07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 4546474849 ...
tools
  1. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Yes, but because obama is black, you are a racist if you speak out against him.



    See my above comment.
    You know the funny part is the only group I see screaming that racist argument about speaking out against Obama is you guessed it conservatives and Republicans. Tends to be what you all try when you are pressed you scream I am not racist seeming to think that is your only argument.

    Now yes there are plenty of right wing nut jobs who are racist but generally I find the worse racist tend to be Republicans any how. Just the gop is pretty bad at policing their own.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    12-01-2013 04:11 PM
  2. alexlam24's Avatar
    I agree with you, alexlam24! Like I have said numerous times, my dislike for him has nothing to do with his race or political party. It has everything to do with his stance on everything, and what he is turning this country into. Hey, I don't get offended by what you say, and I hope not to offend you. Actually I don't want to offend anyone.
    Nah I don't want to offend you, but there's always that one group of people on Facebook... Edited by Moderator

    Sent from my HTC Xperia S4
    12-01-2013 04:46 PM
  3. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    You know the funny part is the only group I see screaming that racist argument about speaking out against Obama is you guessed it conservatives and Republicans. Tends to be what you all try when you are pressed you scream I am not racist seeming to think that is your only argument.

    Now yes there are plenty of right wing nut jobs who are racist but generally I find the worse racist tend to be Republicans any how. Just the gop is pretty bad at policing their own.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    You do know that the kkk was started by Democrats, right? And for every cretinous GOP person in politics I could name a Democrat.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    12-01-2013 07:46 PM
  4. alexlam24's Avatar
    This pretty much explains our government right now

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    Attached Thumbnails Should Obama be impeached?-1385987207482.jpg  
    12-02-2013 06:26 AM
  5. Timelessblur's Avatar
    You do know that the kkk was started by Democrats, right? And for every cretinous GOP person in politics I could name a Democrat.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    Did you know the current GOP has more in common with that older Democrat party that the Current one.
    Did you know that the Democrats of the old are current GOP.

    Parties change over time. The GOP of today is like the Democrats of the old.
    12-02-2013 10:38 AM
  6. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Did you know the current GOP has more in common with that older Democrat party that the Current one.
    Did you know that the Democrats of the old are current GOP.

    Parties change over time. The GOP of today is like the Democrats of the old.
    That's not true. Name one current GOP person who'd fit that statement and I can name a Democrat counterpart.

    Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2
    12-02-2013 03:51 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    The KKK started in Tennesse (one of the reddest states out there) as a direct reaction to emancipation. It was originally a social fraternity that was generally populated by a handful of veterans from the Confederate Army. The group was almost immediately co-opted by a heavily funded and violent group of terrorists. The party affiliation of some members (really 1 member, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest) has little to do with party affiliations today, considering the mid-20th century flip of the two political parties. After several decades of civil rights clashes, the Civil Rights Act signed into law by LBJ was the final straw and the "Dixiecrats" abandoned the democratic party and joined the republican party. So the same tiny group of angry racists that lined up with Gen. N B Forrest are the same type of angry racists that abandoned the democrats 100 years later and became republicans, where they remain today, 50 years later.

    This is the same (almost exactly) issue as the defense of President Lincoln being a republican. While technically true, he ran as a republican ... it meant something wildly different 150 years ago and failure to acknowledge the distinction is silly, ignorant and/or malicious, depending on the reason why the full truth is omitted. While we as amateur debaters in an Android Forum may not know the full story and implications... those spreading these lies certainly do.
    palandri likes this.
    12-02-2013 05:41 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    After several decades of civil rights clashes, the Civil Rights Act signed into law by LBJ was the final straw and the "Dixiecrats" abandoned the democratic party and joined the republican party. So the same tiny group of angry racists that lined up with Gen. N B Forrest are the same type of angry racists that abandoned the democrats 100 years later and became republicans, where they remain today, 50 years later.
    From Civil Rights Act — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

    The bill then moved to the Senate, where southern and border state Democrats staged a 75-day filibuster --among the longest in U.S. history. On one occasion, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Ku Klux Klan member, spoke for over 14 consecutive hours. But with the help of behind-the-scenes horse-trading, the bill’s supporters eventually obtained the two-thirds votes necessary to end debate. One of those votes came from California Senator Clair Engle, who, though too sick to speak, signaled “aye” by pointing to his own eye. Having broken the filibuster, the Senate voted 73-27 in favor of the bill, and Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. “It is an important gain, but I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come,” Johnson, a Democrat, purportedly told an aide later that day in a prediction that would largely come true.
    Even though LBJ was a Democrat, it was Dems (Including Byrd and his affiliations with the KKK) that were holding up the Civil Rights Act, and was a Republican effort that lead to its eventual passage.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    12-02-2013 06:13 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    From Civil Rights Act €” History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts



    Even though LBJ was a Democrat, it was Dems (Including Byrd and his affiliations with the KKK) that were holding up the Civil Rights Act, and was a Republican effort that lead to its eventual passage.
    Unless I'm misunderstanding something, nothing either of us just said disagrees with anything the other said. Party labels of 50-100-150 years ago are meaningless with context. Assuming today's connotation applies to historical figures is a mistake.
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    12-02-2013 06:21 PM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Unless I'm misunderstanding something, nothing either of us just said disagrees with anything the other said. Party labels of 50-100-150 years ago are meaningless with context. Assuming today's connotation applies to historical figures is a mistake.
    Maybe I misunderstood what you posted. I'll narrow it down a bit and explain how I took your post.

    So the same tiny group of angry racists that lined up with Gen. N B Forrest are the same type of angry racists that abandoned the democrats 100 years later and became republicans, where they remain today, 50 years later.
    To me, that sounded like you were saying that the types of racisits from back then moved into the Republican party, leading to the party itself getting the racist connotation. And by "they remain today", to mean that not much has changed. Overall it sounded like you were saying that the Republican party then (and perhaps now) was racist and against the Civil Rights Act. So I was pointing to the contrary. I know parties change over time, but I was going off what I was seeing in your prior post.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    12-02-2013 06:47 PM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    Maybe I misunderstood what you posted. I'll narrow it down a bit and explain how I took your post.


    To me, that sounded like you were saying that the types of racisits from back then moved into the Republican party, leading to the party itself getting the racist connotation. And by "they remain today", to mean that not much has changed. Overall it sounded like you were saying that the Republican party then (and perhaps now) was racist and against the Civil Rights Act. So I was pointing to the contrary. I know parties change over time, but I was going off what I was seeing in your prior post.
    Ah, no. I mean that the small group of racists that everyone points to when making the "democrats were (and therefore are) hugely racist" argument abandoned ship when the party as a whole went the other direction. I'm not saying that either party today is or is not racist, just that the way they were (or a few people in either party were) doesn't have much to do with anything happening today. The part about, "where they remain today" does reference the representatives of those same geographic areas. TN for example voted democrat (presidential candidate) in all but 6 of the 100 years (24 elections) (18:6 = 3:1) between the civil war and the civil rights act, and other than LBJ, Ford and Clinton, they've voted red in every election since (10:4 = 2.5:1).

    I don't think that an entire party is racist or not racist, that's individuals. The vast majority of democrats and republics both are regular every day people. We only hear about the especially loony ones on the news, in comments on blogs, etc. The most visible representatives are not necessarily actually representative of the whole and I know a ton of republicans that were/are disgusted with Romney, Ryan, Palin, Bachman, Cruz, etc just as there are tons of democrats (especially progressives) that are disgusted with establishment candidates like Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc, etc.
    12-02-2013 06:58 PM
  12. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    The KKK started in Tennesse (one of the reddest states out there) as a direct reaction to emancipation. It was originally a social fraternity that was generally populated by a handful of veterans from the Confederate Army. The group was almost immediately co-opted by a heavily funded and violent group of terrorists. The party affiliation of some members (really 1 member, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest) has little to do with party affiliations today, considering the mid-20th century flip of the two political parties. After several decades of civil rights clashes, the Civil Rights Act signed into law by LBJ was the final straw and the "Dixiecrats" abandoned the democratic party and joined the republican party. So the same tiny group of angry racists that lined up with Gen. N B Forrest are the same type of angry racists that abandoned the democrats 100 years later and became republicans, where they remain today, 50 years later.

    This is the same (almost exactly) issue as the defense of President Lincoln being a republican. While technically true, he ran as a republican ... it meant something wildly different 150 years ago and failure to acknowledge the distinction is silly, ignorant and/or malicious, depending on the reason why the full truth is omitted. While we as amateur debaters in an Android Forum may not know the full story and implications... those spreading these lies certainly do.
    Silly ignorant malicious... Racism cuts both ways.

    Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, The New Black Panther Party, all current, all racist or bigoted, all Democrats.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    12-02-2013 07:09 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    Silly ignorant malicious... Racism cuts both ways.

    Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, The New Black Panther Party, all current, all racist or bigoted, all Democrats.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    Exactly the point, we don't disagree that there are individuals in both parties, and in other parties that are racist. More importantly, there are many more members of both parties that are NOT racist and that are disgusted by it. Racism has very little to do with political party and shouldn't be used to paint such broad strokes. Using people's emotional reactions to the concept of racism as a weapon is just as bad as being actually racist. The point of my response was not that there are or are not racist people today, but that affiliating political party ties of 150 years ago to today's average citizen is at best disingenuous.
    qxr likes this.
    12-02-2013 07:14 PM
  14. alexlam24's Avatar
    An easy way to get rid of racism, have television channels broadcast interviews and such with masks on the candidates faces. That way there's no bias or racism involved. Just good old speech and debate.

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    12-02-2013 09:36 PM
  15. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    You can still generally tell if someone is black by listening to their accent and/or word choice. I mean, I'm not racist in any way and I can spot someone speaking "ethnically black" or whatever it is you want to call it. Obviously this is something any person could do, but would a white person want to sound black if they were concerned about being discriminated against by racists?

    The only thing we're going to do to get rid of racism in this country is to continue the multigenerational process of slowly purging it. We have made significant strides in this country so far. Consider: many or most (all?) of the people who were involved in and wrote the materials which eventually became Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (including Lincoln himself) did not believe that black and white people were really actually equal. He may have disliked slavery, but he's said in his writings he considered them technically inferior and incompatible.

    And yet we've gone from a point where people who didn't personally believe black and white were equal were creating laws which would eventually make black and white legally equal, to a point where we now know from medical and scientific standpoints that black and white actually *are* equal. That's, in my book, a really, really long way. And yes, it's taken a really, really long time. It hasn't been easy, it hasn't been just... it hasn't been a lot of things, but it has been happening.

    This idea of "we'll eliminate any biases and racism, etc. all in one shot to make the election process completely fair" is utter nonsense. It probably will happen one day, at least with respect to white vs. black vs. latino vs. oriental vs. whatever else, but then discrimination will be about something else. Remember that there is a human biological need for the distinguishing of self vs. other and same vs. different. It's going to happen and it's never, ever going to stop. The question we need to be honest enough to face up to is, can we make it about stuff that's actually relevant and useful?

    Posted via Android Central App
    12-02-2013 09:47 PM
  16. yotavota's Avatar
    And their in lies the problem we do not know. And again non story. It is the classic we hate Obama so we are going to make a massive mountain out of a mole hill at something that is easily explain and facts show otherwise.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    It is difficult to objectively accept this if your are unable to think beyond what you see or are told.

    Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
    12-02-2013 09:48 PM
  17. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    This country is often internally isolationist in nature. This coupled with a number of factors, such as the decline in our education system over the last 150 years or so, our businesses coming to dominate and basically own and run the government, and various political machinations from various sources playing a massive divide-and-conquer game on the American public is a pretty darned good explanation for where we are today.

    And I don't mean this as some kind of "massive conspiracy" sort of thing. Bits might be a conspiracy, but likely as not the two most common likely scenarios are opportunistic capitalization on a given set of circumstances, and just plain old wanton ignorance and apathy.

    I was NEVER against Obama because he's black. I don't know if he's actually Christian or Muslim, and honestly I couldn't care less. What matters to me a heck of a lot more is what is his philosophical worldview is, and who and what his influences in life have been, both in the sense of individuals like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and also in the sense of the Chicago Political Machine. I still don't conclusively know yet if he's even a legitimate candidate for the office of President, and yes, that's a concern. But his skin color? C'mon...

    Anyhow, getting back to what I was saying before about being internally isolationist, as mobile a country as we are, we don't seem on the whole to move around all that much. Tons of people in this country die probably less than 500 miles away from where they were born. We have communities in most places which tend to be relatively monolithic in nature (religion, politics, ethnic background, etc.) and so when one says "One believes what one sees and hears" yeah, ok, that's true. But when you aren't really out in the mix and seeing other stuff and having different experiences from the ones you've grown up with, what else are you expected to be?

    The Internet, far apart from being the great equalizer of access to communication and information, has actually presented itself -- in my view, anyhow -- as a great research tool to see how far-flung and off-the-wall and isolated the views are of people across this country. The things you hear coming out of various people's mouths is often frightening. But it also shows how fundamentally isolated we are within this country from one another, much less how isolated we are as a nation from the rest of the world.

    Posted via Android Central App
    mrsmumbles and gamefreak715 like this.
    12-02-2013 10:01 PM
  18. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    An easy way to get rid of racism, have television channels broadcast interviews and such with masks on the candidates faces. That way there's no bias or racism involved. Just good old speech and debate.

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    Oh but then it can't be used as a smear tool by one side to discredit the other.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    12-03-2013 01:18 AM
  19. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Nah I don't want to offend you, but there's always that one group of people on Facebook... Edited by Moderator

    Sent from my HTC Xperia S4
    Facebook, here, the list is endless. You would have to lie to offend me, I don’t get offended easily.
    You know the funny part is the only group I see screaming that racist argument about speaking out against Obama is you guessed it conservatives and Republicans. Tends to be what you all try when you are pressed you scream I am not racist seeming to think that is your only argument.

    Now yes there are plenty of right wing nut jobs who are racist but generally I find the worse racist tend to be Republicans any how. Just the gop is pretty bad at policing their own.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    See the below quoted post:
    You do know that the kkk was started by Democrats, right? And for every cretinous GOP person in politics I could name a Democrat.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    But that’s not how the liberals portray it, so you must be wrong! All kidding aside, you are one hundred percent correct!
    Did you know the current GOP has more in common with that older Democrat party that the Current one.
    Did you know that the Democrats of the old are current GOP.

    Parties change over time. The GOP of today is like the Democrats of the old.
    Right, because the politician in my state who is a former Klansman is NOT a Republican? He IS a democrat.
    That's not true. Name one current GOP person who'd fit that statement and I can name a Democrat counterpart.

    Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2
    Oh, so can I.
    Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest.
    General Forrest was a pretty decent military strategist. We have to give him credit for that after all.
    From Civil Rights Act €” History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts



    Even though LBJ was a Democrat, it was Dems (Including Byrd and his affiliations with the KKK) that were holding up the Civil Rights Act, and was a Republican effort that lead to its eventual passage.
    Right you are, Mooncatt! The Republicans were the ones who passed it while the democrats hindered it.
    Ah, no. I mean that the small group of racists that everyone points to when making the "democrats were (and therefore are) hugely racist" argument abandoned ship when the party as a whole went the other direction.
    Unless you are a straight white Christian male, in which case the democrats will discriminate against you.
    Silly ignorant malicious... Racism cuts both ways.

    Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, The New Black Panther Party, all current, all racist or bigoted, all Democrats.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    Right you are, mrsmumbles! Aside from race, are there any differences between the KKK and the Black Panthers? Don’t take into account that one is accepted in today’s society where as the other organization is not acceptable. The way I see it, they are one in the same. They differ in race only.
    An easy way to get rid of racism, have television channels broadcast interviews and such with masks on the candidates faces. That way there's no bias or racism involved. Just good old speech and debate.

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    That’s actually a great idea, alexlam24!
    I was NEVER against Obama because he's black. I don't know if he's actually Christian or Muslim, and honestly I couldn't care less. What matters to me a heck of a lot more is what is his philosophical worldview is, and who and what his influences in life have been, both in the sense of individuals like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and also in the sense of the Chicago Political Machine. I still don't conclusively know yet if he's even a legitimate candidate for the office of President, and yes, that's a concern. But his skin color? C'mon...
    I dislike him for his policies on almost everything, race has nothing to do with it.
    12-05-2013 11:31 AM
  20. alexlam24's Avatar
    Race/religion plays a very big factor in elections. It's so biased that it's laughable. Hillary would be 10x the president Obama is today. Free healthcare? That just calls for a tax spike.

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    12-06-2013 07:31 AM
  21. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Race/religion plays a very big factor in elections. It's so biased that it's laughable. Hillary would be 10x the president Obama is today. Free healthcare? That just calls for a tax spike.

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    She supports nationalized health care...

    Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2
    12-06-2013 07:46 AM
  22. alexlam24's Avatar
    She supports nationalized health care...

    Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2
    How? It was never mentioned in the elections. If Bill couldn't do it, why would she bother?

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    12-06-2013 07:50 AM
  23. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    How? It was never mentioned in the elections. If Bill couldn't do it, why would she bother?

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    She tried when her spouse was president. She couldn't get the lead balloon off the ground.

    Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2
    12-06-2013 08:58 AM
  24. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    How? It was never mentioned in the elections. If Bill couldn't do it, why would she bother?

    Sent from HTC Note Ultra Pro on T-Mobile
    Not that you couldn't find it yourself, but here's a Wikipedia account of 1993 events.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint...e_plan_of_1993

    Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2
    12-06-2013 09:05 AM
  25. alexlam24's Avatar


    Sent from my HTC Xperia S4
    12-06-2013 04:23 PM
1,900 ... 4546474849 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD