He talks about his race when it is convenient (like amongst Blacks at Black churches) but when's the last time he said anything newsworthy about current issues that are facing Blacks.
You don't know when to quit, do you?
The war and the economy and crime, issues that I sure remember Obama speaking on when I saw him speak last year, definitely are black issues, as they are issues for anyone.
You are the one placing expectations on Obama to be "more black" according to your notions of what "more black" means. And that, sir, is your problem...not Obama's.
First of all, if you opened a newspaper, watched the news, or looked at a political magazine, you wouldn't be as shocked by my opinions, because they have been expressed over and over again by others.
Also, maybe educating yourself isn't such a bad idea since your views about Ron Paul clearly have come from sound bites. If they haven't, I'd love to hear you reconcile your position as the cue the "that's racist" guy with the support of the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Please do. I'd rather hear your personal reasons though.
You feel like the more times his name appears in print, the more credible he'll seem?
--Thinks that environmental problems are linked to "property rights" --Thinks the country will improve with abolishment of income tax --Wants to remove federal subsidies for public schools --advocated withdrawing membership in UN
these are all products of a limited intelligence and recipes for disaster.
Ron Paul supporters have an incredible ability to stfu when its comes to discussing issues beyond "less government yo!" If you really think corporations should be in charge of the environment and the federal government should have no say in schools, man the fuck up and say it.
Look, we've basically got 3 choices here...
1. Vote for someone revolutionary like Ron Paul (or who else?) who can help lead us to completely overhauling what for centuries has been one big violent corporate scam of a "government".
2. Keep voting for the status quo and leave it to a violent civil war to bring change about. And yes, that war has already started. Problem is, it's pretty much the status quo as the only side fighting it...leaving us commonfolk to either die, live like slaves, or rot in prison.
3. Keep voting for the status quo and soon we will be invaded by the rest of the world that "our" government has thoroughly fucked over.
In other words, everyone here who votes for the status quo in this coming election is putting it down on the historical record forever...THAT I TOO AM PART OF THE VERY PROBLEMS THAT ONLY ON THE MOST SHEEN OF SURFACES I PRETEND TO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT!!!
Please do. I'd rather hear your personal reasons though.
You feel like the more times his name appears in print, the more credible he'll seem?
--Thinks that environmental problems are linked to "property rights" --Thinks the country will improve with abolishment of income tax --Wants to remove federal subsidies for public schools --advocated withdrawing membership in UN
these are all products of a limited intelligence and recipes for disaster.
Ron Paul supporters have an incredible ability to stfu when its comes to discussing issues beyond "less government yo!" If you really think corporations should be in charge of the environment and the federal government should have no say in schools, man the fuck up and say it.
Look, we've basically got 3 choices here...
1. Vote for someone revolutionary like Ron Paul (or who else?) who can help lead us to completely overhauling what for centuries has been one big violent corporate scam of a "government".
2. Keep voting for the status quo and leave it to a violent civil war to bring change about. And yes, that war has already started. Problem is, it's pretty much the status quo as the only side fighting it...leaving us commonfolk to either die, live like slaves, or rot in prison.
3. Keep voting for the status quo and soon we will be invaded by the rest of the world that "our" government has thoroughly fucked over.
In other words, everyone here who votes for the status quo in this coming election is putting it down on the historical record forever...THAT I TOO AM PART OF THE VERY PROBLEMS THAT ONLY ON THE MOST SHEEN OF SURFACES I PRETEND TO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT!!!
the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
Why should Blacks have special rights? Don't you understand that is racist? Ron Paul believes everyone has the same rights as an individual whether you are black/white or hetero/homo etc.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
He talks about his race when it is convenient (like amongst Blacks at Black churches) but when's the last time he said anything newsworthy about current issues that are facing Blacks.
You don't know when to quit, do you?
The war and the economy and crime, issues that I sure remember Obama speaking on when I saw him speak last year, definitely are black issues, as they are issues for anyone.
You are the one placing expectations on Obama to be "more black" according to your notions of what "more black" means. And that, sir, is your problem...not Obama's.
First of all, if you opened a newspaper, watched the news, or looked at a political magazine, you wouldn't be as shocked by my opinions, because they have been expressed over and over again by others.
Also, maybe educating yourself isn't such a bad idea since your views about Ron Paul clearly have come from sound bites. If they haven't, I'd love to hear you reconcile your position as the cue the "that's racist" guy with the support of the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
We live in different worlds. You obviously think your world is superior to mine. Good for your ego...but nothing else.
If you want to believe that Ron Paul thinks that American blacks never should have been granted the right to vote...no one can stop you. So again, good for your ego...but nothing else.
the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
Why should Blacks have special rights? Don't you understand that is racist? Ron Paul believes everyone has the same rights as an individual whether you are black/white or hetero/homo etc.
Again with the conversative "equal rights = special rights" bullshit? I thought that died in the 90s.
The government feels the need to articulate that certain minority groups have equal rights as the majority from time to time because in practice those rights are denied certain minority groups time and time again.
In a Ron Paul world, would it still be illegal for someone to deny housing, employment, or other services (basic or otherwise) for reasons of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc? Think carefully because I'm not so sure. That's the logical extension of complete reduction of federal protections: a return to the "free" good old days of racism circa 1950s USA.
People don't like Hillary for superficial reasons.
that said, I ride for Edwards.
and archaic, what does this mean:
The war and the economy and crime, issues that I sure remember Obama speaking on when I saw him speak last year, definitely are black issues, as they are issues for anyone.
if these are "issues for anyone" then they clearly aren't "black issues" as that concept is being applied here (i.e. issues specific to the black community and distinct from issues that are important to non-blacks as well).
I think we are all aware that anybody who thinks our income tax goes to a secret society of Europeans isn't exactly right in the head. You can't argue with the mentally disturbed.
I think we are all aware that anybody who thinks our income tax goes to a secret society of Europeans isn't exactly right in the head. You can't argue with the mentally disturbed.
We live in different worlds. You obviously think your world is superior to mine. Good for your ego...but nothing else.
If you want to believe that Ron Paul thinks that American blacks never should have been granted the right to vote...no one can stop you. So again, good for your ego...but nothing else.
in my world, i'm talking about the candidates and their positions. you don't care to know anything in your world, so your talking about your own idiotic views of the world ending in a ron paul-less society, despite the fact that you still don't know the first thing about ron paul.
the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
Why should Blacks have special rights? Don't you understand that is racist? Ron Paul believes everyone has the same rights as an individual whether you are black/white or hetero/homo etc.
Well one reason is segregation which was alive and well in America until the 1970s and still has lasting effects in things such as red lining where banks deny home loans to blacks and other groups that try to move out of predominately black and minority areas to white ones.
Here's a quick history of Oakland. There are three parts of the city, west, north and east.
When blacks first moved to the city in the early 1900s they were segregated to west Oakland where their jobs were with the railroad. In the 1940s during WWII when the black population shot up tremendously they were allowed to move into the western part of north Oakland, the eastern part still being segregated for whites only. Blacks were not allowed to move into the east until the 1960s and even then they were first allowed to move into the flatlands which was the poorest part. They weren't able to move into the middle and upper class parts in the hills until the 1970s and 80s.
After WWII blacks were also the first fired from the war industries. The city also began to go through tremendous demographic and economic changes that left blacks behind. First the white middle and working class began leaving the city for brand new homes in the suburbs that were segregated for whites only. Second most of the city's businesses began moving to the suburbs as well leaving a dirth of jobs for Oakland's remaining residents. The city and state also built three freeways and a subway system through west Oakland. Black home owners were forced to sell their houses at reduced prices. Because of segregation, many were also not able to buy new houses and became renters instead. The subway rail went right down the main business street of west Oakland as well closing down black owned businesses during construction for months, many of which did not re-open afterwards.
With the loss of businesses and the middle class the city's taxes declined and so did services and the schools.
By the 1970s segregation begins to end but what are blacks left with just as they become the majority in the city? They live in the poorest parts of Oakland, have few jobs left, go to declining public schools in a city that is running out of money. They are free to compete with whites that live in the suburbs and other surrounding cities that have better jobs, educations and own more expensive houses. Hey but that's what equality is all about right?
the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
Why should Blacks have special rights? Don't you understand that is racist? Ron Paul believes everyone has the same rights as an individual whether you are black/white or hetero/homo etc.
Well one reason is segregation which was alive and well in America until the 1970s and still has lasting effects in things such as red lining where banks deny home loans to blacks and other groups that try to move out of predominately black and minority areas to white ones.
Here's a quick history of Oakland. There are three parts of the city, west, north and east.
When blacks first moved to the city in the early 1900s they were segregated to west Oakland where their jobs were with the railroad. In the 1940s during WWII when the black population shot up tremendously they were allowed to move into the western part of north Oakland, the eastern part still being segregated for whites only. Blacks were not allowed to move into the east until the 1960s and even then they were first allowed to move into the flatlands which was the poorest part. They weren't able to move into the middle and upper class parts in the hills until the 1970s and 80s.
After WWII blacks were also the first fired from the war industries. The city also began to go through tremendous demographic and economic changes that left blacks behind. First the white middle and working class began leaving the city for brand new homes in the suburbs that were segregated for whites only. Second most of the city's businesses began moving to the suburbs as well leaving a dirth of jobs for Oakland's remaining residents. The city and state also built three freeways and a subway system through west Oakland. Black home owners were forced to sell their houses at reduced prices. Because of segregation, many were also not able to buy new houses and became renters instead. The subway rail went right down the main business street of west Oakland as well closing down black owned businesses during construction for months, many of which did not re-open afterwards.
With the loss of businesses and the middle class the city's taxes declined and so did services and the schools.
By the 1970s segregation begins to end but what are blacks left with just as they become the majority in the city? They live in the poorest parts of Oakland, have few jobs left, go to declining public schools in a city that is running out of money. They are free to compete with whites that live in the suburbs and other surrounding cities that have better jobs, educations and own more expensive houses. Hey but that's what equality is all about right?
hey motown, im still waiting for your, now monthly, "Iraq: Portrait of Barnacle update." Cant you find any bad news to report on?
If Obama and Clinton's policies were exactly the same, I might still side with Obama because he is slightly less seasoned in Washington, less time to make real enemies (which Clinton surely has in spades) and he's not the Democratic Party's prize horse. Now granted, if he really gets the votes that it seems he will, the Party machine will get right behind him, hell they already are... all I can say is that an Obama presidency would be won on the backs of real people who believe, he will be somewhat beholden to them, I get the Gut Instinct that Clinton is willing to ride in on the Dem's ship and continue partisan business as usual.
It's really not about the positions, which are both centrist, but about my Gut Instinct that one person might come at these problems with a fresh perspective - or at very least, the desire to find one.
obamas positions, and hillarys, are not particularly centrist. obama's senate rating was in the same area as kucinich's as far as partisan voting records go. And Hillary's was more centrist because she was planning on a presidential run.
My sarcastic remark about Satan and Hitler was as ridiculous as, and in response to, the Obama is related to Cheney & Bush idiocy...then again, I guess the Religious Right think we're ALL related on some Adam & Eve bullshit.
Hey, i didn't make that up. It was Cheney's wife who told some reporter.
obama is related to cheney. ive never heard anything about him being related to bush. his response was something along the lines of 'every family has a black sheep'
She's disingenuous. Not that all politicians and most people aren't to some extent as well, but she doesn't hide it as well as most. People dislike her regardless of her politics the same way they liked McCain in 2000. He seemed genuine. She does not.
...and with that its unanimous that people who dislike hillary don't know why they hate her, even when they think they do.
Do people think its a good or bad thing that if you never saw or heard Obama speak, you could read thousands and thousands of pages of his speeches and never know he was Black?
this is not in any way true. he emphasizes his biography all the damn time
She's disingenuous. Not that all politicians and most people aren't to some extent as well, but she doesn't hide it as well as most. People dislike her regardless of her politics the same way they liked McCain in 2000. He seemed genuine. She does not.
...and with that its unanimous that people who dislike hillary don't know why they hate her, even when they think they do.
Do people think its a good or bad thing that if you never saw or heard Obama speak, you could read thousands and thousands of pages of his speeches and never know he was Black?
this is not in any way true. he emphasizes his biography all the damn time
im all for hillary, becuuse people hater her so much that it will cause regular people to open up their wallets and that helps the entire republican ticket. You guys are cutting your own throats if you nominate her. As for Obama, by the time he got the mechanics in place to do anything, he'll be out.
the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
Why should Blacks have special rights? Don't you understand that is racist? Ron Paul believes everyone has the same rights as an individual whether you are black/white or hetero/homo etc.
Well one reason is segregation which was alive and well in America until the 1970s and still has lasting effects in things such as red lining where banks deny home loans to blacks and other groups that try to move out of predominately black and minority areas to white ones.
Here's a quick history of Oakland. There are three parts of the city, west, north and east.
When blacks first moved to the city in the early 1900s they were segregated to west Oakland where their jobs were with the railroad. In the 1940s during WWII when the black population shot up tremendously they were allowed to move into the western part of north Oakland, the eastern part still being segregated for whites only. Blacks were not allowed to move into the east until the 1960s and even then they were first allowed to move into the flatlands which was the poorest part. They weren't able to move into the middle and upper class parts in the hills until the 1970s and 80s.
After WWII blacks were also the first fired from the war industries. The city also began to go through tremendous demographic and economic changes that left blacks behind. First the white middle and working class began leaving the city for brand new homes in the suburbs that were segregated for whites only. Second most of the city's businesses began moving to the suburbs as well leaving a dirth of jobs for Oakland's remaining residents. The city and state also built three freeways and a subway system through west Oakland. Black home owners were forced to sell their houses at reduced prices. Because of segregation, many were also not able to buy new houses and became renters instead. The subway rail went right down the main business street of west Oakland as well closing down black owned businesses during construction for months, many of which did not re-open afterwards.
