Just when thought he could not stoop any lower...

[Bubblehead1980]

Barack Obama comes out and continues to speak on the Martin case, further revealing his thinly veiled racism and victim mentality.Almost in a whiny tone, Obama talked about how "almost no african american man" has been on an elevator and a white woman has not grasped her purse tighter" and that "if Trayvon had been a white boy, the verdict would be different" Are you kidding me? This victim mentality has got to go, it's what is holding back black people in this country, if anything even is.

[garren]

Barack Obama comes out and continues to speak on the Martin case, further revealing his thinly veiled racism and victim mentality.Almost in a whiny tone, Obama talked about how "almost no african american man" has been on an elevator and a white woman has not grasped her purse tighter" and that "if Trayvon had been a white boy, the verdict would be different" Are you kidding me? This victim mentality has got to go, it's what is holding back black people in this country, if anything even is.

I agree. And I'm black. Obama is harping on the race thing. I just pulled it on Steve to see if I could get some sympathy from him but I don't think it worked. He's got a heart of stone that one. :yep:

[Wolferz]

Sorry Bubblehead. Without link, your post is just second hand gossip.

I've been slammed more than once for putting forth conjecture without a reliable source to back up my opinion.

This public service announcement was brought to you by the letter L.:03:

[Sailor Steve]

In this case I tend to agree as well. I haven't read the whole speech, but if it's been quoted accurately then my response to "If it had been a white boy, the verdict would have been different" would be "Tell that to O.J."

If it hasn't been quoted accurately then there may be trouble ahead.

[Sailor Steve]

I just pulled it on Steve to see if I could get some sympathy from him but I don't think it worked. He's got a heart of stone that one. :yep:
You seem to want to get more and more personal. It's not appreciated.

[AVGWarhawk]

Read the entire 17 minute speech. It is not quite what you think. Each news outfit cherry picked to fit their agenda!

The speech was fine IMO. Racism still exists. It is the big elephant in the room people try to ignore. Has it gotten better as BO states? Absolutely. Has this case presented other ongoing issues in society as BO states. Yes. Does the SYG law need to be examined as BO suggest. Yes.

As you stated Steve, the quoting is not accurate.

[Bubblehead1980]

Sorry Bubblehead. Without link, your post is just second hand gossip.

I've been slammed more than once for putting forth conjecture without a reliable source to back up my opinion.

This public service announcement was brought to you by the letter L.:03:

no, turn on the freaking news, it's every where.

[AVGWarhawk]

It would be more extraordinary if BO would address the IRS scandal!!!! Nary a 17 second speech let alone a 17 minute speech! :doh:

[Bubblehead1980]

Read the entire 17 minute speech. It is not quite what you think. Each news outfit cherry picked to fit their agenda!

The speech was fine IMO. Racism still exists. It is the big elephant in the room people try to ignore. Has it gotten better as BO states? Absolutely. Has this case presented other ongoing issues in society as BO states. Yes. Does the SYG law need to be examined as BO suggest. Yes.

As you stated Steve, the quoting is not accurate.

Okay, the speech was not fine .Racism will always exist.However, widespread institutional racism towards blacks is gone, actually its tilted towards whites now, it's called affirmative action.

Anyways, racism is not a factor in every single incident between people of different colors, its racist to assume that it is.Racism is an excuse used to try and mitigate things.They don't want to admit(despite evidence) that Martin was a punk kid who picked a fight with the wrong person.Tragic? Yes but it's what happens when one acts stupidly.There is no racism here.Zimmerman tutored black children, had plenty of black friends, is a freaking Democrat who voted for obama.Racism? profling? NO. Bottom line, obama and many in the community share a racist, victim mentality and even when they know they are wrong , they use it as a cop out.

Obama showed his thinly veiled racism yet again, all he did was stir the fire, but that is what he wants, he is a lefty, lefties like dividing people up, its how they get power because if everyone was united and thinking clearly, not susceptible to emotional things like racism etc, theyd never win elections, they sure as hell dont win on rationality.

[soopaman2]

Why would any president want to undermine their main cash cow?

After all, you can only steal so much from Social Security to give to tank and plane manufacturers, or Egypt, or Syrian Rebels.

Technically the IRS was meant to be temporary, but with any loss of rights, it is never temporary, right Patriot act?

IRS screws the little guy, yet ignores huge corps and anyone Holder likes. how much tax did GE pay? Oh they got a refund!

All those billions, they musta needed the help!

