Do black people realize that it was an insult to Barack Obama

[beagle9]

According to the chart I posted in post #68, his logic is spot on. Blacks have HISTORICALLY voted for Democrats and AGAINST REPUBLICANS for decades.

Ok, and so did the answer come out within these two elections, as to why they have voted democrat historically now and still do ? Was it because of the issue's for them as pertaining to all Americans here in this nation or was it mainly for the black's future within this nation, and within their lives as they know it here (when voting historically democrat)?? Now when they were voting for the white democrat, was it because the white democrat was pandering to them (using them and their struggle), to gain power or remain in power when doing so (letting them down time and time again afterwards) or was it because of them seeing the repubs as thee staunch racist party, in which the dems had done such a brilliant job over the years in painting the repubs as this for them? I mean just as they used it or tried to paint the repubs as racist in these last two elections in a big time way the same ? Your charts may show a realistic pattern in all of this, so please bring on the charts because we just want to see the historic data also in which you present in order to confirm.

Bottom line.....blacks have voted for Democrats since 1960 for the simple reason that they are not Republicans. Not much more analysis required beyond that.

I rest my case...

 

[martinjlm]

According to the chart I posted in post #68, his logic is spot on. Blacks have HISTORICALLY voted for Democrats and AGAINST REPUBLICANS for decades.

Ok, and so did the answer come out within these two elections, as to why they have voted democrat historically now and still do ? Was it because of the issue's for them as pertaining to all Americans here in this nation or was it mainly for the black's future within this nation, and within their lives as they know it here (when voting historically democrat)?? Now when they were voting for the white democrat, was it because the white democrat was pandering to them (using them and their struggle), to gain power or remain in power when doing so (letting them down time and time again afterwards) or was it because of them seeing the repubs as thee staunch racist party, in which the dems had done such a brilliant job over the years in painting the repubs as this for them? I mean just as they used it or tried to paint the repubs as racist in these last two elections in a big time way the same ? Your charts may show a realistic pattern in all of this, so please bring on the charts because we just want to see the historic data also in which you present in order to confirm.

You say "bring on the charts"....did you not see the chart in post #68? As for the reasons behind the trend....did you not READ post#68? In any event, I will reiterate. Democratic politicians in 1960 - 64 (Presidents Kennedy & Johnson) openly supported the Civil Rights movement. Southern Democrats and Republicans actively opposed it. After President Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans actively opposed it. That makes voting choices for blacks a no-brainer...."Gee, should I vote for the party that is trying to improve my life or for the party that thinks I don't deserve better...hmmm?"

Since then, the trend has remained where black voters overwhelmingly voted Democratic. If the candidate in 2008 was Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama, there would still have been 90+% black voters voting Democrat.

Bottom line.....blacks have voted for Democrats since 1960 for the simple reason that they are not Republicans. Not much more analysis required beyond that.

I rest my case...

Really? You have no case. Blacks vote Democrat. In a HUGE way. Hardly breaking news. Whether that Democrat is black or white does not matter. 50+ years of historical data prove that. What proves your "case"?

For giggles and grins, here's the chart again......

 

[beagle9]

Southern Democrats and Republicans actively opposed it. After President Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans actively opposed it. That makes voting choices for blacks a no-brainer...."Gee, should I vote for the party that is trying to improve my life or for the party that thinks I don't deserve better...hmmm"

Could it be that maybe one of the reason's they wanted to oppose it, was because of the skin color emphasis written into it, and this over and above the character emphasis that should have been the main ingriedient written into it instead ? It seems as it turned out to be in alot of ways down the road, that the color thing was it's main drive in order to hold the numbers together, and this by the color ingriedient or emphasis as it were (giving special status & protections based on color), instead of by a character emphasis in which should have been lifted up as to be found in each American individual that would be abused (regardless of ones color), thus going foward from that time period up until now.

Ok, so the reports of blacks being abused would have been more at or during the time periods that this was going on (yes of course), but each case should have still been based on the crimes being comitted or as found within each case to be tried and to stand alone based upon the crimes comitted in each case, and therefore the laws that were being broken within each case, should have been only looked at by the federal government as a crime against a human being, and not against a black person in which would then be seen by the feds as having to give special status to all black people as it were, and to be based upon their color in the situation and not that of their individual character as found in each and every individual who has a different and unique character in life.

It was the wrong way to go, and it allowed the bad character found in blacks to come through under these same protections, along with the good character that was found in blacks throughout time as it were, to then be held back due the bad characater prevailing sometimes over the good character as it were, where as this had a problem of painting the whole race as bad by others, because of the way it was all set up in this way. The same would have been the case for whites or any other group that would have been protected by race instead of by character, in as far as being an American who abides by the law and lives free in trust there of, where as the bad character found in whites could have easily hitched a ride on the speial protections of whites being protected also as based upon their skin color in this way, and not that of their character instead, wherefore the whites could have been held back by the bad that existed among them also in such a situation.

 

[martinjlm]

Southern Democrats and Republicans actively opposed it. After President Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans actively opposed it. That makes voting choices for blacks a no-brainer...."Gee, should I vote for the party that is trying to improve my life or for the party that thinks I don't deserve better...hmmm"

Could it be that maybe one of the reason's they wanted to oppose it, was because of the skin color emphasis written into it, and this over and above the character emphasis that should have been the main ingriedient written into it instead ? It seems as it turned out to be in alot of ways down the road, that the color thing was it's main drive in order to hold the numbers together, and this by the color ingriedient or emphasis as it were (giving special status & protections based on color), instead of by a character emphasis in which should have been lifted up as to be found in each American individual that would be abused (regardless of ones color), thus going foward from that time period up until now.

Ok, so the reports of blacks being abused would have been more at or during the time periods that this was going on (yes of course), but each case should have still been based on the crimes being comitted or as found within each case to be tried and to stand alone based upon the crimes comitted in each case, and therefore the laws that were being broken within each case, should have been only looked at by the federal government as a crime against a human being, and not against a black person in which would then be seen by the feds as having to give special status to all black people as it were, and to be based upon their color in the situation and not that of their individual character as found in each and every individual who has a different and unique character in life.

It was the wrong way to go, and it allowed the bad character found in blacks to come through under these same protections, along with the good character that was found in blacks throughout time as it were, to then be held back due the bad characater prevailing sometimes over the good character as it were, where as this had a problem of painting the whole race as bad by others, because of the way it was all set up in this way. The same would have been the case for whites or any other group that would have been protected by race instead of by character, in as far as being an American who abides by the law and lives free in trust there of, where as the bad character found in whites could have easily hitched a ride on the speial protections of whites being protected also as based upon their skin color in this way, and not that of their character instead, wherefore the whites could have been held back by the bad that existed among them also in such a situation.

OH MY GOD WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU FROM?!?!

I can't read past your first line. You are being stupid for the sake of being stupid. Please do not respond to any more of my posts in this thread. I will assure you I will not read or respond to yours.

 

[Toronado3800]

Beagle, I just do not understand your points.

You are saying the Civil Rights Act came too soon or was too specifically for blacks?

 

[House]

A better question would be..."Did Democrats only vote for President Obama because he's a Democrat?"

That would only be true if 96% of blacks were registered Democrats.

Blacks living in the ghetto or scraping by at minimum wage voting for Obama makes sense I suppose, but it would be beyond racist to make the assumption that anywhere near 96% of the blacks in this country make minimum wage or live off the government tit.

 

[beagle9]

Southern Democrats and Republicans actively opposed it. After President Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans actively opposed it. That makes voting choices for blacks a no-brainer...."Gee, should I vote for the party that is trying to improve my life or for the party that thinks I don't deserve better...hmmm"

Could it be that maybe one of the reason's they wanted to oppose it, was because of the skin color emphasis written into it, and this over and above the character emphasis that should have been the main ingriedient written into it instead ? It seems as it turned out to be in alot of ways down the road, that the color thing was it's main drive in order to hold the numbers together, and this by the color ingriedient or emphasis as it were (giving special status & protections based on color), instead of by a character emphasis in which should have been lifted up as to be found in each American individual that would be abused (regardless of ones color), thus going foward from that time period up until now.

Ok, so the reports of blacks being abused would have been more at or during the time periods that this was going on (yes of course), but each case should have still been based on the crimes being comitted or as found within each case to be tried and to stand alone based upon the crimes comitted in each case, and therefore the laws that were being broken within each case, should have been only looked at by the federal government as a crime against a human being, and not against a black person in which would then be seen by the feds as having to give special status to all black people as it were, and to be based upon their color in the situation and not that of their individual character as found in each and every individual who has a different and unique character in life.

It was the wrong way to go, and it allowed the bad character found in blacks to come through under these same protections, along with the good character that was found in blacks throughout time as it were, to then be held back due the bad characater prevailing sometimes over the good character as it were, where as this had a problem of painting the whole race as bad by others, because of the way it was all set up in this way. The same would have been the case for whites or any other group that would have been protected by race instead of by character, in as far as being an American who abides by the law and lives free in trust there of, where as the bad character found in whites could have easily hitched a ride on the speial protections of whites being protected also as based upon their skin color in this way, and not that of their character instead, wherefore the whites could have been held back by the bad that existed among them also in such a situation.

OH MY GOD WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU FROM?!?!

I can't read past your first line. You are being stupid for the sake of being stupid. Please do not respond to any more of my posts in this thread. I will assure you I will not read or respond to yours.

I think I made some good points that you don't like dealing with in these responses, so this is the response I get back from you eh ? Some of this stuff seems foriegn to readers like you, but it is simply the truth is what it is, and some people just can't stand the truth and that is that I guess..

 

[Koios]

to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?

Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.

Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?

No suh. Theys be ignunt an dohn knows theys been done no wrong, mistuh.

Ergo they some white asshole to tell them they should be insulted.

Yeah; that's the ticket.

 

[beagle9]

A better question would be..."Did Democrats only vote for President Obama because he's a Democrat?"

That would only be true if 96% of blacks were registered Democrats.

Blacks living in the ghetto or scraping by at minimum wage voting for Obama makes sense I suppose, but it would be beyond racist to make the assumption that anywhere near 96% of the blacks in this country make minimum wage or live off the government tit.

It has nothing to do with that or what you just said or in the way that you said it, because blacks may support one another, and they may vote for their color anywhere up and down the economic lines as found among their race, and this if they are voting or supporting each other based upon race being the reason, so where do you get this if a black person is on the higher economic scale, that they wouldnot vote for a person as based upon their race being the reason that they voted for the person if so be the case ? You know the old saying that blood is thicker than water, well for some in this nation "skin color" may be thicker than water, and this when it comes to the way a person votes or supports his or her own views in life. I'm just saying that we should all move beyond color finally, and become americans in this nation, and supporting one another as Americans finally.

 

[House]

A better question would be..."Did Democrats only vote for President Obama because he's a Democrat?"

That would only be true if 96% of blacks were registered Democrats.

Blacks living in the ghetto or scraping by at minimum wage voting for Obama makes sense I suppose, but it would be beyond racist to make the assumption that anywhere near 96% of the blacks in this country make minimum wage or live off the government tit.

It has nothing to do with that or what you just said or in the way that you said it, because blacks may support one another, and they may vote for their color anywhere up and down the economic lines as found among their race, and this if they are voting or supporting each other based upon race being the reason, so where do you get this if a black person is on the higher economic scale, that they wouldnot vote for a person as based upon their race being the reason that they voted for the person if so be the case ? You know the old saying that blood is thicker than water, well for some in this nation "skin color" may be thicker than water, and this when it comes to the way a person votes or supports his or her own views in life. I'm just saying that we should all move beyond color finally, and become americans in this nation, and supporting one another as Americans finally.

Reread my post without your defensiveness and you might realize that I wasn't arguing with you. Congrats on wasting a wall-o-text.

 

[House]

No suh. Theys be ignunt an dohn knows theys been done no wrong, mistuh.

That's massa to you, boy.

 

[beagle9]

Beagle, I just do not understand your points.

You are saying the Civil Rights Act came too soon or was too specifically for blacks?

No, I am just worried about this skin color thing being taken to far in this nation, where as we must transfer over to the premise of good character and views driving the conversation finally, and no more of this skin color driving the conversations and views anymore.. It is poisonous unto our nation, and keeps us from truly progressing together as a nation of Americans, instead of us being seen constantly along color lines in any of this stuff, but somehow we must get the blacks who are still in this mode, to somehow get out of this mode so we can all move forward together as Americans wanting the same American things and livelyhoods in life (i.e. the best for us and our children) finally.

 

[Koios]

Beagle, I just do not understand your points.

You are saying the Civil Rights Act came too soon or was too specifically for blacks?

No, I am just worried about this skin color thing being taken to far in this nation, where as we must transfer over to the premise of good character and views driving the conversation finally, and no more of this skin color driving the conversations and views anymore.. It is poisonous unto our nation, and keeps us from truly progressing together as a nation of Americans, instead of us being seen constantly along color lines in any of this stuff, but somehow we must get the blacks who are still in this mode, to somehow get out of this mode so we can all move forward together as Americans wanting the same American things and livelyhoods in life (i.e. the best for us and our children) finally.

Blacks are Dems already, to an overwhelming degree. And yeah, color matters. A minority in our country now has a fellow African American who is a two term president. That's huge for our black citizens.

Just as it will be huge for women, when a woman ascends to the highest office in our land.

And why the LDS Church was behind Romney and running a huge "I am a Mormon" ad campaign, nationally. They too were a persecuted religious minority that had to flee to Utah and even Mexico in Romney's family's case. It would have been a welcome advance for LDS had Romney won, but even being nominated helps LDS members to feel more connected to others in our society.

There's no getting away from it. It's even okay to talk about color and be proud of a fellow minority breaking a glass ceiling and be happy for those whose glass ceiling has been breached. But to assign stereotypes or make bigoted assumptions is when race is a problem and not merely a connection between minority groups, which can also be Irish-, Italian- or Polish-Americans.

 

[House]

And why the LDS Church was behind Romney and running a huge "I am a Mormon" ad campaign, nationally. They too were a persecuted religious minority that had to flee to Utah and even Mexico in Romney's family's case. It would have been a welcome advance for LDS had Romney won, but even being nominated helps LDS members to feel more connected to others in our society.

Know how else they can feel connected to society? By not following the propaganda of a sexual predator and child molester.

 

[emilynghiem]

Now you see how easy it is to define ones "character" here, and to talk about ones character being as either good or bad in ones opinion in life ? This is what needs to be the conversation from now on in this country, just as it should be only what is found in the political arena's now, as we need to finally do away with this skin color thing being so important over one's character instead, and it having meaning upon anything in these races anymore or in any other of the business that this nation engages in now. Everything should be based on character pure and simple, some education, a persons physical abilities and/or etc. but not upon ones color in life determining these things instead... Ones character should be fitted to and/or called upon in any situation, a job or circumstances to be involved in each room in which we enter into in life, and it is to be used therefore in the ways in which it is called upon when we enter that room or pass through it in life.

I honestly tried, but I don't have a freakin' clue WHAT you said here. No offense intended. I simply cannot make heads or tails of this. Anyone wanna help translate, be my guest.

Sorry.

Dear Martin and Beagle: I can't follow who is quoting whom, because of whatever editing issue was going on. I noticed the extra quote citing someone else at the top of your msgs?

In general:
A. I get that someone above was saying that "people should be judged by their character" in ALL things they say, and ALL things they do, in public and in business, etc. I got that.

B. however, I noticed that Sunni Man was trying to summarily "judge" Sarah Palin by pegging her as Miss "Moose Shooter" who could "see Russia from her house." That is more misjudging her character based on convenient sound bytes in the media. How is that different from a racial stereotype?

Sarah Palin actually did a lot of work to clean out the "good old boy" politics that infested her Party and State. If you are going to judge someone, you should research the big picture, and not trust the media to paint a skewed picture for you, or more like a caricature!

We still have a ways to go before we really judge people based on character.
I would be more prone to trust Sarah Palin's character, since at least she is willing to say things openly and "make mistakes" in public, rather than Obama who seems more geared to HIDING whatever mistakes he makes, which is more dangerous and politically unpredictable.

 

[Koios]

And why the LDS Church was behind Romney and running a huge "I am a Mormon" ad campaign, nationally. They too were a persecuted religious minority that had to flee to Utah and even Mexico in Romney's family's case. It would have been a welcome advance for LDS had Romney won, but even being nominated helps LDS members to feel more connected to others in our society.

Know how else they can feel connected to society? By not following the propaganda of a sexual predator and child molester.

Where you going with that, Doc; dare I ask?

 

[Koios]

I honestly tried, but I don't have a freakin' clue WHAT you said here. No offense intended. I simply cannot make heads or tails of this. Anyone wanna help translate, be my guest.

Sorry.

Dear Martin and Beagle: I can't follow who is quoting whom, because of whatever editing issue was going on. I noticed the extra quote citing someone else at the top of your msgs?

In general:
A. I get that someone above was saying that "people should be judged by their character" in ALL things they say, and ALL things they do, in public and in business, etc. I got that.

B. however, I noticed that Sunni Man was trying to summarily "judge" Sarah Palin by pegging her as Miss "Moose Shooter" who could "see Russia from her house." That is more misjudging her character based on convenient sound bytes in the media. How is that different from a racial stereotype?

Sarah Palin actually did a lot of work to clean out the "good old boy" politics that infested her Party and State. If you are going to judge someone, you should research the big picture, and not trust the media to paint a skewed picture for you, or more like a caricature!

We still have a ways to go before we really judge people based on character.
I would be more prone to trust Sarah Palin's character, since at least she is willing to say things openly and "make mistakes" in public, rather than Obama who seems more geared to HIDING whatever mistakes he makes, which is more dangerous and politically unpredictable.

Copy that. Sarah is pure Sarah and her honesty and willingness to make mistakes in public, leaves little doubt that the Palin's down syndrome child got a lot from the mom.

Best not put her in charge of anything where readin' might be helpful with the job.

Yeah?

 

[House]

And why the LDS Church was behind Romney and running a huge "I am a Mormon" ad campaign, nationally. They too were a persecuted religious minority that had to flee to Utah and even Mexico in Romney's family's case. It would have been a welcome advance for LDS had Romney won, but even being nominated helps LDS members to feel more connected to others in our society.

Know how else they can feel connected to society? By not following the propaganda of a sexual predator and child molester.

Where you going with that, Doc; dare I ask?

I'm not going anywhere with that. I'm just referring to the ridiculous number of (concurrent) wives Joseph Smith had, several of which were below the age of 18.

Anybody stupid enough to follow the lunacy of such a sick individual deserves to be cut off from society.

 

[beagle9]

Beagle, I just do not understand your points.

You are saying the Civil Rights Act came too soon or was too specifically for blacks?

No, I am just worried about this skin color thing being taken to far in this nation, where as we must transfer over to the premise of good character and views driving the conversation finally, and no more of this skin color driving the conversations and views anymore.. It is poisonous unto our nation, and keeps us from truly progressing together as a nation of Americans, instead of us being seen constantly along color lines in any of this stuff, but somehow we must get the blacks who are still in this mode, to somehow get out of this mode so we can all move forward together as Americans wanting the same American things and livelyhoods in life (i.e. the best for us and our children) finally.

Blacks are Dems already, to an overwhelming degree. And yeah, color matters. A minority in our country now has a fellow African American who is a two term president. That's huge for our black citizens.

Just as it will be huge for women, when a woman ascends to the highest office in our land.

And why the LDS Church was behind Romney and running a huge "I am a Mormon" ad campaign, nationally. They too were a persecuted religious minority that had to flee to Utah and even Mexico in Romney's family's case. It would have been a welcome advance for LDS had Romney won, but even being nominated helps LDS members to feel more connected to others in our society.

There's no getting away from it. It's even okay to talk about color and be proud of a fellow minority breaking a glass ceiling and be happy for those whose glass ceiling has been breached. But to assign stereotypes or make bigoted assumptions is when race is a problem and not merely a connection between minority groups, which can also be Irish-, Italian- or Polish-Americans.

The problem with your color matters thinking, and your blacks are dems already thinking, is that it leaves behind or leaves out the republican blacks and their conservative views as Americans themselves, but they are just statistics I guess, who are worthy of being thrown under the bus for the bigger agenda involved in it all right ?

 

[beagle9]

Know how else they can feel connected to society? By not following the propaganda of a sexual predator and child molester.

Where you going with that, Doc; dare I ask?

I'm not going anywhere with that. I'm just referring to the ridiculous number of (concurrent) wives Joseph Smith had, several of which were below the age of 18.

Anybody stupid enough to follow the lunacy of such a sick individual deserves to be cut off from society.

Yes these things are big issues to be concerned with also, because it runs counter intuitive to that of what we think as being of good character in society, and so it matters when we see this kind of thing or know of this kind of thing that a person may be connected to or believes in that a majority feels is not good, especially when trying to get a position of power in government like the Presidency wow. It should be investigated, just as any other bad characters should be investigated equally in our midst, but funny how some that are found on specific sides of the coin, still don't get the same scrutiny as people who are found to be in the very same arena's together, and yet are not found equally as being scrutinized heavily in the same arena's as they should be.

Why the blatant double standards in which are so bad in this nation now ? I know, because it is all about power, and who controls that power for their groups anymore, so justice is out the window in this nation now, as well as decency, morals, fairness, non-discrimination practices amongst the groups, equal opportunity etc. otherwise if not careful we all will lose, because it will all shift to one side or the other instead of operating on a balanced and even scale as it always should be, but it could or will be rolled back by this stuff we see today if not careful. They say that history has a way of repeating itself, and there are those who want it to repeat itself, but only in the opposite or a reversed way if they have anything to do with it, so "Americans" beware of those who call themselves Americans, but donot act like Americans as seen in their actions when being observed...................