I feel that I am a typical white man, grew up when segregation was coming about and I grew with it. I became friends with a lot people that would be upset if I call them typical black men, because they were not. They accepted me with all my faults just as accepted them. A couple of years ago I left the catholic church because they would not condeem the child molesting leader of the church. I went to a lot churches searching for what I thought I needed and was invited to an all black church, the people that I went with was very nice,but nobody said hi or how do you do, there was glares that were different than I had ever encountered in a house of GOD. There were men that I had golfed with that turn there back to me like was not there. So when this Wright thig came up I believe what I saw was the samething, just silently. I found what I was looking for and found GOD right where he was all the time and I don’t need someone telling me who or what he is,I am with him every sec of the day. I am the typical man no matter what the color of my skin!
But, you, on the other hand, explicitly accused me of racism, based on nothing other than my belief that Obama has a good chance of becoming president.
He may have before Tuesday.
He doesn’t anymore.
Perhaps you can explain your reasons for playing the racist card.
We didn’t play the race card: Obama did.
And he didn’t just play the race card; he threw the whole deck at (white) America.
Yes’m.
And Barack can be as black as he wants to be based upon his audience.
Sometimes he’s black and sometimes he’s Halfrican- American.
With just one post you’ve got yourself slapped with an “ignore” on the grounds that you’re too dumb to breath and I don’t want your name-calling contaminating my computer.
Barney, my friend. You, and those on the left, will never understand that for the majority of us “typical white persons”, it is never about color, but ideology. I would fully support Condi Rice as McCain’s V.P., and other conservatives “of color” for any position in the McCain Cabinet based on their ideology. Because I do not seek absolution from Father O’Bama at the altar of white guilt, does that make me a racist? See, I’ve nothing to prove to you or anyone “of color” because I seek to be judged by the content of my heart and not the color of my skin. Does that sound familiar?
Thank you, BigAl!
You said it all for me--Megadittos!!
Hmm… Thanks for telling me what I think. Let me try it on you - you’re thinking “I’ll let a n*gger in the Whitehouse over my dead body”. Did I get that about right? Or is claiming that you know someone else’s unstated beliefs a ridiculous and dishonest mode of political debate?
Barney, my friend. You, and those on the left, will never understand that for the majority of us “typical white persons”, it is never about color, but ideology. I would fully support Condi Rice as McCain’s V.P., and other conservatives “of color” for any position in the McCain Cabinet based on their ideology. Because I do not seek absolution from Father O’Bama at the altar of white guilt, does that make me a racist? See, I’ve nothing to prove to you or anyone “of color” because I seek to be judged by the content of my heart and not the color of my skin. Does that sound familiar?
I have no doubt it is all about ideology. I think that the PL all-out attack on Obama is all about ideology and nothing about his race.
What you perhaps misunderstand is my point - that PL would not put so much effort into attacking Obama if it were clear that he could not beat Clinton/McCain.
If Obama was clearly out of the running, PL would be 24/7 attacking Clinton, because they want to have a republican president, even one as terribly flawed as McCain.
But since PL is 24/7 attacking Obama, I conclude that they think that he is the democratic frontrunner.
I have no doubt it is all about ideology. I think that the PL all-out attack on Obama is all about ideology and nothing about his race.
What you perhaps misunderstand is my point - that PL would not put so much effort into attacking Obama if it were clear that he could not beat Clinton/McCain.
If Obama was clearly out of the running, PL would be 24/7 attacking Clinton, because they want to have a republican president, even one as terribly flawed as McCain.
But since PL is 24/7 attacking Obama, I conclude that they think that he is the democratic frontrunner.
First you say it’s all about ideology (which it is) and then you act as if we’re attacking Hussein Obama because he’s the “frontrunner” and allegedly the winner, as you seem to think.
It’s not--the man is not going to be President.
He either will not get the nomination or he will lose big in the general.
He kissed off just about every white vote in this country on Tuesday and he can’t win without the white vote.
We are allowed to have our outrage at Obama’s racism and hatred of America, no matter whether we think he’ll be the winner or not.
The man is not fit to be President and it deserves to be said over and over and this is because of his poisonous ideology.
There’s nothing wrong with PL taking him to task for his racist, Leftist and radical views.
Hillary’s just as bad in this respect (however, she’s not a racist) but that’s for other threads…
He kissed off just about every white vote in this country on Tuesday and he can’t win without the white vote.
I don’t think the Asians are thrilled with a Black power movement either, given that frequently it’s their businesses burned and looted in race riots, and that they are expected to give blacks preferential treatment during their shoplifting sprees or be labeled “racist” for following black customers.
I’m not sure on Latino’s will feel about Obama’s racism. If he lets them into the country and continue to provide free government-funded everythin for them, they’re probably good with it. Especially since they’ve already got their black genocide program successfully up and running.
Which reminds me—given that Mexicans are overtly targeting blacks for murder, you’d think black leaders would want white help in stopping that practice. Interesting that they see poking a stick in whitey’s eye as being more beneficial to their cause than stopping Mexicans from murdering them.
A typical white person might cross the street. A typical black person would not, of course, having no reason to fear another black person.
Given Obama’s heritage, he’d walk the middle of the road.
I’m not sure on Latino’s will feel about Obama’s racism. If he lets them into the country and continue to provide free government-funded everythin for them, they’re probably good with it. Especially since they’ve already got their black genocide program successfully up and running.
Latinos are as racist as blacks, so it doesn’t matter what he promises them--what a shame.
They weren’t voting for Obama before “the speech.”
So Obambi has the black vote and that’s about it.
In their mind, probably someone who in some way was/is responsible for some form of “subjugation”, either physical, economical or cultural. In their mind, all whites are to blame for some form of “subjugation” (doers, enablers, ignorers,...). So any behavior that can be pigeon holed into this overall context is typical “white” behavior, which is to say just about any action they observe. Typical “white” person behavior:
-Afraid of a stranger demanding your money on the street
-A lack of desire to support people on welfare indefinitely
-Feedback on negative work performance and its impact
-Feedback on how to achieve better performance and help team
-Avoiding driving through a bad neighborhood
-Walking a route to avoid a group of people on the street at 2 am
-Keeping an eye on your luggage, purse, car, ...
-Keeping a firearm for personal protection
-Not rolling down window to talk with street vagrant
-Desire to keep criminals in prison
-Not wanting your children bussed an hour to a substandard school
-Not supporting a minority marxist politician
-Any criticism of a minority marxist politician
-Not accepting responsibility for slavery
-Not accepting responsibility for the crimes of others
- etc.
A list that goes on endlessly in an attempt to disallow any action or belief that would aversely affect a positive outcome in their marxist liberation objectives. The biggest banes to their success is openness, classical logic, following true scientific method, an armed citizenry, and a professional military sworn to uphold the constitution and protect individual liberty against enemies foreign and domestic.
I see—honesty problem—you accused me of racism right above:
barney - 21 March 2008 10:46 AM
Let me try it on you - you’re thinking “I’ll let a n*gger in the Whitehouse over my dead body”.
Now you could argue that you tried to QUALIFY it, but as you well know, racism is an accusation too explosive to be qualified…
which is why you did it.
I did it to show you that your type of argument is totally dishonest - I can’t believe I have to spell it out for you - but I was explicitly saying that you are NOT racist. That part:
barney - 21 March 2008 10:46 AM
Let me try it on you - you’re thinking “I’ll let a n*gger in the Whitehouse over my dead body”.
Was an example of faulty implication, like your previous post.
You could have come up with another example; you CHOSE to accuse me of racism because you know how well that charge sticks, even when “allegedly” made in jest.
barney - 21 March 2008 11:14 AM
But, you, on the other hand, explicitly accused me of racism, based on nothing other than my belief that Obama has a good chance of becoming president.
Perhaps you can explain your reasons for playing the racist card.
I did not accuse you of racism; I accused you of agreeing with and thinking like Rev. Wright. Frankly, I was referring more to Wright’s foreign policy views and conspiratorial view of history than to his calling white people in general and critics of black people in particular racists, but you have demonstrated that to be true as well.
For 50 points, which presidential candidate did the MSM excoriate for WEEKS when he went to the NAACP convention and used the expression, “You People” in his speech?
Tick.....tick.....tick....
Here’s how the NYTimes covered Perot’s speech to the NAACP.
Not exactly ‘excoriating’, wouldn’t you agree?
Well, The “Little Hand-grenade With the Bad Haircut” gave the speech on July 11th, and he quit the race on the 16th. Unfair coverage of his remark was the top reason in his speech.
2nd memory check: which 92 presidential candidate quit the race, then re-entered as an independent a month later? 50 point bonus question: Name his VP running mate and say whether he knew what he was doing or not <G>.
FWIW, the NYT reporter either wasn’t there or didn’t listen to the actual speech like I did. Perot said, “YOU PEOPLE” and then quickly corrected himself by saying “your people.” He repeated the ”your people” thing twice more later on just to make sure he didn’t use the words that hurt black folks’ feelings, “you people.”
I still laugh when I hear a black drill instructor refer to his trainees as “you people.” I picture him with a crew-cut, hauling out a chart, explaining how messed up they are…
He’s just like the typical black person, or the typical hispanic person, or the typical oriental person (whatever the heck oriental means)…
Since we don’t know everybody, then each persons “typical” is a combination of similar traits observed in dealing with others in same/similar groups. Over time, we form an idea of how all people in one of the groups will behave, based on our experience.
The above is a description of the one word that nobody - especially nobody who is white - dare accuse Obama of:
For 50 points, which presidential candidate did the MSM excoriate for WEEKS when he went to the NAACP convention and used the expression, “You People” in his speech?
Tick.....tick.....tick....
Here’s how the NYTimes covered Perot’s speech to the NAACP.
Not exactly ‘excoriating’, wouldn’t you agree?
Well, The “Little Hand-grenade With the Bad Haircut” gave the speech on July 11th, and he quit the race on the 16th. Unfair coverage of his remark was the top reason in his speech.
Do you have a copy of his speech? My recollection was his primary reason was the resurgence of the democratic party.