With the loss of businesses and the middle class the city's taxes declined and so did services and the schools.
By the 1970s segregation begins to end but what are blacks left with just as they become the majority in the city? They live in the poorest parts of Oakland, have few jobs left, go to declining public schools in a city that is running out of money. They are free to compete with whites that live in the suburbs and other surrounding cities that have better jobs, educations and own more expensive houses. Hey but that's what equality is all about right?
hey motown, im still waiting for your, now monthly, "Iraq: Portrait of Barnacle update." Cant you find any bad news to report on?
2007 was the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq.
The thought of a nation mourning the dead should brighten your day.
the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
Why should Blacks have special rights? Don't you understand that is racist? Ron Paul believes everyone has the same rights as an individual whether you are black/white or hetero/homo etc.
Well one reason is segregation which was alive and well in America until the 1970s and still has lasting effects in things such as red lining where banks deny home loans to blacks and other groups that try to move out of predominately black and minority areas to white ones.
Here's a quick history of Oakland. There are three parts of the city, west, north and east.
When blacks first moved to the city in the early 1900s they were segregated to west Oakland where their jobs were with the railroad. In the 1940s during WWII when the black population shot up tremendously they were allowed to move into the western part of north Oakland, the eastern part still being segregated for whites only. Blacks were not allowed to move into the east until the 1960s and even then they were first allowed to move into the flatlands which was the poorest part. They weren't able to move into the middle and upper class parts in the hills until the 1970s and 80s.
After WWII blacks were also the first fired from the war industries. The city also began to go through tremendous demographic and economic changes that left blacks behind. First the white middle and working class began leaving the city for brand new homes in the suburbs that were segregated for whites only. Second most of the city's businesses began moving to the suburbs as well leaving a dirth of jobs for Oakland's remaining residents. The city and state also built three freeways and a subway system through west Oakland. Black home owners were forced to sell their houses at reduced prices. Because of segregation, many were also not able to buy new houses and became renters instead. The subway rail went right down the main business street of west Oakland as well closing down black owned businesses during construction for months, many of which did not re-open afterwards.
With the loss of businesses and the middle class the city's taxes declined and so did services and the schools.
By the 1970s segregation begins to end but what are blacks left with just as they become the majority in the city? They live in the poorest parts of Oakland, have few jobs left, go to declining public schools in a city that is running out of money. They are free to compete with whites that live in the suburbs and other surrounding cities that have better jobs, educations and own more expensive houses. Hey but that's what equality is all about right?
hey motown, im still waiting for your, now monthly, "Iraq: Portrait of Barnacle update." Cant you find any bad news to report on?
2007 was the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq.
The thought of a nation mourning the dead should brighten your day.
no, but the thought that Motown's stupid 2/3 plagiarized article has now been rendered irrelevant by the irrefutable progress in Iraq, to the point where even he doesn't bother to update it, sure does. The irony of the "not accepting the reality of the situation" argument is just to sweet.
no, but the thought that Motown's stupid 2/3 plagiarized article has now been rendered irrelevant by the irrefutable progress in Iraq, to the point where even he doesn't bother to update it, sure does. The irony of the "not accepting the reality of the situation" argument is just to sweet.
if you no wanna keep your promise to go bye-bye, don't you at least want to hop off dude's dick for 10 minutes?
LMAO @ "irrefutable progress" in one of the most grim, fucked-up situations the modern world has known.
Comments
First of all, if you opened a newspaper, watched the news, or looked at a political magazine, you wouldn't be as shocked by my opinions, because they have been expressed over and over again by others.
Also, maybe educating yourself isn't such a bad idea since your views about Ron Paul clearly have come from sound bites. If they haven't, I'd love to hear you reconcile your position as the cue the "that's racist" guy with the support of the one candidate who thought a vote to make it federal law that Black's have the right to vote was, and still is, a bad idea.
Look, we've basically got 3 choices here...
1. Vote for someone revolutionary like Ron Paul (or who else?) who can help lead us to completely overhauling what for centuries has been one big violent corporate scam of a "government".
2. Keep voting for the status quo and leave it to a violent civil war to bring change about. And yes, that war has already started. Problem is, it's pretty much the status quo as the only side fighting it...leaving us commonfolk to either die, live like slaves, or rot in prison.
3. Keep voting for the status quo and soon we will be invaded by the rest of the world that "our" government has thoroughly fucked over.
