 |
| "The Blacks" aren't too happy with The Donald |
Because Republicans are so fearful of alienating the Black vote, no one on the right will call out this monolithic voting bloc. Well, not until one person came along who said he had a great relationship with “the Blacks.”
That one person is Donald J. Trump:
That one person is Donald J. Trump:
Donald Trump's new role as a Birther has been making headlines for weeks now. And despite some heavy backlash from the African-American community, Trump still seems to think all is well. "I have a great relationship with the blacks," he said after calling into Fred Dicker's radio show this morning, going on to say that the overwhelming black support for President Obama is "frightening."
Instead of viewing the business mogul as crazy, some African Americans are now claiming that the outlandish Birther accusations are downright racist. "There's a lot of people that I've talked to [who] instinctively think that he's using the issue as a proxy for race," Urban League President Marc Morial told Politico. "It's like a modern-day Salem witch trial -- because there's no merit to it."
Black celebrities have been quite vocal in their criticism of The Apprentice creator. "As a people, we celebrated his business acumen; purchased his books and anything else with the Trump name we could get our hands on," Goldie Taylor wrote on The Grio. "Now among African-Americans, the once gilded Trump brand is about as worthless as a plug nickel. I'm not calling Trump a racist. But he ought to quit quacking before people start believing he's a duck."
When Bill Cosby, a man militant Black people have attacked as an Uncle Tom for his rants against ghetto Black culture swamping all of Black culture, attacks Donald Trump for denouncing Mein Obama you can quickly ascertain how the collective Black mind works – an attack on one Black person from outside the Black race is an attack on all the Black race.
Cosby, who Black people love to hate, decided to return to “the Blacks” side and attack Trump despite the fact that almost none of “the Blacks” want him on their side.
Trump had this to say about Cosby who has largely been excommunicated from “the Blacks” for his disparaging comments toward prevailing cultural whims within that monolithic group:
Cosby, who Black people love to hate, decided to return to “the Blacks” side and attack Trump despite the fact that almost none of “the Blacks” want him on their side.
Trump had this to say about Cosby who has largely been excommunicated from “the Blacks” for his disparaging comments toward prevailing cultural whims within that monolithic group:
Donald Trump trashed Bill Cosby Monday for teeing off on the developer over his "birther" comments, claiming the former TV star has only been nice to his face and even once offered to buy him a suit.
Trump said he happened to catch Cosby on the "Today" show last week, in a segment that aired after his own pre-taped interview with Meredith Viera.
"While I have never been a fan of Cosby’s, I had always assumed he liked or respected me because every time I met him — the last time at the David Letterman show where I preceded him as a guest — he was always so nice, saying 'let’s get together' —— asking me out to dinner, and being polite to the point of offering to buy me a suit because he has a 'great tailor,'" Trump said.
“In any event, as I watched the show, the subject of Donald Trump came up. I was surprised to hear him blabber, somewhat incoherently 'you run or shut up,' " Trump added, saying Cosby must know that "I cannot run until this season of 'Celebrity Apprentice' ends."
He went on, "I wish he would be more honest, and if he doesn’t want me to run because he’s obviously an Obama fan, he should state the reasons and not come into my 'green room' in front of numerous witnesses and treat me like his best friend, only to denigrate me when I’m not around. Sadly, he got more attention talking about me than he did on the merits of his own appearance—maybe he is not as dumb as I thought."
That Bill Cosby, a man hated by “the Blacks” for his vociferous attacks against their immersion into degeneracy, would defend Mein Obama against Trump’s legitimate criticism tells you all you need to know about the monolithic nature of… “The Blacks.”
“The Blacks” is a phrase that beautiful captures the ferocity of Black love toward Mein Obama. That a Republican outsider like Donald Trump had the audacity to call out this monolithic group shows you that the elected Republicans and so-called front-runners for the Republican nomination have been playing a game with two-hands willing tied behind their back. Everyone of them is engaging in a perfidious game that Trump has exposed with but a few challenges to "the Blacks" monolithic thinking.
A huge coalition of people across this nation could be mobilized overnight – indeed the Tea Party was an early manifestation of this movement and it won’t be the last – that realizes the devotion “the Blacks” feel toward Mein Obama is frightening; that the devotion “the Blacks” have to advancing their agenda, with the help of craven Disingenuous White Liberal class, is ruinous to the overall health of the nation.
We were meant to live for so much more.
SBPDL note: In the next week, Stuff Black People Don’t Like is returning to strictly # posts (shorter ones) that reflect the early posts from May – August of 2009 when we first started. We got away from the humor and it’s time to return to that model.
“The Blacks” is a phrase that beautiful captures the ferocity of Black love toward Mein Obama. That a Republican outsider like Donald Trump had the audacity to call out this monolithic group shows you that the elected Republicans and so-called front-runners for the Republican nomination have been playing a game with two-hands willing tied behind their back. Everyone of them is engaging in a perfidious game that Trump has exposed with but a few challenges to "the Blacks" monolithic thinking.
A huge coalition of people across this nation could be mobilized overnight – indeed the Tea Party was an early manifestation of this movement and it won’t be the last – that realizes the devotion “the Blacks” feel toward Mein Obama is frightening; that the devotion “the Blacks” have to advancing their agenda, with the help of craven Disingenuous White Liberal class, is ruinous to the overall health of the nation.
We were meant to live for so much more.
SBPDL note: In the next week, Stuff Black People Don’t Like is returning to strictly # posts (shorter ones) that reflect the early posts from May – August of 2009 when we first started. We got away from the humor and it’s time to return to that model.
A new site design is coming, plus a greater commitment to SBPDL 2.0, and a huge marketing push for Hollywood in Blackface: Black Roles in Film from Thor to Robin Hood Prince of Thieves will transpire. The book cover will be unveiled Monday.
But let us say this: “The Blacks” is the most accurate way to describe the collective Black mind. Donald Trump’s soft jabs at Mein Obama have even Bill Cosby returning to monolithic Black thought.
It’s going to be a hilarious 2011 – 2012 Presidential election cycle.
122 comments:
Trump was on Limbaugh's show today, and he ripped Obama a new one...called him the worst president ever (supplanting Jimmy Carter), it was great!
"The Blacks" will not be happy.
Trump is right on the Birther issue, but he's also an idiot and an awful potential candidate. I guess we can't always choose the people who decidse to speak the truth.
It's common knowledge that "the blacks", for the most part, already have a neurotic hate/fear perception of whites. Therefore anything other than kissing black ass with praise, free shit, gimme-gimme, or whatever, will only be met with scorn, holla RACISM!, rage, blah blah blah. The equation with many blacks is so very simple. See above, rinse, repeat. How far Trump goes before the DWL agenda kicks in and he's tarred and feathered should give us a good read on the current DWL influence. I can smell the caucasion uneasiness in the wind and am thinking that once you awaken the sleeping giant, painfully slow as it may seem, the rightful order of things will be set right. Water seeks its own level after all. I did think Mr. Trumps bearing and his manner of conduct within his Apprentice vehicle were quite honorable. Maybe it is time to give a proven businessman a shot. The coke head and the limo(brown)sugarboy of unknown origin didn't work out.
Let's deal with the white 37% first, since their motivation is not as obvious as the blacks.
There's a parralel here between young whites' love affair with Obama and general interracial experimentation. Basically, whites have a low rate of exogamy. Something on the order of 2% of whites marry outside of their race. Yet this number would be higher were we to include anyone who had ever dated outside of their race, as well.
These white kids are in college (not working), have no children (thus no genuine sense of posterity) and their flirtation with Mein Obama will have about as much of a consequence as flirting with communism or veganism. Give Obama one more term to shuffle his appointment deck (Kagan, Sotomayor, Holder) and the children of these young whites will be feeling the effects of their folly as surely as the children of the boomers were rumored to have been affected by the LSD their parents ingested.
The other contingent of whites who still support Obama are suffering from a myopia that stems from a similar insulation, though these are the cultural marxist teachers whose main experience with blacks was the civil rights movement, not affirmative action. They're locked in Shelby Steele's cycle of patronizing blacks, viewing them as in need of assistance, rather than actually competing for resources.
As for the blacks, blogger Ramzpaul is correct. Obama could sacrifice a baby on national television and then eat said baby and he'd still have an approval among blacks hovering around 75%. They are an ant colony and trying to appeal to their sense of objectivity is a waste.
As for Trump, he has an uphill battle. Obama did as Bush and Clinton did before him, approving of Israel's expansionist settlements, in violation of international law and security resolutions. Consequently, Obama can count on big money, AIPAC, ADL, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security affairs) money. He already has $1 billion promised for reelection. The Donald has more than $2 billion in assets, but will he go the Perot route?
My guess is the media will circle wagons around the Big MO and attack anyone who has a credible chance of beating him.
I can't get over the feeling that Trump got into this without actually intending to run for President and was caught by surprise by recent polling.
I tend to think that Trump is crazy like a fox, that he is a true citizen and patriot and has decided to step to the plate and do the grunt work that absolutely nobody in the media or politics has the gonads to do.
My bet is that Trump ultimately does not run.
I find it interesting that the supposedly "right wing" and "conservative" media outlet the Drudge Report has been slandering Trump more than the supposedly left wing media sources these past few days. Just yesterday his main headline was "YESTERDAY: TRUMP PRAISES OBAMA; BUSH 'EVIL'" while linking to an article and video of Trump, without mentioning that it was from 2008! The rest of the shitty "conservative" sites all show an interesting pattern: the commentators rail against Trump while the large comments sections show a great degree of support for Trump.
The biggest and most important unknown is Trump's position on immigration. It is also an interesting question of whether we would even want a good President that will merely delay the downfall of what is now BRA, or a terrible one like Obama that will just hasten the march of BRA and its downfall.
SBPDL I support your decision to go back to numbered posts, but I still wish you could find a way to give us your commentary on the daily issues. It would be difficult, but I am sure you can find a way to eat your cake and have it too.
One recommendation for a numbered post entry seemingly more obvious than any you have posted is #219 Pastor Manning. Here is his recent support for Donald Trump: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_lj9BqigLI&feature=channel_video_title
And here is Pastor Manning giving the best video yet on explaining why there was no looting in Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeA7OOBhlDk
Suggestion for a topic. Major league baseball honors Jackie Robinson on April 15th again this year as it does every year. What an appropriate day, tax day, when we pay our enormous taxes to prop up a hugh federal government for the benefit of BRA.
All players in major league baseball wear number 42 in honor of Robinson, In 1997 number 42 was retired on every team in baseball to honor Robinson, and every stadium in baseball, in addition to posting the retired numbers for their team, has to post a blue number 42 for Robinson. In my city of Baltimore, in addition to 4, 5, 8, 20, 22,and 33 for Weaver, B. Robinson, Ripken, F. Robinson, Palmer and Murray in orange, a blue numberr 42 is posted.
All of this to suck up and display guilt to a segment of the population that no longer cares a whit about, or supports baseball at any level.
As black society deteriorated, so did it's interest in our great national pasttime, yet major league baseball feels obligated to continue to suck up to blacks and apologize for the need for a negro league.
Lets just say what we mean,look A is A, and 2+2 make 4,were sick of the blacks whining and the education system skewing everything it was meant to be
I don't find Trump to be a credible candidate, and that's saying something in a political climate that is starving for real leadership.
While I don't believe the "birther" issue is rooted in racism, I also believe President Obama was actually born in the United States and is a legal citizen. Additionally, he's more than likely able to produce the birth certificate in question and will do so for maximum political advantage in the future. Trump is smart about many things, but on this issue he has proven to be tone-deaf. He will be shot down over the "birther" issue, as will any politician who attempts to go out on a limb with this; no good is going to come from it. It is a dog of an issue.
Trump has some bankruptcies on his record; not exactly a ringing endorsement for President when one of the biggest problems facing the nation is insolvency. Trump is also a celebrity at a time when the country doesn't need another celebrity president. And, finally, if for no other reason that superficiality, no one who has had trouble combing their own hair should have their finger on the trigger of a nuclear arsenal.
Spot-on Hirsch.
Very articulate analysis of the dynamics involved in this next election, and the previous ones. Let us never forget that politicians get elected (selected) on the allegiance shown to that particular middle eastern state that begins with an I.
Without those powerful special interest groups and their compliant, a$$ kissing media, no politician stands a snow-balls chance you know where.
Now, as far as Obama is concerned. Blacks worship this guy like he's some kind of messiah. You'd think it was MLK reincarnated, for crying out loud. The guy's half-white to start with, but blacks seem to conveniently forget that-don't they? Black hypocrisy seems to be on display in all it's glory concerning Mein Obama.
I have been hip to the Obama eligibility issue since early July of 2008. This Hawaii COLB which the Obama campaign posted on their "fight the smears" web site has always looked to me like even one of Barry's own daughters could have forged it with photoshop on her daddy's computer. (Actually, I saw a mock-up of this same exact digital document on the Daily Kos web forum about a week BEFORE it showed up on the Obama campaign web site.) Besides, since when was anybody using the term "African" to denote a parent's race on birth documents back in 1961? (The most common term being used at that time was "Negro" instead.)
Anyway, although I wish somebody prominent like Donald Trump had had the guts two and a half years ago to speak out about Barry Obama's obvious stonewalling on the release of his long-form birth certificate, the document which would show things like which hospital in Honolulu that he was actually born in, the physician who delivered him, etc., I am certainly glad now that Donald Trump is not backing down from what he has been saying lately.
Cosby was never more than a dumb nigger. If I'm not mistaken, didn't he call Justice Thomas "brother lite"?
My eyes were never clouded - I could always see. I never watched that stupid, phony portrayal of a nice, rich, black family. Utter BS.
That Cosby gets any more "credit" than any other dumbass White actor, is sad.
The blacks. Heh.
Joe
Another great post, SBPDL. I love what Trump is doing - let's hope he keeps agitating.
Hirsh,
Check out: http://www.occidentaldissent.com
OD has some interesting pieces on BRA you might enjoy.
NPOTUS probably doesn't want to be the NPOTUS anymore. The real bling is in straight race hustling and the lecture circuit.
My dream ticket is JINDAL / RUBIO ... but I grow my own tomatos and eat lots of squirrel meat, so the POTUS can be COMACHO / GARAFFALO and I'll still eat ...
The Engineer
I've read several of Trump's books, and of course have watched his Apprentice series off and on. Does he "really" believe Obama is of foreign birth? Possibly. Would we even be talking about him in the media if he didn't bring it up? Probably not.
I know I'm being Captain Obvious but Trump is picking a fight. The man can brawl and I don't think that it's outside the realm of possibility that he could be our next president.
After all, what were the chances that a one term senator, black, community activist, would become president?
Personally I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he ran against Obama. That isn't hyperbole, either. Trump with all his faults is still infinitely better than the abomination we have now.
@ anon 630 PM. Jindall is toxic. The Nation's first real exposure to him backfired badly, if I remember. Whether or not he's an able politician, there's something static and creepy about him, sort of like a Republican Al Gore. He's as poisonous as Palin.
Speaking of which, if McCain had gone negative as his handlers advised, pressed on the Jeremiah Wright issue, and picked anyone besides Palin as a running mate, we might have an anti-white White Guy in the whitehouse rather than an anti-white Black guy in the oval office.
If Obama loses, I'm going to feel like Cartman in the "Scott Tenorman Must Die Episode" of South Park, just basking in their defeat.
to vs too
"The Blacks" aren't to happy with The Donald
should be
"The Blacks" aren't too happy with The Donald
or
"The Blacks" aren't so happy with The Donald
About the black vote:
Only 13 percent of eligible blacks bothered to vote in 2008. The percentage was even in lower (10 percent) in 2010.
If one assumes there will be 30 million eligible black voters in 2012 and only 13 percent bother to vote, the total black vote will be 3,900,000.
Considering that 85 percent of those will vote for the Democratic Party candidate, the need to woo blacks voters becomes moot: Not that many blacks vote and those who do are inflexible.
@Donald:
There is a reason why the right and conservatives are against Trump en masse. He's donated to Schumer and Little Weiner, he's supported Obama in the past, he was pro-Universal Health Care, etc. He's NOT the conservative candidate that Palin, Barbour, Jindal, Rubio, West are/might be.
"It is a dog of an issue."
No way. He's hiding something. It may not be what the birthers think but it's something he doesn't want publicized. Definitely worth chasing if possible.
More generally it's not possible for American-Americans to have a good (and viable) Presidential candidate in the current climate. Replacing some of the carpet baggers at the lower levels can be done but President is out of reach until the lower levels are captured and cleansed. So the best Presidential candidate is whoever's most likely to cause a ruckus.
Go Trump!
Trump is the conceivable candidate who even BEGINS to challenge the-uh---you know-the "hegemonic discourse." All the rest have that Cultural Marxism internalized.
"Now among African-Americans, the once gilded Trump brand is about as worthless as a plug nickel. I'm not calling Trump a racist. But he ought to quit quacking before people start believing he's a duck."
Uh oh. Obviously Trump's days are numbered. All the blacks have to do is withhold their substantial wealth and Trump will come crawling back to them, begging for forgiveness. In fact, it may be too late for that; without the black dollar, Trump's business enterprise is very likely to collapse. That's why you don't mess with the major money-makers of the Western Hemisphere.
Seriously though, even professional blacks are stupid enough to believe their own propaganda.
I find it interesting that the supposedly "right wing" and "conservative" media outlet the Drudge Report has been slandering Trump more than the supposedly left wing media sources these past few days.
Drudge is like most Republicans: Party First, everything else second. Did you miss the part where McCain openly pandered to the Mexicans in the hopes of getting the brown vote? The GOP deserves to be crushed a thousand times over. They're going to tap Mitt "Jihad Has Nothing To Do With Islam" Romney and Romney is going to lose. Part of me thinks a second Obama term will wake even more whites and will be a net positive in the long run.
The guy's half-white to start with, but blacks seem to conveniently forget that-don't they?
Oh, they don't forget it. If Obama were a candidate for mayor of Detroit running against someone who was 100% black, you'd better believe he'd be getting a daily lashing for his treasonous whore of a mother. When it comes to a third party, however, blacks will always circle the wagons. They only support him because he's seen as sticking it to Whitey.
SBPDL, why no links to Angry White Dude and Occidental Dissent?
And WHY so many links to white-hating negro blogs???
"I have a great relationship with the blacks,"
Bullshit. A white person cannot have a great relationship with blacks when he tells them the truth about their behavior. Plus, when you point out that the first black president is not even constitutionally able to be president(Not Natural born) , well, even Cosby won't kiss you.
Blacks will like you as long as you are a white, ass kissing liberal. But you better not tell them the truth. Because then you become a racist, honkey, mug F***ker.
Onbe thing whites need to learn and learn fast. Blacks will ALWAYS turn on you.
Agree with OP. Trying to woo the black vote as a republican is a waste of time and energy, and might backfire.
Donald Trump is making an ass of himself. I actually like the guy - outside of where this next election is concerned - but it's almost humorous to me to imagine anyone would even think he'd do a better job than Obama. Or even as good a job. The reality is some of the personality traits valued among capitalists - ruthlessness, trickery, overt seduction - will not work if the goal is diplomacy. What about domestic issues, the military?
Trump sees this as a business venture and it is not. He'd do a terrible job; he just doesn't realize it yet. His ideas are all theory.
Unfortunately, he is a brilliant businessman and Chris Matthews made a good point about how intelligent he is: he stated that this guy would essentially "read up" on all of the points he'd have to make and beat any republican counterpart in a debate. He's absolutely correct, I hate to say it. Trump has done this so far in bringing up this birth certificate meshugas, which should not even be an issue. But this is apparently what those on the far-right/right want to hear.
He knows this issue is a something akin to selling a good product and he's being the enterprising capitalist that he is pushing it; according to polls, it's a winning formula.
This says a lot about the republican base. Barack Obama's liberalism is ancillary to the fact he's a black man.
Trump is making Obama seem like this supreme crook who has basically lied and cheated his way into the White House and it's nothing but right-wing conspiracy theory, just like what the left said about Bush. Ultimately, it's going to backfire on Trump - or the party - because those interested in that message are racists. And no one today wants anything to do with racists; that's just reality.
If you analogize this whole thing to Barack Obama being the nonviolent civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s, the latter's greatest ally - ironically - was the violent white segregationist. The more the segregationist opposed equality for blacks with brutality and violence, the more whites they converted to the struggle for equality until, finally, it was the law of the land.
The same will be for this birth certificate issue. It's already a stupid distraction for poorer whites - like a carrot at the end of string - so they will not realize they're voting against their own interests.
Again, no one is interested in aligning themselves with racists. If whites who may not be interested in Obama could be swayed by a republican candidate showcasing more moderate views, they will choose Obama as the "lesser of two evils" as opposed to going for a guy spouting Tea Party race-baiting nonsense.
The republicans need to enter the 21st century. I voted for Obama - and will do so again - because I thought he'd be a radical in the mode of the Civil Rights greats who, in the span of eleven years, radically changed the course of history. This is how he was marketed by the media, anyway, and he did nothing to dispel that image if it was inaccurate. Unfortunately, he's just another Democrat.
And it's nonsense to even believe Obama hates whites. If the far-right/right wants him out of the White House because he's black - not because he's a Democrat - I will vote again for Obama to spite them.
Dredging up racial hostilities will be the death of the republican party.
Dear Professor,
You sure took a lot of words to state the single stupidest thing I've read on here to date.
Why do guys like you rush to the keyboard to expose their complete and total lack of scruples and intelligent thought?
I guess someone like you thinks that lots and lots of words somehow works as a distraction from the fact that there is no there, there.
Snape, I would peg you as the typical aging, hipster doofus. You're a dinosaur pal.
Professor Snape your heart is as black as your ass. If you are a professor you got it in Black Run America though affirmitive action. Your above screed is nothing more than BRA propaganda.
"...Again, no one is interested in aligning themselves with racists..."
The Snape
What racist? Who? Trump is a racist? How? By what definition?
What a fucking tool.
Joe
For whatever else Trump may or may not be. He is certainly stirring things up and in a good way.
I'm just sitting back and enjoying this Trump attack on Lord Barry! Finally, after 4 1/2 years, Barry's past is being challenged.
The Donald is manipulating the MSM and has created a frenzy of crazy activity. We saw illegal Aunti Zetuni and sis Maya Soetoro begging him to stop with the birth issue. Countless Africans have cried racism including the Reverend Sharpton, whom Obama sought out recently (bad move politically). State run MSNBC has it's head spinning! Meanwhile, he's exposed Fox News and the Republican elite as complicit softies. This may force them to man-up!
Donald is starting to chop away at Obama's radical connections and even used the name Soetoro (more bait) in referring to Barry's past. He continues to drib and drab these personal shots (Ayers wrote Dreams) and the results have been positive so far.
Barry NEEDS whitey to win reelection. 37% won't cut it. Demonizing the right, running to Sharpton, playing victim, and hiding your past appears fraudulent and weak. Barry is starting to be labeled as a weak fraud, something that will be tough to shake in 2012.
I'm not real sure of the Donald as a potential candidate but he's paving a road toward victory over Barry Soetoro (he might not even be legally African) in 2012. --the Man
@the Man
Are you the same Man who runs the great blog Nation of Cowards?
Joe
I just finished reading "Art of the Deal" - great book and highly recommend it. Bought it to read about the collapse of the USFL (football league) but the entire book details Trumps disgust and distaste with massive government regulations that stand in the way of him actually creating jobs and building new properties.
It brought to mind this great scene from "Back to School":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
The entire dynamic in the United States changes overnight when the power of Black Run America (BRA) fades.
Trump's few statements - nothing to outlandish yet - have shown that a militant defense of BRA will occur whenever it is challenged. Even if it is challenged meekly.
I don't link to a lot of Web sites I should, but I do recommend reading Occidental Dissent's analysis of Black Run America.
This piece nails it:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/04/11/black-run-america-gucci-mane-arrested-battery-atlanta-rape/
Just go over to Worldstarhiphop.com and ask yourself why even of the behavior filmed is tolerated.
Whoops... last sentence should read "why any"...
missbosslady said:
expose their complete and total lack of scruples
Lack of scruples? Explain.
Snape, I would peg you as the typical aging, hipster doofus. You're a dinosaur pal.
This is irony to the extreme.
I did not know disliking people on the basis of skin color and then ascribing to them arbitrary character traits they have to fight to disprove was considered forward thinking.
If yours is the viewpoint du jour, I have no problem with my Jurassic status.
*
Professor Snape your heart is as black as your ass.
Since both of our asses are undoubtedly as white and as pure as the driven snow, my heart must be the same as yours. And if that sameness is the case, since your heart steadily approaches 1 in terms of probable "blackness", our asses must both be black!
If you are a professor you got it in Black Run America though affirmitive action. Your above screed is nothing more than BRA propaganda.
And you don't think the "birthers" tripe is propaganda?
If anything, my "screed" was opinion. The Civil Rights bit, however, is historical fact. I have noticed history is not considered a virtuous subject on this website. As such, history will continue to repeat itself until you learn your lesson.
*
Joe said:
What racist? Who?
Popular opinion sayeth the Tea Party. They do nothing to dispel this stereotype, either. I am still waiting for a Minute Men redux: greying racists in lawn chairs, with binoculars, waiting at the US-Mexico border to harass Mexicans.
The point is the Tea Party would not be as vocal if Obama was your stock white liberal Democrat. And that is the sad reality of this nation's "progress". Women and minorities are pegged as only looking out for their own interests, although white males have made that their modus operandi since America's foundation.
The irony is that women and minorities will over-compensate for this preconceived notion about their goals as leaders, and this can make them more egalitarian.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected, the right would call her a man-hating feminist. A friend of mine actually joked that he would never vote for her because he couldn't respect someone in that role who "bleeds for ten days". Change "her" to Obama and "bleeds for 10 days" to "has black skin", you'd have the political platform for a substantial segment of the republican base.
Trump is a racist?
No, I don't think he is.
How? By what definition?
He's not a racist, but he's doing a good job at race-baiting. Given the popularity of this website and his poll numbers, it's a fairly easy thing to do.
Popular opinion sayeth the Tea Party.
Everyone is a comedian. Who's popular opinion?
It is a joke in part because many/most Tea Partiers tap dance around race but 'racist' compared to whom or what? Obama? Holder? The Black Caucus???
Greying Wanderer wrote:
"No way. He's hiding something. It may not be what the birthers think but it's something he doesn't want publicized. Definitely worth chasing if possible."
I concede that that is a possibility. But, for arguments sake, let's assume you are right and say he's a legal citizen but with something to hide. How much worse could it be than being half-black/half-white, with a deadbeat black man for a father, a hippie Socialist/Communist for a mother, and being raised in Muslim schools in Indonesia till the time he was 10? How much worse could it be than starting your political career with a fundraiser in the home of a convicted terrorist, or having a name like Barack Hussein Obama in a post-9/11 America?
The "birther" issue is insane. There's no "there" there. It is a political dead-end...a topic being kicked around by people who ought to know better. If people cannot find anything worse going on in the American political system and President Obama's policies and agenda to complain about than this, then he will be re-elected in 2012. He *should* be a lame-duck...a sitting target; easily beatable in 2012, but so far with soaring gas prices, 3 middle East wars, a stagnant economy, and the prospect of higher taxes, virtually the only thing some of the leading Republicans want to talk about is where Obama was born. This guy should be another Jimmy Carter, but the Republicans might just give him a second term.
And, finally, I'm not convinced he's hiding anything. Sometimes in politics you don't get in the way of your opponent committing career suicide, and I think what Obama is doing is giving the "birthers" enough rope to hang themselves. Mark my words: he'll authorize Hawaii to release the birth certificate if he's either falling behind in the polls late in election cycle, or if he's already won. Right now he's letting his opponents marginalize themselves with this issue.
If he wasn't born in Hawaii, who was the Barack Hussein Obama that the Honolulu Advertiser mentioned as having been born on August 4, 1961?
Professor snape
"The same will be for this birth certificate issue. It's already a stupid distraction for poorer whites - like a carrot at the end of string - so they will not realize they're voting against their own interests."
Nonsense. It is a legitmate issue. Anyone who has even bothered to look into the issue knows that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Carrot or no Carrot, it is the truth. Trump may or may not actually believe what he says, but it is a real issue. And alot of what was said against Bush was also true.
You voted for Obama because you were seduced like other white liberals who constantly lick black ass. And you want to prove that you are one of the "good" whites, an open minded white. Typical liberal shit.
As a people, we celebrated his business acumen; purchased his books and anything else with the Trump name we could get our hands on
What does that say about blacks as a people, that they were so impressed by this fraud, who came from money and still blundered through four bankruptcies? I thought they were supposed to be more streetwise and savvy than us honkeys. Trump is basically a white version of nigga rich.
Compare this to the black fealty to the cipher Obama, which is at least as bad as the loyalty the Fox News crowd had to Bush. We see a clear pattern of valuing style over substance. So much for keeping it real.
"Again, no one is interested in aligning themselves with racists."
More likely, people are terrified that their daily, objectve observations of life will be labeled "racist," thereby branding them as modern-day heretics. In a sane world, people would believe what their eyes told them, & no one would slap a damning label on them.
It's a different discussion, but seriously, "racist" means nothing anymore precisely because it means whatever you want it to.
Oh my God, why are there so many Republicans on here? SBPDL, it's unfortunate that your site attracts so many Republicans and racists. When normal people come to your site and learn to see... that's when things will start to change.
Republicans / Tea Partiers / Fascists: I voted for Obama before, and I'll vote for him again. He will be re-elected, and there's NOTHING you can do about it.
You mad?
"I voted for Obama before, and I'll vote for him again. He will be re-elected, and there's NOTHING you can do about it"
Anonymous,
He won't be re-elected. His approval rating is an anemic 41% and 69% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. He has no chance, and things will be worse by the time of the election due to his incompetence.
He's going to lose in a Reagan/Mondale type of landslide.
"Donald Trump is making an ass of himself."
Wow Snape, how shocking that you would mindlessly mouth the words of the black masses and DWL's. You really caught us all by surprise with that one.
"Oh my God, why are there so many Republicans on here?"
It seems to attract gay black dudes like you.
"Republicans / Tea Partiers / Fascists: I voted for Obama before, and I'll vote for him again. He will be re-elected, and there's NOTHING you can do about it."
Oh my God, why are there still such complete effin' TOOLS out there who believe so heartily in Barry-Barack-birth-certificate-community-agitator-Soetero-Obama/OFRAUDA?
Will people like this also keep blaming George W. Bush, who has been out of office for over two years, when they have to start paying five bucks or more per gallon for regular unleaded gasoline by June of this year?
Will people like this also keep blaming George W. Bush, who has been out of office for over two years, when the US dollar gets totally dumped as the world reserve currency, hyperinflation takes effect, and they have to start paying three or four times as much than they do now for their groceries?
My guess would be probably so. That lefty kool-aid is some mighty potent stuff, no doubt.
Snape, you're wrong and I don't think you can be shown why. Obama has a mythology around him now stronger than Kennedy's Camelot, and just like Kennedy's fictional perfection, the love affair has very little to do with reality. Kennedy in fact, used programs like COINTELPRO* more aggresively than Nixon did, but he got a pass because a Catholic president was a novelty and he was handsome.
Obama's foreign policy is aggresive and has very little to do with diplomacy. With the Nobel pendant still swinging from his neck, he's escalated a war in a nation that has been repelling invaders successfully for millenia. Even his drawdown in Iraq (which people were misled into believing was a pullout) came no sooner than the Neocons' 18-month time table. His muslim outreach rhetoric stands in stark contrast to his support of further Israeli expansion, which will guarantee more bloodshed for Americans, Israelis, Palestinians, and Europeans.
Obama doesn't look racist until you study his appointments and their histories. Then it becomes obvious. The white firefighters who successfully challenged the disparate impact case in New York won by a narrow 5-4 margin, before Mayor's appointment. If the "wise latina" had already been confirmed, black firefighters who had scored thirty points below whites on standardized tests would have been one step closer to getting the jobs over their more qualified white counterparts. Obama's Eric Holder has already proven he cannot prosecute the law in a race-neutral manner, and is destroying merit-based promotions for police officers as fast as he can.
Your president is not the moral heir to the civil rights movement. He is a racist war monger.
I am not a rocket scientist so hopefully someone can explain what the "birther" issue is all about.
If President Obama's mother was an American/US Citizen, then it doesn't matter where he was born. He is a US citizen. If my son were born while I was working for a US company in Norway, then he would still be a US citizen.
The best I can see, there are only two reasons why Obama would not be a US citizen eligible to be President. These are:
1. His mother was not a US citizen at the time of his birth or;
2. Both his parents were foreign nationals and he was adopted by his US Citizen mother.
Any other explanations?
