OMG! Ferraro strikes again.

Well, I just caught part of a Ferraro interview on Greta.(No, I don't normally watch faux news. I turned on the TV but didn't get a chance to change the channel..as I was busy taking care of my baby)

I don't know if it was a new interview.(seemed to be) I am working on finding a transcript. (It be great if someone could point me toward a transcript website source)

Anyway, she was talking about how Obama can't win non-college educated white voters. She said (repeatedly) that those voters "are not racist, but are resentful of race." (WTF is the difference) She said that Obama is running a "racial campaign" and cited as an example: she said "when he went to SC and said 'our time is now', he was leaving out these (white)voters" (WTF x2) She was basically trying to take a statement that is cornerstone slogan of the Obama campaign and try to convince Fox viewers that it has some kind of hidden black racial message(or some other BS like that) When as we all know... "our time has come" is usually followed by "FOR CHANGE" and has nothing to do with race.

That was about all... there was a little more BS about how Edwards was so disadvantaged because he was a white man.(It was kind of a "wink wink, the black man pushed the poor white man out of the race" kind of POS talking point) I didn't catch all of. It was a part 1 of 2 interview. All I have to say is WTF.

She is deliberately misleading people. She nows that the typical(aka non political junkie) voter isn't going to go research Obama's speeches to see what Obama really meant when he said "our time is now." She basically went on the GOP propaganda network to smear the presumptive Democratic nominee... WTF... I am really pissed at that race baiting snot of (WTF is she anyway... a has been politician)

:mad:

I have been appalled by the things that have fallen out of her mouth like so many turds.

Go away, Gerry!

What a creep she is.

Well, Geraldine certainly ended her career on the lowest note possible.

you know you can program your tv not to receive Fox

my brother did that... I thought it was kind of cool

:rofl:

:rofl:

Couldn't find it in the 30 seconds I gave it though. :(

They should both learn to zip it.

becoming, that they are wasting time on this idiotic old bag.

At one point, as the first VP candidate for the US. That has since been overshadowed by her innate and blatant racism.

Way to destroy a name, Gerry!

You go girl!

:rofl:

she is right where she belongs on fox

Clinton should come out and condemn those comments

She's not even a Democrat. I believe she vowed to vote for McCain the other day. A true Democrat does not support a wingnut.

I'm a 36-year-old white woman, and that slogan speaks to me on a very personal and positive level. I'm sick of Washington special-interest groups controlling this country. I'm sick of lobbyists trampling the little guys. I'm sick of neocons pissing on the Constition. When Obama said, "Our time is now," I thought he was speaking to the mass of people who are building this movement from the ground up: all those one million-plus donors who have given $25 and $50 at a time ... in short, the "little guys." Finally I felt like MY people (progressives) stood a chance at taking back our country.

But Ferraro was right all along: He was speaking only to the colored folk.

:sarcasm: tag is taking a vacation, so I'll use :eyes: instead

She needs to be kicked out of the party.

...but I will say it about Geraldine Ferraro.

She is a whore. She is a political whore. She is whoring herself out and offering herself
up as the Clinton dirty talker--who will say anything you want.

Just put those talking points in front of Gerry the whore and she'll talk
dirty all night long. She has no shame. No self respect.

If you need someone to make racist, disgusting comments--call Gerry the whore. No barb is too
disgusting. No talking point is beneath her.

Want to insinuate that someone is racist? Sexist? Elitist? Gerry aims to
please.

She's a shameless whore.

When the Clintons need someone who has no dignity or self respect--they call up
Gerry the whore, and she's happy to service the entire world with her vulgar,
embarrassing tripe.

go figure. Talk about tin ears.

Real whores actually work for a living.

:P

Seriously though, Ferraro is a bitter old woman who just can't stand to see a black man get ahead. She's a disgrace to anyone calling themselves a feminist. Someone should do this woman a favor and tell her to shut the fuck up.

Regards

She should shut the fuck up.

Thomas is acutely aware that he only got into Yale Law because he is black, and that he only made the Supreme Court because he is black. That self-doubt has followed him his entire life, and has led to his strong opposition to affirmative action programs.

I think Ferraro is also acutely aware that she was only given the VP nod because she was a woman, and I'm sure she doubts herself, wondering if she was promoted above her level, if she was given more than she deserved and the party/nation suffered as a result of it. I think she can't help but see Obama's rise as a magnified version of what she fears, regrets, and hates in her own.

I don't know anything about Clarence Thomas' academic credentials. Do you know something I don't know?

Part of the problem with affirmative action is that it leads to the type of mentality you're displaying here, namely the blithe assumption that any black or minority who arrives academically or professionally did so "because he is black." It's an offensive line of argument.

There's not much daylight between what you're saying about Clarence Thomas and what Ferraro said about Obama. Ironic, huh?

during SC sessions.

He is a uniquely unqualified dolt who was passed up along the ranks during the Reagan adminstration because he truly was the "Magic Negro" - a black conservative Republican. When George Bush nominated him for the SC, it was a slap in the face to black people everywhere that this undistinguished cretin would take the seat of a real pioneer - Thurgood Marshall.

There is no problem with affirmative action except for the Uncle Tom beneficiaries like Judge Thomas who climb to the top of the hill, then pull up the ladder because everyone else should "pull themselves up by the bootstraps"

he is in a unique position to see its flaws?

Oral arguments at SCOTUS are largely ceremonial. Him not asking questions means nothing.

It seems that because Thomas is black you feel he must adhere to a certain set of values and beliefs.
I don't buy that anyone should be limited in their beliefs because of race. I find that an oppressive notion, that I can't be a conservative because I am black, that I must be liberal (I happen to be liberal, but that's beside the point) and my jurisprudence must resemble Thurgood Marshall's, while someone who is white is free of those restraints and can choose among a wide array of philosophies. No thanks. I reject that kind of thinking.

The only flaw in affirmative action I see is that an outright Uncle Tom like Clarence Thomas was bumped up through the ranks, in spite of his singular lack of qualification, to a position where he can roll back affirmative action protections for minority students that are ten times more gifted, intellectually curious and motivated than him.

Your opinion is that oral arguments before the SC are ceremonial....but how do you explain the man not uttering a single fucking word for two years?! http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/06/the-when-will-justice-thomas-ask-a-question-watch/

I'll thank you for not speaking for me...I'm not saying that because Thomas is black, he should adhere to a certain set of values and beliefs...I am saying that because he's a fucking Supreme Court justice, he should adhere to a minimum standard of judicial competence and participation, instead of being Scalia's asspuppet.

Your opinion is based on absolutely nothing. You know NOTHING of his qualifications. You have not read his judicial opinions; you have not spoken to former clerks of his; you have not seen his grades from law school (not that they would matter anyway); you have no idea how he performed in his posts before being nominated to the Supreme Court. You know nothing about him except that he is black and he doesn't conform to your ideals of what a black man should think about a range of issues from Affirmative Action to the Commerce Clause. And that enrages you, which is precisely why you're calling him an "uncle tom."

How is anyone to read that "Uncle Tom" comment other than that you are disparaging him b/c he is black and his jurisprudence doesn't dovetail with the kind of views you find acceptable for a black man to have?

I don't see a problem with not speaking during oral arguments. It's not my opinion. It is a fact that oral arguments are largely ceremonial. The bulk of the court's work is done through written memoranda, and digesting briefs by the parties as well as amicus curiae briefs, and circulating drafts of opinions etc.

Actually, I do have an idea, as does anyone who was paying attention when this clown was nominated by Bush I in 1991. we know that(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas):

- the American Bar Association receommendation panel was split on his qualifications between "qualified" and "unqualified" (none voting "well-qualified), the first time in 21 years the ABA failed to unanimously recommend a nominee.
- every job he had coming out of Yale Law School was in a Republican administration (John Danforth in Missouri, then Reagan and Bush)
- before Bush I appointed him to the U.S. Appeals Court, he spent his time at the Dept. of Education and the EEOC as a serial sexual harasser...committing heinous acts of sexual harrassment not just against Anita Hill, but also Sukari Hardnett who testified "if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."
- George Bush I nominated Clarence Thomas, not for any distinguished judicial record or public service, but rather he was a black face on a hateful, spiteful conservative mind. Even Thurgood Marshall knew what lay ahead when Thomas was nominated:


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DD1E3EF931A35754C0A967958260

I call him an "Uncle Tom" because he sold out his own people to cozy up to the white racist GOP masters who invited him into the plantation house from the fields to grovel at their feet. As long as Uncle Thomas does what he's told and vote against minority interests and protections at every turn, Master pats him on the head and tells him what a good boy he is. Pathetic.

"I call him an "Uncle Tom" because he sold out his own people to cozy up to the white racist GOP masters who invited him into the plantation house from the fields to grovel at their feet. As long as Uncle Thomas does what he's told and vote against minority interests and protections at every turn, Master pats him on the head and tells him what a good boy he is. Pathetic."

Exactly what I was saying. You believe he must adhere to certain views because of his race. If he doesn't he's an "uncle tom". Black republicans are, to you, uncle toms. That's racist, fascist thinking and exactly what I was getting at in my previous posts. I am not obligated to hold certain political views because I am black.


"- the American Bar Association receommendation panel was split on his qualifications between "qualified" and "unqualified" (none voting "well-qualified), the first time in 21 years the ABA failed to unanimously recommend a nominee."

Who was the last nominee they failed to unanimously recommend?


"- every job he had coming out of Yale Law School was in a Republican administration (John Danforth in Missouri, then Reagan and Bush)"

So what? He's a Republican, obviously. That doesn't make him "singularly unqualified."

"- before Bush I appointed him to the U.S. Appeals Court, he spent his time at the Dept. of Education and the EEOC as a serial sexual harasser...committing heinous acts of sexual harrassment not just against Anita Hill, but also Sukari Hardnett who testified "if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female.""

And? Even if you believe those allegations that doesn't make him singularly unqualified. It means he's not a great guy. So what?

- George Bush I nominated Clarence Thomas, not for any distinguished judicial record or public service, but rather he was a black face on a hateful, spiteful conservative mind. Even Thurgood Marshall knew what lay ahead when Thomas was nominated:

He was looking for a black conservative. If he had been looking for a black liberal and appointed one would that have been any different?

You don't like his politics and so are lashing out at him in a racist way. He's not obligated to have certain political views because of his race.

Exactly what I was saying. You believe he must adhere to certain views because of his race. If he doesn't he's an "uncle tom". Black republicans are, to you, uncle toms. That's racist, fascist thinking and exactly what I was getting at in my previous posts. I am not obligated to hold certain political views because I am black.
Black republicans are not, to me, automatic sellouts. Edward Brooke and Colin Powell are two examples of black GOPers whom I have a modicum of respect for, though I disagree with their views. But the vast, VAST majority of black Republicans are sellouts and race traitors because every time they open their mouth in public, it's to denigrate and marginalize black people. It's no mistake that the likes of Armstrong Williams, Larry Elder, Michael Steele, et. al. are recruited for talk shows, roundtables and the like to represent the GOP because they say what no white GOP politician or spokesman can say without it looking like a Klan rally. I'm not demanding black people adhere to a narrow set of beliefs handed to them by the Democratic party....I'm merely calling out Uncle Toms who feel the need, when they reach a position of public prominence, to turn around and start pissing on their own people just for the sake of scoring political points with a bunch of people who would just as soon have them parking their cars and shining their shoes than rub elbows with. It's an exception when a Black Republican isn't an Uncle Tom....or do you give the benefit of the doubt to black Republicans?

Who was the last nominee they failed to unanimously recommend?
It was either Clement Haynesworth or Harrold Carswell (two SC nominees by Nixon who were voted down by the Senate) in 1969

So what? He's a Republican, obviously. That doesn't make him "singularly unqualified."
That's a matter of opinion, but I will grant you that point.

And? Even if you believe those allegations that doesn't make him singularly unqualified. It means he's not a great guy. So what?
Now I know you must be joking..."even if you believe those allegations"??? Are you saying you don't believe Professor Hill? Uncle Thomas the Clown Prince of the EEOC acted as a sexual predator in the workplace to this poor woman and all you have to say is "he's not a great guy"? Appalling.

He was looking for a black conservative. If he had been looking for a black liberal and appointed one would that have been any different? You don't like his politics and so are lashing out at him in a racist way. He's not obligated to have certain political views because of his race.
I'm not being a racist calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom for selling out his own people. Uncle Thomas is the racist....or rather, the appeaser and water-carrier for racists.

Your idea of "selling out his people" is not having certain political views that YOU approve of. Since he benefited from AA he is somehow obligated to be in favor of AA as policy.

Since he benefited from AA but is not a liberal, then he must be painted as singularly unqualified (never mind that you haven't read his judicial opinions and haven't heard him during oral arguments).

If he were a liberal justice then you wouldn't be saying these things about him. Then conservatives would be.....and the criticisms, again, would have as their focal point his race and qualifications. They would trade on common and demeaning stereotypes in the same way yours do and reinforce them in the public discourse....which ends up harming so many more than just those you disagree with politically. You don't even realize how demeaning this tack is to all people of color, whether you're conservative or liberal. You're possibly even a person of color yourself. Sad. Sad. Sad.

