Blue Mass. Group posted this video of Scott Brown staffers doing oh-no-not-at-all-racist war cries and tomahawk chops outside the Eire Pub in Dorchester the other day. And, of course, this being Boston, well, no rally is complete without a "Yankees suck!" chant.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
It was just a matter of time
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 4:43pm
The Brown campaign handed Warren a gift today.
At least their fearless
By AlexMMMM
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 4:49pm
At least their fearless leader came out strongly against this kind of behavior, with a clear, unmuddled message. Oh, never mind:
"It is certainly something that I don't condone," said Brown when asked about the video. "The real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."
A campaign
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 4:52pm
claiming to be the good guy neighbor, and a classic bi-partisan, resorting to this type of classic Rovian smear can only mean one thing; Scott Brown is losing, and he knows his record is as thin as tissue paper.
Why attack Warren over her common family heritage, and try to confuse her work on setting up an asbestos trust. Why not focus on that supposedly lengthy checklist of bipartisan votes, of reaching across the isle, of getting things done in Washington?
It's because it doesn't exist, and the citizens of the Commonwealth are not the lambs that these types of sideshows attacks suggest he thinks we are.
Why does Scott Brown think his constituents are brainless children that won't look into the facts of the race, and his record?
Mmmm
By Obama8MyDog
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 4:57pm
"claiming to be the good guy neighbor, and a classic bi-partisan, resorting to this type of classic Rovian smear can only mean one thing; Scott Brown is losing, and he knows his record is as thin as tissue paper".
Orrr People think Liz is a joke!
That joke
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:45pm
has got Scott Brown seriously off message. Unless you agree that calling someone "professor" in a state where most people live within 15 miles of a college is a slur?
I don't know who's advising Brown, but he sure as hell is drinking the kool-aide if he thinks this destroying of Browns only claim to the seat is a good idea in this state, at this time in the political landscape.
"I don't know who's advising Brown" ... read on.
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 1:29am
Eric Fehrstrom and a Karl Rove protege names Jim Barnett, a real ratfker who fot himself kicked out of VT politics by BOTH parties for exactly the same kind of shyte he's peddling here. There's only one reason you hire a guy like Jim Barnett
Read: Scott Brown's Campaign Likes It Dirty.
You need a car!
By Anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:09am
" in a state where most people live within 15 miles of a college is a slur?" MA is larger than just the Greater Boston Area/ 128 belt. You should get out more!
You need a map
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:38am
Most PLACES in MA may not be within 15 miles of a college, but a population density weighted map shows that most PEOPLE live within 15 miles of a college.
AND ...here's a newsflash
By Sarcastic Sam
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:55am
There are colleges in MA that are actually outside Rte 128!!! for real, there's these places called WPI and Clark out in Woostah!
Then you got yer Amherst, your mass college of liberal arts in North Adams. Even Paxton has a colllege in it.
GO EVEN further!
By anon²
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:05pm
You got Berkshire CC, Elms, Greenfield CC, Mount Holyoke, Westfield, just to name a few.
Or to put it another way, how much of both private and public higher education is directly tied to both our economy, and our status in the nation?
Just about everyone knows someone working in primary, secondary, or higher education teaching in this state, or working at a educational facility.
Regardless of who you're voting for....
By issacg
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:04pm
you should care that this has been picked up by the national media outlets and is not showing our outpost on the North Atlantic in a particularly favorable light.
Frankly, I'd rather people associate Massachusetts with a pretty bright spot in an otherwise dim national economy.
Amen!
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:16pm
If you want to know why the GOP has shrunk to 11% of the Massachusetts electorate, well here it is. These people gladly wear their badges, and claim to represent the NE Republican old guard.
Instead they look more like the children running things down in Alabama, or Mississippi.
There's a sickness running through the party. It's ironic that tribalism is front and center, here for everyone to see. But it's not Warren being associated with it.
The MA GOP does it to itself.
By issacg
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:45pm
With precisely this kind of nonsense and the imbecile candidates that the party puts up (I don't think that Brown is super bright, but he is not an imbecile). Many people around here would be perfectly happy to vote for a bright traditional "Yankee" Republican (fiscally conservative, socially libertarian - Brown gets kind of near this sometimes, but not close enough). In a remarkable feat of political malnourishment, the MA GOP refuses to field candidates that fit that description. Furthermore, many of the people who would vote for a candidate like that would not like to be associated with idiots like those in the video and the Boston Herald.
