why don't blacks don't trust Republicans?

[Bird Dog]

why don't blacks don't trust Republicans?


Why do people like me "don't trust Democrats" especially with our money, lives, children, health care, national security, etc. ???

 

[PsyOps]

You're showing your ignorance. Republicans of Lincoln's era are more like today's Democrats....

Anyway, ending slavery is not the act of a conservative, it's the act of a liberal, as is giving women the right to vote.

This is a pointless argument. Neither party today supports such abhorrent ideas as slavery or forbidding women to vote. We have grown and learned as a society together, not as democrats or Republicans, but together. And the belief that blacks don’t trust Republicans is equally pointless. I don’t think we need to waste our time listing all the black conservatives or black republicans that exist in this country.

I do think it is a fair argument to say black people don’t trust white people. And O’Reilly making this slip of the tongue doesn’t help matters. But when he realizes his mistake and apologizes for it and the black community refuses to accept that apology it just drives the wedge even deeper into the problem. Al Sharpton demanded an apology from Don Imus. When Imus apologized it still wasn’t good enough for Sharpton and the gang. He wanted his own lynching of Imus and got it.

As much as I try to understand how hard slavery has been on the black community, there has to come a time where we move on. But, apparently the black community is not ready. Until then, things like this O’Reilly slip are going to be a big issue for some.

But there’s more to it for you Forest. It’s political for you. This, for you, has nothing to do with race and getting along. It has to do with you proving your political side is superior. It doesn’t seem you’ll ever figure out that there is no such thing.

Now where's my apology for calling me a racist.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

But there’s more to it for you Forest.

Now where's my apology for calling me a racist.

I do not speak for "Forestal" of course, but "Andy" asked me about this and I do believe that my answer I gave to "Andy" directly aplies to you also, link it HERE.

So "Forestal" was basically correct completely and he does not owe any of you an apology.

 

[Nupe2]

Nupe, I am interested in your response and have some questions.

Really is there a legitimate fear of assassination? Has there been a prominent black leader murdered since MLK? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson parade around the country infuriating people on purpose and to my knowledge there hasn't been a single attempt on their lives. They don't have 1/100th the security a president has.

I don't think there are as many black folks as you might think that support Revs. Jackson and Sharpton. Also, no black person has ever had such a legitimate opportunity to wield as much power as Mr. Obama if he were to be elected. That, my friend, is real change and real change is real scary to a lot of folks. Granted, my opinion is "colored" so to speak by the events of my lifetime; the murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, JFK, RFK, Medgar Evers, the civil rights workers Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman and countless unknown others. I'll say this knowing that it is an oversimplification of the reasons for these murders but it seems that folks who stand up for change have been murdered physically or emotionally by those previously in power. This is probably a natural course but that very same natural course is what leads to the concern for his safety.

I agree he more than likely be heckled just as bad from the black community than the white because I don't think he could ever please them.

BTW, what exactly is "blackness"?

Got me on that one. I never understood why some folks chose to attack his blackness. I think some felt that his growing up with a white mom in a foreign country and in Hawaii must have somehow diluted his "blackness." I don't understand and consider the criticism, if you can call it that, irrelevant. Do you question his "whiteness?'

Wouldn't it be ironic if history showed that some "old white man" was more beneficial to "black America" than the first black president was? I want to know why someone cannot disagree with his ideology and politics without getting the red hot brand of "racist".

Such a comparison is impossible unless the first black president is elected. Even then, events shape Presidencies (makeup of Congress, State of the Union economically, etc., foreign affairs, etc., etc.) so such a comparison would not be reasonable. Also, where is this "black America" of which you speak? As far as reaction to disagreement, nothing you can do about another person's reactions. You believe what you believe and support the candidate that you believe is best for the office. :shrug:

He is exciting and I believe change can be good when done correctly to the periphery and not the core. Do you also think that Obama has the added pressure of being a very good president?

Look, all of us should want a great President. Every one of them has the pressure to excel. I think the added pressure is more likely the race issue you mention below. However, I say that not with the same "fabric softener" of judgment you have stated. I think the issue is that some white folks would not judge future candidates empirically but would base their judgment on the fact that Mr. Obama was black and failed and therefore the next black candidate would likely fail. That "reasoning" is not judgmental; it is racist since it assumes success or failure is based on race rather than talent, performance, intellect or other relevant factors.

edit: It's also stupid to make an issue of race....he's a product of one black parent and one white parent...so if he does well does that mean it's because of his mom's genes and if he does poorly is it due to his dad's genes? Sounds like the Star Trek episode - "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield."

If he takes office and it turns into a modern day "Carter" administration it will muddy the water for the next black presidential candidates for decades. I only say this because I believe white people can be just as judgmental as you believe black people can be as you described in the "blackness" paragraph.

Do you honestly think that the "party powerful" would allow super delegates to defect from the rank and file wishes and vote to appoint Hillary? In light of the hissy fit in the 2000 election could the democrats be that hypocritical?

We're talking about slick Willie and the Missus here....anything is possible. That's the "dirty" in politics that I hate.

Pete:

My responses are embedded in your post. Let me know what you think.

 

[PsyOps]

I do not speak for "Forestal" of course, but "Andy" asked me about this and I do believe that my answer I gave to "Andy" directly aplies to you also, link it HERE.

