Posted in DAPster

Cyber bullies tweeted: “Kill yourself, you old hag”

Barack Obama won the American presidency in 2008 by securing fully 96 percent of the black votes.

In terms of sales pitch, he was selling “Jom Ubah” as his country had never had a non-white sitting in the White House before.

But despite his supposed platform of “Change, yes we can”, his victory nonetheless hinged squarely on race loyalty – black voters were thrilled to death with his candidacy – rather than any real transcendence to loftily look “beyond race”.

Even George Bush’s own Secretary of State Colin Powell – he’s Republican lah obviously – crossed the political line to endorse Obama. Well, yeah. They’re both black.

The Democrats in Amerika like to portray themselves as the most liberal of folks while at the same time branding their opponents the Republicans as kolot conservatives. Hah!

They’re merely like our Firsters who pose as liberals and scream “racist” at other people at the slightest pretext, provocation or when their airy-fairy dreamweaving is remotely challenged.

“Whatever happens on November 6th, America will emerge from this [2012] election an extremely divided country. At present nearly two in three whites will vote for Mr Romney: and four out of five non-whites will vote for Mr Obama. The ideological divide is wider than in any recent election.” — The Economist

She looks far from “an old hag”

Another case of cyber bullying

Black actress Stacey Dash (from Alicia Silverstone’s 1990s hit movie Clueless) recently came under venomous attack for her tweet supporting Mitt Romney — “Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @MittRomney @TeamRomney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney”

Among the avalanche of furious and nasty Twits who bashed Stacey, one even said: “Kill yourself, you old hag.”

In an ABC television programme discussing the vicious Twitter backlash, Whoopi Goldberg commented: “It’s because people have gotten so solidified in left and right that they’ve forgotten that there is a middle.”

Another TV personality Barbara Walters opined: “The reason she’s being attacked is because she is black, and the feeling is, black people should not be voting for Romney.” [Same lah, Chinese people cannot be anti-Guan Eng neh].

In an interview last week on CNN, cable TV showhost Piers Morgan asked Stacey: “What do you think has been the predominant factor in the fury?”

He noted that “there aren’t many actresses full stop who are Republicans”. Almost all of Hollywood (with perhaps the exceptions of Clint East and Bruce Willis) is Democrat.

Pier Morgan also noted that “some polls say there’s zero black vote” for Mitt Romney.

Responding to his question, Stacey says: “You know, I really don’t understand the fury. I don’t understand it. I don’t get it.”

The mayhem in Twitterverse that erupted all because a black woman wants to vote for the white guy reminds me of DAPsters.

They call you stupid (only uneducated Malaysians support BN, they claim), cheaply bought (with RM100 and a kain pelikat), immoral (supporter of corruption), venal and a host of other unsavoury attributes if – heaven forbid – you let on about your decision to vote BN.

Their behaviour is plain cyber thuggery.

The Twits had also screamed at Stacey Dash, “You’re CLUELESS.”

She shot back: “It’s my constitutional right to have my choice of who I want to vote for for president.”

Again, it reminds me of DAPsters who don’t recognise the right of other people to hold an opinion contrary to their own.

Do these DAPsters imagine that fencesitters, looking at DAPster behaviour, can ever be convinced that the Pakatan parties are truly democratic?


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

59 thoughts on “Cyber bullies tweeted: “Kill yourself, you old hag”

  1. I am one of those fence sitter and love every minutes seeing both divides.

    Frankly, I know which to chose and it is not really that difficult since we can see their behaviour nowaday almost real time..

    Anyway thank you so much for your thought & analysis so far, cause I hate reading hurtful comments in other blogs.

  2. Eastwood after the infamous chair episode talked about his message in an interview while promoting his new movie (guaranteed the blacks will not watch it). I posted some quotes in my FB, as usual silent on my pro-PR buddies side. Here it is:

    “My only message was that I just wanted people to take the idolization factor out of every contestant out there. Just look at the work and look at the background and make a judgment on that…. people don’t have to kiss up to politicians, no matter what party you’re in….Sometimes in America we get gaga, and we (embrace) the wrong values,”

    A republican, but he was against Nixon and the Bushes with regards to the wars.

    What’s your sense of the Indian vote swing getting the vibes from your friends? — Helen

  3. One thing though, most of my ex-colleagues (from media) have been quiet compared to the first few years. Only when BN makes really bad move that they bitch about it. My school buddies are very pro BN, but they are Johoreans.

    As for the relatives here, my wife’s side (Catholic), you knowlah. On my side, most seemed to be frustrated with PR, so there could be a swing.

    As for the lower income folks, they are very much in favour of what Najib is doing, but not sure if that translates to BN votes. It’s brand Najib all along, so there might be confusion. I don’t think there will be massive vote swing among Indians. We are emotional fellers, last minute anything can happen. Hindraf happened because of emotional domino effect.

    Thanks. Btw, Waythamoorthy talking to Anwar. — Helen

    1. Really Helen!!!, how does W talking to A is going to be an equation? Are you mocking him. Like what Rakesh says “last minute anything can happen. Hindraf happened because of emotional domino effect”. Such an easy deduction for the blinkered agenda we ran for individual self as and when it served us.

      Rakesh, you mean we all never had emotions all this while? Emotions unfortunately comes only into the foreplay until and when someone else does the dirty job otherwise it is lost in our own mist.

      Rakesh, last minute is not the solution, the solution is when we are able to understand and accept the truth and deal with it rather than defraying (in literary definition) it is like how Helen is is able to do to ensure truth survives in the course. We don’t need example but we need in action.

      1. Well, if you think that Hindraf can influence the Indian vote, then of course W talking to A (meaning PKR-Pakatan) is going to be an equation mah.

        1. Helen, why and how you enhance the impoverished? Their need is bread and butter not whether you have a lamborghini or live in Bangsar or why Hindraf neesd to talk to A. his is basic whether it concerns the Malaysian Indians or the rest. Basic humane need is not agenda driven but understanding the basic need.

          This HINDRAF has mastered it. They fight for the Malaysian Indians because a lamborghini or live in Bangsar does not any favor for Malaysians besides to do what is humane. As far as Malaysians are concerned, we need to educate what is it to be Malaysian besides driving the lamborghini or live in Bangsar matters. What is the problem if you engage to ensure those impoverished can be lifted even if you need to deal with the devil when the purported saints ignore you.

          1. Perhaps not a Lamborghini but the Malay blogosphere is currently abuzz with news of a first-term DAP MP ordering himself a Porsche.

            I’ve personally seen in KL a few DAP Aduns driving posh cars although I wouldn’t say for sure that they did not have these cars pre-March 2008.

            As for living in Bangsar, news has also come to me that some DAP politicians have relocated themselves to more upscale homes in the more expensive neighbourhoods, tho’ not necessarily Bangsar.

            Again as for W talking to A, a simple point of fact: If the two men come to an agreement on behalf of a r/s between Hindraf and Pakatan, wouldn’t that influence the direction of the Indian vote? True or false premise?

      2. MINY, We are all emotional beings. But Indians tend to eat too much spice. I am kidding. Just look at Taipusam, all those drumming and chanting can quickly turn a mild-mannered Indian Clark Kent into superKaali.

        1. Rakesh, anglophile needs Clark Kent to be Superman, Iron Man, Spider Man, X Men, Captain Marvel etc so what if the Indians need to have a Super Kaali? Does this make them any lesser because it is okay for how it is popularized? I am confused. Maybe the Indians are backward in their approach but nevertheless it is the same thing. Don’t you think so?

          1. Agree. Superman himself was a Christ-like figure. This is where some politicians come in and replace the fantasy-superhero-superpower figures.

            But Indians tend to go overboard, even worshipping regular human beings. They put the same garland they put on their dieties on politicians and movie stars. They even do actual (this is back in India) prayer rituals on huge cutouts of movie stars. Anwar cashed on this back then.

            Anyway, we are digressing. Sorry about that.

  4. Helen,

    You have given this people a perfect description and explanation for the lies and hypocrisy. Just wonder how much lower this Delusion of Grandeur Party — Msia version of GOP — would go.

    1. They just like DAPsters who only know how to make personal attacks saying someone is fat, ugly, bitch, etc.

      1. helen,

        things they said about you…, won’t change anything if you have a strong stance. your own league of supporters behind you. trust me you are not alone.

        wise people said, “manusia hanya mampu memenjara tubuh, tapi takkan mampu memenjara pemikiran manusia lain”

        the DAPster lickers call us helen fanboys. yea, its true, so what?

        1. Heh Heh !!! i agree with this as long you are faithful for the truth & reality for the deprived ones.

  5. My dear Helen, all that glitters is not gold. True or false premise is a perception minus the truth and reality. True and false is within our own heart when it is not self driven. True and false becomes interchangeable when we decide to see it in our own perspective rather than what benefit it holds for the community. How this works is time tested when we as a community are ready to deal with it. I wish life was so straight forward unwavering without the maneuvering to appease everyone for the their own individual needs.

