Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Obama Lied About My Previous Healthcare Plan!

Friday, February 28, 2014

Republicans ( to the tune of the Song War by Edwin Starr)

Republicans... Huh... Yeah!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Uhuh... uhuh...!

Republicans... Huh... Yeah!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again y'all
Republicans... Huh... Look out!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Listen to me - AAH!
Republicans I despise
'Cause they mean destruction of innocent lives
Republicans mean tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight and lose their lives

I said:
Republicans... Huh... Good God y'all!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again
(War... Huh!) Lord, Lord, Lord...
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Listen to me:

(Republicans) They ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
(Republicans) Friends only to the undertaker
Republicans are the enemy of all mankind
The thought of Republicans blows my mind
Republicans have caused unrest within the younger generations
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die?

AAH! Republicans... Huh... Good God y'all!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it, say it, say it!
Republicans... Huh...! (Uhuh... Yeah... Huh!)
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Listen to me:

(Republicans) They ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
(Republicans) Got one friend, thats the undertaker
Republicans have shattered many young men's dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is but too surely precious, to spend fighting Republicans each day
Republicans can't give life, they only take it away!

AAH! Republicans... Huh... Good God y'all!
What it is a good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again
Republicans... Huh... Lord, Lord, Lord...
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Listen to me:

(Republicans) They ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
(Republicans) Friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding tell me,
is there a place for these today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom,
but Lord knows there's got to be a better way

Republicans... Huh... Good God y'all!
What are they good for?
You tell me!
Say it, say it, say it, say it!
Republicans ... Good God now... Huh!
What are they good for?
Stand up and shout it! (Nothing!)

Read more: http://artists.letssingit.com/edwin-starr-lyrics-war-zc53bhh#ixzz2udmAUisY
LetsSingIt - Your favorite Music Community
Edit by Arizona Mildman.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Stupid God

I am coming to understand that the Party of Stupid believes in their own form of deity, which I have to say, would be labeled "The Stupid God". They believe the same God that sent his son to earth based on his love for humanity would select rich stupid people who are greedy and self centered to "rule" the rest of us when he also came in human form as his son and told us that "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to get into heaven", while at the same time, that same god "chose" them to rule the American masses as if they were aristocracy, and seem to completely forget that people like Mitt Romney was only in a position of prominence through heredity, not appointed by God.
Then the Stupid God would have to have human qualities like anger, fear, insecurity, and prejudice against many of the "not so well defined in the spiritual text" religious books, who have been defined by the books. That means that the Stupid God is also a fascist. The reason I say that is because if the religious texts are "God's word" then he has to be a fascist because he believes in defining some people as "enemies" of God's Will, including women. And anyone who can read knows that out of "the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism" that number three is, "...3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc." and number five is "...5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution." and they want to buy and control everything we hear, which is number "6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.", and they constantly argue about scientific fact, which is number "...11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.", which means, YES, they are fascists. Religion is the same as a fascist government. We should take what we need from it and leave the rest and definitely not bring it into the voting booth.
The exact same Stupid God chose George W. Bush to lie to the American people in order to start two wars in foreign countries, killing thousands of people, while lining his cabinet's pockets with war profiteering dividends. If you ask George Bush and look right into his eyes and ask him why he did that, he will tell you he understands the extremists and religious crazies in the Islamic world and their need to control others with force and fear, through killing and terror, and you will realize that he does understand them because he is just like them.
Just like the way that we vote should be based on the record of the candidate, what his actions are, not what he says, and if we find that his actions and voting record don't align with what his rhetoric says, then, we don't vote for him. That also means that we don't vote for the reason of ideology. Let me explain. 
We don't vote for some people because they became rich through being a corporate raider who most have come to call "vulture capitalists" instead of venture capitalists because he doesn't have scruples. 
We don't vote for him because he belongs to the right religion that we prefer, because that is against everything we say in our constitution, because if we only vote for one religion that means we are trying to make a religion a matter of state. AND our first amendment clearly states that it "...prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."
And that part about making it a law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the exercise of religion, refers to ALL RELIGIONS, not just yours. Some people find that so difficult to swallow. I hear people say really stupid things like, "If there were no God, there would be no reason for us to be arguing over his existence." Let me address that in an analogy. If I said that, "IF there was no Boogey Man, there would be no reason for us to be arguing over his existence.", then, you can put it in perspective, since there is no proof of either one, except that some people believe in him. 
I am not saying that there isn't a divine force, a power of the Universe that connects all living things and the planet, I am just saying that the one invented in every form of pagan mythology, of which many are now considered mainstream religions, then, doesn't need to come into the conversation about how we treat other people. I don't need a book or a religion to decide what I should do as far as how I should treat other people. I know religion is forced on all of us at an early age, but our parents wanted us to get an idea about principles, not an ideology full of dogma. 
I don't have to think about religion that I choose if I stay with the one my parents gave me, when they told me, "We are Methodists", as if it was a genetic trait. I did find many things in spiritual principle through that religion but it was like my "gateway drug" to more modern thinking, a direction I was headed at long before my parents had any say in it. 
Religions chose us, we didn't choose them, otherwise there would be not need for evangelism and missionary indoctrination that has covered the globe. That, in my opinion, is "the business of religion" and has nothing to do with spirituality, because a religion that follows a deity that says to love your fellow man, doesn't say to brainwash him and hold him hostage. That is a cult: "...A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object: the cult of St Olaf..."
The other part of that right now is that some religious people find principles by people from the bronze age that are no longer supposed to be valid in the religious texts, which were written and printed by human beings, no matter what the rhetoric is and that means the people who designed religious books were hoping to sell you on their specific form of ideology in order to control both you and "the market share" available in religion. 
Previous to the new Pope, Francis, I would have said that Mainstream Religions and their leaders all ask you to vote for people who keep them from paying income taxes, no matter what that person's failings, spiritually, are. If not, religious American leaders would not have endorsed anyone who was a warhawk or a sexual deviant, and we see that everyday. I am not saying that is how we pick a governing servant of the people, but it is against religious principles. 
 So, the main question I have to ask myself, and I hope you do to, am I following the principles of "The Stupid God" or do I know better?

