I am addressing racism in general & some of the racial words that were used on this board earlier (s
Posted By: MeMT on 2008-10-23
In Reply to: Of course not....you would have to explain Obama's - racial baiting and you can't nm
I am not an Obama supporter specifically because of his pastor's racial biases against white people and because I disagree with Obama's stance on partial birth abortion. I am against racism in all forms. I am against Obama's terrorist friends, I am very unhappy about the church Obama attended for 20 years. I am voting for McCain ONLY to vote against Obama because I do not want him to be our president. Both candidates have a lot of bad history & I wish there was another option. However, I love people of all races. You are making this into a racial election. I want to leave racial terms like "towelhead" and "oreo" and "halfbreed" off of this board. Do you find those words necessary to make your points? If so, your vocabulary and mind are obviously very limited.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
So didn't somebody on this board state earlier that
*
Racism on this board? Not fair to assume that.
nm
Everyone on this board jumps on racism, bigotry
xx
Doesn't this belong on the racism board? Sick of hearing it. nm
x
Thank you for addressing an
issue that so many people turn a blind eye to. In my experience, the people I saw living the "good" life on welfare were mainly single mothers, people who were mentally ill and couldn't hold down a job or were disabled. I didn't see any fancy cars, fancy clothes or even a shred of self-esteem. Judging welfare recipients hasn't changed in the last 30 years - they are all lazy and life is so good they don't want to work. Dead wrong. When something happens to you that forces you to ask for help, I hope you remember the nasty things you said. Karma has a way of coming back around.
You are not addressing my point. sm
We have known for decades that genocide was occurring in Iraq. I know perfectly well this war was not about genocide. What I am saying is, Clinton chose not to get involved in Rwanda, but did get involved in other incursions where genocide, namely Bosnia, was occurring. How does one choose?
The ad isn't addressing whether or not he was guilty
but rather his poor judgment.
Of course. Were I addressing the comment
for starters, we wouldn't be buried under the slimey mud discussing "anal" We'd be informed and legitimate discourse on pertinent issues.
he said there was already a law in Illinios addressing this -nm
x
I was addressing that to the people
who have contributed to all of this viciousness (and they know who they are). I didn't vote in the last election because I felt the same way. I'm understand that the abortion issue is that important to you. I myself believe women have a right to decide what to do with their bodies and nobody else. Would I have an abortion? Probably not, but I do believe it should be my decision only.
Them? They? Who are you addressing this post to
x
I was only addressing the question I asked below. SM
Which was never answered. I do not believe I have addressed Hillary at all.
I have no interest in addressing your name calling, but
I will just say here that, once again, Peggy Noonan is spot-on. If you read the Conservative board with any regularity at all, it should come as no surprise that conservatives often disagree with GWB's spending; this is one of the two principal areas of disagreement that have been discussed over the past couple of years on the board. The other is border control.
At present, as Ms. Noonan says, he is better than the last alternative. He's also the only game in town as of right now, but he does need to be cautious about being too laissez-faire about alienating the conservative base.
IMHO, unless the Republicans come up with a candidate who is truly a fiscal conservative and is willing to prioritize and cut spending, he is setting Republicans up for another 1992 - a third party candidate siphoning off conservative votes and handing the election to the Democrats. Also IMHO (this will come as no surprise), that would not be a good thing.
Back to the Conservative board....sorry to intrude here, but I can't resist Peggy Noonan.
The post was addressing someone else's son, not Cindy's, I believe.
.
I thought you said Obama was addressing his
just trying to clarify it for you. You seem to be easily led..... oops, misled.
Those types of words are unnecessary and actually ARE racist words. sm
Those types of phrases are offensive and are intended to be offensive. This election should not be about race. If it is about race for you, then you are probably one of the ignorant people using those words. Very rude!!
Still slamming instead of addressing post content.
nm
Was that a racial remark!!!!!
!
The racial imbalance....