  6. Helen, it is my opinion that you are clueless about american culture. I lived in the US for nearly a decade, and i have several relatives (malays) who are US citizens. So i think i am qualified to say that you are off-the-mark in comparing US democrats to DAPsters.

    The whole ugly incident surrounding stacey dash was her way to gain media attention. It was a publicity stunt. She basically solicited a nasty response on the internet from anonymous people, who could have been republicans disguised as democrats.

    In cases where democratic linked organizations were found to be responsible for nasty tweets, i understand there were apologies made to Stacey– something you won’t see coming from any DAP or MCA linked organization (think Star) See–

    Obama doesnt need to apologize to Stacey because he is not directly or indirectly responsible for those anonymous hordes of cyber bullies, unlike LGE who is proven to be linked to the rude DAPsters on the internet. LGE himself is gangster-like and recalcitrant. Obama has thus far maintained a respected presidential persona.

    You must also undestand, stacey’s tweet undermines the black cause. They are still an economically disenfranchised minority. This is unlike the chinese minority in malaysia who NOT disenfranchised economically. In fact the situation among the chinese in malaysia is quite the opposite.

    There are many other aspects to your comparison between DAPsters and democrats that makes it wrong, but i will concede that in terms of sheer emotions, the chinese DAPsters are the same as the US blacks.

  7. Truth must be seen in an entirety. Giving half-truth, quarter-truth can be misleading!

    “Barack Obama won the American presidency in 2008 by securing fully 96 percent of the black votes”

    Now what does the above statement imply, eventhough its the truth -that blacks vote were very significant in deciding Obama’s victory.

    Now what is the info that Helen selective omitted from the above article – Blacks constitute only 13% of the total voters. Whites constitute 74% , out of which 43% voted for Obama and 53% for Mcain.

    Now you see, the whites and the rest of the voters( asian, hispanic- 13%) also gave significant support to Obama.

    1. Hullo, you already concede that the 96% black statistic is the truth. We’re talking about Race in this posting since the topic is Stacey Dash’s ordeal.

      Do you insist that I must spell out every single segment of the American electorate favouring Obama such as liberal West Coasters (Los Angeles, ‘Frisco), liberal East Coasters (Nu Yorkers, Manhattan-ites), gays, greens, college towners, Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, etc?

      Isn’t black attitude the focus of the story? Barbara Walters doesn’t think Stacey would have suffered the backlash if she were white.

      So 43% white votes went to Obama, 55% to McCain (you downgrade to 53% but I’ll allow that the figures might vary slightly coming from different pollsters).

      Nonetheless a 12% difference is still a wide margin and the difference of 92% (96% black votes to Obama, say the remaining 4% to McCain) is whopping!

      See 2008 electoral college results map: Red Republican, Blue Democrat


      1. Even if you talk of RACE the African Americans are more than justified to vote democrat, as they have HISTORICALLY! The republicans may have emancipated the slaves but todays repubs are a FAR cry from the repubs of old. The campaign promises of Obama did address and appeal to the African americans because those promises were more realistic than those of his opponent Mccain.

        Furthermore, today’s mexican-americans in the traditinally Republican state of Arizona overwhelmingly ( i hear 77%) support Obama. How would you explain that? Is it race? No it is about issues. Obama has opted to help immigrants while Romney has pushed for illegal immigrants to ‘self deport’.

        I still believe despite the caricatures made about the american political process it is still achieving some democratic progress. Malaysians are far from being as matured as the average American electorate. Malaysians are at the level of the fringe Tea party members.

        1. African Americans being historically Democrats as it may be, let’s for the sake of argument say that it was Al Gore who contested in 2008. Still, do you think Al would have gotten 96% of the black votes?

          1. See my response below. It may still be very high due to the historical trend. It may even be in the high 80%’s or low 90’s%. But you are certainly making up a hypothetical situation here.

            This reminds me of a fight i had with an indian expat who thinks that hitler would have killed indians if germany colonised India– he used a stereotypically pointless argumentation technique of making up theoretical circumstances neither of us could prove or disprove. It’s like saying who would win in a fight– spiderman or batman?

            You should have watched piece about black Mormons. That was interesting. There were some in the group who supported Romney and the republican cause.

