House Democrat: If We Dont Censure Joe Wilson The KKK Will Ride Through The Countryside

When you have nothing of substance to say, pull the race card!!!!
Wins every time.

reply to post by muggl3z


Oh, I've read the E. Emanuel paper. He proposed that if someone was no longer a contributing member of society, they shouldn't receive treatment. I actually argued this point years ago, concerning people sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. E. Emanuel, however, seems to think this standard should be applied to the very sick or elderly.

reply to post by Chevalerous


Actually, we didn't. Germany, England and France did. We gave them biological starter packs as a deterrent, which they never figured out how to use.

Jesus H Christ. They're trying to steer the public into race wars.

Nope. I don't even think they're doing this to scare people into blindly following Obama, for of fear of being labeled a racist. I think they're doing this so we'll tear each other to shreds.

At this rate, they'll win.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Oh joy, is it already time for our daily racially premised thread by Wimbly?

How is the behavior of Democrats and the media my fault? I'm simply pointing out what I see as a real move in the wrong direction.

Are you one of the cowards Eric Holder was talking about??

Do you ever think about anything other than your plight as an oppressed white man?

I'm a journalist who has been researching media bias for over a decade. I've watched the profession die over the last 8 years and now its taken a quantum leap over the edge. Its got nothing to do with me, or plights. It has everything to do with the government and media ganging up on critics of the administration. Its pretty clear that Democrats/MSM had no problem with Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) , or the Democrats who boo'd at the 2005 SOTU. Its the typical manufactured outrage the democrats have been drumming up against Republicans for years now.

How can so much attention still be focused on Republicans when Democrats have controlled the congress for nearly 4 years now? Why are they trying to paint all critics of Obama as racist? Do you think thats the MSM or Democrats job?

No one seems to be putting a dent in your momentum ...
So no would be the answer.

For right now, I'm talking about prominent people. I cant think of a prominent anti-Obama voice that hasn't been attacked by the White House, DNC and media.

Lordy lordy, them's cumin' fer our wimin!

You just cant help yourself, can you?

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

I'm a journalist who has been researching media bias for over a decade.

What the hell is going on ... is it National Irony Day and no one told me?
Psss, here's a secret, we can see your thread history.

Are you one of the cowards Eric Holder was talking about??

Ah Fox News, must be part of your media bias research.

As to Mr. Holder, he like yourself is entitled to his opinion and I'm not too concerned if either see me as a coward. Though between you and me, though Mr. Holder wishes we talked more openly about race, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean for you to talk about it non-stop.

How can so much attention still be focused on Republicans when Democrats have controlled the congress for nearly 4 years now? Why are they trying to paint all critics of Obama as racist? Do you think thats the MSM or Democrats job?

Emphases mine to highlight my own confusion in this regard. Why this transparent two party con game nonsense is tolerated by the American people is indeed a grand mystery.

All the rest is just divisive politics as usual ... some things it seems will never change.

You're not helping.


[edit on 15 Sep 2009 by schrodingers dog]

FACT-Wilson was an aide to Strom Thurmond who belonged to White Supremacist organizations.

FACT-Wilson fought hard to keep the Confederate flag and voted yes to make the Patriot Act
permanent!!! The Patriot act that allows unlimited spying on all US citizens.

FACT- Wilson voted against veteran funding 11 times and denied troop bonuses to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FACT-Wilson has a 22 % approval rating with the NAACP
but has a 93% approval rating by big business.

OPINION-This is the guy you are backing up-are you kidding me???
How can anyone back the Patriot Act that steals our rights?
Wilson is against the grunts but always helps large corporations.
Strom Thurmond was a racist who fought all civil rights legislation.
Anyone with a below 33% approval rating by the NAACP is definitely a knuckle-
dragging bigot racist in my book.

Therefore given the facts-
Wilson is a racist unless you're a pathetic weak-hearted racist too who won't help others because of their color.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Ah Fox News, must be part of your media bias research.

Actually it was the only clip I could find about the quote....

What the hell is going on ... is it National Irony Day and no one told me?
Psss, here's a secret, we can see your thread history.

Whats your point? Do you have a problem with my skin color? Am I not allowed to point out media bias and blatant race bating as a tool for diversion?

Emphases mine to highlight my own confusion in this regard. Why this transparent two party nonsense is tolerated by the American people is indeed a grand mystery.

Ah, you aren't even American. No wonder you don't get it. Could have fooled me, the way you parrot talking points. My concern has nothing to do with politics. The simple fact is Democrats control the government. Do you understand that? The Republicans have no power.

Its the MSM that is playing politics by constantly focusing on and attacking Republicans, while Democrats continue to get diversions on command. Now they're trying to shut people up, by labeling them racist. Its a form of oppression of the people's voice by the government and media.


reply to post by Electricneo



So, based on your criteria for what a racist is and whats in someone's heart. You must agree that Obama is definitely a racist, given the long list perceived racists associations?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Wimbly]

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Ah, you aren't even American. No wonder you don't get it.

Mmm, wrong again ...