IMHO is directly related to the fatherlessness in the African-American community. It would be nice to blame it on bigotry or any other host of things, but the lack of responsible parenting and good example setting for education and honest hard work (which leads to success in life) is sorely lacking in that community. It's very sad.
I thought he was bi-racial
I wish his parents were alive.
Racial predjucide.........
The following is from a pdf file of sermon from Barack Hussein Obama’s "spiritual mentor" as published in October 2003 issue of the Trinity United Church of Christ’s publication, "The Trumpet." (Published by the Reverend’s daughter.)
The sermon is really a wide ranging diatribe which includes, among other things, calls for US divestiture in Israel. But even amidst the Reverend’s many crackpot and racist statements, this one jumped out:
A Message From our PASTOR, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor
In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just “disappeared” as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.
Again, Reverend Wright is the man that Mr. Obama claims got him interested in politics. He speaks of him as his political father and even his surrogate father.
Naw, Obama ain't prejudice!
He just loves to hang out with those that are.....right!!
I won't argue the racial part. sm
I agree with that. But you don't need to bring politics into it. You lose all credibility and, as I said, you lessen this little girl's death by using your own agenda. Try to focus on the tragedy and the fact that our society needs a major overhaul.
How little do you know? Nazi's are racial purists
nm
Nothing racial at all in her post unless your mind put it there (sm)
I know plenty of white people in the situations she described above...was one of them when I was a child. And you know what, for many of the people in these programs, she is right they could work. One of my sisters is legitimately disabled and the other one just wants to sit on her butt, read love stories all day and cry poor mouth. They're all white. I don't see anything racist about that post at all, unless that is what you think yourself.
inappropriate racial remarks
 I agree Terri - that remark was extremely unappropriate and does not belong here, and unfortunately such a remark can be attributed to ignorance and hatred - which DEFINITELY DOES NOT BELONG HERE.
Whatever. How about addressing the actual issues I raised in my post for a change? (NT)
/
Uh-oh. Obama is directy addressing rescue plan for the economy. .
In the absence of a direct response from the bankrupt McCain campaign, dems better take cover and ride out the next avalanche of hate speech that looms on the horizon.
Do you even see how you took this post and made it into a racial epithet?
gt, I would recommend an immediate self-examination as to your thought processes.
Racial hatred. Yeah, like anyone who questions O
nm
It had no racial undertones, but to call O a clown and to
apologize to all clowns is really gross, especially when there is no justification for that, at least not yet.
You're right....words are just words...so are Obama's...
...and don't/won't mean anything to many people, myself included.
He is no MLK.
It is a historic moment, of that I have no doubt. And yes, he has come far.
However, one still needs to have strength of character to back the words up for true meaning, and he is sadly lacking in that area.
With the exception of accusing me of making this a racial issue,
yeah (head dropping), I admit it. I'd rather love than hate. I don't own rose-colored glasses or lovebeads, but I may just go and buy some, now that you mention it. I realize that's not how you prefer to live your life, but if you could just let go of some the anger and hatred, you'd be carrying around a much lighter load.
RACIAL ISSUE????? This is what you wrote (in case you deny it later again): Now you are trying to make this a racial issue. Next, you will say more blacks were killed in Vietnam than whites and it was all PLANNED! What a crock of lumpy brown stuff.
Out of that entire article, you got RACIAL ISSUE??????
Once again, you take something you IMAGINE in that twisted brain of yours, accept it as TRUTH and then ATTACK that fabricated truth, accusing me of saying more blacks were purposely killed in Vietnam, when the thought never crossed my mind. (Although I DO have to wonder how it got inside YOURS.)
As far as the truth, that's the only thing I DO want: The truth. I haven't gotten it from this president and I'm sure as heck not getting it from you and your buds.
Have a lovely evening. 