          2. OK, let’s look at African Americans’ voting trend from 1936 till 2004.

            From the graph, it does show that African American’s voting trend lean towards Democrats all these years, even way back to 1936.

            Nevertheless, I still agree with Helen that, African American’s overwhelming support for Obama was really unprecedented for Democrats and it was partly due to Obama’s skin color. I think most African Americans somehow still harbor a sense of bitterness due to their past history (slavery, civil movement) and poverty rate among African Americans is also the highest in US (followed by Hispanics). And by endorsing Obama as president, that somehow gave them a sense of confidence and pride. To them, Obama symbolizes black progress.

            1. The American is only faced with the choice of either voting A or B, Republican or Democrat. Like you say, every 4 years, the black American goes to the polling booth and casts his ballot either for the Republican or the Democratic candidate.

              From 1936 till 2004, it’s routine with a lean towards Democrats, since its an either-or option. But in 2008, they had Obama. How exciting!

          3. Face-palm.

   you really are living up to your moniker in your way of misinterpreting numbers with such wanton disregard for facts and logic.

            You are making assumptions about the black mindset. How many blacks do you even know? I am in the mid east and I have befriended black americans here.

            The ones i know now are not admitting that they vote Obama based on his skin color. In fact, most know to KEEP THEIR VOTES SECRET. A critical part of most democracies is about secrecy of ballots, so that influence can’t be made outside due voting booth using intimidation.

            Only those hiphop singers and black actors publicly use skin color to make their case for voting Obama. These are the same people who peddle mindless mass media to black youth so they could be suppressed intellectually.

            That said, if I were to say that Chinese people vote LGE because they are chinese, I know I am on shaky ground because I don’t have evidence. Also to suggest so would mean that I am a making racial (or racist, as some may deem it) assertion, at which point it would be a DAPster-like devolution into character assassination.

            And, why would you think that blacks think the civil rights movement has caused bitterness? They are proud of that period of their history.

            And Helen, please take a US Civics class. There are more than 2 candidates on the ballot in most states:


            It’s not a binary option. Although I did explain to you most democracies do end up being ‘either-or’ due to allegiances made, you have to realize that 3rd parties can emerge. I was in the States when Ross Perot emerged as a serious contender.

            However, Perot didn’t do favors for the incumbent Bush (the first one) because he split the Republican voter base, resulting in an landslide win for Clinton

            And one more thing kids, correlation does not mean causation.

            1. Oh puh-leez lah. You’re the one pounding to death the point that the blacks historically just lurrrve the Democratic party and that Perot had split the Republican votes.

              We’re talking about how the black American votes, remember? i.e. the real options they pick from, notwithstanding that the libertarian, green or whatever minnow candidate is available as the ‘Third Force’.

              Bill Clinton: 370 electoral college votes
              George Bush Sr: 168 votes
              Ross Perot: 0 votes

              Bill Clinton: 379 electoral college votes
              Bob Dole: 159 votes
              Ross Perot: 0 votes

              Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? How real contenders in the race are they?

            2. My above reply regardless, I admit that my phrasing was not accurate when I wrote that the American is only faced with the choice of either voting A or B, Republican or Democrat.

              “Realistic choice” of A and B would have been better put. I stand corrected.

          4. Don’t get me started with the electoral college system. That’s a part of the US system that needs changing. I was looking at the popular vote. Bush senior’s family accused Perot of sabotaging his presidential campaign.

            I didn’t make this blog entry. You did. And you have been trying to defend it this whole day, unsuccessfully I might add.

            Ron Paul is with the republican party btw.

            I think you should look at the behavior of the GOP — how they are the hypocrites and liars in run up to the US presidential election. They are the hidden racists (ala DAP).

            Had you compared the GOP with DAP, i would have wholeheartedly followed your lead.

            1. I’m flattered that you gave over “this whole day” to scribbling in my blog. I’m also aware that it’s your hobby and favourite pastime to try to trip me up :D

              All of your input today is appreciated. You brought up reasonable points which have been educational. Am okay with you saying Perot’s popular vote is not to be lightly dismissed (in fact, I anticipated that you might counter with exactly it which is only logic).

  8. OB, you say

    “Helen, it is my opinion that you are clueless about american culture. I lived in the US for nearly a decade, and i have several relatives (malays) who are US citizens. So i think i am qualified to say that you are off-the-mark in comparing US democrats to DAPsters.”

