This video is racist

Because reality is racist.

“Everybody in Cleveland got Obamaphone. You minority, you low income, you disability …”

The obamaphones are not paid by taxes, or printing money, or the US government borrowing from China. The phone companies are required to give obamaphones to people like this woman, so if you pay for your phone, you are also paying for someone like this woman,  someone in the 47%, to have a free phone.

And similarly if you pay for a college education, you are paying for someone like this woman to have a free college education, probably in victim studies, which probably gives extra credit for beating up white kids.

And if you pay your medical bills …

You have probably seen a cascade of spam mail in your inbox announcing that Obama is giving away a great big pile of free stuff. Mostly, it is true, spam mail but not scam mail. He is giving away your stuff to people like this women.

Most of the programs under which the government requires numerous enterprises to give away nice stuff to the supposedly poor long predate Obama, but every year, they get much bigger and give away more stuff. The obamaphone program goes back thirty years or more, but under Obama, has given away far more stuff than under all previous presidents. And I expect that under Bush it probably gave away more stuff than any president previous to Bush, though far less than under Obama.

You are outvoted. Every election from now on is going to be decided by who is going to make people like you give people like this woman more free stuff. Hence Greece, Spain, and most of Europe. And if you don’t like it, you are racist.

Time to end democracy.

Tags: , ,

10 Responses to “Obamaphone”

  1. Brit says:

    I’ve been looking for a British version of “Obamaphone”. On my facebook, people shared a heartfelt appeal by Bilbo Baggins to vote Labour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdwufKcUCUw), have to find a word to describe them.

  2. RS says:

    It’s possible to be beyond acute on women analytically, yet not be one of the very wisest overall.

    Some teachers ‘allowed’ woman a few things, like a higher affect, even though they were stolidly insistent about her place.

    Man is plainly the heroic spirit ; nothing is as fine as his intrepid spirit. That’s not an oracular poesy or figure of speech: it literally is the best trait of character, other ones standing lesser.

    Yet his total character is just slightly flattish, almost too comprehensible — woman has more of the elusiveness of music and ‘truth’, and would seem to carry, or rather access, a bit more of the charge we can never understand. To be under-attuned to this must constitute some sort of mistake. I’m not talking about god, of course, with whom I am proud to observe I have never communicated. I only think it’s ludicrously boyish for Hawking to proclaim that the kosmos (or sub-kosmos or whatever garbage) created itself through some mathematical nomos. I don’t have one of the smartest brains alive, but any boy would proceed to ask where the nomos came from — or what is better and more accurate to ask, why it isn’t different from what it is, or simply inexistent, or how we ascertain that it is truly unconditional. But as the Danes say, to answer the questions of a child is a rigorous examination.

  3. Samson J. says:

    Did anyone else chuckle at the random white guy in the background at 0:06?

    Interestingly, note what she says is wrong with Romney: he “sucks”. What she means is that he’s white, but she won’t say that. It seems that blacks feel bound by certain racial taboos, as well.


    Off-topic: Jim, at church this morning the pastor made some remarks that made me think of you. The topic was qualifications for eldership, and the pastor spent several minutes explaining quite clearly that while men and women are equal in value, they have different roles, and eldership is quite clearly reserved for men – God’s word says so, and that settles the matter. He didn’t get into how this relates to marriage (because that was not the topic at hand), but he was not mealy-mouthed about what he did say.

    • red says:

      Men and women are not equal in value any more than man is equal in value to god. That’s just how the natural order works. Pretending they’re equal in value simply leads down the same path our society has already traveled.

      Men who die to protect their wives and children and called heroes not because they’re value was less, but because their value was greater. It’s only a sacrifice is the value given is greater than the value preserved. If the two were equal it would simply be an exchange.

      • Samson J. says:

        Men and women are not equal in value any more than man is equal in value to god.

        I don’t agree.

        Men who die to protect their wives and children and called heroes not because they’re value was less, but because their value was greater.

        They’re called heroes because of the self-sacrifice; it’s got nothing to do with relative “value”.

        • red says:

          What makes you think that a man and women are exactly the equal in value?

          • jim says:

            I would say old anglo saxon law had it right: Women have less competence than men to make decisions about their own lives, other people’s lives, and property, so, like children, they need to have such decisions made for them by their husband or father. But they are more valuable than men, because only women can produce men. So Anglo Saxon law set the blood price for a fertile age woman at twice the blood price for a man. If you killed a woman, the compensation you had to pay was twice that for a man.

          • Samson J. says:

            What makes you think that a man and women are exactly the equal in value?

            Well, okay, I don’t really know or care if they are *exactly* mathematically equal in value. So far as I know, there is no scriptural passage that specifically addresses the question… but on the whole, it seems like, biblically speaking, they are both awfully valuable. Jesus died to save both of them, and to me that is prima facie evidence that they are both very valuable. It seems to me that arguing over which one is *more* valuable is like asking which is more valuable: a billion dollars, or 999 million dollars. There might be a difference, for all I know, but it’s not really significant.

    • jim says:

      I am impressed. I had not believed that such churches remained.

      • Samson J. says:

        Well, I really think you are too cynical. I don’t even consider that my church is really in the extreme-conservative-of-the-conservative side of the chart… it’s pretty run-of-the-mill conservative Baptist.

Leave a Reply