'Crats poised to rob Obama

Desh said:
Most 'Licans cant seem to ever answer this question I keep asking without outing their true feelings about people of color.

I have yet to get one answer on this subject that wasnt racist. Most just never answer it.
Click to expand...

That in itself is a cause for celebration my sister.

Racism has correctly been equated with evil .. make that ignorant evil. Now even the right will shout "racism" in an attempt to denigrate someone or something. They can't answer your questions because there is no sane answer other than their "feelings" and fears. All the made-up racist beliefs have been proven to be designed only for the truly ignorant .. but that's not just true of racism, but also sexism and homophobia.

Somehow we figured out that blacks don't have tails .. while science figured out that all humans are genetically African.

Barack Obama and countless other successful blacks doesn't really help the "inferior" argument.

Hell, somehow we've even figured out that blacks can play quarterback.

Celebrate this moment in time .. racism, and those who hold those beliefs, have been minimalized and reduced to living in the closet .. they same one gays have come out of.

:)

SWEET
 
Desh said:
Most 'Licans cant seem to ever answer this question I keep asking without outing their true feelings about people of color.

I have yet to get one answer on this subject that wasnt racist. Most just never answer it.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you weren't so offensive about it, most would answer. Nor do I believe for one second you are being truthful about your experiences.

And who exactly do you think I am racist against? Blacks, like my mother's mother? Native Americans like my other grandmother or my mother's dad? Or maybe I don't like whites - except my dad's dad is white.

Give it a break. You attack is the typical "if you don't agree with our policies on racism, you are a racist" bullshit.
 
Good Luck said:
Maybe if you weren't so offensive about it, most would answer. Nor do I believe for one second you are being truthful about your experiences.

And who exactly do you think I am racist against? Blacks, like my mother's mother? Native Americans like my other grandmother or my mother's dad? Or maybe I don't like whites - except my dad's dad is white.

Give it a break. You attack is the typical "if you don't agree with our policies on racism, you are a racist" bullshit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you simply hate yourself .. hate what you are. The psychoanalysis that determines your particular reason for your beliefs is completely seperate from the falsehood of what you say.

There are very specific, non-confrontational questions that prove the untruth of what you say .. but you run screaming away from those.

The Republican Party, not just a few republicans, actively courted racists in the south and aligned themselves with dixiecrats, an alliance that still exists to this day.

How confrontational is that?

You scream because you have no argument.
 
Good Luck said:
Maybe if you weren't so offensive about it, most would answer. Nor do I believe for one second you are being truthful about your experiences.

And who exactly do you think I am racist against? Blacks, like my mother's mother? Native Americans like my other grandmother or my mother's dad? Or maybe I don't like whites - except my dad's dad is white.

Give it a break. You attack is the typical "if you don't agree with our policies on racism, you are a racist" bullshit.
Click to expand...


I never said you were a racist in this thread.

I said your heritage does not make you immune.

Did you answer my question yet?

I called the R's 'Licans in response to "crats". Why did the "crats " thing not bother you?

I have been asking this question for weeks now and no will answer it plainly.
 
I'll settle this.

The southern strategy is despicable in that it does capitalize on existing racism.

Democrats keeping blacks ghetto-ized and dependant with handout programs which discourage personal initiative is MORE despicable.
 
blackascoal said:
Perhaps you simply hate yourself .. hate what you are. The psychoanalysis that determines your particular reason for your beliefs is completely seperate from the falsehood of what you say.

There are very specific, non-confrontational questions that prove the untruth of what you say .. but you run screaming away from those.

The Republican Party, not just a few republicans, actively courted racists in the south and aligned themselves with dixiecrats, an alliance that still exists to this day.

How confrontational is that?

You scream because you have no argument.
Click to expand...
In the first place, both your and Desh's simplistic psychobabble bullshit labeled me as racist without once actually asking me. You label me, then defy me to deny it. that is not "asking" that is confrontational. If someone were to label you racist, and challenge you to deny it you would also consider it confrontational. But this is quite obviously your style of what you laughingly call debate. Can't attack the argument (except to claim the facts do not support it without showing where) so you attack the person making the claims with bullshit accusations and braindead psychobabble you got out of some Reader's Digest article.

Show me where I argued against or tried to deny the fact that the republican party courted (mostly southern) white racists. Show me ONE place I argued against that. Just ONE. Can you? Show it to me. Because I can certainly point out the places where I ACKNOWLEDGED the Southern Strategy and how it appears to minorities.

Try again. Your arguments continue to be strawman. Your "non-confrontational questions" about my attitudes toward race and myself are deliberately offensive. In short, it is YOU who have no argument.
 
Desh said:
I never said you were a racist in this thread.

I said your heritage does not make you immune.

Did you answer my question yet?

I called the R's 'Licans in response to "crats". Why did the "crats " thing not bother you?

I have been asking this question for weeks now and no will answer it plainly.
Click to expand...
And exactly what does saying I am "not immune" to racism imply? Should I point out to you that you are not immune to being racist either? If, in a different thread, someone else were to tell you "you are not immune from being racist" as a defense against what you say about racism, how would YOU take it? You full and well know what you meant to imply by that statement, and so will anyone who reads it. Your "I didn't say that" innocence does not wash.

Show me where I have called the democrats "'crats". Why should I have anything to respond to your challenge about that particular method of shortening the name of democrats when I have not done so? Or are you going to claim that because I did not loudly scream from the tops of the mountains the (apparent) insulting nature of calling democrats "'crats", then it implies I approve?

And I have seen you call republicans far worse than a shortened version of their title. Why is it fair play from you, but not from them? Or is it two wrongs make for justice?
 
AssHatZombie said:
I'll settle this.

The southern strategy is despicable in that it does capitalize on existing racism.

Democrats keeping blacks ghetto-ized and dependant with handout programs which discourage personal initiative is MORE despicable.
Click to expand...
A fairly comprehensive abridgment of what I have been saying, except I would not have used the adverb "more".

Be prepared to be labeled a self-hating, republican racist.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I'll settle this.

The southern strategy is despicable in that it does capitalize on existing racism.

Democrats keeping blacks ghetto-ized and dependant with handout programs which discourage personal initiative is MORE despicable.
Click to expand...

Blacks are not "ghetto-ized" .. that's a characterization left over from your days on the far right .. and democrats havem't made us anything no more than the Republican Party has made whites "trailer-ized" and dependant on welfare, as they are the largest recipeient of, or kept them dependant on tax cuts .. even in a time of war.

Again, I'll give you the math ... blacks have been relatively free for 42 years out of 400 years of existence in America. Surely you're smart enough to recognize the impact that has on any society or group of oppressed people.

In fact, I'm quite proud of what we've been able to accomplish in a mere 42 years against incredible odds and oppression.
 
Good Luck said:
I (usually) do not bother answering you because you are closed minded, far too likely to abandon an issue to attack personality, and for someone accusing another of being bitter and angry, shows a lot of anger and bitterness himself.

No, I am not bitter toward NA's for the way they treated me when I was a child living on the reservation. Nor am I bitter toward blacks, as my exposure to their anti-NA sentiment was minimal.

I spent 40 years in an organization that actively discourages racism. Sure, when I first joined the anti-racism policy was minimally (if at all) enforced. But by the mid 70s it was actively enforced and has been since. If a person continually shows racist attitudes and refuses to control their remarks or actions, they are discharged.

I have explained many times what I see in the way the democratic party treats its assistance programs. And these assistance programs are NOT limited to race based programs. The programs are TRAPS. People get into the assistance trap and it is very difficult to get out of it because they way they are designed the people lose more trying to help themselves than if they just keep their efforts to a minimum.

Of course not ALL programs work that way. But there are enough of them that have been going on long enough I cannot imagine the PTBs being unaware of their long term effect.

The voters are not "stupid" for voting for the party that supports such programs. Nor have I even said they are stupid, nor in any way implied they are stupid. This is a textbook example of the strawman argument. The people have a choice between a political party that either does something direct and visible for their problems - even if it is far less than perfect, or a political party that does little to nothing direct and visible for their problems. It does not matter whether the program is to address racist problems or economic problems. The democratic party supports policies which result in direct and visible assistance, and the republican party, for the most part, does not. Of COURSE the people who benefit from the democratic programs are going to vote primarily democratic. That is not stupid, it is smart.

And many of the people DO recognize the problems with the way assistance programs are designed. Do you think no one, or very few people who are on assistance complain about the way the programs are designed? Do you think the average person, when finding out if they work a little too much they lose more assistance than the additional work makes up for, just accepts the situation? But those who do complain are most likely told to "shut their (whatever derogatory adjective fits best) mouths.

