Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 91
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Most "conversations" are really soliliquys.
    Nothing but a bunch of armchair blowhards (yes, including me).
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Ditto. I agree. In fact, I believe I've even been convinced to agree with you from time to time.

    This isn't one of them. Sorry.
    Fair enough.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I share Coulter's perspective on McCain:
    It scares me that you would actually quote that woman because that means you actually read/watch her poisonous political hate-mongering.

    Word of Advice: Get off the partisan politics pedestal.
    This from the guy that could not help himself but to have a pout and interject in a thread about a history making election of a black man as POTUS with the "non-partisan" statement:

    Call it a bonus, or a historical moment if you want . . . I sure as heck won't.


    Thanks for the advice.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Nothing but a bunch of armchair blowhards (yes, including me).
    Ditto again. I agree. (yes, including me)
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    It scares me that you would actually quote that woman because that means you actually read/watch her poisonous political hate-mongering.
    Like her or not, she is accurate quite often . . . such as what I posted.

    This from the guy that could not help himself but to have a pout and interject in a thread about a history making election of a black man as POTUS with the "non-partisan" statement:
    Again, I wasn't pouting. I simply don't feel that race relations are going to get any better and in fact, may get worse. For instance, being an avid listener of punk music I am forced to recall the imagery of Reagan and Bush from the punk community. Let me ask you, if--as in Reagan's case--someone took an image of Obama and put a bullet hole in his head and put in on display . . . would it garner anything but accusations of racism?

    While being a bit speculative, I think not. The point is, criticism of Obama will be difficult because of his race, as that will be one of the first lines of criticism. We see it in average daily life and will see it with Obama too. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain of this.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Like her or not, she is accurate quite often . . . such as what I posted.
    She is a hate mongering, divisive, un-American hack and the fact that you help feed the demand for that kind of hate is not becoming of you. I avoid the Michael Moore's of the left for this same reason.

    Again, I wasn't pouting. I simply don't feel that race relations are going to get any better and in fact, may get worse. For instance, being an avid listener of punk music I am forced to recall the imagery of Reagan and Bush from the punk community. Let me ask you, if--as in Reagan's case--someone took an image of Obama and put a bullet hole in his head and put in on display . . . would it garner anything but accusations of racism?
    C'mon DL - next you're gonna tell me that we invaded Iraq to spread freedom. Seriously, this wasn't your point at all - it's a completely different discussion. Your point was that you were unimpressed with Obama's big win because blacks could have been President all along but because of their "cult of victimology, separatism and anti-intellectualism" they simply did it to themselves.

    While being a bit speculative, I think not. The point is, criticism of Obama will be difficult because of his race, as that will be one of the first lines of criticism. We see it in average daily life and will see it with Obama too. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain of this.
    I actually wouldn't entirely disagree with this premise - I wouldn't necessarily entirely agree either. Either way, it was not your original premise.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    C'mon DL - next you're gonna tell me that we invaded Iraq to spread freedom. Seriously, this wasn't your point at all - it's a completely different discussion. Your point was that you were unimpressed with Obama's big win because blacks could have been President all along but because of their "cult of victimology, separatism and anti-intellectualism" they simply did it to themselves..
    That is about right...

    And the funny thing is that the black vote did not even make a difference... at least from the 2004 election... no large black turnout to support obama. So that "theory" is out the door. lol
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I may have worded this poorly, but the point is that while we didn't actually have a black man as POTUS, that is not indicative as to why. Assuming so presumes that correlation equals causation and is simply false.

    Many people are letting out a sigh of relief as if in 2004, 2000 or 1996 it was completely impossible for a black man to be POTUS based solely on race--yet, the only evidence available is that we didn't have one so therefore it must be because of race.
    Again, seriously flawed logic and misquoting of others. Who here said it was "Completely impossible."

    The simple fact is that there has been and remains a good deal of deeply embedded racism and sexism in the US. It is eroding, it finally eroded to the point in 2008 where we reched the historic milestone of electing a person of color.

    We know that many protestants refused to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic. That was historic.

    You ignited the problem by making this rather strange comment:
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I'd even go as far as saying that the first black president really isn't all that historical seeing as how many blacks in history held less prestigious positions, yet actually faced opposition based solely on their race.
    This ignores the fact no one disagrees that in 2008 a certain number of whites polled wont vote for the African American, and that in fact a certain number of those polled will claim they don't care but do (Bradley effect).

