Disagree with Obama? You're obviously a racist!

E4 No More · September 22, 2009

With the flag issue, I am always reminded that after a conflict, typically the victors get to write the history of the events.

True that.

September 22, 2009

With the flag issue, I am always reminded that after a conflict, typically the victors get to write the history of the events.

True that.

Indeed.

raydog1 · September 22, 2009

Yes, many people think that the civil war was as simple as the gov't threatened to outlaw slavery and the south broke away. However, in actuality, it was since Lincoln stood on a platform of not expanding slavery with federal legislation, and some southern states felt as if his election meant their states rights had been or would be violated. Since slavery was a major part of the southern economy, some southern states felt the only route to economic survival was to secede. The civil war was not fought over slavery, but rather states rights. Slavery was just the catalyst. If Abraham Lincoln had taken a position of outlawing cotton instead, we very well may have had a similar situation. I'm not denying the fact that the southern states supported slavery or slavery was the defining issue, but lets get the facts straight.
No offense to anyone on this board, but I equate waiving the rebel flag to the same thing as wearing a Che Guevara shirt. It means many things to many people. Does a Che Guevara shirt necessarily mean someone is a socialist? Or do they just like the idea of revolution? Or did they find it at GoodWill and think it looks cool? Same with the rebel flag. They could be a racist or not. They might just see it as a symbol of the south or they could be the worst bigot ever, but you can't make accurate judgments based on the symbol alone.

Either way, I don't advertise either the rebel flag or Che Guevara since I like my motives to be clear, but to each his own.

Edit: Does anyone else find it ironic that I am making an argument that involves Abraham Lincoln?

This reminds me of when Spike Lee's Malcolm X movie came out and people (black & white) started wearing Malcolm X t-shirts. So many different "meanings" for wearing that shirt and many of them quite noble. But, to other segments of the population, it meant pure hatred. I remember very similar arguments over that symbolism.

Chief07 · September 24, 2009

Quote:Hyaloid said:If you cannot attack the issues without attacking one another, we'll stop the topic all together. In that light, let me compliment our current White House and the Congress. They do provide us with an almost endless supply of issues to attack. Not to mention the comedy relief!Nobody would believe that the Congress of the United States could be this ignorant, stupid, petty, uninformed, outragious, braindead, bunch of nitwits that God ever streached a patch of skin across would be in charge of the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Or that Americans would even vote them into office.Thanks or letting me vent. I feel better now.

MikeW · September 25, 2009

Edit: Does anyone else find it ironic that I am making an argument that involves Abraham Lincoln?

Even before I read the above..... I thought to myself "Hey Abe is in is here" ...

towerclimber37 · September 27, 2009

Not by definition, no.
Even if you would be mislabeled, and you truly are not racist, which you probably are not... that is a symbol of racism. It symbolizes the enslavement of our fellow human beings and it symbolizes the southern withdraw from the United States of America. I also understand it represents the life and death of many family members who bravely fought in TN...but why would you want to give people the wrong idea, if that isn't your true belief? Like it or not, that is how that particular symbol is viewed and nothing can change the cause that it stood for, enslavement of African-Americans and secession from the US. It's definitely a part of TN history, just not for a very humane reason. It's simply a different time now. That was a way of life then but not anymore. We get to choose how people label us and wearing very specific symbols, if that isn't your belief, simply seems like the wrong choice. You are begging people to mislabel you. There are other ways to honor ancestors and southern heritage.

I believe in your right to wear and display that flag. I believe in your right to be racist if you so choose. I also believe in your right to be open and honest about it.

wow...just wow

I quit reading this forum for awhile and I come back to THIS???

Colin P.

A little illumination for you. The major bone of contention among the southern states was not slavery. The congress had already agreed to allow a 20 year time frame for agrarian states to move away from forced labor.

The major bone of contention between southern states and northern states was over tarriffs.

You act as if racism is directly related to slavery. how can that be when 2/3'rd of the slaves that were sold to America were sold BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE?

And further, when the Union army came through the south, they burned plantations, and took crops from all, regardless of color. Aren't they also racists? because you can bet your bippy that the Union soldiers didn't share their food with the very folks that they just burned out of their homes.

If you would like, I can forward you the accounts of several slaves from the Jarrell plantation, in Ga. that recounts how, when the emancipation proclaimation was passed, they were made freemen and agreements were made for them to sharecrop. A few months later the union army came and "confiscated" all the food both from the larders and the fields, took all the animals they needed to feed their army and killed any they didn't take with them.

they took this food from sharecroppers and plantation owners alike and burned the houses. Better yet, if you're ever around Macon Ga. look up the Jarrell plantation.

Yet the Confederate battle flag is the symbol of racism. why? because it was politically expedient to paint those southern states as immoral in order to fight a war against secession. There were and still are racists in both the north and the south.

That was a stroke of Genius for the Union. Abraham Lincoln fanned the flames of hatred OF his countrymen AGAINST his countrymen. When the southern statesmen wanted to keep debating in congress to come to some sort of agreement, the northern states invoked cloture and effectively guaranteed a war. For that, I condemn Lincoln and hope he burns in a special hell.

So you keep on thinking that heritage = hate, but don't be surprised when you evoke a response stronger than you expect...and I can almost guarantee you won't speak those words to a person displaying a flag. that would be too much like paying for a whipping...and while you may be ignorant of many of the facts, I am fairly sure that you have the God given sense of self-preservation.

To many southerners who display a confederate battle flag, calling us Racist is an insult that's spoken by ignorant, self inflated carpet baggers; Were you to do this in person, I'm fairly sure you'd either have to back up your words with fisticuffs or expect a trip to the dentist.

NuTcAsE · September 27, 2009

wow...just wow
I quit reading this forum for awhile and I come back to THIS???

Colin P.

A little illumination for you. The major bone of contention among the southern states was not slavery. The congress had already agreed to allow a 20 year time frame for agrarian states to move away from forced labor.

The major bone of contention between southern states and northern states was over tarriffs.

You act as if racism is directly related to slavery. how can that be when 2/3'rd of the slaves that were sold to America were sold BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE?

And further, when the Union army came through the south, they burned plantations, and took crops from all, regardless of color. Aren't they also racists? because you can bet your bippy that the Union soldiers didn't share their food with the very folks that they just burned out of their homes.

If you would like, I can forward you the accounts of several slaves from the Jarrell plantation, in Ga. that recounts how, when the emancipation proclaimation was passed, they were made freemen and agreements were made for them to sharecrop. A few months later the union army came and "confiscated" all the food both from the larders and the fields, took all the animals they needed to feed their army and killed any they didn't take with them.

they took this food from sharecroppers and plantation owners alike and burned the houses. Better yet, if you're ever around Macon Ga. look up the Jarrell plantation.

Yet the Confederate battle flag is the symbol of racism. why? because it was politically expedient to paint those southern states as immoral in order to fight a war against secession. There were and still are racists in both the north and the south.

That was a stroke of Genius for the Union. Abraham Lincoln fanned the flames of hatred OF his countrymen AGAINST his countrymen. When the southern statesmen wanted to keep debating in congress to come to some sort of agreement, the northern states invoked cloture and effectively guaranteed a war. For that, I condemn Lincoln and hope he burns in a special hell.

So you keep on thinking that heritage = hate, but don't be surprised when you evoke a response stronger than you expect...and I can almost guarantee you won't speak those words to a person displaying a flag. that would be too much like paying for a whipping...and while you may be ignorant of many of the facts, I am fairly sure that you have the God given sense of self-preservation.

To many southerners who display a confederate battle flag, calling us Racist is an insult that's spoken by ignorant, self inflated carpet baggers; Were you to do this in person, I'm fairly sure you'd either have to back up your words with fisticuffs or expect a trip to the dentist.

It's good to see you back!

Where ya been?

September 27, 2009

Part of the problem,they don't teach kids,the truths in school anymore. You aren't going to find tarriffs being the contention,in any school book. It's all about the slaves. Schools Push racism. They celebrate,Black History month. OK,where is White History month??? Is this not racism??? This is the United States. We should be able to fly any flag we want. To say United States History can be celebrated only one way, is yet another case of racism. Out of hand and getting worse. It's becoming to be,the word Confederate is like using the ,'N' word.

"I also understand it represents the life and death of many family members who bravely fought in TN...but"

BUT Nothing! Who is Anyone to dismiss the life and death of an American War Veteran??? I say, wave the Confederate Proudly,in honor of your Ancestors. Anyone that doesn't like it,you aren't holding a gun to their heads to look.

And I was born in the North.

September 27, 2009

"I have ancestors who were slaveowners and fought under that flag.that flag is an affront to many people. It is hurtful. That's why I don't display it despite the fact that I have every right to do so"

Ancestors rolling in their graves...October 31st...right around the corner. RIP

towerclimber37 · September 27, 2009

It's good to see you back!
Where ya been?

gallivantin

extremescene · September 27, 2009

wow...just wow
I can almost guarantee you won't speak those words to a person displaying a flag. that would be too much like paying for a whipping...and while you may be ignorant of many of the facts, I am fairly sure that you have the God given sense of self-preservation. To many southerners who display a confederate battle flag, calling us Racist is an insult that's spoken by ignorant, self inflated carpet baggers; Were you to do this in person, I'm fairly sure you'd either have to back up your words with fisticuffs or expect a trip to the dentist.

You're right, I wouldn't dare. I know that would not be an intelligent conversation. You missed my entire point and your jump to violence only furthers the problem. You have proven there is no room for further discussion on this issue. I don't want to fight you or anybody.

September 27, 2009

BLACK REPUBLICAN: National Black Republican Association E-News

The blog archives are at the bottom of this page.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Is Obama A Racist?

IS OBAMA A RACIST?

By Frances Rice

How do we decide who is a racist? The dictionary tells us a racist harbors feelings of antagonism and superiority based on biological differences, such as skin color. So, what demonstrates that President Barack Obama harbors such feelings toward white people?

Glimpses of Obama's mindset can be obtained from reading his two books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father" where Obama describes his animosity toward white people.

In "Dreams from My Father" Obama wrote: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race." This book also contains an explanation of why Obama joined and remained for 20 years in Trinity United Church of Christ, the church of black liberation theologian Rev. Jeremiah Wright who preached hatred against whites. Obama wrote: "It came about as a choice and not an epiphany". The core of black liberation theology is black separatism, a movement that, for more than a century, has been opposed to racial integration. Equally troubling is Obama's church giving a lifetime award to one of our nation's most racist men, Louis Farrakhan.

Obama's belief system on race was on full display during the 2008 campaign when, on a Philadelphia radio sports program, he described his grandmother as a "typical white person" who fears blacks.

From the roots of Obama's enmity toward white people sprang his gratuitous attack on Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley. Obama declared that the sergeant "acted stupidly" while doing his duty, when all Obama knew, admittedly, was that the sergeant was white and the person arrested, Obama's friend Harvard Processor Henry Gates, was black. Without bothering to learn the facts, Obama used the power of his position as President of the United States to demonize an American citizen because of his race. Details of the arrest are in the article "Obama Plays the Race Card" by Ronald Kessler that is on the Internet at:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_race_gates/2009/07/23/239408.html

A video featuring the testimonial of two black officers in support of Sergeant Crowley, including the comments of Officer Kelly King who states that she supported and voted for Obama, but would not vote for him again, is posted on YouTube at:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2009/07/26/nr.comrade.in.arms.cnn

Obama, in his rush to judgment, ignored pertinent facts, such as one of the arresting officers is black, the Cambridge Mayor is black and the Massachusetts Governor is black. From his lofty perch as the leader of the free world, Obama focused like a laser beam on the skin color of one man and engaged in grievance mongering about "racial profiling," a charge that hampers law enforcement in black communities and was not even a factor in the Cambridge case. In an instant, Obama abandoned any pretense of being "post racial" and, before our very eyes, was transformed into our "race-baiter-in-chief".

How ironic that the wrongs against blacks that are the genesis of Obama's racial hostility were committed by the whites who supported the racist agenda of the Democratic Party (not that many years ago), the party Obama now heads. During his research, author Wayne Perryman uncovered documents which reveal that the Democratic Party was once proudly called the "Party of White Supremacy". According to Perryman, Democratic Party campaign posters issued from 1868 to the early 1900's declared: "This is a white man's country - let the white man rule". Perryman further pointed out that Democratic Senator Ben Tillman in 1909 said: "We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank and only one plank, namely, that this is a white man's country and the white men must govern it."

Today, Obama is changing the Democratic Party into a party with the sinister premise that America is a black man's country and the black men must govern it. Perhaps this is why Obama refused to prosecute Black Panthers who wielded weapons, hurled racial insults at voters and blocked the entrance at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 Election. "Protecting Black Panthers" is an editorial by "The Washington Times" that reveals how Jerry Jackson, one of the Black Panther defendants, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Obama and the Democratic Party. That article can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/protecting-black-panthers/

The intimidation tactics by Black Panthers are a chilling reminder about how the Democrats not long ago used the Ku Klux Klan, the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, to intimidate and terrorize Republican voters, black and white. Democratic Party racism is precisely what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, was fighting against. In Obama's world, the civil rights accomplishments of Dr. King have been abandoned, and we are now encouraged to judge people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. An analysis of Obama's embracement of racial bigotry is provided in the article "How Our Post-Racial President Uses Race Card As Both Sword And Shield" by Larry Elder and is on the Internet at:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=483546

The article "A Post-Racial President?" by Thomas Sowell reveals in stark relief how destructive to our national fiber is Obama's racial politics and can be found on the Internet at: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/07/28/a_post-racial_president?page=full&comments=true

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info

_______________________

A Post-Racial President?

By Thomas SowellMany people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a "post-racial" era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us.

That is quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially.

Barack Obama has been allied with such people for decades. He found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular things-- about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied-- all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he actually did after getting elected.

Those who were shocked at President Obama's cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being "stupid" in arresting Henry Louis Gates must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama's 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything.

With race-- as with campaign finance, transparency and the rest-- Barack Obama knows what the public wants to hear and that is what he has said. But his policies as president have been the opposite of his rhetoric, with race as with other issues.

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama pushed the "racial profiling" issue, so it is hardly surprising that he jumped to the conclusion that a policeman was racial profiling when in fact the cop was investigating a report received from a neighbor that someone seemed to be breaking into the house that Professor Gates was renting in Cambridge.

For those who are interested in facts-- and these obviously do not include President Obama-- there has been a serious study of racial profiling in a book titled "Are Cops Racist?" by Heather Mac Donald. Her analysis of the data shows how this issue has long been distorted beyond recognition by politics.

The racial profiling issue is a great vote-getter. And if it polarizes the society, that is a price that politicians are willing to pay in order to get votes. Academics who run black studies departments, as Professor Henry Louis Gates does, likewise have a vested interest in racial paranoia.

For "community organizers" as well, racial resentments are a stock in trade. President Obama's background as a community organizer has received far too little attention, though it should have been a high-alert warning that this was no post-racial figure.

What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.

To think that someone who has spent years promoting grievance and polarization was going to bring us all together as president is a triumph of wishful thinking over reality.

Not only Barack Obama's past, but his present, tell the same story. His appointment of an attorney general who called America "a nation of cowards" for not dialoguing about race was a foretaste of what to expect from Eric Holder.

The way Attorney General Holder has refused to prosecute young black thugs who gathered at a voting site with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters, speaks louder than any words from him or his president.

President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court is, like Obama himself, someone with a background of years of affiliation with an organization dedicated to promoting racial resentments and a sense of racial entitlement.

An 18th century philosopher said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act I am forced to take it off." Barack Obama's mask slipped for a moment last week but he quickly recovered, with the help of the media. But we should never forget what we saw.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of "The Housing Boom and Bust".

Posted by Frances Rice at 6:52 PM

Sunday, July 12, 2009

THE PALIN SAGA – DEMOCRATS WINNING BY ANY MEANS

By Frances Rice

"Why Sarah Palin Quit: The Five Best Explanations" by Jay Newton-Small quotes Alaska state legislators who lay the blame at the door of the Democrats. Quoted is Alaska State Senator Gene Therriault, a Republican representing the town of North Pole who said: "We started seeing a proliferation of ethics complaints against her. It was an orchestrated effort to take her down". That article can be found on the Internet at: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1908800,00.html

Governor Sarah Palin's surprising resignation announcement in the face of the horrific treatment she received from Democrats and their media allies struck within me a familiar cord. Although Palin's abuse was mental harassment inflicted through public humiliation via spoken and written words and mounting debt from frivolous ethics charges, she was nonetheless effectively hounded out of public office. This brought to mind the sinister tactics used by Democrats against Republicans after the American Civil War that freed blacks from slavery.

Determined to keep blacks in virtual slavery after losing the Civil War, Democrats set about the task of ending Reconstruction and driving out of the South all Republicans, a result that kept blacks at the mercy of ruthless Democrats for over 100 years.

The facts about the horrors inflicted upon Republicans by Democrats are laid bare in the books "A Short History of Reconstruction" by Dr. Eric Foner and "Unfounded Loyalty" by Wayne Perryman.

The meticulous research by Foner and Perryman uncovered inhumanity by Democrats so startling as to seem surreal. Democrats, Perryman wrote, used every means possible to destroy Reconstruction including lynching, whippings, murder, intimidation, assassinations and mutilations.

Foner exposed how the Ku Klux Klan, that was founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club and became the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders, black and white. The Klan lynched over 2,000 black Republicans and 1,000 white Republicans.

In a chilling passage Foner wrote: "Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi - assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins - was 'president of a republican club' and known as a man who 'would speak his mind'" .

Sarah Palin is a woman who speaks her mind. She is a decent and honorable citizen who loves her family and country. Palin was subjected to a high-tech lynching by Democrats and their media minions because she had the audacity to be a Republican elected official and an apparent great political threat to the Democratic Party's ruling elite.

For nearly a century, most blacks were aligned with the Republican Party and, thereby, posed a significant threat to the Democratic Party's quest for power. Terror was used by Democrats for 100 years and monetary handouts for the past 50 years to mold blacks into reliable pawns in the Democratic Party's political power game. It is ironic that the Democratic Party is now led by President Barack Obama, a black man who unabashedly helps Democrats keep blacks corralled on the Democratic Party's economic plantation, voting mindlessly for any politician identified as a Democrat.

America, how did we come to the point where we are all held in the Democratic Party's iron grip of fear of being destroyed personally, as was Sarah Palin, while the Democrats work feverishly to make us economic slaves?

A mock liberal rant, "I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin - The Republicans bring a knife to a gunfight, and lose again" by David Kahane presents a hysterical tirade against Palin by a fictional Democratic Party operative. A comparison of Kahane's feigned scorn with the real hatred directed at Palin by Democrats shows that his article is close to reality. That article can be found on the Internet at:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=

The NBRA tribute to Sarah Palin made long before her resignation announcement can be viewed on the NBRA website at:

http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA%20Tribute%20To%20Palin%20Newsletter.pdf

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info

Posted by Frances Rice at 11:17 AM

August 2009 June 2009 Home

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive

▼ 2009 (18)
- ► September (2)
  - Obama – Carter's Black Boy
  - Obama – A Charming Liar?
- ► August (2)
  - NBRA News: Feet to the Fire Video
  - Democrats – Why All The NAZI Rhetoric?
- ▼ July (2)
  - Is Obama A Racist?
  - <!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:...
- ► June (2)
  - <!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:...
  - Obama and Plantation Politics
- ► May (1)
  - Judge Sonia Sotomayor, A judge too far!
- ► April (1)
  - A Rookie President Barack Obama
- ► March (2)
  - American Tea Party Protests - Obama Lied, the Econ...
  - Rush Limbaugh - A Warrior in the Battle for the So...
- ► February (6)

NBRA Chairman Frances Rice & RNC Chairman Michael Steele

Links

National Black Republican Association

About Me

Frances Rice Lieutenant Colonel Frances Rice, United States Army, Retired is a native of Atlanta, Georgia and retired from the Army in 1984 after 20 years of active service. She received a Bachelor of Science degree from Drury College in 1973, a Masters of Business Administration from Golden Gate University in 1976, and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1977. In 2005, she became a co-founder and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association, an organization that is committed to returning African Americans to their Republican Party roots. View my complete profile

towerclimber37 · September 27, 2009

You're right, I wouldn't dare. I know that would not be an intelligent conversation. You missed my entire point and your jump to violence only furthers the problem. You have proven there is no room for further discussion on this issue. I don't want to fight you or anybody.

If you don't want to fight someone, then speak to them with a modicum of respect. I got your point loud and clear. Now you want to take that "moral high ground" by saying you don't want to fight, then act as if I can't carry on an intelligent conversation?

Horse****. you want to insult someone and get away with it because you don't agree with their views.

The idea that all southern folks are ignorant simply because we're always ready to fight?

Direct violence, while not pleasant, has solved MORE disputes than any other means in recorded history.

so you can turn your nose up in the air and act as if you're "superior" because,naturally us cavemen can't hold in intelligent conversation because we're too busy holding our clubs.

I'll let you in on a little secret. don't tell anyone though..

that ploy doesn't work...it just hastens a beatdown because it's another insult.

if you want intelligent conversation, stop with the insults. how simple is that??

September 27, 2009

Allright... let's calm it back down. If you'd like to start a thread about the Confederate Flag and the issues relevant to it, then please do.

Let's steer this one back on topic and knock off the chest thumping.

Also, please do not cut and paste entire websites... give us the point and the link, but sorting through the jumbled mess can be tiresome.

Thanks for your help everyone...

I'll start the re-railing by asking the following:

What actions can the detractors of Obama take to NOT be labeled as racists, and what actions should they undertake when they almost certainly will be labeled as such?

towerclimber37 · September 27, 2009

Hyaloid, this is politics. The racist label has been used simply because liberals don't like the opposing view. any viewpoint that dissents will be given a racist brand.

The way I see it, when liberal democrats stop getting their panties in a wad over facts that they don't like, they'll stop the name calling. I don't look for it soon though, since this is an tactic that's straight out of the "rules for radicals" handbook by Saul Alinsky.

step 1. personalize step 2. ridicule step 3. overwhelm.

when civility can no longer be guaranteed by good manners and decent morals then a nice crack on the head will have to do.

Many folks take their cue's from what they see on television..and they see many political figures that veil their insults, take the moral high ground by eshewing discourse because they're "better" than the opposing view, or they outright lie and attempt to brazen their way through a debate.

I submit that this is the wrong thing to do! stick to the facts, leave the name calling out of it.

During the Bush administration, Liberals called the president all sorts of vile names.

Democrats not only called him a liar and a loser on national television but during his speech to the house, where he was also greeted with catcalls and jeers. yet Joe Wilson is the only one to be censured?

This time around, many conservatives are using the same tactics.

notice the "joker" posters that many on the right are using.

they are ridiculing the left and the left doesn't like it, so they use a more vile name. One thing I've noticed is that many liberals are quick to make wild accusations without the facts where many conservatives are hesitant to do so. Now days? both sides are spewing rhetoric and names. The left doesn't like it and the Right has wondered why they didn't do this before.

I will tell you now..No good can come of this. words have just as much consequences as actions do and you can't take either of them back.

Edited September 27, 2009 by towerclimber37

September 28, 2009

If we could get Condoleezza Rice to run, the race name calling would be over.

September 28, 2009

Sorry about the BIG, cut and paste. I'll do better next time.

September 28, 2009

wow...just wow
I quit reading this forum for awhile and I come back to THIS???

Colin P.

A little illumination for you. The major bone of contention among the southern states was not slavery. The congress had already agreed to allow a 20 year time frame for agrarian states to move away from forced labor.

The major bone of contention between southern states and northern states was over tarriffs.

You act as if racism is directly related to slavery. how can that be when 2/3'rd of the slaves that were sold to America were sold BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE?

And further, when the Union army came through the south, they burned plantations, and took crops from all, regardless of color. Aren't they also racists? because you can bet your bippy that the Union soldiers didn't share their food with the very folks that they just burned out of their homes.

If you would like, I can forward you the accounts of several slaves from the Jarrell plantation, in Ga. that recounts how, when the emancipation proclaimation was passed, they were made freemen and agreements were made for them to sharecrop. A few months later the union army came and "confiscated" all the food both from the larders and the fields, took all the animals they needed to feed their army and killed any they didn't take with them.

they took this food from sharecroppers and plantation owners alike and burned the houses. Better yet, if you're ever around Macon Ga. look up the Jarrell plantation.

Yet the Confederate battle flag is the symbol of racism. why? because it was politically expedient to paint those southern states as immoral in order to fight a war against secession. There were and still are racists in both the north and the south.

That was a stroke of Genius for the Union. Abraham Lincoln fanned the flames of hatred OF his countrymen AGAINST his countrymen. When the southern statesmen wanted to keep debating in congress to come to some sort of agreement, the northern states invoked cloture and effectively guaranteed a war. For that, I condemn Lincoln and hope he burns in a special hell.

So you keep on thinking that heritage = hate, but don't be surprised when you evoke a response stronger than you expect...and I can almost guarantee you won't speak those words to a person displaying a flag. that would be too much like paying for a whipping...and while you may be ignorant of many of the facts, I am fairly sure that you have the God given sense of self-preservation.

To many southerners who display a confederate battle flag, calling us Racist is an insult that's spoken by ignorant, self inflated carpet baggers; Were you to do this in person, I'm fairly sure you'd either have to back up your words with fisticuffs or expect a trip to the dentist.

So, we're still fighting the civil war are we? Sweet.

It's comforting to know one can own slaves without being a racist.

I'm proud of my southern heritage, proud of my ancestors who fought for the south, but I would never exhibit the stars and bars publicly. For whatever reasons, some of which you allude to, it has become a symbol of racism to most people. It is hurtful. It would lead them to make incorrect negative assumptions about me--at best that I was an ignorant redneck, at worst that I was also a racist. I see no point in indulging in self-defamation.. I would submit that, if you are going to display it, you should be eager to explain to those who might call you racist why it means something different to you. Enlightenment and understanding might occur. I could respect that.

If you were to resort to fisticuffs, your victim would likely file assault charges and you would end up in jail with black roommates having a party on your backside. Some irony there.

towerclimber37 · September 28, 2009

So, we're still fighting the civil war are we? Sweet.
It's comforting to know one can own slaves without being a racist.

I'm proud of my southern heritage, proud of my ancestors who fought for the south, but I would never exhibit the stars and bars publicly. For whatever reasons, some of which you allude to, it has become a symbol of racism to most people. It is hurtful. It would lead them to make incorrect negative assumptions about me--at best that I was an ignorant redneck, at worst that I was also a racist. I see no point in indulging in self-defamation.. I would submit that, if you are going to display it, you should be eager to explain to those who might call you racist why it means something different to you. Enlightenment and understanding might occur. I could respect that.

If you were to resort to fisticuffs, your victim would likely file assault charges and you would end up in jail with black roommates having a party on your backside. Some irony there.

and the color of my room mate would matter why? Is it fair to say that I can infer from that statement that you wouldn't mind if it was a white room mate having a party on your backside Ralph, but a black room mate would upset you?

help me out here.

I think that you estimate that I care what color someone's skin is. that's pretty sad and it shows that you're not very bright, however intelligent you think you may be.

Folks who know me know better. as for the assault charges, yah and? I'm already a domestic terrorist, a racist and an all around bad guy because I served in the military and didn't vote democrat. What's an assault charge? It would be worth it to me, just to punt someone like that off the planet.

hey, Ralph, are you sure you're not a census man? you look quite a bit like one...

As for who is who and what is what, just who is the victim? when you apply a term such as racist, you're not trying to change someone's mind, you're not trying to show them the error of their ways..that can be done in a gentler manner. no..you're looking for confrontation.

I am rarely eager to do anything..but if they asked, I'd explain why any particular flag or item is displayed on my property or in my home.

and no, you don't have to hate the color of someone's skin to have them as a slave. if that were the case the white slave trade would be much larger than it is now.

Edited September 28, 2009 by towerclimber37

Mark@Sea · September 28, 2009

First, Tower, please don't feed the troll...

second,

What actions can the detractors of Obama take to NOT be labeled as racists, and what actions should they undertake when they almost certainly will be labeled as such?

Why should I take any actions to not be labeled as a racist? I'm not one, but by now I am not hypersensitive about being called one. Its' like asking what actions should I avoid taking to be labeled a car thief (aside from stealing cars, I mean).

As for what I should do after being called a racist, aside from pointing out the obvious (it has nothing to do with race, so they are either mistaken, or are deliberately lying) I don't intend to do a thing. What would you do if someone accused you of beating your wife? Move out of the house? Unfortunately dueling is outlawed, some folks don't understand the meaning of the term "fighting words", and if I spent all day kicking the butts of fools, tools, and socialists, I'd be a tired boy and get no work done.

September 29, 2009

First, Tower, please don't feed the troll...
second,

Why should I take any actions to not be labeled as a racist? I'm not one, but by now I am not hypersensitive about being called one. Its' like asking what actions should I avoid taking to be labeled a car thief (aside from stealing cars, I mean).

As for what I should do after being called a racist, aside from pointing out the obvious (it has nothing to do with race, so they are either mistaken, or are deliberately lying) I don't intend to do a thing. What would you do if someone accused you of beating your wife? Move out of the house? Unfortunately dueling is outlawed, some folks don't understand the meaning of the term "fighting words", and if I spent all day kicking the butts of fools, tools, and socialists, I'd be a tired boy and get no work done.

Mark,

I don't believe you're a racist...OK? Accusations of racism should only be made when the evidence is clear. But, what about those on the right

(Glen Beck for example) who accuse Obama of being a racist? Do you think they are correct...that Barack hates whites, like his Mother and the Grandparents who raised him? Just curious...not a "gotcha."

Best,

Ralph

PS--What IS in your wallet:)

September 29, 2009

Wow. I just wanted to point out the senseless junk that passes for "opinion" these days and the ludicrous name calling.

It seems I awoke the monster......

Disagree with Obama? You're obviously a racist!

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest CrazyLincoln

Guest SweetSue

Guest SweetSue

Guest SweetSue

Guest Hyaloid

Guest SweetSue

Guest SweetSue

Guest Ralph G. Briscoe

Guest Ralph G. Briscoe

Guest CrazyLincoln

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recent Topics

TGO HELPFUL LINKS

TRADING POST NOTICE

THE FINE PRINT

Important Information