    Seriously are you trying to qualify yourself by asserting the above. Boy or boy are for real or what? It is not the quantity but the quality and it does not matter even if Timbuktu is used as an example. Take it from me who have lived in US over a decade and constantly deal with the humane & material enrichment aspect of irrespective whether they are from rest of the world or Malays in US.

    Do forgive me as you are the intellectual one as oppose to people like me, but you can’t grind a bone to make your bread with such assertion if it fails to see the bigger picture that Helen is trying to provide us.

    1. Did you or any of your family vote in the US elections? Mine did. They have a strong stake in the US election and by extension I do, too. Somehow i dont think you have any stake in the elections. Your number of years speaks of nothing, and the fact you offer no facts related to the demographics or political climate in the States shows you are just as clueless as Helen, if not more.

      1. There you are. Like to be right as usual by default. As you say ” Somehow i don’t think you have any stake in the elections”. Sure I don’t because I still hold a Malaysian passport unless you tell me that you have relinquished your Malaysian passport so that you are able to vote in US. My number of years means nothing but I don’t forgo my right as a Malaysian unlike you who claim to have a stake by your ability to vote in US. Aren’t we back to square one ? Friend I am not your enemy, you are your own enemy.

        1. Pithy aphorisms wont get you anywhere buddy. ‘You are your own enemy’ wtf does that even have to do with what we are discussing here?

          There is heavy tendency for malaysians to support their party regardless of performance or veracity of the point being discussed. Malaysians apparently enjoy being ideologues.

          The democrats in the US have shown they are willing to criticise the Prez when needed. There is no liberal US media outlet that spins and blindly supports the democraric party like Fox news does for the Republican party.

          You want to blindly support your Helen, then so be it. She may be right on a lot of things but i reserve my right to call her out when she is not correct.

        2. What exactly is the problem here? OB wanted to share with Helen what he believes is the reality of the situation, which he has reason to believe that Helen is not aware of.

          He qualifies his comment with his experience. I think he’s got good points, and all of us could learn something from it. So what’s the problem?

          You say you are just as qualified, because somehow you are able to understand the Americans better, well that’s your opinion. It doesn’t diminish anything what OB said.

          By the way, please understand what a “stakeholder” means. It doesn’t necessarily mean that OB wants to give up his passport. It means he has an interest in what happens in the USA, via his family. Seriously, reach for a dictionary.

          And what’s with “There you are. Like to be right as usual by default.”?

          Which human being always likes to be wrong? Please educate me. This should be interesting.

  9. Helen, the political climate in US and Malaysia is totally different. In US if you have any ‘scandals; lingering over your head, your political career will go down the drain. But here in Malaysia, the voters still sent ‘tainted’ politicians to Parliament, THis applies to both in the Govt and Opposition.

    Do you think 96% of Black will support Obama if he has any scandals/black record? I think the percentage will be definitely much lower.

    1. Why are you diverting the topic?

      I inferred that the blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama b’cos of his skin color.

      Why drag scandals into the picture? Your input only serves to detract and doesn’t add to the discussion of whether the 96% would have been equally ecstatic if he had been the color purple.

      1. One more point I need to make.

        If you see the wikipedia page for the US democratic party, it indicates that the black American community has *historically* voted democrat since the time of FDR. This support ranges from 85% to 95% of the black electorate.

        So assuming a low point of 85% during a white democratic presidency, the swing to 95% during Obama’s election shows that you can only infer a 10% change was influenced by race. Otherwise the support for Democrats by blacks is largely attributable to other factors, namely issues.

        Using this sort metric and method of looking at voting patterns, don’t you think then the Malaysian Chinese are more likely to choose based on RACE alone, than the black american community? After all, what issues does DAP fight for that the Chinese Malaysian so favor them over MCA/BN?

        1. Black party identification with Dems was only 74% in 2004 (John Kerry). So the Obama factor caused a swing of 22%.

          I think 22% is huge, don’t you?

            1. Hullo! I’m willing to accept your JK figure just as in previous comment with Scotty I allowed that different pollsters might give varying results.

              You, however, have no cause to simply make the accusation that I cooked up the 74% number. Here’s the graph.

          1. Who is to say that white people aren’t voting for Romney because he is white? Some whites admit that too.

            See this:

            1. Doubtless. But there is no novelty factor about a white candidate.

              There was so much hype about the black candidate on account that never before.


              I had already mentioned in my posting above quoting The Economist that 2 out of 3 whites would vote Romney and 4 out of 5 non-whites would vote Obama. Which is the whole point — that we are going to vote by race, despite the DAP’s avowal that their Hannah horde are colour blind.

