100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Republican Party and race | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
cashu
on
Sat 11/28/09 03:00 PM
|
|
and the first person who says "who the hell is Frederick Douglas?" I'm leaving this discussion ==================================================================== Who the hell is frederick douglas ? And take your bb gun with you ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. You disagree? Why don't you talk to some black conservatives and then make up your mind? On both counts,,why do you assume I havent? (spoken with black conservatives and made up my mind...) Thats not to say, that SOME in the party probably do expect the black vote just because ,,, but OVERALL I dont believe it to be the prevalant belief amongst constituents or politicians. Because every black conservative politician and writer has been trashed as a "self-hating black", "uncle Tom", "Aunt Jamima" or some other racial slur. Recently, I saw an show where two black men were discussing a topic and the leftist told the conservative "Go back on the porch". Honestly, I don't believe that you have actually looked at how black conservatives are treated in the media or by other blacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't believe that you have actually looked at how black conservatives are treated in the media or by other blacks. Larry Elder can tell ya. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. You disagree? Why don't you talk to some black conservatives and then make up your mind? On both counts,,why do you assume I havent? (spoken with black conservatives and made up my mind...) Thats not to say, that SOME in the party probably do expect the black vote just because ,,, but OVERALL I dont believe it to be the prevalant belief amongst constituents or politicians. Because every black conservative politician and writer has been trashed as a "self-hating black", "uncle Tom", "Aunt Jamima" or some other racial slur. Recently, I saw an show where two black men were discussing a topic and the leftist told the conservative "Go back on the porch". Honestly, I don't believe that you have actually looked at how black conservatives are treated in the media or by other blacks. let me repost my stance, I dont think the view that blacks are obligated to the democratic party is prevalent amongst the constituents or the politicians. That the media still survives off of sensationalism and gossip doesnt, in my opinion, have much to do with what voters are actually feeling or politicians. The media is good for taking the most sensationalistic views and opinions and airing them, this doesnt necessarily reflect the realities of day to day life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. I dont think either party is holding guns to peoples heads when it comes to their choice of political affiliation.
In a recent report, a community that is just over two thirds black, voted overwhelmingly to remove party affiliations from the names on the voting ballots for local elections. The Obama Administration's Justice Department told this community that they cannot do that on the basis that, if there were no indication of party affiliation, the people in that community wouldn't know who to vote for. The Justice Department felt that the people might vote for the " wrong " candidates if they weren't told what party the candidate belonged to. Sure sounds like the Democrats think ( in this case at least ) that they are entitled to the black voters of that community. Especially considering that their refusal to allow the community to remove the party affiliations is extremely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the community in question, unable to afford the costs involved in challenging the ruling, have decided not to fight it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. I dont think either party is holding guns to peoples heads when it comes to their choice of political affiliation.
In a recent report, a community that is just over two thirds black, voted overwhelmingly to remove party affiliations from the names on the voting ballots for local elections. The Obama Administration's Justice Department told this community that they cannot do that on the basis that, if there were no indication of party affiliation, the people in that community wouldn't know who to vote for. The Justice Department felt that the people might vote for the " wrong " candidates if they weren't told what party the candidate belonged to. Sure sounds like the Democrats think ( in this case at least ) that they are entitled to the black voters of that community. Especially considering that their refusal to allow the community to remove the party affiliations is extremely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the community in question, unable to afford the costs involved in challenging the ruling, have decided not to fight it. Yep. It's us against them. If "we the people" ever got smart and started taking back this country, this fight would be over very quickly. But, time is running out. We won't be able to fight once we have a police state and "we the people" are the ones who are unarmed and our money is worthless. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quietman_2009
on
Sat 11/28/09 04:21 PM
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. You disagree? Why don't you talk to some black conservatives and then make up your mind? On both counts,,why do you assume I havent? (spoken with black conservatives and made up my mind...) Thats not to say, that SOME in the party probably do expect the black vote just because ,,, but OVERALL I dont believe it to be the prevalant belief amongst constituents or politicians. Because every black conservative politician and writer has been trashed as a "self-hating black", "uncle Tom", "Aunt Jamima" or some other racial slur. Recently, I saw an show where two black men were discussing a topic and the leftist told the conservative "Go back on the porch". Honestly, I don't believe that you have actually looked at how black conservatives are treated in the media or by other blacks. let me repost my stance, I dont think the view that blacks are obligated to the democratic party is prevalent amongst the constituents or the politicians. That the media still survives off of sensationalism and gossip doesnt, in my opinion, have much to do with what voters are actually feeling or politicians. The media is good for taking the most sensationalistic views and opinions and airing them, this doesnt necessarily reflect the realities of day to day life. just one example of many There's an old saying in the days of slavery. There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master. -Harry Belafonte at a Democrat rally |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. I dont think either party is holding guns to peoples heads when it comes to their choice of political affiliation.