    In this election we have gotten to the point where voter intimidation against blacks, and system denial of voting rights decrease enough to offset this.

    The idea that it is not historic is laughable. That is like saying the moon landings in 1969 could not be termed historic because they were theoretically possible in 1967!
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    The simple fact is that there has been and remains a good deal of deeply embedded racism and sexism in the US. It is eroding, it finally eroded to the point in 2008 where we reched the historic milestone of electing a person of color.

    We know that many protestants refused to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic. That was historic.

    You ignited the problem by making this rather strange comment:

    This ignores the fact no one disagrees that in 2008 a certain number of whites polled wont vote for the African American, and that in fact a certain number of those polled will claim they don't care but do (Bradley effect).

    In this election we have gotten to the point where voter intimidation against blacks, and system denial of voting rights decrease enough to offset this.

    The idea that it is not historic is laughable. That is like saying the moon landings in 1969 could not be termed historic because they were theoretically possible in 1967!
    Hate to say it, but MANY of my republican friends -- and others -- questioned Romney just because he was a Mormon.

    I think we put nice labels on everything, but it is all the same, IMO. I don't like him because he is: <white> <black> <mormon> <muslim> <asian> <gay> <heterosexual> or whatever....

    People who think racism/bias or whatever does not exist is fooling themselves.

    Good post, aero.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  10. #70  
    One issue that complicates this conversations is that, despite the fact that some may claim that black candidates could have been elected earlier, where are these candidates? Barack Obama is currently the only US Senator who is black. There are more in the House, and there are non-Congressmen (such as Colin Powell) who may have a viable shot at a Presidential run, but the reality is that the list of Presidential-caliber candidates is short.

    One can argue that there institutional race issues that have caused fewer African-American candidates to have viable runs for Congress in many areas of the country, which then has a trickle-down effect of causing fewer viable Presidential opportunities.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    I avoid the Michael Moore's of the left for this same reason.
    Honestly, I read him too—just not that often.

    Seriously, this wasn't your point at all - it's a completely different discussion. Your point was that you were unimpressed with Obama's big win because blacks could have been President all along but because of their "cult of victimology, separatism and anti-intellectualism" they simply did it to themselves.
    No, it wasn’t my original argument, but does bolster it. Think about it, why would someone first assume that criticism of Obama has racial undertones? If you said, “because the person criticizing was white” go to the head of the class.

    Now, what does the cult of victimology, separatism and anti-intellectualism (as it relates to race) have to do with the previous comments? All three take a real problem and extrapolate it beyond reasonable means. Case in point (anecdotally):

    Recently I was speaking with a fellow in our warehouse (he is black, me—white). He mentioned dealing with some hard financial times and then quoted something from Young Jeezy. He then laughed and said, “You probably don’t even know who Young Jeezy is, do you?" I replied, “I believe he is a rap artist, yes?”

    What he said next was interesting . . .

    “Oh I get it, I’m young and I’m black so I must listen to rap music huh?” After being taken back, I informed him that rap artists are typically the only ones with monikers that start with the prefix “Young.” (Plus, I actually just happened to know.)



    While the story is anecdotal, it follows my point . . . people automatically assume certain things . . . like a white fellow like myself assumes young black males only listen to rap (I mean seriously, there’s also R&B), or something even more serious . . . such as the notion that because a person criticizes Obama they must be racist, or even more serious . . . that the lack of a black President before 2008 definitively proves that one couldn’t be President before 2008.

    Quote Originally Posted by aero
    Again, seriously flawed logic and misquoting of others.
    I’m sorry, who did I misquote?

    The simple fact is that there has been and remains a good deal of deeply embedded racism and sexism in the US. It is eroding, it finally eroded to the point in 2008 where we reched the historic milestone of electing a person of color.
    Talk about flawed logic. Again, because a black president wasn’t elected until 2008 isn’t indicative that “it finally eroded to the point in 2008.

    Of course, you are more than welcome to prove your point by showing evidence that a black man would not have been able to get elected in prior elections. I’ll give you a head start by pointing out that the lack thereof is not evidence.

    This ignores the fact no one disagrees that in 2008 a certain number of whites polled wont vote for the African American, and that in fact a certain number of those polled will claim they don't care but do (Bradley effect).
    I don’t mean to nitpick, but the Bradley Effect is not what you described. The Bradley Effect is people lying about their vote out of fear . . . something that goes quite well with what I have been saying.

