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



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

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

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

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


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2012)

Blacks vote for blacks.

It's a fact of life.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> 
> *Think about this for a moment.*... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.
> 
> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?



One fails to see the point, as the premise is idiotic. 

No African American opined that the president should be re-elected solely because Obama was the same race as they.


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Blacks vote for blacks.
> 
> It's a fact of life.



Indicted, expelled Illinois state representative re-elected - politics | NBC News


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 18, 2012)

Your OP is flawed.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2012)

Obama's only qualification for president in 2008 was his skin color.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

Did some blacks vote for Obama only because he is black?  Sure.  Did some whites vote for McCain and then Romney because Obama is black?  Sure.  At the end of the day they probably cancel each other out.  Idiots balancing idiots.  Nothing new here.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Obama's only qualification for president in 2008 was his skin color.



Coupled with Romney's lack of qualification.

(47% comments, lying and/or unaware of Chrysler Jeep China issue...pick one, equally bad, post election whining)


----------



## Caroljo (Nov 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Blacks vote for blacks.
> 
> It's a fact of life.



No matter what?  Does it matter if you think he's qualified or not?


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks vote for blacks.
> ...



Caroljo,

Speaking as a black man who has voted for candidates who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, female, and Native American in various local, state and national elections, qualifications count a lot more than race.  I can also say that is pretty much true of most of the people I associate with.

The original post would only be true in an environment where people delegate the requirement to think.  That is more insulting to an entire group of people than the OP apparently believes his ridiculous premise is an insult to President Obama.

Again, to answer your question.  Qualifications are more important than skin color.  In fact SOMETIMES qualifications are even more important than party affiliation.


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's only qualification for president in 2008 was his skin color.
> ...



He was quite correct in his 47% assessment. It was the liberal media that painted it otherwise.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> 
> Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.
> 
> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?



Pray tell....continue to school black people on what they do and what they should do.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Assume for a second that I agree with you (I don't)....someone smart enough to be president wouldn't be caught on tape saying it.  That's sort of like having to actually think about the answer to your wife / girlfriend asking "does this make me look fat?".  If you can't think of a diplomatic way to answer that, you deserve the fallout.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...




Did I say re-elected, no I said upon being elected the first time around (historic moment and all this talk of being afterwards the first black President etc.), but I think it was also a huge factor in this re-election this time around as well for many, but is this wise or foolish for people to be looking at a persons color as opposed to their character, and their record instead when voting ? This nation needs to look into this big time, and to see why this is being the case for some or many as to how they vote, and to understand why they vote in this way. What is this kind of thinking all about for them ? Upon future investigation of (imho), it will show the motivations or thinking behind such voters, and it will also lead us to knowing what their ideals of a future behind such thinking does hold or intails for them and this nation going foward.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 18, 2012)




----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

bodecea said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...


You got a comment or add that is constructive and productive to the conversation, instead of such crap as this that you speak in this way ? Don't you think that people would rather see more than just these one liners that you have, infact you are just like the President when it comes to these one liners when speaking, the only thing different, is that your not as funny as he can be, in which is a plus for him I guess.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Your words, well they are my premise and/or explains it, so what is it that you don't like about my presentation, because it is to be interpreted exactly upon what you have spoken of it here? Maybe I worded it in a confusing way or something, or is it that people are having a hard time understanding what they may have done in this manor, especially if it turns out that they were wrong for doing so on down the line.


----------



## AquaAthena (Nov 18, 2012)

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

I don't know or care about what black people realize, and I feel quite certain that Barack Obama feels the same way.

People that are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves, do not care by what means they achieve that continuation, only that they do. There is no end to which they will not go, in order to justify their thirst for self-acceptance, which will forever elude them.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 18, 2012)

Obama had less support from everyone this time around, and that includes African Americans. However, what baffles me is the notion that Obama got insane levels of support from black voters. African Americans vote democratic, they've voted over 90% for a candidate before, and no that candidate wasn't black.

Seriously, get over it already.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2012)

Obama won in 2008 because he was black.

He won in 2012 because he was the better candidate.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



Short, sweet and to the point.....

Your original post implies that MOST blacks only voted for President Obama because he is black and implies that they (we) cannot think for ourselves.  That is stupid and offensive.

A better question would be..."Did Democrats only vote for President Obama because he's a Democrat?"  "Did Republicans only vote for Sen. McCain because he's Republican (and had a hot running mate)??

So much for SHORT, I guess......sorry.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama had less support from everyone this time around, and that includes African Americans. However, what baffles me is the notion that Obama got insane levels of support from black voters. African Americans vote democratic, they've voted over 90% for a candidate before, and no that candidate wasn't black.
> 
> Seriously, get over it already.


Oh so you think that the issue's remain the same every time an election rolls around ? I mean you make the claim or excuse that blacks vote democratic most always, but why is that if they are voting on the canidate that best suits the issues of the times (regardless of party) and for whom has the best solutions for those issues each election when they say they have the answers ? Did you just fall into your own enslaved democrat trap ?


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Obama won in 2008 because he was black.
> 
> He won in 2012 because he was the better candidate.


Now we are getting somewhere, so what is it that you think he offered that was better than the republican canidate was offering the nation ?


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama had less support from everyone this time around, and that includes African Americans. However, what baffles me is the notion that Obama got insane levels of support from black voters. African Americans vote democratic, they've voted over 90% for a candidate before, and no that candidate wasn't black.
> ...



Why are you singling out black voters? They didn't DO anything special this election. There are other demographics that vote exclusively party lines.

Voting for the person with an R or a D behind their name, isnt a "black thing".

Sheesh, you get more ignorant by the post.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


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



Wow! Your obsession is out of control. You *assume* that individual blacks voted for Obama because he is black and not because he was the best candidate that represented their interests. Thats a BIG assumption when you consider that black presidential candidates of the past enjoyed no such loyalty by their fellow black Americans. Ask Jesse Jackson or Shirley Chisolm about that black loyalty. Its really amazing how those two recent examples managed to escape your shallow research; that is, providing you did any at all!



> Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color,



I have thought about it and this is MY conclusion: If Obama would have been ALL white instead of half, he would have won by an even larger margin. His darker skin was a liability, not an asset...heh heh heh!




> otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.



More sick rhetoric from a loser! It is you "conservatives" who seem to have problem with race and color. After all, the Dems nominated a mulatto for president and won. You Repubs never dreamed of doing anything so radically delicious!



> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life,



Damn it man, wake up and look around you! The majority of  Americans HAVE gotten past race and color. Its you repugnicants and "conservatives" who are stuck in a time bubble where rich white males  refused to share power and wealth with the rest of us. Those days are gone... welcome to the new diverse America.




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



With only two choices, there isn't much wiggle room  when it comes to presidential elections. Obama carried majorities among white women, Hispanics and Blacks because he was the clear choice vs Romney. I suspect that had Herman Caine won the Republican nomination the results would have been the same. The exception being that more whites would have voted for Obama vs Caine.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Obama won in 2008 because he was black.
> ...


Obama didn't offer anything better than Romney.

But Romney was a weak liberal RINO posing as a conservative Republican and people knew it.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama had less support from everyone this time around, and that includes African Americans. However, what baffles me is the notion that Obama got insane levels of support from black voters. African Americans vote democratic, they've voted over 90% for a candidate before, and no that candidate wasn't black.
> ...



Actually the part in *bold * is largely incoherent, but I think I get the gist of it.....

A lot of the reason blacks vote largely Democratic (Hispanics and young voters, too so you may want to dig into those demographics and focus less on blacks) is that the Republican Party seems to go out of its way to insult anyone (including large blocs of voters) who don't think like them.  There are DOCUMENTED cases of Republicans trying to suppress voting in minority districts.  There are active campaigns like the infamous Willie Horton ads by President George Bush (the senior) that attempt to paint blacks in a negative light and simultaneously scare white voters into voting Republicans.  Even in this last campaign, I personally know of at least two households in largely black districts that received Robocalls reminding them to vote on *Wednesday * Nov. 6th.  Really?  There's the Arizona immigration laws, there's the repudiation of the DREAM Act.  The Republican Party appears to be trying hard to piss off the minority voting bloc.  Problem was, enough NON-MINORITY voters slipped over to President Obama's side to combine with the minorities that the Republicans shoved over that way to seal the victory.

When the Republican Party decides it's worth investing in a more inclusive, or really, just a less divisive message, you will see less allegiance from minorities to the Democratic Party.  For a lot of minorities, it really works out to a lesser of two evils.  M, personally, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.  I find fault with both parties.  But I do find that more often than not that it is the Republican Party, especially the Tea Party element, that openly insults me and my intelligence.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...




If they (in large or huge numbers) did this in which I am asking and not implying as you say, where as when asked on the street who people were voting for, and I saw a majority of blacks saying Obama again (was it based on him being black still or not), and if so then you are right, it was stupid and offensive in regards to the entire process of electing someone to office or hiring a person for service (imho). The thing is, is that the nation should always explore these things, and find out what happens in them, because this nation is made up of all races who are American, and we all should be represented equally as Americans, and not based upon color or gender ever to be involved in these elections, but have we been having a problem with this, and is it growing in this nation this problem of special interest winning out over the nations best interest for all anymore ?


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Obama won in 2008 because he was black.
> 
> He won in 2012 because he was the better candidate.



President Obama won the 2008 election because:


He revolutionized the use of electronic media and a strong ground campaign to excite young voters and turn them out at the polls in unprecedented numbers
He revolutionized the use of electronic media to raise funds at an amazing level, $5 at a time
Even though VP candidates rarely impact the Presidential Race, people saw through Sarah Palin as the incompetent non-finisher she eventually proved herself to be.  (who resigns from a Governor's position to launch a campaign and then not run?)


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...


Good response here, and you make some very good points on where you stand, and why these points should be adressed and considered always by a party or canidate running. 

Ok, now do the repubs have concerns on the way things have been going in society, you know like gangs out of control (gangland the series), public school shootings, degredation issues in society, the dumming down of society,  attack on marriage issues, abortion issues, security issues, trade issues and on and on it all goes, or are they just a bunch of racist still looking to rid America of all blacks and/or brown skins eventually ?


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



See, this is AGAIN evidence of how ridiculous your original premise is.  Is the need to ask people whether race played a role in their vote for president only an issue if the person being asked is of the same race as the person they voted for?  Should we have asked every white person who voted for Nixon whether or not it was because he was white?  Better yet, why wouldn't you ask the 36% of white voters who voted for President Obama why they did not vote for Gov. Romney, especially since he is white like them?

What questions would you have asked of whom when Bill Clinton prevented George Herbert Walker Bush from achieving re-election?  VERY patiently awaiting your response to this.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Obama won in 2008 because he was black.
> ...


Yes he did all this, but who was his most targetted audience, and what did he think of them afterwards ?

If he knew that they would vote for him because he was black, did he think of them as foolish afterwards, especially if he knew that he was more than just a color of skin, but rather a real contender on that stage instead ? You see how rediculous this color thing can get in this nation really ?

It's not right to be motivated by color ever, but instead to be motivated by the character of a person, the qualifications of a person, the goals of a person in regards for all Americans, and if they did this or it was their reasoning for voting for him, then they have done well in this regard, and this in order to sleep at night afterwards, but if it was for other reasons (one being as crazy as the concerning of ones color in life), then they have failed themselves in that regard (imho).


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Obama won in 2008 because he was black.
> ...


Palin had zip to due with McCain's defeat.

McCain had voted in lock step with Bush 90+ of the time on various issues. 

After 8 years people were sick of Bush and weren't going to vote for a Bush clone.


Obama had 2 things going for him.

1) He wasn't Bush

2) He was black


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


The premise that I am reffering to is very unique to this President elect, so why try and confuse in this way ?


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

I will stick to what Martin Luther King said in regards to this nations troubles surrounding the content of ones character always overriding ones skin color (in which one day he longed for in this nation), and I will believe this unto the day that I die... No one can argue this premise, no matter how long they try to argue it, because Martin Luther King was spot on when he said this, and it should stand for all Americans in this nation to this very day.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



The black part probably cost him votes.

More so second time around.


----------



## Dick Tuck (Nov 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Blacks vote for blacks.
> 
> It's a fact of life.



If that were true, Michael Steele and Alan Keyes would have been Maryland Senators.  In fact, Steele's white opponent got 74% of the black vote, and Steele got 50% of the white vote.  You're an idiot.

CNN.com - Elections 2006


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

Beagle9,

Your original post STARTED with the words....

*Do you realize that it was an insult to Barack Obama...*so let's start there.  Who are you to determine what should or should not insult Barack Obama? <Still waiting for your response to my Clinton Bush question >

You then go on to *ASSUME* that black people who voted for him ONLY voted for him because he is black.  How would you know?  Who told you this? (please don't quote some far-right whack-job....and I say that in fairness because there are a lot of far left whack jobs that I have no use for, too).

So, if your first premise, that President Obama is NOT embarrassed (again....how would YOU know?  talk to him lately?) and your second premise in unprovable, then your initial premise is about as viable as an icicle in hell.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Beagle9,
> 
> Your original post STARTED with the words....
> 
> *Do you realize that it was an insult to Barack Obama...*so let's start there.  Who are you to determine what should or should not insult Barack Obama? <Still waiting for your response to my Clinton Bush question >



I meant to say, but to late to change it now, "Do you realize that it *may have been *an insult to Barack Obama", so work with that premise if you will.. It is a much better wording, but like I said it is to late to change it now, so onward we all go. Oh and who are you to tell me what I should or should not detemin in a thread or question asked ? Like I said Clinton and the others aren't black, and therefore they cannot fit into this premise or question that I have posed here. It is unique to the situation and you know it.



martinjlm said:


> You then go on to *ASSUME* that black people who voted for him ONLY voted for him because he is black.  How would you know?  Who told you this? (please don't quote some far-right whack-job....and I say that in fairness because there are a lot of far left whack jobs that I have no use for, too).



I already told you where I witnessed this from "TV and the news shows where they were out doing surveys prior to the election, and asking many people who they were going to vote for, just like the last election when they did the same, but I was reffering to the last election and wondering if it went on in this election also? It became obvious that there was a pattern seen in all of this, but maybe I was just delusional or naieve when watching this take place.



martinjlm said:


> So, if your first premise, that President Obama is NOT embarrassed (again....how would YOU know?  talk to him lately?) and your second premise in unprovable, then your initial premise is about as viable as an icicle in hell.



Ummm, I am having a hard time making sense of your last statement here or what it is inferring actually, or rather I think I know what you are trying to say, in that it is unprovable no matter what the people think, so why even go there right ? Oh well you know how enquring minds are here, we all just want to make sense of it all, so tell us what we want to know, and tell us now dog-gone-it. LOL


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Your OP is flawed.



His syntax and grammar are flawed as well. That was incredibly difficult to read.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Your OP is flawed.
> ...



Yeah, but I don't take issue with that.  I'm involved in a number of newsgroups where people posting have a first language other than English.  I make it a point not to criticize people's command of the English language when so many of us who criticize can ONLY speak English.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

Dick Tuck said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks vote for blacks.
> ...


Maybe not so much an idiot when it comes to the Presidential election, because blacks have broken open and into the lower races a long time ago, and so these races are generally more focused on the bread and butter issues in these areas for many, and it cuts across the lines for many in the states and DC elected positions in which are appointed afterwards, but this Presidential election was different, and the rhetoric leading up to it was different, and the players were different also. Patterns could be seen and people were opening their mouths in ways that they never had before over it.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Your OP is flawed.
> ...


Hey I'm not perect no, but anyone with half a brain can figure out the OP easily...


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Beagle9,
> ...



