Well now... Clinton is Blacker then... Obama? by Alliethorn7

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Many of the black folks I've talked to have expressed this sentiment....

Obama is too "boojie". For those who don't understand the term...it means he acts "too white". Speaks proper English, doesnt wear FuBu, and has an education.

Clinton, on the other hand, is viewed as a female version of her husband. Barely female, but still a Clinton. She represents the kind "over-mistress" who will take care of them, and look out for "their" interests.

Don't ask me...I couldn't make this stuff up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Don't ask me...I couldn't make this stuff up.

True.
The sweeping denigration of your last post is usually ingrained over several years until it almost becomes a part of you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Don't ask me...I couldn't make this stuff up.

True.
The sweeping denigration of your last post is usually ingrained over several years until it almost becomes a part of you.

Did you miss the part where he says he's relating things gleaned from actual conversations?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Clinton didn't denounce or belittle MLK Jr. or his effort.

She did, but I don't think it was intentional. Their whole Obama slant has been that he's a dreamer offering a fairy tale. She said King may have been offering the dream, but Lyndon Johnson made it reality. I think the whole tone sounded wrong and it came off really badly.

The way I see it Johnson signed a bill Kennedy got started but it was King that won the argument both in the social and political framework. I think her comparison is apples to oranges and I think most people, especially African Americans, can agree that Martin Luther King could have made a fine President had he been so inclined and not killed young. Sure, he'd have had a hard time being elected, but that aside, I think he could have served very ably in that position. I doubt, however, that President Johnson could have made the transition to civil rights leader.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

"Well now... Clinton is Blacker then... Obama?"

Umm. We're talking color of the soul here, right?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

It is amazing to me how far we've fallen.

The Democrats trot out two "candidates" to choose from. The Republicans are wringing their hands with glee, hoping that Clinton will run.

Obama is too young. He is an idealist, but I dont see him having the chops to go up against the sharks in the government to get anything done.

Clinton....well, shes about as far from what the American people need in the White House as you can get. Talk about evil, corrupt, and powerhungry.

On the other side you have the Republicans.

Romney is a Mormon. I know Mormons (one of my very good friends is a Mormon). They are usually very wholesome... But, if you don't think that its a cult, you're insane. If you also don't think that his "faith" (i.e. the higher ups in his church) will influence his decisions, you are likewise blind.

Which leaves who, exactly?

Im tired of always having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Especially when the evils are just getting worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Did you miss the part where he says he's relating things gleaned from actual conversations?

You're right, my bad, parroting recycled misconceptions is okay. By the way, did you hear the Jews are trying to take over the world? I heard that somewhere before.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:00 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You're right, my bad, parroting recycled misconceptions is okay. By the way, did you hear the Jews are trying to take over the world? I heard that somewhere before.

Wow, relating what I just heard is parroting steretypes.

*sigh

Why is it, in this country of ours, it is no longer ok to have an open discussion without some idiot saying you are 'engaging in stereotypes", or being racist, or oppressing another group.

Jeeze. Grow up.

I, for one, will not engage in conversations with those who believe in political correctness. Whats the point? "Political correctness" is designed to control thoughts through selective and subject manipulation of words.

I still believe in free open discussions.

Im sure I'm not the only one, either.

This home of ours breeds free-minded folks in the same abundance as it does the close-minded fools.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Wow, relating what I just heard is parroting steretypes.
*sigh

So you have black aquaintances who think Obama is 'white' because he is educated and talks good? These same individuals need a 'transvestite overlord' to look after them? Who are these people? How do you know them? Or do you conduct random street polls?

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Why is it, in this country of ours, it is no longer ok to have an open discussion without some idiot saying you are 'engaging in stereotypes", or being racist, or oppressing another group.
Jeeze. Grow up.

Because it is people engaging in stereotypes that spawn threads like this to begin with. Why concentrate on platforms when sex and race are such easy targets.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I, for one, will not engage in conversations with those who believe in political correctness. Whats the point? "Political correctness" is designed to control thoughts through selective and subject manipulation of words.
I still believe in free open discussions.
Im sure I'm not the only one, either.
This home of ours breeds free-minded folks in the same abundance as it does the close-minded fools.

Apparently.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Bigdamnfool,

Missed the whole point..why am I not surprised?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Did you miss the part where he says he's relating things gleaned from actual conversations?

You're right, my bad, parroting recycled misconceptions is okay.

So we should only talk about or relate things we've heard talked about if they are politically correct. Or, alternately, if they won't offend you. Is that what you're suggesting? I don't see how relating the opinions of others is somehow wrong, even if you disagree with them. God forbid that someone might have an opinion that contradicts your cherished beliefs.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Bigdamnfool,

Missed the whole point..why am I not surprised?

Wulfenstar,

Care to illuminate me? I find conflicting messages in your posts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This is an odd phenomenon, isn't it?

Basically I think the opinion is this:

Obama, being a black candidate, will make concessions to pander to the white vote, while Clinton, being a white candidate, will make concessions to pander to the black vote.

I think this is idiotic, but it seems to be the way people think.

From the analysis I've seen from some of the talking heads, it seems that black voters aren't sure whether a black candidate could win the election. Hillary, on the other hand, is a known quantity. Plus, she has the bonus of being branded well (she's a Clinton)--the Clintons have a good relationship with America's black community (or so the pundits say. So the thinking seems to be: why back a black candidate who might lose on the basis of his race, when we could back someone we have a good relationship who won't be discriminated against on the basis of race.

That could all be incorrect, but it seems like a decent analysis to me.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So we should only talk about or relate things we've heard talked about if they are politically correct. Or, alternately, if they won't offend you. Is that what you're suggesting?

You can say whatever you want and so can I, isn't freedom grand.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I don't see how relating the opinions of others is somehow wrong, even if you disagree with them. God forbid that someone might have an opinion that contradicts your cherished beliefs.

I remember reading somewhere in this forum that all Christians should be burned at the stake.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:42 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I know Mormons (one of my very good friends is a Mormon). They are usually very wholesome... But, if you don't think that its a cult, you're insane.

That's rediculous. They're no more a "cult" than any other widespread religion.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:47 AM

STORYMARK

And to toss my 2 cents in on the stereotype issue - yes, perpetuating stereotypes is bad - but censoring dicourse just because it might offend someone is retarded. If I have a conversation with someone, who says something racist, I don't feel I am being racist, or reinforcing any stereotypes by mentioning to someone that some chump I spoke to thinks a certain way.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:10 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
That's rediculous. They're no more a "cult" than any other widespread religion.

No more a cult than any other religion... and no LESS a cult, either...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So we should only talk about or relate things we've heard talked about if they are politically correct. Or, alternately, if they won't offend you. Is that what you're suggesting?

You can say whatever you want and so can I, isn't freedom grand.
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I don't see how relating the opinions of others is somehow wrong, even if you disagree with them. God forbid that someone might have an opinion that contradicts your cherished beliefs.

I remember reading somewhere in this forum that all Christians should be burned at the stake.

Well played, sir!

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:22 AM