Crocodile tears from the GOP regarding Obama's volunteers removing Muslims from a camera shot

This is just too funny. GOP operatives have attempted to smear Obama for over a year by saying he's a Muslim who attended a madrassa, but now they're complaining about some unprofessional Obama volunteers removing Muslims from a camera shot because of their Hijab?

GOP operatives have been dying to paint Obama as an undercover Muslim and now they're suddenly angry at the supposed discrimination?

I have cruised some conservative blogs and they're really showing their faux outrage regarding this issue.

I just think of the hypocrisy and I can't stop laughing. The GOP is sooooo desperate and it's really showing.

BTW, Obama has no problem appearing with Muslims in Hijab....



The GOP's hypocrisy really is showing. :rofl:

they love to gloat over any perceived instance of illiberalism.

It ain't gonna work this time. Americans are sick of this BULLSHIT.

I'm guessing it's not a typo since it has two extra letters. I've never heard of this term before. Where did you hear it? :patriot:

il comes from latin, it's a prefix that means not, or unable to to X. It is always used in this fashion, but has adopted a second L to become the word ill.

you can say someone is il-literate beaning they are NOT literate or unable to read. you can say someone is il-legitimate meaning they are NOT legitimate, and so on.

Because of the intricacies of our language you can not say someone is un-literate (which in its self shows illiteracy) even though it would mean the same things as illiterate.

hee hee sorry for the taal les (language lesson), I don't often get to explain the finer details of English here in the Netherlands lol :)
and yes.. spell checker is my bestest buddy in the world, ironically enough.

illiberalism is not a word. I'm curious as to if some famous pundit coined it.

On another note, are you part of the Bush program to export Democracy to the rest of the world? It failed in Iraq, so hopefully it's going better in the Netherlands (though I'm guessing democracy is already there). :rofl:

I'm deeply hurt by your insinuation :crys:

Democracy has to grow naturally, and take the form the people are most comfortable with.
That is generally the parliamentary form.
I do not care for that model because it tends to give the rich/powerful permanent seats in government (the 1st chamber here, the house of lords in the UK).
rarely do you have a real congress like in the US where BOTH houses are elected on separate cycles, based on different criteria, but sill picked from the general populace.

I will say this about English, after learning Dutch (to an extent) English is a rock solud language, with solid rules that nearly always apply!
I knew what illiberal meant, even though you are right it's not technically a word. But because of the rules of english prefixes it CAN be a word.

Ain't is a word, it's a contraction of Are not (just spel'd funnee). Y'all is You All, actually a dead useful word when understanding the plural non-personal form of you in other languages such as jullie in dutch (you-lee as an example).

He pushed for Palestinian elections and Hamas got elected. He tried to force democracy down Iraq's throat and Iran is more powerful because of it. Glad to hear you're not part of the Bush Democracy Exchange Program (BDEP). :rofl:

after all im living in a damned communist socialist country! LOL
Actually its a good example of what we should NOT do as far as de-regulating.
they de-nationalized the busses, trains, POST OFFICE, and several other vital things which are now a mess. only telecom improved, but thats about it.

Here's a link:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Illiberalism

il·lib·er·al
adj.
1. Narrow-minded; bigoted.
2. Archaic Ungenerous, mean, or stingy.
3. Archaic
a. Lacking liberal culture.
b. Ill-bred; vulgar.



il·liber·al·ism n.
il·liber·ali·ty (--rl-t), il·liber·al·ness n.
il·liber·al·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

illiberalism
opposition to liberalism.



The second definition--meaning antiliberalism--is more common in political theory. You also see the form "illiberal" quite commonly. For what it's worth, I'm a political theorist by training, and I can confirm that this word is, in fact, fairly common in academic political theory, though I think antiliberalism is preferred because it does not carry the pejorative baggage of illiberalism.

I'm sometimes baffled by what words are not in DU's spell checker.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiberalism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Illiberalism

And since I can't link to the Oxford English Dictionary (the ultimate source for me)

illiberal, a. (n.)

1. Not befitting or of the nature of a free man; not pertaining to or acquainted with the liberal arts (see LIBERAL), without liberal culture, unscholarly; ill-bred, ungentlemanly, unrefined; base, mean, vulgar, rude, sordid.

2. Not generous in respect to the opinions, rights, or liberty of others; narrow-minded, bigoted; opposed to liberal principles in ecclesiastical, political, or commercial relations.

3. Not free or generous in giving; stingy.


The word was NOT recently coined, its use dates back at least to 1535.

defines it. I had never heard it before so I checked

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illiberalism?r=14

for explaining that, it's very interesting. :thumbsup:

Hey, I figure I deserve some credit for asking the question. :rofl:

at least you learned something. Next time maybe you won't be so cocky when you're wrong.

When you think about it....it's derived from Rove and the GOP mindset...attempting to attack Dems on our strengths...hence the term illiberalism. They want to attack Dems on their tolerance and acceptance of other cultures.

This is EXACTLY what the GOP has attempted to do to Dems for a long time now when they know they can't win on the real issues that affect Americans every day. They want to attack Dems on tolerance.

Monkeyfunk is simply pointing this out. Good for him.

Do you think they would be seated? Let's hope so. After all, this is America, and they would certainly have every right to be seated. But would McCain's staff seat them? I wonder.

to a McSAME rally and then we'll see what happens, he could film the whole thing. Moore used to do stuff like that on his TV Nation program. :evilgrin:

Hell, get some dude all dudded up like Sinbad the friggin' sailor. See if he gets seated.

"See the oppression inherent in the system?"

NOT! They're so full of shit.

Crocodile tears...

hehe

It's good that Sen. Obama and his staff apologized. Aside from the crassness of some volunteers, there is certainly no chance whatsoever of winning Michigan without a strong showing from the Arab-American and Muslim-American community.

Muslim Supporters Told to Move at Event

OBAMA TEAM APOLOGIZES

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061803402.html

"Barack Obama's campaign apologized Wednesday after a report that campaign volunteers in Detroit had shooed two Muslim women wearing head scarves out of camera range at a rally earlier this week.

According to the Web site Politico, the women were told they could not sit behind the podium where Obama was speaking, to prevent them from appearing in photographs and television footage with the candidate. Obama has battled false allegations that he is a Muslim, and the two women, both Obama supporters, told Politico they were deeply disillusioned by the incident.

Campaign spokesman Bill Burton issued an apologetic statement. "This is of course not the policy of the campaign," he said. "It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

Burton also circulated several photographs that prominently feature women in head scarves at previous Obama rallies."

link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061803402.html

Either he's an undercover Muslim or an intolerant bigot that hates Muslims according to modern day America.

Of course Obama is neither, but which line of attack will the GOP and the MSM follow?

This story has no legs when you think about it. Obama has to be either one or the other. Obama can't possibly be both for obvious reasons.

Obama is neither and this story will die faster than the GOP and MSM can say uncle.

Muslims. He'll embarrass the 'thugs.

so much time doing of Obama's WH with Mosque dome on it and sending it out. Sending the Wrong wing back to their parents basement drawing board once again.

Illinois and Michigan have a block vote of Muslim voters. I heard one person in a focus group on PBS' Newshour asking the question: why can't BHO for once and for all saying there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim?

It has led me to wonder why he can't say: my father made a choice to practice Islam and I've made a choice to follow Christ. I don't begrudge him his choice, I'd hope he wouldn't begrudge me for choosing mine.

I recognize political correctness and culture of fear, but I also recognize how easy it demonize whole categories of people then brush off the slight as not a big deal.


As for Republicans talking about their outrage, I can only say when you talk about of both sides of your mouth---people tend see the bs for what it is.

I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth. This isn't the first time the photo op staffers/volunteers have taken people out of a picture. I read on HuffPo a few months ago that they took out some people of color and demanded more white people step up so they could create the 'right' effect.

Obama gets a stripe for this continued practice.

though I understand your mindset, it bugs the hell out of me too. But how many times does he have to say it for it to be definitive, should he give a speech on it? One good thing about this being publicized though is that volunteers on his campaign are less likely to make stupid mistakes like this again.

all part of the catch-22 framing the corporate media wants to impose, here.

dupe

Is meet these women somewhere (assuming they would go for it) and apologize in person, be photographed with them, and ask these ladies for their support.

That should suffice to quash the fake ire.

reverse. Never happy the media.