What is stupid is those who support a dichotomous view between the political parties. We even see it here on political BBS. The claims that the democratic party cares and the republican party are evil racist elitists. Nor is this attitude limited to democrats. Republicans, too, have their dichotomous attitudes. That simplistic dichotomy is not only stupid, but a big source of the divisiveness we have in modern politics.

Both PARTIES are about political power and nothing else. I am not talking about the people who support the parties but rather the people who run the parties and seek political office through the parties. But when push comes to shove, any active politician seeking office is NOT doing so out of some altruistic motivations to make the world better. They seek office for political power, and they use which ever political philosophy and support whatever political policies they think will keep them in power the longest.
Click to expand...

Nor am I bitter toward blacks, as my exposure to their anti-NA sentiment was minimal.

"Their" anti-Native-American sentiment"

African-Americans are not anti-Native American. You project your own personal issues on an entire people without foundation .. then claim that's not racist. You've done that quite a bit in your posts. I've lived and worked in Seattle where there is a large Native American population, and I've attended Pow-Wow's many times .. and I've never seen anti-Native American behavior from blacks and I've never seen anti-black behavior from Natrive Americans.

In fact, the only real problems I have ever encountered in my many years of interacting with both groups has been from those Native Americans who insist on blood identification and tribal membership .. but even that has been minimal and had more to do with resources and assets than racism.

Additionally, seemingly unbeknowst to you, there are lots of black and Native American groups and organizations, some of which I belong to or have worked with, that have been working for the rights of both groups for a long time. Such as ..

The Weyanoke Association
Mission: The Weyanoke Association promotes research in, and the sharing of, Black (African and American African) and Red (Native American or Indian) history and culture, and the places where they intersect.
http://www.weyanoke.org/mission.html

Black Native American Association
http://www.bnaa.org/

The Shundahai Network
http://www.shundahai.org/

There are hundreds if not thousands of similar organizations that demonstrate the affinity between the groups that has always existed. It wouldn't matter if you were the love-child of Geronimo and Rosa Parks, you don't know what you're talking about. Blacks are not anti-Native American and we share an affinity, bloodline, and history that is unique in America.

Perhaps you should acquaint your self with the Black Fives ...

Native Americans had always been popular in the black community. So popular, that one all-black sports organization in Brooklyn named itself the Indian Laetitia Athletic Club, and another team in Washington, D.C. called themselves the Hiawatha Cardinals.

I mention this because any research on Native Americans in basketball will lead to an organization known as Native American Basketball (N.A.B.), a worthy organization whose goal is to encourage participation and promotion of basketball talent among tribal nations.
http://www.blackfivesblog.com/?p=387

As someone who has worked to foster greater relationships between the groups I most certainly take offense to your mis-characterizations of black people. It's not the first time, and I suspect it won't be the last that you mis-characterize an entire group of people based on your own sad experiences.

Someone in the Clinton campaign called your a "nigger" .. and you did what?

It doesn't appear that you did anything but think the entire Democratic Party was responsible for his racism. Who was responsible for your own inability to respond?

You constantly talk about how democrats "trapped" minorities and how they don't promote policies or legislation that actually moves people from poverty .. then what is affirmative action? Although AA has also helped white women it most certainly opened doors for blacks that were previously closed and has moved many people from poverty. Did republicans support AA .. answer, HELL TO THE NO .. they've been against it because it worked.

Don't tell me you're against AA .. although I suspect that you are.

AND there are many many other programs that democrats have proposed that assist minorities with quality of life issues, healthcare, education, business development, and employment.

These programs, which are quite often opposed by the Republican Party, constitute offering real opportunity, not just "dependance."

Feel free to hate me as much as you possibly can, but I will not allow your mischaracterizations to go unanswered.
 
Last edited:
I am more than aware of the relationship between blacks and Native Americans. First of all, you'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that because there are joint black-NA organizations that means there are no blacks who are racist against NAs for beeing "tto white". Second, I also know that when push comes to shove, blacks are more than happy to garner support from NAs on black centric issues, but not quite so willing to return support on NA centric issues.