Who is gonna investigate Holder on Fast and Furious? He likes investigating right? Lets investigate.

Inspector gadget over here, only gadget he can play with is Pappa Obamas

(NSA took note of above post, all letters to soop can be directed to Guantanimo Bay)

[Bubblehead1980]

In this case I tend to agree as well. I haven't read the whole speech, but if it's been quoted accurately then my response to "If it had been a white boy, the verdict would have been different" would be "Tell that to O.J."

If it hasn't been quoted accurately then there may be trouble ahead.

It's accurate, just watch the news, its all over.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's accurate, just watch the news, its all over.

I believe he said it "might" have been a different outcome.

BO:

Folks understand the challenges that exist for African-American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

[AVGWarhawk]

The true failing here is BO. The once great uniter is in reality a great divider! What has BO done to advance racial relations?

[Bubblehead1980]

I agree. And I'm black. Obama is harping on the race thing. I just pulled it on Steve to see if I could get some sympathy from him but I don't think it worked. He's got a heart of stone that one. :yep:

:salute: Okay, perhaps it's personal but it's a question I always ask, some black friends of mine have been very candid. This is why can't paint everyone with the same brush, even if there is a majority in any group, etc.

Obviously, you do not have a victim mentality.May I ask, how did this come about? Were you parents the type that taught you better or did you reach this on your own, seeing how absurd and ridiculous it is ?

I think about school every time I discuss this case as we had some intense discussions last year when this case first broke. Most black students had victim mentality, but a few were objective and fair enough to say "sounds like self defense to me". I am sure when classes resume in the fall there will be plenty of discussion.

I look at it through my way of growing as well. I was raised in church, to believe in god etc all that. Not hardcore christians or anything but typical while southern suburban people. I, on my own grew away from it and am an atheist.No major event or anything, just saw it all as a load of crap.Meeting other atheists, that is the path most take, but some were fortunate their parents didnt push religion on them from a young age.This make me curious when I meet someone from the AA community who does not buy into the racist crap.

[garren]

I just want to know why Obama murdered 3 Americans overseas without a proper trial via drone attack? He killed a 16 year old American citizen without giving him a fair trial (due process is part of the Constitution is it not?) and he's judging Zimmerman for killing a 17 year old who actually physically attacked him? Didn't Obama racially profile that Muslim kid just the same? Pot calling the kettle black. Obama's killed many more people than Zimmerman and people praise Obama if they voted for him. He's got more blood on his hands than most. Takes his pants off one leg at a time just like anyone else. I don't believe that the defense of the US calls for premeditated murder of 16 year olds.

[Bubblehead1980]

I believe he said it "might" have been a different outcome.

BO:

Okay, splitting hairs here.Might have been different in that context, is a subtle way of saying, it would have.I do that crap all the time when have to walk the line on how I say things in class etc, its a tactic one is forced to use in "politically correct" world of ours.Obvious what he was saying though, that if it were a white boy, the verdict would have been different.There is no way around it, otherwise he would not have said it but it does leave some ability o deny he was outright saying that.Speechwriter did well on that.

[Bubblehead1980]

The true failing here is BO. The once great uniter is in reality a great divider! What has BO done to advance racial relations?

I always hated the talk of him being a uniter, I knew before he was elected he would be a divisive figure.Not because of his race, but because of his views.Really, if people had bothered to look into this man and see what he really is and believes, he would never have been elected but people got caught up in the hype and of course, he had the race card.

[Bubblehead1980]

I just want to know why Obama murdered 3 Americans overseas without a proper trial via drone attack? He killed a 16 year old American citizen without giving him a fair trial (due process is part of the Constitution is it not?) and he's judging Zimmerman for killing a 17 year old who actually physically attacked him? Didn't Obama racially profile that Muslim kid just the same? Pot calling the kettle black. Obama's killed many more people than Zimmerman and people praise Obama if they voted for him. He's got more blood on his hands than most. Takes his pants off one leg at a time just like anyone else. I don't believe that the defense of the US calls for premeditated murder of 16 year olds.

Well said.:salute:

[Jimbuna]

You seem to want to get more and more personal. It's not appreciated.

Duly noted.

[AVGWarhawk]

My college room mate is black. He never played the victim. However, there was plenty of times that he experience what I would call minor incidents of racism. Might have been a bar that was predominantly white. Odd looks. Served last. Crap like that. Other similar situations. However, I would run into the same in bars that were predominantly black that we would frequent. Oddly enough, we had the best of both worlds. Outstanding person, extremely intelligent, hilarious beyond measure and life long friend.

[Spiced_Rum]

The true failing here is BO. The once great uniter is in reality a great divider! What has BO done to advance racial relations?

We all united for BO because he was not Hillary Clinton. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

We all united for BO because he was not Hillary Clinton. :yep:

:har::har: She is running in 2016. Biden will not get the nod first!

[soopaman2]

The true failing here is BO. The once great uniter is in reality a great divider! What has BO done to advance racial relations?

I was his "bestest" supporter.

Until I realized I was not getting paid to shill for the great huckster, and he did nothing for me. Guantanimo is still open, Patriot act renewed, I pay way more in taxes.

I still hate republican and tea farts, don't get happy.

I hate everyone. I hate politicians, I hate the coward, testicle lacking president, I hate the former warmonger, family killer president, (shrub) and the NAFTA passing sack of feces before him, the reason why we are overrun by illeagals, who nowadays can't even mow your lawn right.

I KNOW WHAT MARICON MEANS, YOUR FIRED, SCRAM!

La migra!

Always one white guy, and 4 Mexicans, one of them is guaranteed to piss in your wifes flowerbed.

Sorry... I meant dreamers, they got dreams... (but lack green cards, nor do they pay taxes)

Cutting my lawn for under minimum wage is the pinnacle of success, up yours Mr President.

[Ducimus]

I haven't read what BO said yet, but I can already tell it's bad. Headlines on both CNN and Foxnews is "Trayvon could have been me".

Seriously?! I don't think the POTUS should be involving himself at such a ... low... level. Is the rest of what he said really as bad as the headlines are making it sound? Honestly, I can't make myself read anymore then the story highlights.

[garren]

:salute: Okay, perhaps it's personal but it's a question I always ask, some black friends of mine have been very candid. This is why can't paint everyone with the same brush, even if there is a majority in any group, etc.

Obviously, you do not have a victim mentality.May I ask, how did this come about? Were you parents the type that taught you better or did you reach this on your own, seeing how absurd and ridiculous it is ?

I think about school every time I discuss this case as we had some intense discussions last year when this case first broke. Most black students had victim mentality, but a few were objective and fair enough to say "sounds like self defense to me". I am sure when classes resume in the fall there will be plenty of discussion.

I look at it through my way of growing as well. I was raised in church, to believe in god etc all that. Not hardcore christians or anything but typical while southern suburban people. I, on my own grew away from it and am an atheist.No major event or anything, just saw it all as a load of crap.Meeting other atheists, that is the path most take, but some were fortunate their parents didnt push religion on them from a young age.This make me curious when I meet someone from the AA community who does not buy into the racist crap.

Who would you be more angry at if you were taken from your native home land and brought to another country? The man from the North in that country who sold you or the man from the South who bought you?

I grew up outside Atlanta, GA. My great great grandfather, a black man, fought for the South during the US Civil war. His father before him was a slave and his father before him was brought to America on a slave ship and sold out of Boston, MA. to a Southern plantation owner in Alabama.

My father explained it to me very well when I was younger. There's more evil in selling a man than owning him. He also explained to me how the 3/5th compromise was worked out. The North wanted to abolish slavery. They already got the Southern man's money. They also wanted to Unionize the states. The South didn't agree with Unionizing unless the black slaves in the South could vote but they also wanted to keep their slaves. They paid for them after all. Don't you like to keep the possessions you paid for? I know I do.

A slave back then was worth what you'd pay for a car today. Imagine if you paid for a car and then the man you bought it from said, "Well, I don't agree with you owning that car anymore I sold you". You'd not like that either. Especially after that same man had already gotten your money and wasn't going to give that money back to you for what you'd already paid him for the car.

So the North created the "3/5ths compromise". This would allow the folks in the South to keep their slaves and would Unionize the states. But the black man was not allowed to vote as part of the conditions of the compromise. But once the states became Unionized the North once again wanted to renege on that 3/5th compromise as well and abolish slavery. In turn the Southern states attempted to secede from the Union as that was a condition of the 3/5ths compromise in the first place. But then you know the rest. Lincoln didn't like the South trying to leave his tyrannical control and the War of Union aggression began.

While I don't like the idea of slavery I can understand the white man in the South's position better than I can the white man in the North. Let us not forget that once the North won the war they still didn't give blacks full equal rights for many many years after. It was all a money grab in my opinion. My American ancestry gets it's family name from the man who paid for us, put us to work, fed us, educated us, and sheltered us. It was passed down that he was a good man.