So "Forestal" was basically correct completely and he does not owe any of you an apology.

So, you're saying I'm a racist too? An aweful lot of bigotry going around here from you liberals.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't understand and consider the criticism, if you can call it that, irrelevant. Do you question his "whiteness?'

I never gave it one second's worth of thought about Barack Obama being the "black" President. I assumed that he would be President of the whole US, if elected, without regard to race. I have never heard of him making a reference to his race in any substantial capacity - it's been the Hillary camp and the media making a big deal out of it. Barack himself doesn't seem to think his race/ethnicity is of any consequence, which is as it should be.

Michelle, of course, is a different story. She's putting more focus on race than is necessary, in my opinion.

With regard to Sharpton and Jackson, etc, they want to talk about "blackness" because, if elected, Barack Obama can put them out of business. They've made a tidy living shaking down "white America" and trying to make everything a racial issue. If we elect a black President, suddenly all their stirring becomes a moot point. *Whites* will not only make Obama the Democratic nominee, but they will put him in office as well. Blacks don't make up enough of the population to carry a whole election on their backs.

So Al and Jesse are running scared at this point. If they can paint Obama as some sort of "non-black", then they can minimize the accomplishment and keep the money rolling in.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

So, you're saying I'm a racist too? An aweful lot of bigotry going around here from you liberals.

When you make a post that directly supports the racist statements and put your own bigoted perspective on top of that then you do get the rightful titles of racist and bigot attached to "PsyOps" based on your own words in this thread on this subject, link HERE post 23 page 3.

So we are not name-calling you a racist because it is directly based on your posting.

O"Reilly said he wanted the facts before he goes on the "lynching" and you called that "defending Mrs. (Ms. per PsyOps) Obama" since he (and you) only support lynching those truly guilty of not always being proud of white America.

Then you gave the wrong impression that it was the phone caller and not O"Reilly that made the "lynching party idea" - when in fact it was OReilly and NOT the caller's words. Refer to "PsyOps" link given above.

Then you go on about O"Reilly being "fair" since O"Reilly wants the facts before the "lynching party" of Mrs. Obama.

Later O'Reilly apologizes for his offensive words and you cling to your words instead of giving your own apology.

So "Forestal" was completely correct because your post words are indeed examples of traditional white racist bigotry.

 

[MMDad]

Jimmy, why aren't you out looking for a job? Walmart is open right now, and they're hiring. Hurry up, get out there, and stop being a worthless waste of flesh.

 

[PsyOps]

When you make a post that directly supports the racist statements and put your own bigoted perspective on top of that then you do get the rightful titles of racist and bigot attached to "PsyOps" based on your own words in this thread on this subject, link HERE post 23 page 3.

So we are not name-calling you a racist because it is directly based on your posting.

O"Reilly said he wanted the facts before he goes on the "lynching" and you called that "defending Mrs. (Ms. per PsyOps) Obama" since he (and you) only support lynching those truly guilty of not always being proud of white America.

Then you gave the wrong impression that it was the phone caller and not O"Reilly that made the "lynching party idea" - when in fact it was OReilly and NOT the caller's words. Refer to "PsyOps" link given above.

Then you go on about O"Reilly being "fair" since O"Reilly wants the facts before the "lynching party" of Mrs. Obama.

Later O'Reilly apologizes for his offensive words and you cling to your words instead of giving your own apology.

So "Forestal" was completely correct because your post words are indeed examples of traditional white racist bigotry.

This is really not worth it, but...

You liberals are always claiming to be the champions of causes like compassion, understanding, and caring and what it is to be offended by words, ; but only when it benefits you. You don’t give second thought to offending others, nor are you apologetic when you do. I would tell you I am offended that you call me a racist, but when I consider the source I just say . You don’t know the first thing about me. Calling someone racist that you don’t know is nothing more than what you accuse me of: BIGOTRY! Am I calling you a bigot? No. I am calling your attitude towards me bigoted.

Through all of this you are unable to separate your politics from everyday living. You look down the paper towel roll and see the word “lynching” and refuse to look outside of that and see the context in which the word was used.

And don’t even attempt to tell me who was proposing the lynching in this phone call from the lady. I heard the entire call on O’Reilly’s radio show and the context of it and what O’Reilly said after that call was over. I doubt you even listened to the clip Forest provided let alone his radio show. But even if you did once the word “lynching” popped out of O’Reilly’s mouth everything else that he said went right out of your tunnel-visioned attention span.

You probably don’t even realize that O’Reilly was defending Mrs. Obama (by the way... Ms is generic for both Mrs. and Miss since you are so picky about terminology. But, I will make sure I remind you of every grammatical misstep you make from here on out). He was using the term “lynching” metaphorically because of the tone of the caller. Her call was coming off in a bigoted manner and O’Reilly was not going to have it. But you’re too mired in your political bias to see it. And O’Reilly apologized for it, but you wont have it. Just more proof that you liberals only stand for such actions when serves YOUR purpose.

But, you have shown more of your true colors to me. How can anyone desire to hold a political office with such narrow and bigoted thinking?

 

[This_person]

This is really not worth it, but...

You were right with all of it, but this was the only thing Jimmy read, I'll bet. The rest was above his comprehension level.