Skip to main content

GOP Senate candidate Chris Mapp defends "wetback" remark

When Texas Senator John Cornyn winds up sounding like the voice of reason in a debate, that's a pretty good indicator his opponent is crazier than a hamster on speed.

It's being reported that Cornyn's Tea Party opponent in the upcoming GOP primary - Chris Mapp - recently had some interesting things to say to the Dallas Morning News' editorial board. In the editorial board's endorsement of Senator Cornyn, they wrote the following:

"South Texas businessman Chris Mapp, 53, told this editorial board that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on to their land, referred to such people as 'wetbacks,' and called the president a 'socialist son of a b**ch.'"

Not only was that bad, but Mapp made things worse by later defending his remarks to the San Antonio Express-News, when he told him the racist term was as "normal as breathing air in South Texas."

The often times irrational Senator Cornyn then responded to Mapp's commentary with these words:

"That kind of rhetoric is discouraging from anybody. I recognize this is a free country but that's not the sort of way to gain people's confidence that you care about them and you want to represent their concerns in the halls of Congress."

After the president struck a historic deal with Iran regarding their nuclear development, Senator Cornyn tweeted this:

"Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care"

Yeah, when that guy comes across as looking rational in a debate, like I said at the outset, that's a pretty good indicator that his opponent is crazier than a hamster on speed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/chris-mapp-wetbacks_n_4849184.html

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/stupid-right-wing-tweets-john-cornyn

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

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"