C
Cancel4
Guest
The racism of the GOP is obvious to the 96% of African-Americans who voted for the president in 2008. That's one fact that no amount of conservatard double-talk can alter.
The great white hope
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
C
Cancel4
Guest
So tell us why they voted for him, then?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
maineman
Banned
Not only did I read her comments, I WATCHED her comments.so obama is the ONLY democrat in washington....
and of course Obama is not the only democrat in washington... and Jack Johnson was not the only heavyweight fighter....but, like Johnson, Obama is the "heavyweight champ" of Washington, and if the GOP wants to WIN the heavyweight title (whitehouse) back again... she is clearly saying that there are some great white hopes in the republican ranks that she clearly hopes can do the job. Please note, even though your party has a token black man as its chairman, all of the great hopes that SHE named, were, in fact, WHITE.
and I understand that the idiom can take on a broader meaning...but we're talking about WHITE guys that she HOPES can beat a BLACK guy. the idiom clearly reverts to its original meaning. to say otherwise is laughable.... why, I wonder, did she apologize, if this was not a misstep?
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
great....tell me what the subject matter was....
tell me that any of the people she mentioned were specifically mentioned as a presidential candidate....you can't do this because they were not in fact mentioned at all about being a presidential candidate, rather, about the future of the party....nothing, nada, zip about obama....that is a fact, unlike your wild speculation and tortured, winding logic that somehow her comments were solely about obama
wow....you're a racist....steele is just a token because he is black and not with your party....he has no qualiifications of his own....pathetic racist
again....it is absolutely irrelevent the skin color of anyone mentioned as the phrase itself currently has nothing to do with skin color....it is laughable that you want to conserve and accept ONLY the original meaning....a black liberal columnist that i linked you thinks you're wrong, then again she isn't as big a partisan hack as you....
this is exactly your forte and usual intellectual dishonesty....i once made the argument to you about some lib, possibly obama, that apologized....i know, sotomayor....both obama and her said her words were poor choice [wise latina] and i said why would they have basically apologized for her words if there was nothing wrong with them.....you [i think it was you] it was just political posturing
but now....you of course argue an opposite stance because a republican apologized.....intellectual dishonesty at its finest
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you always claim that no one can tell you what you meant or intended by your words....why don't you be honest and accept what she intended and not what YOU THINK she intended.....or are you going to give us another example of an intellectually dishonest argument....
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...an-apologizes-for-great-white-hope-comment-2/
you got nothin sporto
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...an-apologizes-for-great-white-hope-comment-2/
you got nothin sporto
maineman
Banned
the future of the republican party....how to take down and defeat the democratic party.... WHOSE LEADER IS A BLACK MAN.
and she said that they needed a great white hope..
and of COURSE she misspoke and of COURSE she'll claim that there wasn't anything mean spirited or racist intended. of COURSE.
and of COURSE you'll defend her and claim she was only talking about bright lights.... those are the white (bright) hopes she was referring to.... sure. no surprises here.
and try for a moment of honesty here: do you think....if she had the chance to go back and use a different phrase, she might do so?
and she said that they needed a great white hope..
and of COURSE she misspoke and of COURSE she'll claim that there wasn't anything mean spirited or racist intended. of COURSE.
and of COURSE you'll defend her and claim she was only talking about bright lights.... those are the white (bright) hopes she was referring to.... sure. no surprises here.
and try for a moment of honesty here: do you think....if she had the chance to go back and use a different phrase, she might do so?
Last edited:
C
Cancel4
Guest
"You’ve probably heard that Jared Hopkins, reporter from the Twin Falls (Idaho) Times-News, reported in another one of his scoop-them-all stories that at a Republican fundraiser Wednesday in Twin Falls, Idaho Republican candidate for governor Rex Rammell gave a speech. Hopkins wrote, after an audience member shouted a question about ‘Obama tags’ during a discussion on wolves, Rammell responded, ‘The Obama tags? We’d buy some of those.'
Rammell told Hopkins it was a joke.
In north Idaho, also during the 2008 presidential campaign, Ken Germana put up a sign advertising a 'free public hanging' of President-elect Barack Obama.
“‘That’s a political statement,’ Germana told the Bonner County Daily Bee. ‘They can call it whatever they want, a threat or whatever.’”
A rope noose, a symbol used by the Ku Klux Klan and other racists, hangs down the middle of the sign.
Germana said he wouldn’t lose sleep if the president-elect came in harm’s way.”
http://www.newwest.net/city/article..._and_denounce_threatening_language/C108/L108/
This is the GOP.
Rammell told Hopkins it was a joke.
In north Idaho, also during the 2008 presidential campaign, Ken Germana put up a sign advertising a 'free public hanging' of President-elect Barack Obama.
“‘That’s a political statement,’ Germana told the Bonner County Daily Bee. ‘They can call it whatever they want, a threat or whatever.’”
A rope noose, a symbol used by the Ku Klux Klan and other racists, hangs down the middle of the sign.
