I understand this is a heated topic and one that I don't think should be censored. But HATE is such a strong word. can't we just accept that there is a difference of opinion rather than label each other? And really who is in charge of deciding what is racist and what isn't I prefer to think the best of my fellow board members here. Can't we find a small part to agree on together?
Something the Dog Said wrote: Yet another attempt at playing the birther card. Mitch McConnell, the house GOP majority leader plays President is not an American card at the GOP convention podium last night. Of course the crowd loved it.
OK Dog - I give up. I need you to show me what it was that McConnell said that led you to arrive at this conclusion. I took a look at opinion expressed in the link that you provided and not even the author of that opinion piece said anything remotely close to what you have implied, and, as a matter of fact, expressed exactly the opposite in the article:
McConnell's speaking postion kicking off the day when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gets nominated reflected his skill in delivering messages like this without trespassing into the outlandish realm of birtherism.
Perhaps you need help in reading comprehension. When you cut out statements out of context, then try to distort them, it becomes quite evident. In the quote that you referenced, "skill in delivering messages like this", what part of that did you not comprehend. What, in the article, is the "messages like this" referring to? Why, according to the article, "messages like this" means the President is not an American.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
I don't think you can even understand it for yourself Dog. It would appear that it is your ability to comprehend the written word that is at issue here.
Your OP said that McConnell was venturing into birther territory, which the author of the piece that you linked to specifically ruled out as being the message that was being delivered in their article. I ask again what it was McConnell said that leads you to opine that what McConnell said was, "Yet another attempt at playing the birther card." when the author of the opinion you cited specifically stated that McConnell hadn't trespassed "into the outlandish realm of birtherism."
What McConnell was speaking about is crystal clear to anyone whose vision isn't fogged by blind partisanship. McConnell was speaking to Obama being more aligned with European styled social democracy than traditional American (small 'r') republican ideals. Obama is more European in his ideology than American, something that even the most partisan supporter of Obama would have to agree is true given that the party of Democrats is itself more social democracy in their ideology than they are American (small 'r') republican. You never hear a Democrat refer to "our republic", they only speak about "our democracy". We are not a democracy, we are a republic. The Democrats want to fundamentally transform this union from a uniquely American republic into a European styled, centrally governed, social democracy while the Republicans want to retain it as a republic with coordinate levels of republican governance established by the Constitution.
McConnell didn't trespass into birtherism with his remarks Dog, even the author of the piece recognized that. He was saying that Obama's vision isn't American, not that Obama isn't an American.
It's ok, 500 can stay in his basement under his portrait of der Fuhrer with his swastika tattoos. It is obvious that he spews his racial slurs against me with absolutely zero evidence just to try to get under my skin. I am absolutely comfortable with my stance against the racial hatred spewed by him. He can go back to his buddies in the gutter.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown