BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[SoCoKHntr]

CVC wrote: SoCoKHntr wrote:
As to your argument many are voting for Obama due to him being 'mixed race' or black. You are saying in essence that black people are voting for him simply because he is black. If that was true, blacks just voting for blacks, Alan Keys would have won his bid.


I don't buy the argument I'm hearing that the majority of black America or any other color is voting for him simply because of his skin color. I think it is a far stronger assumption that more people would never vote for for him due to race then people simply automatically voting for him due to race.

Couple of points. The lynch mob is not because of your differing views, it is because of you repeated misstating or entirely making up what someone says. My disdain for you is not that your views are different but how you deal with people. You cast aspersions, you try to put words into their mouths, you play the race card, you and you don't respond to the points someone makes. Instead you launch into a canned diatribe intended to inflame.

Look at what you wrote and attribute to me and take a look at my actual quote.

"Of course there are those that won't vote for him because he is mixed-race, but then there are others who are basing their vote for him because he is mixed-race. Each is equally ignorant. "

No where do I state "many" or "blacks" I was acknowledging the fact that some people won't vote for him because he is black and then pointing out that the reverse is also true and that both are wrong.

You state that if blacks voted for blacks that Alan Keyes would have won the election. There is a reason they are called a "minority." All the blacks could vote for someone and they could still lose if the candidate doesn't carry the white and other minority votes.

I feel sorry for you.

Wow, just wow, I give my honest viewpoint and you feel sorry for me. All you need to do is disagree. Believe me you don't need to feel 'sorry' for me. You entirely missed the point and maybe I should have stated it better. Alan Keys had a very low, let me rephrase that almost non existent black voter turnout in addition to losing. So, it still stands that blacks didn't vote for him just because he is black as many have asserted about Obama. That blacks are voting for him just because he is black.

Also, I don't think you really feel sorry for me sounds like just bitter towards me.

Where have I made up what someone says? Please clarify!

[Whelland]

SoCo,

How many times do we have to point these things out to you?

You, making things up? Absolutely. I don't have to give examples. Go back and look at your previous posts and the responses. You've also twisted words around. Again, go back and look. Do your own research for a change.

I will cast my ballot based on the candidate's voting record. You can vote for someone simply, because they're a Democrat if you so choose. That's your right.

My parents are also Democrats, but I've learned to think for myself. My Mother did social work for the state of MI and my Father is a UAW blue collar guy. My Mother wants more money in the state coffer and doesn't really care how it gets there. My Dad just votes how ever the union tells him to vote. They also vote for Democrats, simply because they are Democrats. I do not.

I'm also Agnostic, but that doesn't make me a Liberal. That just means I believe in the freedom of religion.

I've also listed out my arguments by line item without a valid response. Try pulling them back up and breaking them out in bullet point form and make a real debate. You have continually failed to do so, which is why so many of us here feel you have no credibility.

I'm done now. I cannot teach those not willing to be taught. That's why I DO NOT feel sorry for you.

[SoCoKHntr]

Whelland wrote: SoCo,

I cannot teach those not willing to be taught. That's why I DO NOT feel sorry for you.

My the arrogance. Pretty much shows your willingness to share views. Not asking for your sympathy don't need it.

[csumerall]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07.....119161.htm

Wow, your boy is even hammering Obama, Its a nice change

[expatriate]

Here's a couple points:

First, I'm offended at the generalization that conservatives equate "black" with "liberal". Thomas Sowell and Alan Keyes would definitely disagree with you there. Race has nothing to do with it. I personally find it interesting that a Republican issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and another Republican integrated schools. Meanwhile, it was George Wallace (Democrat) standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent integration and Bull Connor (Democrat) turning the fire hoses and dogs on civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. There's a senior Democratic senator right now that was a Kleagle in the KKK. And of course, who can forget the Democratic President that imprisoned over 100,000 Americans (including children) based solely on race during WWII? And yet people still perpetuate the stereotype that the Republican party is racist and the Democrats that perpetuated it get a pass.

On another note, I find it interesting that liberals say the Democratic congress isn't responsible for all of the economic damage happening right now because they've only had power for a year and a half. And yet they hold Bush completely responsible for 9/11 because he'd been in office for less than half as long.