Germana said he wouldn’t lose sleep if the president-elect came in harm’s way.”
http://www.newwest.net/city/article..._and_denounce_threatening_language/C108/L108/
This is the GOP.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
not only have you engaged in intellectually dishonest arguments, but now you have engaged in outright dishonesty....
when people tell you what they think you intended or suggested by your words you claim they have no power to do so and that your intent is the only thing that matters.....now you are arguing the opposite, that is intellectually dishonest
you have previously argued than an apology is merely just a political posturing....now you argue that an apology is a sign of guilt....that is intellectually dishonest....
that is simply not true....
http://cjonline.com/news/state/2009-08-26/jenkins_remark_raises_eyebrows
nothing to do with obama....i find it humorous that you exclude the senate and the house and claim this is only about executive branch.....
....and you ignore that the question was about republicans and america and not about defeating obamanice try....but fail
maineman
Banned
not only have you engaged in intellectually dishonest arguments, but now you have engaged in outright dishonesty....
when people tell you what they think you intended or suggested by your words you claim they have no power to do so and that your intent is the only thing that matters.....now you are arguing the opposite, that is intellectually dishonest
you have previously argued than an apology is merely just a political posturing....now you argue that an apology is a sign of guilt....that is intellectually dishonest....
that is simply not true....
http://cjonline.com/news/state/2009-08-26/jenkins_remark_raises_eyebrows
nothing to do with obama....i find it humorous that you exclude the senate and the house and claim this is only about executive branch.....
nice try....but fail
for the republicans to "win" and advance their agenda for America, they must prevail against the democrats.... WHOSE LEADER IS A BLACK MAN.
defeating Obama's team is the ONLY way that republicans get to enact their coherent policy blueprint.
and it will take a great white hope to beat that negro.... just like it did back in 1910.
C
Cancel4
Guest
Jenkins apologized. So how can you say she didn't intend a racist attack?
cawacko
Well-known member
It's called being human troll. See humans, i.e. not trolls, sometimes say things they don't mean or things they say come out differently or are interpreted differently than intended. So while having no negative intent a human will apologize if what they said came across wrong.
Now in this case it is possible she had racist intent behind what she said and she had to apologize because of the responses she received and to try and save her ass. Only she knows her true intent.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i notice you conveniently "ignore" your intellectually dishonest arguments....i wonder why
again, let's focus on facts and not your tortured logic....the question was about the blueprint for republicans, the contract with america like they did in 1994 when the dems were in charge.....back then they took their talk to america and gained control of the legislature, not the executive branch....and thus did they gain power....it inescapable that a party can gain power without gaining the whitehouse....and let's for a minute say total power, including the whitehouse.....they still have to win the legislature, where there is no black leader for your party, you have two white people.....there is simply no foundation in reality that the comment was solely about obama....
to claim this is solely about toppling obama is wild fancy not born of facts but of an irrational hatred for anyone who isn't a democrat....by your own prior arguments you cannot now claim she meant anything other than she said she meant....further, as i showed with google, the overwhelming links for the definition are NOT about race....
it is apparent you are going to continuing your intellectual dishonesty and disregard facts.....if so, i see no point in continuing this debate
C
Cancel4
Guest
So you admit that you don't know that her remark was not intended to be racist?
It looks that way to me.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
o rly?
according to the democratic party.....obama is not their leader, in fact, he isn't even mentioned at all as a leader....your leaders are six white guys and a white girl.....not my words, your own party's.....looool, epic fail
Democratic Leaders
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/ourleaders.html
take careful note of the latter part of the url "ourleaders".....lmao....obama is not even mentioned.....
maineman
Banned
i notice you conveniently "ignore" your intellectually dishonest arguments....i wonder why
again, let's focus on facts and not your tortured logic....the question was about the blueprint for republicans, the contract with america like they did in 1994 when the dems were in charge.....back then they took their talk to america and gained control of the legislature, not the executive branch....and thus did they gain power....it inescapable that a party can gain power without gaining the whitehouse....and let's for a minute say total power, including the whitehouse.....they still have to win the legislature, where there is no black leader for your party, you have two white people.....there is simply no foundation in reality that the comment was solely about obama....
to claim this is solely about toppling obama is wild fancy not born of facts but of an irrational hatred for anyone who isn't a democrat....by your own prior arguments you cannot now claim she meant anything other than she said she meant....further, as i showed with google, the overwhelming links for the definition are NOT about race....
it is apparent you are going to continuing your intellectual dishonesty and disregard facts.....if so, i see no point in continuing this debate
that's fine with me yurt...for you to sit here and continue to argue that anyone who was offended by that remark is completely misquided...that it is absolutely ridiculous to even THINK that the comment might have been aimed at Obama... that saying that the republican party needs a great white hope to regain its ability to implement its new policy blueprint has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that the leader of the democratic party is BLACK and that anyone who thinks there might have been a wee bit of racism in that remark is totally off base... well then, we really DON'T have any reason to continue this argument.
I'm all done.
C
Cancel4
Guest
Deny your racism all you want.
The simple fact is that most people worldwide do not believe you.
When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Goldwater opposed it, you lost the African-American vote. Johnson got 94 percent of the African-American vote that year.
The following year Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act and cemented the progressive hold on the African-American vote.
No GOP presidential candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the African-American vote since.
The simple fact is that most people worldwide do not believe you.
When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Goldwater opposed it, you lost the African-American vote. Johnson got 94 percent of the African-American vote that year.
The following year Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act and cemented the progressive hold on the African-American vote.
No GOP presidential candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the African-American vote since.