2012 Election Driven By Social Society
In this context, social is pertaining to a society of socializing, friendly companionship and the community of human society. Not to be confused with the “socialist” allegations tied to President Obama as being a Marxist. The times have changed, and the influences of the Internet and social media have done nothing but magnify the importance of social issues that the government is facing. Because of the popularity of these topics, they are inevitably very influential of this upcoming Presidential election.
While both Barack Obama, and presumed Republican candidate Mitt Romney, both have faced judgment and scrutiny based on their religions. Religion will play out very differently in this election because neither Obama nor Romney can really use that against each other. It will be interesting to see what happens with social issues demanding attention, as their religions factor into the responses. Religion and politics are a toxic combination and most people use their religion to justify their own judgments toward people they are unwilling to accept.
The unwillingness of acceptance leads us to the hot button issues that both Presidential hopefuls will have to address in the upcoming election. The pressure is higher than ever before, and the people are demanding answers and will not accept a candidate's choice to ignore or avoid responses.
The young demographic who seem to make the most noise when it comes to social issues, like when millions protested SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) on social networks and all over the web. It's this massive demographic that is seeking common sense for the White House. Romney and Obama's religions aren't going to save them or help them when it comes to the uproar of the young voters in America.
Posted by obamaluv at July 10, 2012 3:11 PM
Obama doesn’t have to attack Romney on his religion because Obama’s surrogates are more than willing to do it for him. Here is an example of Obama supporter Larry O’Donnell:
If we were to look back at the WB archives, during the height of the Republican Primary; many liberals on WB made Romney’s religion an issue and were convinced evangelicals would not support him.
Social issues cannot be separated from the socialist agenda of the left. The left believes it is their destiny to redistribute wealth through social programs.
TomT: “…many liberals on WB made Romney’s religion an issue and were convinced evangelicals would not support him.”
That’s because it is an issue. The Christian Right has struggled with it since it became clear Romney was headed to victory in the primary. Mormons are not Christians and they are damned to burn in hell for all eternity. That’s their words, not mine.
blind obama luv, what kind of “uproar” are you expecting to see?
“That’s because it is an issue.”
Thank you AD for proving my point.
“The Christian Right has struggled with it since it became clear Romney was headed to victory in the primary. Mormons are not Christians and they are damned to burn in hell for all eternity. That’s their words, not mine.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 10, 2012 5:21 PM
Do you have a copy of their words and “not yours”?
I am an Evangelical Christian and I have no problem with Romney’s religion. JFK was a Catholic and everyone said the same thing about him. Yet, he had no problem getting elected and many evangelicals voted for him. This problem of Romney’s religion is a make believe problem the left has promoted. In fact, the only one who talks about Romney’s religious beliefs is the left.
You mistake theology for political beliefs. I will tell you something Adam; the word Evangelical encompasses a wide variety of different churches and I would venture to say there are many theological differences between these church beliefs.
It is the left who hoped there would be problems, but there are none. Let me quote to you part of a sermon given by an Evangelical Preacher, whose theological beliefs are much different than mine, but I am in complete agreement with this man’s message:
“Should Christians Support President Obama?”
This man was on Dr. Charles Stanley’s program “In Touch” as a guest speaker.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
“Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make$150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran .
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America …”
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
Thanks for your time, may you and yours be safe.
“In GOD We Trust”
AD, I fully expect you to attack his message, because that is what liberals do; but the point I am trying to make is just this: even though our (evangelicals) theology is different, we would have no trouble supporting any man who is running against Obama.
The irony is that many of the Framers would have looked on Romney’s religion with just as much incredulity as many of the critics today. It doesn’t sit with me well that they did it, but Romney’s forebears were chased all the way to Utah by traditional Christians, who saw Mormonism as a cult.
Me, I think the first Amendment tells us that the Framers didn’t want the government to have a dog in that fight. People themselves would take care of religious laws and requirements, the state would take care of the secular stuff.
Freedom, in other words. It’s what you got to have, really, to avoid the kind of persecution that drove Romney’s people across a nation to find a place where they could worship in peace. Ah, but now the Baptists (with other Evangelicals, once persecuted and hindered themselves), Mormons and others have forgotten, in some number, what they had to put up with at the hands of those who believed they knew what the proper mode of worship was.
Understand this: those who yoke their religion’s fortunes to Government risk turning their spiritual identity into something far more worldly, far more politicized, creating both unaccountable leaders, and a flock less concerned with the important lessons that their God or whoever passed to them.
Religion should start from individual choice, and adherence to religious principles there as well. In America, it’s not your job to decide for everybody else that they’re going to get right with God, that’s something they’ve got to do for themselves. Grace, not government should lead people back to the fold. If you can’t trust in that, what faith do you really have?
Stephen, you are a Catholic (from what you have said), and the Catholic Church was responsible for torturing and killing nearly 50 million non-catholics during the Dark Ages; however, I have voted for Cathlics on many occasions.
You say the framers didn’t want to have a dog in the fight, however it is your side that is obsessed wth Romney’s religion.
“Understand this: those who yoke their religion’s fortunes to Government risk turning their spiritual identity into something far more worldly, far more politicized, creating both unaccountable leaders, and a flock less concerned with the important lessons that their God or whoever passed to them.
Religion should start from individual choice, and adherence to religious principles there as well. In America, it’s not your job to decide for everybody else that they’re going to get right with God, that’s something they’ve got to do for themselves. Grace, not government should lead people back to the fold. If you can’t trust in that, what faith do you really have?”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 10, 2012 9:32 PM
Stephen, I have no idea what you are talking about; do these comments somehow relate to the left’s obsession with Romney’s religious beliefs? Give me a hint?
It’s quite simple: if you convert a man at gunpoint, who does he defer to, God or the person with the gun? That is the essence of the religious argument for removing matters of religious belief from the scope of government’s powers.
Government power, in the end, can only encourage secular, worldly commitment. It cannot compel true obedience to God.
By the way, who is it who keeps on bringing up both the lie that Obama is a Muslim and that he had this horrible pastor who must have brainwashed him into a secret muslim angry black man who never seems to lose his temper in public?
Who are the people who keep on bashing him as our “messiah”, or even as the Antichrist?
And do you really think Romney’s Mormonism is the most egregious thing about him for most Democrats?
Stephen, regarding your questions, don’t know, wasn’t me.
What does all this talk of religion have to do with the left’s obsession with Romney being a Mormon. I have no problem with it and none of my friends do either.
Somehow you are trying to take us away from the point of Obamaluv that evangelicals have a problem with Romney.
I hate to ask this, but how about some proof, or facts, or something concrete?
TomT: “I will tell you something Adam; the word Evangelical encompasses a wide variety of different churches and I would venture to say there are many theological differences between these church beliefs.”
As someone who attends attends an evangelical church I understand this as well as you do, I believe. But I also listen to the folks who control the message on your side. Listen to folks like Ray “Banana man” Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Listen to Bryan Fischer of American Family Association.
Of course once it was clear Romney would be the nominee then a lot of leaders on the right flip-flopped and said it was OK to elect a member of a cult who worships a false god and will eventually burn in hell forever. I guess with Romney’s history of flip-flopping it makes sense that even his supporters would flip-flop as well.
“Let me quote to you part of a sermon given by an Evangelical Preacher…”
First of all, David Barton is no doctor. Second, he never said what you just quoted. But it that doesn’t matter anyway since he’s a serial liar and a phony historian already.
“It is the left who hoped there would be problems, but there are none.”
I don’t think it will implode Romney’s campaign but if it stays a close race then his religion could turn out to be a deciding factor.
The irony here is you’re using a documented tactic where you try and make it look like the left has a problem with Mormonism and not the right:
One of the strangest recent developments in the GOP presidential race is the insistence from Religious Right leaders who have been hostile to both Mitt Romney and his Mormonism that, should Romney become the Republican nominee, it will be the Left and the Media that will launch bigoted attacks against his faith.
Bryan Fischer has had it out for Romney because he meekly denounced Fischer’s unmitigated bigotry at the Values Voter Summit, and Fischer has been warning that a Romney nomination will mean “the end of the Republican party as a political force” ever since.
At the same time, Fischer has also been trying to use Romney’s faith against him but struggling to do so without resorting to the open bigotry that is his standard operating procedure because even he knows that blatant anti-Mormon bigotry is not popular among the Religious Right.
Which explains his latest column, in which he says that Romney refused to attend the Thanksgiving Family Forum because “he did not want to do anything that would highlight the theological gulf between his religious convictions and those of the orthodox Christians on the platform.”
But this is really just cover for Fischer to go after Romney’s faith by imagining a scenario in which it is the “winger-left media” that will attack “the more unusual aspects of Mormon theology” …
If Fischer thinks he is fooling anyone with this pathetic charade, he is less self-aware than we ever could have imagined.
Adam Ducker, so once again the left attacks the messenger instead of dealing with the message. Please tell me why we even use links to quotes; since the first attack from the left is on the one making the quote? Does it really matter if he has a doctorate or not (you do realize many people hold honorary doctorates), and does it really matter if he preached this exact message or not? I listened o his message on Charles Stanley’s program and he basically made a stand for America’s greatness. I would expect the left’s real problem with Barton is his message that America was founded upon Christian principles.
“As someone who attends attends an evangelical church I understand this as well as you do, I believe. But I also listen to the folks who control the message on your side. Listen to folks like Ray “Banana man” Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Listen to Bryan Fischer of American Family Association.
I know who Kirk Cameron is; but I have never heard of Bryan Fisher or Ray “Banana man” Comfort; so whatever they say has not had much effect on me. Perhaps you would like to trash Kirk Cameron, since he is the only one I have heard of; movie star right?
I don’t understand the left’s anger at evangelicals for supporting Romney; or the anger that evangelicals have changed their opinion of Romney? Iowa is an evangelical stat, let me reword that before the left blows a gasket: Iowa is a state with a large group of evangelicals. This is the latest information out of Iowa:
“Iowa’s evangelical conservatives rejected Mitt Romney in 2008 and again in the 2012 state caucuses, but they may be warming to him as the November general election approaches, if a recent internal poll is any indication.
According to the Des Moines Register, the Republican presidential nominee is now running “as strongly as conservative icon U.S. Rep. Steve King with voters in Iowa’s GOP-dominant” western region, based on internal campaign polling the newspaper obtained.
“That’s a good sign for Romney — there’s no such thing as a King/Obama voter,” the newspaper reported.
The last time Iowa’s evangelicals helped a Republican candidate win Iowa was in 2004, when every poll, including the Register’s, had Democrat John Kerry winning the state. But President George W. Bush ended up on top because the evangelical voter turnout in the western part of the state was much bigger than anticipated.
The president’s support among conservatives that year in the state turned out to be as strong as King’s, a fact that the GOP congressman’s former district director, Chuck Laudner, says helped win the state for Bush.
“It’s going to be 2004 all over again,” Laudner, who campaigned aggressively in Iowa this year for Rick Santorum, told the newspaper.”
The question is why are evangelicals supporting Romney? Here is the answer:
“We want a candidate who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2012, and can govern effectively thereafter by articulating and implementing an intelligent, values-based governing strategy. This is just what Mitt Romney did as governor, this is just what Mitt Romney did in business, and this is what he would do as president”
What does it matter why people vote; whether they are voting for Romney because his moral stand mirrors theirs, or whether their vote for Romney is a vote against Obama…who cares?
Adam, people are allowed to vet their candidates, they are allowed to ask questions, and they are allowed to weigh the consequences of their vote. Given the choice of Obama (who stands against everything a Christian believes) and Romney; why would you be so upset that they would chose Romney. No, the real problem with the left is that they called for a division between Romney and evangelicals; they promoted the division and they hoped for the division, but it has not happened. So your final arguement is to accuse all Christians of flip flopping on their vote, because you don’t think they should. This is a very sad day for America when these accusations take place, simply because of partisanship.
Again, I will say, the only ones concerned about Romney’s Mormon religion, is the left. It is not an issue for conservatives. This also proves that it is liberals who are intolerant; it is liberals who divide people into classes, and it is not conservatives.
I might add in conclusion; it was the left who tried to tie Romney with a group of Mormons who lived in Mexico in the 1800’s and practiced polygamy (even though his forefathers didn’t), it was the left who made jokes about the underwear he wore, and it was the left who ridiculed the founder of the Mormon religion. Do I belive in these things…No. I am not voting for the Preacher of the United States, I am voting for the President.
TomT: “Please tell me why we even use links to quotes; since the first attack from the left is on the one making the quote?”
I’m just pointing out the irony of exercising historical revision against a man who is a serial historical revisionist. That’s not funny to you?
“I know who Kirk Cameron is; but I have never heard of Bryan Fisher or Ray ‘Banana man’ Comfort…”
That’s OK. Not everyone has but they’re influential members of the Christian right in America whether you know them or not.
“I don’t understand the left’s anger at evangelicals for supporting Romney; or the anger that evangelicals have changed their opinion of Romney?”
I can’t speak for all the left but I can say I’m not angry. I’m not even surprised. The right would vote for Adolf Hitler if he were running against President Obama. This is the same attitude the left had against Bush and it nearly got us a President Kerry who the right would have then blamed for the economic meltdown and financial collapse in the United States. Imagine how angry you folks would have been.
“What does it matter why people vote; whether they are voting for Romney because his moral stand mirrors theirs, or whether their vote for Romney is a vote against Obama…who cares?”
In a close election every detail matters. Obama’s race matters even more now than before. His incumbency matters. Romney’s money matters. His religion matters. The point I make to folks is not that I think a large mass of folks will vote against Romney because he’s a Mormon, but some will. Some will sit out the election. Some will vote 3rd party.
“This also proves that it is liberals who are intolerant; it is liberals who divide people into classes, and it is not conservatives.”
Yes, of course. That makes total sense. The right freaks when we call out their past (as in way back in time six months ago) bigotry on Mormonism. It’s like pointing out racists on the right and the you then accusing us of having a race problem for talking about race as an issue. It doesn’t make sense.
“No. I am not voting for the Preacher of the United States, I am voting for the President.”
And let me just add that I think Romney would make a decent president and I don’t mind that he’s a Mormon. I’d prefer he not win and we not have to see how good he does though.
“I’m just pointing out the irony of exercising historical revision against a man who is a serial historical revisionist. That’s not funny to you?”
I Googled and saw all the left’s complaints about David Barton being historical revisionist; and I also listened to his sermon on Charles Stanley’s web site, and I never heard one word of historical revisionism. Let m ask you Adam, have you ever listened to Barton, or are you simply quoting the left?
“I can’t speak for all the left but I can say I’m not angry. I’m not even surprised. The right would vote for Adolf Hitler if he were running against President Obama. This is the same attitude the left had against Bush and it nearly got us a President Kerry who the right would have then blamed for the economic meltdown and financial collapse in the United States. Imagine how angry you folks would have been.”
This is a very sick thing to say and it takes a really warped mind to come up with something like this, “The right would vote for Adolf Hitler if he were running against President Obama”. The presidential elections are divided almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans; and with the striking of a key, you have accused ½ of the American voters of voting for one of the most evil men who ever lived. Has it come to this point in the debate where you are so angry that you would say such evil things about fellow Americans? Kerry lost the election, get over it, and its pure supposition to determine what the economy would have done and who would have been blamed. It’s almost as if the left is setting the agenda for when Obama loses.
I said, “What does it matter why people vote; whether they are voting for Romney because his moral stand mirrors theirs, or whether their vote for Romney is a vote against Obama…who cares?”
“In a close election every detail matters. Obama’s race matters even more now than before. His incumbency matters. Romney’s money matters. His religion matters. The point I make to folks is not that I think a large mass of folks will vote against Romney because he’s a Mormon, but some will. Some will sit out the election. Some will vote 3rd party.”
You miss my point: if conservatives are going to vote for Romney; what does it matter why we vote for him, whether it’s because he is a moral man or whether it’s because he is the choice over Obama? I believe it is the hope of he left that Mormonism, or any of the other attacks on money will matter; but I believe you are wrong. It will boil down to two people on the ticket: a big government tax and spend liberal, or a business savvy, cut taxes and spending conservative. The question is whether Obama has placed enough Americans on the government handout to get re-elected?
“Yes, of course. That makes total sense. The right freaks when we call out their past (as in way back in time six months ago) bigotry on Mormonism. It’s like pointing out racists on the right and the you then accusing us of having a race problem for talking about race as an issue. It doesn’t make sense.”
You keep talking about conservative’s bigotry on Mormonism; Conservative voters are made up of people, American citizens; it doesn’t matter what some known names in the Republican Party say. Give me some proof? Show me some evidence of the rank and file Conservative voters who are bigoted toward Romney? Perhaps some photos of Tea Party conservatives with bigoted signs against Romney? You have said yourself that you don’t agree with everything your liberal leader’s say, so why do you paint the conservative voters with the same brush as some conservative leaders? You don’t think we are capable of thinking for ourselves?
“And let me just add that I think Romney would make a decent president and I don’t mind that he’s a Mormon. I’d prefer he not win and we not have to see how good he does though.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 11, 2012 1:16 PM
But this is not true Adam; it is you who have made the issue that Romney s a Mormon. It is your side, who has made Mormonism the issue. It is your side that thinks conservatives have flip-flopped and betrayed conservative ideals by supporting Romney. Tell me something Adam; are you in complete agreement with everything Obama has done, his relationships with unscrupulous people, and everything he believes in? Or do you disagree with some of his program or stand; and if so, why do you still support him? It is the same with conservatives; we may not completely agree with Romney, but we understand he is better than the alternative.
TomT: “…and I never heard one word of historical revisionism.”
You either weren’t listening careful enough or you didn’t check his facts. The man is a liar. This isn’t just some left versus right thing. The man lies, all the time. He gets paid a lot to lie and it’s in keeping with his right wing agenda. His kind seeks to inject a level of Christianity into the founding of this country that has never existed. They seek a false restoration of our country that fits a narrow political agenda of activist Christian groups. As a Christian I take great offense to what Barton and others are doing.
“Let me ask you Adam, have you ever listened to Barton, or are you simply quoting the left?”
I am the left, and I have listened to him a lot, if that makes any sense. I listen to a great deal more right wing radio than I should as a rational human being. The Wallbuilders program on AFR Talk is something I hear pretty regularly.
“Has it come to this point in the debate where you are so angry that you would say such evil things about fellow Americans?”
Again, I’m not angry at all so I don’t see why you keep suggesting that. Are you picturing me sitting here fuming as I rant and rave about Mormons and conservatives?
I just know how political support works on the left and the right. It’s all about the team, damn the facts or reality. The same batch of people calling Mormonism a cult and demonic six months ago when they were pushing for Perry or Cain are now making excuses for why they now support someone they detested.
“You don’t think we are capable of thinking for ourselves?”
Now you’re just dialing up the drama and putting words in my mouth. I don’t understand why. It’s clear you’re suggesting the right has no problem with Romney’s faith while at the same time admitting you aren’t even up to speed on the statements of prominent members of the American Family Association and other Christian Right leaders who denounced Mormonism in order to try and prevent Romney from winning but now have turned around and decided now it’s OK to vote for a man who worships a false god. It’s OK for him to sit in the White House for the next four to eight years. He can wait at least that long to start burning in hell forever.
Adam, let me close this discussion with this statement: I don’t care what the American Family Association or other Christian Right leaders say. I make my own decisions based on what I research. I feel sorry for you, I believe you qualify as one of the sad, unhappy liberals talked about in the Red Column. And yes, I believe you just sit in front of a PC screen and fume with anger and do whatever you can to twist things to match your idealogy.
TomT: “I make my own decisions based on what I research.”
Sounds great to me. Let me know what you dig up on David Barton. It won’t take you long to start to find his faults if you’re researching the guy honestly.
“I feel sorry for you, I believe you qualify as one of the sad, unhappy liberals talked about in the Red Column.”
You’re mistaken, but you’re free to continue to imagine me that way.
“The right would vote for Adolf Hitler if he were running against President Obama.”
Probably not. After all, Hitler was even a bigger big government proponent and his National Socialist Party disliked free enterprise with a deadly passion.
The reason the right doesn’t like President Obama is that he wants to drag the country farther toward government dependency. He seems unable to understand or appreciate the free market.
You know that all the biggest and most murderous villeins of history have been proponents of increasing government power for the simple reason that those who don’t control a strong government apparatus with concentrated coercion do not have the capacity for it. This is one big reason conservatives prefer not to concentrate or centralize power.
Re Kerry getting blamed for the market downturn, it would have been as much his fault as it was Bush’s. I think presidents get too much credit or blame, but if you believe in the president in charge, you would have to say that after nearly four years it would have been the fault of the man in the nation’s highest office. Oh yeah, same goes for Obama, doesn’t it?
Republicans concentrate power just fine. These things you’re saying is what you would like to believe your philosophies lead you to. The reality is, Republicans are responsible for the last major Department, the last new benefit for Medicare, and much, much more besides.
It would be more accurate and practical to look at what your people do in terms of there being different places where the Republicans would like to take authority (such as on the question of marriage0, and places where they would like to clear away policy they deem to be bad.
If you were to look at your people this way, two things would be true, one good for you, one maybe not: First would be that would be relieved of the need to pretend on ridiculous grounds that there is nothing you can or should do to confront the economic emergency of our times.
The second, though, would be that Republicans would really be no better than Democrat on many fronts, just different in ways that some might prefer.
As for fault? I’d say follow the policy, and follow those who create it. If you created it ten years ago, the fact that some, for political or economic reasons, continue it some years later, or are prevented from changing it by obstruction from the other side, doesn’t relieve you of responsibility.
I know the left will not bring this up; but has anyone noticed a lot of things going on in Obama’s life.
He is losing the blue collar vote; he is losing independents; he is losing blacks (thanks to Romney NAACP speech); the economy is going back downhill; industrial production is down; inflation and recession are coming; Biden and Pelosi are going nuts; Reid is obstructing the Senate; Obama is dropping in the polls; and Obama is trying to use the UN to bypass the 2nd amendment to take guns out of the hands of Americans.
Come on November!!!
Why would Romney even waste his time speaking before the NAACP? Why would he waste his time talking to blacks about entrepreneurship and savings accounts. Black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work. Black people don’t know about savings accounts; black people don’t know about entrepreneurship.
Frank, if you are referring to how they are treated by liberals/progressives, you should add that to your comment next time.
I don’t know…
You don’t think he meant it the way he wrote it, do you?
Frank is just kidding of course. He can’t possibly be an insane racist, can he?
Bill: “I know the left will not bring this up; but has anyone noticed a lot of things going on in Obama’s life.”
I’m wondering where you get your information since you don’t trust polls and other means of measuring public opinion.
Adam Ducker, do you believe my statement is racist?
kctim, I was setting up a liberal with the statement and Adam Ducker bit. Adam thinks I’m an insane racists for making the statement. But there is only one problem, I did not make the statement; Charlette Stoker Manning is a chairwoman of Women in NAACP and she made this statement to Buzzfeed.com; speaking of Romney’s speech to the NAACP:
“I believe his vested interests are in white Americans,” said Charlette Stoker Manning, chair of Women in NAACP. “You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work.”
Now, my question is; does Adam Ducker still find these comments insane racist comments, or has he changed his mind?
I agree the statement is a racist’s statement. This is shocking that a woman in a leadership position of the NAACP would make such a comment. Does this not vindicate not only Romney, but also Allen West?
By Stocker making this statement, she denigrated every black person in America. Rush Limbaugh had a very good segment about this today on his show. I don’t listen to him very often, but had the radio on today and caught the show. It’s Rush’s opinion that Romney was of course set up to speak at the meeting; and even though Obama and his henchmen and the liberal press were salivating at the thought of slamming Romney for being rejected by the NAACP; Romney came out looking very presidential. He did not talk down to these people; he talked to them like they were fellow Americans and even though he was booed for saying why and what he would do to Obamacare; he was still given a standing ovation by the group, something the press has failed to reveal.
This incident will be a win-win for Romney. Romney told them the truth and he didn’t hold back; he didn’t talk about his childhood friend who was a black or some other stupid analogy. He spoke to the NAACP as if they were fellow Americans, striving to be successful. But Rush brought out the point, what if he had said what they wanted to hear? What if he had told them he would promise to do for them what Obama has done?
“Imagine if Romney had told them what they wanted to hear, how would that have gone? If Romney had told the NAALCP what they wanted to hear, he would have said, “Under a Romney administration, we will get even more blacks on food stamps than President Obama has.” Yeah, right on, dude, right on. We’ve gotta be honest about this, Snerdley. Romney got booed for articulating policies that would improve the lives of every American. He did. He got booed for policies that are designed to improve the lives and lifestyles of every American, did he not?
Okay. So what could he have said that would have generated applause? Well, I was thinking about it. He could have said, “Under a Romney administration, we will get even more of you on food stamps than President Obama has.” Right on. “We will keep unemployment above 14% for black Americans, and we will raise the minimum wage so that 75% of blacks won’t have a job.” Right on, dude, right on. (interruption) You say he would have been booed if he said that? No, wait a minute. He was booed for saying the opposite, because Romney’s policies want to reduce black unemployment. Romney’s policies want to reduce the number of people on food stamps. Romney’s policies want more people working, and that got booed, so I’m simply asking what could he have said that would have generated cheer?
He got booed for telling the truth. Biden got booed because he stopped lying. Biden’s speech was a lie. He ends his speech, they boo. The audience wanted Biden to keep lying to ‘em. They asked the spokeskid, Jay Carney, “Why isn’t Obama here?” The spokeskid said, (paraphrasing) “President Obama, he doesn’t go in for voting bloc speeches,” or something like that. He doesn’t pay attention to voting blocs. And Donna Brazile said that Obama was there in spirit. We have that. Grab audio sound bite number seven. Wolf Blitzer is ticked off that Obama didn’t go the NAALCP. Did you hear about that? Everything CNN’s doing is a ratings ploy these days. Here’s Brazile, and Wolf Blitzer said, “I think he shoulda gone as well. I think Obama should have gone. Why didn’t he go?
BRAZILE: First of all, I thought the president was there in spirit. Eric Holder was there yesterday. The vice president’s gone.
