Any topic any time. No profanity.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Don Cooks democrat, voted for Obama based on skin color, nothing more

Don Cooks writes many letters to the editor here in our Grass Valley Union newspaper and most of them are simply screeds against Republicans and conservatives.  He is a good example of a democrat without logic.  When I read his tripe it is apparent to me he has no idea what politics is about.  Even though he says he has been around the block (meaning he is old), the block he is talking about must be pretty small.  Maybe the lane around the house?

Cooks says this in his opinion piece about why he voted for Obama.

"I voted for him for a number of reasons. The major reason was black citizens needed this recognition after being third class citizens since colonial days."

Now we have first hand information from the mouth of a democrat operative. We all knew they voted for Obama because of his color not for his qualifications.  A democrat affirmative action vote apparently.  I want to thank Mr. Cooks for finally being honest and for also exposing his party for what they really are.  They don't care about the issues affecting our country, jobs, unemployment, fiscal health and the rest of the issues Americans really care about, he is simply concerned about skin color.  I call that racist politics.

Cooks then goes on to trash the Republican candidates which is fine in our free speech country.  However, after telling us he really voted for Obama simply because he is black it seems implausible he could trash Republicans because they debate the issues.  This position by Cooks shows why democrats are headed for the dustbin.  We on the right want people elected to solve issues and heal the country.  Cooks and the democrats are stuck in the past and can't seem to move into the 21st century.  They destroyed Bill Clinton's bridge and can't move into the future.  Thanks to people like Cooks, those democrat activists will be unable to convince most Americans that their reasons for governance is based on anything except skin color.  I am ashamed of Cooks for his position but happy he finally told the truth.

32 comments:

  1. I just had the pleasure of reading Todd Juvinall's description of me and he should realize that he is so much more knowledgeable than me, from his political experience. He can't expect everyone to compete with him intellectually.Todd should read my blog at donoc.wordpress.com for some more ammunition.

    Don Cooks

    ReplyDelete
  2. I read your hysterical support for socialism and there is no need to explain something further. I am from earth, you are from ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Todd I admitted that I may not be up to your intellectual status, but out of 18,000 views of my blog I've had no personal attacks, but disagreements. I would appreciate the points you disagree with and your views whitch could foster a more intelligent discussion.

      Don

      Delete
    2. Do you dispute the article here? Did I not quote you accurately?

      Delete
  3. Oh, I will check your blog but like Pelline who moderates dissent off his site, you will not like the opposing POV.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Todd
    I just posted a blog giving your blog some free publicity.
    I have thousands of viewers so you should get some views from around the country. I read your blog and find it very interesting including the comments.
    Don Cooks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We will see. Thanks for the publicity.

      Delete
  5. Let's start with the title: "Don Cooks democrat, voted for Obama based on skin color, nothing more." This is a clear misrepresentation of the quote you provided. When Cooks discusses why he voted for Obama, he prefaces his opinion stating: "I voted for him for a number of reasons," and ends his statement discussing that a "major" (not the only reason) reason he voted had to do with encouraging the elevated social standing of African Americans. Perhaps you should have read the actual quote objectively before any writing was done. Your title is pure exaggeration, insulting to Cooks, and misleading to the reader. It is you projecting how you want liberals to think so that you can invalidate, trivialize and demean people's opinions who oppose yours.

    In the opening paragraph, you basically spent 4-5 sentences insulting Cooks ("screeds," "without logic," "tripe," "he has no idea what politics is about," "he is old.. the block he is talking about must be pretty small," "maybe the lane around the house?"). Number one, when you take this route, I don't see how your form of journalism makes any distinction between a 13-year-old girl cyber-bullying a classmate and a legitimate political blog. Secondly, when you choose to make strong stances against people (though I don't believe that this is at all an example of making strong stances, I see it more as petty bitching), you should bolster your opinions with examples that validate your point of view. Just because you state something doesn't mean it is so. Why does Cooks' other writings sent to the newspaper make him a democrat without logic? There is no explanation. The reader can just assume that you mean he just "is" because you're God Himself and what you think becomes fact. Perhaps in future articles (or whining and cyber-bullying, really), you should write: "I believe that [blogger's name]'s writings to the local newspaper is misguided, because... ". The key word is "because." The ending two sentences are just despicable. Have some respect for the elderly. Disagreeing with someone's opinion does not give you a free disrespect-whoever-you-want pass.