As I've said before -- One reason I have more respect for conservatives is because they're at least consistent in their views and don't play the selective indignation game to try to score political points.

[CVC]

I read Sowell's book Race and Culture. A very interesting read and thought provoking too. The general idea about it is that culture, not race, plays a more important role in a groups lot in life.

[CVC]

SoCoKHntr wrote: CVC wrote: SoCoKHntr wrote:
As to your argument many are voting for Obama due to him being 'mixed race' or black. You are saying in essence that black people are voting for him simply because he is black. If that was true, blacks just voting for blacks, Alan Keys would have won his bid.


I don't buy the argument I'm hearing that the majority of black America or any other color is voting for him simply because of his skin color. I think it is a far stronger assumption that more people would never vote for for him due to race then people simply automatically voting for him due to race.

Couple of points. The lynch mob is not because of your differing views, it is because of you repeated misstating or entirely making up what someone says. My disdain for you is not that your views are different but how you deal with people. You cast aspersions, you try to put words into their mouths, you play the race card, you and you don't respond to the points someone makes. Instead you launch into a canned diatribe intended to inflame.

Look at what you wrote and attribute to me and take a look at my actual quote.

"Of course there are those that won't vote for him because he is mixed-race, but then there are others who are basing their vote for him because he is mixed-race. Each is equally ignorant. "

No where do I state "many" or "blacks" I was acknowledging the fact that some people won't vote for him because he is black and then pointing out that the reverse is also true and that both are wrong.

You state that if blacks voted for blacks that Alan Keyes would have won the election. There is a reason they are called a "minority." All the blacks could vote for someone and they could still lose if the candidate doesn't carry the white and other minority votes.

I feel sorry for you.

Wow, just wow, I give my honest viewpoint and you feel sorry for me. All you need to do is disagree. Believe me you don't need to feel 'sorry' for me. You entirely missed the point and maybe I should have stated it better. Alan Keys had a very low, let me rephrase that almost non existent black voter turnout in addition to losing. So, it still stands that blacks didn't vote for him just because he is black as many have asserted about Obama. That blacks are voting for him just because he is black.

Also, I don't think you really feel sorry for me sounds like just bitter towards me.

Where have I made up what someone says? Please clarify!

See this is why I feel sorry for you. You are so blinded by your ideology that you cannot open your eyes to see.

I pointed out in this very post where you made up stuff that I said. I put my quote there to compare what I actually wrote to what you attributed to me. What I wrote and what you attributed to me is very different, not only in the words, but in the meaning.

No one is saying that blacks are voting for BHO because he is black. No one has said that on this forum. Are some voting based on race (for or against) absolutely. The primary polls showed it. It was a major issue on many of the newscasts - gender and race as factors for voting.


I truly do feel sorry for you. Believe it or not, Republicans do have compassion and hear your anger, your pain and yes, that makes me feel sorry for you.

[SoCoKHntr]

csumerall wrote: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092008/news/nationalnews/jesse_jackson_sharply_criticizes_obama_119161.htm

Wow, your boy is even hammering Obama, Its a nice change

Jesse Jackson is not 'my boy' and he in my view like anyone else has the right to have his own opinion on the man.

[expatriate]

Personally, I think most of the fixation with Obama's race is media-driven. In our era of 24 hour news, the media is desperate to find new and exciting stuff to sell their product. They're growing weary of stories about California wildfires, child killers, wife murderers, and a war that's going well and not generating huge casualties.

To a journalist disenchanted with the grind of stories about wreckage needed to sell newspapers, a story about electing the country's first black president is an enormous plumb. It's historic with a capital "H", because it represents closure on an issue that's plagued our nation from the start, and for which our country nearly destroyed itself. It's Jefferson, Lincoln, and King rolled into one package. We live in a world with few firsts remaining - mountains have all been conquered, world has been explored, globe has been circumnavigated in everything but a lawnchair with carnival balloons, etc. To journalists, Obama represents one of the last firsts -- a chance to record history in a big way.

Make no mistake about it -- the media is chomping at the bit to write their story, and that's the paradigm running through all of their coverage. Obama's race is the most important thing to them, so they think it's the most important thing to us. That's why they can't move past it, constantly bring it up, and relate everything back to it.

I've worked as a TV journalist. What you see in the media represents events interpreted through the journalist's perspectives and viewpoints. I covered stories where I could portray an individual as a saint or sinner, and both were equally true -- the choice was up to me. All journalism is editorial because it's filtered through the reporter and reflects his or her view of the world. What you see in the media reflects the views of the media, not the general population.

[SoCoKHntr]

expatriate wrote: Here's a couple points:

First, I'm offended at the generalization that conservatives equate "black" with "liberal". Thomas Sowell and Alan Keyes would definitely disagree with you there. Race has nothing to do with it. I personally find it interesting that a Republican issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and another Republican integrated schools. Meanwhile, it was George Wallace (Democrat) standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent integration and Bull Connor (Democrat) turning the fire hoses and dogs on civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. There's a senior Democratic senator right now that was a Kleagle in the KKK. And of course, who can forget the Democratic President that imprisoned over 100,000 Americans (including children) based solely on race during WWII? And yet people still perpetuate the stereotype that the Republican party is racist and the Democrats that perpetuated it get a pass.

On another note, I find it interesting that liberals say the Democratic congress isn't responsible for all of the economic damage happening right now because they've only had power for a year and a half. And yet they hold Bush completely responsible for 9/11 because he'd been in office for less than half as long.

As I've said before -- One reason I have more respect for conservatives is because they're at least consistent in their views and don't play the selective indignation game to try to score political points.


The Dems you speak of, Wallace and Connor, were definitely racist bigots. There does it make you feel a little better to hear a 'Democrat' say that. FDR's internment of the Japanese was wrong no matter which way you cut. Does that make you feel better. I don't know enough about this Kleagle character but if he's an open racist he gets no defense from me.

The rap the Repub party has gotten in terms of minorities isn't from a few bad characters like the Dem ones you mentioned. It's from overall policies within the last fifty to sixty years. Again. I don't think the Dems are perfect and haven't made mistakes in their goal of securing a fair chance for all, but I do believe they have done more for minorities and the underprivileged then conservatives and hence have their support.

The one and a half year comparison between Congress and the economy and Bush and 9/11 is a poor one since Bush and Condi were briefed while he was President that Al Qaeda planned on using airplanes to launch a terrorist attack and virtually ignored it. It wouldn't take years to do something about that. Had they taken it seriously they could have acted on it quickly.

One of the reason I don't respect many conservatives is they play games with the facts like you are doing above comparing 9/11 with the state of the economy. It may make you feel better to have a view that it's as black and white as 'conservatives all good see things the right way and don't waver' unfortunately it's not that simple. Issues often times are complex and nuanced and as much as you'd like it to be simplistic they aren't.

[jfrench]

expatriate, sounds like you've really thought out the next big headline. If you provide the carnival balloons, I'll provide the lawn chair! :laugh:

I'm taking off now to go fishing with my father and my boys for the weekend. Have fun guys!!!!!! ::wave1

[expatriate]

csumerall wrote: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092008/news/nationalnews/jesse_jackson_sharply_criticizes_obama_119161.htm

Wow, your boy is even hammering Obama, Its a nice change

I always thought Jackson was a nut job. Now he's at least admitting it.

It doesn't suprise me. If this country elects a black president, it shatters Jackson's operation. An organization that makes its money by perpetuating the idea that we're a racist society would have a hard time dealing with the election of a black president. Obama represents a threat to their way of life.

[SoCoKHntr]

[quote="CVC"][quote="SoCoKHntr"][quote="CVC"] SoCoKHntr wrote:
I pointed out in this very post where you made up stuff that I said. I put my quote there to compare what I actually wrote to what you attributed to me. What I wrote and what you attributed to me is very different, not only in the words, but in the meaning.

No one is saying that blacks are voting for BHO because he is black. No one has said that on this forum. Are some voting based on race (for or against) absolutely. The primary polls showed it. It was a major issue on many of the newscasts - gender and race as factors for voting.


I truly do feel sorry for you. Believe it or not, Republicans do have compassion and hear your anger, your pain and yes, that makes me feel sorry for you.

I don't feel I made up anything you said I may have misinterpreted your comment and I responded to it with my own viewpoint. CVC, please refrain from the dramatics. If we are going to engage in this debate it doesn't help to get what appears to be hurt and make comments like 'I feel sorry for you'.

People will always see things from their perspective. What environment you grew up in the experiences you had, the people who influenced you. What we see as right is our reality and everyones reality is different.

[expatriate]

West Virginia's Richard Byrd was the Kleagle. But apparently Democrats can repent from such things and Republicans can't.

What racist policies have the Republicans promulgated during the last 50 or 60 years? Was it the idea of busing kids across town for racial reasons? Was it laws that gave preference to job candidates and college applicants based on race? I believe policy based on the color of a person's skin is racist -- and that cuts both ways. I'm curious to hear what Republican policies you believe were racist.

As for 9/11, we've covered that before. The report about airplanes existed in a flood of intel, the volume of which you can't imagine. It's irresponsible to connect the dots afterward and blame Bush. That's like saying Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt's fault because Mitchell predicted the whole thing with great precision 16 years before it happened. The decision on 9/11 was made and the hijackers were committed to flight training long before Bush took office.

I'm not comparing 9/11 to the state of the economy. I was examining the hypocrisy associated with selective accountability based on political party. Don't try to twist what I said.

[SoCoKHntr]

expatriate wrote: West Virginia's Richard Byrd was the Kleagle. But apparently Democrats can repent from such things and Republicans can't.

What racist policies have the Republicans promulgated during the last 50 or 60 years? Was it the idea of busing kids across town for racial reasons? Was it laws that gave preference to job candidates and college applicants based on race? I believe policy based on the color of a person's skin is racist -- and that cuts both ways. I'm curious to hear what Republican policies you believe were racist.

As for 9/11, we've covered that before. The report about airplanes existed in a flood of intel, the volume of which you can't imagine. It's irresponsible to connect the dots afterward and blame Bush. That's like saying Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt's fault because Mitchell predicted the whole thing with great precision 16 years before it happened. The decision on 9/11 was made and the hijackers were committed to flight training long before Bush took office.

I'm not comparing 9/11 to the state of the economy. I was examining the hypocrisy associated with selective accountability based on political party. Don't try to twist what I said.

There was a time within the last fifty years that blacks in certain parts of our county couldn't drink from certain water fountains or had to ride in the back of the bus, or weren't allowed to eat in certain restaurants and often times lynched. With the passing of the civil rights act in the sixties many of these atrocities didn't occur any longer. However, the people who still felt this way towards blacks didn't disappear. They acted out their racism and bigotry in other ways such as not hiring minorities, not renting or selling property to minorities, not offering promotions or advancements to minorities.

There was a need for the Equal Opportunity Act at one time. Has that time passed? Maybe so, but there was a definite need to begin with.

In regard to 9/11: August 7, 2001, Senior Executive Intelligence Brief ..... the White House of plans by Al Qaeda to mount terrorist attacks using hijacked airplanes. ...

and

"David Corn, in his April 12, 2004, "Condi's Cover-up Caves In," writes:
"The disclosure of the PDB came at an especially awkward time for the White House. Two weeks earlier, news reports revealed that an FBI agent in Phoenix in July 2001 had written a classified memo suggesting that a group of Middle Eastern aviation students might be linked to terrorists (including bin Laden) and that the FBI had not taken any action in response to this agent's investigation. The "Phoenix memo" received a flood of media coverage, and the Bush administration--which heretofore had not had to field any tough questions about the government's pre-9/11 performance-- was confronted with queries about the negligent handling of the agent's prescient report. At the same time, the case of Zacarias Moussaoui was in the news. On May 15, the Times reported that before 9/11 an FBI agent had speculated that Moussaoui, the suspicious aviation student arrested by the FBI on immigration charges in the summer of 2001, might have been planning to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. News reports had previously indicated that the FBI had not pursued the Moussaoui case vigorously prior to September 11.
"The Phoenix memo, the Moussaoui case--all of this placed the administration on the defensive for the first time since 9/11, as the White House fended off suggestions (and accusations) that the federal government, on Bush's watch, had missed crucial tips and opportunities to thwart the horrific attacks. Then came news of the August 6 PDB.
"The White House reaction was predictable: stonewall. The Bush crew clearly did not want American citizens to discover that he had been told that bin Laden was aiming to conduct attacks in the United States, and they did not want to have to answer the inevitable questions (such as, what did the president do in response to this briefing?). So Team Bush started spinning, and its lead twirler was Rice."

That's just a tad bit different then your Pearl Harbor comparison now isn't it?