    In his book, The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America, Larry Elder notes a story (p68) about patrons at a music festival. The majority were white with a few blacks up front. After a musical piece that invoked dancing, the black patrons chose to remain standing and not one white person chose to say anything until some other black patrons finally stood up and said something.

    It’s the same concept as the Bradley Effect, fear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin
    One issue that complicates this conversations is that, despite the fact that some may claim that black candidates could have been elected earlier, where are these candidates? Barack Obama is currently the only US Senator who is black. There are more in the House, and there are non-Congressmen (such as Colin Powell) who may have a viable shot at a Presidential run, but the reality is that the list of Presidential-caliber candidates is short.
    And yet a short list in no way determines what might happen. The “could have” I speak of relates to having a candidate that people could/would get behind, not whether one existed . . . then again, I am arguing that not only could a black president have been elected prior to 2008, but that because of unresolved issues within the black community, the pool from which to choose from was smaller than it should have been.

    I realize that such requires a bit of speculation on my part, but as I see it—based upon evidence—it unfortunately looks like a rather accurate speculation.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  12. #72  
    And yet a short list in no way determines what might happen. The “could have” I speak of relates to having a candidate that people could/would get behind, not whether one existed . . . then again, I am arguing that not only could a black president have been elected prior to 2008, but that because of unresolved issues within the black community, the pool from which to choose from was smaller than it should have been.

    I realize that such requires a bit of speculation on my part, but as I see it—based upon evidence—it unfortunately looks like a rather accurate speculation.
    I'm curious, though: you seem hesitant to entertain the idea that issues regarding race in the population at large contributed to the fact that we haven't elected a black president prior to now, yet speculate that the reason that we haven't is due to "unresolved issues within the black community". How did you determine that this was an "accurate speculation".

    Is there a reason that led you to conclude it was the black community preventing a black person from becoming president, rather than the country's underrepresentation of black senators, congressmen, etc. due to racial issues within the country? You mention that this conclusion is based upon evidence - I'm truly curious as to which evidence led you to that conclusion.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'm curious, though: you seem hesitant to entertain the idea that issues regarding race in the population at large contributed to the fact that we haven't elected a black president prior to now, yet speculate that the reason that we haven't is due to "unresolved issues within the black community". How did you determine that this was an "accurate speculation".

    Is there a reason that led you to conclude it was the black community preventing a black person from becoming president, rather than the country's underrepresentation of black senators, congressmen, etc. due to racial issues within the country? You mention that this conclusion is based upon evidence - I'm truly curious as to which evidence led you to that conclusion.
    Reading and observation.

    I've read a number of items from John McWhorter, Larry Elder, Walter Williams just to name some off the cuff. I've observed in media (documentaries, pop culture etc) and in real life (conversations with various persons of color and otherwise). Additionally if you look into concepts such as model minority and Affirmative Action regarding specific minority groups you'll also see evidence of what I've been saying (such as how Asians are often not considered minorities based merely on their high academic success and higher median income).
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    I don’t mean to nitpick, but the Bradley Effect is not what you described. The Bradley Effect is people lying about their vote out of fear . . . something that goes quite well with what I have been saying.

    In his book, The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America, Larry Elder notes a story (p68) about patrons at a music festival. The majority were white with a few blacks up front. After a musical piece that invoked dancing, the black patrons chose to remain standing and not one white person chose to say anything until some other black patrons finally stood up and said something.

    It’s the same concept as the Bradley Effect, fear.

    As with the rest of your arguments/thoughts on issues, you are severely wrong... or should I say your reasoning is flawed.

    So you are saying no one else could stand up and say something to the black patrons still standing? Odd...

    Maybe you live in Fear of a Black Planet or something.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    As with the rest of your arguments/thoughts on issues, you are severely wrong... or should I say your reasoning is flawed.
    Given your propencity to review various material (hint: there is nothing you could offer me to read), I'm not really sure what you say should be taken seriously. I mean if you are gonna act anti-intellectual and all . . .
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  16.    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Given your propencity to review various material (hint: there is nothing you could offer me to read), I'm not really sure what you say should be taken seriously. I mean if you are gonna act anti-intellectual and all . . .
    Don't take me seriously... I definitely don't take you seriously... your posts are a joke... I'm not sure why anyone would waste their time... except to joke and poke fun at you.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Don't take me seriously... I definitely don't take you seriously... your posts are a joke...
    Yet you seem incapable of disputing them . . . wait, maybe it's that whole "casting a pearl before the swine" concept huh? Silly me.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  18.    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Yet you seem incapable of disputing them . . .
    There is nothing to dispute... you have already stated your odd and illogical opinions in this thread. In addition, you change your opinion every couple of pages, so what you are saying is not consistent.