    Now for the paragraph following the quote. I think that anyone with an open mind would say that there is something special about a member of a people group that was once not even regarded as full citizens holding the highest office in the country. At the same time, it is not as if Obama is simply an African American man devoid of all qualifications. Prior to getting elected, Obama attended renowned universities, was a community organizer, a lawyer, a law professor, a state senator and a U.S. senator. Beyond this, if you really want to go to extremes, it can also be argued that Sarah Palin was added to McCain's ticket to counter Hilary Clinton's presence and possible historical significance (translation: to get votes because she's a woman). I want to specifically address your accusation of "racist politics" - assuming that people vote for a political candidate based on race alone would also fall under the category of racist politics and you obviously believed that liberals all voted for Obama based on race before you molded this quote to fit your theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So anon, why such a coward? Typical liberal apologist, afraid to use your real identity while attacking others. I stand by my article and its reasoning. You don't like it? Start your own blog and you can write whatever you want. Cook used the terms in his article that I have critiqued. I would suggest you go chat with him.

      Regarding his age. You know older people are supposed to be wiser yet you make excuses for him using his age as a defense of his position on Obama. He voted for O because he is black, nothing more. All the rest is hokum.

      Delete
    2. You're quite the cyber-bully. I see I've garnered an emotional response. This comment must have been very upsetting for you.

      I think you should read what people have to say to you more than once. It appears your reading comprehension to both Cooks' quote and my comment are lacking. Instead of seeing people as "liberals" and looking at them through a biased, hateful lens, view people objectively when you read what they have to say. Perhaps you need a good editor to help guide you through the writing process.

      Delete
    3. As usual you misread others and I thought you liberals were so "touchy-freely". What a hoot. You see I don't care about you or you childish attempts at discourse because you are a anonymous poster. No guts no glory as they always say.

      One thing about liberals is their constant attempts to put those they disagree with into some "box" to make believe they have some sort of power. Doesn't work with conservatives.

      And I don't hate anyone, that is not who I am. You liberals do your hateful and intolerant stuff all the time Chick-fil-A, Prop 8, guns). Democrats are so easy. This will be your last comment until you get some guts, prove who you are with a real name and email. Adios.

      Delete
  6. And now for the ever-problematic final paragraph. You state: "...it seems implausible he could trash Republicans because they debate the issues." I don't see you debating issues anywhere in this post. All you do is talk about race and generalize about liberals using a quote that you misrepresent. Later you state: "Cooks and the democrats are stuck in the past and can't seem to move into the 21st century." If this is so, why did many republicans support Rick Santorum? He disagrees with birth control, basically meaning he would prefer it if we were in a time before birth control existed (translation: he's stuck in the past). The best part is the final sentence because it ended this post.

    If you want to be taken seriously by people besides extreme republicans (I doubt you care about liberals, but what about independents?), show some respect for people who don't agree with you. Cut the exaggerations. Cut the insults. Represent quotes properly. Actually state facts and at the very least bolster your opinions with some explanations. Use logic instead of just claiming other people don't have logic because you said so. This alone is not persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, errr, JeffP, you are so funny! I am not running for any office so I suggest if you are considering a run you certainly are preparing yourself to become a lying politician. I could care less about your insults, I am surprised that a "pot is calling a kettle black" though.

      I voted for Romney and Santorum was beaten fair and square in the primaries. What he supports regarding his religious beliefs on contraceptives is his business. Since he is not the nominee of my party, your logic is really suspect on what a Republican "thinks". Try harder and you might make it into my level.

      Obama is obviously your candidate and you will defend a liberal/socialist to your last breath over a conservative and that is your right. Have at it. You cannot rewrite history and blow off the man's tactics and his lack of candor about his life. You say he went to Harvard yet we have never seen his transcripts as we saw Hillary's. How come? Something to hide? Did he get favors and outside help? Who were his friends? He admits he a]was a cocaine dope user and partied hearty and studied less. Yet no one knows much about that outside of the book he wrote.

      If you want to complain about the post some more, have at it. I'll leave your comments so my many readers will once again see why your ilk should never be in charge of anything outside of a mental institution for liberals. LOL!

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. No real name and email, no post.

      Delete
    4. As long as you are reading my comments, I could care less if anyone else reads it. I hope my critique of your writing style will enlighten you as to how to write properly.

      Also, I wanted to add that if you want to be taken seriously as a writer, it is important not to use "LOL" and other internet slang. Reading legitimate political publications could aid you in the progress of your writing. For example, I doubt The Weekly Standard, a conservative online publication, would ever use "LOL" when trying to convey a point. Professionalism is imperative.