The (mis)treatment of slaves in the South. Most of it is inaccurate. There's lots of stories but what many don't realize is that many blacks of the time were not civilized and earned their beatings by committing uncivilized acts on other slaves such as a male slave raping a female slave. A slave master had an obligation to punish that slave harshly in front of the rest so they would learn to not do that. What they did in Africa was no longer tolerated in America. Very few slave masters just beat slaves just to beat them. You wouldn't buy a car just to smash it all up. If the car acted up you might get out of it and kick it.

I feel like much of the truth has been covered up by the winner of the war. They made themselves out to be Saints and act like they did the black man a favor. But really they just wanted to deport us back to Africa. They got their money from the rich men of the South and wanted to deport us back to Africa. There's evidence that's what Lincoln wanted to do.

So I consider myself an educated black man. I've heard all sides of the story but I go with what my father told me about it because he got it from his father before him and so on. That carries the most weight with me.

Many blacks were not educated until long after the war. So they've only heard the side of the story the North wanted them to hear. But many have forgotten it was them who sold us into slavery to being with. Almost all slaves were sold out of New York and Boston.

So that's my deal and why I've always supported more conservative values. I often get asked, "Are you saying you want to be a slave? The North did you a favor!" No they didn't. Stop lying to yourselves. And no, nobody wants to be a slave but at least the white man in the South that paid for us found value in us and put us to work and put a roof over our heads and fed us. There was more evil in those who sold us to the Southern white man. Never forget it. :03:

[soopaman2]

I haven't read what BO said yet, but I can already tell it's bad. Headlines on both CNN and Foxnews is "Trayvon could have been me".

Seriously?! I don't think the POTUS should be involving himself at such a ... low... level. Is the rest of what he said really as bad as the headlines are making it sound? Honestly, I can't make myself read anymore then the story highlights.

Why, did the president assault people and smash their heads into concrete?

I wish he would show the same set of balls with N korea and Putin, he bends over and lubes up for them, but attacking a jury exonerated hispanic man is more fitting?

[AVGWarhawk]

Makes perfect sense Garren. If I'm not mistaken many freed slaves stayed on the plantation even though they could go. Was that the situation with your ancestors?

[garren]

Makes perfect sense Garren. If I'm not mistaken many freed slaves stayed on the plantation even though they could go. Was that the situation with your ancestors?

Yep. Notice how most blacks stayed in the South after the war? Most stayed with their owners and worked for them anyways long after the war was over.

[Armistead]

The fact they continue to make GZ a villain and TM a hero only incites more racism. There have been 1000's of black on black useless murders, no million man protest walking through Detroit. It's only an issue because GZ was made white.

Racism does exist. I admit the hundreds of years of racism has caused numerous issues that effect blacks today. Years ago we threw social programs at it that destroyed the black family, packed them into housing, etc., when we should've done other things. Sadly, it's more about economics. Now millions of whites are falling into poverty and using all the social programs. If it continues, they will also fall into the trap of generational slavery to the government.

Honestly, I don't see anything improving, just more debt, more bail outs and more free programs. Eventually we will implode.

[Red October1984]

Honestly, I don't see anything improving, just more debt, more bail outs and more free programs. Eventually we will implode.

+1

And more distractions from bigger problems that should be addressed.

Maybe the ECONOMY!?! In case anybody forgot...

[Sailor Steve]

My father explained it to me very well when I was younger. There's more evil in selling a man than owning him. He also explained to me how the 3/5th compromise was worked out. The North wanted to abolish slavery. They already got the Southern man's money. They also wanted to Unionize the states. The South didn't agree with Unionizing unless the black slaves in the South could vote but they also wanted to keep their slaves. They paid for them after all. Don't you like to keep the possessions you paid for? I know I do.
You should study a little more before believing what someone tells you. The 3/5 compromise was brought about entirely by the South. First of all, when the slave trade was being routed through Boston, Massachussets was still a slave state. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 the major issue was representation, whether the people would be represented proportionally or the states would be represented equally. This led to the divided system we have to day, with the lower house supposedly representing the people and the upper house supposedly representing the states. The 3/5 compromise came about when the southern states insisted that they would be under-represented unless slaves were also counted for representative purposes. The northern states objected but the South won, mainly because they believed that, as Franklin had said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." They felt that any state which did not join could not survive on its own, and would sooner or later be forced to make an alliance with Britain or France, giving one of those a new toe-hold on the continent. The compromised was reached strictly to get the southern states to join.

A slave back then was worth what you'd pay for a car today. Imagine if you paid for a car and then the man you bought it from said, "Well, I don't agree with you owning that car anymore I sold you". You'd not like that either. Especially after that same man had already gotten your money and wasn't going to give that money back to you for what you'd already paid him for the car.
A fine sentiment, but a man is not a car.

But once the states became Unionized the North once again wanted to renege on that 3/5th compromise as well and abolish slavery. In turn the Southern states attempted to secede from the Union as that was a condition of the 3/5ths compromise in the first place.
Not even remotely true. Can you show in the Constitution where secession was a part of that compromise? The argument between North and South at that point was the Southern insistence that there be a new Slave State for every new Free State.

But then you know the rest. Lincoln didn't like the South trying to leave his tyrannical control and the War of Union aggression began.
The original seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office. Where was his "tyrannical control" then?

I feel like much of the truth has been covered up by the winner of the war.
And I, who was born a Southerner and am descended from slaveholders, feel that many of the South is looking for any excuse to cover the evils of their ancestors.

So I consider myself an educated black man. I've heard all sides of the story but I go with what my father told me about it because he got it from his father before him and so on. That carries the most weight with me.
More than what the people wrote of their causes and motivations at the time?

There was more evil in those who sold us to the Southern white man. Never forget it. :03:
Only your opinion. I'd say the blame was about equal. Both North and South agreed to stop the importation of slaves in 1808. After that the South continued to sell slaves right up until 1865.

Yep. Notice how most blacks stayed in the South after the war? Most stayed with their owners and worked for them anyways long after the war was over.
Yep. Most of them had nowhere to go, no way to get there and no skills other than plantation work. The South came up with numerous ways to keep them down, not allowing them to vote unless they could read and not allowing them to learn how to read. Meanwhile those evil Northerners were trying to educate free blacks.

I'm not assigning blame to any or all of either side. Yes, the Northerners had plenty to answer for. The fact is that the evil tyrant Lincoln wanted a gentle repatriation, forgiving all and helping everywhere possible. With him dead and out of the way Andrew Johnson was to politically obtuse to stop the carpetbaggers and things went dowhill from there. The North is very responsible for the bad things that happened during reconstruction, but the South did everything they could to keep the blacks enslaved even though they were now technically free.

[Onkel Neal]

I agree. And I'm black. Obama is harping on the race thing. I just pulled it on Steve to see if I could get some sympathy from him but I don't think it worked. He's got a heart of stone that one. :yep:

Don't direct your comments to the moderators, it isn't an effective discussion tactic. Just say what you want about the topic.

[yubba]

+1

And more distractions from bigger problems that should be addressed.

Maybe the ECONOMY!?! In case anybody forgot...
Or the 20 to 30 million illegals, they want to give citizenship to, saying that this is going to stimulate the economy by a influx of cheap labor, what is that all about ??????? Why couldn't Obama be the infant that was shot in the head by a black teen in Atlanta, why couldn't he be Barbra Pill a female deputy sherriff that was shot in the face by a black teen here in Cocoa the week Al not so sharpton was in Sanford,, why can't he be one of the thousands of black teens that die in our inner cities to gang violence each year, why can't he be one of the hundreds of Mexican citizens that have been kill by the weapons that walked across the border in the failed ATF operation, fast an furious, why can't he be one of the victims of Ft Hood shooting,,in which he calls work place violence,, why can't he be one of the four americans that died in Bengazia, in which he blamed a video, why can't he be one of 50 million people on foodstamps,, instead of jet setting around the world stuffing his face with lobster on our dime,, in stead he wants to be a gay bashing homo phobe black teen, according to Trayvons female freind in which she stated on CNN Pierce Morgan show that, she lead him to believe that Zimmerman might be a gay rapist, and she also stated that Trayvon was going to give him a whoopin if she had stated that on the stand the jury would have been back in 5 minutes,,:har::har::har::har::har::har: wrap your head around that.

[Armistead]

Course I can hardly stand it, but watched Nancy Disgrace for a bit to hear TM's parents speak about his death and race issues. I was rather shocked when Nancy asked about when knowing Tray was missing. The mother said the father called her later morning that he didn't come home, maybe went to a friends or cousins house, that he would call them, then the police. WTH, they keep calling him a child, but the father didn't have concern that he didn't come home that night, didn't worry until the next morning. They both stated he always came home. He went missing about 7PM and no concern until the next day.....If I didn't know where my son was, I couldn't even think of going to bed without knowing where he was. I would be frantic. I'm thinking he had done this several times, maybe why his mother sent him to live with the father.

[yubba]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/07/21457-trayvon-martin-guilty-of-gay-bashing/ guess what Steve I'll wear it as a badge of Honor see things haven't changed with you,, can't deal with truth.

[AVGWarhawk]

Course I can hardly stand it, but watched Nancy Disgrace for a bit to hear TM's parents speak about his death and race issues. I was rather shocked when Nancy asked about when knowing Tray was missing. The mother said the father called her later morning that he didn't come home, maybe went to a friends or cousins house, that he would call them, then the police. WTH, they keep calling him a child, but the father didn't have concern that he didn't come home that night, didn't worry until the next morning. They both stated he always came home. He went missing about 7PM and no concern until the next day.....If I didn't know where my son was, I couldn't even think of going to bed without knowing where he was. I would be frantic. I'm thinking he had done this several times, maybe why his mother sent him to live with the father.

Model parents certainly. :shifty:

[garren]

You should study a little more before believing what someone tells you. The 3/5 compromise was brought about entirely by the South. First of all, when the slave trade was being routed through Boston, Massachussets was still a slave state. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 the major issue was representation, whether the people would be represented proportionally or the states would be represented equally. This led to the divided system we have to day, with the lower house supposedly representing the people and the upper house supposedly representing the states. The 3/5 compromise came about when the southern states insisted that they would be under-represented unless slaves were also counted for representative purposes. The northern states objected but the South won, mainly because they believed that, as Franklin had said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." They felt that any state which did not join could not survive on its own, and would sooner or later be forced to make an alliance with Britain or France, giving one of those a new toe-hold on the continent. The compromised was reached strictly to get the southern states to join.


A fine sentiment, but a man is not a car.


Not even remotely true. Can you show in the Constitution where secession was a part of that compromise? The argument between North and South at that point was the Southern insistence that there be a new Slave State for every new Free State.


The original seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office. Where was his "tyrannical control" then?


And I, who was born a Southerner and am descended from slaveholders, feel that many of the South is looking for any excuse to cover the evils of their ancestors.


More than what the people wrote of their causes and motivations at the time?


Only your opinion. I'd say the blame was about equal. Both North and South agreed to stop the importation of slaves in 1808. After that the South continued to sell slaves right up until 1865.


Yep. Most of them had nowhere to go, no way to get there and no skills other than plantation work. The South came up with numerous ways to keep them down, not allowing them to vote unless they could read and not allowing them to learn how to read. Meanwhile those evil Northerners were trying to educate free blacks.

I'm not assigning blame to any or all of either side. Yes, the Northerners had plenty to answer for. The fact is that the evil tyrant Lincoln wanted a gentle repatriation, forgiving all and helping everywhere possible. With him dead and out of the way Andrew Johnson was to politically obtuse to stop the carpetbaggers and things went dowhill from there. The North is very responsible for the bad things that happened during reconstruction, but the South did everything they could to keep the blacks enslaved even though they were now technically free.

This is entirely offensive to me Steve. First off, I was responding to someone else's off topic question because they asked nicely. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about it because you are obviously more knowledgeable about my black history than I am. It's obvious your side won the war. Your side wrote history the way they wanted to. Telling me that I should look more into my own history is very offensive.

[Red October1984]

This is entirely offensive to me Steve. First off, I was responding to someone else's off topic question because they asked nicely. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about it because you are obviously more knowledgeable about my black history than I am. It's obvious your side won the war. Your side wrote history the way they wanted to. Telling me that I should look more into my own history is very offensive.

Okay...I am not insulting you or taking sides...

This looks to me like Steve is just telling you to slow down and double check your facts. To me, it sounds like you're just putting stuff out there and not even making sure you're right. I do the same thing sometimes.

Don't be offended when somebody tells you to double check you're history.

[Armistead]

Garren obviously isn't black, doesn't know history, etc., just a troll. I thought he said he was leaving for good, guess that was someone else.
When is enough going to be enough.......

[garren]

Okay...I am not insulting you or taking sides...

This looks to me like Steve is just telling you to slow down and double check your facts. To me, it sounds like you're just putting stuff out there and not even making sure you're right. I do the same thing sometimes.