RUSH: He was there in spirit. See, here’s the thing. Mitt Romney treated the members of the NAALCP as though they were independent thinking adult citizens, and he got booed. He treated them with respect, and he got booed. He treated them with equality. He treated ‘em as equals. He got booed.”
I appreciate your dishonest approach to race debate, I really do. But in your attempt to “set up a liberal” I think you slipped up a little. You took the statements of a black woman speaking about the struggles of African Americans in this economy and turned it around to suggest they don’t know about savings account and entrepreneurship. You do understand that’s not what she meant right? You’d been better off quoting her more completely but instead you just come off sounding like…well, an insane racist. Do I think you’re an insane racist? No. But this does make me wonder…
Adam, I believe Bill in Florida has a point. I believe Obama is in trouble; he has based his campaign against Romney on personally attacking Romney for Bain Capital. According to Lanny Davis, in a great article entitled “Polls, Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”, Obama has spent $68 million on attacks adds in the 12 swing states, and he is losing ground with the voters:
Judging from the comments on Davis’ article, many Democrats who supported Obama are having second thoughts. There have already been reports of Obama losing the Blue Collar workers and independents. I believe he is developing some real problems, of course time will tell.
Frank: I didn’t quote get your statement at first but your link helped.
She said, “I believe his vested interests are in white Americans. You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work.” Black people don’t know about savings accounts; black people don’t know about entrepreneurship. Who does Romney think he’s talking to?
Notice the quotes and where she stops speaking and Limbaugh starts? You infused the woman’s words with the words of the insane racist, Rush Limbaugh. I apologize for attributing such nonsense to you.
Adam, are you upset that you were setup? Please tell me why it’s okay for a black person to make racist statements, but it’s terrible if a white does it? I am sure you are a little embarrased at your original comments, only to find out I had not said them. I’m sorry for deceiving you. I appologize.
I’m not a racist or an “insane racist” against blacks; it would be difficult since I am black. However I disagree with your annalysis of Charlette Stoker Manning’s statements. She meant exactly what she said and she meant it in the manner she said it. Either you are trying to spin for her, or you are repeating someone else’s spin.
I think Obama’s support has eroded in many areas. The question is does it help Romney? Or does the Romney’s massive drop in support by Hispanic voters cancel out Obama’s waning support from some key demographics? Does a slight erosion of support from black voters get cancelled out by an erosion of evangelical support for false god worshiping Mitt Romney?
This is the problem with nominating Romney. He cancels out many of the gains conservatives have made against President Obama.
Frank: “I am sure you are a little embarrased at your original comments, only to find out I had not said them.”
To be embarrassed I’d need to have some sort of pride on the line in the conversation. As far as you being black goes you are still perfectly capable of repeating white supremacist ramblings of folks like Rush Limbaugh so I hardly see your point. Limbaugh took her out of context and you repeated exactly what Limbaugh said.
I think the important lesson I’ve learned here is that if I see someone saying something racist I need to double check to see if they are quoting Rush Limbaugh.
Adam, please tell me what she said and what it meant in your words? I gave you some quotes from Limbaugh, which I believe make some sense; and you attack Limbaugh without even dealing with his comments. Is there actually a specific point which Limbaugh said that you disagree with, or do you simple discount him because he is a conservative?
If you will notice, I quoted an article by Lanny Davis. I personally have never had much use for Lanny Davis; but I read his article because it intrigued me. To my surprise, I found it very interesting; but if I had simply said “ramblings of folks like Lanny Davis” with a preconceived idea that he was some kind of vermin, I would have missed a very interesting point.
You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work.
That’s it. Limbaugh himself added:
Black people don’t know about savings accounts; black people don’t know about entrepreneurship. Who does Romney think he’s talking to?
I took her statement to suggest Romney was a little tone deaf talking about talking about savings and starting businesses while the biggest problem facing black Americans is 14.4% unemployment. It’s a little hard to start your own business or build your savings if you can’t even find steady work for one reason or another.
Limbaugh on the other hand thinks she was speaking about black people’s understanding or qualifications for savings or entrepreneurship. Every conservative I’ve seen commenting on this across the board agrees with Limbaugh’s view of this but I’m really not seeing that context from her statement. You agree with him as well but I’m not sure why. This context doesn’t exist in her statement and you have to be incredibly cynical about it to think she meant anything that offensive about black people.
Adam, this is what she said:
“I believe his vested interests are in white Americans,” Charlette Stoker Manning, the chairwoman of Women in NAACP, told the website BuzzFeed following the Republican candidate’s Wednesday speech in Houston.
“You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work,” Manning said.”
First, you are assuming she was referring to the 14.4% unemployment; but she did not say trhat. She was discussing the Romeny’s vested interest was only in white Americans , then she concluded with Romney is talking about entrepreneurship and savings accounts; now if what you are trying to say is true, then what did she mean by her concluding statement, “black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work,”? It plainly sounds like she is saying, “Romney talks about entrepreneurship and savings accounts, but black people don’t understand this, in fact they can barely find a way to get back and forth from work”.
In any case, I find it offensive to black people. But, I don’t know, perhaps you are blacker than I and you don’t see it in the same manner.
However, it gets even better; I did a little bio on Manning and this is what I found:
“For more than twenty five years, Charlette Manning has embarked on a quest to find more meaning in her life by blending her business experience with the spiritual path that has unfolded before her. While maintaining her strong ties to business, she extended her studies to become an Ordained Minister in International Religious Studies at the University of Seattle, and a “Mastering Life’s Energies Coach”, under the direction of Maria Nemeth and Associates of Sacramento, California, and offers personal, one on one counseling and coaching teleseminars, and workshops throughout the country. Charlette is also a graduate and Certified Trainer from Peak Potentials under the direction of T. Harv Eker, and a student of Mark Victor Hansen’s Mega University. She has studied with and been mentored by such notables as Mark Victor Hansen, Jack Canfield, Robert Allen, Alex Mandossian, and James Arthur Ray.
Charlette spent seven years working for the legendary Marianne Williamson, considered one of the nation’s Guru’s of New Thought. Through years of study and preparation she studied with and worked for other New Thought legends such as, Jean Houston, Dr. Wayne Dyer, Carolyn Myss, Les Brown, Jacob Glass, Michael Eric Dyson, Stedman Graham, and Oprah Winfrey.
Charlette is a native of Alexandria, Virginia and has lectured professionally since 1996. A member of the National Speakers Association and a published author, (The 4 Ingredients to Spiritual Peace, and, The Business of Forgiveness) Charlette spreads a message of faith through action, and empowerment through forgiveness. Mark Victor Hansen’s says about The 4 Ingredients, “If you want to experience spiritual peace read Charlette’s book.”
