Reality - most of the people voted for him only because of his race

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Are you watching the CNN coverage? It's like the ONLY reason today is an 'historic event' is the color of O's skin. If that's why you voted for him, fine, but at least have the guts to admit it.

Let's not forget that O's family had DIDDLY to do with Civil Rights movement, so there's NO REASON to dub him the new MLK. (CNN just called him 'The Healer' which makes me want to vomit.)

His father was African, not African-American, so he has ZERO claim to the whole 'we've been oppressed for six hundred years' BS. His family was more likely slave OWNERS than slaves.

He is NOT Lincoln. He is NOT Kennedy. He is NOT MLK. Of course, those men all have something in common......

that liberals get a HUGE PASS when it comes to verbal spillage. I've heard some of the most hateful things come out of Howard Dean and all we hear about is what Karl Rove said, and a lot of it was taken out of context. He didn't say ALL Democrats, he said SOME liberals, i.e. Move On.Org and George Soros. There WERE groups demonstrating against the war in Afghanistan. That was a fact. And how does the Democratic party get by with a former KKK member (Byrd)? That wouldn't be allowed for 2 seconds on the Republican side.

From the faux populist gibberish mouthed by speaker after speaker, you would never have known that the Republicans have been in power over the past several years and used that titanic power to lead the country to its present sorry state.

Summary
On the defensive over the extent of multiple McCain homes, the GOP candidate strikes back. But his TV spot gives an oversimplified and misleading account of how Obama bought his own $1.6 million house in Chicago.

The ad says Chicago power broker got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." But there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter.

It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford." Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home.

McCain launched the attack after Obama ran one capitalizing on McCain's inability to recall for an interviewer how many homes the McCains own. Obama's ad says it's seven. The best tally we've seen puts the figure at eight, counting all the apartments and homes owned by McCain's wife, Cindy, and various family trusts, for themselves and their children.

So you don't need to research the NAU? I hope the sand will protect your little brain when all heck breaks loose.

The concept of the NAU has been actively pursued by our government (Bush) and the government of Canada and Mexico since 2005. Check it out.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

I keep seeing posts telling us to "drop ridiculous charges", etc about Obama's b/c. You may not realize this yet, but we are just MTs here voicing our opinion that we do not believe the b/c issue has been resolved (because it hasn't) and that we are glad there are others (judges, lawyers, politicians, etc) who are suing and taking this to the supreme court. However to tell us to "drop the charges" is just too silly. We're not the ones who are going to courts, only voicing our opinions. And last I knew that is what this site is for.

I see many posts with interesting articles written by jounalists and people who have been involved in the case since it all began (and even people outside the country), and those posts are met with such replies all screaming how any article that is posted is not a "credible source". I saw someone give news headlines and was told "show us a credible source". Yet time and time again those same people will come back and cite pro-Obama sites like Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, Huffington Post, etc as credible sources (I even saw someone state Obama's own website as a credible source - had to laugh at that one).

People from all over the country (and the world) are writing articles about this. That means there is something to it. People who are journalists, lawyers, etc, are not going to write articles based on nothing. If it was all based on nothing we'd be seeing more lawsuits filed against the people writing the articles.

On this board I see that the people who want the issue resolved and are looking forward to hearing what the supreme courts have to say, and the outcome of all the other numerous lawsuits are doing just that and voicing their opinions. No need to treat them with disrespect. You can post your own post on why you believe what you do. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I enjoy reading the articles.

So let me just say once more....people on this board - we are just MT'sn not the actual people going to the courts suing Obama, hence we have no "charges to drop". We leave that to more capable hands. We are voicing our opinions here and will continue to do so until the issue has been resolved. Don't tell us it has been resolved otherwise there would be no court cases out there.

Lets all wait and see. And as my grandma used to say to me when I was little "Stop being so silly, you silly goose you".

IT AIN'T FEARMONGERING IF IT'S TRUE.... Just today, the LA Times has a good report on the unprecedented pressure on state budgets right now -- pressure that will not be alleviated by the federal recovery plan because Sens. Collins & Co. believe state aid isn't stimulative enough. While state shortfalls will lead to painful cuts in practically every state, Nevada is poised to get hit much harder than most.

The Times report noted, for example, that Nevada is "facing the most serious shortfall," and lawmakers will have to cut a striking 38% from its state budget. The impact across the state will be both drastic and unavoidable, most notably in the state's public schools, which will soon face a 15% cut.

It wasn't surprising, then, that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) criticized Senate "centrists" for cutting $40 billion in state aid from the stimulus package, noting that the aid, which appeared in the House version, was intended to stop states from "laying off cops and firefighters, money to help keep teachers going." Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada rejected Frank's comments, labeling the remarks "fearmongering." Indeed, Ensign seemed encouraged by the fact that state budgets, including his own, would have to be slashed, calling the budgets "bloated." He said, "What we should be doing is cutting back."

Got that? As the recession worsens, and government spending is needed to prevent more Americans from losing their jobs, a leading Republican senator whose own state is about to get pummeled, believes it's a good idea to "cut back."
I can think of a variety of ways to respond to this nonsense, but I think Matt Yglesias summed things up nicely:

The idea that it would be good for states to cut back in the midst of the recession is stupid. The idea that the recession won't, absent federal aid, lead to layoffs of state employees such as teachers and firefighters is also stupid. But the idea that it's simultaneously true that the reason we should eschew aid is that states need to cut back and also true that it's fearmongering to warn of layoffs is doubleplus stupid. What does Ensign think cutbacks consist of? States will be reducing vital services. The cutbacks will have the immediate impact of reducing the incomes of laid-off families and beneficiaries of state programs. That will have an additional impact on businesses where the newly laid-off teachers and cops used to work.