Don't be offended when somebody tells you to double check you're history.

I stand by my original post that wasn't even directed to him. He claims he's ashamed of his white ancestors from the South. Well, he shouldn't be. That's disgraceful as hell to me to talk down on your own blood like that. There was a lot of ignorance all around back then and that includes the blacks. There were black men who sold other black men as well. Nobody was really innocent.

Also, down in the South, most white men were poor and doing the same work as the black folks. They weren't really free to go anywhere before or after the war just the same. Most white men didn't even have the right to vote either unless they were property owners and most white men were not property owners.

But anyways, back then nobody really knew what was truly right or wrong. Folks just did what they had to do to survive, no different than they do today. It's easy to sit here today and cast judgment on those from long ago but had you grown up in that era you would have been no different than most of them not knowing what you now know about it today.

But once again, here we are today, some 40 years into legalized abortion and already 50+ million dead in just that amount of time in the US alone. :nope:

I wonder if one day the people of the future will cast judgment on all of us for allowing such evil to go on? :hmmm:

[caspofungin]

lol, the hard-core conservative hearing what he likes from an allegedly black civil war and slavery apologist. this thread takes the cake.

[garren]

Garren obviously isn't black,
Is this supposed to be a compliment or racism?

doesn't know history, etc.,

I don't support Steve's version of history. He's the one who claimed he looks down on his own ancestry from the South. He's adopted the Northern version of history. Not me. I go with what my father passed down to me.

just a troll.

Pot... kettle...

[CaptainMattJ.]

So you're telling me to forget the countless firsthand accounts, primary sources, and written history that tell a much much different story about slavery in the south, so i can adopt your version that then turns the sentiment on its head so its those evil northerners fault for freeing people that didn't want to be free? :roll:

Wasn't it that in the south the black vote was mercilessly suppressed through lynching, killing, beating, scare tactics and intimidation? Wasn't it in the south where it took the 101st airborne JUST to integrate schools? Wasn't it the south where a peaceful bus protest was firebombed and countless rallies disbanded violently? Wasn't it in the south where the biggest leaders of the civil rights movement cried for their rights? This is all RECENT history. My mother and father grew UP in it. Try to make up your own version about televised events and people who are still alive and were there.

[HunterICX]

So basically...this thread is just to continue that garbage from the recently closed zimmerman case thread.

Great....:roll:

HunterICX

[Oberon]

So basically...this thread is just to continue that garbage from the recently closed zimmerman case thread.

Great....:roll:

HunterICX

I would lock this one, but not infract the OP, although the subject was similar in terms of the Zimmerman topic, it was not originally intended to go down those lines, but more to criticise Obama for getting involved in a particular case. Naturally though, with the situation as it is at the moment, it swiftly derailed into territory already covered in countless other posts.

I wonder if I need to start an argument with someone else from the UK here who is a Tudor supporter or a parliamentarian. :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/07/21457-trayvon-martin-guilty-of-gay-bashing/ guess what Steve I'll wear it as a badge of Honor see things haven't changed with you,, can't deal with truth.
I can deal with truth as well or better than you can. The infraction was for the repeated publically wishing Obama was dead. We don't do that here.

[Sailor Steve]

This is entirely offensive to me Steve. First off, I was responding to someone else's off topic question because they asked nicely.
But he didn't bring the Civil War into it. Once you opened that door I felt it needed to be answered.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about it because you are obviously more knowledgeable about my black history than I am.
Not at all. I know very little about black history beyond the basics, which is a point of embarrassment for me. I have, however, made extensive studies of Revolutionary, Constitutional and Civil War history, and I'm more than willing to back up any claims I make with examples of what they wrote themselves at the time.

It's obvious your side won the war. Your side wrote history the way they wanted to. Telling me that I should look more into my own history is very offensive.
Not as obvious as you think. I don't have a side, other than constantly trying to uncover the truth. I love history.

I stand by my original post that wasn't even directed to him. He claims he's ashamed of his white ancestors from the South. Well, he shouldn't be.
I claim nothing of the kind. I'm not ashamed of my Southern ancestors any more than I'm ashamed of my Saxon ancestors who invaded England in the 400s. It is what it is. It's history.

Also, down in the South, most white men were poor and doing the same work as the black folks. They weren't really free to go anywhere before or after the war just the same. Most white men didn't even have the right to vote either unless they were property owners and most white men were not property owners.
That's true, but they weren't intentionally kept that way by someone else.

