• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

CS.com Primary!

Who would you like to win the 2012 presidential election?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 26 44.8%
  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 19 32.8%
  • Newt Gingrich

    Votes: 3 5.2%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • Rick Santorum

    Votes: 5 8.6%

  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .
Unfortunately, the GOP is handing Obama a second term on a silver platter. It's a big circus full of clowns. Obama probably should lose this election, but the GOP is screwing it so royally he's most likely going to win. I don't necessarily think Obama will be good for the country, but I'm confident any of the GOP hopefuls would be bad for the country.

That has been pretty much par for the course with the republicans. Seems that every informal poll I have seen shows Ron Paul leading with a substantial margin, yet he is completely ignored by the media and shunned by his own party. Which shows pretty plainly that the republican party is completely unconcerned about what the PEOPLE want and are only interested in their own internal PARTY politics and favor trading. Personally I believe it is just time to end party driven politics and have the people we vote for INDEPENDENT of these destructive internal influencing mechanisms that set the representatives that WE vote into office at odds with what we, as constituents, want from those representatives.
 
I wasn't talking about that, Rich, and you know it. I have not mentioned people's motivations for voting for Obama at all. I was talking about the fact that there is already white support groups that are the defacto power in the US. Well, and in Canada, for that matter.

And what prejudice are you talking about, Rich? You mean the one against institutionalized racism? Well, yes, and I won't apologize for being prejudiced against racists.

Carinata, the other 11 months are White history months. What exactly do blacks get that white's don't?
 
It doesn't take balls to post ignorance, Carinata.

The fact of the matter is, there is a black Miss America and a black caucus because there needs to be. If there wasn't then there would be even more of an imbalance, even more of a stacked deck against black people. The white support group that you are seeking IS the US Government, IS the power structure, IS the system that you want blacks to submit to.

As far as the question of Obama's birth, why was it a question? People accused him of being not-American, but why? What was it about him that raised the question? And even now, years after his long form birth certificate was released, there is still a desperate campaign to prove that he is Kenyan, not American. The birth certificate should have ended it, but he doesn't look like the other Presidents. He's not white enough to be president. So people insist he is not American.

Sorry, I was laughing too hard and didn't address the rest of your statements.

"Submit to"? So expecting a group of people to act in a manner consistent with fairness and equality, as they are CLAIMING they want, is in your opinion requesting that the "submit to" something repugnant? Seriously? So how is that "ignorant" of reality? How can ANY group of people say, "Hey, we don't want to be forced to sit at the back of the bus, we want YOU to sit there instead!" any better than the "problem" this is trying to address? Equality and fairness is whoever gets to the seats first, get to sit there. To do it in any other fashion is discriminatory and a blatant example of segregation. So tell me, can a white person enter a Black Miss America Pageant? When I was running SerpenCo, could I have had it listed in the Black Business Directory in my area?

Do you even KNOW what the word "ignorance" means? I certainly see no evidence that you do from your own postings..... At the very least you are completely ignorant of the definition of the terms "discrimination", "segregation", "equality", and "fairness". Aw hell, let's add "ignorance" to that list as well, since you apparently do not know what they term really means. :laugh:

"Needs to be"............ that's precious.......... :laugh:
 
I wasn't talking about that, Rich, and you know it. I have not mentioned people's motivations for voting for Obama at all. I was talking about the fact that there is already white support groups that are the defacto power in the US. Well, and in Canada, for that matter.

And what prejudice are you talking about, Rich? You mean the one against institutionalized racism? Well, yes, and I won't apologize for being prejudiced against racists.

Carinata, the other 11 months are White history months. What exactly do blacks get that white's don't?

Well then, are you prejudiced against people who voted FOR Obama simply because he was black? Or is that some sort of different type of racism that you are making up as you go along?
 
Carinata, the other 11 months are White history months. What exactly do blacks get that white's don't?

So you are claiming that the other 11 months are reserved SOLELY for white historical events and all black events are thereby excluded?

You seriously believe that? Now who is speaking out of ignorance?
 
The problem that you are 'ignorant' of, Rich, is that if minorities just stopped asking for changes, then society wouldn't magically become enlightened and equal.