Bill Weld would easily win this race. In fact, I often wonder if he remembers me asking him (when I ran into him in NY about 4 years ago) whether he would come back and run again if Senator Kennedy died. He replied that he would not. I have to believe that when he saw the Coakley/Brown race he realized that he made a mistake, and that he kicks himself a little harder each time he hears about this race. (Just listen to this interview from a couple of weeks ago - I'm not so sure that he's totally resigned to political retirement yet.)
Get back to basics, MA GOP, jettison the talk radio idiots and their lemmings, and watch your numbers grow.
The sad thing
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:55pm
is a Yankee Republican would be horribly powerful in Washington, and also be in a prime position to reform the national GOP. If Brown did more of what he claims, he'd be in the prefect spot for re-election, and also would become a beacon to creating the GOP of the future. (with the caveat that he'd have to build a strong primary constituency, otherwise face the loony 10%). I know plenty of moderates and conservatives ready to move and sign up to that cause.
When you are the deciding vote, and you can vote either way, you become more powerful. You might not get the full support of the RNC, but that's when working both sides of the isle come into play, and also when building your own base becomes important.
Saw what you will about Kennedys' politics, but he realized that. He got shit done, and his office worked for anyone, personally, that called.
Brown had nothing to gain from toeing the party line, especially seeing who he claims to represent. He could have been a force, but he didn't have the guts to.
Ditto with Romney. Who's going to be the first to break the fever running through the national platform and reform it?
My guess?
By issacg
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:05pm
Angus King.
But you bring up an interesting point about Romney. I think that he's more moderate than the national party has let him be (and that is, in part, why he sucks so badly as a campaigner). Maybe not a hell of a lot, but certainly more.
As an elected President becomes the undisputed head of his/her party, Romney would have the chance to remake the party - as a Senator, Brown does not have nearly as bully a pulpit.
In my most far-fetched thoughts, if Romney wins the election, he publicly thanks everyone in the party and then turns on the CEO in a meeting with its "leaders" (including Rove et al.). The meeting goes something like this: "Hey guys, thanks for the help and for coming by the White House. I'm running this show now, understand? All of you southern, western and religious right crazies can STFU right now - yeah, that's right STFU right now. What you don't like it? Where you gonna go? You gonna start a third party? Ask Ross Perot and Ralph Nader how that works out. I'm taking this party back to the mainstream and you either get on board, or I'm going to leave tire tracks on your back (and maybe my dog, if it falls off the roof). And I'm going to win over 60% of the popular vote in 2016 because of it."
11% is a bit misleading
By Nancy
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:58pm
Over 50% of registered voters in Massachusetts are unenrolled (what other states call Independent). So when you hear things like "there are 3x as many Democrats as Republicans in MA" it's true but it's not an accurate representation of the state of the electorate here.
Similarly, of the < 50% of registered voters, 11% are Republican, let's say 30% are Democrat and the rest are Green, Libertarian and various "Other" parties. The raw numbers aren't really impressive.
Here is data from the 2008 election. I doubt it's changed dramatically since then:
Massachusetts
Democrat: 1,559,464
Republican: 490,259
Other: 28,887
Unenrolled: 2,141,878
Total: 4,220,488
Citation:
http://www.elections.gmu.edu/Registration_2008G.html
Very true
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:21pm
But Conservative != Republican. And that only 10-11% and dropping want to aligns themselves with that brand is telling.
Many Dems themselves are socially liberal/libertarian, but fiscally conservative. Hell, there's still Dems that are socially conservative, and economically commie/union.
We're a pretty purple state, and the the labels are very misleading. I was just pointing out that right now that brand is toxic, and I personally don't think it's a candidate issue, but a lack of ideas and their push towards tribalism.
Vote for Scott
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:10pm
Six more years of content-free Frat Boy with a Truck bullcrap!
Why aren't these people at work?
By Nancy
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:18pm
These clowns make me a sad, sad OFD but I have to admit that if that chant is going to happen anywhere, it's going to be in Dorchester or Southie.
I saw Scott Brown near South Station around lunch today doing a meet and greet and the people holding signs were young kids who volunteer or people who took a long lunch. Fair enough.
There was also media coverage so it was kept pretty small and contained. Only a few people actually got to be near him.
For what it's worth (nothing), I got a good look at Senator Brown as I was walking by and this has nothing to do with the way I'm voting but I would not throw that guy out of bed for eating crackers.
Wasn't today
By adamg
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:23pm
Was actually videoed on Saturday.
Also
By MrMattMedia
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:30pm
Some of these people are at work. Some of Scott Brown's top staff is in this video.
I see said the blind girl
By Nancy
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:46pm
no message
The old "at work" line
By eeka
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:51pm
It seems to make it into just about any thread about people doing anything the poster doesn't deem a worthy activity.
Not everyone works the same shift you do. Don't you ever use restaurants, hospitals, grocery stores, cabs, buses, at times other than M-F 9-5 and notice that the people running such things are WORKING? Therefore, they often have time off during the 9-5 hours.
And either way, while this particular activity is something I find really distasteful, a lot of 9-5 jobs give people personal days and flex time, and some people might use these for protesting or volunteering or picking their noses or whatever they feel is meaningful to them.
You don't win any arguments by suggesting that it's your business when someone does their job.
These people are at work
By tblade
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:54pm
In case you missed it, these are paid Brown Senatorial staff and campaign workers.
This questioning of Warren's
By Finn
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:36pm
This questioning of Warren's ancestry only works if you can prove she is deliberately lying about it for personal gain. If she honestly thinks she's Native American, even though that may be a stretch from most people's point of view, you could paint her as delusional, but a liar and a cheat is another thing altogether. If she thinks she's a Native American, who can say otherwise unless they can provide blood results and a genealogical chart? Brown's comment that she 'doesn't look like one' just strikes me as amazingly childish, and makes him look quite petty.
Imagine if Warren has said, 'Scott Brown can't have been molested as a child because he doesn't look or act like he's been molested,' or 'since Scott Brown won't name his accuser or produce any evidence, I doubt this story that he was molested and I believe he only spoke of the incident to help sell his book and get himself elected'. That would be even more reprehensible, but the principal is the same isn't it?
Oh, and for the record, I believe Brown's story.
Looks
By BostonDog
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:56pm
I agree. I somewhat liked Brown until the last debate when really went off on the "Just look at her!" stuff. It just reminds me of some co-workers who get annoyed when people just assume they are Jewish due to their looks and then ask them why they aren't observing the Jewish holidays. Or people who _are_ Jewish and want to observe the holiday but get harassed because they don't "look" Jewish and people think they are trying to get a free day out of work.
If Warren (or anyone else) identifies as Native American then who am I to question them? It's not like she would be sleeping on the street as opposed to a Harvard Prof had she not checked that box. Most people I've known who consider themselves Native American don't look like Pocahontas.
Looks and Reality
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 8:38pm
I am one of the "dark" ones in my family. I look like my grandmother and great-grandmother, who were of substantially mixed White/African/Native descent. My mother was had nearly see-through fair skin with raven hair despite my grandfather being 1/8 Cherokee in addition to my grandmother's mixed heritage.
With a good tan, I am darker than my relatives by marriage who are Puerto Rican, and people will speak Spanish to me (or sometimes speak English verrrry slowwwwly) in Spain and Mexico, and I field a occasional queries in Spanish and Portuguese when I walk near tourist areas in Boston. I was also told that I appear "high yellow" in a discussion of race with a professor from New Orleans. I identify as white.
Meanwhile, my brother is blonde and fair skinned and quite Nordic looking. One of my sons is olive skinned with black hair (and unfortunately familiar with more than a few anti-Brazilian and anti-Hispanic slurs), the other is blonde and fair like my brother - and people were shocked when his high school class tested their mRNA and his maternal line goes to Africa.
We all have similar heritage and are genetically related. There is an incredible variety, however, in how we appear in the racially galvanized landscape. Grandma, myself, and older son would not pass a "one drop" test on sight, while my mother and brother and younger son would.
That's the problem with assessing heritage according to appearance.
There is an interesting exhibit at the Museum of the Native American in DC about stupefying attempts to judge "racial content" by appearance as a means of allowing or denying franchise, and how it was not really as scientific as it pretended to be. Scott brown is going there, even though it is debunked, even though it harkens back to the days of Jim Crow, even though there is little to distinguich "tomahawk chops and whoops" and black face and pickaninnies.
I'm one-fourth Lebanese and only the third generation in the US
By Kaz
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:17am
You'd never have a clue by just looking.
excellent analogy
By louielouie
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 8:59pm
excellent analogy
There is a HUGE difference
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:42pm
between doing Native American chants for a person who IS ACTUALLY Native American and doing those chants where someone has ONLY CLAIMED to be a Native American!
She pulled a slippery move in claiming she was a "person of color" when she clearly is not. The purpose of affirmative action is to give those who have been downtrodden a chance to succeed. By doing this, Fauxahontas took away a place from someone who really did have to suffer a disadvantage due only to the color of their skin. Some qualified candidate out there had a very different life because of Fauxcahontas!
Cause it's alright to call someone
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:23pm
A n____r, if they can't prove that 1/16 bloodline?
Keep it up! Please!
"fauxcahontas", how clever
By pierce
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:31pm
"fauxcahontas", how clever and funny!!! can you do one with President Obama's name too? It really gives credence to your opinions.
Explain to me
By tblade
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 7:02pm
Explain to me how this excuses the racist actions of the paid Brown staffers in this video.
Let's say that what you propose is correct (it is not, but that is a different conversation and I am sure I will not disabuse you of such a notion). How does anything Elizabeth Warren has claimed justify racist war whoops and such? Would you make such chants and gestures to the face of any Native American? Do you walk around Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun doing war whoops?
Please explain to me why it is ok.
Also, do you have special powers to decide who is of Cherokee decent and who is "clearly not" part Cherokee? Are Elvis, Chuck Norris, Cameron Diaz, and Dolly Parton liars about their heritage? Are they "clearly not" Cherokee, too, based solely on your special ability to tell people's complete ethnic backgrounds?
Furthermore, please cite definitive proof of Warren getting special treatment in hiring due to her claimed heritage. Thanks.
never judge a book....
By louielouie
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 8:57pm
This is based on what, her physical appearance?
So if a woman has a mustache, is she not a woman because "that's not what women look like"? If LW were a blond Italian, would that imply fraud in your eyes based on her blond hair? (unless you were from Tyrol & knew better)
Have you ever seen a "real Indian"? We don't look like the Land o' Lakes girl. (thanks AICF: http://www.collegefund.org/content/real_indian)
And, guess what? Some of us mixed bloods are blond. Funny how the only people who ask me if I'm part Indian are other mixed race people, whereas the white people (or rather, those who ask me about my heritage) usually want to know if I'm Jewish. My sister looks Indian but is blond with green eyes, whereas I look like my European family, and have light skin & dark brown hair. This is not surprising given that I'm only 1/4 Indian, the rest is mixed Euro. We can't look like every one of our ancestors, only some of them.
Also, until about 40 yrs ago, in many ways it was sadly safer to "pass" if you could, to avoid things like, oh, having your kids taken from you & given to childless white folks, or having them packed off to boarding school to have the Injun driven out of them. And then there's the eugenics movement. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay... http://www.bigorrin.org/archive4.htm http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/turns/theme....
As I see it, in light of our common history, it's patently absurd to expect any mixed blood family in Warren's generation to have maintained records "proving" their Native ancestry, when that very proof was actively sought by authorities in order to destroy them.
You make a good point about the purpose of affirmative action, but your implication that minorities somehow receive benefits is a real slap in the face to those people who struggle every day because they have less social & professional capital than those who look and act "white," regardless of the color of their skin.
**This is based on what, her
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 9:52pm
**This is based on what, her physical appearance?**
No, don't jump to conclusions.
This is based on her lack of an answer that satisfies anyone.
perhaps you misread?
By louielouie
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:28pm
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I am challenging the poster's point
. Exactly how does the poster expect her ancestry to be "clear"?
As to your statement
, why is it her job to "satisfy" anyone about her ancestry? If your concern is about an advantage she might have gained from her ancestry, where is hysterical, war-whooping request for proof of that advantage? Another poster above made a good point that without proof of this presumed gain, this whole point is moot.
** Exactly how does the
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:17pm
** Exactly how does the poster expect her ancestry to be "clear"?**
I'll take *anything*!
**why is it her job to "satisfy" anyone about her ancestry?**
Because she claimed it to be part of "who she is" and it appears she used 1/32 ancestry (if that!) to her advantage...and quite possibly took a position that should have gone to someone else.
It's about lies and character.
Speaking of lies, her work with Asbestos and the mining company really screw up that narrative of "fighting the big guns for the little guy" huh?
It's about character.
nope
By louielouie
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:50pm
This is no more about "character" than it would be if we were debating the legitimacy of SB's flippant claims about having Clinton's ear, and his meetings with royalty. This is a petty, flagrant grasp at straws. And, an ignorant one, at that.
Interesting that you respond to my posts without addressing any of my points about the issues and potential consequences of a mixed race family maintaining records "proving" native ancestry for any period before approx. 40 yrs ago. There are no ship's passenger's lists to consult, often no birth certficates or hospital records - plus, for 400 yrs there has existed every incentive to disguise or deny this same heritage out of fear of ostracism, persecution, and worse, extermination.
Also, I'm curious, why is it you want proof of (native) ethnicity, but not proof of supposed advantage gained from same? It would be hard to argue that Native people are a privileged group.
Interesting that you respond
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:32pm
Something? Anything?
And even is she is ANY part Cherokee...is 1/32 enough to get special treatment and be listed as a "minority professor"? Give me a break!
Wow...what a convenient explanation!
No, it was settlement fund for asbestos victims in exchange for immunity from future lawsuits.
And who's idea was that? The people who would only receive $5k? from each settlement?
She was working, not on behalf of the claimants (believe me they did not want the company to get future indefinite immunity), she was getting a pay check from the asbestos company.
Says the man who can't realize he is getting bamboozled by the Warren folks.
It appears to you that she
By MikeA
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 2:15pm
It appears to you that she "took" a position from someone? All evidence to the contrary, so far though. Witness the people that actually hired her saying that even if she had "checked a box" they didn't know it and it had no bearing on the hirings. See also that such decisions legally cannot be made based on the boxes (allegedly) checked.
Re. your asbestos retardery, she was arguing FOR the creation of a half-BILLION dollar settlement fund to be created by the asbestos company and/or its insurer. So not only was she not arguing to deny settlements, she was trying to ensure that the settlement money was set aside in a protected fund.
Good god you people are fucking stupid.
1/32 ancestry
By Sock_Puppet
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 11:57am
I tell you, if I found out that anybody had used 1/32 ancestry to claim themselves as Native American, I'd be shocked and appalled.
Say, let's ask the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation what he thinks about the ridiculous idea that somebody with 1/32 blood quantum might care about that ancestry. How about it, Bill John?
Wasn't that the guy in Walking Tall?
By Sarcastic Sam
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 12:33pm
I don't trust wikipedia.
No, no
By Sock_Puppet
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 12:47pm
That's Joe Don. But Joe Don does look a little like Bill John (and nothing like Billy Jack).
There ya go.
By Sarcastic Sam
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 5:47pm
Thanks!
That's why they provide handy
By MattyC
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 12:53pm
That's why they provide handy references for every statement of fact. You needn't trust the person who wrote the page. Trust an expert.
Where this is going
By Stevil
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:57am
I get the impression this is the first shot of a series. Right now it's that she claimed Indian ancestry. Next comes the ad about the asbestos litigation, then the coal mining litigation, the fact that she didn't have a law license (TBD) but was providing counsel and in the words of Lizzie, who knows what else, then you'll see a grand finale with the "godmother of the occupy movement" ad - the message/conclusion - she's not who she says she is. It'll close with the question - who is Liz Warren - and you'll get that clip of her repeating "Who knows?".
I agree - I wish they'd stop all this stuff and get down to the serious issues - like who's going to fix the economy and balance the budget - and how is it that these are not mutually exclusive goals?
And as I've said before - if Liz gets into the Senate and the Dems still control the senate - what's she going to do to get things done - if her plan is to be left of John Kerry as it appears - she's effectively useless to Mass and the country in Washington because you'll still have gridlock. I don't see her voting 46% of the time with the Republicans - 4.6% is probablly about it.
(I'm actually not a huge Kerry fan and given that I would probably vote Democratic in the next election if Brown keeps his seat - I might vote for her instead of Kerry).
Elizabeth Warren Law License Controversy
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:43am
Read: An Update on the Elizabeth Warren Law License Controversy
Tough crap
By Kaz
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:23am
There are quite a few people in this country who don't like that evolution exists. It doesn't satisfy them. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't matter one bit whether it satisfies them as the answer for how humans developed.
Same here. How she came to believe she is part Cherokee and how it has not effected her job positions are settled matter whether it satisfies them or not.
it satisifies me and just
By pierce
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 8:34am
it satisifies me and just about everyone i talk to on a daily basis
We have a winner!
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:08am
I always thought it odd that my mom's kin sold off a bunch of fairly successful businesses in the South and moved to Oregon as an extended family unit for "opportunity".
In 1873.
There were no "black" people in Oregon at that time. Nope. And my elderly aunts would grab me and flat-iron my hair and scold me to stay out of the sun.
Hey! I heard Howie Carr say that exact same thing several times
By Brian Riccio
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 9:37pm
today!
OMFG WHO GIVES A CRAP THAT SHE'S NOT AN INDIAN
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:59pm
Really, knock if off, Scott Brown and company. You have my vote. Don't make me regret it.
You really should regret it already.
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 1:41am
Scott Brown is a classic case of people voting against their own interests.
Is this a story?
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 9:51pm
OK....a few young guys acting dumb does not a story make.
When I heard this on the news I pictured a group of people in full head-dress doing a war dance with tomahawks, etc.
This is a few young guys doing something silly.
And this was the a story on the news all day?
Huh?
a few young guys acting dumb
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:33pm
These young guys are Scott Brown campaign officials...
**These young guys are Scott
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:19pm
**These young guys are Scott Brown campaign officials...**
I doubt they are officials...unless he has 19 year old running his campaign.
Again, a few young guys acting dumb does not a story make.
Wow
By anon²
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:31pm
You're a fucking moron. You sniff paint cleaner as a kid?
They look like 19 year olds
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:54pm
They look like 19 year olds to me.
Who cares. You guys are too busy getting a hard-on from Granny Warren to lighten up a bit.
I agree, this is being blown
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 8:43am
I agree, this is being blown out of porportion. Were these same people offended when Warren ignored the Native American delegates at the DNC. Or how about the group that traveled to see her? She just blew them off. Funny for someone who wanted to "meet people just like her" that when the time came, she ran. Tells me alot about her character.
Classic Racist and Bully Response
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 8:59am
Got any more canned "excuses" that = "young white males get a free pass because ... young ... white ... male ..."?
Lighten up a bit. Got any
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:36pm
No, not because they are young/white/male...but because they are young...a tad immature, and just being silly.
Like I said...Lighten up.
Yes, it's a story
By John-W
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:37pm
It's some of Scott Brown's staff doing something racist.
I'd call that a story.
**It's some of Scott Brown's
By anon
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:55pm
**It's some of Scott Brown's staff doing something racist. **
Imitating an Indian is racist?
Ok, are you one of Brown's
By louielouie
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 7:47am
Ok, are you one of Brown's staffers? Or just a troll?
Either way, thanks for representing your kind so well.
Your phony "probing" of unanswerable questions and fake outrage do a massive disservice to this state's GOP, and as a consequence, to all of us who live here. Many of us would appreciate a substantive debate about economic policy, environmental policy, or voting records. But no, Brown's campaign seems more intent on trying to fan unfounded fears of minority privilege among (gullible) whites. Bound for talk shows, indeed (see post above).
Remember when Brown asked LW to "stop scaring women"? Maybe his campaign should advise him to "stop (trying to) scare white people." It's noteworthy - although not surprising - that most people seem disinclined to take the bait.
Ok, are you one of Brown's staffers? Or just a troll?
By aging cynic
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:37am
And have you stopped beating your wife? I am so f'in tired of people impugning the motives of others. I will say however that I find it ironic that people who ignore inconvenient truths just loved the movie of the same name. Either she practiced law without bar membership or she didn't. Either she chose the US Senate as her first try at elective office or she didn't. I couldn't care less who she represented. Lawyers represent lots of odious people. Doesn't make her a bad person. The sense of entitlement is a bit much, however, IMHO.
Ok, are you one of Brown's
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 11:21pm
Louie, maybe youd make some points here if every post didn't start with an insult.
No...Thanks YOU for representing your side so well...with insults every time you open your mouth.
Nobody is scared, except the Warren supporters.
It's not about Indians, or is anyone saying that Indians are bad.
It's about ehr claim to be a minority...when she clearly is not.
Please get real. After that, lighten up.
See if you can post an argument without posting an insult because
Yes. It is racist.
By Miss Modular
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 8:56am
Yes. It is racist.
No, it wasn't.
By anon
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:17am
Perhaps you should brush up on what the word "racist" actually means.
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
How does imitating a war chant (something that is done at all Florida State football games) prove that these guys seeing Caucasians as being superior to Native Americans? Was it in poor taste? Of course, but being "racist" means having prejudiced opinions and acting on them. If they wouldn't let Liz Warren shop in their store, or use their water fountain, that's racist. Making some moronic hand motions is idiotic.
Oh good! Then black face
By Miss Modular
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:51am
Oh goodd! Then black face isn't racist either, by your limited definition.
Also:
By Miss Modular
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 9:50am
Lots of folks are unhappy about football teams that use tomahawk chops and war whoops. Because it's racist. People have been fighting it for years.
Pages