OK....I understand you a bit better, so I will cool the jets _a little..._

I will still point out that if you truly believe this



			
				beagle9 said:
			
		

> I will stick to what Martin Luther King said in regards to this nations troubles surrounding the content of ones character always overriding ones skin color (in which one day he longed for in this nation), and I will believe this unto the day that I die... No one can argue this premise, no matter how long they try to argue it, because Martin Luther King was spot on when he said this, and it should stand for all Americans in this nation to this very day.



then this whole thread would not even be a question in your mind.  And thus the Clinton / Bush question.....that was an election balanced almost completely on the content of two men's character.  So why did Clinton (who's character was impinged from the beginning - Whitewater) win?


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


I believe it, but what happened ?

Oh I guess that is still yet to be seen, but we got a good preview of it the first 4 years, and wow...


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



pigeon holing


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

Still not unique (Clinton and others) to the elections and this President..


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Huh ?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



This doesn't appear to be from a person struggling with the language. Verb tenses are correct, spelling is reasonable as I remember, but the sentence structure is awkward. Using the same words several times in a paragraph is clumsy. It makes your reader wonder if he's lost his place.

I just found it difficult to read


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



I'm more than capable of figuring out what you said. The question is, do I want to bother? I believe it was your post (7:27 PM CST)previous to this one I am quoting where you went on about 100 words before you gave us a period. Reread that sentence, the one that begins, 





> Maybe not so much an idiot when it


 and ask yourself if it feels clumsy to you. If it does, imagine what those of us unable to climb inside your head feel when they read it.
I'm getting the impression that what you have to say is worth reading. I tend to agree with your premise, but Damn!


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Sorry...


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 18, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


I know...LOL... I'm trying as best I can so I hope you will forgive me..


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. You have posted something worth my while to read. The cumbersome sentence structure makes understanding you a lot more difficult than it should be.

I know. Getting your thought stream  written down so you can share it is the object.
All I can ask is that before you click "send", you read what you've put down. If it feels at all clumsy to you, it will seem more so to others.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 19, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2012)

I like to hunt; so shooting from a helicopter is no big deal; and Russia is practically in her back yard.

That being said, people cast their vote for the presidential candidate, and basically ignore the v.p. on the ballot.

The idiot savant Biden is a perfect example of this truism.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 19, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> ....
> 
> The idiot savant Biden is a perfect example of this truism.



Very good point.  I don't for a second believe that Biden is not intelligent, but this is the overwhelming perception.  I'd say the same for Dan Quayle.  Neither is an idiot, but the public has been painted a picture that says they are.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2012)

Dan Quayle was a fairly intelligent person.

Biden.......not so much.

Except to have an older white guy on the ticket during 2008

Biden brought nothing to the table..........


----------



## Caroljo (Nov 19, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Thank you for your answer....
I wonder why Sunni couldn't answer that?  I think the majority of people, no matter the color, actually want what is good for the country and skin color wouldn't matter.  But i've actually heard people say they voted for Obama because he's black.  I've heard others say they didn't vote for him because he's black.  Sunni states blacks vote for blacks, like he's speaking for everyone!  It shouldn't matter what color a person is, but it does for some people and there's nothing we can do to change that.  I didn't vote for Obama because he think he stinks as president....it has NOTHING to do with anything but not agreeing with how he's running things.

I think qualifications are the most important thing.  I don't call myself a "republican" but i am quite conservative....if i think someone is the most qualified, it doesn't matter what party they belong to.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 19, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> 
> Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.
> 
> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?



Electing the first Black President IS the first step in getting over this whole thing.
If Hillary had been elected, we would be getting over the gender thing.

Someone has to be the first, to be used as target practice for all the rhetoric and adjustment, and then later on, it won't be as big a deal, people will be more clearly judged for their politics.

In this election, there were many conservative Blacks who totally disagreed but still voted for Obama on the basis of race. Maybe in the future, that won't be the case, but people have to get used to the Barack Obama's, Condi Rice's and Herman Cain's and eventually look at what they are about, not just what they represent to them in terms of black people rising to power.

These last two elections were some of the first that many poor blacks ever bothered to go vote in. So all that is a new process, and will take time for them to learn not to depend on party or govt to "do things for you." Right now, many of them are dependent, so that is the reality of where they are starting on the learning curve of social and economic development.

I am not trying to be unfair or "racist." I live, volunteer and work two jobs to support a Freed Slave historic district of churches, where I planned to promote a campus program to break the cycle of poverty and teach low-income vets and church members to become self-sustaining financially by teaching property and business management through mentorships.
The team is lead by a sociologist who understands the economic gap that needs to be bridged before there can be equality among all groups, so this is just reality. The lower socioeconomic classes are not just black or latino, but also women and veterans left out of the loop without resources to support them, so they too easily end up on welfare rolls.

We need to set up educational/training systems that accommodate people behind on the learning curve toward social and economic independence WITHOUT taxing people just for making more money, but perhaps charging the costs to those who commit crimes or corruption at taxpayers expense and owe RESTITUTION into the system.  So there is a way to pay for this without being unfair, without enabling the poor or punishing the rich; but holding each person accountable for paying back costs they incur to society so it's fair.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2012)

^^^^^ typical liberal group think.............


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 19, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 19, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...


Excellent...


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 19, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 20, 2012)

beagle9 said:


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



Something weird happened on post #54 and again in a later post.  I can't edit those posts, but that's where the switching thing started.  I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out.  Hopefully I can fix it in this post.

FWIW, I understand your last post a lot better than the one from yesterday.  In yesterday's post I could not read through a complete sentence and follow the train of thought.  Only thing I will say to this latest post is what I've already said.


Some blacks voted for Pres. Obama because he is black.
Some people voted for Gov. Romney because Pres. Obama is black
Both those positions are reprehensible, but they probably effectively cancel each other out.
At the end of the day, there was a broader mix of people who voted for Pres. Obama than for Gov. Romney.  (Hispanics, young voters of all races, women, middle class voters).  Could be based on character.....could be based on content of campaign message.  Doubt it was all based on race.
If all blacks voted for Pres. Obama, but no one else did, he would not stand a chance.
Likewise, if Gov. Romney relied only on white voters and effectively alienated non-white voters, he would not stand a chance, especially if a significant number of whites vote for his opponent (36% did)

Instead of focusing on why blacks voted for Pres. Obama, the Republican Party needs to focus on why 36% of white voters, plus large blocks of Hispanics, younger voters, and middle class city dwellers of all ages and races rejected Gov. Romney in droves.


----------



## George Costanza (Nov 20, 2012)

I believe the main reason some 92% of Blacks and 73% of Hispanics voted for Obama has nothing to do with Obama's race.  They weren't so much voting for Obama as they were voting against the Republican party, which they do not view as supportive of their position.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 20, 2012)

The black percentage of support for Obama is old news.  Folks need to do some reading before being excited by it.

Look up the percentage of blacks who voted for Gore and Kerry.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 21, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> The black percentage of support for Obama is old news.  Folks need to do some reading before being excited by it.
> 
> Look up the percentage of blacks who voted for Gore and Kerry.



Very good point.  Forget Gore & Kerry....go back to Kennedy and Johnson.  Basically, when the Democratic Party was heavily influenced by the Southern Democrats, blacks stayed away from the Democratic Party in droves and supported the party of Lincoln.  During FDR's reign, blacks started shifting to the Democratic Party.  Then Kennedy started speaking of a new promise and supported civil rights.  Johnson continued support of civil rights and supported and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Since then blacks have been all but exclusively Democrat.







Now that the Republican Party is heavily influenced by the Tea Party, blacks are staying away in droves and supporting the party of Kennedy / Johnson.  It's a shame, too, because more and more, blacks are resenting being taken for granted by the Democratic Party.  But as long as the Tea Party has a voice in the Republican Party, we're likely to continue to see blacks heavily supporting Democratic candidates, no matter what their skin color.

Just my opinion with a couple facts thrown in.