Anyhoot, carry on oh oppressed one, that Mr. Wilson you're defending is quite the political catch ... must be nice to have heroes.

reply to post by Electricneo


I see you haven't read the PATRIOT Act, either.

I'm shocked the bigoted NAACP would give any white man a 22% approval rating. That's pretty good.

The southern flag is a symbol of states' rights, not bigotry.

Ever hear of R. (KKK) Byrd?

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Anyhoot, carry on oh oppressed one, that Mr. Wilson you're defending is quite the political catch ... must be nice to have heroes.

I'm not really defending Wilson, although this outrage against him is inconsistent and exaggerated. My main problem is with the critics of Obama, no matter who they are, being labeled as racist. Now we have Representative scaremongering about the KKK riding through town? How can you defend that?

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

Actually, we didn't. Germany, England and France did. We gave them biological starter packs as a deterrent, which they never figured out how to use.

Yes you did!!

While it's true about Germany, England and France - but the U.S did the same! you were also involved so don't try to deny this - it will make you look foolish my friend!

And don't try the dirty disinformer trick to only blame the European countries and say that you guys had nothing to do with it - and were innocent because that is simply not true! and will only make you look like a totally coco and nutty neocon puppet!

That's why Wilson is a fool!

It's common knowledge that Rumsfeld and Reagan did almost everything for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war - including selling him material & equipment for chemical weapons:

U.S. And Iraq Go Way Back

Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports.

It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post.

The cozy relationship was an effort to build a regional bulwark against America's enemies in Iran.

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague

www.cbsnews.com...

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

www.guardian.co.uk...

The Ties That Blind

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons - By NORM DIXON

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.

Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.

www.counterpunch.org...

I have also read a few books from former U.S miltary/CIA who admitted that this was happening so whatever you say has no whatsoever influence on me!

I'm soo indoctrinated into believing this, and soo convinced that the U.S sold Saddam these things so nothing can sway me from my firm beliefs about this - sorry!

reply to post by Chevalerous


I said we didn't sell them chemical weapons, which we didn't. I did say we gave them biological starter packs, which we did. Certain chemical weapons were authorized, but never shipped. Pesticides aren't chemical weapons.
I have an invoice in my office concerning specifically what biologicals were shipped.
I don't care what you believe. I was just pointing out your gross exaggerations, lest some uninformed member believe them.

Look, just from this evening. There is a definite push by the media to discredit opposition to Obama by labeling it all racist.

ABC: Obama Critics 'Driven By Refusal to Accept Black President'; NBC Trumpets Carter's Racism Charges

They've waved signs likening President Obama to Hitler and the devil, raised questions about whether he was really born in this country, falsely accused him of planning to set up death panels, decried his speech to students as indoctrination and called him everything from a fascist to a socialist to a communist. And that was before Mr. Obama's speech was interrupted by a Representative who once fought to keep the Confederate flag waving over the South Carolina state house. Add it all up, and some prominent Obama supporters are now saying that it paints a picture of an opposition driven, in part, by a refusal to accept a black President.

All of this happened to Bush from day 1 of his presidency! I mean really where was this slavish devotion to attacking protesters for the president under Bush? I remember them doing quite the opposite and attacking anyone who dared question the protesters.

Originally posted by Wimbly

Now we have Representative scaremongering about the KKK riding through town? How can you defend that?

I do not, as I already stated:

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Anyone who uses race as a weapon of division is an ignorant jackass.

It's funny how blacks have been treated as they were in the history of this country, prejudice finger pointing even up to this day, and people still have the audacity to talk as much crap as they do as if they as a people are the problem. You act like Black Americans have been pointed in the right direction from a trust worthy kind since day one in this nation. As if they don't all have a reason to look over their backs in paranoia to a race who has depicted superiority over the ages. You all are the true ignorance that you speak of. The second you play fair game you get a quality game, the minute you squander and turn sour, the hour it all goes to hell.

Obama IS the rise or fall scenario of America. Do you play into the Divide and conquer game or do you sense whats coming and plan ahead.

Only my two cents!

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Great post Heh, the funny part thing is we are all getting robbed no matter the skin color.

Nuff said

3rd line.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by cenpuppie]

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

I have an invoice in my office concerning specifically what biologicals were shipped.
I don't care what you believe. I was just pointing out your gross exaggerations, lest some uninformed member believe them.

I'm not talking about biologicals! - I'm talking about the chemicals for chemical warfare that were shipped from the U.S to Iraq.

I'm talking about the large quantities (300 tons) of 'Thiodiglycol or bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide' from Alcolac International who knowingly were violating existing U.S & International export laws and sold this illegally to Saddam - do you have the invoice for that as well?

And what about the large shipments of 'Cyanogen Chloride' or 'Hydrogen Cyanide' - don't tell me that you have the invoices for that as well?

Originally posted by RRconservative
Seems like the American people were alot less racist before we elected the black guy as President?

Or, it could be that the worse Mr. Obama does, the more racist we get?

Funnier yet is the fact that blacks are 13% of the country, so that means
more white ppl voted for Obama than blacks.

LOL

Some irony there.

But I think that they thought he was going to do what he said
instead of what he has done so far.

Even rachel maddow a die hard democrat went off on Obama's
pre-emptive detention speech.

I must admit I howled like a banshee with laughter, but alas I am
sure the same would happen if roles were revesed.

Keep in mind I am no fan of Shrub Jr. and his friends.

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

Certain chemical weapons were authorized, but never shipped. Pesticides aren't chemical weapons.

I don't care what you believe. I was just pointing out your gross exaggerations, lest some uninformed member believe them.

OK! let's help the readers to decide whats true or not! and who is right or wrong shall we?

you said:

Certain chemical weapons were authorized, but never shipped. Pesticides aren't chemical weapons.

Chemicals that are the main ingredient in chemical weapons was shipped from the U.S to Iraq my friend:

Quote myself from earlier post:

large quantities (300 tons) of 'Thiodiglycol or bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide' from Alcolac International who knowingly were violating existing U.S & International export laws and sold this illegally to Saddam - do you have the invoice for that as well?

Lawsuit: Firms sold poison gas ingredients to Iraq

HAGERSTOWN, Md. — Three companies illegally sold materials to Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s for making chemical weapons that were used to carry out attacks against thousands of Iraqi Kurds and ultimately caused scores of chronic ailments, according to a federal lawsuit.

www.foxnews.com...

I don't know yet if complete constructed chemical weapons 'per se' was shipped from the U.S to Iraq since much of the chemical equipment was sold as "dual use" but this is pure semantics in this discussion since many by U.S export Laws forbidden chemicals for chemical warefare was shipped and later were assembled to chemical weapons by saddams scientists with U.S knowHow knowledge in Iraqi petrochemical plant built by the American corporation Bechtel

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment.

Iraq's 1982 removal from Washington's official list of states that support terrorism meant that the Hussein regime was now eligible for US economic and military aid, and was able to purchase advanced US technology that could also be used for military purposes.

Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 "for civilian use". However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be "weaponised" within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for "crop spraying". It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.

Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.

www.counterpunch.org...

"Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers ... a team of UN experts has concluded ... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz."

Large quantities (300 tons) of 'Thiodiglycol or bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide' from Alcolac International were used to make a Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent (could be the 'Cyanogen Chloride' or 'Hydrogen Cyanide' which the U.S also sold illegally to Saddam)

To quote myself from earlier post:

And what about the large shipments of 'Cyanogen Chloride' or 'Hydrogen Cyanide' - don't tell me that you have the invoices for that as well?

Then you are saying:

Pesticides aren't chemical weapons.

Well! that's not the whole truth is it? let's see:

Pesticides are the main ingredient of several nerv gases used in chemical weapons:

Chemical Warfare Weapons Fact Sheets - Sarin - GB Nerve Agent

Description:

Sarin was developed in 1938 in Germany as a pesticide. Its name is derived from the names of the chemists involved in its creation: Schrader, Ambros, Rudriger and van der Linde. Sarin is a colorless non-persistent liquid. The vapor is slightly heavier than air, so it hovers close to the ground. Under wet and humid weather conditions, Sarin degrades swiftly, but as the temperature rises up to a certain point, Sarin’s lethal duration increases, despite the humidity. Sarin is a lethal cholinesterase inhibitor. Doses which are potentially life threatening may be only slightly larger than those producing least effects.

usmilitary.about.com...

Then we also have a few chemicals that some define as both Insecticide/Pesticide:

Tabun - GA Nerve Agent
VX - Nerve Agent

And then we can argue if some other of the chemicals sold, should be classified as "ready to use" chemical weapon or not because that is silly & unmature in this discussion we are having now about who's guilty to what!

And America is guilty to this! the same guilt that they share with England, Germany & France regarding these chemicals.

To say as you did that the Europeans are soley to blame is a neocon lie!

For example, parathion and malathion are very similar in chemical structure to the G-type nerve agents, like sarin and soman both are classified as organophosphorus compounds with the pesticides substituting a sulfur atom for one of the oxygens in the nerve agents (which was easy made by Saddam's scientists in the petrochemical plant built by Bechtel)

Since the main difference in classification between many Chemical Pesticides and a 'weapon class nerve agent' is how concentrated the Pesticide is.

It was no match for Saddam's scientists to get higher concentrations from the Pesticide raw material that was shipped from the US

Since many other of the chemicals sold by the US to Iraq are classified as Pesticide/Insectcide found in many Nerve Agents you have to be an total naive IDIOT to believe that the U.S didn't knew that these chemical were going to be used in chemical weapons by Saddam - as you can see, there are also reports from the U.S. Senate hearings and congress that proves this.

The reagan adminstration knew all along what the purpose were for these chemicals since they were desperate to let Iraq win the war against Iran by any means and costs!

And it's up to the reader to decide if they choose to believe this or not! I'm pointing out for the people, that you are not telling the whole truth here.

They are quilty as hell! to say otherwise would prove that you are naive and are hell bent on defending the silly fairytale neocon classifications of some weapon-class dual use chemicals and the semantics from the neocon puppets!

And that's why I think Wilson is an complete Idiot!

The US armed Iraq with bio and chemical weapons: