Skip to main content

Tea Party Activist Ken Emanuelson said, "...The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote..."

Ken Emanuelson, a Texas Tea Party activist, made a rather controversial statement at a May 20th Dallas County GOP event, when he answered a question with the following response:

"I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats."

Then just yesterday, the Tea Party loon (yes, a tad redundant, isn't it?) attempted to backtrack his previous remarks by saying this:

"I hold no position of authority within the Republican Party and it wasn't my place to opine on behalf of the desires of the Republican Party. What I meant, and should have said, is that it is not, in my personal opinion, in the interests of the Republican Party to spend its own time and energy working to generally increase the number of Democratic voters at the polls, and at this point in time, nine of every ten African American voters cast their votes for the Democratic Party."

Okay, so I'll buy the first part of the "clarification." He shouldn't have spoken for the entire party when he said, "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats." However, I have trouble buying the latter part of the statement. Let's again look at what he said initially and compare that to his eloquent "clarification."

He initially said, "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats."

But he supposedly meant to say, "...What I meant, and should have said, is that it is not, in my personal opinion, in the interests of the Republican Party to spend its own time and energy working to generally increase the number of Democratic voters at the polls, and at this point in time, nine of every ten African American voters cast their votes for the Democratic Party."

So, I'm supposed to believe that when this man said he doesn't want black people to vote due to an overwhelming majority of them preferring the Democratic Party, he really meant he doesn't think the Republican Party should waste its time trying to win over some African-American voters? Riiight...

With that kind of thinking (or lack there of), I have to imagine Ken Emanuelson will utter the following statements at some point, before attempting to clarify them:

Initial statement: "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party hates women."

Clarification: "What I meant, and should have said, is the Republican Party loves women, so long as they're cooking, cleaning, or allowing us to penetrate them."


Initial statement: "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party is really annoyed with young people. The voting age should be raised to 65."

Clarification: "What I meant, and should have said, is the Republican Party is fine with the younger generations voting - those under 65 - so long as they are currently serving in the military."


Initial statement: "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party thinks those Hispanic people kind of smell funny."

Clarification: "What I meant, and should have said, is the Republican Party tends to enjoy Mexican food. We love our tacos, so of course we like Mexicans, or Latinos, or Hispanics, or Joses, or whatever those people are called."


Initial statement: "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party thinks all Muslims are terrorists."

Clarification: "What I meant, and should have said, is the Republican Party doesn't like Muslims, but we don't think they're terrorists - not all of them anyway - maybe just half or so."


Initial statement: "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party thinks gay people are extremely gross, gross to the point where we don't ever want to shake hands with them."

Clarification: "What I meant, and probably should have said, is the Republican Party is trying to become more welcoming of the gays, and most of us would gladly shake hands with them, so long as we both were wearing gloves of some kind."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/ken-emanuelson-tea-party-_n_3386884.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...