The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Grumblenuts]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

 

[Correll]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.

If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.

LOLOL

By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."



Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.

And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics. He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.


2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person. Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a literary agency .

"bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.

And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.

Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.

1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?

2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.

Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.

And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?

1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.


2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.

I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that after there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.

Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.

Sure. Maybe.

But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

 

[Faun]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.

If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.

LOLOL

By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."



Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.

And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics. He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.


2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person. Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a literary agency .

"bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.

And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.

Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.

1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?

2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.

Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.

And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?

1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.


2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.

As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.

She says her mistake was a "fact checking error." Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...

• NY Times, 2.5.1990
• Boston Globe, 2.15.1990

Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in blue and the text found in the Globe in red and purple for both...

​

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.​

Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.

As she said, her mistake was a "fact checking error."

 

[katsteve2012]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful" and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.

That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.

It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.

Frankly, it does not matter to me at all.

It is just a factual observation.

I'm retired, out of the workforce and loving life, and don't owe white people as a collective, shit.

The ones who are fortunate enough to be in my circle, I help them when they need me.


So I don't hate any of you.

But I amused by some of you.

 

[Faun]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.

If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.

LOLOL

By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."



Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.

And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics. He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.


2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person. Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a literary agency .

"bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.

And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.

Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.

1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?

2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.

Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.

And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?

1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.


2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.

I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that after there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.

Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.

Sure. Maybe.

But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.

LOL

What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?

The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

 

[Correll]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.

If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.

LOLOL

By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."



Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.

And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics. He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.


2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person. Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a literary agency .

"bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.

And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.

Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.

1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?

2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.

Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.

And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?

1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.


2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.

As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.

She says her mistake was a "fact checking error." Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...

• NY Times, 2.5.1990
• Boston Globe, 2.15.1990

Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in blue and the text found in the Globe in red and purple for both...

​

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.​

Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.

As she said, her mistake was a "fact checking error."

And how would she remember that, twenty years after the fact? How does she know she made the mistake and it is not what Obama told her?

 

[Correll]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful" and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.

That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.

It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.

.....

Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".


Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

 

[Correll]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.

If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.

LOLOL

By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."



Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.

And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics. He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.


2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person. Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a literary agency .

"bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.

And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.

Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.

1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?

2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.

Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.

And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?

1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.


2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.

I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that after there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.

Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.

Sure. Maybe.

But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.

LOL

What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?

The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.

She takes the blame to avoid the rage of people like you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

 

[Grumblenuts]

Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

Because?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

 

[Correll]

Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

Because?

Because it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race.

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

 

[Faun]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.

If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.

LOLOL

By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."



Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.

And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics. He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.


2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person. Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a literary agency .

"bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.

And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.

Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.

1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?

2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.

Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.

And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?

1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.


2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.

As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.

She says her mistake was a "fact checking error." Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...

• NY Times, 2.5.1990
• Boston Globe, 2.15.1990

Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in blue and the text found in the Globe in red and purple for both...

​

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.​

Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.

As she said, her mistake was a "fact checking error."

And how would she remember that, twenty years after the fact? How does she know she made the mistake and it is not what Obama told her?

Because unlike you, she has a brain. That provides her the ability to recall work she had done for the man who became president.

Shit, I quoted the publisher from Acton & Dystel saying folks like Obama almost never wrote their own bio's AND I just showed you nearly everything in his bio had already appeared in newspapers (and much of the rest could have come from other publications I didn't find) -- and yet you still cling to your nutty conspiracy theory.

Again, Both Obama and his father went to Harvard according to the newspaper articles back then ... they both went by the same name, "Barack Obama." You seriously saying it's not entirely plausible she mixed up his birthplace?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

Much better. Left leg..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

Because?

Because it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race.

Oh, now us whites always lose out because of our race