The first couple portrayed as apes

[S.J.]

There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat. Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally. Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South". Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election. In national elections, the deep south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.

So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.

However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed. As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party. Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections. The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections. They gained more strength in state elections. The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century. He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party. Nice try though. And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks. "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson

You know that quote is uncorroborated, right? Nah, you probably don't...

What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red. Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears? Nope, same people, same conservative values. Only the name of the party has changed. Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't. Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.

Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.

And the twisting and turning continues. Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure". But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote. More diversion.

 

[Pogo]

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century. He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party. Nice try though. And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks. "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson

You know that quote is uncorroborated, right? Nah, you probably don't...

What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red. Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears? Nope, same people, same conservative values. Only the name of the party has changed. Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't. Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.

Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.

And the twisting and turning continues. Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure". But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote. More diversion.

Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then? OK I see where that could be a limitation. But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.

The fact remains that everybody was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon. Dood, I lived there, I know whereof I speak; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California. That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:

-- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party. Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.

And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all. So your point is... what?

And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?

 

[Pogo]

But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI[/ame]


There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
Sheeesh.

 

[S.J.]

You know that quote is uncorroborated, right? Nah, you probably don't...

What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red. Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears? Nope, same people, same conservative values. Only the name of the party has changed. Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't. Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.

Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.

And the twisting and turning continues. Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure". But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote. More diversion.

Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then? OK I see where that could be a limitation. But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.

The fact remains that everybody was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon. Dood, I lived there, I know whereof I speak; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California. That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:

-- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party. Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.

And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all. So your point is... what?

And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?

I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper. That's fine, let's do that. My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not. Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS. Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are. It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist". Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem. Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president". You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure. That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.

 

[S.J.]

But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI


There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
Sheeesh.

Good strategy, change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point.

 

[Pogo]

And the twisting and turning continues. Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure". But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote. More diversion.

Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then? OK I see where that could be a limitation. But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.

The fact remains that everybody was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon. Dood, I lived there, I know whereof I speak; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California. That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:

-- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party. Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.

And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all. So your point is... what?

And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?

I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper. That's fine, let's do that. My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not. Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS. Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are. It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist". Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem. Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president". You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure. That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.

The Belgian newspaper IS the topic, like it or lump it. Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, five strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point. A strawman is by definition a fallacy. You've got five of 'em.

And again, the newspaper itself already acknowledged its own racism and apologized, so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.

Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.

 

[Pogo]

But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI


There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
Sheeesh.

Good strategy, change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point.

-- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943?

 

[S.J.]

Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then? OK I see where that could be a limitation. But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.

The fact remains that everybody was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon. Dood, I lived there, I know whereof I speak; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California. That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:

-- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party. Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.

And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all. So your point is... what?

And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?

I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper. That's fine, let's do that. My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not. Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS. Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are. It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist". Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem. Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president". You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure. That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.

The Belgian newspaper IS the topic, like it or lump it. Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, five strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point. A strawman is by definition a fallacy. You've got five of 'em.

And again, the newspaper itself already acknowledged its own racism and apologized, so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.

Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.

Where am I trying to defend the newspaper? All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.

 

[Pogo]

I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper. That's fine, let's do that. My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not. Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS. Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are. It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist". Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem. Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president". You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure. That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.

The Belgian newspaper IS the topic, like it or lump it. Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, five strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point. A strawman is by definition a fallacy. You've got five of 'em.

And again, the newspaper itself already acknowledged its own racism and apologized, so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.

Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.

Where am I trying to defend the newspaper? All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.

Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy". They make strawmen.
The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real. All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary. You can't compare the real with the imaginary.

 

[S.J.]

But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI


There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
Sheeesh.

Good strategy, change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point.

-- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943?

Byrd was your Senate leader until 2010.

 

[Pogo]

Good strategy, change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point.

-- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943?

Byrd was your Senate leader until 2010.

"My" Senate leader?

OK, I amend:
- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943 and "who was the Senate leader until 2010"?

Better?

By the way your dates are way off:
Byrd led the Democratic caucus as Senate Majority Leader from 1977 to 1981 and 1987 to 1989, and as Senate Minority Leader from 1981 to 1987 -- Wiki

The Majority Leader in 2010 was Harry Reid. Still is, unfortunately.

(/still utterly offtopic)

 

[S.J.]

The Belgian newspaper IS the topic, like it or lump it. Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, five strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point. A strawman is by definition a fallacy. You've got five of 'em.

And again, the newspaper itself already acknowledged its own racism and apologized, so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.

Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.

Where am I trying to defend the newspaper? All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.

Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy". They make strawmen.
The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real. All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary. You can't compare the real with the imaginary.

And you can't hide from your own racism.

 

[Pogo]

Where am I trying to defend the newspaper? All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.

Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy". They make strawmen.
The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real. All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary. You can't compare the real with the imaginary.

And you can't hide from your own racism.

You're not supposed to be using terms you don't understand. You're STILL the assclown who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist", so don't bother.

 

[S.J.]

Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy". They make strawmen.
The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real. All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary. You can't compare the real with the imaginary.

And you can't hide from your own racism.

You're not supposed to be using terms you don't understand. You're STILL the assclown who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist", so don't bother.

Yeah, that's it. Keep changing the subject, loser. Maybe your bruises won't show as much.

 

[Pogo]

Danth drinks his own swill and rides into the sunset...

 

[CaféAuLait]

I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible. They will attack him in all walks of life including his family. Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom. I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........

Yet she was. That is the simple truth of the matter. Attacking a presidents wife did not start with the Obama's. There a ton of pics I cant even post here. There were pics of their kids drunk and she was then accused of raising two "whores". The pic at the bottom suggests she may be a pedophile. So yeah, they have all been attacked.

This is what the Onion ran after the WH asked they stop using the presidential seal ( makes perfect sense to do that to Laura right?

Type Laura Bush Naked into Google and see the crap that comes back.

Really? You go scouring the internets to find obscure stuff nobody's ever seen before to make a strawman, just so you can excuse racism? Really?

And don't feed me that bullshit that that's not what you're doing. You fall back on this crutch of "b-but but every President gets criticized" as a pretext for excusing a racist depiction that has already been admitted to as racist by its creator. Not even the newspaper itself tries to pretend this is not racism, yet you do.

Poster please. You're a damn hypocrite, and it's transparent.

Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race. I said:

I was not trying to rationalize racism. I was merely saying that racism is claimed for the very same things which have happened to other presidents and their wives. I ALSO stated that I thought the picture could be racist (and awful) and I understand how it could be taken that way, but I was unsure what the intent was if it was political satire or not. I did not read the article, I only viewed the photo.

Laura Bush was portrayed in awful manners too ( a demon, a monkey, nude, a dominatrix, portrayed as calling her husband a monkey, a Nazi, and just about any other thing you can imagine, just because it happened to Michelle as well does not make it racist per se. I don't know if you get my drift or not. I was not supporting the photo.

Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. The left smeared her endlessly. She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over. In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too?

But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- ALL spouses are treated this way by both parties. It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it.

I'll REPEAT again I did not read the article, I did not know they had admitted racism. I also said the photo WAS racist or could be seen as racist but I was unsure how it was used. Heck Rummy just said something about Obama and an ape. Something that has been said for years about everyone. But when said about Obama its racist when it probably had no racist overtones. Sometimes people want to make something racist when that was not the intent. You are missing the point on purpose. You like to do that.

 

[Vigilante]

And Pogo stick is still in denial of the PBS story where they state Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865.

The man is obsessed with his self importance, when plainly, no one gives a damn about his dementia!

 

[S.J.]

Danth drinks his own swill and rides into the sunset...

Your desperation grows as your arguments slowly come to a grinding halt. Better luck next time, loser.

 

[CaféAuLait]

When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit?

To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground


How about other first ladies?

You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race. Its this automatic thing where everything is about race with the Obama's and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP) it won't be taken seriously.

 

[Pogo]

Yet she was. That is the simple truth of the matter. Attacking a presidents wife did not start with the Obama's. There a ton of pics I cant even post here. There were pics of their kids drunk and she was then accused of raising two "whores". The pic at the bottom suggests she may be a pedophile. So yeah, they have all been attacked.

This is what the Onion ran after the WH asked they stop using the presidential seal ( makes perfect sense to do that to Laura right?

Type Laura Bush Naked into Google and see the crap that comes back.

Really? You go scouring the internets to find obscure stuff nobody's ever seen before to make a strawman, just so you can excuse racism? Really?

And don't feed me that bullshit that that's not what you're doing. You fall back on this crutch of "b-but but every President gets criticized" as a pretext for excusing a racist depiction that has already been admitted to as racist by its creator. Not even the newspaper itself tries to pretend this is not racism, yet you do.

Poster please. You're a damn hypocrite, and it's transparent.

Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race.

Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.

Boy, that was easy...

I said:

I was not trying to rationalize racism. I was merely saying that racism is claimed for the very same things which have happened to other presidents and their wives.

-- and that IS rationalizing racism; basically what you're saying is that all Presidential criticism is fair game, therefore racist criticism is OK. It's essentially the mirror image of the oft-heard complaint that any criticism of O'bama is denounced as "racist". Which is a fair complaint -- even if it's a generalized strawman, when it happens it's a fair complaint.

You appear to want it both ways: on one hand, criticism of the POTUS isn't racist just because it's political criticism; that squelches criticism. Fair enough. We can't have dissent silenced.

But on the other hand when it is racist, hey it's just political criticism. So you're in the same intolerant hole as the previous example

Laura Bush was portrayed in awful manners too ( a demon, a monkey, nude, a dominatrix, portrayed as calling her husband a monkey, a Nazi, and just about any other thing you can imagine, just because it happened to Michelle as well does not make it racist per se. I don't know if you get my drift or not. I was not supporting the photo.

Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. The left smeared her endlessly. She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over. In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too?

But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- ALL spouses are treated this way by both parties. It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it.

They ARE unknown. They were until you went to find them. Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to. Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these. Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".

You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy. That dog don't hunt.