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Why Do Republicans Always Want To Shoot Someone?

I read the question by a member of Facebook today, that asked, "Why do Republicans always want to shoot people?" Her question was in reply to the link I posted there on a Republican senator candidate, who said that ranchers should be able to shoot "wetbacks". I replied that the reason Republicans want to shoot people is complicated.
First of all, let's identify the problem with people who profess to be Republican in today's era of political arena. They use a lot of that is defined as "dog whistle politics", or what some call "veiled language" that only their own political minions are privy to the actual coded language meaning of.
Most of them SAY they are Christians, while they believe in 1)right to life (fetus worship), while also saying they believe in 2) letting anyone have access to firearms and ammunition (leading to mass shootings and death), because they're in the pockets of the NRA, while also believing in 3) death penalties for anyone who doesn't agree with them, because 4) being a bloodthirsty angry asshole is "forgiven", as long as you 5) profess out loud in public that you believe in Jesus, while 6) not following any biblical teachings of Jesus.
They recently have created a war on one of their own "Christian Virtues", altruism, the helping of people who are poor and disabled. But modern Christianity (not the bible they supposedly read out of) says, to begin with, that if you are a Christian, then you believe that God created you and he came down here momentarily, and wrote rules about what NOT TO DO (The ten commandments) while not telling you what to do, and then came to earth in the form of his son, whom he used to tell us that we were all doomed to hell if we didn't accept his teachings, then he had him killed to forgive us, leaving religious leaders to tell us what we can and can't be forgiven for - because if we are, then we can live in Paradise with him, and if not we go to hell with "sinners", the one unforgivable sin being that you "don't believe in him", and he did all this - because He LOVES YOU! (WTF?)
After spending your whole life being told that you have to swallow all the mythology in religion and that death is to be feared because you never now how things will go after that, is it really any wonder these people are angry, fearful, and confused?
Some of them never go to church and still say that they are Christians even though they don't keep the sabbath day holy, don't understand the bible other than their own interpretations of a few parts they like from the OLD TESTAMENT, which is the book of the Jews, but call themselves devout Christians. The main reason most people call themselves that is because they choose to believe that instead of believing that when you die, you die. If they can find a loophole in that one, they believe they are saved and will go to heaven. (As they say on "Grey's Anatomy", it makes them feel better to choose to believe that.)
Some satirists now have anointed the hypocrisy in Republicans to be "Republican Jesus", some really funny graphics and blogs posts have been created over this concept.
Some even say they believe that God speaks to them personally and that they want to go back to how religion was blindly accepted by the general public in the 1950s. We had Christian prayers recited to all the school children and they were forced to pray those prayers, even if they were Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, etc.
The part they don't want to remember is that, in those days, we were gearing up the military industrial complex in order to become a warring nation, and ALL  of the richest Americans who made over one million dollar range paid more in taxes. n the 1950s.  As Michael Moore said, "A lot of people got rich — and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent." Now the same people want to constantly be financed through war that kills working class people's children, while not paying any taxes to pay for the military spending they continually want to keep increasing.
They also believe everyone should trust the banks and Wall Street. That one alone is delusional. I only wonder why more of them don't shoot themselves with all that confusion.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Is Mitch McConnell the Most Disgusting Person On the Planet?

When Americans look at our purpose as a nation, we have to decide, are we a nation of wars, armies, and the industries to support those wars and armies, or do we want peace? In congress, we have weak willed, undisciplined parasites that are there merely to get rich, while they are supposed to be there to serve the American people. 

That isn't happening. They are there to serve corporations. Democrats can blame the Republicans (because Republicans disgustingly don't bother to hide their greed or feel shame for contributing to hate and death) for everything from the NRA to the military industrial complex, but with a majority in the Senate, the U.S. Senate could actually block or repeal anything that the House of Representatives does, including legislation that is not for the benefit of anyone but corporations, especially those who feed the Military Industrial Complex. The list grows longer almost daily. Everyone wants in on the money to be made. There are several lists but the most popular one I know of is here. 
Mitch McConnell and others know that corporations want to make money off of the American people but don't care how these people make money. Between 2001 and 2008 all moneys from our economy (the amount collected from income tax) were stolen by a policy coup in the United States that took over much of the world's issues, while making friends with some people we used to call names like "terrorist", foreign dictators, etc. and they were upset because several years ago, during the administration of the president's father, these same people went back after one of those people who had lost allegiance to their secret society, and so they saw him get captured, convicted, and hung but that still wasn't enough, they wanted us to be in a war in the middle east forever, and this wasn't just to get us to control the oil rich nations for the duration of the war, they wanted to be there from now on, as a "peace keeping force" and controlling the fossil fuels rich nations leaders, as of their power and therefore controlling the sales and profit of all of the fossil fuels industry globally. 2 nations stood alone without fear of being part of this coup take over, Arabia and Israel, because they had both sworn an allegiance and partnership with us. Even the Soviet Union of yesteryear during the cold war era, had become an ally in most endeavors, although some people here in the United States don't seem to realize the Civil War is over, much less the Cold War. 
As General Wesley Clark explains, they don't care about anything other than power and money. It wasn't about freedoms and liberties, as we were told because if that had been the case, why haven't we invaded African countries where the rate of authoritarian rulers and public atrocities are MUCH WORSE? Because they can't make any money on righting wrongs and fighting the good cause. We haven't been in a war for a good cause since World War 2. Even the Korean conflict was a police action that we had no business being involved in, over money and trade routes. 
Mitch McConnell is a problem, locally, he keeps jobs from returning to the United States so his wife's father, the Chinese industrialist, and Mr. Chao's cronies have paid Mitch an estimated 4 million dollars a year. 
Ex-Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife are under indictment for taking gifts from an American Pharmaceutical company, why is Mitch McConnell and his wife taking gifts from foreign businesses any different???  

Thursday, February 6, 2014

What We Need To Get Through Our Heads?

For Those Of You Who Think It's Your Job To Tell Us What We Need To Get Through Our Heads

Some lady came on Facebook, on a progressive Democratic Party page, and started ranting about "what liberals need to get through their heads..." as if she is a social guru who knows everything. This was my reply:
"...Hi, ANN, who told you that you are the voice of "What Liberals need to get through their heads?" Actually, liberals are the people who use critical thinking to derive at a solution, not emotionalism to derive at an "opinion" not based on any factual information. First of all people who believe in facts and logic are centrists, in the middle, reality believers, NOT LIBERALS, as the people on the right who believe in mythology and opinion spoon fed to them by GOP think tanks like CATO institute and the other Koch Industries bought and paid for bottled ignorance, would like us to believe.
They are afraid of calling us what we really are, PROGRESSIVES, because they would have to spend another 50 years trying to make something that is a compliment sound negative, like they have the word "liberal", which actually means "...1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs." and is quite positive of an adjective and a compliment.  
But that is what the people some call liberals are, PROGRESSIVES.
What conservatives who follow the Republican Party need to understand is they (the Republican Party) have become a rich man's club that doesn't care about most people, their policies are full of austerity programs, their economics never have worked, their math seems to be off, and I will not be polite like the people who said the stuff about lipstick on a pig. When your policies are like a turd, gold plating it won't make me buy it. 

Their candidates have to lie, in order to get anyone to listen to the stupid crap about how tax cuts for the "job creators" who have lined their pockets from war profiteering and other government contract corruption, while sending jobs (that they are credited for creating) and money (to avoid paying income tax evasion charges) offshore, is being good for you and me (WTF?), which we figured out LONG AGO is BULLSHIT. They have had to design a whole propaganda network of liars and malcontents (whom I call News Trolls) that get paid to spew ignorance to the unwitting low information audience.

