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.
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.
huh?
did you read any of the articles you provided as evidence of:
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
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!
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:
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.
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.htmlhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/01/20/tom-brokaws-revenge-calls-out-bigots-rednecks-obama-inauguration-day-takhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.htmlhttp://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.
So what kind of racist did you mean to call me?
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.
Ok, so you are going to be stupid as well. Ok, for this time, I challenge you to find them. Go ahead, you can pull them up and find them. But since I have admitted when I am wrong, dont forget those posts either, as I do have them saved.
Well thank you for proving point 2. That liberals only want to change the argument to one they know they will win. The article is not about calling him black, or you chartreuse. It has nothing to do with that, now does it. It has a lot to do about (gasp! get ready for a shock) holding him up to a different standard. Closet racists dont use such crude terms as over racist to show their disgust. Of course the couch them in subtlies. Do you want to reread the article? Or continue in your own petulant (and wrong) vein?
I see you did not read the article either. Please dont comment any more until you read it. It is getting tiresome trying to direct people back to the point of the article, instead of their own internal biases.
For the record, who said there was a problem with saying he was the first American president who was black? besides you and the pitiful bee.
SOrry for calling you a racist. However, what I meant was closet racism and closet racist. I withdraw that accusation. And appolgoize for writing it.
One thing a written blog cannot give you is a video news cast (until someone puts it on youtube). I think I have made my point with the few that I hastily put together. This is not about the historical part. Why are you being so obtuse? Clearly I stated the election was historical. Prove me wrong on that one? And clearly now (even on the pages of JU) we see people lamenting or condemning simple CRITICISM of Obama, and insinuating it is race (links have been provided throughout these comments). That is the racism. yet you persist in trying to turn it to the historical nature of the race, and some even to a criticism of Obama himself. Go right ahead, I cant stop you from doing it. But the written word speaks for itself. If you cant understand it, taht is your loss, not a problem with the article.
yeah dammit. why the hell should the person who authors an article filled with very serious accusations be bothered with supporting those claims with facts? we start going down that path and it'll take all the self-righteous joy outta flinging ridiculous falsehoods and make it so much more difficult to propagate unsubstantiated opinions.
as for the newest set of links:
the salon.com article. media kleagle alex koppelman very deviously neglects to mention obama's ethnicity; not to worry tho, he eventually exposes his naked prejudice by reporting:
After signing off on the first document, Obama carefully put down the pen, folded his hands and dead-panned: "I was told not to swipe the pen, which I often do." He stood up to leave, but was reminded he had more documents to sign. The new president said: "That's true, I guess I have to have a Cabinet, don't I? Yeah, I forgot about that."
if that weren't enough, in the third and final paragraph, koppelman can't resist an opportunity to demean obama by quoting crypto-racist wolf blitzer's observation that:
"His penmanship, I must say, is excellent."
next, newsbusters tim graham, pulls the robes off tom brokaw, mike barnicle and colin powell by revealing their plot to force everyone to go easy on obama:
It’s a reminder again of who we are and our inherent strengths. And the inherent strengths are, is that this is an immigrant nation. We have come from all over the world to build this country and this society. And now we have the son of an immigrant as president, first generation. And the rule of law is the underpinning for it. And we’re always at our best when we are more than the sum of our parts.
Barnicle added: "There’s nothing wrong with crying about this country, is there?" Powell agreed: "I’ve been crying left and right for the last few weeks."
disgusting AND scandalous. that damn colin powell is outta control.
next comes juan williams for the wall street journal.
williams--who produced 'eyes on the prize'--mighta fooled the naive and gullible by forcefully insisting obama isn't exempt from scutiny and shouldn't be spared criticism. good thing drguy saw right thru williams who clearly meant just the opposite.
i give up.
in the face of such overwhelming evidence, it's clear the media sharks are intent on castrating anyone who doesn't go along with their hateful bigotry and make dr king spin in his grave by giving obama enough rope to lynch himself with--moments after he repeals all civil rights legislation going back to the emancipation proclamation in order to re-legalize slavery
From your OP (again):
I guess I was wrong to think that you were trying to make the point that the media were forcing us to think of him as a black man rather than a man (who happens to be black). Clearly there is some other far more obvious meaning to this that's staring me in the face, and I'm just too stupid to see it...
very well said article doc...
where's doc?
No idea, it's been well over a month. Hope he's all right.
Off topic
found this link while sifting through some basketball articles
https://forums.joeuser.com/98687
guess you were wrong huh?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