And the reduced level of service will have its own bad economic impacts. Cutting back public safety budgets will mean fewer cops on the beat. That means more crime which will further reduce economic activity. State cutbacks to child care subsidies will make it harder for people who lose jobs to find and accept new ones. The cutbacks to mass transit services that are happening across the country will introduce additional rigidity into the labor market and reduce patronage of businesses that people are accustomed to reaching via transit. And in the most severe cases, cutbacks in assistant to the severely impoverished will have a decades-long impact on the well-being of their children.

Sen. John Ensign is entirely comfortable with all of these developments -- those dreaded state budgets are "bloated," after all -- but doesn't want anyone to acknowledge this publicly. Pointing to reality is "fearmongering."
It's not enough for congressional Republicans to stand in the way of sound economic policy during a crisis; they also want to discourage everyone from talking about it

It's not about what kind of job this guy can do, or how well he can lead the country. No it most certainly has not been! And I'm sick and tired of everyone making it out otherwise. It's always been about race and that's all its ever been about! I'm hopeful that anyone will be able to pull us out of this depression no matter what their color is or whether it be a man or woman. It's not going to be an easy job. But all through the campaign and to this day we kept hearing about how it's not about race. That was the line that this man from Illinois was trying to sell to us. He'd walk around and tell us he understands what we're going through, it's not about race. Then he'd talk about his grandmother being afraid of black me (uh, hello..I thought you said it wasn't about race). When he was elected my brother and his friends went out and celebrated in the streets because now we got a brother in there. He said to me, "you should be happy because we finally got a brother in the white house who is one of us". I asked him what does he mean "one of us", that's he's black like us so I should rejoicing and saying hallelulah thank you Jesus.

But this latest display of what he has planned for the innaugeration has got to be the most downright utter distasteful display of "flaunting" his race. Now at the inaugeration it's going to be a huge "Gone With the Winds" type of theme with ladies in their plantation dresses. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure I'll be hearing about him dressing the blacks up like the what our ancestors were dressed when they were slaves. He has taken racism to a whole new level. This is disgusting and this is not what the men who founded this country had in mind. It took us years and years to get through the slavery issues and now here comes Mr. Obama bringing all that sh!t back up again and dividing people. I've got some friends who are white and nowhere in their history do they have any relatives who owned slaves, but now Mr. Obama is going to make all of them feel as though they are slave owners. I don't know what it is but why does America seem to get stuck and not be able to move forward. Instead of looking into the future he's dragging back up the plantation and slavery issues and making a big deal of them. I am just sick to death of coming on and reading how it's not about race when that's all that it is about. I voted for Mr. Obama because I like him. I didn't think he was qualified and he doesn't have the experience, but I'm willing to give a new unknown person a chance. Now he pulls this racial crap and it makes me ashamed to be black and more ashamed that I was conned into his lies and voted for him. (even the NAACP is criticizing this). It's not about race?????? Tell me another one.

Because of the following, which has been well known for hundreds of years now. This form of racism was established in the American culture by white people, some of whom now deny its existence.

Subconscious mental connection between blacks, apes may reinforce subtle discrimination

Many U.S. citizens may not hold openly racist beliefs today, but they still may subconsciously link African Americans with apes because people still use words and metaphors that subtly reinforce a less-than-human bias and endorse violence against Blacks, according to a new study.

"Historical racist images and books dehumanizing African Americans in the 19th and early 20th century relied heavily on the Negro-ape metaphor, which was used to stereotype Blacks as lazy, dim and aggressive," said lead author Phillip Atiba Goff, assistant professor of psychology at Penn State. "Such dehumanization and animal imagery have been used for centuries to justify violence against many oppressed groups.

"The images have disappeared from popular culture and from most people's memory," he added. "However, after completing six studies, we found strong evidence that Black-ape linkages still influence people subconsciously and impact their judgment particularly in the case of African American suspects and defendants."

The study's findings are published in the paper, "Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization and Contemporary Consequences," in a recent issue (February) of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is published by the American Psychological Association.

Goff and fellow researchers Jennifer Eberhardt, associate professor of psychology at Stanford University; Matthew C. Jackson and Melissa J. Williams, graduate students at Penn State and Berkeley, respectively, conducted six studies of college-age students. They found that participants � even those with no stated prejudices or knowledge of the historical images � were quicker to associate Blacks with apes than they were to associate Whites with apes.

Goff and fellow researchers Jennifer Eberhardt, associate professor of psychology at Stanford University, Matthew C. Jackson and Melissa J. Williams, graduate students at Penn State and Berkeley, respectively, conducted six studies of White college-age students. They found that participants � even those with no stated prejudices or knowledge of the historical images -- were quicker to associate Blacks with apes than they were to associate Whites with apes.

In the first three studies, researchers subliminally flashed Black or White male faces on a screen for a fraction of a second to "prime" the participants, who could identify blurry ape drawings much faster after they were primed with Black faces than with White faces.

http://www.physorg.com/news123944737.html