"Congressional Black Caucus hosts rally against Cherokee Nation"
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...kee+freedmen,+black&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

"Indian Voters Send Obama And Black Caucus Message: Get Off Our Back!"
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/indi...d-black-caucus-message-get-our-back-editorial

From "It was only 80 years ago that Indians won the right to vote..."
"In addition to voting as a block, American Indians predominantly vote Democrat, said Bill, the director of the state Democrats Indian voting campaign. Rod Van Mechelen of Conservative American Indian Republicans agreed with Bill's assessment — "Indian Country is by and large owned by the Democrats," he said. "But it might not stay that way." Van Mechelen, a member of the Cowlitz Tribal Council and Olympia resident, said he believes most American Indians "are socially conservative people" who are ready to "reclaim our conservative roots" and vote Republican."
http://www.aaanativearts.com/article885.html

There are all kinds of athletic clubs, organizations and teams that name themselves after NA tribes and cultural icons. Blacks most certainly do not have a patent on that little phenomenon. Have you heard what a significant number of NAs think about that? I personally have no problem with most of those, but that does not mean your organizations action are anything "pro" Native American. (Washington “Red Skins” and Cleveland “Indians” I do object to.)

Affirmative Action has a lot of good stuff going for it, but also (especially in the early going) some bad things against it. The way AA was implemented in many cases was ill conceived, and did more harm than good in the long run. I fully agree with those aspects of AA that reinforce anti-discrimination laws in employment, entrance to higher education, etc. I do not support those aspects of AA (many of which have been - thankfully - eliminated) which gave preference to minorities. Any preference based on race is practicing racism, regardless which race it is aimed at. I am against ALL types of racism. Approving of racism just because it is in favor of a minority group rather than against a minority group is no better than racism in favor of a majority group. Racism is divisive, hurtful, and antithetical to the principles of this society no matter who is the victim or who is the beneficiary.

But your bringing up AA is yet another example of purposely (unless you do have a reading comprehension problem) misrepresenting my argument. At no time have I ever claimed the democratic party has done NOTHING to advance the causes of minorites.

What I DID say in a large number of their assistance programs are traps, that their voting record on civil rights legislation is nothing to be overly proud of, and that IMO, much of their actions are more aimed at keeping those in poverty and those of minority factions as a solid voting block than they are interested in actually helping them out.

I also very carefully pointed out I am talking about the PTBs of the democratic party, whose primary focus IS keeping the democratic party in power; and it is NOT aimed at (most) democratic candidates, nor, especially, is that belief aimed at individual democrats.


As for my experiences with officials of the democratic party, I distinctly indicated that the run in with Mr. John Crumpy was NOT the only instance of being shown an intolerance for viewpoints not lock-in-step with the democratic platform. The fact that none of the other 23 people present said diddly about the way I was treated, with the exception of a few nods of agreement when it was said, did little to help me believe his was an isolated attitude.

As for what I did - if you’d paid any attention to what I said - is continue to work for the democratic party until the next presidential election. That’s 4 more years of putting up with the very same kind of crap you and Desh have been tossing my direction this entire debate. Then when Mr. Crumpy told me, literally, that my help was no longer welcome, (ie: stay home unless we call you) is when I decided that supporting a political party in which opposing opinion on any matter was getting less and less acceptable was not a party I could support any longer.

And let’s not forget YOU yourself called me racist because you disagreed with what I had to say about the long term results of democratic programs on minorities and poor. Nor was the the first nor last time when you diverted from discussing the issue to take a swipe at my personality. So don’t give me your “mis-characterizations” bullshit when you have been a participant in what I supposedly “mis-characterize.”
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
Blacks are not "ghetto-ized" .. that's a characterization left over from your days on the far right .. and democrats havem't made us anything no more than the Republican Party has made whites "trailer-ized" and dependant on welfare, as they are the largest recipeient of, or kept them dependant on tax cuts .. even in a time of war.

Again, I'll give you the math ... blacks have been relatively free for 42 years out of 400 years of existence in America. Surely you're smart enough to recognize the impact that has on any society or group of oppressed people.

In fact, I'm quite proud of what we've been able to accomplish in a mere 42 years against incredible odds and oppression.
Click to expand...

BAC. The "hood" exists. Sorry. And there are Boyz n it.
 
Are all libs liars, or are all liars libs?

It’s intellectually and historically dishonest to label the Republican Party as racist.