      You seem very hung up on whether or not I provide an email. I don't see the point, I can be contacted via the comments and I am not a resident of Nevada City or someone you know personally, so it wouldn't serve as a revelation as to who you are dealing with. Plus, you have to keep in mind that anyone could create a fake email with a fake name and, in turn, still really remain anonymous but trick you into thinking they are exposing themselves. The internet is not a place to demand true identity. But if you feel censorship is important to you, that is your choice, though it violates the American ideal of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But it seems like in everything you've written, you've made it clear that you intend to control, distort, and remove the opinions of those who don't agree with you.

      I still strongly encourage you to make a serious effort towards an improvement in your reading comprehension.

      Delete
    5. Golly darn and dagnabit. I have a writing critic! LOL! You are actually self censoring since you have no guts to identify yourself. I cannot censor a ghost.

      I could care less about your critique of my writing style. I have many and am not full of myself as you are. Cooks is irrelevant as are you because you have nothing to add to the debate. Liberals are consistent in their spelling advice though. My guess is you are one of those people who have no friends as you criticize just about everything. I would suggest you look in the mirror then sit down on the couch, open the computer and try a decent writing style and attitude. Maybe you and your bud Cooks can do a ditty for the Union again. Title it, "Why I have no friends"! LOL! Oh, and tell where we can go read your ditties in the press.

      Delete
  7. Our eco nuts down in S.F. are about to vote on draining their water source.
    I say let them learn from their mistake at this point. So when they turn on the tap, and nothing comes out, they have no one to blame but themselves.
    Just like food. It doesn't magically show up on the store shelves. It had to be grown with water, and had to come from somewhere.
    Let them learn the hard way. They can't eat or drink "pretty".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Walt, I think I will join the group who wants to teardown the Hetch-Hetchy. What do you think? That might clear out all the nuts from SF when they have water! What a hoot!

      Delete
    2. Why the Hell not? LOL! Somewhere I still have the deed for some land ( with a gold mine on it) that was flooded after the dam was built.
      Grand Dad didn't get a dime for it back in the day. Maybe I can reclaim it. There are laws on the books that do allow that.

      Just when you think the eco fanatics can't get any loonyer,, they come up with this stupidity.
      Sorry guys,, no water from Nevada Co. we are "tapped out"
      Sac. River? No dice... You have a smelt to worry about.
      Desalination? You haven't even started the study phase let alone the "DEIR" reports. We know how you love those things.

      This will actually be fun to watch. Let the games begin!

      Give them a little taste of what is to come. Just turn off the water that flows from there now. ( for a month or so)

      Delete
    3. With no water will they remain a "sanctuary city"? I guess they will have to drink wine and spirits to get their H2O. LOL!

      Delete
    4. LOL... funny how our "forward thinkers" haven't chimed in on the "wisdom" of this folly.

      Delete
    5. Walt, you've a real genius there ha- you've got all the solutions to every problem in CA, ha? Just drill baby drill, mine baby mine, cut baby cut ha? Been there, done that. But Walt and Todd- ah, simplicity at its finest-in a world of incredible complexity. We live in a land that was ravaged for generations until we evolved as environmental stewards. Get a clue boys.

      If you actually took the time, and the initiatve to be educated, to understand the importance of smelt to the bigger system of life in our world, you might make some sense in your posts. And maybe you wouldn't be making embarrassing gaffes like calling Greece- "Grease".

      Delete
    6. Yep, you liberals are just too smart for us. We can't compete with you and your r leaders. Seems Jerry Brown is looking to build a tunnel and swipe the water for his Socal (wasn't that your allegation against McClintock all the time?) friends and the "victim"? Your precious smelt! So, as you type your slights against Walt ad I and our ignorant rants about eco extremists, just remember, your buddy is the one screwing you over, we are just the messengers of truth.

      Regarding spelling. I haven't seen your smugly name, your real name, so it tells us simpletons you are a liberal eco gutless numskull. Get some stones and post your name. LOL!

      Delete
  8. What are they griping about? It's back to it's pre global warming condition.

    It's just ice in it's liquid form.

    I guess they forgot GW started 10,000 years ago or so.

    It can't get more "protected" than that,, No cars, no people. Just what they like.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sock puppet troll advocating violence. Golly, I wonder who the Tmccoy nut really is? Hmmm.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  10. Hola, how do I join the conversation?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Howdy, I had to set up a limited blog account.

    I was just writing to suggest that you have some good points, but when I read about another poster or blogger that disagrees with you, it distracts from your message. Anyway, I think when you contrast your point of view with another point of view that it seems best to not name the person unless they are a public official. I would keep them as an unknown blogger. It seems that most turn-off when your point gets confused when there is a focus on a particular individual.

    Let you message ring out. Don't let it get distracted.

    Keep blogging,

    ScottJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks ScottJ I will take your advice under advisement. Ain't blogging a hoot?

      Delete

Real name thank you.