              I’ve been consistently pointing this out about the DAP and you’re carting coal to Newcastle.

          2. That graph shows black party identification, not the actual percentage of black that voted Kerry.

            Let’s not descend to the DAPster level of playing with stats.

            1. Look at my earlier comment properly. I had said “Black party identification with Dems” b’cos that’s what the graph was titled. So what’s your problem?

          3. Your Economist figure is just that –a figure. One can’t infer much from that one stat. It’s an interesting stat nonetheless, but it doesn’t prove empirically that race is the primary issue in the US.

            Race may be a larger issue in Malaysia, even if they claim it not to be. So, yes in that sense the DAPsters are (and have historically) played false with the facts.

            1. Hullo again. You are the one who linked the photo inferring white people vote white Romney.

              I never made a claim that race will be the “primary” issue in the US Nov election.

              For the purpose of my discussion, I would point out (and you can’t dispute) that Obama getting the record 96% of the black votes was not a feat that was matched by Kerry, McCain or Gore.

          4. My problem is that you are trying to tie party identification with actual voting stats. This is flawed. I know of democrats who voted republican and vice versa.

            1. You have tied your percentages to the same, saying that “historically” (which you put in capital letters and attached exclamation mark) blacks have leaned to the Democratic party.

          5. not sure what is the argument here, there are people that vote solely on race and there are people that vote solely on issue, and evidently,there are also people that vote after think over both race and issue,

            obama is the first from minority that contest for president, so logically there is more minority that give their vote to him, but cant tell the same this round. i also believe there are less and less chinese that vote base on race, same to malay, indian and other malaysian.

            ps/ interesting topic n debate after a long while.

          6. HY, that’s where you were wrong. There was another US president from a minority. JFK was the first catholic President. Catholicism is a minority religion in the US.

            However, can I make the claim that catholics in the 60’s voted for JFK simply because he was catholic?

            IT is a STRETCH.

            Helen is trying to make that connection (inference, as she used word) that blacks in US “overwhelmingly voted for Obama b’cos of his skin color.”

            She would have been more accurate in saying that blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama because he is DEMOCRAT, he only an additional ~10-11 percent extra because he is black. Thus making race is MINOR inferential factor among blacks. They would have voted for democrat even if the candidate was Hillary Clinton.

            Compare that to Malaysia, where DAPsters are trying to diminish the race factor (Helen’s original point and one of her blog’s main theme, which is not lost upon me).

            1. Perhaps you could provide us some relevant literature (article urls) wrt to Catholic as well as Protestant Christian sentiments to Catholic politicians in the 1960s and how far it counted (or was inconsequential) to public acceptance of JFK.

  10. Herman Cain was a republican presidential candidate. He is 100% black not 50% black like Obama.

    If race was the main factor for choosing a candidate then the blacks of the US should have switched to support Herman Cain. But they didn’t.

    Herman cain didn’t get past the Republican Primary Race.

    It is my belief that in Malaysia, RACE is becoming MORE of a factor in spite of those DAPsters who claim otherwise.

    I find that in my own family, those who supported the opposition (one I know even voted DAP, because there was no malay candidate in their area) before are now considering against voting for the opposition in GE13. They claim it is because of the noise coming from the chinese community. Maybe they are making the mistake of generalising the entire chinese community based on a noisy few. But who is to say they are wrong?

    Of course, that is ONLY an opinion/observation. I don’t have figures or polls. So I may be wrong!

    1. You can’t be serious. Herman Cain dropped out early in the Republican race after a string of sexual harassment claims against him. Even his election platform was flashy and outlandish.

      Pls define the nature of “the noise” coming from the Chinese community that will flip your family’s vote — we (me & other readers) are curious.

    2. And there you have just proved Scotty’s point about how a tainted character would affect voter preference in the US.

      Even before the affair allegations, he was not widely supportd by the blacks. Tea party supporters used him to try to break down the impression they are a white dominated party. Michael steele, another formerly prominent black republican has also demonstrated views against party lines because he knows repub party line is quite anti minority.

      As for my family, the noise from lynas and rapid issues. and upcoming petronas project has disappointed lots.. Most protestors are you know who…

      1. Yea, isnt it funny that an environmental issue can be twisted into a racial issue?

        The biggest joke? Those who will profit from Lynas aren’t even Malay. They will be the Australians!

        And who is behind Rapid? Taiwanese CHINESE.

Comments are closed.