From it's inception in July, 1854, the Republican Party has at it's central core the unshakeable belief that the Democrat-devised oppression of minorities must be opposed.

The GOP was formed by former members of the Whig party, not the Democrat-Republicans, as a certain lying liberal wants you to believe.

The Whigs, to continue our history leson, were formed in 1834 to oppose the racist, murdering First 'Crat President, Andy Jackson, a corrupt slaveowner and oppressor of Native Americans who introduced the Jackass Party's execrable practice of political patronage - which they still use today.

Unrepentant racist KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd (D-WV), the most senior member of the Jackass Party, set a record for Senate filibusters while trying to defeat the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Just as it was Republicans who freed the slaves, Republicans broke the Dem chokehold on blacks’ voting rights and allowed African-Americans to vote like the rest of us. That was not quite 50 years ago.

What about the “southern strategy”?

Jimmy "I Never Met a Terrorist I Didn't Like" Carter and BJ Clinton both won the White House by landslide southern votes.

Yasser's Number One Fan (Carter) took every southern state except Virginia six years after the so-called "southern strategy" was hatched in the devious minds of 'Crat apologists.

Louisiana had Democratic Senators from Reconstruction until 2005.

Georgia didn’t elect a Republican governor until 2002.

Florida didn’t elect a Republican governor and Republican-majority legislature until the early 2000s.

"But what about the Dixiecrats?", whine the shrill, shrieking shills of the racist Jackass Party.

35 Democrats formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, which became popularly known as the Dixiecrats.

Their campaign slogan was “Segregation Forever!”

Their 'party' folded it's racist tent after losing the 1948 election.

Despite the oft-repeated canard that the racists joined the GOP, the historical record tells a different story.

It's a curious fact that only three Dixiecrats became Republicans, after the GOP pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Strom Thurmond (in 1964), Jesse Helms (in 1970) and Phil Gramm (in 1983).

The rest of the so-called Dixiecrats returned to the racist party that understood their hatred of African-Americans and encouraged the lynch-mobs of the KKK.

"But that was so long ago", wail the waffling weasels of the Jackass Party.

So, what have the self-proclaimed saviors of Black America done recently?

Hmmmmm...they're plotting - right now - to deny their party's candidacy to a black man, despite the fact that he has the majority of the popular vote and leads in delegate counts and fundraising.
 
"Hmmmmm...they're plotting - right now - to deny their party's candidacy to a black man, despite the fact that he has the majority of the popular vote and leads in delegate counts and fundraising."

Where are they plotting? Since the 1st Super Tuesday, Obama has won more superdelegates, and interviews with undecided superdelegates as well as party insiders all indicate that most are headed his way when all is said & done.

Where is this insidious plot you refer to? Who is leading it?
 
Onceler said:
"Hmmmmm...they're plotting - right now - to deny their party's candidacy to a black man, despite the fact that he has the majority of the popular vote and leads in delegate counts and fundraising."

Where are they plotting? Since the 1st Super Tuesday, Obama has won more superdelegates, and interviews with undecided superdelegates as well as party insiders all indicate that most are headed his way when all is said & done.

Where is this insidious plot you refer to? Who is leading it?
Click to expand...
Hillary R. Clinton. But it has nothing to do with racism one way or the other.

It may be that Obama is in the lead, including SDs. But try to remember that an SD coming out on one side or the other prior to the convention is not an irreversible commitment. Unlike delegates committed by vote or caucus, they have until the end of the convention to commit, no matter what they say in advance.

I could very well be wrong. Despite the improbability that I would vote for Obama anyway, I do hope I am wrong because of the consequences to our whole system if I am right.

But I do not trust that woman. Or perhaps I should put it this way: I DO "trust" her to do anything and everything necessary to put herself in the White House. And I do believe she has some more tricks under her sleeve. She ain't done by a long shot.
 
Last edited:
 
"But I do not trust that woman. Or perhaps I should put it this way: I DO "trust" her to do anything and everything necessary to put herself in the White House. And I do believe she has some more tricks under her sleeve. She ain't done by a long shot."

I don't trust Hillary, and I'm sure she would do anything to win, but she needs accomplices, and she doesn't have any (or, she at least doesn't have nearly enough). She needs superdelegates to over-turn elected delegates, and they simply won't do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top