@ Wondering Why:
Article Two, Section One of the United States Constitution states that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
The controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States is largely over what constitutes a "natural born" citizen of the United States. Many have argued that the definition of a "natural born" citizen means that somebody was born on United States soil to parents who are both United States citizens at the time of said birth. This leads to where the controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as the President of the United States begins. First, one of Barack Obama's purported parents was without a doubt never a citizen of the United States. Second, there is still a question of other possible national citizenship's Barack Obama may have held in his lifetime. Third, there is the question of precisely WHERE Barack Obama was really born, being that Barack Obama's online-viewable Hawaii COLB (certification of live birth) merely states his place of birth as being Honolulu, but not which hospital it purportedly occurred in, along with the fact that Hawaii has allowed parents to register the births of their foreign-born children as births in Hawaii.
The controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States has only been further exacerbated by Barack Obama's steadfast refusal to make his "long form" Hawaii birth certificate publicly available. Rather than just pay ten dollars to have this document copied and released, Barack Obama has spent nearly two million dollars in legal fees defending himself against a myriad of lawsuits which have sought an order to reveal this documentation. This glaring non-sequitur represents a "where there is smoke, there is fire" scenario, if there ever was one, to many people in these United States.
"I am not a rocket scientist so hopefully someone can explain what the "birther" issue is all about."
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/
All I have to say is that Trump is an idiot. He's no better than Obama except when it comes to business, but that's not the only thing we need. Don't get fooled by the fact that we're in an economical crisis and forget that we need a president with great character, courage, intelligence, and wise judgement.
Trump only has the intelligence part, but only in the business field. He has shown to be a delusional nitwit by rioting about Obama's birth certificate. Why would he think that he knows something that our government doesn't? Being POTUS is a serious thing, and I'm pretty sure that our government would never let an un-American be president, seeing how that violates our constitution and leaves the U.S vulnerable and in danger of terrorism.
I can go on even more about how stupid Trump has made himself look, but I will say that I too was puzzled by Bill Cosby's comments about whether Trump should shut-up or run. I do believe that Bill Cosby was holding back on the subject of Trump for President though.
But in conclusion, Donald Trump is a recipe for disaster if he becomes President. I can see it right now during one of his presidential addresses, "People of the United States of America, I would like to take this time to say that the Secretary of State is FIRED..." seeing how business and telling people you're fired is the only thing he's good at.
You Get What You Get
"...I'm pretty sure that our government would never let an un-American be president, seeing how that violates our constitution and leaves the U.S vulnerable and in danger of terrorism..."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Are you serious?? How on earth did you stumble onto this site?
"Our government" is Fing us hard and relentlessly, you idiot.
Where is my jaw...
Joe
"Being POTUS is a serious thing, and I'm pretty sure that our government would never let an un-American be president, seeing how that violates our constitution and leaves the U.S vulnerable and in danger of terrorism."
Supposedly, it's not up to "our" government, it's up to the people to elect someone of moral fortitude and courage/character to be el presidente'.
You sound a tad naive to me about our government and how it runs. Our government is full of Marxists and Fascists, they're called the Democrat and Republican parties proper!
"He won't be re-elected. His approval rating is an anemic 41% and 69% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. He has no chance, and things will be worse by the time of the election due to his incompetence.
He's going to lose in a Reagan/Mondale type of landslide."
Who will he lose to? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? Why don't you Republican'ts just nominate Bobo the clown and be done with it. The best you could come up with last time was John "Amnesty-For-All" McCain, a candidate disliked by both the left AND the right.
Face it, ladies: the Republican party has tripped on its own feet, and is now lying in a broken heap in a puddle of it's own excrement. You don't have any potential presidential candidates that your own party can agree on, much less someone who can win a general election.
OBAMA 2012!!
Why Yes, there is another issue in the "Birther" question. If the records Barry Soetoro was adopted in Indonesia (which the School records in Indonesia support) then he does not have a citizenship to the USA. It would also explain why he could travel to Pakistan when Americans could not and how he could get grants to go to expensive schools, etc. His Kindergarten records are sealed by Presidential order, his school records, his financial Aid records and on and on and on. The only person fueling this controversy is Barry himself, who spends millions of dollars to keep his records in the Dark.
Whether it is a money for college scam or whether he really is screwed up we will know in time. Historians will shake their heads over this mystery when it is finally resolved.
Hirsch said:
Snape, you're wrong
In what way? I have not stated Barack Obama was the Second Coming of Christ. I've merely articulated that the scrutiny incurred by this president is several orders of magnitude greater than normal because he is a black man. This you cannot dispute.
and I don't think you can be shown why.
I would prefer not to be a part of the "Those Who Can See" quasi-cult.
Obama has a mythology around him now stronger than Kennedy's Camelot, and just like Kennedy's fictional perfection, the love affair has very little to do with reality.
Hirsch, Obama absolutely has a mythology around him, and it is because he is black. However, you have got to look at it holistically. I won't try to read his mind and attempt to figure out whether it's been a facade, but Obama never entered the presidential race as a "black" candidate; he wanted to be the candidate that happened to be black. But his blackness excited people - hell, it excited me; I'm sore the man is not a radical but your typical milquetoast, center-left Democrat. Maybe it was unfair on my part to assume that his blackness meant he'd be different. Perhaps Obama's own political ambitions prevented him from correcting journalists who applied this sort of "He's going to save the world" mythos, or maybe he believed it more than he should have. I cannot answer that.
But I will say this: with the preconceived notion of his being black equaling MLK-like possibilities set into place (and it's not going anywhere), the more he is race-baited, the more his blackness is made an issue in terms of his leadership ability, the more this birth certificate bullshit is trumpeted, the greater this cottling of Obama will be and the more this mythology will be held on to.
If you want it to end, stop seeing his color.
Obama's foreign policy is aggresive and has very little to do with diplomacy. With the Nobel pendant still swinging from his neck, he's escalated a war in a nation
Be fair. Obama is damned if does, damned if he doesn't. It's humorous to me because I know the limiting possibilities for Obama: if he doesn't react, he's soft, he's weak. If he does, he's obliterating the Gandhi-esque, nonviolent mythos surrounding him, spitting on that Nobel pendant. Isolationism is the warm and fuzzy ideal but it cannot be done without substantial global criticism, nor can be peace be obtained without some sort of "violent" intercession.
I feel sorry for Obama; he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. I find it ironic that he's getting it from the right; Obama said he needed a "mop" after Bush. It seems like an entire right-most end of the American political spectrum forgot about his eight years.
(1 of 2)
"Why would he think that he knows something that our government doesn't? Being POTUS is a serious thing, and I'm pretty sure that our government would never let an un-American be president, seeing how that violates our constitution and leaves the U.S vulnerable and in danger of terrorism."
Yeah, you'd THINK so, wouldn't you?
(2 of 2)
Hirsch said:
Obama doesn't look racist until you study his appointments and their histories. Then it becomes obvious.
I don't - for one second - believe Barack Obama is a racist, and I'm not saying this because his mother is white. Why does it have to be about black versus white? Hispanic versus white? Why does it have to be the majority versus minorities?
White supremacists during reconstruction up to the civil rights era viewed everything in a win/lose dichotomy: if blacks gained equality, that meant whites would pay a price. But it never had to be that way; blacks wanted equality, not supremacy. I think what we have here is whites believing minority gain will come with retribution; so when they actively fight minority civil rights advancements, it only dredges up more minority resentment against whites.
It's sort of like the Obama mythos: the more whites make an issue of minorities, the greater the (anticipated) backlash will be, and it's a damned cycle. The majority population is standing in the way of true equality and a colorblind society. Whites hold the power - even with a black president - and if we play the victim because he's in office, it'll make everything uglier than it has to be.
Your president is not the moral heir to the civil rights movement. He is a racist war monger.
See, you're trying to say he's some crook, and I don't believe that; he's no Martin Luther King, but he's not Idi Amin, either.
Excuse me, Hirsch, but if you believe Barack Obama is a racist, I hope you have enough integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that this site, its readers, and most, if not all, of Obama's most ardent detractors are racists, as well. Or does that term only have legitimacy when it's thrown at blacks? Should I say "race realist"? Why isn't Obama a "race realist"?
Also, Hirsch, I suggest you get a rag and Windex, clean your bathroom mirror, and take a hard look at your own reflection. Once you get rid of the grit marring the glass, you'll be able to see the word "hypocrite" tattooed across your forehead...
But in conclusion, Donald Trump is a recipe for disaster if he becomes President. I can see it right now during one of his presidential addresses, "People of the United States of America, I would like to take this time to say that the Secretary of State is FIRED..." seeing how business and telling people you're fired is the only thing he's good at.
I,for one,would be delighted if heads started rolling in Washington,D.C. (figuratively or literally...I'm not picky on the issue)
Them that gets their paycheck from tax revenues really ought to be subjected to being fired for gross incompetence,and the more public and flashy the firing,the better,as far as I'm concerned.
"All I have to say is that Trump is an idiot."
If that's all you have to say, then why'd you write 4 more paragraphs, you ignorant fuck.
You're just as fucking stupid as that moron Dishonest Crusader.
"But his blackness excited people - hell, it excited me; I'm sore the man is not a radical but your typical milquetoast, center-left Democrat. Maybe it was unfair on my part to assume that his blackness meant he'd be different."
Well, you knew that was coming: Obama's problem is that he's "not black enough." We need a real "authentic" leader -- someone in epaulets, who gives speeches in military uniform.
"if you believe Barack Obama is a racist, I hope you have enough integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that this site, its readers, and most, if not all, of Obama's most ardent detractors are racists, as well. Or does that term only have legitimacy when it's thrown at blacks?"
It doesn't have any particular legitimacy, but it's very tempting to throw it back in the face of the people using it. As a term, it's a fairly recent invention, and was politicized from the very beginning.
"It's sort of like the Obama mythos: the more whites make an issue of minorities, the greater the (anticipated) backlash will be, and it's a damned cycle. The majority population is standing in the way of true equality and a colorblind society. Whites hold the power - even with a black president - and if we play the victim because he's in office, it'll make everything uglier than it has to be."
You are insane.
Snape said:
"It's sort of like the Obama mythos: the more whites make an issue of minorities, the greater the (anticipated) backlash will be, and it's a damned cycle. The majority population is standing in the way of true equality and a colorblind society."
I really hope you're trolling.
What happens when the tables turn? What happens when the minorities have equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity, but they continue hating the majority?
That's what's happening now in the USA.
I'll tell you what happens. The majority defends itself. If you're suffering from a guilt complex, by all means, go sacrifice yourself to the ghetto blacks. Meanwhile, the rest of us will build more prisons.
Do you know why there is little violent crime in China? Because all the violent criminals (and many not-so-violent-criminals, and many non-criminals...) are in concentration camps.
If we move the ghetto to a prison, then the inner city will become a pretty nice place to live.
All I know is I hope Trump runs. He's the man who can beat Obama. Trump is saying all the right things.
(SBPDL, may I make a comment? A longish one with two parts?)
@ Snape:
I love you, man; you're freaking awesome! :-}
Obama never entered the presidential race as a "black" candidate; he wanted to be the candidate that happened to be black.
The Republicans made his race an issue. Obama was trying very hard to downplay his color, just like any black person would if they ran for Prez (this is why Jesse and Al get no support from most blacks and virtually all white liberals BECAUSE they are too 'black' and not viable candidates). A McCain staffer brought out Rev. Jeremiah Wright and everyone made Obama throw him under the bus (this is funny because Donald Trump was on Hannity saying that Obama was throwing people under the bus--he was FORCED to!). I don't see what was so wrong with Rev. Wright anyway; he reminded me of my dad and everything he says is true; why does everyone in this country worship the fucking FLAG? But white liberals pressured Obama not so much because they were offended by Wright's message (honestly, the Rev. was not a power-player--he has no impact on anything!), but because they didn't want him ruining Obama's prospects.
Obama played into his 'black president' role but that was but a small aspect of his whole political persona. It's HORRIBLE that the Right was able to turn him into some Louis Farrakhan; he's not that. Hillary Clinton even played into the race thing; a good Leftist should know better.
I totally agree with you in that Obama's 'mythos' is because he's black, but it's understandable because, like you mentioned, people thought he was going to 'change' things because he was black. And people hold onto it because they hope that he'll survive the Republican gauntlet and mud-slinging and DELIVER.
I agree that if he's continually race-baited, it'll be like handing the next election to him. Why can't we just see him as a president, not a black president? This goes for the Left and the Right.
I think Obama bit off more than he could chew; he's a fervent idealist and maybe was naive. The reality is being in the Oval Office is tough and we may all criticize a president but, to a degree, we have no idea what it is like being in that role and the difficulties staring them in the face. God, just look at a Prez when he enters office and then when he leaves! They say that most law students go into law school wanting to change the world but they come out and join the ranks of reptilian personal injury attorneys and lowly public defenders.
(to be continued)
(let this part through, too, SBPDL)
(cont)
Obama is having a hard time--especially after Hurricane Bush, something no one should ignore--but it's not because he's black, or a Muslim, or any other BS. He simply has to 'mop up' first.
I don't - for one second - believe Barack Obama is a racist, and I'm not saying this because his mother is white.
Sweet Hirsch must be on one hell of an acid trip saying Obama is a racist. Actually, "he's a racist war monger" is one of the funniest things I've ever read. It's nothing more than reactive BS, vicious (albeit hilarious) fiction, totally unfair, disingenuous, and, I might add, completely ironic coming from a poster on SBPDL. I don't know if Hirsch is projecting, but this is textbook projection.
What does the old adage say? Takes one to know one? This is why I laugh when racist whites call Obama a racist. Preference for one's own is 'expected' in such a balkanized United States (of course, it's unfortunate, but we can't change history) but there is a difference between actively seeking to take away civil rights (a nutshell history of white rule in America) and trying to bring minorities and women up to speed, even though I don't think Obama is even doing that. His appointments are another story; the minority legal tradition is steeped in primarily fighting for civil rights and Sotomayor or Holder are just by-products of this.
God, so basically only equality can be 'upheld' by white men? Apparently, that's what (white) people think. LOL!
Your sweet half-kin, Hirsch, voted for Obama, by the way, and it was probably along lines tangential to yours: because Obama was black and black = change.
Why does it have to be about black versus white? Hispanic versus white? Why does it have to be the majority versus minorities?
And it doesn't have to be. PoC want equality, and not surface equality. Whites want supremacy. The dialogue of fear and loathing on this site is only a continuation of days past. White supremacy causes minority radicalization. It's funny that people don't see this link. Whitey fears a PoC takeover because he did a takeover. Whitey fears oppression because he oppressed. Whitey dreads because he caused us to dread.
But I don't think PoC want payback, the vast majority of us don't, at least. Whites, chill.
@ Sweet Hirsch:
Please don't try to rub off on Snape. He does not need to change his ways. The irony is conservatives diss blacks for being against 'white-acting' black conservatives yet Snape gets an onslaught of "You're a brainwashed, white-guilt ridden etc., etc." BS because he has a differing opinion. Just another example of pot meeting kettle.
I can't believe it: only in this through-the-looking-glass world is there a stigma attached to 'open-mindedness'!
Obama lovers. Please give me an estimate of how many jobs he will bring to the US in the next 4 years (following his hypothetical re-election). That is all.
Percy Kittens Reloaded
"The "birther" issue is insane. There's no "there" there. It is a political dead-end"
Maybe but i don't think so. They're down to the "racism" defence and you know when they get down to that they've lost the argument and are simply trying to bully White people into giving up.
Professor Snape
Your anti-white bigotry seeps out of every pore.
Educated white men are becoming more and more likely to marry outside their race- mostly to Asians and Indians as white women are increasingly fat, bitchy, and slutty, while eastern women retain at least a semblance of femininity.
Professor Snape says: "Why does it have to be about black versus white? Hispanic versus white? Why does it have to be the majority versus minorities?"
Why, I've been saying the same thing about the Palestinians and the Jews for years now.
--Mencken--
"Who will he lose to? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? Why don't you Republican'ts just nominate Bobo the clown and be done with it"
Anonymous,
Given his current political standing, the worst in history for a President at juncture in office, and the continuing economic collapse and foreign policy blunders due to his incompetence and blatent stupidity, Obama would indeed lose to Bobo the Clown in a Reagan/Mondale type of landslide.
In fact, the American people already voted him out of office in the middle of his term last November by handing him and his party the greatest mid term election defeat in 72 years.
Please don't hate me, but this Trump conversation is fascinating and I believe Desiree speaks for a position held by the majority of readers at bossip.com, racialicious.com, thegrio.com, theroot.com, and newsone.com.
I don't allow the majority of her posts to get through, but this conversation seems to have set off a good-spirited debate and I let it through.
Just this once....
SBPDL has one moniker: race isn't a social construct, equality is.
Sadly, the bulk of people in Black Run America (BRA) believe the opposite.
"Desiree speaks for a position held by the majority of readers at bossip.com, racialicious.com, thegrio.com, theroot.com, and newsone.com."
That may be true, but it also means that every word she writes is as predictable as fog in London, and will include a theme of "blame-whitey" and "you're all racists", which is the textbook negro response to everything.
"The Republicans made his race an issue."
Of course this is 100% false, Obama has repeatedly played the race card from day one, but truth is irrelevant to negroes.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/03/obama-playing-the-race-card-again.html
I love that song Meant to Live. It takes me back to high school, a time when I couldn't see.
"...Why can't we just see him as a president, not a black president?"
-A stupid negro
Why? I'll submit letting the black pamfers go scott free in an open and shut case.
Your move...
Joe
"Educated white men are becoming more and more likely to marry outside their race- mostly to Asians and Indians as white women are increasingly fat, bitchy, and slutty, while eastern women retain at least a semblance of femininity."
Only educated SWPL men. Other European men have the smarts to understand how Asian and Indian women are also being infected by the liberal worldview throught the media (feminism and racial grievance in particular) and are more likely the seek the few sane European women.
Saw Donald Trump today on Hannity btw. I wonder if he will appear with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Not that I like any of these fools.
Greying Wanderer wrote:
"Maybe but i don't think so. They're down to the "racism" defence and you know when they get down to that they've lost the argument and are simply trying to bully White people into giving up."
All true. However, the left and the DWLs (people like Chris Matthews) are always going to blame every bit of opposition to anything President Obama says or does as "racism!"; they've been doing it since he took office. So just because they're crying "racism!" about the "birther" issue doesn't mean the Republicans have suddenly got the left on the ropes.
I'm 99% certain that Obama allows this "issue" to fester on because it happens to benefit him politically. If the time comes when it begins to drag down his poll numbers, his campaign will authorize the State of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate (which I'm fairly certain has already been copied and posted online anyway) to the public. Every second and minute that is spent debating the "birther" issue is a win for Obama because it keeps the focus off of his disastrous financial policies and lack of economic achievements, and virtually assures a second term.
Desiree,
"this is why Jesse and Al get no support from most blacks and virtually all white liberals BECAUSE they are too 'black'"
This bit is true.
.
"The Republicans made his race an issue. Obama was trying very hard to downplay his color"
Nah, Obama, the democrats and the media made his race an issue as THE BLACK CANDIDATE (who wasn't too black). The Republicans didn't invent all that "post-racial" guff.
.
"why does everyone in this country worship the fucking FLAG?"
Because humans are naturally tribal and Americans aren't genetically homogenous enough so they have to try harder to create a sense of unity.
.
"Obama is having a hard time--especially after Hurricane Bush...He simply has to 'mop up'first."
I agree he'd be doing badly because of factors outside his control even if he didn't totally suck (although i'd pin most of the blame on hurricane Greenspan and the federal reserve) but he does totally suck as well.
The simple reason he sucks is people like Barry are picked to be candidate by small groups of very rich men on the basis of how good they look on TV. If they miraculously turned out to be any good at the job it would be a complete coincidence. The Republicans are currently doing the exact same thing with Rubio.
.
"But I don't think PoC want payback, the vast majority of us don't"
Snape seems to want payback. I think he has fantasises about anti-white backlash every night before bed.
.
Paul,
The only lesson to be learned at this point is not to engage in argument. What needs to happen is
1) people expressing such ideas needs to be shunned
2) they need to be prevented from having any political or cultural influence whatsoever.
That's it.
I've done it. I've finally read Des for the first time in many, many moons. But........it only lasted (1/2 paragraph) until "why does everybody worship the fucking flag anyway?" Brutal.
Anyhoo, how does Obama/Soetoro recapture the independent vote? I'm not sure that he can.
This folowing is the path that he's chosen for his reelection. He's chosen class warfare, demagoguery, division, and partisanship. He's chosen Debbie Wasserman-Shultz as DNC chair, a flamethrowing hatchet woman. He'll choose the "negro-dialect" (droppin' g's) on the trail in front of the young clapping seals. He's chosen to make an appearance with Al Sharpton.
Soetoro/Obama pretended to be bi-partisan after the HISTORIC SHELLACKING last November! He enjoyed a bounce with the Tuscon "pep rally" and the new age of civility. HA! Mushy middle whitey crushed him last Nov. and will crush him again. He never really stopped campaigning but he's coming out full blown lefty the last couple of weeks. I think Mein Soetoro is feeling the heat lately! Trump/Libya/Budget debacles.
If I were the GOP leadership I'm feeling confident and would send in the dogs. Crush the birth issue, pound his bogus "nativity scene" phony narrative, ridicule his 2nd "childrens book", call him an average student until he produces proof, bust on the whistling "s" speech problem, his un-American beliefs, call him a war monger etc. Kitchen sink time. It will work if done wisely and timely (think Trump's strategy). Others can explain his failures of leadership and failed actions as POTUS.
The following states are huge. Ohio, Wisconsin, NH, Colorado, and he's polling in the low 40's in the great state of Pennsylvania. All have heavy white populations. Florida could be a problem but Rubio will help a lot. The Snapes and Des coalitions are irrelevant, the white middle must choose wisely.-- the Man
"...If I were the GOP leadership I'm feeling confident and would send in the dogs..."
I would too. But the GOP? They are SO PC and SO scared to death of all things negro, that they will most likely slink their way to a loss.
Barry is THE most target-rich pol EVER, and the GOP has barely called him on anything since he originally ran. To say they are feckless is to be kind.
Joe
"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
Obama was Mr. Race baiter from get go. None of the republicans ever brought up his race. But ofcourse he sure did. Infact, spineless MCcain went out of his way to avoid the Rev. Wright issue.
"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."
More race baiting. Mr non racial president.
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"
Obama has been a baiting, shit stirer from day one. Attacking Whites and religion, and guns.
And now as far as his Birth issue. Well, we know that Obama cannot produce an American Birth certificate. He never has, and he never will. He might try to forge one like his COLB, but he won't give out a real certificate.
We also know that his father was never an American citizen. And from "The Laws of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" By Emmerich de Vattel (1758)-- A Natural born citizens is-- "The Natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by children of the citizens, who children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
LONANG is an acronym for the Laws of Nature and (of) Nature's God, a phrase first used in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776. The phrase is also a plural contraction; a somewhat shorthand way of saying "the law of nature and the law of nature's God."
But the concepts embodied in the phrase didn't originate with Jefferson. The law of nature was a common term used by historic legal writers such as Grotius, Burlamaqui, Blackstone and others. The law of nature's God, a lesser used term, was more commonly called the divine law, or the revealed law, meaning the laws of God revealed in verbal form.
Thus, even if Barry Obama A.K.A. Barry Soetoro were born on the white house lawn, he would then still be a non natural citizen. His father has never been an American. But, he cannot even prove that he is an American citizen much more a Natural born one.
It really is an open and shut case.
Now as far as the election. The republicans will most likely put another neo con in to run against Barry. So I don't give a shit about that.
Anpnymous@19:35 said: "What happens when the tables turn? What happens when the minorities have equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity, but they continue hating the majority?
That's what's happening now in the USA.
The majority defends itself."
I wish I could believe you're right, but I don't. Whites are a defeated people. Case in point: John McCain, whose 2008 presidential campaign has been describes as "one long concession."
I'll tell you what happens.
Percy Kittens Reloaded,
"Every second and minute that is spent debating the "birther" issue is a win for Obama because it keeps the focus off of his disastrous financial policies and lack of economic achievements, and virtually assures a second term."
I'd agree with that argument if i didn't think the GOP was too split between its implicit White and corporate/neocon wings. I think that split means they'll lose anyway in which case the birthing thing is a bit of fun.
For now, i'm personally only interested in patriotic American-Americans claiming more scalps in the states, congress and senate.
"....why does everyone in this country worship the fucking FLAG?"
Anyone who can ask that question needs to be living in a different country. I mean that, in total seriousness. The U.S. isn't for people like you. Leave now, please, & go live in some part of the world where that country's flag & history & heritage all mean nothing. We won't miss you even slightly.
""The Republicans made his race an issue. Obama was trying very hard to downplay his color""
That's funny. McCain and the GOP wouldn't touch race with a 10 ft pole. Hell, it was such low hanging fruit they could have mopped up with it. From his church of 20 years and the Rev Wright, to Holder and Van Jones...
Anonymous at 11:42PM said:
What happens when the tables turn? What happens when the minorities have equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity, but they continue hating the majority?
That's what's happening now in the USA.
No, I'm not "trolling" and, no, that's not what's happening in the United States.
This is getting hysterical now! Please, read up on your history; this is a redux of post-Civil War reconstruction era propaganda; it's complete tripe. Obama is not trying to put whites in their place and be a black supremacist. That is folklore and fear-mongering.
The only reason you cannot see that he's just your average liberal Democrat is because he is a black man. All of this heeing and hawing over some cosmic day of reckoning would not even occur if it was Vice President Obama and President Joe Biden.
Come on, it's getting ridiculous.
*
Greying Wanderer said:
Snape seems to want payback. I think he has fantasises about anti-white backlash every night before bed.
I'm not a minority, therefore I do not have minority retribution fantasies. Why would I ever want blacks, Hispanics, or whoever else to take arms and indiscriminately target whites (this, no doubt, is your fear)? That would include harming me if "white blood" is what they'd be after.
It's amazing to me that there is an immediate assumption that a commenter is black if they are not a part of the "Those Who Can See" cult. Astonishing!
Here's a reality check for you: beyond your cloistered little "bubble", there are other whites who think just as I do.
*
Desiree said:
I love you, man; you're freaking awesome! :-}
Desiree, I don't know if you've read "Black Like Me" by John Howard Griffin but it is a fantastic book. However, it shows the limiting consciousness of the white liberal - which is what one could say I was. Griffin, while altruistic and definitely sincere, still could not detach himself from the whites' "Southern charm" he was used to in spite of the fact he'd experienced such hostile, unnecessary, and cruel racism by them while he was "black". At one point in the book, he notes that when he was a black man, from whites he got hostility and from blacks he got love; and when he was a white man, it was vice versa. He then went on to say such hostility was equal in a way and that he wished he could show to the one the goodness of the other.
The flaw in his analysis was that, again, in spite of his experiences as a black and the conditions he saw blacks in, he said the "hate" was equal. And that's not true. American history shows us that black discontent with whites was a product of the latter's hatred and subjugation of the former. How he could ever think they were similar - that blacks should find a way to remember that these hostile segregationists were still capable of that good "Southern charm" - was just insane to me. It actually turned my stomach.
The point I'm making is that, in terms of civil rights and roads to equality for all minorities, a minority should not put their faith into a privileged white liberal. I don't suggest it anyhow; there are many of us who want to be a part of it but we should only be helpers, never leaders. Blacks took control of their destiny in those eleven years that brought this nation out of what was essentially apartheid; white liberals who supported the blacks, ironically enough, told them to "go slow" and not be radical. Blacks did not listen and went ahead, shaping history.
Imagine if white liberals had succeeded in their advice. It may be a different country today...
I appreciate your compliment though. :)
Snape wrote:
"American history shows us that black discontent with whites was a product of the latter's hatred and subjugation of the former."
Correct. And now, when having dark skin is a distinct ADVANTAGE in society, white discontent with blacks is a product of the latter's hatred and crimes against the former. The black civil rights movement has succeeded; whites no longer discriminate against blacks. Now, blacks are discriminating against whites. Whites have been taught not to hate. Now, the blacks must be taught the same.
""Correct""
Correct my ass. Blacks have no problem with 'discontent' no matter the race, situation or geography. If'n the white man would just get his foot off of my throat I could be somebody.
""Whites have been taught not to hate. Now, the blacks must be taught the same.""
Give me a fricken break. This is just more Marxist mumbo jumbo. As long as there are racial distinctions and differences IOW as long as humans exist, there will always be jealousies, resentments, hatreds, coveting etc. It is complete falsehood that blacks in and of themselves are not fully capable of all kinds of atrocities. No white man required but he sure is convenient
Snape writes: [endless tripe]
My God, man, how do you do it? It's actually sort of impressive in a weird way.
"Come on, it's getting ridiculous."
Snape, for fucks sake, what's ridiculous is your inability to make a succinct point, combined with your worship of negroes, combined with your use of this blog for verbal masturbation.
Prior to his ascent, Obama was a half-white candidate who was going to show just how outmoded the Sharpton/ Jackson model was in our forward looking world. After the useful idiots had exhausted their usefulness (at least until 2012) Obama checked "Black" on the census form and opened his inaugural address with a harangue about how Michelle had "the blood of slaves running through her veins."
I can understand taking a chance on Obama in 2004; McCain was not really an alternative. But any white Paleoconservative or independent seriously contemplating keeping this man in office, just remember Arthur Toynbee's words: "Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder."
In your arguments, focus on reaching independents and moderates and anyone not brainwashed by either neocons or liberals. Don't bother trying to reason with either the Snapes or the Desirees. Snape is, as earlier charged, a dinosaur. Like Rabbi Shiller said of older liberal Jews, they remember civil rights while their children are young enough to remember Crowne Heights. Snape is merely pastiche of the jew as agitator, so broadly drawn that I sometimes suspect he's a gentile who's doing an impression every time he posts as an act of Dadaist performance art.
As for Desiree, she's pathological, not political. As long as I don't break my leg on some snowy road and end up at her Annie Wilkes-like abode, she's not really a problem, just a diversion.
"Snape is merely pastiche of the jew as agitator, so broadly drawn that I sometimes suspect he's a gentile who's doing an impression every time he posts as an act of Dadaist performance art."
I've been having a similar reaction reading Snape's posts. Like, is this guy for real? But I bet he is.
Hirsch:
I'm not nearly as old as you think I am, definitely not old enough to have been privy to civil rights era advancements. I just happen to enjoy this period of American history. I was in my early twenties when the first Bush was in office.
My being Jewish has nothing to do with my political beliefs, although, I will admit, I have not personally encountered far-right Jews. You may find it interesting that an older relative of mine - in her 70s - was what I considered fairly left-wing. When Obama became the Democratic candidate she couldn't bring herself to vote for him. This was quite shocking to me because I didn't consider her prejudiced; I thought if the opportunity to defeat any republican presented itself, she would support the Democrat. That was how partisan she was.
Apparently, that was not the case. Obama and Hillary Clinton are fairly similar in their politics in my view but she preferred Clinton and, since she lost the nomination to Obama, my relative couldn't allow herself to be a part of putting a black man in office.
You paint me as some paternalistic do-gooder and that is not who I am; paternalism is as offensive as outright rejection. However, I do like blacks, just as much as I like everyone else. I also enjoy history, and with that knowledge, I cannot support much of the junk on this site; it's propaganda. It does intrigue me, though, which is why I read SBPDL's articles. I feel he needs to be challenged; I don't think that is the same as "reasoning" with him, though. If I change someone's mind, it's incidental.
I have noticed, Hirsch, that you resort to attack instead of debate. I made a comment towards you under the "white privilege" thread a while ago and was disappointed that you never responded. I believe I asked you to come up with a study showing blacks disproportionately committing crime as well as showing there was no history of privation or disadvantage in that sample. I also asked you to link to literature proving that there was a gene existent in blacks predisposing them to criminality, since that is the belief on this website and one you expressed, whether explicitly or implicitly.
As of yet, there are still chirping crickets at your end.
Next time, attempt to formulate an argument; I was interested in hearing your delineations of how Obama is a "racist war monger". I respect people's experiences and realize that they shape, even if the resulting conformations are hideous. I'm not here to change the world, but to understand it; I am trying to understand how people can hate indiscriminately. I also think it is sad that whites - such as yourself and the others reading this site - would prefer to take up arms against some intangible black monster because a black man is in office over mental freedom - I don't think that is naive, either. You've chosen to orchestrate a grand conspiracy that makes the majority a victim of 15 percent of the population; it's complete bullshit.
It does not have to be a race war; it is all in your head. When Obama is in retirement, what will you have? The United States will not be some decaying wasteland. I admit it is possible because anything is possible, but it is much closer to 0 than 1.
Snape,
"It's amazing to me that there is an immediate assumption that a commenter is black if they are not a part of the "Those Who Can See" cult. Astonishing!"
I never thought for a second you were Black.
.
"I'm not a minority, therefore I do not have minority retribution fantasies."
The PC definition of racist is a white person who isn't anti-white enough but let's go with a fairer definition.
Lets say all ethno-sectarian groups contain a proportion who are strongly ethno-centric by which i mean they have a strong preference for their own group. This strong preference will obviously and automatically act as a prejudice to people outside their group however this isn't neccessarily the primary intent.
Let's further say that a percentage of the strongly ethno-centric proportion take it further to the point of being actively and violently hostile to outsider groups. Let's say our definition of "racist" is this group. Let's say for the sake of argument they are 10% of the strongly ethno-centric proportion and let's say all ethno-sectarian groups follow this pattern.
So for ease of argument let's say each group has the same 60% proportion who are strongly ethno-centric and the same 10% of that sub-group who are "racist" by the definition given above. This gives each ethno-sectarian group the same 6% racists / bigots. (I actually think it varies between groups but that's by the by.)
Now take the assumed 6% White racists reading about some Zulus in South Africa hacking a White farmer to pieces. (Try not to get too aroused by that thought, Snape.) Would they blame those individual Zulus, Zulus as a group, Africans as a group or Blacks as a group? They'd blame Blacks as a group.
Now take the 6% Black racists reading about some Black kid getting beat up by some White French kids in France. Do they blame those individual kids or do they blame the French as a group or do they blame Europeans as a group or do they blame White people as a group? They'd blame White people as a group.
Now take the 6% Jewish racists reading about the holocaust. Do they blame the individual Nazis or do they blame the Germans as a group or do they blame Europeans as a group or do they blame White people as a group?
They blame White people as a group.
.
"American history shows us that black discontent with whites was a product of the latter's hatred and subjugation of the former. How he could ever think they were similar - that blacks should find a way to remember that these hostile segregationists were still capable of that good "Southern charm" - was just insane to me. It actually turned my stomach."
Keep stirring the anti-white hate and maybe one day you'll get your anti-white backlash and your proxy revenge.
.
Trump is just a sad clown with a reality show. The 'birther' issue is a joke. There are a billion better reasons to oppose the blame-whitey, never hold blacks accountable bs (which , btw, would be around no matter who be da prez-o-dent)than this. Amazing Trump is just hollering about it now.It's called shameless self-promotion, folks....
http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/15/trump-is-a-laughing-matter
(SBPDL, please let this through! Totally will be my last, last comment!)
@ Hirsch:
As for Desiree, she's pathological, not political. As long as I don't break my leg on some snowy road and end up at her Annie Wilkes-like abode, she's not really a problem, just a diversion.
You're right. I'm not into politics at all--I used to be--but you are insinuating that I am 'insane', which is totally unfair and just pathetic. Unscrupulous, actually.
It is so funny to me, Mr. Dan "SBPDL is now asking for donations to take his charade to the next level" Burros, that you can call a black person a 'diversion' when this blog TALKS ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE. Excuse me for stumbling upon this 'holiest of holy' Temple to Odin from Google! If he hadn't had a post about Michael Jackson, the sanctity of this hallowed place would not have been disturbed by 'Diarrhea'. So... blame Mr. Kersey.
The reality is that there is a dearth of rational and logical responses to someone like me because I am black. No one even tries with any of the black commenters. Hell, I've said some of the same things as Snape but, because he's white, he at least gets responded to like a human being. How are any of you going to get any respect by a mainstream audience if a black person comes on and you all resort to mocking, 'Ooo-ooo ahh-ahh' gibberish as a response? LOL, really?
Why doesn't SBPDL talk about white liberals if they are the 'enemy'? He doesn't because most of his readers are here because they want to talk shit about black people. That's his audience; it's not some higher moral crusade for these people. Most of the people on this site are the same ones who'd rather focus on nebulous Muslim birth certificates than actual issues. This is like the KKK: a disorganized bunch of rednecks.
If I put every one of these commenters in a room, the sheer lack of rational thought would cause a black hole.
As for your 'Misery' scenario, I would have to be a fan of yours, wouldn't I? That, I am not. I respect you as a human being, not as a caricature of a serious intellectual.
Snape,
The rebuttal to most, if not all, of your arguments can be found in previous threads. For evidence of black middle class enclaves being several orders magnitude worse than those of poor whites, google "Dekalb County Crime rate" or "Prince George county" and then compare those to rural, mostly white West Virginia or Appalachia.
As for blacks being genetically predisposed to crime, google "race and psychopathic personality." It has an inordinately high rate among blacks. If you study race and IQ, race and crime, etc. you will begin to notice a trend, that the nobel laureates and PhDs and Darwin fellowships are all bunched on one side of the teeter, while the "white hat" anti-racists have BAs, and not even in hard sciences. Arthur Jensen, as wicked and racist as they might try to paint him, still has intellectual currency and is still publishing decades after his naysayers tried to silence him.
You don't want debate, and even if you did, would declare yourself the victor regardless of the outcome. If I post a study that shows the correlation between race and crime is stronger than the one between poverty and crime, you'll predictably respond with "Bullshit" and then hector me about how you are my moral superior, leavening your soapbox oratory with old hat about nurture vs nature, etc.
You'll attempt to infer my motives, misconstrue them, and then, in spite of accusing me of attacking instead of furnishing proof, will resort to cheap swipes about "cleaning my mirror."
Men who've done far more than either of us could accomplish in three lifetimes, from Schopenhauer to Lovecraft, to FDR, to Kipling, to Churchill, have publicly said much worse than any comment on here that has you blushing so haughtily. Every one of your posts can essentially be summed up as an affronted "Why I never!"
Try not to look so shocked.
Das da problym. In Merica a mofucka like da donald trump can git awy with dat. But when da brotha is speekin for his den its like peeplez gots to git da rope and lynch da brotha. Ifs peeplze wants da truf den thay can jus looks outsides da windos. blacks be gettin lynches by whitey and we ain gots ta takes it no moor wit Obama. Obama be puttin whitey in his plase. Weh we gits da cash muny den its blak folk turns to builds da buidlings and have da tv show and da donall tru,ps be da door mans.
"The rebuttal to most, if not all, of your arguments can be found in previous threads."
Every fucking word Snape types has been discussed, refuted, and obliterated countless times on this blog, but because he's a clueless newbie under the delusion that he's smarter than everyone else, he insists on torturing us all with the same old tired bullshit over and over. He brings absolutely nothing new, he just repeats his "Santa Claus is real" mantra, please ban this fucking loser!
Desiree,
I'm sorry you feel left out. If you could please pass your message about the KKK being nothing but rednecks on to the SPLC and the NAACP and to any other black caucus or organizations that use the phantom of what is actually some gaggle of dumb rednecks to justify their marches, powwows, and massive budgets, that would be peachy keen.
Also, you're not a diversion because you're black, you're a diversion because you have two moves:
Shake- LOL at the white people who you say are are obsessed with this site.
Bake- Desperately try to conceal the fact that, as your sister let slip and was always patently obvious, you are the most obsessive of all the posters here.
Shake and bake. It got old fast. And now it's getting sad. Please stop because it is really starting to be awkward. If the site is worthless, racist, ignorant, etc. then why do you keep peeking in and asking SBPDL to approve your comments as if he was a doorman with his hand on the velvet rope to some club you desperately wanted to enter?
Now, assuming you are a woman of your word and you have posted your last comment, a song to commemorate the tornado surreptitiously flinging the house on top of the witch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE
peeplez needs ta cees an disiss on the butiful nubian princess Desiree.
Hey Desi re - re what up shorti. yous gots ta keeps whitey frum makin noize.
da blacka da juise da betta da frutes. whites peeplez is frum da devils. blak be back in da stile of da day.
Desiree keepin it real up in da feeld aight.
"why does everybody worship the fucking flag anyway?"
Oh, what to do with the Negro, the eternal question. I don't expect blacks to either:
1. love America
2. understand the purpose of the founding documents or comprehend the ideas of freedom and liberty
3. pledge allegiance to the flag or
4. show even an ounce of patriotism for America, the country who freed them from slavery
I wish that the Africans would have never sold the black slaves to Americans. Then we would not have had a Negro problem to deal with for the last 150 years. I wish that we had found another way.
Are the blacks willing to go if we send them, once and for all, back to the African motherland? I wish we would have sent them back directly following abolition. Lincoln tried, but his life was cut short. Maybe that would be a good policy to work on for the future of white America. It would be a win-win situation for all.
Hirsch:
You opted for an easy way out. If you had had the testicular fortitude in those "previous threads" to refute at that time, you should have made your move.
As for blacks being genetically predisposed to crime, google "race and psychopathic personality." It has an inordinately high rate among blacks.
"Psychopathy" has not been established as heritable and gene-based; if you have research to say it is, then by all means, provide it. Otherwise, I suggest you take notice that the DSM-IV notes when a professional is evaluating a patient, "antisocial personality disorder" - which is what I'm sure you are referring to - should be applied only when social and economic contexts are first understood.
We can debate about the politics of the American Psychiatric Association another time.
What you've done there is assume a causation due to a correlation; the DSM-IV states this is a common diagnosis in lower socioeconomic and urban environments. You should also know that many disorders are largely cultural and some do not translate.
Plainly, Hirsch, you've not proven your case. How can we be sure what you say is true? If I removed the socioeconomic and urban factors, would blacks still be affected at a "high rate"?
One more note: "sociopathy" is considered the "male prisoner personality"; virtually all male inmates, regardless of color, are sociopathic to a degree. If a researcher gets most of his data from a prison - where blacks make up a high proportion of the population - what does that tell you? Can that be accurately applied to all blacks, the majority of whom are not imprisoned? And if poverty greatly increases the propensity for crime, and blacks are more likely to be poor and in sweltering urban ghettos, what do you have?
Definitely not a glowing endorsement for a "crime gene" inherent in blacks.
Regarding Jensen, Hirsch, I suggest you remember that 'pseudoscience' was a hard science 200 years ago. Again, if you have the proof to disprove me, please link to the literature.
(1 of 2)
(2 of 2)
Hirsch said:
You don't want debate, and even if you did, would declare yourself the victor regardless of the outcome. If I post a study that shows the correlation between race and crime is stronger than the one between poverty and crime, you'll predictably respond with "Bullshit"
This is untrue (and you have no study to cite, unfortunately for you). You misjudge me: if you can point to an infallible study disproving me, by all means, provide it. I will not respond with "bullshit". I will thank you for being a man of intellectual integrity.
hector me about how you are my moral superior, leavening your soapbox oratory with old hat about nurture vs nature, etc.
The "Nurture" argument is a truism in many cases, such as this one. You have not provided me with any unequivocal data to change my opinion on that one. As for "moral superiority", well, that is all in your head, man.
You'll attempt to infer my motives, misconstrue them, and then, in spite of accusing me of attacking instead of furnishing proof, will resort to cheap swipes about "cleaning my mirror."
This is naked hypocrisy. Don't feign some moral indignation, Hirsch, when everyone else here, as well as you, sees "black skin" and "infers motives", infers quality or worth. And I did not attack you, but gave you a suggestion, which you've proven is still apropos. If you want to bring up "cheap swipes", what you undoubtedly consider a "dismount" of Desiree in your later comment was uncalled for and you delivered it - unpredictably - in lieu of an actual response. I find you cowardly. Every black who trickles in is quickly shouted down with "fucking moron", or, infamously, in the case of Desiree, "Diarrhea".
Third grade name-calling is more acceptable than actual debate here, which tells me something about the intellectual prowess of this audience.
Next time, Hirsch, do not prove my points about you for me. I like a little bit of a brain workout but, with you, this is basically calisthenics at the old age home.
I hope you don't misconstrue that as a "cheap swipe".
Snape -- defying the white racists through the sheer power of his obliviousness.
"Third grade name-calling is more acceptable than actual debate here, which tells me something about the intellectual prowess of this audience."
At least there is debate here. Which is more than any of the afro-centric sites which moderate with a machete.
Disarray wrote:
"The reality is that there is a dearth of rational and logical responses to someone like me because I am black. No one even tries with any of the black commenters."
Disarry, I have tried to reason with you in the past. However, you are a troll, and your trolling technique is to be very dense. So, seeing that reasoning with you was futile, I instead proceeded to humiliate you every day. And, I must say, you are a glutton for punishment.
Snape wrote:
"I also asked you to link to literature proving that there was a gene existent in blacks predisposing them to criminality"
Here you go, Snape: http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
Next time learn to google.
By the way, your pissing match with Brother Hirsch is pathetic. You assign words and sentiments to him (and, indeed, to all of us) that were never made, then self-righteously whine at him. How disgraceful.
"Here you go, Snape: http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html"
Dude...that won't work. Remember, statistics lie, and anyway, they don't explain anything. Even if black crimes rates are higher, that only illustrates the magnitude of whitey's evil. EVERYTHING comes back to that.
"Third grade name-calling is more acceptable than actual debate here"
Until you bring something new to the table, you get what you deserve, shitstain.
Snape - I put down the wrong quote from your posts when sending you to the color of crime website. It was intended as a response to your request for proof that, when controlling for poverty, blacks are still more likely to be criminals. That is exactly what that report proves.
Here you go, Snape: http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
Next time learn to google.
I have read that before - I actually have the .pdf on my computer - and there's nothing that mentions genetic predisposition. Therefore, you did not prove your case. Recall the old statistical truism: "Correlation does not always equal causation."
Next time, try harder.
As for Brother Hirsch, his treatment was of his own doing. And, I might add, he'd do well to improve his debate skills; I went easy on him. I like the way he ascribes to me reactions indicative of how I'd respond to his earth-shattering "proofs" disproving me (if he can find any).
I suggest he not whine, but show his proofs. If he cannot, he should at least have the honesty to admit as much.
Hey, Snape. Dumbass. Those numbers that show women earn less than men? Those are statistics. Statistics lie. And they don't show causation.
Those numbers that show blacks are discriminated against in hiring? Those are statistics. Statistics lie. And they don't show causation.
Those numbers that show blacks don't do as well in school? Those are statistics. Statistics lie. And they don't show causation.
Therefore, no action should be taken based on any of them.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Snape:
It's not supposed to mention genetic predisposition. Therefore, I did prove my case. Stop using strawmen arguments.
As for Brother Hirsch, your arguments with him have the air of a lover's spat. You squabble like a middle-eastern woman at the market. Show some dignity, shmuck.
Snape-
"Next time, Hirsch, do not prove my points about you for me. I like a little bit of a brain workout but, with you, this is basically calisthenics at the old age home."
Thank you for proving my point. I deduced that no matter the content of the exchange, you would, in the spirit of a keyboard commando, declare yourself the defacto winner in a debate that you admitted had yet to even occur.
Announcing yourself the victor in an internet argument ranks somewhere on the scale of awards below "world's greatest grandpa." I'll happily provide you a mesh trucker hat emblazoned with the words "I Won," and you can display it proudly and without a sense of irony.
Brown University Professor Emeritus Rose McDermott has shown that black males are twice as likely as whites to exhibit the MOAO "warrior gene" which is responsible for behavioral aggression in response to provocation:
ie: two white guys are walking down the street. White guy one: "Hey man, you stepped on my shoe."
White Guy two: "Woops, sorry."
ie: two black guys are walking down the street: Black Guy One: "Hey nigga you betta watch where the fuck you walking, mane!"
Black Guy Two: "Nigga, break yoself!!"
(Gunfire ensues)
End scene. The latter scenario involves what blacks themselves candidly describe as a "nigga moment."
Assuming you're able to accept a correlation between poverty and incarceration rates, then you would have to concede that any study using the same transparent methodology which proved another correlation (even one that bridles your liberalism) would be valid.
Forget race and the propensity for crime for a moment, and focus on IQ and crime. The link between the two is well-established, and since it would suit your arguments as much as mine, you would be willing to concede the point, I assume. The same methodology was used by Professor Emeritus of the University of Ulster Richard Lynn and many others to prove that blacks have, on average, the lowest IQ.
And, I might add, he'd do well to improve his debate skills; I went easy on him.
And here you're doing exactly what he said you do, declaring victory without regard for your interlocutor's position. The state of "higher education" being what it is (an archipelago of sophistry factories), this is to be expected. You are Thrasymachus, but less honest. And you will never convince anyone here that you argue in good faith or that your arguments are correct. We've simply too much firsthand experience with the object of your worship for that.
SBPDL, for my part, two essay-writing gadflies are one too many. You should consider removing one or the other permanently.
(2 of 2)
Indeed, Hirsch, most people do not understand gene expression and regulation. As a simple example (related to this particular gene and its regulation because it is catabolic), lets say Promoter BAD lies upstream of genes B, A, D on DNA; this means that at the stage of transcription, RNA polymerase - which transcribes DNA - will bind to this promoter and synthesize these genes which will later become expressed proteins. However, in order for Promoter BAD to work, there must be an essential environmental component to "get it going" so it can initiate transcription of these genes. Let's call that Q, which is what genes B, A, D catabolize.
In sum, only in the presence of Q can genes B, A, D be transcribed and, thus, made into functional proteins. The McDermott study compounds this simple genetic fact, since significant stressors increase the likelihood of aggression. So, what you have here is only in the right environment can the variant MAOA-L gene "work" and have the individual display aggression. In general, the nature of most human genes are that relative environmental advantageousness is directly proportional to expression. This is why whites have light skin; it would be disadvantageous to have dark skin in cold climates where sun is considerably less and melanin is a natural sunblock, inhibiting needed Vitamin D absorption (unless sunshine is great).
A question raised by the McDermott study could be why would more aggression be needed in a peaceful society? Whites have lower rates (the link to sociopathy has only been studied in white Americans, by the way) of MAOA-L than blacks (and blacks much less than East Asians!); so, one could hypothesize that - let's say we're measuring in America - black elevated levels relative to whites is due to the fact blacks occupy a much lower social and economic strata than whites, where survival (read: aggression) is a must. This would obviously compound the fact that antisocial personality is seen in lower-socioeconomic and urban settings (as mentioned by the DSM-IV).
It's very fascinating stuff.
But let's argue against the data and say blacks had a "crime gene" (apparently, this is still untrue). We'd only have two options: (1) Leave them be, as it is cruel to penalize people for their "inalienable" DNA, or (2) Exercise eugenics and excise them from the human population for the betterment of the world.
Fortunately, no scientific evidence exists to do either. All one would need to do is alter environment.
Hirsch, you misjudge me. I don't dispute numbers, I contextualize. Although it is not always the case, I agree with you that criminality and relative IQ is linked, for it seems that good educational opportunity can also ameliorate one's economic status (which is linked with crime rates). I also acknowledge that blacks have scored under whites and Asians in IQ measurements. Where we differ is on the "why": you state DNA; I state environment (the tests themselves, notwithstanding). There was a study back in 1991 that demonstrated that a child can lose up to 6 points on an IQ test if educational environment is substandard. IQ test scores improve with education.
As we know, blacks are more likely than whites and Asians to attend schools in areas with high concentrations of poverty.
*
Silent Running said:
You are Thrasymachus, but less honest. And you will never convince anyone here that you argue in good faith or that your arguments are correct. We've simply too much firsthand experience with the object of your worship for that.
I do argue in "good faith" and I disagree that I am employing sophistry. I respect your experiences with blacks, but you should at least be honest enough to admit that not all blacks should be relegated to "subhuman" status, just like not all whites should be considered "human".
"I do argue in "good faith" and I disagree that I am employing sophistry."
Well, let's see now.
"But let's argue against the data and say blacks had a "crime gene" (apparently, this is still untrue). We'd only have two options..."
Fallacy of false dilemma.
Sophistry, indeed.
I could go on, but I won't.
It seems like Snape is written by Disarray working with somebody else. She writes the parts meant to antagonize Hirsch, and her friend fills in the pseudo-science babble that she's not smart enough to manufacture herself.
Anonymous at 5:58PM said:
Fallacy of false dilemma.
Sophistry, indeed.
I could go on, but I won't.
Hirsch's assertion was that the MAOA-L gene - the "warrior" gene - and McDermott's study was a rebuttal to my claim that there was no black predisposition to crime. I have disproved his nonsense, citing two important facts: (1) Chinese males have the highest occurrence of MAOA-L, although East Asians have lower crime rates than blacks here in the US, which suggests that this "gene" has nothing to do with crime; and (2) that the "more aggressive" tendency of MAOA-L is only expressed with significant stressors, which can easily be controlled by adjusting environmental variables.
If you can disprove this, by all means, have at. I think these are very rational and logical extrapolations of the studies. I did not even mention the fact that the McDermott study only had less than 80 participants, which is hardly exhaustive.
Accusing me of a false dilemma fallacy is specious; I'd suggest you go about refuting me in lieu of vomiting such a baseless charge. Accusing me of sophistry is simply a diversion from the fact you are without rebuttal.
If you feel you can fisk through my post, by all means, go ahead. This seems to be an open forum and I enjoy reading.
It seems like Snape is written by Disarray working with somebody else. She writes the parts meant to antagonize Hirsch, and her friend fills in the pseudo-science babble that she's not smart enough to manufacture herself.
Wrong.
I guess you have agreed with me that their "quarrels" seem intimate. I didn't mention it but that he assumed his encounter with Desiree would mean ending up helplessly bed-ridden in the house of a female psychotic, instead of, say, being beaten up by someone who found his views repugnant, makes me wonder about those two.
For all we know, they could be going back and forth for show...
How do I know you are not one of Hirsch's pseudonyms used when he wants to ignore my posts and cause a distraction from the debate at hand?
As for the "pseudoscience babble" charge, forgive me if I find that unbearably ironic. The very notion of racism - and the lengths to which people go to defend it - is based in pseudoscience.
Please entertain me when you have something better to offer.
If Michelle Obama got slave blood running through her veins she also has slave owner blood as there was a huge African African slave owner percentage in the slave owning states. (But you are not meant to read about that)
Post a Comment