would net a million and a suit against the guilty agency would be political dinamite usefull to a very welthy party organisation , I consider the total lack of court case or persons woth standing tro complain as proof that this alligation was entirely imaginary.>>
That is just not true. I referred to an article in print that I had read in Vanity Fair magazine, Lanya took the trouble to track down the on-line version of the article and it was posted by her in this newsgroup. The article was very clear and contained many examples of people coming forward with realistic complaints of an orchestrated attempt to intimidate black voters en route to the polls and also of the private Republican-owned corporation hired to "purge" felons from the voter registration rolls, which operated in a discriminatory fashion to weed blacks out of the rolls. For example, when "mistakes" were made, the "mistakes" took legitimate voters off the rolls, but relatively few "mistakes" were made with white or Hispanic voters.
You are not going to get away with this kind of bullshit, plane. You can't say no one came forward with complaints when Lanya took the trouble to post an article here that had numerous instances of exactly those complaints that you now claim were never made. That's pure BS.
There is some pure BS here alright.
Takeing a good case of this sort to court would make the political and financhial fortune of anyone who cared to do it, there is no one who is even trying.
What better proof of the absense of reality could be offered? There is a HUGE bounty being offered to some one who would be the face of this complaint , it would indebt the whole Dem party to a lawyer who pushed the case forward.
There are probly fifty Sasquach for each or the people you are speaking of , but you are demanding proof that they do not exist after the proof that they do exist is no more than they were spoken of.
-
You keep moving the goal-posts, plane. First "no one" came forward. I point to a magazine article where "some one" has very definitely come forward. Now it's "no one came forward in court." If someone came forward in court, it'd be "No one won a court case." etc.
People have come forward - - that they don't bring a case in court is only because they have, with excellent reason, lost faith in the Supreme Court and are smart enough to know that any case they start will end in the Supreme Court. Bin there. Done that.
That Vanity Fair article named names, plane. Using your logic, the failure of the names that were named as thieves of the election to sue for defamation, despite all the lawyers that would get rich from it must be proof of the truth of the Vanity Fair article.
-
You keep moving the goal-posts, plane. First "no one" came forward. I point to a magazine article where "some one" has very definitely come forward. Now it's "no one came forward in court." If someone came forward in court, it'd be "No one won a court case." etc.
People have come forward - - that they don't bring a case in court is only because they have, with excellent reason, lost faith in the Supreme Court and are smart enough to know that any case they start will end in the Supreme Court. Bin there. Done that.
That Vanity Fair article named names, plane. Using your logic, the failure of the names that were named as thieves of the election to sue for defamation, despite all the lawyers that would get rich from it must be proof of the truth of the Vanity Fair article.
I have NOT moved the goal post.
Anyone can talk , I never said that this accusation was never mouthed or printed or bloggted.
No body is picking up the pot of gold that is sitting unclaimed for whoever will take this to court, didn't I mention this early?.
There really is no there ,there.
In my country Defamation suits doesn't make anyone rich , when Ariel Sharon won a defamation case he came away empty handed , it was amazeing he won at all ,the standard of evidence on a slander or Defamation case is rediculous for a public figure , all he took was the credability away from the reporting agency( all he wanted ).
But if you can prove you were stripped of a civil right you can retire on it , with all of your freinds.
No ,I don't think Vanity Fair is infallible , but I hear that Bill Clinton has a high opinion of it.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/01/bill-clinton-fights-back-against-brutal-vanity-fair-article/
-
<<In my country Defamation suits doesn't make anyone rich . . . >>
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1874
It took me all of 30 seconds to find an award of $11.3 million for defamation in a Broward County (Florida) court. But maybe Broward County seceded to Cuba when I wasn't looking.
-
<<In my country Defamation suits doesn't make anyone rich . . . >>
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1874
It took me all of 30 seconds to find an award of $11.3 million for defamation in a Broward County (Florida) court. But maybe Broward County seceded to Cuba when I wasn't looking.
Hey that is diffrent , I wonder if she will collect.
I had heard often that defamation was hard to persue , but this one looks like it worked .
Will Bill Clinton sue Vanity Fair?
But the origional point is that there is money in it on the side of the people who can bring forth a realistic complaint , they can get this by proveing it in court .
Failing to prove it in court they can make the money on the movie.
BTW the makers of the movie have admitted that they fictionalised a bit.
But even in the movie they didn't claim that a million voters were turned away.
We are talking about imaginary events that harmed imaginary people who invested with a slight amount of reality and evidence would become wealthy.
I actually agree with Vanity Fair that Bill Clinton is a Shnook , but they didn't really prove it , they don't need to.
How long will it take for me to find a Vanity Fair Article that you won't accept as true?
-
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1874
It took me all of 30 seconds to find an award of $11.3 million for defamation in a Broward County (Florida) court. But maybe Broward County seceded to Cuba when I wasn't looking.
It's not hard to win your case when the defendant, in this case Carey Bock of Mandeville, La, was flooded out of her house during Katrina, relocated, and never received the court papers (so she didn't show up for court). The court papers were returned to Sue Scheff's attorney.
Besides, you found one of the largest awards for defamation in history. That is not a normal award.
-
>> ... a black Republican Uncle Tom who will just deny the whole thing for you without even bothering to go into specifics. <<
As opposed to some lunatic leftist who believes anything he's told by the leftist media.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights looked into the matter and found NOTHING. The Civil rights division of the Justice Department also found NOTHING. Is the entire Commission made up of uppity niggers Mike? To be clear, that's what I hear when some low life liberal calls a Black man an Uncle Tom.
Apparently Mike believes magazine reporters and not Bill Clinton's Justice Department.
::)
-
<<Is the entire Commission made up of uppity niggers Mike? To be clear, that's what I hear when some low life liberal calls a Black man an Uncle Tom.>>
Proving clearly that you don't understand what an Uncle Tom is. Don't even have the remotest idea. But there are a whole lot of things you don't understand, Rich.
-
Not only are you a racist, you're an ignorant one. You've chosen to attack me and ignore the facts presented.
Done.