This is sheer liberal lunacy. Two absolute numbskulls are essentially criticizing Mitt Romney for giving $50 to a black woman on the campaign trail who seemed to really need some money.
So as far as I can make out from these talking airheads, Mitt Romney is clearly racist because:
1) He’s white and she’s black.
2) Because he’s rich and she’s poor.
3) Because he actually handed her some money instead of talking about the need for a government program to give that lady money.
It’s funny because in this video these two black talking heads seem more embarrassed by the black woman than anything else. They honestly don’t even like speaking about her. They essentially ridicule the lady saying God called her to seek out Mitt Romney. And then seeing Mitt help her out, to them is patronizing.
When these ladies see this woman they see a stereotype that embarrasses them. When Mitt Romney saw her, he saw a person who needed a little help. But Romney’s the one somehow who did something wrong here?
You’ve got to see this lunacy:
Thanks to Weasel Zippers for the vid.
January 16, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Matthew,
Granted, I've only seen the 2 min. clip you posted, but what I got out of it was something different.
It seems as though the black women on the panel were suggesting that the event was staged, and done in such a way to play into the (supposed) racist tendencies of conservatives/Republicans to give Romney some political help.
Janell Ross, the second black panelists, said – with incredulity in her expression – that there were "a lot of very convenient elements" to the story, elements that "affirm" conservative ideas about poverty.
Clearly, the women panelists thought the episode was contrived. I don't know if it was or not. I hope not.
What "galled me" (to borrow one of the phrases from the clip) was Joy-Ann Reid's dismissal of the role of charity and churches in helping alleviate poverty – at the expense of government's role. I can certainly understand those who want to have the gov't supplement charitable works; but I can't understand anyone who would demean charity.
January 17, 2012 at 12:26 am
The reason these racists demean charity is that it is voluntary. So the donor gives out of generosity even when he/she doesn't have to, and can therefore get credit for a good deed and likely a good feeling for having done it. That's why the liberal racists don't like charity. They want folks to be forced to relinquish their money against their will, so that they can suffer because of it and also not get any credit for having done it. The transfer of money isn't good enough; it has to also involve some level of suffering and must never allow the giver to receive credit. In other words, they're mad, and someone has to "pay". That's where government comes in and where charity doesn't cut it.
Another reason these liberal racists hate charity is that it undermines their resolve to view conservatives, the wealthy and/or whites as greedy and racist. They are so stubborn in wanting to believe this that charity angers them by contradicting these presuppositions. Not only that, but they also stubbornly want to believe that charity doesn't work because not enough people are generous and good enough, so government "has" to be the only possible solution. It's anger, stubbornness, and racism.
January 17, 2012 at 1:44 am
You don't even have to give out of a feeling of generosity. All you have to do is give. It's the act that counts, not the feeling. What the giver feels is irrelevant, and what the recipient does with the gift is also irrelevant. It's like the free gift of grace. He gave this woman $50, and I'm sure she appreciated it.
January 17, 2012 at 9:09 pm
If their form of Government assistance was working so well for this lady why is she still experiencing hardships.
I thought Obama was going to pay all our mortgages and car notes đŸ˜‰