The racist are finally coming out of the shadows

from JoeUser Forums

Look at the broad big tent of the democrat party. The moment a colored man steps out and chooses to run for president. The racial slurs start coming out. I watched it happen when Congressman Harold Ford Jr. ran for speaker of the house, the so called big tent shrank down to one white woman. Congressman Ford was told that it was not his turn to be speaker and that a white woman should take the job he was forced out of the election process. So much for the democratic system. After all women are 50% of the population and we need their votes. Ford was then not supported by the DNC losing his seat in the Congress. Now we have some uppity colored man wanting to jump the line and run for president of the before a white woman. Can you believe the audacity of the guy?

President Roosevelt was the first liberal to con the colored people into going democrat by mouthing equality even though it was the democrat party that insisted on Jim Crow laws of the south, and that the all the elected officials in local, city, state, and federal government that supported racism were democrats. The democrat liberals will tell you that this was in the past and that they are ashamed of it but it is different now. The promise of President Roosevelt is still unfulfilled because it is more profitable for the party to foster hate and discontent than to solve a simple problem. Notice if you will that every time colored people try to advance they first must wait behind white men, then white women, then black women and finally black men are allowed to step up. Now that Hispanics are being courted into the democrat party blacks are being pushed down a few more levels. It does not matter how long people wait in line it has to do with the number of votes that can be delivered. Blacks have been taken for granted and pushed and shoved because the party is still a racist party above all else.

Senator Obama has had racist and hateful things said about him not from the mean heartless republicans or conservatives but from his own party. Starting off with he is not black enough to represent the black people. Well he is running for president of all the people not the black people. This was said to turn blacks against him. Then it was said that Senator Obama was corrupt, again this coming from his own party not the republicans or conservatives. Now it is being said that he is only wining because he is black belittling his accomplishments so far. It seems okay for liberal democrats to support colored people as long as they don’t have a chance to succeed. Examples being Jessie Jackson, and the fat black loud mouth I can’t remember his name. Name for me one black person in the democrat party that competent, that was allowed to advance above the place he or she was issued.

Contrast this with the Republican Party, they had Colin Powell and he advanced as high as he wanted to go. He was encouraged to run for president and chose not to, allowing President Bush to be elected. Next was Doctor Condoleezza Rice, she was offered national support to run for president. She turned it down for a better job of being the commissioner of the NFL, her life long dream. (Hope she gets it) how were both of these competent blacks treated by liberals? Dr. Rice was portrayed as aunt Jamima and not a single liberal said a word about the racist tone. General Powell was called an uncle tom and both are called a race traitor because they were not democrat. Doctor Thomas Sowell, highly respected in the republican party, and lets not forget Justus Clarence Thomas all vilified by the left and attacked on racial terms not political terms because these people are well qualified, they can’t argue the issues with these smart people that earned their way without being given anything, no set asides, no affirmative action, no putting them ahead of someone else because they are black as is done in the democrat party, that is just recent history.

Only incompetent blacks that know their place are allowed any prominence in the democrat party, why is that?

politics
10,428 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok, lets hear how wrong I am
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

You are so wrong.  Actually black men had the right to vote before any woman;  white, brown, black or polka-dotted. 

Bill Cunningham, Republican talk show host, slammed Barack Hussein Obama as being a "hack, Chicago-style politician" which I interpreted as corrupt.

The Republican Party of Tennessee had a press release stating "growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel ... if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States."

I'm not saying that there isn't racism whether blatant or hidden in this country but I don't think you can say that the Republicans are the party of "inclusiveness" and the Democrats are the party of "divisiveness". 

 

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, Justice Thomas was the beneficiary of an affirmative action program, although whether he "needed" it is open to question.

If you look coldly at the facts, the Republican Party has been far more colorblind than the Democrat Party, especially since WWII.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Silly, racists don't live in the shadows...it's too dark in there. ;)

~Zoo

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's been interesting to note, as well, that racial & gender inclusiveness within the Republican Party has only been a "big deal" to the liberal media & Democrats. Republicans have just accepted it without a second thought, Trent Lott notwithstanding.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are so wrong. Actually black men had the right to vote before any woman; white, brown, black or polka-dotted.
End of quote


True enough which is why I did not bring that up. I am writing about recent history from the 1940's on since before that blacks were repubilcans.

Bill Cunningham, Republican talk show host, slammed Barack Hussein Obama as being a "hack, Chicago-style politician" which I interpreted as corrupt.
End of quote


He did this after it was announced that Senator Obama had some shady real estate dealings. As we all know if you are from Chicago and a democrat you are corrupt, it is the only city where dead democrats vote more often in an election than live ones. Remember the city motto, Vote early and vote often! LOL sorry had to slide that one in. the story was leaked from the democrat party, just like the magic Negro thing. Sure he is unqualified to be president, just as unqualified as Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. But only in democrat circles does race play into the politics.

The Republican Party of Tennessee had a press release stating "growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel ... if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States."
End of quote


Sorry if my racial ignorance is showing here but how is that a racial comment? It is one on an important issue. America has always been a friend to Israel and Senator Obama has not addressed that issue or if he has I have not seen it. Please enlighten me.

I'm not saying that there isn't racism whether blatant or hidden in this country but I don't think you can say that the Republicans are the party of "inclusiveness" and the Democrats are the party of "divisiveness".
End of quote


I am saying just that! A republican walks into a room of people and sees a crowd of friends and enemies mixed or people that can help or hurt. Democrats walk into a room of people and they count male, female, white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. Divisiveness is their standard. I left the democrat party just after I voted for Mr. Carter the worst president in US history. It was my first election since turning 18 and I wanted to follow the family tradition , I did not study the candidates or what they stood for, never make that mistake again. I am a conservative who is a member of the Republican Party, because liberals have taken over the democrat party and don’t want me around. I saw the party for what it was and did not like it. I was welcomed by the republicans not because I was black but because I had something to offer, to contribute and was not looking for a handout. I never felt I was being introduced as the token Negro as I was made to feel when I was a democrat. The first observation that democrats feed back to me is, “you don’t sound black.” How does a black person sound? Ignorant! That is their stereotype. When I am with republicans for the first time the first feed back I get is why the hell are blacks still voting democrat?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look at what they did to Senator Lieberman, he was their token Jew, and vice-presidential candidate. Four years later they kicked him out of the party for a disagreement over how the war should be fought. This does not sound like a very big tent to me. The Senator like me is a conservative not a liberal. The party used to be made up of liberals and conservatives but over the last 30 years they have been pushed out of the party till I don’t think there are any left unless they are in the closet.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, Justice Thomas was the beneficiary of an affirmative action program, although whether he "needed" it is open to question.
End of quote


If you read his book you will see that he never took advantage of any affirmative action program.

If you look coldly at the facts, the Republican Party has been far more colorblind than the Democrat Party, especially since WWII.
End of quote


Right because before WWII there were not enough republicans in power other than the president but Negro’s at the time voted heavily republican as a block. Democrat is the party of racism and they have not done anything to change that in 60 years.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's been interesting to note, as well, that racial & gender inclusiveness within the Republican Party has only been a "big deal" to the liberal media & Democrats. Republicans have just accepted it without a second thought, Trent Lott notwithstanding.

You have to forgive Senator Lott he was a democrat once.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have to forgive Senator Lott he was a democrat once.
End of quote

Wasn't everyone in Mississippi a Democrat once? ;) ;)
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wasn't everyone in Mississippi a Democrat once?
End of quote


Yeah back then to get elected in the south you had to be two things, a democrat and a Klansman in good standing. Senator Lott left the Klan and was forgiven, but his conservatism was too much for the democrats so he switched parties. He is still a democrat at heart but he tries.  :LOL: 
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

My theory about the Democratic party is that after the Civil War, the Democrats were desperate to keep "their property". What a clever idea, give a little bit of crumbs (like welfare) entitlement programs, gettem hooked and bam their yours. They got some extra benefits too, seems the environmental activists, anti-war protesters, labor unions, who knew they like crumbs too. But don't get any one group get too strong, they don't like that. 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
My theory about the Democratic party is that after the Civil War,
End of quote


I think you mean WWII and it happened just before WWII not after and it was not until the 60’s did they start a recruiting drive that targeted black people in the cities. Before that welfare was mostly the rural poor.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

No, I mean't after the Civil War. But just not on a national level. Plantation owners gave just enough incentive to work the owners land. Barely enough to get ahead, definately enough to make leaving impossible. It morphed into a monetary incentive as you mentioned after WWII on a national level. Other groups followed suit at later times. Years of entitlement for a relatively small sum has paid the Democrats huge dividends. I wish more black folks realized it. Give them welfare and minimum wage to placate them, seems to be the plan to me. There are some black republicans/independants, they don't need a handout, they don't profit off the poverty of others, and they make their own mark on equal footing. proudly, and unbeholding to anyone.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, I mean't after the Civil War. But just not on a national level. Plantation owners gave just enough incentive to work the owners land. Barely enough to get ahead, definately enough to make leaving impossible. It morphed into a monetary incentive as you mentioned after WWII on a national level. Other groups followed suit at later times. Years of entitlement for a relatively small sum has paid the Democrats huge dividends. I wish more black folks realized it. Give them welfare and minimum wage to placate them, seems to be the plan to me. There are some black republicans/independants, they don't need a handout, they don't profit off the poverty of others, and they make their own mark on equal footing. proudly, and unbeholding to anyone.
End of quote


Wow, that brings back memories. My great grandfather was one of those and I remember the stories handed down that agree with what you wrote. I just never thought of it in a conspiratorial way before. My apology to you sir. Oh and I and my family have not taken any handouts or profit off the poverty of others, I have my own business, just as my parents had, and their parents before them. the last member of my family that needed a handout was my great grandfather when he was given his wife, 40 Acres and a mule. They worked that land and my grand father eventually owned a lumber mill until the Klan chased him out of North Carolina to New York with his millions. The family home in Clinton NC is still in the family over 100 years and counting. This is why I don’t have any faith in welfare or the democrat party.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now it is being said that he is only wining because he is black belittling his accomplishments so far.
End of quote


While I know that there has been a lot of vial and racist things said, I'm not so sure that this is one of them. I'm not sure I agree with the statement because being black has got to be a double edge sword. There are many people who will vote for him because they would like to see a black man as a president, while others will vote against him for the same reason.

I do not think that there is anyone that denies that his race is a factor in this election, just as no one would deny that Clinton's sex is a factor. For both of them it is a double edged sword, but I'm sure that both camps are milking the benefits of their minority status as much as they can, even if not overtly.

Does my saying this make me racist? I don't think so. I can't stand either one of them, not because of their sex or their race, I just hate what they stand for. Well, maybe that's not true. I'm not so sure I want a woman in the Whitehouse even if we had the same views. Especially not one that cries over losing a primary. I'm a woman myself, am I being sexist? I just don't think in general we have what it takes.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I know that there has been a lot of vial and racist things said, I'm not so sure that this is one of them.
End of quote


It took a while for me to learn liberal (racist) code, here is how it works in this case. Affirmative action is the reason a black person gets a job not because the person has any accomplishments or worked hard to get where he or she is. It was invented by good liberals to even or level the playing field. If you watch the democrat party closely pay attention to the blacks they hold in high esteem or put in prominent positions. Reverends Jackson, and Sharpton quickly come to mind. Hand picked idiots that sound as ignorant as can be and held up as roll models for the black community to look up to. Any time a disgruntle white person looses out on a job to a black person they console themselves by saying he lost the job because he was not black. I run into that a lot. When I worked for a year at Lockheed Martin I was promoted to head of uniformed security over 20 people that were much senior to me. I heard the grumbles that it was because I was black not because I was a charter member of the Fleet Antiterrorist Security Team, F.A.S.T. Company USMC. Or that I already held a top security clearance, or that I taught antiterrorist tactics, that I had clearance for Air Force One, or that I have been vetted by the three major intelligence agencies of our nation, or at the time I was still a paid consultant to the government on security matters. No none of that mattered it was because I was black that got me the job. Forget the fact that none of the people senior to me had better than an eighth grade education.

So when I hear it was because he was black that he got that far it strikes a cord. It does not matter if in this case it is true, or that the man is an empty suit, they are playing the race card in a way to damage the man in the eyes of blacks to let them know that he is second best and that white is better, because it could have been said differently and not brought up that response.

I do not think that there is anyone that denies that his race is a factor in this election, just as no one would deny that Clinton's sex is a factor. For both of them it is a double edged sword, but I'm sure that both camps are milking the benefits of their minority status as much as they can, even if not overtly.
End of quote


This is all liberal crap that you are being sucked into. Before Senators Clinton or Obama announced they were gong to run for the job the republicans were openly begging Secretary Rice to run for it. Race and gender did not matter they wanted a conservative that had a chance of winning, that was trusted by conservatives, just as they did General Powell until they found out he was not a conservative. Democrats look at race, and gender and think it is important, it is all for show, I could care less the political affiliation, gender or the race of the person as long as they are conservative. We have only had two conservative presidents in my lifetime, Kennedy and Reagan. The democrats hated both of them.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

That African Americans and women tend to support Democrats is great evidence of the failing of public schools to teach history.

 

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are so wrong. Actually black men had the right to vote before any woman; white, brown, black or polka-dotted.
Bill Cunningham, Republican talk show host, slammed Barack Hussein Obama as being a "hack, Chicago-style politician" which I interpreted as corrupt.
The Republican Party of Tennessee had a press release stating "growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel ... if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States."
I'm not saying that there isn't racism whether blatant or hidden in this country but I don't think you can say that the Republicans are the party of "inclusiveness" and the Democrats are the party of "divisiveness".
End of quote


First, he did not mention, nor is it germaine to the arguement who got the right to vote. Both are a part of ancient history (and if you want to get picky, both had the right to vote before then - just not on a national scale).

Second, and this one I find quite amusing, is the way you are trying to turn anything said about anyone not a WASP to be about race, gender or creed. That you are black, a woman, or not either does not make you immune from committing crime, or having your association with criminals an issue of race, gender or creed. yet I have found that since the democrats are the Racist sexist bigots right now, they are trying to turn the arguement away from the issue (the point here being Obama's association with a man under indictment for shady dealings). If Obama got a parking ticket (or Hillary for that matter) and it was brought up by an opponent, that is not a racist thing. It is a political thing, but hardly bigotted.

And third, the issue of Israel is only a racist, sexist, or religious issue when it is used against democrats. Which is hypocrital to say the least. And is racist, sexist and bigotted to say the most. Israel is one of America's staunchest allies, and as such, it is a very important issue to the US in the stability of the Middle east. Questioning ones support of Israel based on their statements is a very real concern and indeed one of the few real issues that should be examined in a presidential election that is actually being examined (versus hair color, who is your friend, and if health care is a right).

Which leads to the $64 question. Why cant liberals discuss the question on the table - without trying to change the question to a non-sequitar?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
That African Americans and women tend to support Democrats is great evidence of the failing of public schools to teach history.
End of quote


You are a racist and a sexist! African Americans have women we don't all chase white women. Some wome are black not all of them are democrats.  ;p 

Yes, the school system sucks!

Which leads to the $64 question. Why cant liberals discuss the question on the table - without trying to change the question to a non-sequitar?
End of quote


Great question! My answer is that they have no ideas of their own and the ones they used the last 40 years are stale and dry because they were forced upon us and they failed in every case. Absent of new ideas that they can use to inspire the nation they resort to attacks that change the subject from their vapid rhetoric that even they know is worthless to, “stop attacking me because I am a woman, black, or stupid and join with me in discussing the shade or grey within your argument so I can at least sound competent while I try to rehash the same old stuff and repackage it so sound new. I am not a liberal, I am a progressive! See that’s different than a liberal because liberals have old ideas and progressives have the same old ideas in a shiny new wrapper! So we are completely different. You see the difference? It is not government health care, which has been proven to fail wherever tried. Progressives have Universal health care. Paid for by the government, by taxes taken from the evil rich! See much different that government run health care. This time it will work because it is so different.
Liberal fix for education is not hold the students and teachers responsible and accountable just give them more money and it will fix itself.

Sorry I have to diverge here a bit while it is fresh in my mind.
No child left behind was a great idea subverted by the left again! The idea was to hold teachers accountable for teaching students. And to test the students to prove they learned something. What did the left do? They changed the tenor of the argument just a bit. They said that the teachers will be spending all their time teaching the test and the kids won’t learn anything. Then spent the next 5 years proving it was true. If the teachers had bothered to build a curriculum that covered the requirements that would be tested the children would have learned something but why produce anything when they can teach our children to cheat and just get by. And even when they cheat they could not actually produce good results. The kids still failed the tests because the teachers did not bother to teach correctly.

I taught in a boarding school in New York for a year and it was so different than public school. the parents would not pay the 3 grand a year for their kid if the kid did not learn anything so the teachers worked hard to ensure the kids learned and when they did not learn they left them back a grade until they were able to pass the tests. Why is it that they can’t do that in public school? Three thousand dollars a year included room and board with an education, in New York public schools they spend 15,000 a year per child and can’t get the kids to read on grade level. Washington DC schools pays almost 40 thousand a year per child and they get even worse results. For 40 grand they could send the kid to college for four years. Demand results and you get results from children. Demand nothing from children and you will get exactly what you demand from them.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is all liberal crap that you are being sucked into.
End of quote


I'm not getting sucked into anything. I'm using my own mind here. If either Obama or Hillary wins they will be making history before actually even doing anything. You have got to be completely ignorant to think that everyone who goes to the polls are doing so with a blindfold on. Whether it is right or wrong, many people will be voting for and against each of them because of their sex and color. That doesn't mean though that if he wins it is just because he's black. I'm sure there are plenty of people who like him because of his ideas, but I think you're being stupid if you think that his color and Hillary's sex is not a factor.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not think that there is anyone that denies that his race is a factor in this election, just as no one would deny that Clinton's sex is a factor.
End of quote


The fact that they are making it a factor is their game. When Dr. Rice was being courted by the republicans to run for the office there was a deafening silence from the left. No fanfare about how historic it would be if she ran because of her sex or race. Now you have Senator Clinton in the race, you see articles about women making giant leaps in our society, senator Obama the same thing for the race card. All of a sudden race and gender are important things to discuss. Sure I felt a small sense of pride because Senator Obama is black then I looked at him with a critical eye and figured he would be taken down by the democrat machine because it was not his turn or shot because he was black. Then I studied the man for a whole minute and a half and noticed he does not stand for anything. Until he takes a stand he will get 90% support just because he is black and a democrat, once he declares he is for or against something that support will erode quickly because democrats stand for platitudes not substance.

Neither one has a credible plan for anything so what is the historic value, you have two people that are going into the White House with no plan of action and just like Presidents Carter and Clinton they will become victims of circumstance rather then having a clear idea of what they wish to accomplish, their only goal is to become president and once accomplished they will let the country fall apart rather than lead. Getting sucked into the notion that race and or gender are historic and important only works if either one was credible and serious about doing something. Case on point Congresswoman Pelosi became speaker of the house and has not done anything because her job was to become speaker and now that she has it she does not know what to do with it.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
When I am with republicans for the first time the first feed back I get is why the hell are blacks still voting democrat?
End of quote


Because, dispite your diatribe, they are still welcome.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because, dispite your diatribe, they are still welcome.
End of quote


Prove it! Show me where colored people are welcomed for anything other than their votes. Show me the democrat party that I used to be a member of where they strive to be color blind. Show me their color and gender blindness. What I see is a party that showcases color and gender but does nothing to solve the problems rather than exacerbate them.