Rodeo clown makes racist Michelle Obama joke

Just as I thought. You don't actually know what the word racism means. I suppose you can't be blamed. The word has been so abused and misused by liberals that simply saying the word black is considered racist.

The joke does not imply that Mrs. Romney's race is superior to Mrs. Obama's. It does imply that in the speakers sexist thinking that Mrs. Romney wins the more desirable position with playboy. [Long before I ever saw a Playboy I was looking at National Geographic and not to learn about geography.] You can imply what you want from the joke but, that does not make the joke racist. Bigoted yes. Racist no. However, your statements and that of much of the liberal media does prove my point about how the word is readily abused and overly used outside of it's actual meaning.

It is not that one is a Democrat, or a Moderate, or a Independent, or even a Republican. It is whether or not one forgoes critical thinking in order to participate as the herd. A unthinking herd that claims knee-jerk emotionalism intellectually equal and morally authoritative to sound reasoning.

Words have meaning. Using words out of context to shore up an emotional conjecture is the anti-thesis of critical thought. And certainly no way to reason with people who don't hold your emotional attachment to the cause du'jour.

That this off the cuff, off- color joke [pun intended] has become a leading national story just goes to show how easily the media believes Americans can be diverted from the real and impending issues facing the nation, and the Obama administrations responsibility in neglecting the issues foreign and domestic.

It is just more of the same nonsense, and certainly no secret that the liberal bashing of those who don't give unrestrained blanket approval for Obama are racist. The meme the liberal media has been spouting for four years. Only a racist could say anything negative about the Obama's. And unfortunately, a fairly sizable portion of the population is nodding in agreement.

I suppose you could include the liberal media spin on gay marriage and abortion. Certainly after Obama flip flopped er... evolved, and decided to come out in support of gay marriage and partial birth abortion.

Consistently, and with obvious prejudice, the liberal media has tried to divert, make this election about anything and everything, rather than talk about Obama's pitiful record on the issues facing the nation. The liberal media bias has gotten so bad that liberal outlets like MediaMatters, Politico and MSNBC don't even make the attempt at being balanced and objective. The rest of the alphabet media like ABC, NBC, CNN, at least play at considering the opposing view if only to deny it as credible.

You'll have to get back to me on the "bogus" WMD thing????

We???? There's a whole herd of "you".

Obviously, you really don't get the point because you continue to lead with emotionalism and can not seem to offer a reasoned perspective.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

G.W. Bush's bogus reasons??? LMAO You have my most profound pity. There is nothing admirable about self-induced stupidity. No wonder you have to fall back on unsupportable claims of sanity. It's a conscientious Freudian argument with yourself. Deep down you know how stupid you really sound.

LOL. Nice back track on your previous assertion that it was all G.W. Bush's reasoning.

If One group that makes up government is not required to have proof, why does the other group that makes up government have to prove what the other half have always said and was accepted with out proof?

Democrats were crying WMD long before any Republican White House. Doesn't there have to be some consistency in what is required of government period?

According to high ranking Generals in Saddam's Republican Guard during that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," said Gen. Sada

Secondly, release by WikiLeaks of classified Pentagon documents reveals that US military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction.

www.examiner.com/article/wikileaks-saddam-s-wmd-program-existed-iraq

The idea that Iraq had WMD was not and never was a far fetched Republican excuse to go to war against Iraq. Pres. G.H. Bush sent troops in defense of Kuwait from Saddam's invasion. Pres. Clinton laid the ground work for war writing most of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq punishable by a U.N. sanctioned invasion. Not WMD. Sanctions Clinton backed up with no fly zones and long range cruise-missile strikes into Iraq. The same sanctions G.W. Bush upheld initially rather than go to war. The Gulf State's were very threatened at that time with an aggressive Iraq/Iran, the rise of al-Qaeda. The rise of Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon. And the rise of HAMAS in Palestine. Your 'historical' recount is lopsided to say the least.

Now. Liberals have spun every news item during the eight years of G.W. Bush to make him out in the worst possible light. Just as today the very same media spins every news item to place Obama in the very best possible light. Your unwillingness to admit that this is so is telling enough and matches your unwillingness to use the same criteria of judgement against all equally.

And no G.W. Bush was not my guy any more than Obama is my guy or Romney if elected should take up such a role as "my guy". They are f----' administrators not rock stars or movie celebrities to gush over. The idea of a populist government/ elected servant of the people is something for social manipulators and those others of the chattering class. The rest of us continue to hope for a decent administrator who understands that the math of economics will always triumph over social policy and vote buying populism. Now give Greece a big wave and see if you can get them to hold a chair for us on the boat to utopia.