----------



## jasonnfree (Nov 21, 2012)

I don't think it's that much of a race issue.  I'm white working class and I don't believe the republicans have anything to offer the working class.  They  have issues like right to life but they don't care about the lives of children in poverty.  They are always figuring out ways of reducing or abolishing any programs that help children in poverty.  Nutrition programs in schools,  childrens health insurance,  help with tuition.  There's always a republican trying to drastically cut or get rid of these programs.  The recent Ryan/romney ticket where Ryan would love to eradicate the safety nets so there's more money for the military should have had any working class citizen take notice.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 21, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...




^^ THIS!!!


----------



## konradv (Nov 21, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Blacks vote for blacks.
> 
> It's a fact of life.



That's simplistic and insulting.  The last white mayor of Baltimore won a majority in the Democratic primary(the real election), when everyone assumed he'd win by a plurality, because the black candidates would split the vote.  Whites voting for whites would be closer to the truth, but still insulting considering Obama's two victories.


----------



## tjvh (Nov 21, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Obama's only qualification for president in 2008 was his skin color.



As if his qualifications have improved any in the last four years.


----------



## George Costanza (Nov 21, 2012)

jasonnfree said:


> I don't think it's that much of a race issue.  I'm white working class and I don't believe the republicans have anything to offer the working class.  They  have issues like right to life but they don't care about the lives of children in poverty.  They are always figuring out ways of reducing or abolishing any programs that help children in poverty.  Nutrition programs in schools,  childrens health insurance,  help with tuition.  There's always a republican trying to drastically cut or get rid of these programs.  The recent Ryan/romney ticket where Ryan would love to eradicate the safety nets so there's more money for the military should have had any working class citizen take notice.



It isn't a racial issue at all when looking at it from a "why did they vote for Obama" standpoint.  It is a huge racial issue when looking at it from a "why did they vote for a Democrat rather than a Republican" standpoing.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 21, 2012)

George Costanza said:


> I believe the main reason some 92% of Blacks and 73% of Hispanics voted for Obama has nothing to do with Obama's race.  They weren't so much voting for Obama as they were voting against the Republican party, which they do not view as supportive of their position.


And so their positions were found mainly upon the social issues, and not the Job's issue right ? This is where the repubs lost touch, because they thougt this nation was more about bread and butter issues, and this more so than it was about the social issues in which this nation is knee deep in or has waded into knee deep now, and so we have a nation that is way more caught up in these social issues more so than the job issues and/or long term security issues we face now. Wow! 

Now the question is were the voters right or wrong on this, as it will soon tell when they start crying and screaming because they can't afford this and can't afford that in the months and days to come.

I wonder if these social agenda's in which they have now, will put food upon their table without government assistance now or get them a job without government assistance now ?


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 21, 2012)

jasonnfree said:


> I don't think it's that much of a race issue.



You don't think that it's that much of an issue eh ? Well how much did you think that it was an issue then ?  



jasonnfree said:


> I'm white working class and I don't believe the republicans have anything to offer the working class.


 Really now ! How could you actually clarify this statement ? 



jasonnfree said:


> They  have issues like right to life but they don't care about the lives of children in poverty.


 You have got to be kidding me right, I mean these are Americans that you are talking about, and they don't care about children living in poverty or dying eh ?



jasonnfree said:


> They are always figuring out ways of reducing or abolishing any programs that help children in poverty.  Nutrition programs in schools,  childrens health insurance,  help with tuition.  There's always a republican trying to drastically cut or get rid of these programs.


 So there is never any responsibility on the citizens part in America anylonger is what you advocate or you are saying? I mean the citizen shouldnot ever again be responsible in their thinking now, and they should never be held accountable for the little ones that they willfully bring into this world, even when they know that they are in poverty themselves prior to laying down and spreading their legs without any regard as to who will pay for the children in which they bring into this world, and in which they do without having any thought of such things upon doing so ? The government has fueled this way of thinking, and that is what needs to be reverse engineered, just like it was foward engineered by the democrats and liberals who thought it a good thing to do this when in power. Now the nation is spoiled rottten, ignorant and fooled by it all, and Lord don't take hold to the (government lollipop/sucker) in any kind of way, because the babies will have a temper tantrum just as they did in this election.   



jasonnfree said:


> The recent Ryan/romney ticket where Ryan would love to eradicate the safety nets so there's more money for the military should have had any working class citizen take notice.


 Oh so Romney/Ryan was for killing children and the poor in this nation, so that the military could have more and more and more ? I'm not buying this line for a minute, but nice try though..


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 21, 2012)

George Costanza said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's that much of a race issue.  I'm white working class and I don't believe the republicans have anything to offer the working class.  They  have issues like right to life but they don't care about the lives of children in poverty.  They are always figuring out ways of reducing or abolishing any programs that help children in poverty.  Nutrition programs in schools,  childrens health insurance,  help with tuition.  There's always a republican trying to drastically cut or get rid of these programs.  The recent Ryan/romney ticket where Ryan would love to eradicate the safety nets so there's more money for the military should have had any working class citizen take notice.
> ...


Sorry, but your logic is not correct, and for alot of the black people who may have voted Obama into office as based upon his skin color again, then I really do feel sorry for you that you did such a thing, and it really is scary that you have to think in this sort of way in the 21st century, instead of being in a position now in America, where as you would vote instead upon the character of a man along with his positions on the issues, and not upon the skin color of a man as you may have done in this election.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 21, 2012)

I voted for Reagan cause he was white, as I


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 21, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> George Costanza said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Maybe it is just late and I do not understand.

93 is percent of blacks voted for Obama.  85 ish percent vote Democrat in general.  Even for John Kerry.

Are you complaining about one or the other or each?  I would venture to say until the last person who remembers segregation dies blacks will take any hint of racism from the Todd Akin crowd very seriously and understandably so.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 21, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> George Costanza said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



According to the chart I posted in post #68, his logic is spot on.  Blacks have HISTORICALLY voted for Democrats and AGAINST REPUBLICANS for decades.  The numbers are the same whether both candidates are white or if, as in 2008 & 2012, the candidate is black.  There may have been a higher black turnout in 2008, but then lower again in 2012.

The data is there to disprove your point.  By the way....couldn't help noticing that you switched back from " I was just wondering if...." to your original position of "because it was....".  Smooth.

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


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > George Costanza said:
> ...


I am complaining that color should have never been an issue when voting in an election, and this is being said in regards to any black Americans who were voting in this way, because what I was hearing coming out of alot of black peoples mouths prior too, led me to believe that they were voting for the "black guy" again, and then you had the promoting of all brown skins in rhetoric by some also, where as they had best do the same or the white people were going to destroy them all in this nation (the race card), and that was just sad to witness really. It is even going on still or now after this election, where as all one has to do is listen to the rhetoric and talk going on amongst these crowds still.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

martinjlm said:


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



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




martinjlm said:


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


 I rest my case...


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


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



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

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




martinjlm said:


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





beagle9 said:


> I rest my case...



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

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


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

martinjlm said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


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



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

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


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2012)

Beagle, I just do not understand your points.  

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


----------



## House (Nov 22, 2012)

martinjlm said:


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



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

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


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


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


----------



## Koios (Nov 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> 
> Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.
> 
> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?



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

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

Yeah; that's the ticket.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

House said:


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


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


----------



## House (Nov 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> House said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...



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


----------



## House (Nov 22, 2012)

Koios said:


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



That's massa to you, boy.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> Beagle, I just do not understand your points.
> 
> You are saying the Civil Rights Act came too soon or was too specifically for blacks?


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


----------



## Koios (Nov 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Beagle, I just do not understand your points.
> ...



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

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

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

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


----------



## House (Nov 22, 2012)

Koios said:


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



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


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 22, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


----------



## Koios (Nov 22, 2012)

House said:


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



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


----------



## Koios (Nov 22, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


----------



## House (Nov 22, 2012)

Koios said:


> House said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

Koios said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


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


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

House said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > House said:
> ...


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

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


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 22, 2012)

Koios said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


----------



## Koios (Nov 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


----------



## rdean (Nov 22, 2012)

Mitt Romney was terrible.  He said he would only represent half the country.  The very month of the election, he was moving one of his companies to China.  He has been more secretive and dishonest than Nixon.

The only reason Republicans voted for him is because their party is 90% white and Mitt Romney is white.  Most of the time.


----------



## martinjlm (Nov 23, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Martin and Beagle: I can't follow who is quoting whom, because of whatever editing issue was going on. I noticed the extra quote citing someone else at the top of your msgs?
> 
> In general:
> A. I get that someone above was saying that "people should be judged by their character" in ALL things they say, and ALL things they do, in public and in business, etc. I got that.
> ...





Emilynghiem,

I was the one who characterized Sarah Palin as "Miss Moose Shooter".  Sorry for the mucked up quote pattern.....something I messed up in trying to cut some of the volumes of text out of the cascading quotes.

I would also like to say that impuning someone's character is a lot different than racial stereotyping.  I intentionally lampooned her based on things she said and/or did (her character) as opposed to assuming incompetence for someone based on their genetic makeup.  BIG difference.  If someone says or does something stupid, immoral, or illegal, they should be called on it.  To imply that someone has negative traits due to their arrangement of chromosomes and genes is ridiculous.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 23, 2012)

rdean said:


> Mitt Romney was terrible.  He said he would only represent half the country.  The very month of the election, he was moving one of his companies to China.  He has been more secretive and dishonest than Nixon.
> 
> The only reason Republicans voted for him is because their party is 90% white and Mitt Romney is white.  Most of the time.


Mitt says to you - If you make up an "imaginary me" and then hate that me you just made up, you are a fart. The son of a "stench". The daughter of a "belch".  LOL..


----------



## katsteve2012 (Dec 1, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



*Good points and overall, a very good, logical post. The one thing that I would add that drives voting preferences in any election is when a candidate best represnts the self interests of the individual.*


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 1, 2012)

katsteve2012 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...


Again this election was different, because it was touted to the mountain tops that a blackman was about to be elected, therefore suggesting that this was very important based upon the significance of a perons skin color. Now what has Obama done for the nation in the last 4 years as based upon his skin color (did he rescue those who felt he should have, and this as based upon their skin color also?), and what will he do in the next 4 years as based upon his skin color (will he rescue those who think they put him into office because he was the same skin color as them?). So you see how rediculous this was for those who put so much emphasis on a persons skin color in representation of, instead of the person behind the color in which was elected ? 

We have a major problem in this nation when it comes to these kinds of thinkings, and it needs to be fixed somehow, especially so we don't have to continue down this road of thinking, in that a persons skin color is evidence that he would represent specifically another person of the same skin color more so than anyone else is represented in America. If this was the reason that a person would have voted the man into office because of this notion or reasoning, then it was a selfish one at best, and an idiotic one at worst.


----------



## freedombecki (Dec 1, 2012)

rdean said:


> Mitt Romney was terrible.  He said he would only represent half the country.  The very month of the election, he was moving one of his companies to China.  He has been more secretive and dishonest than Nixon.
> 
> The only reason Republicans voted for him is because their party is 90% white and Mitt Romney is white.  Most of the time.


*He said he would only represent half the country.*

Link, please to where Romney said "I will only represent half the country." Can't find it can you. When they were passin' out brains, you got soup instead.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> 
> Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.
> 
> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?



I tried to make sense out of your OP but could not do so. I will have to go with that black people should be insulted by you trying to tell them what to think.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...



Bingo!


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...





freedombecki said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Mitt Romney was terrible.  He said he would only represent half the country.  The very month of the election, he was moving one of his companies to China.  He has been more secretive and dishonest than Nixon.
> ...



In all fairness, what he said was there was no need to campaign to 47% of the public.  Assume them to be lost votes.  He did not say he wouldn't represent them.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...


That hard for ya eh ? 

It's funny that you think that this is what I was doing, when it was not, but if you say so ravi then everyone either will or they won't believe you. (Feeling lucky)?

No time to explain everything now though, so you will have to go back and read all the post in this thread, then come back and let us know if you were enlightened or you are still confused. wow


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 2, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


You say he figured them to be lost votes? I think it was more instead that he figured some to be among the critically dependent already, so they would be taken care of just as they have been taken care of even if they didn't vote. The others were the democrats of course, where as the two combined could have made up this 47% of the population he spoke about. 

I think he was after everyone elses vote for whom still had a live stake in the game, would also vote for him, and badly wanted change...This is what I think he was speaking about when targetting potential voters, and then suggesting that there was possibly around 47% whom would not vote for him over all for all sorts of reasons, ummmm was probably right in his thinking at the time, and so he just spoke in a simple spoken way about it when he did this, and they (his political enemies) pounced on it..

You are right, that he didnot ever say that he wouldnot represent all once he was the President, and it makes sense because he did say that he would represent all if he became the President.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 2, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





Mitt Romney in video: 47 percent of Americans &#39;Believe they are Victims&#39; and feel &#39;Entitled&#39; - YouTube

Regarding the stuff in Blue, both things are true.  One is cause, the other is effect.  Since he believes that 47% feel entitlement and that 47% pay no taxes, those people would not vote for him no matter what.  And therefore those votes are lost.

And actually, I would tend to agree with you that there is truth beneath what he is saying.  There is truth in HIS statement that he needed to focus on the low percentage of uncommitted voters.  He unfortunately voiced it in statements that could be interpreted to mean "F..... the other 47%" and he paid dearly for that.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 2, 2012)

Well over 90% of blacks vote ONLY on the basis of skin color. Anybody with the IQ of a handball knows it. A huge majority of blacks are raised in families where there is a culture of "hate whitey".......not at all the reality of the statist media. The GOP shouldnt waste a single dollar trying to court a single black vote


----------



## katsteve2012 (Dec 2, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 2, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Well over 90% of blacks vote ONLY on the basis of skin color. Anybody with the IQ of a handball knows it. A huge majority of blacks are raised in families where there is a culture of "hate whitey".......not at all the reality of the statist media. The GOP shouldnt waste a single dollar trying to court a single black vote



For the record, my IQ has tested over 160 and unless you can show data for your statement in RED  I'll consider it to be anally extracted.

For the record, I vote based on my perception of the candidates' competence and capability, what they SAY they would do if elected, and the degree to which I believe what they SAY they would do if elected.

Please note that I did NOT mention race or party affiliation in my criteria.

For the Republican Party to ignore black voters, Hispanic voters, women voters, and young voters is like basically waging a campaign with one arm tied behind their backs.  This is actually WORSE than Romney's 47% statement.  It's basically saying, "here are several large groups of voters that we'll just hand over to the Democrats and hope that maybe they just won't show up on election day".  Hope is NOT a strategy.

The Democrats are also playing an equally dangerous game.  They in some cases take these votes for granted.  If the right Republican candidate came forward with a message of inclusion and moderation, the Democrats would find themselves under the wheels of the wagon as a large part of their base jumped off.


----------



## squeeze berry (Dec 2, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Your OP is flawed.



is that you Marion Berry?


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Dec 2, 2012)

Black or White, Obama is the worst President either race produced.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 2, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Well over 90% of blacks vote ONLY on the basis of skin color. Anybody with the IQ of a handball knows it. A huge majority of blacks are raised in families where there is a culture of "hate whitey".......not at all the reality of the statist media. The GOP shouldnt waste a single dollar trying to court a single black vote
> ...


Could be true, because many blacks & latino's don't really like alot of the things that this President stands for openly, and this I have to believe, but they feel right now that it was the better choice for the few issues that they stood for, in which they cling to untill something else comes along that is better or talks better to them.

Yes, if the repubs were to mix together a strategy to win back people as Americans built on morality, decency, compassion, jobs, and big time inclusiveness for all who buy into these things in America, YES the dems could easily find themselves caught under the wheel of the wagon without a doubt.

I think the repubs have such a platform still possible within them, but are simply weak in getting their message out, and then weak in whom they pick to get their message out. Here is a good example in which I will give on what happens with these guy's sometimes, where as at the company I work for, they had a gathering of some sort at a building on site prior to the election. There were many vehicles at this building in which brought about curiosity on my part as I road by it that day. So I asked what it was that was going on at the buidling, and I asked this to one of my bosses, when next he said Oh they are over there meeting for the election or something. Well I thought immediately to myself when he said this " OH so they meet with each other like that, and only at a certain level eh, therefore leaving people like me and my co-workers out of such meetings, and somehow they think that they will win the election ? 

You are right, until they understand that they must be inclusive, instead of surrounding themselves with the clique/certain people, they will never again win in the general election for President. I really do believe this, and this is or was the reality of the situation I'm afraid on the ground, but even so I did vote on principles still, but that is all I voted on in which wasn't enough.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 2, 2012)

Heres the poop...........here is the typical black voter. Its not even debatable..........these folks have been brainwashed from birth that the GOP represents "whitey" and they'll put you in the poor house and hang you on a tree................

THATS the culture................. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]


Blacks checked out on the GOP forever long ago...........it over 50% of them were unemployed, they'd still vote for Obama!! Black poverty has INCREASED in the past 4 years..............it matters not to a vast majority of blacks.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 2, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Heres the poop...........here is the typical black voter. Its not even debatable..........these folks have been brainwashed from birth that the GOP represents "whitey" and they'll put you in the poor house and hang you on a tree................
> 
> THATS the culture................. Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube
> 
> ...


Watching the video, but the video that was more interesting to me was the one where they were questioning the Obama voters, and they didn't know anything about government much or government affairs, but they knew everything about Sarah Palin and her teenage daughter who was pregnant at the time. Amazing!

It just goes to show how effective hollywood and the media are when they have it in for anyone in this nation, and therefore they jointly want to dictate who we have in power for them and their personal goals involved, and it is not for the electorate at large in this nation to be represented anylonger if they have their way. In fact it apears that the media uses it's power to prey upon the uneducated, and to pursue the results in which they want, only to have used the uneducated to get what they want, and then dump them when they got what they wanted.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 2, 2012)

beagle9 said:


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



You speak for the President of the United States?


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 2, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...


You cut up my words or somebody did, and expect me to answer any questions based upon my words after being cut up ? Don't think so....Go back and bring forth all of my words spoken in context of in concerns to that which was written above, and then I might not have to answer your question, because it will have been answered for you in the original.

You see this is how people get confused, is when someone cuts up someones words, by trying to suggest something else by the words once being cut up like this or to put words into someones mouth by such a method as is used, but then it confuses someone who comes in late into a discussion, only to make them apear lost when they ask such a thing as this oopa doopa guy just asked.


----------



## Polk (Dec 8, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Blacks vote for blacks.
> 
> It's a fact of life.



That's why Michael Steele was a senator. And Lynn Swann was governor.


----------



## bayoubill (Dec 9, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Heres the poop...........here is the typical black voter. Its not even debatable..........these folks have been brainwashed from birth that the GOP represents "whitey" and they'll put you in the poor house and hang you on a tree................
> 
> THATS the culture................. Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube
> 
> ...



I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, regardless of skin tone or whatever...


but, jeez... every time I see sumpin' like this... (and I see it alot...)

I can't help but think to myself "goddamn dumbshit jigaboos..."


----------



## bayoubill (Dec 9, 2012)

Polk said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks vote for blacks.
> ...



Blacks vote for democrats... 90%+ every time... no matter who's got what skin color on the ballot...


sure, some of 'em may make informed decisions before they cast their ballot...

but for the majority, it's simply dumbshit jigaboos being herded to the polls...


----------



## sealadaigh (Dec 9, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Did some blacks vote for Obama only because he is black?  Sure.  Did some whites vote for McCain and then Romney because Obama is black?  Sure.  At the end of the day they probably cancel each other out.  Idiots balancing idiots.  Nothing new here.



also, i bet more white folk voted against obama because he was black than black folk voted for him because he was black.

me, i had to vote for him...those irish ears gave the game away. if he would have campaigned on that, he would have won by a landslide.


----------



## bayoubill (Dec 9, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Did some blacks vote for Obama only because he is black?  Sure.  Did some whites vote for McCain and then Romney because Obama is black?  Sure.  At the end of the day they probably cancel each other out.  Idiots balancing idiots.  Nothing new here.
> ...



good point... mebbe true...




reabhloideach said:


> me, i had to vote for him...those irish ears gave the game away. if he would have campaigned on that, he would have won by a landslide.



hmmm... am I the only one who's noticed that Obama's ears are nearly identical to GWB's ears...?


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 9, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Did some blacks vote for Obama only because he is black?  Sure.  Did some whites vote for McCain and then Romney because Obama is black?  Sure.  At the end of the day they probably cancel each other out.  Idiots balancing idiots.  Nothing new here.
> ...


Wrong, cuz Obama wouldnot be the President if it had went the way in which you say that it did or that it could have.. The blacks are still a minority in this nation, and so Obama was put into office by whites, blacks, latino's, and many more groups who got together and voted this guy in, but what is being discussed here is why people voted Obama into office, and was it the reason for the majority of blacks that he would represent them better because he was black also ?

Did they even look at his record of the last four years and begin to wonder about how effective he was for all of America, and would he be hamstrung again (held back) because of his radical views and changes in which he seems so intent on doing, but due to the checks and balances we have on power, he will be stopped from changing this nation in these radical way's, so where does that leave everybody now ? Another waisted four years, and us deeper in debt with no end in sight.


----------



## sealadaigh (Dec 9, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...



"more" does not mean "all". i did not suggest any reason why it went the way it did.

what i think is that you are a racist and that you are bitter because obama lost. he is our president. get over it.

it was the same with kennedy. a lot of catholics voted for him and a lot of non-catholics voted against him and ran a fear mongering campaign about our country being taken over by the pope in rome. 

obama was elected  by the american people and represents the american people and i would hope that, after a bitterly devisive campaign, the american people  can do what they have done in the past, come together, and support our country and our president instead of hoping for his failure so the republicans have a head start in 2016 and ellect marco rubio our first latino president.

i would expect the UFW would not endorse him.


----------



## sealadaigh (Dec 9, 2012)

bayoubill said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...



probably one of the very, very few.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 9, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


Why do you think of me as a racist or make this charge against me, when we all now know that something went on here, and we have all seen the rehtoric or the videos and the news that tells us that something went on here, so are you saying that the American people shouldn't look into these things, even though these things may come back to adversely affect them in many different ways, and may even show up in the form of reverse racism being promoted down the line if these things are not looked into ?


----------



## sealadaigh (Dec 9, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



oh come on. anybody who comments on the "obamaphone lady" without condemning it as a racist peace of political garbage in the most vigorous of manner and instead says "i'm watching it but what i found more interesting..." is a racist.

what went on? people went out and voted in what they believed to be their own self interest, as they always have. did obama's race play a part in it, of course it did.

i liked the man because he spoke irish..."is feidir linn" which, in american, means "si, se puede" i believe.

this country is the greatest country in the world for one reason...it embraces diversity and always has in her own way, not always perfectly but eventually always.

are there black bigots out there? are there stupid blacks, racist blacks, intoleraant blacks? sure there are. but that makes them no different from a lot of us.

ya know, i remember my son's first day of middle school. i go into the auditorium and painted on the wall opposite the entrance was this huge painting so it hit you right in the face was a portrait of the rev. dr. martin luther king jr. and all i could think was "oh no.i ain't ready for this fight".

so i struggled to my seat and sat down, looked up at the opposite wall, and damned if malcolm x was looking down on me and i knew right then and there i was going to be alright and was in good hamds.

just tone it down a little and you will be OK.


----------



## Polk (Dec 9, 2012)

Also, if you're going to cite the "Obamaphone lady", there are videos of Romney supporters ranting how they want a "real American" in the White House, not some illegal immigrant Muslim from Kenya.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 9, 2012)

Polk said:


> Also, if you're going to cite the "Obamaphone lady", there are videos of Romney supporters ranting how they want a "real American" in the White House, not some illegal immigrant Muslim from Kenya.


Yes all that is out there too, but we want our elections to be fair and honest always for the American people, and we want them to represent all in this nation as Americans, and we want our elections not being about certain colors/race or cultures to be looked after or represented in an unbalanced way by anyone that is elected to that office, but some think that it should be about these sorts of things these days instead. It really is amazing as to what is going on these days, and I hope that we can all get a grip somehow soon.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...



If you believe the part in *bold type, *why would you bother starting this thread instead of a thread questioning why whites, Latinos, and other groups voted for Obama, since blacks as a group don' have the voting numbers to swing the election?  Why, after his first four years, did groups that Republicans should have been able to count on not come through.  That is the issue.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 10, 2012)

Polk said:


> Also, if you're going to cite the "Obamaphone lady", there are videos of Romney supporters ranting how they want a "real American" in the White House, not some illegal immigrant Muslim from Kenya.



On one side you have the ignorant cell phone woman.  On the other side you have Donald Trump and his "issues".  Again, idiots balancing idiots.  The mentalities cancel each other out.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 10, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


Yes those are issues also, but hey one issue at a time right... I am just worried that people are voting skin color and not principles or on the important issues, but nice try on your part to deflect though, I mean where as you were trying to work some magic dust here.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 10, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if you're going to cite the "Obamaphone lady", there are videos of Romney supporters ranting how they want a "real American" in the White House, not some illegal immigrant Muslim from Kenya.
> ...


Good points..


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Well, your original "question" was asked and answered a long time ago, even though it really was NOT a question, so let's reflect.  Your original "question" was whether black people realized it was an insult to President Obama that black people voted for him only on the basis of color.  Let's dissect that "question".  

First....people would have to assume that all, or even most black people voted for President Obama because he is black.  It has been proven many times over in this thread that blacks tend to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter what race the candidate is, since 1964.  It has also been suggested that a fair number of whites voted for Senator McCain and for Governor Romney simply because President Obama is black.  Same mentality.  So should Senator McCain or Governor Romney be embarrassed to receive those votes?

Second, you assume that President Obama is or was insulted.  Unproven and unprovable.

So, the answer to your "question" is hypothetical at best, but certainly moot.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Thank you, sir.


----------



## RightNorLeft (Dec 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> 
> Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.
> 
> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?




  I would think that just by Obama being elected twice shows that we have made great progress getting past skin color.
  If no whites voted for obama he loses both elections. Over 30% of whites voted for obama the second time...the first time it was much higher...how many white votes would he have gotten years prior...I dont think its as bad as your making it out to be myself


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 11, 2012)

yada said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...


Yes, yes, yes, we got that, but why did blacks vote for him in such large numbers, and the other groups in marginal numbers that balanced each other out ? It is that many may wonder still, if they did it because of him being black, and what does this blackness mean to them, along with his intelect and attributes combined ? Does him being black still play a role for the blacks in their thinking or maybe for the ones whom think this way maybe ? I just want everyone to become Americans is my quest for this nation finally, and I think many want the same things also for the nation...

*A good man can become one of the greatest Presidents of all, and at anytime within the history of this great nation, if he would just serve his country, and not that of a man for whom wishes that he would only serve him. (beagle9 2012)* Think about it..


----------



## Aristotle (Dec 11, 2012)

This thread answers this silly thread....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...ident-based-on-race-constitute-as-racism.html


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 11, 2012)

Aristotle said:


> This thread answers this silly thread....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...sed-on-race-constitute-as-racism[/COLOR].html



All depends on the person voting, why they voted (the reasons), and what part does the person's race play in the whole process according to them. Then you just take the numbers and multiply them once these findings are confirmed, in order to get an understanding as to what goes on, could have went on or might be going on in elections like this.

If people have long standing gripes they need understood or worked on, then it best they get them out in the open to all who are true Americans (color blind), in order to get help on, while at the same time they can help others also, in order to help them understand more about these sorts of things.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 11, 2012)

Its quite plain that a huge majority of blacks are raised in a culture that teaches that whites exist to keep blacks down. Of course they are ALWAYS going to go 95% for the black candidate. These same people think racism is only about white racism.


----------



## auditor0007 (Dec 12, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Blacks vote for blacks.
> 
> It's a fact of life.



You couldn't be more wrong.  Blacks vote for Democrats.  Run Alan Keyes against Hillary in 2016, and Hillary would take over 90% of the Black vote, guaranteed.


----------



## auditor0007 (Dec 12, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Obama's only qualification for president in 2008 was his skin color.



His skin color is what convinced so many whites to vote for him in 2008?  Sorry, but I'm not buying that.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 12, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> yada said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



My God, this has been asked and answered a multitude of times.*(See posts 68 & 82 in this thread)* *Because he was the Democratic nominee.  Black voters have voted for Democratic presidential candidates in numbers exceeding 80% since 1964. If Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee in 2008,more than 80% of black voters would have voted for her.  If Dennis Kusinich (sp?) had been the nominee in 2008, he would have received more than 80% of the black vote.  The history on this is crystal clear for those who choose to see it.*


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 12, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's only qualification for president in 2008 was his skin color.
> ...



Sunni Ma's pov would only be true if black voters held the all important swing vote in national elections.  Last I looked that wasn't even close to being true.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 12, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks vote for blacks.
> ...



^^^^^^^This guy gets it ^^^^^


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 12, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks vote for blacks.
> ...


Can't remember now, but what stands out against Alan Keyes for you ? I have heard him speak, and I remember liking him, but I may have missed something...Thanks


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 12, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Hmmmm, are we getting away from exactly what percentage of blacks voted for Obama (97%?), and this as to why they did in 08, and possibly again in 2012? Yes there are many other factors involved in an election of course, but did the blacks as a group vote skin color mostly, and was this wise is what people are wondering about in regards to that group of Americans ? Could be, and yes it could also be that they feel he is the ultimate canidate for them, because he is "black" (understanding of their struggles) and a democrat president (who could be instrumental in fixing alot of their struggles or issues), so this is the way that they saw it all I think. This put's alot of pressure on a candiate that has been chosen in such numbers like this by one group to represent them, but he must represent all in the nation fairly and while being color blind at the same time, or it will be a tough thing to get the right canidate again for certain issues to be handled or delt with in the future, especially if other important nationwide issues are ignored in an unbalanced way. This is the balancing act that one has to deal with as the President for all in the nation (regardless of color or gender), where as while on the tight wire, one must look at all the angles all of the time or the fall will come next.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Dec 12, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Blacks vote for blacks.
> 
> It's a fact of life.



They didn't vote for Jesse Jackson or Herman Cain or Al Sharpton.


----------



## Polk (Dec 12, 2012)

I don't recall who it was, but I remember that someone said reelecting Obama said more about racial progress in America than electing him in the first place. The reasoning was that it's a lot easier to elect someone who is a blank canvass you can paint your hopes and dreams on to any extent, than to vote for someone who has drawn lines in the sand.


----------



## Polk (Dec 12, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks vote for blacks.
> ...



Absolutely. As I said before, if racial loyalty was all important, why is Lynn Swann not governor of Pennsylvania?


----------



## Desperado (Dec 12, 2012)

Obama didn't care one bit why they voted for him as long as they voted for him.


----------



## Polk (Dec 12, 2012)

Desperado said:


> Obama didn't care one bit why they voted for him as long as they voted for him.



Which is true of any politician.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 13, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks vote for blacks.
> ...


They would have still done so maybe, but was it that they thought that these cats would fall short so why push such canidates whom would fall short to begin with ? Like people say, and also the blacks say themselves (we all are smarter than that). It may be that they knew that these possibilities wouldn't fulfill their expectations in what could get done for them or maybe they knew that they would be to radical of a choice to attempt to push such choices in and against the tide that was coming and going in America, otherwise only to be let down by these choices in the end. People have to be certain when they do something, and undoubtedly they weren't certain about these figure heads making it for them, so they let them be until maybe another day or maybe not.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 13, 2012)

Polk said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Was it that he wasn't racially loyal enough is why maybe ? What did they expect of Lynn Swan when he ran ? If 97% of blacks would have voted for Lynn Swan in Pensylvania, would he have won ?


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 13, 2012)

Polk said:


> I don't recall who it was, but I remember that someone said reelecting Obama said more about racial progress in America than electing him in the first place. The reasoning was that it's a lot easier to elect someone who is a blank canvass you can paint your hopes and dreams on to any extent, than to vote for someone who has drawn lines in the sand.


It's up to Obama now, and so the nation is watching him closely from all the angles. I truly hope he does the right thing finally, and works for everyone in America from here on out.

Trash the worldly agenda's, and become a real leader and loyal American for all who haved earned it and do deserve it, but also remain compassionate, and yet righteous onto the poor in their plight as well. There is a balance and it can be kept in all. God Bless America!


----------



## Polk (Dec 13, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



I'd have to look at the breakdown of the Pennsylvania electorate, but I'm imagine baseline Republican support plus the black vote is probably a majority.


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 13, 2012)

Obama won both elections because he was the better candidate.

John McCain was a joke, although a more nobler joke.

Mitt Romney was an even bigger joke, with no core whatsoever.

Black folks were and remain ecstatic to finally have a black candidate that actually could and did win the Presidency.

We tend to vote Democratic, I believe Amy already posted that we vote Democratic about 90% with no black candidates to choose from.

Do you think Herman Cain would have gotten our vote? Let me help you. The answer is a resounding *Nein! Nein! Nein!*


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 14, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Probably not any more likely than President Obama winning because 97% of black voters voted for him.  President Obama won because 36% of white others  agreed that he was a better choice than Mitt Romney.....as did a vast majority of Hispanic voters.....et cetera.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 14, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


Does this yet answer the question maybe upon how blacks themselves voted in such a majority for Obama, and why they did this ? Better yet, how many do you think voted skin color in percentage of in which are found among the blacks, and did they do this because they feel there is an un-ending loyalty among all blacks ? So it was for them that he must be elected upon his running, and this in hopes of by giving him their vote in a majority, and also this being based upon his skin color as being a major important part of that for them, where as his attributes and characteristics would come hopefully along with the deal as icing on the cake ?


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 14, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Obama won both elections because he was the better candidate.
> 
> John McCain was a joke, although a more nobler joke.
> 
> ...


What happened with Herman Cain for you all ? The woman troubles, his policies, his attitude, his being republican or what ?


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 15, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



The answer was, is, and will continue to be.....Barack Obama was the Democratic candidate in 2008, meaning he had an 88% lock on the black vote just for being a Democrat.  Any of the other Dems in the primary would have gotten 88% unless they did or said something STUPID (examples...Jeep is moving to China, 47% of voters are dependent).

What is gained by getting into the heads or motivations of a large group of voters, especially considering that they don't all think as a pack?  Still looking for the value to be gained from your original question.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 15, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Obama won both elections because he was the better candidate.
> ...



For me (I cannot and will not speak for all black voters because we do think differently, despite the assumption made in your original post) those things did not help him at all, but I had already placed him in the "ain't votin' for" pile after the first couple of debates.  He just was not that strong on follow up questions and quickly became a gaffe machine.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 15, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> ...



You cannot know that many "african americans" then.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 15, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Your OP is flawed.



Proof?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 15, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



For you and other blacks this may be true.  But for many, many others, they voted for Barry S. strictly because he was black.  There are hundreds of interviews that say other than your contention.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 15, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...



No, honesty is not a cherished character trait.  People would rather vote for whomsoever promises them the most "stuff".


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 15, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



And a number of white voters voted for Gov. McCain and later Gov. Romney because Barack Obama is black.  Which makes more sense?  Neither.  Thankfully they probably cancel each other out.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 15, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


It seems that in a new dependency state. they most defintely do, and many states are becoming dependent more and more and more on government to take care of them...


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 16, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...



No doubt.  But two wrongs don't make it right.  A lot of people voted for McCain and Romney because obama's politics and ideology are just wrong, criminal and evil.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 16, 2012)

martinjlm said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > martinjlm said:
> ...


They voted for MCcain and later Romney because Barack Obama was black ? There are those kinds out there for sure, but in what percentages did they amount to in those elections ? Remember now these two guy's lost...

I don't think that these types of voters in which you speak about, really make any kind of a difference in an election, and if they did we would be backing up instead of going foward. However if the blacks in a large percentage of, are going down these same roads (voting skin color), then a problem will continue in this nation, because like another poster here just said "Two wrongs don't make a right".

When will we all just become Americans, and protect the American way of life and strength in this nation or is it that their are many who are still trying to define themselves and for whom they still are in America, and so they associate themselves with groups or a group whom they feel represent their interest best ?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 16, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Yeah, that was me with the "two wrongs" comment.
You also have a point about the numbers of whites voting against the black guy vs. the number of blacks voting for him.  I personally did not hear one white person of my acquaintance say they were voting against obama because he was black.  Many blacks I know, even people who should have known better, did declare their intention to vote for him specifically because they thought having a black president was "cool".  Many obama voters don't even know what his ideology or policies are.


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 16, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



And a LOT of people (36% of white voters, a large majority of hispanic voters, an overwhelming number of voters in large city centers) voted FOR President Obama either because they thought his policies were appropriate or at least better than those proposed by Sen. McCain in 2008 or Gov. Romney in 2012.  Let's face it, there are a lot of good reasons why people voted for either candidate and a lot of effed-up reasons why people voted for either candidate.  To assume that all people of a particular group voted the way they did for one singular reason is very short-sighted and does nothing to further resolution of the election results.  May as well ask why everyone chews their food forty times before they swallow.  First of all, you cannot prove that this is the case......second of all.....what friggin' difference does it make?

(just noticed I incorrectly referred to McCain as "Gov." instead of "Sen." in my last post).


----------



## martinjlm (Dec 16, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



With regard to the bold print...I have no more idea of how many white voters voted for McCain or Romney because Obama is black.  And YOU have NO IDEA how many black voters voted for Obama because he is black.  This is what makes your original post flawed.  You ASSUME that this is the single reason black voters voted for Pres. Obama, even in the face of 40+ years of data showing that black voters vote overwhelmingly in favor of white Democratic candidates.  The more important question (for Republican planners) should be..."Why is that and what can we do to counteract it?"


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 17, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> to say that he was or should be elected by them, on the basis of his skin color, and that of it being an historic moment/event if he was elected based upon his skin color (i.e. becoming the first Black President in the USA)?
> 
> Think about this for a moment.... Barack saw himself winning that first election personally I'm thinking, as to be based upon his education and that of him being an American, and it never being based upon his skin color or should have been to the American voter reagrdless of his skin color, otherwise to be based upon him being a black man in life in order that he should get the job. He accepted this blackman thing in which was placed upon him, but what does it make him think really of the people who saw it all in this way, and voted for him in this way ? Does he see them as being smart or that of being naieve and ignorant in life in America, because a President should always be hired based upon his education and record in life, in which qualifies him or her for the job, and never should it be based upon the color of ones skin in life.
> 
> Somehow this nation must get beyond this skin color thing in life, because as Martin Luther King once said, it is and never should be about color in America as we are all going into the future, but instead about character, so why did the people run around yelling to the roof tops about color in that 1st election, and what did color mean to them if the election in their mind was won on the premise of color and not that of character, and this I mean if it is found to be lacking there of once a person is looked at for their character found within their job, and not looked at because of their skin color ?



blah...blah...blah...
He is not an American in the sense that most of us view ourselves as Americans.  He is HALF BLACK but denies half of his genetic heritage.  Why would he do that?  Maybe because being 'black' garners more votes?  The people voting for him are as interested in his education as you are interested in the truth.  The man is a charlatan.  He's black, that's why his one-world puppet masters put him into the position he currently occupies.  If her were truly AMERICAN, he would never have been allowed to advance as far as he has.


----------

