Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on January 20, 2009 By Dr Guy In Politics

Two Months ago, America validated Martin Luther King's vision.  Today, Liberals, the Mainstream Media and the vested racial animosity groups drove us back 45 years.

2 months ago, America elected a black man as president.  Disregarding his race as a factor in stating they wanted a change.  But for the past year, Liberals, Race Ambulance Chasers, the Mainstream Media have worked doggedly to destroy King's vision.  And to turn back the hands of time so that instead of being able to judge a man on the content of his character, they are forcing America to judge him based upon the color of his skin.

Many people marched with King back in 63.  Wanting to keep alive a dream that many of us shared, and still share.  And some of us want to see yet to come.  But it is not now.  Today, America turned a deaf ear to King and instead marched backwards to the days when the content of a man's character was secondary to the color of his skin.

For many of us who have fought long and hard to realize that dream it is indeed a dark day.  It is not the fault of Obama, for he is a man who ran for and was elected president.  It is the fault of the liberals and Mainstream media that must force us to think of him not as a man, but as a black man.  It is very frustrating to see 45 years of work swept away with the new racists of 21st century America.

It is indeed a sad day for America.  I only hope that we can rebuild from this set back that has beset us.  And one day, the man elected president will not be known as "the <insert qualifier here> President", but as the American President.


Comments (Page 6)
8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8 
on Jan 22, 2009

Because I nor my liberal friends have treated him differently and we don't think he should be treated differently.

While the phrase "Liberals and the Media" indicates that those that are racist are in those 2 groups are racist, it does not say that all in those groups are racist or that all racist are in those groups.  SO why do you feel compelled to define yourself in the subgroups that are racist?

I think MLK was under no illusion that his dream was going to happen overnight. I think he would be stunned at how fast we're making progress.

I think he would be heartened it happened, but 45 years is not overnight for any man.

There's nothing wrong with just acknowledging someone's race it's not perpetrating anything, it's when that information is used to define them that it becomes racism.

THANK YOU!  NOw you get it!  And if you look at what the media has been doing, at what the liberals in power are doing, you will see exactly that!  Oh, not with every word.  Even a Grand Kleagle mixes in normal speech in his hate speech.  But when they talk about "The best SPeech for a black man.." or "look what he has done as a black man..." they are putting race first and are racist.  Acknowledging that Obama is black is not racism.  Qualifying what he does or says with "black" is.

You know DG you had a point here but you've blown it so far out of proportion, twisted and buried it under so many absolutes, it's unrecognizable. Then you accuse me of only seeing things in black and white. You've tried to distort the meaning of "institutional racism" to include just the recognition of race. One example of institutional racism is a barrier to employment or professional advancement based on race, imagine that. Nothing that I've said here or anything the MSM has reported on the inauguration qualifies as IR or any other form of racism.

And then he fumbles the ball on the goal line!  I am not talking absolutes. I am talking anecdotes and opinion of what I see and hear.  And I was not talking IR, but closet racism.  IR is a form of overt racism, and for themost part has been erradicated or at least made illegal.  Closet racism cannot be made illegal (and I hope to god it never is) because itis thought,and even I do not want Big Brother to start dictating thought.  But while we cannot outlaw  it, we sure as hell can expose it for what it is.  Can I look into your mind and see you as a closet racist?  no.  But I can see you as one (this is the royal you, not the personal you) when you couch your superlatives with qualifiers.  Or couch your criticism in the same manner.

on Jan 22, 2009

But the media in particular has gone far beyond simply acknowledging that Obama is black. Yesterday it was uttered over and over again that Obama is a "Black Man" and he is now a "Black President" rather than Obama is a "Man" who happens to be black or that he is "The President of the United States" who happens to be black. They were emphasising the race issue above all else. They made it seem like it wasn't Obama's policies or his campaign rhetoric that got him the office, it was his race. That is blatant racism and for us to truly fulfill Dr. King's dreams we need to leave race out of it and just let Obama be the President that he is.

I should stay home and let you write this!  Thanks for another very on the mark and clear statement of my point!  I wonder why some do not want to read or understand it.  Why are they trying to turn the argument to something it is not?  I can only think of one reason.  They are ashamed of it as well, and instead of trying to defend the indefensible, they want to change the debate so they can defend the defensible.  And in so doing, excuse those they are ashamed of, and condemn those they do not agree with.

 

on Jan 22, 2009

The celebration is due to the fact that he is BLACK. You don't think that is significant? That is a part of what all the attention is about. Part of it is his charisma. How does that trash King or make me a racist for celebrating our nation's accomplishment?

No, some are celebrating because he is black.  More I think because he is liberal.  And celebrating him is not repudiating King.  Qualifying him is.  As is the lame clowns in the media that think we should have voted FOR him because he was black.  As El-D said, that is racism too, and worse, because it masks itself as your friend instead of confronting you for the ugliness it is.  Again, you quote me saying this was not about the people celebrating him, and then you turn around and start talking about how I am condemning people celebrating him!  I have to ask you, why are you not responding to what is written, and instead trying to change it to something else?

Barack Obama is a Black man who is POTUS. Is that not what you are irrate about? That I would dare say he is a Black man and President in the same sentence?

WHy did you put it that way?  Why is he not the President who is a black man?  Notice the order?  King said judge based on the character, not the color.  Character comes first, color a distant whatever.  Yet you Said "Black man" first.  Why?  Are you trying to preclude me because I am not black?  Are you trying to qualify what Obama will do or say by stating he is black?  How many times have you heard "The Quaker who was president" or "the Catholic who was president".  Both groups have suffered discrimination in this nation (albeit not to the extent blacks have), but JFK was a First.  Nixon was a first.  But first what?  They were the first "President who was" not the first "xxx President".  Except by those who wanted to excuse them for their (the ones stating it) prejudicial view of th perceived inferiority.

on Jan 22, 2009

The significant day would be the inauguration of the first President whose skin colour is not even part of the news because nobody cares. Maybe that already happened. But if it did, the achievement was undone this year.

With the closet racism that still exists in this country, that day is far off.  But at least if we expose it and bring it to the light of day, these vampires of society will eventually wither and die.

on Jan 22, 2009

You have totally misquoted the NPR piece. I heard the same piece (I think). Nothing like that was said.

He was citing an earlier post, not stating he had heard it.  But I would be interested to see what you heard.  I did not hear the piece, but I have read enough of what passes as "news" from the MSM that basically stated the same thing.  Remember Murtha?  And he is supposed to be so enlightened!  He is a closet racist and a perfect example of what my blog is all about.

on Jan 22, 2009

What is so wrong with saying a Black man is President? Why does that bother you so much? Does it bother you to say a Texan was President (can't think of what you call someone from Illinois)? Does that make you a Texan supremasist?

Everyone from Texas is an elitist!

But how many times have you heard Bush called that (not that it is a fair comparison either way)? 

But I will tell you that there is nothing wrong with saying "Black Man is President" if you dont mind not living up to King's dream.  And as long as you dont use it as a qualifier either.  How would you feel if you heard "The Black Man did ok on the test"?  Or how about "that sounds pretty good for a black man"?

Insidious when you cant help but qualify a man.  A great man in that one of only 42 that have been elected to the highest (or second highest including VPs that ascended) to the most powerful position in the world.  Yet there are those we hear daily that have to qualify it as if to say "ok for a black man".  That is not King.

on Jan 22, 2009

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Notice the order.  King was a man of the cloth, so instead of saying "all men" he said "all of God's children", and then the second part was their tans or prayer caps.  You quote it, but you dont understand it.  You heard a few black announcers say "black president", yet google it and you can find many Journallist writing it.  Again, why are you or any of you going to the celebration?  I said nothing about the celebration in the blog.  I stated explicitly what I was ashamed and saddened about.  Not a bunch of yahoos dancing because their side won (democrats in case you are gasping).  They do that every 4 years.  The players change, but the dance does not.

No, this was about the Media and the LIberals qualifying every thing they said, and forbidding either by direct statement or covert intent, any comparisons to Presidents 1-43.

on Jan 22, 2009

I totally disagree. You are racist for seeing a persons ethnicity. You are racist when when make decisions about a person based on race. THAT is what King wrote about and talked about. Read some of his work and you will see that.

You are also racist for excusing someone because of their tan or prayer cap.  Or of falsely adulating them for mediocre accomplishments because of their race.  Both of which were done and are being done by Liberals and the media.  America will not (the vast majority).  They will judge him based upon his deeds as if he is a Man who is President (as it should be).  But for the closet racist, they will excuse any miscues because "he is black".

on Jan 22, 2009

I think so as well but at the time we really didn't have a choice, the only other option would have been to make them all wards of the government. Now and perhaps for quite some time it's been counterproductive and I think Obama's the man to end it.

We agree.

Again this is a non-sequitur. Just acknowledging that he is the first black president does not follow that his race was a factor in him becoming so.

How did you read this far and still not understand the article?  It is not about Obama, it is about those who feel he has to be treated "special" because he is not a man who is president who happens to be black, but a "Black man who happens to be president"?  These same people are the ones who have to put race into everything.  Because it excuses their racism to think that when all is said and done, they are still somehow superior to others by virtue of nothing more than how they were born.

on Jan 22, 2009

wow! how did this article get passed me? This is a very powerful article, short, sweet and right to the heart of the matter. Very good points made here DocG, Whew! re-reading it was just as power filled as the first read.

Thanks MM!  I really appreciate that coming from one I admire.

on Jan 22, 2009

Our kids were on the right track and they just got "schooled" on our American reality.

No, they got schooled by the liberals who want to maintain racism for their own reasons.  Teach them that the American Reality is when he was elected.  Not when we were told we had to look at him differently.

on Jan 22, 2009

don't surprise me a bit you'd claim lewis, bond, young and evers no different than simpson.

And here ladies and gents we see the same tired old classic dodges!  Dont debate/discuss the issue, turn it around to what you want to debate and discuss!  Thanks to the local gad fly, we see that now he tries to put words (but since it is my blog, he cant change them - too bad buzzy) in my mouth, instead of looking into that mirror and seeing the ugliness in it.!

not logical, emotional and unaffected by appeals to logic and facts? i can't think of anyone in ju who's been more frequently characterized in that manner--sometimes with those exact words--by more people than you yourself. if you're gonna make this sorta claim:

I would not say that of you!  You should not characterize yourself so.  There are far more that really are worse than you (Col Klink comes to mind as does Dabe and Wise Fawn).  You really need to get out more, and look into some mirrors.

why is it outta line for someone to prompt you for details. you undercut your own credibility by accusing me of being a racist while proferring--instead of any sort of answer--an overly emotional, illogical rant totally devoid of fact.

Excuse me?  Please mr moderator show me where I stated "THis is a fact"?  Or perhaps you do not understand what a blog is?  That would explain it since your liberal clown brothers in DC dont understand, nor so the idiots in the MSM.

This is my opinion.  Get it?  no, probably not.  Do you need names, dates and events where I worked for racial equality?  You mean like Kings March (when I was but 7)?  I guess that was the only time anyone ever worked for racial equality, right?  Do you ever stop and think how small minded and bigotted you look like?  Do you even think?  I doubt it.  Or you would not be so stupid as to try to pull your tricks here, after you have been beaten so many times with simple logic and facts. But as I have said several times of you (see, this is a fact jack), you cant debate facts because you never present any or have any to back up your warped opinion of yourself.

only mm himself attributed to republicans the remark he quoted before (very much to his credit) castigating them for having sunk so low. when i suggested you consider doing something similar, you took it to the bizarro planet as usual and did exactly the opposite (tho not unexpected).

That is why I love getting your comments. You are so easy to beat!  I only have to point to my words and show you that you are tilting at your own self made windmills so you can beat them, but not discussing or debating anything I said.  because you cant, and now everyone can see that for themselves.

For the record, I never said the comment posted by MM was from a liberal, now did I?  But I dont expect you to understand that, or anything else that does not fit into your predetermined agenda.

I once appologized to you for stating something wrong about you.  While you have made several of the same errors about me in just 2 posts here, I dont think I will ever see an appology from you.  You are not man enough for it.

on Jan 22, 2009

I didn't realise that skin colour had a meaning in itself.

And people wonder why American education sucks.

on Jan 22, 2009

The child clearly realized the woman was different from her all along and embraced it. Now eventually that child is going to learn American history, the good and the bad, (I hope neither of you is suggesting we teach our kids revisionist history), and hopefully she'll learn the right lesson from it but we're barely a generation out of that dark chapter. It's not ancient history and we can't simply ignore it.

2 Generations.

And of course only a blind man is not going to see that you have a big nose and I have big ears.  And the question remains.  Am I Big ear Dr. Guy and you Big Nose Stubby?  Or am I Dr. Guy with the big ears, and you Stubby with the big nose?  The answer is important and says a lot.

on Jan 22, 2009

I am sorry if learning about African-American's contributions to history offend you. But it is a part of American history.

No one said it offended anyone, now did they?  And who said it was not part of American history?  But the question begged by the response is it "the most important part because it is about blacks"?  Is it?

8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8