    You can attack me all you want... I'll be whatever you want. When your thinking changes, then I'll take your posts seriously.

    Until then, I'll sit and laugh at obama kicking McSame's **** all over the United States of America.

    Then laugh harder as I picture your expression.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Reading and observation.

    I've read a number of items from John McWhorter, Larry Elder, Walter Williams just to name some off the cuff. I've observed in media (documentaries, pop culture etc) and in real life (conversations with various persons of color and otherwise). Additionally if you look into concepts such as model minority and Affirmative Action regarding specific minority groups you'll also see evidence of what I've been saying (such as how Asians are often not considered minorities based merely on their high academic success and higher median income).
    Sounds like you've done some reading to rationalize your ideology.

    In any event, I want to afford you the same opportunity that I have in the Gay Marriage thread. Please clear up your positions on the following:

    1. Do you think it was possible for an African-American to win the Presidency before 1954? (Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka, KS)

    2. Do you think it was possible for an African-American to win the Presidency before 1965? (Executive Order 11246, Affirmative Action)

    3. Do you think is was possible for an African-American to win the Presidency before 1968? (Civil Rights Act 1968)

    4. Do you think it was possible for an African-American to win the Presidency before 1988? (Civil Rights Restoration Act)

    5. Do you think it was possible for an African-American to win the Presidency before 1991? (Civil Rights Act of 1991)

    6. Do you think it was possible for an African-American to win the Presidency before 1992? (Race Riots in LA)

    7. Do you think it is possible that rap music and it's success played a role in achieving more acceptance of African-American's by white youths?

    8. Do you think it is possible that Obama was more tolerable to the increased number of white voters because he is half-white?

    9. Do you think it is possible that Obama was able to achieve more because he was raised by whites? (read: this of course assumes you accept that there were socio-economic advantages to being white when he was a child)

    10. And once you've answered all of the above, I'd like to you please tell us all again why you think that the only reason there hasn't been a black President before Obama is it that they suffer from, "...cult of victimology, separatism and anti-intellectualism".

    And when you're done explaining all of that, please refer to your statement - "Call it a bonus, or a historical moment if you want . . . I sure as heck won't" - once more and tell me again why you don't see this as a historic moment important in our growth as a country in terms of race relations?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 11/10/2008 at 02:22 PM.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    No, it wasn’t my original argument, but does bolster it. Think about it, why would someone first assume that criticism of Obama has racial undertones? If you said, “because the person criticizing was white” go to the head of the class.
    Right, why would anyone assume racism has been a problem in the US.

    Secondly your writing has become incompressible to the rest of us, and now your reading comprehension seems problematic. NO ONE here" first assume that criticism of Obama has racial undertones."

    You completely misquote and misrepresent what other have written here.

    If the number of people who are racist and won't vote for him because of racism, is one, two or five percent then no one here is "assuming anything" about "all" criticism of the President Elect, rather about the racism that occurs along side the legitimate criticism and it is not "all" but part of the reason why some voted the way they have now and in the past.


    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Now, what does the cult of victimology, separatism and anti-intellectualism (as it relates to race) have to do with the previous comments?
    Put away your "cult of victimology" garbage. The exact same language, methodology and conclusions you used are used by people like Norman Finkelstein, in "The Holocaust Industry" which the right in the states roundly denounces as antisemitic.

    You also seemed to have slept through US history 101: Newsflash, Blacks were profound systematic victims for 400 years and a lot of the results still exist -- one being revisionist bogus denial of prejudice, to this day, from a thankfully shrinking minority (of at least one we know of) .

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I’m sorry, who did I misquote?
    Who here said it was "Completely impossible." You stated people were saying the election of a black president was "completely impossible" in 2004.

    that isn't the point anyone was making. The point is a certain number of voters would have voted against a black candidate in 2004 and less in 2008.

    This is like saying the election of the first non protestant wasn't historic, or the nomination of Romney would not have been historic or the election of Palin would not have been historic. It is laughable assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Talk about flawed logic. Again, because a black president wasn’t elected until 2008 isn’t indicative that “it finally eroded to the point in 2008.
    Your logic is indeed flawed and I am glad your two sentences above illustrate your problem. So, yeah, right, delude yoruself into thinking the historians and sociologists and polling experts are all wrong and you are right. ok.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions