Need to get that African slavery thing correct
Posted By: MSMT on 2008-10-14
In Reply to: What if Obama didn't hate people like me? (sm) - MeMT
Native Americans and free slaves also held slaves. Only 8% of all American families in the south had slaves. I get so sick and tired of all the apologies for things most people in this country know very little about. Was slavery wrong? Absolutely! But it has gone back since the beginning of man. My ancestors, who are Irish by the way, were also brought here as slave and were beaten, starved, raped, impregnated, you name it, just like the blacks. Do you hear history and present going on and on about that, demanding they be apologized to, compensated somehow, and do they feel entitled? No they don't! They got on with it.
Out of twelve million blacks shipped to the Americas (not America) between the 16th and 19th centuries, ONLY 5.4% of those were brought to the United States. The others were taken to predominantly black countries and sold as slaves in predominantly black countries. MOST of them went to Brazil.
What about the white slaves? Too bad we're so stuck on black slavery, we forgot about them. OVER half of all white immigrants to the colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries were Irish, Scottish, English, and Germans, and they horribly mistreated and abused as well. So while you're so busy apologizing for your ancestors, you need to get your facts straight. My ancestors were slaves as well, even though they were not black, so feel sorry for them if you want to pity someone. They too had their families ripped apart and many never saw them again.
If Rev Wright wants to continue to spew his hatred towards whites, which he does, and lets make no mistake about that, Obama does indeed need to be scrutinized closely for his continued presence in that church for 20 years. I don't give a rat's butt how may seemingly wonderful programs that church had. A lot of churches have great community programs but had very vile underlying reasons for the way they want to penetrate the community.
Prejudice goes both ways...so don't waste your time thinking that you need to feel guilty for anything or worry about what Obama thinks about you. His past relationships he chose after being a young man old enough to make his own choices were his to make. And he chose to make them with dangerous people, and people in other countries that were and still are more than questionable in their reputations, some very dangerous to us and many other countries.
You spend your time doing your homework about Obama and stop thinking you owe him or anyone else anything. You/we do not. Obama has chosen his friends very carefully and for reasons that you have a right to question, only because he is running for president of YOUR country.
So, if you think he is racist against you or any white to a small or larger degree, who cares? That's his problem he will have to deal with. Some very racist people are very good at hiding their true feelings because they don't want to be discovered for what they are.
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
One thing you say is correct s/m
People have not and do not stay informed. I don't like McCain, I don't like Obama either.
As for Lou Dobbs, I like his mouth service but I listen to what comes out of the mouths of his guests.....both Republicans and Democrats. I don't believe ANYTHING I hear from a 3rd party. I like to get my info directly from the horse's mouth.
Well..........I'll give it a rest for a few days. We're off to Branson, Mo. for a few days of R and R. Cheers to y'all!
Slavery in the NT is a lot different than what we had
People were in slavery to pay off debts, etc., not forced. When they completed the term that was agreed upon, the person they were enslaved to was required to give them enough in terms of money, livestock, etc., for them to begin a life elsewhere. Hardly the slavery we had here.
You can't pick and choose things out of the Bible without knowing in what context to use them. There are some things talked about in the Bible that were specific to that era, yes, but there were other things that are laws from God that are to be upheld forever. When God calls something an abomination, that doesn't mean "for now".
I love how we are always told that we can't impose our "version of religion" on others, but the world can impose their versions of living on us.
I guess to make it fair when they reinstate the draft or the "voluntary (but really mandatory) community service training" Christians should be exempt so the world can't impose their ways of warfare on us.
I sure hope you're okay with sharia because at the rate the Islamics are growing, we will soon all be stuck living under it.
Slavery used to be legal. Does that mean it's a RIGHT?
x
Not saying slavery didn't happen....
Just saying since Obama AIN'T racist and all, don't you think it's about time you got over it? My ancestors were used as slaves as well and I ain't standing around expecting handouts, freebies, "entitlement" and throwing a pity party for myself every day. That's all Obama wants. He's no more trying to help the poor than a stray dog in a ditch.
He's trying to help himself.
Is O really African-American?
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/09/rush-limbaugh-obama-really-isnt-african-american/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html
Is O really African American?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/09/rush-limbaugh-obama-really-isnt-african-american/
More added uncertainty as to who he really, really is. At least with McCain, there is none of this distrust. I do not have to worry that McCain is hanging around terrorists, where he was born and if he is a true US citizen, if he was raised and taught by a pastor for 20 years to learn hate, and could go on and on. What you see is what you get with McCain. None of this junk of trying to prove who he is.
As for O, there is no trust for me. He seems deceitful. He gets mad when newspapers go against him and then kicks them off the plane and so on. Even Clintons have said Obama needs A LOT OF ADVISORS if he wins this election. This is not an election, but an eerie movement. Even had to arrest skin heads because of a plot to assassain the O, already. Freaks me out. Just not right for this country or should I now say for this WORLD as the O wants to change it. He does not know anything about foreign affairs to CHANGE THE WORLD. He scares me to death and I am not the only one who feels this way.
Can anyone give me reassurance about the O?
Arab African????
African-American population
It's a good thing if the black population is ever growing into the middle class. It means that that demographic is benefiting from workfare and the changes in welfare that kept the culture dependent soley on the government for many years. The most striking thing about New Orleans is that it is one of the most welfare ridden cities left in the country, and that is why so many people there were in such a poverty state. The able people haven't been made to start providing for and/or bettering themselves. New Orleans is an example of what happens in a nanny state. It's not that the government was not involved. It was involved too much. It's glaringly obvious.
I'm African American and am VERY offended
that he would even make the comment I don't care how he tried to clean it up, or what context he used it
in.
To say that the crime rate would be reduced if you aborted all African Americans is deplorable and your defense of the comment is sickening. It doesn't matter to me if he came back and says it's morally wrong to do so, well DUHHH yeah it would be, so why is he saying this $h!t to begin with.
There is a quote below from another African American. SM
He was not offended. What is your point?
The first African-American president.
I am not for Obama but I don't wish him any harm. All I have to say is....I would be scared out of my wits to be the first African-American president. I am not saying this because I am racist. I am saying this because there are some extreme racists out there who believe the idea of this is just wrong. Just look at what happened to Martin Luther King and he wasn't even president. I know that was back when race more of an issue, but it still is to some people and I wouldn't put it past some of those freaks to stop this from happening at all costs.
Like I said.....I wish Obama no harm so please no bashing posts about how I'm a huge racist.
Bet the African-Americans at the TEA parties
nm
What is this African-American stuff? I am white,
If I am to call a black person African-American, then I should be called Irish-American, German-American, Scottish-American, Italian-American, Welch-American, French-American...the list goes on and on.
This is the very example of racism. One color people believing they should be called something different than what they are. That is ridiculous. I am not going to jump through ludicrous hoops. If anyone is that small minded and believes they have to tack on a continent before their name, they need to get a life and live in reality.
Preposterous. US...interfering in African politics?
a schoolyard bully straight out of the shrub academy.
just as i hope African American's aren't voting for Obama for that reason!
NM (i suppose that means "no more"? or something) im still a bit new to the board!
Thread topic is African-American Christian endorsing McCain.
rasberries
You make a good point, but I think the real credit for African American progress..sm
is education. You can take away all of the social programs you want to, but if there is not progress in education, you still have poverty.
Yeah, well, I seem to remember Democrat saying she wasn't African-American awhile back. sm
So which is it?
After I connect those dots, I see African-Americans voting for a man based solely on his race.
Not because they agree with his politics or think he's the best man for the job, but because he's a black man period. For the record, Obama is absolutely no MLK.
This election was not about race for me either. I disagree with Obama's stand on the morality issues. I disagree with Obama on his political issues. I don't think the man has any experience running anything, and now we give him the entire country to experiement with?!?!!? He has too many shady characters in his past. He's as slick as a snake.
Watch for a lot of upheaval and racial tension throughout the nation in the next few months. My point is this, your man wins the election and instead of behaving in a dignified manner and celebrating appropriately, many will riot in the streets and act like raving lunatics. It is so unbelievably sureal.
I feel like I smack dab in the middle of one of those end of the world scenarios!
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%. Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs. Social agendas come second to him. Safety is 1st.
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...
Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.
From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!
Yes, of course you are correct
However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.
My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.
You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.
Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.
Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!
By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!
There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.
You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in
assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.
The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.
Unfortunately you are correct. s/m
Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.
People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."
Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.
You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me. I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end. As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone. The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning. Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be. Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it? Certainly if she didn't McCain would have. Why do you suppose THEY let it go? Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that. As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together. Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US. Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people. I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage. Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)
If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims. And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything. But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.
You may be correct that not all
However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget. The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us. Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens.
Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century. And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves. Why didn't we get involved? Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades. Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us.
And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance? Like Ghostbusters: Who ya gonna call? And we are expected to step up and take care of it.
I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered. Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.
That is correct....(sm)
and I understand exactly what you're saying, and yes, the same thing might happen, but I just don't think it will. This retaliation that you talked about was in the face of what the middle east saw as an endless war/occupation. That's not the case now. They aren't facing Bush now (in their eyes a war monger). They are facing a guy that is willing to work with the people, is coming clean about previous actions involving the middle east, and who is keeping Israel at bay. It's not that I think Obama is that wonderful, it's that the circumstances are that different.
Something else....everyone (including those in the middle east) already know there are more pics. It's not like that's been kept a secret. Granted, for some it may be worse to actually see the pics than to just know they are there, but I think if there was going to be another retaliation it would have already happened just from the knowledge that they are there.
Yes, you're completely correct. So we should do nothing to
only answer is hop around the globe, play eenie, meenie, miney, moe and choose another sovereign country to invade.
It didn't happen here.....yet. But every single terrorism expert believes it's not a matter of if but a matter of WHEN. And Bush is helping them by not protecting us satisfactorily and by providing THEM with OTJ training in Iraq.
Yes, I think I'm beginning to "get" it.
As far as what I feel about Conservatives, I've voted Republican a number of times in my life, so don't tell me what I think because you haven't a clue. I vote for the candidate, not the party, and if Bush and Kerry are the best this country can offer up, we need to worry about much more than terrorists.
So even the monitor can't correct you? NM
So....Correct me if I'm wrong here
But you seem to be advocate blowing somebody away just because you merely think they are going to do something wrong?
Quite the little anarchist, aren't you?
Yes, you care correct, however...
My point was simply that things are not black and white, or purely good or evil. I'm also not sure why anyone would try to categorize someone's ethics or morals based on the political party they belong to.
You are correct. Please ignore
my above post. I was given incorrect information and failed to check its validity before passing it on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My humble apologies.
|