Are you claiming that there is no systemic racism against non-whites in the United States?

The wildly lopsided amount of black men in prison is what? A fabrication?
 
That has been pretty much par for the course with the republicans. Seems that every informal poll I have seen shows Ron Paul leading with a substantial margin, yet he is completely ignored by the media and shunned by his own party. Which shows pretty plainly that the republican party is completely unconcerned about what the PEOPLE want and are only interested in their own internal PARTY politics and favor trading. Personally I believe it is just time to end party driven politics and have the people we vote for INDEPENDENT of these destructive internal influencing mechanisms that set the representatives that WE vote into office at odds with what we, as constituents, want from those representatives.

I think the biggest problem with Paul is his foreign policy. The GOP of late is constantly wanting to beat the drums of war. Paul's noninterventionist policies just don't resonate. I think outside his diehard supporters, he's just not finding much support.

I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but I do respect him for sticking to them and not blowing like a wind sock with the political winds (ahem Romney ahem).
 
1ell we also have Asian and Hispanic months, aswell as muti-cultural months, so it's only 8 months that us White people are celebrating our culture and holding the minorities down!
 
Wow... I think 100 yrs of slavery has earned them black history month. As far as the other orginizations. I don't agree with them. I live in a state where whites are part of the minority.

This shouldnt be about race anyways, It should be about Obama and his lack of leadership skills, the way he is pushing america into a socialist goverment and how our constitutional rights are being taken away from us slowly. He is truly ignorant of American and her history. He has step on the graves of those that have fight and died for the freedoms of this country and trashed them. He believes our troops are there for his own game of RISK.

Fighting amoungst ourselves over the race card is crazy. We need to unite that is the only way of taking back our country! PERIOD! The way it is suppose to be.

JMHO
 
I also must add when fighting for this country, none of the brothers and sisters in arms sees the others race. They see their buddy would fights with them and besides them come hell or high water! Just saying!
 
I also must add when fighting for this country, none of the brothers and sisters in arms sees the others race. They see their buddy would fights with them and besides them come hell or high water! Just saying!

This is demonstrably false. Blacks have historically been segregated in the US military and it wasn't until after WW2 that this ended. Also, blacks were disproportionately the recipients of the 'blue discharge', a non-honorable discharge that was used by officers to punish black soldiers.

As far as constitutional rights being taken away, which ones has Obama taken away? I'm not looking for vague handwringing, but a specific example of the constitution being violated by Obama. I'm not saying they don't exist, they might, but people keep saying he's violating the constitution without giving any examples.
 
Oh I forgot, we're still enslaving them right? And I guess all those slaves and slave owners from the civil war are still around aswell?
 
This is demonstrably false. Blacks have historically been segregated in the US military and it wasn't until after WW2 that this ended. Also, blacks were disproportionately the recipients of the 'blue discharge', a non-honorable discharge that was used by officers to punish black soldiers.

As far as constitutional rights being taken away, which ones has Obama taken away? I'm not looking for vague handwringing, but a specific example of the constitution being violated by Obama. I'm not saying they don't exist, they might, but people keep saying he's violating the constitution without giving any examples.


. I am talking about in todays military! I wasn't talking about the past. I am FULLY aware of how they were segregated int he military until after WW2.

But if you were to talk to individual soldiers from WW2 say like the Tuskeegee airmen and the white bomber pilots they guarded. They would both say that they didnt care about the color of the others skin during their missions. And in all reality it was White bomber pilots that would askf or the Tuskeegee airmen to lead them into battle. ( I have met both in person)

Here are some examples for you~!

Obama care violates the constititution

http://landry.house.gov/press-release/obama-violates-constitution-landry-fights-back

http://phelps.donotremove.net/2012/01/obama-violates-constitution/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boehner-obama-contraception-mandate-violates-our-constitution
 
This is demonstrably false. Blacks have historically been segregated in the US military and it wasn't until after WW2 that this ended. Also, blacks were disproportionately the recipients of the 'blue discharge', a non-honorable discharge that was used by officers to punish black soldiers.

So demonstrate it please, with facts and cites...

As far as constitutional rights being taken away, which ones has Obama taken away? I'm not looking for vague handwringing, but a specific example of the constitution being violated by Obama. I'm not saying they don't exist, they might, but people keep saying he's violating the constitution without giving any examples.

Sure, here you go...

On January 4th of this year, President Obama named Richard Cordray to head up his new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and three other individuals to vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board, without U.S. Senate confirmation, and without the Senate being in recess, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. According to numerous news outlets and sources within the White House, the President declared that he, and not the United States Senate would decide when the Senate was, in fact, in recess.

HHS mandate requiring Catholic and other religious organizations to pay for contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs for their employees shows no sign of abating. This is notwithstanding the Obama administration's "accommodation," announced last Friday, that will permit insurance companies to pass the cost of contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs along to Catholic and other religious employers - as long as they do so surreptitiously, of course.

During the 2009 bailouts of U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, the President ran roughshod over contract and even bankruptcy law, subordinating the prior contract rights of senior bondholders to unionized employees, in a political payback for the millions of dollars unions had contributed to Obama's presidential campaign. (To make matters worse, and in what we now know is his typical fashion, Obama castigated those attempting to assert their legal rights as "profiteers.")

And then there is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself. Critics raise at least two primary objections. The first is that nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the power to compel American citizens to engage in any commercial transaction, such as buying insurance. Second – and more insidiously – we argue that the Act by its very structure creates incentives and methods for impermissible overreach into what must be the most sacrosanct, private decisions in people’s lives; those which must be free from government coercion.

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846961/posts
 
Really? What other president have we had that there was any QUESTION about his true nationality? Regardless of color. Do you honestly believe that had there been any question at all concerning George W. Bush being a bonafide native born American citizen that the liberal media wouldn't have ripped into that like a buzz saw? :laugh:
There is no question about his nationality, plain and simple! I will not debate, argue or pretend to entertain any other notion (nor would it matter).

It's not a question of blacks "acting like white people" at all. It's about blacks saying that they do not want to be treated differently from white people, yet doing the exact opposite. When they claim that they don't want to be "segregated", but instead "integrated" into American society, how can this be true with the evidence we are presented by their very own actions?
That does seem like incredible insight to have the ability to speak for an entire race, that you've been conditioned to categorize as "blacks" and "whites".

Why is a "Black Miss America" pageant OK, but if there was a "White Miss America" pageant there would be claims of racism? I have seen publications entitled something like "The Black Business Directory", which implies what exactly? But if someone were to publish a "White Business Directory", that would be decried as "discriminatory" and "racist". There is a congressional Black Caucus, but why no White Caucus? Hell in my younger days I was told by a job recruiter that if I were "black and female" he would have no problem finding me a job. What exactly does "discrimination" mean?
Again, I'm a hamster on a wheel trying to respond to this, but for the sake of someone actually looking to be understanding, I'll try to explain...

It's implied that "Miss America" is going to go to a woman who is white. And I agree with you, the label of "Black Miss America" is absolutely a result of racism. There should be no asterisk like "black, white, Asian, Hispanic", etc... which are intended to demean rather than appreciate. All people are beautiful, but unfortunately for 99.9% of women, they don't have the envied European features that 'most' men value in this prejudice society (in all forms).


So my point, which some seem to be studiously ignoring, is that if blacks really want "integration" and to end "discrimination", then they have to stop engaging in the very same activities that they find so abhorrent when directed at them. Seriously, if there is a better example of trying to make two "wrongs" equal a "right" I sure can't think of it.
Actually...

"Why is voting FOR Obama because he is black, not racist, and people voting AGAINST him because he is black, IS racist?"

This would be up there for "making a right out of two wrongs", in my observant opinion.
 
Oh I forgot, we're still enslaving them right? And I guess all those slaves and slave owners from the civil war are still around aswell?

and if you are talking to me?

I think one month of Black history doesn't even begin to compare to 100 yrs of slavery.

As for the other groups, no I do not agree to Miss Black America or other orginizations that are ethinic based. La Raza is another example.

But you do have to look back and history and thing about things. We did have white orginizations Free Masons was only whites for a long time. Don't think you find too many Free Masons who are colored. Just saying.

