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 7)
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 
on Jan 22, 2009

And yes, black is different from white.

You were going good until you got here.  No, black is not different.  SOme are, just as some whites are.  I have more in common with a lot of blacks than I do a lot of whites and vice versa.  It is our culture.  Where we were raised, how we were raised.  There is no difference, outside of the cultural ones.  Color is not a difference.  it is a description of physical attributes.

on Jan 22, 2009

Thank you El-Duderino!

I should have stayed home and let him write this!  He totally gets it and more eloquently than I can write!

on Jan 22, 2009

Yes, like HIS executive orders that he has to ask his lawyer what's in it in front of the press?

Notice how liberals like to think they are the smartest people opn earth?  first it was clinton, andnow it is Obama. And of course conservatives are always stupid (oh, yeah, dont forget Kerry in the mix).  I find it funny that those who think they know it all know less than the rest of us.  For we know we dont know it all, and that makes us a lot smarter than those clowns.

on Jan 22, 2009

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.

"You are not a "Burn a cross on the lawn" racist, but an institutional racist.  You have to perpetuate racism to maintain your sense of purpose and power base.  Whether you burn a cross on a lawn, or do it for other reasons, the end result is the same".

Err, you called me a IR.

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.

You're completely misunderstanding this, nobody's is saying "he's our first black president" as a "pretty good for a black guy" qualifier and I challenge you to show me where anyone in the media has referred to his race as a qualifier. We're talking about two mutually exclusive issues here.

You've got the historically significant issue of a member of a race rising to be the leader of the country that once considered their race inferior and that has nothing to do with anything he did, he's just a man who became our president. It was what America did in electing him that makes this an historic event, because it says that most of America now sees him as just a man. That's something that wouldn't have happened just a few decades ago.

 

 

 

 

on Jan 22, 2009

very utterance by the tingly legged bozos in the media. We are not to judge him as a man, we are not to judge what he says, does or does not do based upon him as a man, but as a BLACK man. The media is awash in its sickening quota system that we have to judge him not by the measure of a Washington or Roosevelt, but as a BLACK man who is president.

It matters when we are not allowed to think of him, praise him, or criticize him without first genuflecting at the alter of liberalism and adding the qualifier "for a black man".

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

since you're claiming in the first two quoted statements above (i cooulda gone through all the comments and dragged em all up) the country is being deluged by media demands obama be given some sorta lifetime pass because he's black or that no comparison be made to any previous white president because they worry he'd not measure up--and since you've been blathering away about how widely and deeply this message is being spread--and, lastly, because in the third quoted statement you've condescended to recount my failings compared to your brilliant successes as a master debater and splain how its cuz, unlike you, i never present facts, please demonstrate your prowess in that regard and provide us all with evidence of the disturbing messages you condemn so vehemently here. 

just so everyone's clear about this, i'm challenging you to provide factual evidence in the form of direct quotes uttered or verbatim statements authored by at least 10 prominent journalists or nationally broadcast/syndicated political analysts/commentators as well as the date and venue?  can't do that?  how bout from 5. or, hell, maybe just 3.

If I perpetuate the divide, then I am sinning. But if I choose to look beyond it, then I am not perpetuating it just because my father did. Or even worse (as it is racist but apparently acceptable today) because some clown in a white sheet who is white is perpetuating it.

do i really gotta go back and dig up your sorry attempts to justify george allen as misunderstood or his disgusting racial remarks as a well-meaning attempt to demonstrate his respect for his fellow man?  or your insistence that slavery benefited those africans fortunate enough to have become chattel because they were valuable property and therefore not subject to abuse?

King said "judge by the content of his character" as the first thing, not the last, or middle. We are to judge Obama on the content of his character without a qualifier of what color he is.

at the time mlk made that statement, i doubt very much he intended it to mean "please don't think so highly of black people you fail to notice they're just as human as you".   in fact i doubt it to the same extent i'm unconvinced he would have agreed with your attempt to diminish what has been a major milestone in america's journey and a quantum leap forward towards possibly becoming the america so many for such a long time wrongly claimed we were and he so correctly demanded we become.

on Jan 22, 2009

I challenge you to show me where anyone in the media has referred to his race as a qualifier.

dammit, i'm a post behind you again. 

he can't and he won't even try.

i been watchin this happen for nearly 5 years and it's always the same ol shuck n jive.

on Jan 23, 2009

Err, you called me a IR.

Sorry, I mispoke.

You're completely misunderstanding this, nobody's is saying "he's our first black president" as a "pretty good for a black guy" qualifier and I challenge you to show me where anyone in the media has referred to his race as a qualifier. We're talking about two mutually exclusive issues here.

Yes they are.  You are the one misunderstanding as that is what this article is all about.  ANd has been from the beginning.  Go back and read my article and comments.  Now we can disagree on whether they are saying it is a qualifier or not, but then I only have to google what I have already heard and read to prove you wrong.  But like me, perhaps they misspoke?  One misspeak, a chorus of misspeaks?

It was what America did in electing him that makes this an historic event, because it says that most of America now sees him as just a man.

Well, you got part of it!  Yes, the election was an historic event!  And it validated King.  The inauguration where we are told not to look at the president as one of 44, but as 1 of 1 was a repudiation of him.  And again, that has nothing to do with all the celebrating crowds.

on Jan 23, 2009

just so everyone's clear about this, i'm challenging you to provide factual evidence in the form of direct quotes uttered or verbatim statements authored by at least 10 prominent journalists or nationally broadcast/syndicated political analysts/commentators as well as the date and venue? can't do that? how bout from 5. or, hell, maybe just 3.

HOw about 2 or 1?  How about I teach you google instead?

do i really gotta go back and dig up your sorry attempts to justify george allen as misunderstood or his disgusting racial remarks as a well-meaning attempt to demonstrate his respect for his fellow man? or your insistence that slavery benefited those africans fortunate enough to have become chattel because they were valuable property and therefore not subject to abuse?

Yes, since it never happened.  It was made into it by the racist in the media, and they had to stretch then to find some tangent to damn him on.  But I dont guess you would see that.  You are blinded by your hatred instead.  That seems to be all that you have.

at the time mlk made that statement, i doubt very much he intended it to mean "please don't think so highly of black people you fail to notice they're just as human as you". in fact i doubt it to the same extent i'm unconvinced he would have agreed with your attempt to diminish what has been a major milestone in america's journey and a quantum leap forward towards possibly becoming the america so many for such a long time wrongly claimed we were and he so correctly demanded we become.

Only you would be so egotistical and shallow as to try to explain away racism and attach it to King.  You are sorry.  King said what he said.  As he is gone, that is all we have to go on, except for omniscience people like you.  WHo must condemn the dead with your own bias and stupidity because of an arrogance that defies conceit.  You are a sorry fool.  Who does not see anything but their own hatred and then extends it to places it does not exist.  But as they say, misery do love company, and you are trying to get a lot of company.

on Jan 23, 2009

he can't and he won't even try.

What a sad and pathetic fool.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249781178500439.html

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0901/09012101 (ok, that is UK - but then no one accused them of NOT being liberal and of course liberals want us to be like them)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/inauguration/la-na-inaug-literati21-2009jan21,0,7682733.story

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/19/obama.speech/index.html

Just so you know, I will not have to prove you the fool any longer since you have done that yourself.  ANd until you can actually admit you are wrong (as I have pointed out at least 3 times on this one article alone), you can do your own googling.  But I doubt you will.  As I said, you are not man enough to admit when you make mistakes (God forbid a LIberal is EVER wrong).

 

on Jan 23, 2009

I should stay home and let you write this! Thanks for another very on the mark and clear statement of my point!

I do what I can when I can.

 

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.

I think a lot of it comes down to so-called "white guilt".  The notion that because some people in our nations history abused others based on their skin color is somehow a shame on all people in any way related to the abusers (ie sharing the same skin color) for all time.  Thinking like this will continue to perpetuate some form of racism for some time to come unless people like you continue to educate people on what real racism is.

 

on Jan 23, 2009

I think a lot of it comes down to so-called "white guilt".