And as to your comment about blacks turning out to vote:
EVERYONE (not just black people) came out in numbers too big to ignore and surprised the shit out of the people like Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove and Dick "Romney will win by a landslide" Morris, because they thought their lying and cheating would win them the election like it did in 2004 and 2000, but it didn't. 
A) no matter what candidate you throw up there, 
B) no matter how pretty and nice his wife seems, 
C) no matter what color they are, 
D) no matter how "presidential" (one of the stupidest media terms I have ever heard) he acts, (which only means he is acting really confident about the lies he is telling and has no true meaning, no matter how much meaningless catchphrase propaganda bullcrap like "family values, Christianity, patriotism", etc. etc., ad nauseum) one spouts,
E) no matter how much you try to rally your little band of bigots that you taught to hate blacks in order to use the Southern Strategy for votes,
F) no matter how they try to "frame the argument" (distract from the real issue using red herring logical fallacy arguments, arguing a point that has nothing to do with the topic), 
we are ready to tell them to go home - because until they want to change their policies to benefit us instead of just talking about it, they can just shut the f**k up!

Monday, January 27, 2014

A Lesson In Conservative Political Language

Good morning, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube friends. I wrote an essay this morning - a collection of research information. Perhaps my references will show you how my mind and need for researching topics both work.
I am writing this to you this morning, because I am in the mood to talk about something. I hear a lot of people trying to rationalize other people's racist remarks, saying that it can be "taken differently depending on their intention", but in the political arena, this is not so. They do this intentionally for votes and they want votes for two things. Political contributions and votes (power). (When columnists and reporters like Anderson Cooper, Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell accuse someone of using subversive racist messaging, many people are quick to jump on the conservative bandwagon of denial.
Are you ready for an education in conservative messaging? This is especially for those of you who think political-speak language is merely used to be diplomatic and politically correct and don't see the racist overtones in the message. (This, as we are about to see, is not a new thing. It is a centuries old tried and true system dating back to "the mother countries" of many of our origins.) We (my fellow bloggers and myself) talk about "veiled (from Merriam Webster:  able to be seen or understood but not openly shown or stated : expressed in a way that is not clear and direct) language" (from Dictionary.comany set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniformfashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another) used by conservatives to convey a RACIST message. Please, remember that this is important because we are seeing the same usage of messaging used mainly by one group. Anyone who says to you that they are not racist, might actually believe that they are just being "sensible" and not realize that they are being subverted into using racist tag language and cultivating racism in themselves with a built in rationalization system to tell themselves they aren't.
From Wikipedia: "...Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is only ever used as a pejorative, because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle messages are frequently themselves distasteful, for example by empathising with racist or revolutionary attitudes. It is an analogy to dog whistles, which are built in such a way that their high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs, but is inaudible to humans.
The term can be distinguished from "code words" used by hospital staff or other specialist workers, in that dog-whistling is specific to the political realm, and the messaging referred to as the dog-whistle has an understandable meaning for a general audience, rather than being incomprehensible.

(Please remember that most of this terminology is understood by Europeans and Australians in the lands that this ploy and use of language came from, and also that Rupert Murdoch is from Australia, the origin of the use of this in news - publishing and broadcasting.)
Origin and meaning
According to William Safire, the phrase may have been borrowed from the field of opinion polling. Safire quotes Richard Morin, director of polling for The Washington Post, as writing in 1988 that "subtle changes in question-wording sometimes produce remarkably different results. ... researchers call this the 'Dog Whistle Effect': Respondents hear something in the question that researchers do not," and speculates that campaign workers adapted the phrase from political pollsters.
In her book "Voting for Jesus": Christianity and Politics in Australia, academic Amanda Lohrey writes that the goal of the dog-whistle is to appeal to the greatest possible number of electors while alienating the smallest possible number. She uses as an example Australian politicians using broadly-appealing words such as "family" and "values" which have extra resonance for Christians, while avoiding overt Christian moralizing that might be a turn-off for non-Christian voters. (Oh My God, how often do we have to listen to that stuff? Now you know where they got it.)
Australian political theorist Robert E. Goodin argues that the problem with dog-whistling is that it undermines democracy, because if voters have different understandings of what they were supporting during a campaign, the fact that they were seeming to support the same thing is "democratically meaningless" and does not give the dog-whistler a policy mandate.
History and usage

The term originated in Australian politics in the mid-1990s, and was frequently applied to the political campaigning of John Howard.Throughout his 11 years as Australian prime minister and particularly in his fourth term, Howard was accused of communicating messages appealing to anxious and perhaps racist white Australian voters using code words such as "un-Australian", "mainstream" and "illegals".  (Is this beginning to sound familiar?)
One notable example was the Howard government's messaging on illegal immigration. The Howard government's tough stance on illegal immigration (How often have you heard that one lately?) was popular with voters, but the government was accused of using the issue to additionally send veiled messages of support to voters with racist leanings (We have dubbed this use of language in America "the Southern strategy" that news trolls like Ann Coulter come out and say doesn't exist, although some of their political leaders, like RNC Chairmen, have apologised for using it.) , while maintaining plausible deniability by avoiding overtly racist language. Another example is the publicity of the citizenship test in 2007. (We are hearing this recently with voter suppression and it's bi-product, voter ID cards.) It has been argued that the test may appear reasonable at face value, but is really intended to appeal to those opposing immigration from particular geographic regions.
United Kingdom
Dog-whistling was introduced to the UK from Australia[dubious – discuss] by Australian political strategist and UK Conservative Party advisor Lynton Crosby, who had previously managed John Howard's four election campaigns in Australia. In the 2005 British general election, in what Goodin calls "the classic case" of dog-whistling, Crosby created a campaign for the UK Conservatives with the slogan "Are you thinking what we're thinking?": a series of posters, billboards, TV commercials and direct mail pieces with messages like "It's not racist to impose limits on immigration" and "how would you feel if a bloke on early release attacked your daughter?" focused on hot-button issues like dirty hospitals, land grabs by "gypsies" and restraints on police behaviour.
United States
Journalist Craig Unger writes that President George W. Bush and Karl Rove used coded "dog-whistle" language in political campaigning, delivering one message to the overall electorate while at the same time delivering quite a different message to a targeted evangelical Christian political base. William Safire, in Safire's Political Dictionary, offered the example of Bush's criticism during the 2004 presidential campaign of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision upholding slavery. To most listeners the criticism seemed innocuous, Safire wrote, but "sharp-eared observers" understood the remark to be a pointed reminder that Supreme Court decisions can be reversed, and a signal that, if re-elected, Bush might nominate to the Supreme Court a justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. This view is echoed in a 2004 Los Angeles Times article by Peter Wallsten.
Economist Paul Krugman in The Conscience of a Liberal (2007) extensively discusses the subtle use of dog-whistle political rhetoric byWilliam F. Buckley, Jr., Irving Kristol and Ronald Reagan in building the rightist "movement conservatism".
One group of alleged code words in the United States is claimed to appeal to racism of the intended audience. The phrase "states' rights", although literally referring to powers of individual state governments in the United States, was described by David Greenberg in Slate as "code words" for institutionalized segregation and racism. In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy (see also Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy) said:
"...You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
During the 2008 Democratic primaries, several writers criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign's reliance on code words and innuendo seemingly designed to frame Barack Obama's race as problematic, saying Obama was characterized by the Clinton campaign and its prominent supporters as anti-white due to his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, as only able to get black votes, as anti-patriotic, a drug user, possibly a drug seller, and married to an angry, ungrateful black woman.
In 2012, journalist Soledad O'Brien used the phrase 'dog whistle' to describe Tea Party Express representative Amy Kremer's accusation that President Barack Obama 'does not love America'.
During the United States presidential election, 2012, Julianna Smoot accused the Obama campaign of Anti-Semitic dog whistling when a campaign staff after a meeting between Paul Ryan and Jewish businessman Sheldon Adelson, stating in an email that Ryan was "'making a pilgrimage' to the country’s sin capital to 'kiss the ring'".
During the current 2014 mayoral campaign in San Diego, the Republican political group "Lincoln Club of San Diego County" created, paid for and mailed voters a picture of Latino candidate David Alvarez that made him resemble a menacing gang member. The edited picture involves mayoral candidate David Alvarez holding a fist full of cash, with a hand gesture specifically associated with gang members. While there is not a single mention on the ad of any gang association, Tom Shepard, a political consultant asserts that the images subtly but clearly insinuate a connection, while others disagree (and the Lincoln Club denies it) ..."
So, to any of you that still believe that expecting racism out of one party and not the other and that veiled language is a misinterpretation and a "leftist slant" on what was really being said, there you have it. This is NOT just my opinion, it is documented strategy researched by journalists and writers dating back to the fifties.
Have a nice day/night and I hope you enjoy the information. Maybe it will make you think, the next time you hear a political message, and realize that most ambiguous terms given in news reports and political messages are specifically using the terminology taught to the staff and writers for all political campaigns and initiatives.