Again this whole election shouldn't be based on race. We have already been there done that and look where it got us. It a whole heap of troubles. Obama wasn't elected because of his grand political gains but merely on the color of his skin. I didn't vote for him, but if a Black man like Colin Powell had ran for president I would of voted for him.


I got back to believe that our presidents should have to have served in the military for atleast 4 yrs before being qualified to run the country.
 
The problem that you are 'ignorant' of, Rich, is that if minorities just stopped asking for changes, then society wouldn't magically become enlightened and equal.

And that is relevant to what I am asking in what way? So you are claiming that blacks acting in a racist manner is an appropriate method of "asking for changes"? Hmm, is that anything akin to employees stealing from their employers being a method of "asking for change" in their paychecks? If the perceived "need" is there, then it is acceptable to you?

Are you claiming that there is no systemic racism against non-whites in the United States?

Nope. Not saying any such thing. People will dislike other people for all kinds of reasons. I've heard there are even people out there that dislike and/or belittle Polacks. Go figure.. So are you saying that another racist wrong will make racism in general right? That racism can have qualifiers that thereby make racist activities OK as long as they are directed at certain other races based on some percieved "need" by the perpetrators?

You keep on ignoring this question, so why not give it your best shot at answering it:

Why is voting FOR Obama because he is black, not racist, and people voting AGAINST him because he is black, IS racist?

The wildly lopsided amount of black men in prison is what? A fabrication?

No. It is evidence that more blacks are engaging in criminal activity proportional to the percentage of population they hold compared to other races. So yeah, when the cops catch them, then that MUST be racism at work, eh? And then so all of the juries and judges along the way MUST be racist as well? ALL of law enforcement and the legal system in general MUST be racist based on your claim? Or are you now claiming that blacks commit crimes because they are in this manner "asking for change" or they otherwise "need to" and that makes it OK?

I would use the laughing smiley again, but I think I'm wearing it out in this thread..
 
. I am talking about in todays military! I wasn't talking about the past. I am FULLY aware of how they were segregated int he military until after WW2.

But if you were to talk to individual soldiers from WW2 say like the Tuskeegee airmen and the white bomber pilots they guarded. They would both say that they didnt care about the color of the others skin during their missions. And in all reality it was White bomber pilots that would askf or the Tuskeegee airmen to lead them into battle. ( I have met both in person)

Here are some examples for you~!

Obama care violates the constititution

http://landry.house.gov/press-release/obama-violates-constitution-landry-fights-back

http://phelps.donotremove.net/2012/01/obama-violates-constitution/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boehner-obama-contraception-mandate-violates-our-constitution

Ah, here we go.

Those first two examples are spin. Even though the second link claims that January 4, 2012, the senate was in session, it wasn't:

http://hobnobblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012_CongressionalCalendar_WEB.pdf

The president is free to make appointments when the senate is not in session. If you don't agree with his appointments, fine, but it wasn't unconstitutional.

The third link is wonderful timing because I have been following this all day.

This mandate is for insurance companies to provide contraception coverage, much of which is prescribed by doctors for health reasons, and not for the purpose of contraception. The Catholic church is angry because then their employees (Many of whom are not Catholic) will have access to insurance that provides contraception, paid for by their employer, a Catholic organization.

The fact of the matter is, no church is required to provide contraception coverage, only insurance companies. The Bishops who the Republicans brought to testify at the hearing have been pretty clear that their goal is for no contraception coverage for anybody, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Ultimately, the Catholic church is angry that the government is impeding the church's ability to oppress. This is absolutely about religious freedom and it's the church that's trying to restrict it.
 
I got back to believe that our presidents should have to have served in the military for atleast 4 yrs before being qualified to run the country.
Not trying to say anything specifically about your beliefs, but politically speaking, I think it's funny this is a pretty classic statement. It's symbolically conservative... which is typically republican... that is mostly religious... and it absolutely contradicts the message of Jesus' in the bible.

In light of the amazing human being Martin Luther King jr, who was as honorable of a leader that's ever lived, I believe that non-violence is the only thing that our leaders should preach.
 
Back
Top