Calling A Black Man A “Thug”

by TKOEd • Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 • no responses - be the first

Sound racist to you? It does to me. Not likely that you would hear someone say that about a white man. It’s the same as people asking Palin if she can take care of her children while being vp. Most likely you wouldn’t ask that of a man.

Yet today I was told I was “playing the race card” & “being a victim” by calling that nonsense out. Let’s look at the definition of thug: ‘A person, often a criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, especially for hire.” Sound like a stereotype of any particular racial group?

You can argue that I shouldn’t have even bothered to respond. Ypu can argue that someone calling Barack Obama a thug is so patently ridiculous on it’s face as to not warrant a rebuttal. The problem is we have let this stuff slide too many times. I’m not saying fuck anybody up for it but we need to call it out, we need to let it be known it’s not ok. Minorities in this country have to deal with this subtle racist bullshit everyday. Why should we put up with it? We have to stand there & be uncomfortable when you watch some white guy shake everyone’s hand normally then they get to you & they have to give you a pound or a high five. Or when they come up to you & say “yo what up dawg” I mean seriously. Stop this shit. You may not get why it’s offensive but I’m telling you it is. Cut. It. Out.

OK. SERIOUSLY PEOPLE!! SE. RI. OUS. LY. A QUOTE FROM A TREASURY SPOKESWOMAN (UPDATED)

by TKOEd • Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 • one response - join in

From this Forbes.com article.

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!

This has got to be a bad dream. I mean for the love of God. These people are unbelievable.

This is bullshit. NO. FUCKING. DEAL.

UPDATE:

Bailout Questions from Marc Ambinder; emphasis mine:

So where did the $700 billion number come from?

We already know the answer to that.

Sec. Paulson told congress yesterday that the plan was to spend roughly 50 billion a month,

Sen. Schumer asked: why not $150 billion then, and let the next administration do a re-evaluation in January? No real answer.

So, why $700 billion? Where is it all going? And why do they need it all at once? And how do they know how much it’ll cost without knowing what criteria they’re going to use to buy firms
?

And what’s to prevent Paulson from engineering the bailout, and then, once he leaves office, taking the helm of one of these companies as it transitions back to the private sector?

And did the administration really have a bailout proposal stashed away for weeks without informing Congress?

NO. FUCKING. DEAL. (not 700 billion at least)

Search