I think that is part of the whole new racism, but my question was why are liberals so insincere?  Why will they not Discuss the issue instead of trying to turn it around.  I just read Draginol's latest where once again a liberal would not debate the issue, instead try to turn it to another issue (that he would lose in the end anyway).  They do not want to discuss an issue unless they can frame the question.

on Jan 23, 2009

Just so you know, I will not have to prove you the fool any longer since you have done that yourself.

huh?

did you read any of the articles you provided as evidence of:

tingly legged bozos in the media. We are not to judge him as a man, we are not to judge what he says, does or does not do based upon him as a man, but as a BLACK man.

the first link is broken.

the next two point to articles in which one author very favorably compares obama's speech to the best of his predecessors' while the other provides commentary by a number of critical thinkers in different fields, all but one of whom--reagan's former speechwriter who hadn't yet heard it--seem to agree it was worthy of applause.

the fourth was written before the speech was delivered.  its author anticipated an excellent address

why you posted those links is totally incomprehensible to me and far beyond my ability to discern what kinda delusions plague you. they totally contradict your claims and invalidate your argument.

articles 2 & 3 make no mention whatsoever of obama's race...if you didn't know who he was prior to reading either of them, you'd have no clue there as to whether he was chinese, portugese or eskimo--just one helluva orator.

in that last article, there are three mentions of obama's racial identity--two of which refer to past speeches in which barak himself was addressing the issue of race in america--and notta word about his skin color or any demand to give obama a break or hold him to a diferent standard for any reason whatsoever.

oh wait.  sorry there is this:

After a family visit to the Lincoln Memorial, which has Lincoln's second inaugural address inscribed on its walls, Obama's 10-year-old daughter, Malia, turned her father and said, "First African-American president -- better be good.

absolutely digusting racist pandering!  oh the horror!   FROM HIS OWN RACIST 10-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER NO LESS

on Jan 23, 2009

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

So your response to bee saying you have failed to back up your points with facts/evidence is to...tell him that you have (without providing any). Classic Doc!

until you can actually admit you are wrong

Rich coming from you! I'm not sure I've ever seen you admit you're wrong/apologise, despite numerous occasions where you've been shown up. How about we try this as a quick one: You finally post some links in response to bee's request for evidence/facts, and yet after a quick look through, 3 of the 4 don't even mention his race. So, are you man enough to admit when you make mistakes? They do afterall appear to contradict the central message of your thread:

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

There's also a big difference between saying 'he's a man who is black' and 'you must not think of him as a man, but as a black man', and simply pointing out that it's the first time an African-American has been elected president is not doing the latter, but rather making a factual statement pointing out the historical significance of it. Just the same as if the youngest person was elected president, you'd have various people pointing out it's the first time someone this young has been elected, or this president is the youngest ever etc.; that doesn't mean that all those people would be ageist, and forcing you to think of the person not as a man, but as a young man, it just means they're pointing out the historical significance of it.

on Jan 23, 2009

So your response to bee saying you have failed to back up your points with facts/evidence is to...tell him that you have (without providing any). Classic Doc!

Careful yourself, he is the one demanding facts.  I provided them to the only person in the US that apparently does not get any, or know how to look them up.  He is a small bitter little man that cant stand facts because they are like sunlight to a vampire.

If you would like, here are some for you to peruse:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/01/20/cabinet_nominations/index.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/01/20/tom-brokaws-revenge-calls-out-bigots-rednecks-obama-inauguration-day-tak
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

NOw, do you want to discuss the article at hand, or a petulant child that you have not seen the history of?  I told him I was not going to play his childish games any longer, and I will not. Dont get into a fight with an idiot.  He will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

on Jan 23, 2009

Dr Guy
on Jan 23, 2009

Err, you called me a IR.

Sorry, I mispoke.

So what kind of racist did you mean to call me?

Yes they are. You are the one misunderstanding as that is what this article is all about. ANd has been from the beginning. Go back and read my article and comments. Now we can disagree on whether they are saying it is a qualifier or not, but then I only have to google what I have already heard and read to prove you wrong. But like me, perhaps they misspoke? One misspeak, a chorus of misspeaks?

You just can't seem to see that all references to his race in the press are tied to the historical nature of his presidency and not to him. You say his skin color is being used as a qualifier and that it's obvious if I just google it but when I do it just brings me back to your article. And your provided proof, well.

 

8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8