12 thoughts on “Jim Clyburn You Ignorant Slut”

1. Spy, Surely you understand Obama changed the game and is holding the high card, right?
   He won last friday. Since you are ” intel” you ought to understand the risks of letting the first lady come to SC.
   If you need more details, just ask, but I believe you ought to understand the game better than I do.

   • Sarcasm, allornothing. My point is that someone is lying. Either the WH didn’t say there was a risk or the WH lied to Clyburn about why they “couldn’t” come to his home state. Jim Clyburn is a “house southerner” and he doesn’t even know it.

     • “…left him with the sense…”

       “…the climate in South Carolina just is not good…”

       “I do believe…”

       Did it ever occur to you that Clyburn is simply running at the mouth here and the Post and Courier decided to wrap a whole article around it? Maybe he just got the wrong impression. There’s no definitive statement by anyone that security is the sole reason she hasn’t made a visit. You’re really reaching to turn this into criticism of Clyburn, surely there are plenty of other issues you could raise.

       Meanwhile, I can’t help but notice you ignore the fact that the President and First Lady really might not receive a warm greeting from the majority of South Carolinians. I’d expect you and your fellow teabaggers to attempt a large opposition rally. One of South Carolina’s Republican Senators gets heckled at his own town hall meeting and called a traitor by a constituent and you think these same people are going to get warm and fuzzy over a president who they’ve reacted to with pure vile? In a state where a member of the legislature gleefully compared then-Senator Obama to Osama Bin Laden and didn’t suffer a single repercussion? Not to mention the shenanigans of DePass, Wilson and DeMint?

       You’re living in a fantasy world. I can only hope and pray that dinosaurs like you will turn into fossils relegated to museums of Southern antiquity in my lifetime.

2. Pingback: Tuesday Quick Read « SCHotline Mobile

3. Ummm… Snead, did you read this paragraph?
   “It may be politically unsavory, given the fact that her husband’s politics are recognized in the state as being dangerous to the welfare of our nation – a lesson your contrived constituency has yet to learn. It’s entirely possible that a visit by the First Lady would be met by protest signs – civilly presented – reflecting that dissatisfaction, but surely – SURELY – you aren’t opposed to a civil expression of opinion.”

   I’m guessing not, or else you wouldn’t have said, “There’s no definitive statement by anyone that security is the sole reason she hasn’t made a visit.”

   Personally, I think it’s stupid for anyone in an elected position to compare another elected official to Bin Laden, so you and I agree there. Speaking of that, what happened to all of the elected officials who compared a sitting president to Hitler and Stalin?

   Wow, that’s twice in one little post that you’ve proven how short your memory is. I thought dinosaurs had the tiny brains. Maybe there not the ones who need to go extinct.

   • I love being anonymously insulted. Charlie used to play that game too.

     Abba, as I said, Charlie is living in a fantasy world. There’s been nothing civil about the reaction to Obama. Conservatives can’t even be civil to the US Senator from their own party.

     I’ll try to piece this one together for you: “SOUTH CAROLINA IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN, TOO HOSTILE FOR THE FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES.”

     Who said South Carolina is to hostile for the First Lady? No one. Clyburn said he got the impression that negativity and a hostile environment had to do with the absence of a visit. Again, a very small comment the P&C spun into an article and Chuck is attempting to use as an attack on a Congressman who has plenty of other shortcomings.

     Please educate me on the South Carolina officials who “compared a sitting president to Hitler and Stalin” and I’ll be happy to amend my comment. You probably can’t because you’re trying the really mature tactic of “They called him one first”. Grow up.

     And as long as Charlie’s making thinly-veiled references to the house negro, I’d love read his thoughts on the GOP leader’s online minstrel show. Don’t limit your criticism of black politicians to Democrats. What up?

4. Snead, I’m thinking you’ve taken one of those speed reading classes where you learn to ready by skipping certain words. Either that or you’re wrong… a lot.

   You said:
   Please educate me on the South Carolina officials who “compared a sitting president to Hitler and Stalin” and I’ll be happy to amend my comment. You probably can’t because you’re trying the really mature tactic of “They called him one first”. Grow up.

   Whoa, there. I never said it was South Carolina officials who compared a sitting president to Hitler or Stalin. I was making a broader point of what is considered “hostile” or not a “warm environment”. Plenty of elected officials in other states compared Bush to Hitler and Stalin” and he still visited those states. And please don’t pretend it never happened. As for the “mature tactic of ‘They called him one first’,” comment, please slow down your reading. I said that “it was stupid for anyone to compare another elected official Bin Laden.” Again, “STUPID FOR ANYONE.” One more time, just for effect, “STUPID FOR ANYONE.” See what I did there? I said that the conservative official was wrong, because, well, he was. I did NOT say, “It’s OK for him to compare Obama to Bin Laden because previous elected official compared Bush to Hitler or Stalin.” I could see how you could get the two confused. I’m just curious if you were upset that those who DID compare Bush to Hitler “didn’t suffer a single repercussion.” See, I see both instances a wrong. That means that I’m not blinded by ideology. I can’t say the same for you. But you can tell me to “grow up,” for citing your selective reading abilities, so I guess you win.

   • No, you wrote “that’s twice in one little post that you’ve proven how short your memory is” but having a short memory has nothing to do with it. I’m talking about there here and now.

     The point is many South Carolinians, to include political party operatives and elected representatives, have used hate and fear-mongering as fuel for their attacks against this administration. Charlie fails to acknowledge that because he can’t defend it.

     You just wasted some 300 words without really writing anything. If you want to make a point, show me an example of what you’re claiming.

     “Plenty of elected officials in other states compared Bush to Hitler and Stalin” and he still visited those states. And please don’t pretend it never happened. ”

     I believe you, brother. Show me.

     “I’m just curious if you were upset that those who DID compare Bush to Hitler ‘didn’t suffer a single repercussion.’”

     Sure, that’s disgusting. I served in Iraq twice while it was going on so I certainly didn’t appreciate the inference that my Commander in Chief was a Nazi. But how exactly should I react to an official I can’t vote for or against? We’re talking about South Carolina here.

     Again, you’re really just wasting your time here but I guess everyone needs a hobby. You can’t point out a fault in a single piece of logic I’ve proposed and your only answer is to run around the questions I ask.

     Pretty typical, all in all.

     • Snead – (if you’re against anonymity, why don’t you give your full name?) your liberal bias has once again clouded your logic. You said I can’t acknowledge that “many South Carolinians, to include political party operatives and elected representatives, have used hate and fear-mongering as fuel for their attacks against this administration.” I can’t and neither can you. Be true to your argument – not difference of opinion to “attack” the administration, but “fear and hate.” Show me, Scooter. Where? Remember, the criterion is HATE and FEAR.

       You conveniently let Jim Clyburn slide because (1) he’s a Democrat, (2) he’s a liberal and (3) he’s black. You and yours don’t have the guts to criticize black politians. Oh, that’s right “But how exactly should I react to an official I can’t vote for or against? We’re talking about South Carolina here.”

       You can’t vote for Joe Wilson, but your site sure posts negatives about him. Besides, Jim Clyburn is a national figure because he’s the House Majority Whip. And YES, I did consider that he was just running off at the mouth. That’s why I asked if he defended his state. You should, t0o!

       And why be civil to Barack Obama? He is dangerous. If you can accurately counter the growing national fear that he is a socialist and is trying to turn the country to socialism, I’ll listen.

       Besides, liberals have absolutely no – NO – regard for civility. Your reference to those who protest the way our country is being mishandled is an example of that and your own hypocrisy. “Teabaggers,” Snead?

       Last year I wrote a piece called “The Liberal (Black) Heart” in which I quoted your gods of the left:

       * NBC jokes: Todd Palin has sex with daughters
       * Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan
       * Rangel Calls Palin ‘Disabled’
       * Randi Rhodes On Palin: She’s Friends With Teenage Boys
       * Olbermann Falsely Accuses Palin of Cutting Special Olympics Funds
       * Alec Baldwin: Brother’s Conversion Politically Offensive
       * Palin’s “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
       * Michael Moore: “I like America to some extent.”
       * Whoopi Goldberg said, “Should I be worried about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change
       * Joy Bahar calls Michelle Malkin a “selfish bitch.”

       Snead, before you criticize the Right, you’ve got too much work cleaning up the Left.

       • “if you’re against anonymity, why don’t you give your full name?”

         Because I don’t want search returns of my name to link back to this den of ignorance. You of all people should appreciate that since you unsuccessfully tried to keep this site anonymous. Meanwhile, my own site which is plainly linked with every comment provides 10 different methods of directly identifying and contacting me. And a correction, I have no problem with anonymity, it’s the anonymous insults that get me. But I understand why your girlfriend Joe doesn’t want his name associated with his comments, who would?

         You need examples of hate and fear? Really? You mean beyond the actions, words and deeds of DePass, DeMint and Wilson? It doesn’t get more obvious than that and those are just the tip of the iceberg.

         And who is letting Clyburn slide? He’s said plenty of ignorant shit over the years and this “story” isn’t anything new out of him. Putting his daughter on the FCC is a joke and a bad one. His South Carolina protege James Ford is 10x worse so again you’re just blowing smoke with your claim that I won’t criticize him. But that’s what “you and yours” do. When I lived in Clyburn’s district I took issue with him plenty of times and in my original comment I plainly state that there are a number of issues you could rail against him about, I just find it odd that you pick one so indefensible as the negative climate of South Carolina toward the first family.

         “Oh, that’s right ‘But how exactly should I react to an official I can’t vote for or against? We’re talking about South Carolina here.’ You can’t vote for Joe Wilson, but your site sure posts negatives about him.”

         This is your poor reading comprehension at it’s worst. Joe wants me to feel guilty for Democrats I can’t hold accountable. I can and do hold Joe Wilson and James Clyburn accountable. When was the last time you talked to their staff? Last week for me. I can’t vote for Joe Wilson? Oh I can, Mr. Intel, but I don’t. I’ll support Rob Miller or anyone who values intelligence over ideology any day.

         But let me stop, this is really a pointless exercise since you can’t honestly respond to anything I asked. Yes, the truth is you’re afraid of Barack Obama but then you claim there is no climate of fear in South Carolina. Bryant compared a US Senator to a mass-murdering terrorist but you claim there’s no climate of hate in South Carolina. I defend Clyburn on one issue so I must be full of white-guilt, completely blinded by ideology and committed to a worthless cause. Right?

         I won’t waste any more of your or my time. Like I said before, you’re a dinosaur and your time will pass.

         • “You need examples of hate and fear? Really? You mean beyond the actions, words and deeds of DePass, DeMint and Wilson? It doesn’t get more obvious than that and those are just the tip of the iceberg.” Just as I thought. You CAN’T give any examples of “hate and fear,” just reference vaguely to three people.

           “You lie,” which is now Joe Wilson’s claim to fame, is neither hateful nor fearful. Disrespectful, maybe, but it doesn’t prove your point. Nothing does.

5. OK, below are just a few. Personally, I think it’s all ridiculous, just like I think it’s ridiculous when Republicans do it to Democrats, though it’s hard to argue that Obama’s health care plan and “redistribution of wealth” comment are not socialist ideas. Now, I don’t think Obama is a Socialist, and I don’t think he’s a dangerous as the Spy thinks he is, but those are factually socialist IDEAS. Still, though, I wouldn’t in a million years compare him to Hitler.

   So, again, agree with you that two wrongs don’t make a right. Your problem, and the problem with many liberals, is that you can’t spend eight years tearing a sitting president apart and then condemn the other side for doing the same when the situation is reversed. Just like I think Republicans who spent eight years saying, “it’s unpatriotic to insult a sitting president” and are now, well, insulting a sitting president are wrong. See, it’s one thing to not respect the person who is the president, but it’s another to not respect the office of the president. Just like an elected president isn’t just president of the states he won last November. He’s president of ALL of them. He’s the president of South Carolina just like he’s the president of Vermont. For him (or the first lady) to not visit because they might meet him with protests is kind of cowardly, don’t you agree? Civil disagreement (and ONLY if it’s civil) shouldn’t be avoided. And again, if they’re worried that it might not be civil, should that stop them? Look at how Bush was protested against. Whether the protestors’ arguments were right or wrong is beside the point. Bush still went. Does that mean that Bush had more balls than Obama? If not, what DOES it mean? He’s only willing to visit places where people agree with him? Maybe that’s why his Comm. Director said that he won’t be going on Fox News because he doesn’t want to go where there’s opposition. Heaven forbid he get asked tough questions!

   See, the problem is that two wrongs don’t make a right. You’re correct about that (and I haven’t said otherwise). However, to say that someone should be condemned for making unfavorable comments about a sitting president (which I said originally that I agree with you on), while you ignored (and “you” could be Mr./Mrs. Snead… I don’t know your gender… or the general public use of the word “you”) and maybe even applauded the unfavorable comments about our previous sitting president just shows hypocrisy. As do Republicans who bashed Bush-haters and are now Obama-haters. When that happens, everyone loses credibility. When Keith Olbermann says “Fox News is garbage because they have the audacity to criticize a President elected by the American Public”, when he spent the last eight years criticizing a President elected by the American Public, how can anyone take him seriously, even if his makes the occasional legitimate point? That’s my beef. Short-term memory. You’ve displayed it. Well, that and the Spy’s original post spent two seconds on physical security and the rest focusing on the fact that the POTUS and FLOTUS just don’t want to visit because they’d receive an unwarm welcome, and you responded by essentially saying, “Hey Charlie, did it ever occur to you that maybe it’s not a security issue, but rather they don’t want to visit because they’d receive an unwarm welcome?” Ummm… what? I don’t mind dissent (ask the Spy how often we’ve disagreed over the years). My problem is with accuracy, truth, and objectivity. That’s what you lack. Except maybe the truth part. I don’t think you’ve lied about anything, just been a tad disingenuous. And you can’t argue that.

   —-

   Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

   John Glenn, referring to Bush: “Too often, too often, in this country, if you hear something repeated, it’s the old Hitler business — if you hear something repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it,” he said.

   Federal appeals court Judge Guido Calabresi compared George Bush to Adolf Hitler

   Sen. Robert Byrd says George Bush reminds him of Hermann Goering

   Al Gore, in a speech denouncing Bush, used the term “Brownshirts” (i.e., Nazi street thugs) to refer to Republican computer teams who respond to criticisms of the president and the war in Iraq.

   Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer comparing Republicans to the Taliban.

   We have Democrat Congressman Alan “Dick” Grayson comparing Republicans to Nazis.

   We have Democrat Congressman Brian Baird calling Tea-Party Patriots “brownshirts.”

   Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin’s absurd and outrageous comparison of Bush Administration interrogation tactics in the War on Terror to the tactics used by Nazi Germany.

Comments are closed.