I made no racial comments, only saw the ugliness from "anybody would have"
and others referring to Harlem dumbells
Push for racial preference in stimulus bill
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=415970#
General Casey wants to cut and run.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500764_pf.html
Democrats Cite Report On Troop Cuts in Iraq
Pentagon Plan Like Theirs, Senators Say
By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 26, 2006; A01
Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated Thursday on a largely party-line vote in the Senate.
That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress, Boxer said on CBS's Face the Nation. Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the worst-kept secrets in town -- that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.
It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration, Levin said on Fox News Sunday. It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
At issue was a report yesterday in the New York Times that Casey presented a private briefing at the Pentagon last week in which he projected that the number of U.S. combat brigades -- each with about 3,500 troops -- would decrease from 14 to five or six by the end of 2007. About 127,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, including many support troops beyond the combat brigades.
White House and Pentagon officials declined to confirm the projections, saying only that Casey met with President Bush on Friday to discuss how the military might proceed in Iraq after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forms a new government. Bush has often said the U.S. military will stand down as Iraqi forces become adequately trained to handle security.
One White House official said there was no formal plan presented or signed off on in Casey's meeting with Bush, only a discussion of various scenarios to guide their talks with the new Iraqi government.
We are entering a phase where discussions with the Iraqis will begin to practically define what 'stand up, stand down' will look like over the next two years, said this official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal conversations.
This official dismissed the suggestion by some Democrats that Casey's approach resembles their approach. A conditions-based strategy outlined by our generals on the ground is a far cry from politicians in Washington setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal, the official said.
A Pentagon official said his impression is that Bush and Casey had no lengthy discussion about troop reductions, and that any projections of specific numbers remain speculative. This source noted that Casey had said that he hoped U.S. force levels would be substantially reduced this year but has decided against such a move because of the continuing violence in Iraq.
I think there will be a modest decrease between now and the end of the year, the official added. But, he concluded, Nobody really knows.
U.S. commanders have long wanted to cut the size of their force in Iraq. But plans to do so have proven difficult to realize.
Before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, the Pentagon's war plans called for a swift reduction, from about 150,000 to 30,000 by the early autumn of that year. Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy defense secretary, told a congressional committee that the thinking behind this was that it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam [Hussein] Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine.
That plan was shelved when a fierce insurgency broke out in the summer of 2003. That fall, top commanders hoped to cut the U.S. presence to about 100,000 by the next summer. But a major escalation in violence in the spring of 2004, along with the collapse of the new Iraqi police force and parts of the new army, forced that plan to be discarded as well.
The result is that the United States has kept about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq for the past three years, with occasional fluctuations to as high as 160,000.
The widespread expectation inside the Army is that the U.S. presence will be cut to about 100,000 by the end of this year, with further reductions in 2007 to perhaps 50,000 to 75,000. That size could be maintained almost indefinitely by the Army and the Marine Corps. But whether those new plans will be realized will depend on events in Iraq, which have proven difficult to predict.
Casey's meeting with Bush followed an eventful several weeks in Iraq that included the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the completion of a new Iraqi government. It also followed particularly rancorous debates in the House and Senate, in which GOP lawmakers -- with the encouragement of the White House -- went after Democrats for being insufficiently supportive of the war effort and said decisions about issues such as troop deployments should remain with the president.
Coming so soon after the congressional debates, the report of Casey's briefing served to keep the debate going another day.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored an unsuccessful resolution setting a July 1, 2007, deadline for the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, issued a statement saying the Casey plan looks an awful lot like what the Republicans spent the last week attacking. Will the partisan attack dogs now turn their venom and disinformation campaign on General Casey?
But Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, played down the significance of the reported briefing. The department's drawn up plans at all times, but I think it would be wrong now to say that this is the plan that we're going to operate under, he said on Fox News Sunday.
Warner counseled patience. We have struggled and made tremendous sacrifice to give this nation its sovereignty, he said. They are now beginning to exercise this sovereignty with a young government. Give them a chance to move out. We will consult with them. I'm confident our government will not let them make mistakes that would reflect adversely on troop withdrawals.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voiced some skepticism that the administration can reach the conditions set for withdrawing troops.
Given current events in Baghdad, in particular, reported on every day quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific, he said on Face the Nation. So getting to the plans either of General Casey or Maliki are a broad sweep. But it is good news to know that there are contingency plans.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
In general, they are being persecuted.
People rarely speak of the majority you mentioned. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake since Iraq and Iran were basically enemies, working against each others interests. Now, thanks to US, the area has been split wide open with positive Iranian influence now present in Iraq, something Saddam Hussein had fought.
Obama in the general
There is a reason Rush Limbaugh has encouraged listeners to go and vote for Hillary. It's the same reason that major Republican players have said publicly they "pray night and day" that the candidate will be Hillary and not Obama. Hillary is too divisive. The Republicans are sure they can beat her. They feel much less confident about beating Obama. Look, staunch Democrats will vote for either candidate (Hillary or Obama) in the general election. Staunch Republicans will vote for McCain. Independents and moderates lean towards Obama. Odds are strongly in favor of a Democrat taking the White House this November (barring a fresh terrorist attack between now and then on homeland, in which case it goes hands down to McCain). The Republicans know the odds are not in their favor to win. That's why they "pray night and day" the Democratic candidate is Hillary. Then they have a chance.
Well, wonder what the general thinks about...
the 500 metric tons of yellowcake uranium that was just moved out of Iraq to Canada...Ms. Valerie Plame said during that big scandal that Hussein did not even have access to it...and now we have...uh...500 metric tons of it removed from Iraq. The Bush Administration and new Iraqi government kept it secret so the terrorists operating there would not target it until they could get it out of there. Got any idea how much 500 metric tons is? There's your reality check. Hussein was everything Clinton and his admin and Bush and his admin said he was. And he DID have WMD...he used it on his own people. Reality check indeed.
As to abortion...and Roe vs. Wade. Roe vs. Wade is illegal on its face. Activist judges struck down a law and made a new one, and they cannot do that by the Constitution. Only the COngress on state and federal level can enact law. FOr that reason alone it should be struck down.
It's all about choice? Then why can a mother drown a 2-day-old baby and that's murder? That's a choice as well. Why can't a person just shoot someone they find annoying and inconvenient? That's a choice.
Maybe it is not a priority to you, my friend. It is to me. So you vote for the man who will give you the right to choose, and I will vote for the man who at some point will stand up for the Constitution and not install activist judges who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold.
Sorry, didn't mean you.....just in general
:{
Atheists, in general,.....sm
are not ignorant of the Bible. If I ever said anything that led anyone to believe that, then my words were misinterpreted. What I do believe is that atheists generally approach the Bible with the intent of proving it wrong or contradictory which is just another "doctrine" by which they interpret the Bible. There was a man named Lee Strobel who tried to prove atheism through the Bible and became a Christian in the process. Most would call him a failure at what he set out to do, but I believe he was a winner in the end.
I saw this earlier. sm
Practicing for martial law maybe? Notice the term 'homeland' - makes me think of Nazis and Communists.
Well, what he said earlier was
He wanted EVERYONE to have the same great health care plan everyone on capitol hill has.......then he did't say that anymore.....hmmmmm
Rush has made innumerable inflammatory racial comments
throughout his entire career and continues to do so to this day. It is not just one article (on the FAIR website no less). He has even been fired for racial comments before.
Brunson, I always read your posts with interest, and, although we do disagree on many things, I respect your opinion and your right to espouse your beliefs. You are knowledgeable, well spoken, and know why you hold your beliefs. However, in this case, I would have to say that even if he is not racist, he certainly says things that pander a segment of his audience that is, and those things are very well documented.
I agree, and am not an Obama supporter. Just tired of all the racial conflict sm
tired of everything being all about race. If they were both black candidates, then people could all just vote their conscience without even thinking about race.
I was speaking of the left in general. SM
I came here at first to debate. It took two posts of acting people to be reasonable in debating (all can be found on this board) before I was labeled by gt. Since then, after multiple attempts at trying to debate, I have come to point out that while you may think you have taken the higher ground, you have indeed created a cesspool. So proud that the conservative board is "quiet and peaceful" when those who made it otherwise are posting here daily. Most of the posters on the convservative board afforded you the decency and honor of not posting here. But that favor was never returned. You (and I mean others, I have no idea who YOU are since everyone picks the name of the moment) bullied, brow-beat, denigrated and beat to a pulp any poster who dared to post on the Conservative board. And it wasn't just AG and Nan and MT. It was anyone. Well, you have your wish now. You are queens of everything Masters of your domain. Live in the land where NO ONE DARES TO DISAGREE with you. Happy now? As if.
Was that before or after General Colin Powell
nm
Birth certificates in general
No I did not watch the youtube link you posted. That is definitely not a credible source for such an important issue as this. The CERTIFIED copy on Factcheck (and never mind discussing the credibility of Fact check) should be enough, it shows the fold marks and clearly the certification and signature.
Many, many years ago, I worked in a small hospital and in addition to my MT-ing, part of my job was to obtain birth certificate applications from new moms. I know that my birth certificate has the AGE of my parents at my birth, not their birth dates. It also lists the state in which they were born. I do not know what Hawaii requirements for birth certificates are but when it is certified by the STATE I would assume it to be legitimate. The hospital issued "birth certificate" is not and never has been to my knowledge, a legal document.
With the furious campaining done by Hillary and McCain, do you not even stop to think that if they had not been absolutely certain that his birth certificate was legitimate they wouldn't have blown the lid off months and months ago, especially when it became obvious he was likely to win??? Saying otherwise is ridiculous. They had no problem trashing him with Ayers, etc. up until Day Last did they? Anything to try to knock him out of the race. So are you saying they are part of the conspiracy to "cover up" Obama's birth certificate? Come on.....legitimate MTs are more intelligent than that. Since I don't know you, I have no idea if you are an MT or not.
In general kids can be very cruel.
How many fat kids in school were popular? Not many, eh? This type of behavior stems from home. How many of us talk bad about other people in front of our children? I'm not just talking about homosexual bashing either. How many of us gossip about what so and so wore, etc.? How many of us bash others when we don't think our kids are paying attention?
How many times do Christians post on here and are bashed horribly for their beliefs and called names? How many Christians post on here bashing homosexuals and calling them sick freaks? This type of behavior comes in all shapes and sizes and comes from all sides....black vs white, gay vs straight, believer vs nonbeliever.
You cannot take on particular subject like homosexuality and us it soley to teach tolerance of people different than you. There are many other things that children are picked on for than just that one subject.
Oh look at 4 eyes over there or how about that dork with the braces, etc. Look at the kid not wearing designer clothes. Look at the freak with the emo makeup on.
See what I mean.....tolerance is such a broad thing to teach children that you can't just use homosexuality to teach tolerance and I think it is unfair to people who do not agree with homosexuality that their kids are being taught ACCEPTANCE and not just tolerance on that issue anyway.
Like I said before....I keep my God out of school.....keep your homosexuality out as well.
Again as I posted earlier
UAW was offered pay rates as they are paid to American workers who work in the U.S. for foreign auto companies, i.e. workers in Indiana who work for Honda and Toyata. This would surely NOT be the same as our working for the same rates as Indian MTs. That would be crazy. Don't even suggest it.
I have brought it up earlier on here but
O lovers immediately jumped on the Palin bandwagon again. They are so worried about Palin being a "heartbeat away from possibly being president" but they couldn't care less than Biden may very well be just a heartbeat away....period!
They seem to think Obama will live forever, even though both his parents died young AND he was a heavy smoker, drugger, and drinker.
They seem to have no concern about that.
I saw this on TV earlier today...
... right before I threw my shoe at the TV set.
|
