Monday, May 24, 2010

Of Rand Paul, Boondocks, Jimmy Rebel, and Uncle Ruckus



Damn, I thought I knew all the racist slurs for Black folk. Now, as a result of racial pejorative escalation, I have to up my game and add these new creative turns of wordplay to a lexicon that formerly ended with moon cricket. My work is never done. In fact, tomorrow I am going to download this song, put in on my found Ipod (no, I really found it on the street as there is no way in hell I would pay for such an infernal machine), and play it whenever ign'ts upset me on the bus.

Which leads us to a quick question to start the day. Is Jimmy Rebel's and Uncle Ruckus' song, "The President is a Nigger" most popular with:

A) Tea Party attendees.

B) Black Conservatives.

C) Rand Paul supporters.

D) Devotees of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

You make the call.

17 comments:

marci said...

none of the above...
too many words and too fast for them to follow...

Anonymous said...

Rand Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve, bring our troops home from the Middle East, and end the war on drugs.

I think it's pretty funny that Rachel Maddow "broke" this story. (she's on MSNBC- which is owned by NBC- which is owned by General Electric- who manufactures bombs to be dropped on brown people across the planet) But yes, Rand Paul is a bad baaaad man!

Whenever the 3 major news networks dedicate broadcast time to destroy a politician, it is a badge of honor. It should tell you who the establishment is REALLY afraid of.

Why would you want to eat in a restaurant where the owner is a racist, anyways? Why would you monetarily support someone like that?

This just proves that you can't have an intellectual debate on television. People are too fucking stupid.

Divide? Check! Conquer? Check!

RiPPa said...

I say all of the above. If anyone saw the entire episode (shameless plug: I have it posted on my blog), they would be hard-pressed not to understand just what McGrudder displayed with this one.

I tell you what...

it would be nice if a round table discussion could be put together between Jimmy Rebel, Brother X-squared, and Pastor David Manning.

Bryan said...

@Anonymous... You ask why would anyone eat in a racist owner's restaurant? There are probably more than a few racist restaurant owners out there that have to serve black people.
If they refused to do so they would be shut down.

What Rand Paul is suggesting is ludicrous. Maybe he has valid points in his other arguments. But his argument on the Civil Rights issue makes no sense.

Big Man said...

Maybe you eat a racist restaurant because you're driving with your family and it's the only place to eat around.

Same thing with hotels, bathrooms and reststops.

When the Civil Rights law was passed, black families had a helluva time finding lodging and food whenever the tried to travel. They were forced to sleep in the car on the side of the road, pee in bushes and eat from picnic baskets packed at the start of the trip. Or just stay home.

The fact that Anonymous thought it was a good argument to say "Why would you want to hang with racists?" shows his utter ignorance. More importantly, I wonder if we asked Ron Paul that same question when Paul refused to disown or abandon the racist workers who attached his name to bigoted pamphlets?

Why would Paul want to hang with racists?

Anonymous said...

I certainly would rather have Rand Paul then another Dem/Rep. If you have not caught on yet, left/right, Dem/Rep it doesn't matter. The borders are wide open, the deficit rises, we are in wars that are bankrupting us, crooks are in congress, pimps like Al Sharpton are considered leaders.

Take Obama, first thing he did was hire Clinton's old staff, bailed out the wall street crooks (they were his biggest contributors), moved the focus from Iraq to Afganistan (same results: dead Americans, more debt, imperialist tag). It's time to grow up and stop falling for the same old tricks.

The media, congress and gov't in general all lie and are controlled at the highest levels by satanists. Stop falling for the racists labels and think for yourselves. They are demonizing Rand Paul because they are scared too death by what he represents.

For the record, I am Black and I voted for Chuck Baldwin not Obama because I knew he was controlled. He is putting on a show, just like WWF wrestling.

Bryan said...

@ Anonymous No doubt that any politician in office cares more about themselves and their pockets than the people they are supposed to represent.

But it's been this way since the country was founded. There has NEVER been a perfect president or politician. This is why when we vote, we simply try to pick the better of the poison that we are presented with.

Sure, Rachel Maddow had her own agenda when interviewing Paul. If Rand Paul had agreed with everything Maddow said, she still would have found something wrong with what he said.

Not all of the American public is stupid. We are able to decipher through all of the BS that is shown on television and pull the information that we need out.

Rand Paul said for himself, out of his own mouth, that he believes that federal govt should not interfere with and force private businesses to desegregate. I don't believe that Paul is a racist. I honestly believe that he has good intentions. But he is extremely misguided.

Let's say that there is a private grocery store chain in Biloxi, Mississippi. The owner of the store bars all blacks from shopping in his store. Ok so its just one store right? As we speak, there are very few black owned businesses in Biloxi. This racist store owner has friends that are also owners that also began to bar blacks from their premises.
You get the picture right? The entire city would simply become segregated all over again.

There are ALREADY racist store owners out there that have to serve blacks because the govt forces them to!

Anonymous said...

I think you are wrong; the majority of the public just parrots what they are told by the media. "Yes we can". As we get closer and closer to an overt police state when cannot afford to be so cavalier regarding politics.

Rand Paul's point is you can't legislate morality. If a private grocery that excludes blacks is opened then one will pop up that includes Blacks--no profit driven company will ignore 15% of the population.

Can you force the KKK to admit "Ruckus" as a member? Can you make the NBA or NASCAR by mandate representative of the population? The free market (best players/drivers) will dictate what happens.

Gov't is only needed when public funds are involved or there is eminent hindrance to one's pursuit of happiness. We are a republic not a democracy. Everyone's individual rights are protected. Whatever a store owner what to do with his business is his business. Because the majority might not agree does not negate his rights.

Bryan said...

You said "...no profit driven company will ignore 15% of the population."

This is basically what Rand Paul was saying as well. But this is wrong.

Before the Civil Rights Bill was passed, profit driven companies CONSISTENTLY ignored the Black population and barred Blacks from establishments.

If it was done then, what would change now?

Anonymous said...

Inertia. People are resistant to change, the South needed some help back then. Now, there are sufficient moral barriers to that ever happening again and more importantly there are economic incentives to prevent it. We certainly have more socio-economic power than we did then. No, it could not happen again.

Bryan said...

You say that private businesses will not ignore the Black population, but you have no way to prove this. We can only speculate.

I would rather not leave this up to chance. There is no way to predict how someone would feel morally.

What economic incentives are you referring to? I hope you don't mean federal tax cuts or subsidies for private businesses.

Big Man said...

This is hilarious.

Anonymous says that "no" business would ignore 15 percent of the market.

Then when provided with proof that businesses did this ALL THE TIME, he says.

"Oh, that doesn't really count, special circumstance."

Well that's mighty freaking convenient.

Truth is, there is a market for barring black folks. White people like to go places that black people don't visit that often. You can survive if you exclude black people, hell, depending on your business, you can thrive.

Anonymous said...

African-American Hair products is an example of a %15 of the population market that has not been ignored.

The economic incentives are the profits made. Why would a national grocery chain ignore 15% of the population? Surely they would market to those that have been banned. If a private company bans Black people another company will fill that niche market. Or alternatively don't you think that some Black entrepreneurs would satisfy that market?

There were barriers to entry in the South back then that do not exist now. There really are alot of "Cliff Huckstables" out there now as opposed to relatively none back then.

Anonymous said...

Big Man:

Can you deny that hair product companies do not ignore 15% of the population?

Surely you will admit that things do change over time. Is the cultural climate the same as it was in the 50's? Of course not. You wouldn't walk around with your underwear showing back then just as most people are not going to ban a segment of the population based solely on skin color now. Some will, but most won't. The some that will have a right to their view. We don't need the gov't stepping on the rights of others for an expression of choice.


"Truth is, there is a market for barring black folks. White people like to go places that black people don't visit that often. You can survive if you exclude black people, hell, depending on your business, you can thrive." So. There are country clubs that exclude women. Women don't like it but they have a right to exclude them. And women can have their own clubs and men & women can have their own clubs.

As an army brat we moved into an all-white neighborhood one time. My brother and I got in the pool and everyone got out. We went and told my mother and she said, "Get back in, you now have your own private pool". So that lasted for about a week before they decided swimming was more important. Point is without any intervention the situation resolved itself.

Jim Profit said...

It amazes me how some media shills can convince so many so called educated people not to vote for their own interests.

Rand Paul and his father want to end the bloodwars, end the patriot act, reduce the tax burden on the middle class, reduce government involvement in our lives, decentralize government so it doesn't completely takeover and possibly declare martial law.

But someone says "ohnoes, he's a racist" and suddenly we can't vote for him anymore? Fuck you and everyone who lives in your house.

Chris said...

@Anon and Jim Profit: Both you suggest that Rand Paul is "against the drug war" and "ending our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." I checked his Senate page and I didn't see him advocating for either position. In fact, the Kentucky Libertarian Party criticized Rand Paul for his unwillingness to call for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul's own campaign manager said that he is not for withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan. On the drug war, the only consistent thing about Rand Paul is his inconsistency. However if it was such a priority I'm sure it'd be on his Senate 2010 website (I couldn't find it). However, I did find several conflicting statements. He says he would've voted against the war (wooptie doo every Republican says that now that its too late to do anything about it).

Anonymous said...

Chris,
Back from my break. Rand Paul won with 59% of the vote. I don't think legalization of drugs is a campaign slogan that would play well to the marginally interested. The issue is a little more sophisticated (just like civil rights) and tends to confuse more than help bring out voters. He got 59% by being a practical but not flaming libertarian.

About the wars, no one is going to line-up 100% with what everyone wants but I certainly would rather have 90% of my agenda than none. Here is what he is for: no bailouts, national defense, lower debt/taxes, term limits, privacy, sovereignty, homeschooling, gun rights, ban the federal reserve, etc.

For the record, I looked and he would have voted against Iraq but for Afghanistan.