Known as the “Forgiveness Coach” Charlette’s message is empowering, engaging, energizing, and entertaining. Her mission is for us all to return to the love that God is, and to experience this love in our daily lives.”
Don’t you find it ironic that a woman, whose goal is to promote such a dim view of black people’s capabilities?
And yet her speeches contain a message of forgiveness to empowerment and experiencing the love of God.
Nowhere in the context is there a hint that she thinks black Americans are unqualified to start a business. It’s just not in there except in the twisted minds of folks like Rush Limbaugh.
You went and dug into her background only to find your interpretation of her statement to be completely contrary to her life’s work and stated philosophy. Which do you think is more likely? She says one thing and does another and is a complete hypocrite? Or her statement is perfectly in line with her work and you’re simply distorting what she said?
Now, it’s part of Limbaugh’s agenda to make liberals look like hypocrites and I suspect that’s something you love about the guy. I just wonder if you’re being honest with yourself about her statements or if you just want to back the views of conservatives in this fight and you don’t care about context?
“Nowhere in the context is there a hint that she thinks black Americans are unqualified to start a business. It’s just not in there except in the twisted minds of folks like Rush Limbaugh.” Adam Ducker
No Adam, if you look at the overall message of the NAACP, it is very easy to see that her message was just as Limbaugh and others have reported. If you look at the overall messages of Maxine Waters, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and other blacks in leadership positions of the Democratic Party, NAACP, or Congressional Black Caucus; you will find the same message. Here is the comments of another board member of the NAACP, Amos Brown:
“It was insensitive and quite demeaning as a matter of fact,” Brown told The Washington Examiner after Romney exited the stage. “Certainly we are aware of what the numbers are and the impact is in our communities. It’s the dialogue used that we find insulting.”
Romney was invited to address the NAACP not to win over voters already overwhelmingly committed to backing Obama, but to “show respect to the organization,” Brown said.
Another board member, Amos Brown, of San Francisco, called Romney’s address, “an insult to the NAACP,” including his references to the importance of family.
“For him to come here and lecture us about the family — he doesn’t need to be talking to Negros about that,” Brown said. “Who tore up the family?”
Who tore up the black family? I will tell you who tore up the black family; it was the Welfare state. The Welfare state started by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has never been the friend of blacks. It was Democrats who organized the KKK, it was the Democrats who invoked Jim Crow poll taxes, it was the Democrats who blocked civil rights, and it is the Democrats who have made blacks dependent upon government handouts. Yes, Adam, I do not have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to understand that Manning’s, Brown’s, or any other self appointed spokesman for the black communities comment’s about blacks are all from the same play book. Here is another comment by a leader of the NAACP:
“Dedrick Muhammad, the director of the NAACP Economic Department, chalked up the perceived tone-deafness to the fact that Romney spends most of his time on the campaign trail talking to white, middle-class audiences in rural and suburban areas.
“He knew to bring up great civil rights stalwarts and quote them, but he still seems to have great distance in understanding the needs of our community,” said Muhammad. “Instead of just throwing out buzzwords — ‘charter schools,’ ‘free enterprise’ — you can’t just say that to us and get a positive reception.”
Romney’s perceived distance from the African-American community entered the spotlight this month when a Politico reporter lost his job after asserting that Romney is only comfortable around white people.
“I think the Governor had a fairly well-crafted speech, I think he just misread his audience,” said Bill Lucy, a member of the NAACP. “I think he thought he was coming into a hostile environment… I think it’s because he mostly speaks to rich audiences and people who don’t have to think seriously about the impact of health care in their lives.”
I listened to Romney’s speech to the NAACP; I thought he was courteous, I thought he was sincere, and I thought he spoke to blacks as if they were equal to him. I do not think he spoke as a rich white man talking down to blacks; he spoke to us as one who thought we could do anything we set our hearts too.
One of the great faults of the left is to attack any black man or woman who speaks a conservative message. Let me ask you a question Adam, can you name me one black person, who is conservative, who has not been demeaned, thrown under the bus, or called an Uncle Tom? There are none. If a black person is a conservative; they are immediately attacked by the left. The Democrats look at the black community as a voting bloc, and black leaders in the NAACP or Congressional Black Caucus are in it for power, and in Jackson’s and Sharpton’s case for power and money.
As far as digging into Manning’s background; I said it was ironic that she would be a promoter of God’s love and forgiveness and yet make such racist and stupid comments.
“Now, it’s part of Limbaugh’s agenda to make liberals look like hypocrites and I suspect that’s something you love about the guy. I just wonder if you’re being honest with yourself about her statements or if you just want to back the views of conservatives in this fight and you don’t care about context?”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 12, 2012 11:54 PM
Rush Limbaugh does not have to make liberals look like hypocrites; they do that all by themselves. I told you in the beginning, I don’t very often listen to Limbaugh. In fact I very seldom listen to him. So now you question whether I am honest about what I believe. Let me ask you Adam, if I say yes, are you going to label me as an Uncle Tom? Yes, I am honest.
Now, let me give you a little history lesson:
The NAACP was founded by three rich white Republicans.
“The first president of the NAACP was a rich white Republican. All of its original officers, except one, were rich white Republicans. All of its early members and officers, black or white, were Republicans. NAACP was formed to fight Jim Crow laws, which were instituted in the South to keep blacks and poor whites from voting for Republicans.”
“And now the NAACP has become an organization expressly devoted to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. Pure and simple. That’s all it exists for, to make sure they don’t vote for Republicans.”
“That is how the leaders of the NAACP remain at the table of power at the Democrat Party. They are part of the civil rights coalition, and their job is to turn out that vote every four years for the Democrat candidate. It doesn’t matter who or what he or she is. That’s the express reason for the NAACP’s existence. It’s the primary objective, is to make sure that blacks don’t vote Republican.”
So Adam, I am not surprised at anything that comes out of the mouth of the leaders of the NAACP, and I am quite sure Manning meant exactly what she said.
Frank: “No Adam, if you look at the overall message of the NAACP, it is very easy to see that her message was just as Limbaugh and others have reported.”
I’m through expecting a rational response about this since you’re too busy citing all the reasons you hate the modern NAACP and black liberal leaders to bother citing actual evidence that Manning or anyone at the NAACP supports the opinions you claim they have.
You can either continue to believe these people are complete hypocrites and hateful toward the black people they seek to represent or you can take a step back to notice that those misinterpreting her words have an agenda to smear liberals and to attack anyone critical of conservatives.
“I told you in the beginning, I don’t very often listen to Limbaugh. In fact I very seldom listen to him.”