In other words, everyone here who votes for the status quo in this coming election is putting it down on the historical record forever...THAT I TOO AM PART OF THE VERY PROBLEMS THAT ONLY ON THE MOST SHEEN OF SURFACES I PRETEND TO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT!!!
Why should Blacks have special rights? Don't you understand that is racist? Ron Paul believes everyone has the same rights as an individual whether you are black/white or hetero/homo etc.
We live in different worlds. You obviously think your world is superior to mine. Good for your ego...but nothing else.
If you want to believe that Ron Paul thinks that American blacks never should have been granted the right to vote...no one can stop you. So again, good for your ego...but nothing else.
Harvey......your enthuisasm is admirable, but very few people in the U.S. live like slaves or will rot in prison even with the current status quo.
We will all die.
You sure about that?
Again with the conversative "equal rights = special rights" bullshit? I thought that died in the 90s.
The government feels the need to articulate that certain minority groups have equal rights as the majority from time to time because in practice those rights are denied certain minority groups time and time again.
In a Ron Paul world, would it still be illegal for someone to deny housing, employment, or other services (basic or otherwise) for reasons of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc? Think carefully because I'm not so sure. That's the logical extension of complete reduction of federal protections: a return to the "free" good old days of racism circa 1950s USA.
Heart of a Milk Dud-related.
That directed at me?
that said, I ride for Edwards.
and archaic, what does this mean:
if these are "issues for anyone" then they clearly aren't "black issues" as that concept is being applied here (i.e. issues specific to the black community and distinct from issues that are important to non-blacks as well).
yeah I don't know why I bother.
back to work.
in my world, i'm talking about the candidates and their positions. you don't care to know anything in your world, so your talking about your own idiotic views of the world ending in a ron paul-less society, despite the fact that you still don't know the first thing about ron paul.
Well one reason is segregation which was alive and well in America until the 1970s and still has lasting effects in things such as red lining where banks deny home loans to blacks and other groups that try to move out of predominately black and minority areas to white ones.
Here's a quick history of Oakland. There are three parts of the city, west, north and east.
When blacks first moved to the city in the early 1900s they were segregated to west Oakland where their jobs were with the railroad. In the 1940s during WWII when the black population shot up tremendously they were allowed to move into the western part of north Oakland, the eastern part still being segregated for whites only. Blacks were not allowed to move into the east until the 1960s and even then they were first allowed to move into the flatlands which was the poorest part. They weren't able to move into the middle and upper class parts in the hills until the 1970s and 80s.
After WWII blacks were also the first fired from the war industries. The city also began to go through tremendous demographic and economic changes that left blacks behind. First the white middle and working class began leaving the city for brand new homes in the suburbs that were segregated for whites only. Second most of the city's businesses began moving to the suburbs as well leaving a dirth of jobs for Oakland's remaining residents. The city and state also built three freeways and a subway system through west Oakland. Black home owners were forced to sell their houses at reduced prices. Because of segregation, many were also not able to buy new houses and became renters instead. The subway rail went right down the main business street of west Oakland as well closing down black owned businesses during construction for months, many of which did not re-open afterwards.
With the loss of businesses and the middle class the city's taxes declined and so did services and the schools.
By the 1970s segregation begins to end but what are blacks left with just as they become the majority in the city? They live in the poorest parts of Oakland, have few jobs left, go to declining public schools in a city that is running out of money. They are free to compete with whites that live in the suburbs and other surrounding cities that have better jobs, educations and own more expensive houses. Hey but that's what equality is all about right?
that could be the stupidest thing you've ever said.
I also think its funny that the rest of these lunatics are so far left they make you sound like Archie Bunker.
hey motown, im still waiting for your, now monthly, "Iraq: Portrait of Barnacle update." Cant you find any bad news to report on?
Yeah, I thought I was pretty far left ???til I saw people busting 7s out left and right. Or left and down, rather.
i'll give you the benefit of the doubt of falling into the broad category of "ignorant" republicans..
Huckabee is ahead by quite a bit in the Iowa polls. What does that say about your party???
lol
you missed the point
2007 was the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq.
The thought of a nation mourning the dead should brighten your day.
no, but the thought that Motown's stupid 2/3 plagiarized article has now been rendered irrelevant by the irrefutable progress in Iraq, to the point where even he doesn't bother to update it, sure does. The irony of the "not accepting the reality of the situation" argument is just to sweet.
if you no wanna keep your promise to go bye-bye, don't you at least want to hop off dude's dick for 10 minutes?
LMAO @ "irrefutable progress" in one of the most grim, fucked-up situations the modern world has known.