In a recent report, a community that is just over two thirds black, voted overwhelmingly to remove party affiliations from the names on the voting ballots for local elections. The Obama Administration's Justice Department told this community that they cannot do that on the basis that, if there were no indication of party affiliation, the people in that community wouldn't know who to vote for. The Justice Department felt that the people might vote for the " wrong " candidates if they weren't told what party the candidate belonged to. Sure sounds like the Democrats think ( in this case at least ) that they are entitled to the black voters of that community. Especially considering that their refusal to allow the community to remove the party affiliations is extremely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the community in question, unable to afford the costs involved in challenging the ruling, have decided not to fight it. Unless or until some other community in this country makes the request and is APPROVED, I cant follow the logic that this is a democrat exclusive issue or an Obama administration exclusive issue. For the person or persons who expressed that consituents wouldnt know who to vote for, I am of the opinion that their statement was ignorant, insulting and inconsiderate. I think we can find examples of that type of statement (ignorant, insulting, and incosiderate) across political lines. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. You disagree? Why don't you talk to some black conservatives and then make up your mind? On both counts,,why do you assume I havent? (spoken with black conservatives and made up my mind...) Thats not to say, that SOME in the party probably do expect the black vote just because ,,, but OVERALL I dont believe it to be the prevalant belief amongst constituents or politicians. Because every black conservative politician and writer has been trashed as a "self-hating black", "uncle Tom", "Aunt Jamima" or some other racial slur. Recently, I saw an show where two black men were discussing a topic and the leftist told the conservative "Go back on the porch". Honestly, I don't believe that you have actually looked at how black conservatives are treated in the media or by other blacks. let me repost my stance, I dont think the view that blacks are obligated to the democratic party is prevalent amongst the constituents or the politicians. That the media still survives off of sensationalism and gossip doesnt, in my opinion, have much to do with what voters are actually feeling or politicians. The media is good for taking the most sensationalistic views and opinions and airing them, this doesnt necessarily reflect the realities of day to day life. just one example of many There's an old saying in the days of slavery. There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master. -Harry Belafonte at a Democrat rally One persons opinion, everyone has one , and I am sure if I took the interest, I could find just as many examples of black people who support Powell. No person is going to have everyones support, regardless of race. This is the reason I find it difficult to automatically assume racism is an underlying motive in any political decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. I dont think either party is holding guns to peoples heads when it comes to their choice of political affiliation.
In a recent report, a community that is just over two thirds black, voted overwhelmingly to remove party affiliations from the names on the voting ballots for local elections. The Obama Administration's Justice Department told this community that they cannot do that on the basis that, if there were no indication of party affiliation, the people in that community wouldn't know who to vote for. The Justice Department felt that the people might vote for the " wrong " candidates if they weren't told what party the candidate belonged to. Sure sounds like the Democrats think ( in this case at least ) that they are entitled to the black voters of that community. Especially considering that their refusal to allow the community to remove the party affiliations is extremely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the community in question, unable to afford the costs involved in challenging the ruling, have decided not to fight it. Unless or until some other community in this country makes the request and is APPROVED, I cant follow the logic that this is a democrat exclusive issue or an Obama administration exclusive issue. For the person or persons who expressed that consituents wouldnt know who to vote for, I am of the opinion that their statement was ignorant, insulting and inconsiderate. I think we can find examples of that type of statement (ignorant, insulting, and incosiderate) across political lines. But that is the whole point. The Justice Department denied it. Unconstitutionally told the citizens of the community that they could not hold elections without party affiliation of the candidates being clearly marked. That Justice Department is headed by someone appointed by Obama. If you consider the people who made the denial to be ignorant or insulting, then you HAVE to look at Obama and his political stance. He was the one who put the people in place that made the decision. Did you ever hear of the Bush administration even attempting something like this?? There were many, MANY claims that he was " trampling the constitution "...but Obama's administration actually DID in this case. The only reason it will hold up is because the community cannot afford the costs that would result from trying to fight the administration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 11/28/09 08:04 PM
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. I dont think either party is holding guns to peoples heads when it comes to their choice of political affiliation.
In a recent report, a community that is just over two thirds black, voted overwhelmingly to remove party affiliations from the names on the voting ballots for local elections. The Obama Administration's Justice Department told this community that they cannot do that on the basis that, if there were no indication of party affiliation, the people in that community wouldn't know who to vote for. The Justice Department felt that the people might vote for the " wrong " candidates if they weren't told what party the candidate belonged to. Sure sounds like the Democrats think ( in this case at least ) that they are entitled to the black voters of that community. Especially considering that their refusal to allow the community to remove the party affiliations is extremely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the community in question, unable to afford the costs involved in challenging the ruling, have decided not to fight it. Unless or until some other community in this country makes the request and is APPROVED, I cant follow the logic that this is a democrat exclusive issue or an Obama administration exclusive issue. For the person or persons who expressed that consituents wouldnt know who to vote for, I am of the opinion that their statement was ignorant, insulting and inconsiderate. I think we can find examples of that type of statement (ignorant, insulting, and incosiderate) across political lines. But that is the whole point. The Justice Department denied it. Unconstitutionally told the citizens of the community that they could not hold elections without party affiliation of the candidates being clearly marked. That Justice Department is headed by someone appointed by Obama. If you consider the people who made the denial to be ignorant or insulting, then you HAVE to look at Obama and his political stance. He was the one who put the people in place that made the decision. Did you ever hear of the Bush administration even attempting something like this?? There were many, MANY claims that he was " trampling the constitution "...but Obama's administration actually DID in this case. The only reason it will hold up is because the community cannot afford the costs that would result from trying to fight the administration. I dont know of any other community who has made the request, that is why I Cant compare administrations based upon this one case. I dont know how other administrations have or would have handled the same situation. Also, if they have denied it, where was the proof that it happened that way? I thought this was something that was publically accepted and acknowledged. I dont know the details of the story,, but I still feel the individuals that made that statement (IF they made that statement) were ignorant. But their ignorance does not make the whole party ignorant nor the president. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustAGuy2112
on
Sat 11/28/09 08:47 PM
|
|
I disagree that democrats think blacks are obligated to them. I dont think either party is holding guns to peoples heads when it comes to their choice of political affiliation.
In a recent report, a community that is just over two thirds black, voted overwhelmingly to remove party affiliations from the names on the voting ballots for local elections. The Obama Administration's Justice Department told this community that they cannot do that on the basis that, if there were no indication of party affiliation, the people in that community wouldn't know who to vote for. The Justice Department felt that the people might vote for the " wrong " candidates if they weren't told what party the candidate belonged to. Sure sounds like the Democrats think ( in this case at least ) that they are entitled to the black voters of that community. Especially considering that their refusal to allow the community to remove the party affiliations is extremely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the community in question, unable to afford the costs involved in challenging the ruling, have decided not to fight it. Unless or until some other community in this country makes the request and is APPROVED, I cant follow the logic that this is a democrat exclusive issue or an Obama administration exclusive issue. For the person or persons who expressed that consituents wouldnt know who to vote for, I am of the opinion that their statement was ignorant, insulting and inconsiderate. I think we can find examples of that type of statement (ignorant, insulting, and incosiderate) across political lines. But that is the whole point. The Justice Department denied it. Unconstitutionally told the citizens of the community that they could not hold elections without party affiliation of the candidates being clearly marked. That Justice Department is headed by someone appointed by Obama. If you consider the people who made the denial to be ignorant or insulting, then you HAVE to look at Obama and his political stance. He was the one who put the people in place that made the decision. Did you ever hear of the Bush administration even attempting something like this?? There were many, MANY claims that he was " trampling the constitution "...but Obama's administration actually DID in this case. The only reason it will hold up is because the community cannot afford the costs that would result from trying to fight the administration. I dont know of any other community who has made the request, that is why I Cant compare administrations based upon this one case. I dont know how other administrations have or would have handled the same situation. Also, if they have denied it, where was the proof that it happened that way? I thought this was something that was publically accepted and acknowledged. I dont know the details of the story,, but I still feel the individuals that made that statement (IF they made that statement) were ignorant. But their ignorance does not make the whole party ignorant nor the president. You misunderstood. The Justice Department didn't deny that they did it. The denial I was talking about was them denying this community the right to vote in a way that they overwhelmingly voted for. Obama has appointed people ( two that I know of, one of which has stepped down from her position ) who have praised the philosophy of Mao Tse Tung, a communist. One of them is the current " Manufacturing Czar " who is now in charge of how much money execs for large companies are allowed to get paid. How can he not know about these people and their philosophies?? To not know, would indicate ignorance on his part and a serious lack of a vetting process for the people he chooses to appoint. Since it would seem that you have not heard about the story I am referring to, I will post a couple of links for you. http://teamronmiller.com/reflections/?p=134 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/hinzsight_story/david_hinz/2009/10/24/blacks_too_stupid_to_vote_unless_democrat_candidates_are_identified_us_justice_dept http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote//print/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the washington times story, there is another side to the decision. Whites in that community cast the majority of votes AND the voting rights act has declared that this community has a history of racial discrimination. Considering those two facts, it is reasonable the decision was made based upon RACISM and not specifically race. Seems they are saying, based upon the history of this community, that the white voters(who cast the majority of votes) would not vote for a black candidate which wasnt specifically alligned with the democratic party. It seems as if there are decisions being based in race BECAUSE of the community's history of racism.
So, the decision could be saying that blacks wouldnt know how to vote or it could be saying that whites wouldnt consider the black candidates. If the decision was taking into account a past history , and not some blatant speculation about blacks or whites, than I can understand why it was made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the washington times story, there is another side to the decision. Whites in that community cast the majority of votes AND the voting rights act has declared that this community has a history of racial discrimination. Considering those two facts, it is reasonable the decision was made based upon RACISM and not specifically race. Seems they are saying, based upon the history of this community, that the white voters(who cast the majority of votes) would not vote for a black candidate which wasnt specifically alligned with the democratic party. It seems as if there are decisions being based in race BECAUSE of the community's history of racism. So, the decision could be saying that blacks wouldnt know how to vote or it could be saying that whites wouldnt consider the black candidates. If the decision was taking into account a past history , and not some blatant speculation about blacks or whites, than I can understand why it was made. But regardless of whether or not we can " understand " the decision, the fact remains that the decision itself is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the washington times story, there is another side to the decision. Whites in that community cast the majority of votes AND the voting rights act has declared that this community has a history of racial discrimination. Considering those two facts, it is reasonable the decision was made based upon RACISM and not specifically race. Seems they are saying, based upon the history of this community, that the white voters(who cast the majority of votes) would not vote for a black candidate which wasnt specifically alligned with the democratic party. It seems as if there are decisions being based in race BECAUSE of the community's history of racism. So, the decision could be saying that blacks wouldnt know how to vote or it could be saying that whites wouldnt consider the black candidates. If the decision was taking into account a past history , and not some blatant speculation about blacks or whites, than I can understand why it was made. But regardless of whether or not we can " understand " the decision, the fact remains that the decision itself is unconstitutional. Im no constitutional expert, so I cant even debate that one with ya,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the washington times story, there is another side to the decision. Whites in that community cast the majority of votes AND the voting rights act has declared that this community has a history of racial discrimination. Considering those two facts, it is reasonable the decision was made based upon RACISM and not specifically race. Seems they are saying, based upon the history of this community, that the white voters(who cast the majority of votes) would not vote for a black candidate which wasnt specifically alligned with the democratic party. It seems as if there are decisions being based in race BECAUSE of the community's history of racism. So, the decision could be saying that blacks wouldnt know how to vote or it could be saying that whites wouldnt consider the black candidates. If the decision was taking into account a past history , and not some blatant speculation about blacks or whites, than I can understand why it was made. But regardless of whether or not we can " understand " the decision, the fact remains that the decision itself is unconstitutional. Im no constitutional expert, so I cant even debate that one with ya,,lol I'm not either. However, enough has been said about it being so that I am of the opinion that ALL of the folks who have said so aren't completely full of crap. Some of 'em are a lot of the time, though. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haaaa,, I agree with you on that one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haaaa,, I agree with you on that one 
|
|
|
|
|