Strange. We sure do have a lot of citing of Rush Limbaugh on here for a bunch of conservatives who always claim to barely listen or care about the man. You are always the first one to attack someone for using “Democrat talking points” but you’ve been caught repeating Limbaugh’s nonsense word for word in order to bait liberals into an argument. Fun times.
The problem with the modern progressive movement is that they want to install racism into the equation so that they don’t have to actually debate the issue and can keep voters with the most ease. Just paint the opponent as either ‘racist’ or ‘insensitive to the needs of xxx’, as if all members of that group have some similarity with each other in ways other than their skin color. Unfortunately, this leads to them appearing racist themselves because they are now making judgments on people based on their skin color, the very thing they are supposed to be fighting against.
Apparently, according to Manning, there is something inside a black person’s genome that prevents them from being able to ‘get back and forth to work’ that white people don’t have in their genome…
Rhinehold: “Apparently, according to Manning, there is something inside a black person’s genome that prevents them from being able to ‘get back and forth to work’ that white people don’t have in their genome…”
Yes, as Frank has noted that is exactly what she was saying. No need for context or evidence. She clearly means that…
No need for context or evidence.
Ok, Adam, instead of saying that the quote was taken ‘out of context’ give us the context. In what context is that statement ‘ok’?
I can give that it was a slip, a misstatement, but it is not an isolated view nor is it out of character with the majority of progressives that would defend that they aren’t being racist when they in fact are being so.
Perhaps instead of defending the party should think about introspection and realizing that their views are flawed?
Oh wait, what was I thinking… of course not, right?
Adam, it’s alright with me if you want to bail out of the conversation. I am assuming you are a white guy; and you have the nerve to tell a black guy what the NAACP is all about. The NAACP and their present day leadership have done nothing for black people.
When you lose the argument and all else fails, just call the opponent a racist. Rhinehold is exactly on point.
You have faked outrage over Manning’s statements and yet you have failed to comment on anything else I have said. And I have included a lot of information on this subject. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t mean anything; whether he agrees or disagrees doesn’t mean anything. It’s not about Limbaugh, as much as you try to make it; it’s about whether the NAACP has helped blacks. I gave you reasons why I believe the NAACP is not helping black people. Adam, I believe you are out of your league; out of your arena of expertise, and I believe you are flailing for an intelligent answer.
I will ask you again; name one conservative black person who has not been attacked by the left as an Uncle Tom or an Oreo? Just give me one name?
Let’s look at the latest Obama move to help black people:
“Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of unilaterally gutting welfare reform after the Department of Health and Human Services quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program’s strict work requirements.
HHS made the announcement in a policy memo Thursday, news that slipped well below the radar amid a raucous day on the presidential campaign trail. But a few prominent GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill picked up on the change, and accused the administration of overhauling one of the most important bipartisan agreements of the past several decades.
“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract” Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a “blatant violation of the law.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/?intcmp=trending#ixzz20WtJhprT
Welfare reform that was signed into law by Bill Clinton, and which managed to take 50% of Americans off Welfare and put them to work; has now been reversed by an Obama maneuver for the purpose of increasing Welfare recipients by 100%. Most of whom will be blacks. When did the Democratic Party ever promote personal responsibility to blacks? The black people have exchanged a southern democrat master for a liberal Democratic Party master. Meaning blacks are in servitude to the Democratic party.
Is anyone going to write an article about how Mitt Romney lied to the SEC?
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated
Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999
Jennifer Granholm added some more details: Breaking: Romney was 100% stakeholder in 11 Bain companies later than 1999
This is a story worth writing about, since as John Aravosis at Americablog points out:
1. Romney told the SEC that he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” up until 2002.
2. But Romney said in a more recent financial disclosure form that he left Bain in 1999 - so the two federal forms contradict each other, at least one is a lie:
Mitt Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.
In other words, Romney lied to the federal government either way. Either to the SEC, or in his more recent financial dislocure forms. And either one appears to be a felony.
Adrienne, I don’t guss anyone wants to write about it because it’s simply an Obama talking point and not true.
Many Deocrats including Ed Rendell: former Democrat governor of PA, chairman of the DNC, etc, etc: have defended Romney and think Obama’s latest attacks will hurt Obama in the end. But I say, go for it.
Adrienne, if you really want to knoe about the Bain accusations, I would suggest this link a Powerline:
But if Romney is a felon as Obama is implying; he could just send his water boy (Holder) to rrest and charge Romney. After all, Holder is the USAG.
Rhinehold: “Ok, Adam, instead of saying that the quote was taken ‘out of context’ give us the context. In what context is that statement ‘ok’?”
I’ve already given the context. No where in the quote does it suggest she or anyone there thinks blacks are not qualified for savings or business ownership. Limbuagh added that context. You took it further to talk about genetics. I get that you need to feel outraged. You’re just looking a bit silly about it is all.
Frank: “I am assuming you are a white guy; and you have the nerve to tell a black guy what the NAACP is all about. … Adam, I believe you are out of your league; out of your arena of expertise, and I believe you are flailing for an intelligent answer.”
Yes, indeed. The nerve. Cry me a river, Frank.
You’re attacking a woman and putting words in her mouth that aren’t there and you’re doing it not because the woman said anything so offensive but because you hate the NAACP and liberals and you need her to help you be outraged over it. Limbuagh has handed down this talking point to the right and it’s up to you folks to find ways to make something so irrational seem rational. Go!
It’s not because you’re black and I’m white and I can’t find an intelligent answer. You’re simply not making an intelligent argument. No matter how much you smear the NAACP and try and hang that around her shoulders you cannot add any more context in where it does not exist.
Frank: “I will ask you again; name one conservative black person who has not been attacked by the left as an Uncle Tom or an Oreo? Just give me one name?”
The problem is “the left” is a broad swath of people. That’s like me asking you to name one black or Hispanic politician on the left the right has not attacked for racial reasons. Or name one women in the Democratic party that the right has not attacked in a sexist manner. I think your question sounds like a good one to you but it’s pretty meaningless as far as making a rational argument.
I’ve already given the context. No where in the quote does it suggest she or anyone there thinks blacks are not qualified for savings or business ownership.
I never once suggested she said that, nor did I mention Rush in any way.
Try again, what it ‘out of context’ to have a problem with the statement she made, quit deflecting. She said that ‘black people’ have a problem finding ways to get to work. How so? How are ‘black people’ the ones who have this problem and not ‘white people’? Is there something in their genes that simply makes it harder for them? Are they somehow ‘less’ intelligent, driven, studious, hard working?
Isn’t that a bit ‘racist’ to suggest something like that about a group of people that are only connected through skin color?
Rhinehold: Here is what we know she said:
I believe his vested interests are in white Americans. You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work.
Here is what you said:
Apparently, according to Manning, there is something inside a black person’s genome that prevents them from being able to ‘get back and forth to work’ that white people don’t have in their genome…
You followed up with:
How so? How are ‘black people’ the ones who have this problem and not ‘white people’? Is there something in their genes that simply makes it harder for them? Is there something in their genes that simply makes it harder for them? Are they somehow ‘less’ intelligent, driven, studious, hard working?
You are the only one talking genetics. She implies no such thing. But you find that context in there and you’re outraged the same as Frank. You’d think the right would have plenty of legitimate things to be outraged about without having to resort to distorting a one line quote by a woman you’ve never heard.
Adam, you would think the left would have a lot more to discuss besides defending the NAACP who has absolutly nothing to do with your race.
But let me make this as simple as I can Adam:I will list some successful black conservatives and you tell me what you think of them.That way we can avois the “broad swath” of people:
1) Larry Elders
2) JC Watts
3) Alan Keyes
4) Thomas Sowell
5) Clarence Thomas
6) Ken Blackwell
7) Michael Steele
8) LaShawn Barber
9) Lynn Swann
10) Condaleeza Rice
11) Herman Cain
12) Alan West
13) Shelby Steele
14) Walter Williams
15) Angela McGlowan
Of course, you do know that Water Williams and Thomas Sowell frequently fill in for Rush Limbaugh. Tell me Adam, what do you think of these black conservatives (and they are by no means a complete list)? I can tell you what the main stream liberal Democrtic Party thinks of them, but let’s not paint with a “broad swath”, let’ just see how you think of them?
Frank: “Adam, you would think the left would have a lot more to discuss besides defending the NAACP who has absolutly nothing to do with your race.”
It would be important to note that you’re the one asking me to defend the NAACP. I haven’t. When you couldn’t generate sufficient outrage about your interpretation of one woman’s statements you moved the outrage to the NAACP. When I don’t have anything to say about the NAACP you suggest I’m defending them. Good stuff as usual, Frank. Real logical.
“Tell me Adam, what do you think of these black conservatives…”
Why would I want to comment on a bunch of Oreo Cookies? That’s what you think I should say, right? No, the truth is I don’t know most of them other than by name but let me say what I think of those I do know.
Michael Steel: He lied about having Oreo cookies thrown at him at at least one event. Appearing to be called black on the outside but white on the inside by the left was apparently something he thought would gain him votes on the right. He was wrong.
Condaleeza Rice: Highly intelligent, politically and business savy, called “House Negro” by some on the left.
Herman Cain: Funny guy, but better suited for business than politics given the cloud of accusations surrounding him about women and a complete lack of grasp on foreign affairs. I could see him in Congress (See Alan West) or in a White House cabinet position but not as leader of the Free World.
Alan West: Charismatic but arrogant. Like Michael Steel on ‘roids in that he has a chip on his shoulder about being a black conservative and plays that card to fire up his white voter base. Tends to repeat white supremacist ideas about race just like Herman Cain and then white racists can quote him and say, “Hey, I’m not racist! This is what a black man said!!” Says inflammatory and untrue things about progressive members of Congress.
You are the only one talking genetics. She implies no such thing.
Ok, I’ll admit I was wrong if you can tell me what ELSE makes ‘black people’ black besides their genetics? Is it a club that people can choose to join or not?
She said ‘black people have trouble …’ What other way is there to take that than to say that all people with the genetic makeup of a ‘black person’ have trouble doing something? You’re attempt to defend the statement is intriguing but problematic…
Rhinehold: “Ok, I’ll admit I was wrong if you can tell me what ELSE makes ‘black people’ black besides their genetics?”
Manning can speak in terms of the conditions of the black community in America compared to wealthy white Americans without delving into why and how those conditions came apart for either race. She can also speak about blacks in general without implying that every black person everywhere is the same because of some factor like genetics. I keep feeling like you want to be outraged by her statement so you’ve padded what little context there is with other stuff in order to make her seem crazy.
“Why would I want to comment on a bunch of Oreo Cookies? That’s what you think I should say, right? No, the truth is I don’t know most of them other than by name but let me say what I think of those I do know.”
So you attempt to make a joke rather than deal with a problem the left has with conservative blacks, just like the problem they have with conservative women? You and I both know what I am saying is true.
Adam, like all other conversations with you, we will conclude this one by saying you have no desire to answer the questions. Thanks anyway.
“…just like the problem they have with conservative women?”
From where I sit here in the cheap seats I don’t see much difference in the way women in politics are treated, be they conservative or liberal.
I have said it before, politics is a full contact activity. If a candidate can’t handle the heat they don’t belong there.
Frank: “You and I both know what I am saying is true.”
Yes, and the right would never attack a liberal on the basis of race or gender right? I know you think you’ve made some point but I’m missing it. You’ll need to dumb it way down for me.
“Adam, like all other conversations with you, we will conclude this one by saying you have no desire to answer the questions.”
Perhaps you stopped reading and missed the part where I answered your question about the conservatives I knew? Just asking. Seems like a strange thing to say after I went into such detail on your behalf.
Manning can speak in terms of the conditions of the black community in America compared to wealthy white Americans without delving into why and how those conditions came apart for either race. She can also speak about blacks in general without implying that every black person everywhere is the same because of some factor like genetics.
She could have pointed to how difficult it was for ‘poor people’ or ‘those down on their luck’ and the comment would have been just fine. But when she made it a ‘black v white’ issue, she brought race into it. There is no other way to view that statement, unless we allow it to stand and ignore the blatant racism that it depicts. I know you WANT people to do that, because it means there is no need to defend the built in racism of the Democratic party these days, but it just doesn’t fly that way anymore…
To most females, they love famous designer products, especially designer handbags. They love the unique design, high quality, perfect as well as the craft. But most normal people cannot afford the designer handbags, so the wholesale cheap knock off designer handbags online start to play an important role in the market.
If you have bag sense, you possibly possess a Prada within of your bag collection. That suggests you recognize just how excellent a Prada is. numerous of us are new to Prada, but how about every solo one of us reveal about why Prada is amid possibly probably the most effective bag labels you’ll really buy? Wholesale Prada handbags online profit is fit for just about every solo occasion. It’s really a one-stop store for bags. Pursuing you acquire in to some Prada shop, you’ll obtain a daily bag, your evening clutch, along collectively with your holiday add-ons all in one place. That produces it even very much a whole lot more trendy - which you can possess a distinctive Prada bag for just about every solo occasion.
Nowadays, more and more people start to pay attention on another brand that is Miu Miu, a branch brand of Prada. The design of Miu Miu is much more suitable for young females, and it is very famous among young ladies recently, especially the cheap Miu Miu handbags on sale online.