*shakes head*

(As for Anita Hill: I'm saying I don't know whether those allegations are true or not. And neither do you. Regardless I don't see them as relevant to his qualifications, at least in the way you seemed to be using the word.)

and it is beyond belief that you would question her credibility.

I am a person of color and I could give a tuppence fuck if you think I'm a racist. Uncle Thomas is a egregious race traitor.

there wouldn't be much daylight between them, since my original point was that there isn't much daylight between them. Both believe that they only got where they are today because of affirmative action, and as such both have extraordinary issues of self-doubt, and as such both are almost irrationally infuriated by hints of affirmative action today.

I possess no such mentality. Thomas does. That's the fucking point. He's always grappled with the fear that he is only where he is because of his skin color; he has since college. His autobiography is interesting, if surprisingly angry in places you wouldn't expect him to be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071021/yale-justice-thomas/

and for the link. I haven't read his book.

activities. They weren't engaged in sleazy business practices with questionable people....according to her, people were just picking on them because they were Italian.

Fucking Barf. :puke:

ticket that everyone knew was going to lose no matter what, can anyone tell me anything she has done in her life that has earned her so much credibility?

Note the seamless transition between stirring up racial resentment to claiming victim status for being called a racist. She could be a 1000+ poster.

election advice, ok?

Also said that if Obama is the nominee, she will follow what Michelle Obama said regarding Hillary in having to 'think about' supporting the nominee. Since there was no objection to that, it must be acceptable to the party.



Yes, she is getting coverage and her message is getting out just fine without FNC, but of course they will cover it too. Now that is just 'chickens coming home to roost.'

Which lie of hers did you like best? Which smear from her do you think gives Hillary the best chance to overturnt the primary results? :eyes:

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

Looks like the full interview will be posted tomorrow (Thursday).

:shrug:

I just feel so furious with this woman, that I can't even put it in words. Aaaaaaaargggghh!

Geraldine Ferraro and the useless members of her backwards generation will soon be worm's meat. Note that not all seniors share her opinion, and in my canvassing, I've encountered 90-year old grandmothers that LOVE Obama.

I remember seeing her in person a couple times in San Francisco back in 1984. She seemed then like a progressive force.

Now she is just plain nuts.

She's a grade-A, USDA prime choice dick.

So why is anyone listening to her?

I watch Faux News occasionally. They are really having a lot of Hillary supporters on. It's Hillary Hillary Hillary, sexism sexism sexism, bad Obama bad Obama bad Obama, all the time.

Ferraro is so bigoted. It's shameful. I guess she's always been that way. She is so blinded by her view that a black man could win the nomination, that she doesn't even recognize that her view is skewed. If Obama were a charismatic, natural leader, but white or female (or both), and had had millions of people vote for him/her, and were leading in delegates and had won most of the states....she wouldn't be on Fox claiming Hillary and Edwards were far more qualified.

and ignore the rest of her life.

She used to be my hero, now "she's dead to me".

Bring out the board, Jimmy



David

x(

She basically said that the press has been racist against White people


Yes...the all white press has been racist against white people according to Geraldine. I shit you not.

did the interviewers call her on it or did they just nod along?

She has to be loving this...being somewhat relevant again after all those years of nothingness.

Does anyone remember her being this feisty in '84?

Lieberman and Ferraro are for all intents and purposes Republicans. Is losing the VP that traumatic? ;)

I can't believe Ferraro has been escaped from the asylum this long without anyone hauling her back.

:rofl:

Ferraro's comments are pure Nixon. Thank god she never had a chance in politics.

Here's the real SC race baiting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6RmXTlhY4

Ferraro is such a @$%@^.

it's your intention to enslave the white race isn't it? -John Stewart

:sarcasm:

Tell that dumb dried up rasinet Bitch that the audience was filled with an ass of white people, and when he says, we, our, or us he is refering to ALLLLL his supporters white black red yellow green and blue people.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ

see for yourself just incase you believe her.

Now when HillBilly was in IN talking about "stick to our own kind" that is straight out of the KKK scriptbook.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1KOD4f2YSrg

or it was West VA, I am not going to listen to her again to confirm it but I know she said it

If this was an Obama surrogate, Obama would be ripped to pieces..