But anyways, back then nobody really knew what was truly right or wrong. Folks just did what they had to do to survive, no different than they do today. It's easy to sit here today and cast judgment on those from long ago but had you grown up in that era you would have been no different than most of them not knowing what you now know about it today.
I'm not casting judgement on anyone. I'm not the one who called a president a "tyrant". I'm not the one who pronounced the North more evil for selling slaves than the South for owning them.

I don't support Steve's version of history. He's the one who claimed he looks down on his own ancestry from the South.
Again no, I didn't.

He's adopted the Northern version of history. Not me. I go with what my father passed down to me.
Actually I go with what the people on the spot wrote at the time. If calling their own words "the Northern version" makes you feel better, fine.

[August]

I saw this the other day and it seems to illustrate the problem with a POTUS picking sides really well:

What about me ?

You won't recognize me. My name was Antonio West and I was the 13-month old child who was shot at point blank range by two teens who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy's peers from Brunswick GA determined the black teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty...too bad I was given a death sentence for being innocent and defenseless.

My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. Nor did President Obama take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation's history, but the media doesn't care to cover the story of my tragic demise, President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me - so he doesn't care and the media doesn't care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

There is not a white equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me. There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer have my life.

So while you are seeking justice for Trayvon, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon.

[mookiemookie]

This is entirely offensive to me Steve. First off, I was responding to someone else's off topic question because they asked nicely. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about it because you are obviously more knowledgeable about my black history than I am. It's obvious your side won the war. Your side wrote history the way they wanted to. Telling me that I should look more into my own history is very offensive.

Someone enlightening you and challenging what you "know" to be true isn't offensive. Steve's doing you a favor. You might want to avail yourself of his advice.

"Offensive." :roll: Learning more and refining your beliefs is only offensive to closed minded ideologues.

[Armistead]

But he didn't bring the Civil War into it. Once you opened that door I felt it needed to be answered.


Not at all. I know very little about black history beyond the basics, which is a point of embarrassment for me. I have, however, made extensive studies of Revolutionary, Constitutional and Civil War history, and I'm more than willing to back up any claims I make with examples of what they wrote themselves at the time.



I'm getting back into the Revolution. You ever come to NC, look me up, I'll take you down the river exploring all the plantation ruins.

I was talking to one of the older "Hairston" ladies not long ago. That family was considered the richest family in the US during the CW era. They owned several plantations here and made most their money slave breeding. One plantation here was really nothing more than a breeding warehouse. The stories abound. Course, most blacks took their owners name, so we have several black families with that name. However, she corrected me on the pronouncement. The white Hairstons pronounce "Harston.", blacks pronounce it like it sounds. If you want to read a good book, find

"The Hairstons -An American Family Black and White.

[garren]

So you're telling me to forget the countless firsthand accounts, primary sources, and written history that tell a much much different story about slavery in the south, so i can adopt your version that then turns the sentiment on its head so its those evil northerners fault for freeing people that didn't want to be free? :roll:

Wasn't it that in the south the black vote was mercilessly suppressed through lynching, killing, beating, scare tactics and intimidation? Wasn't it in the south where it took the 101st airborne JUST to integrate schools? Wasn't it the south where a peaceful bus protest was firebombed and countless rallies disbanded violently? Wasn't it in the south where the biggest leaders of the civil rights movement cried for their rights? This is all RECENT history. My mother and father grew UP in it. Try to make up your own version about televised events and people who are still alive and were there.

Free without any rights? .... Thanks a lot North. Might as well been on a ship in the middle of the ocean and kicked the blacks into the water without any lifejacket at all. It would have had about the same effect. By "freeing" the slaves in the South the North just got them killed. As slaves they had value. As "freed" blacks they were as good as dead. So yeah, I think my people were better off as slaves.

Since the North won the war and their troops abused the hell out of the people in the South (during the re/de construction period), which lead to the forming of the KKK btw, the Union government has to answer for all the discrimination against blacks from 1865 to present day - not the South. The South has had to play by the rules of the Union after the war.

Let's not forget that black men continued being slaves (indentured servants) in the North long after the war was over. Up North blacks were not allowed to use the same water fountains as whites. Couldn't own property like whites could. Couldn't vote. Were lynched up North just as well as they were in the South. Yes, it was all just dandy being "free" without any value at all for black folks. We were better off as slaves when you really think about it. Had the North freed the black man and given him equal rights then I'd see your point. But that's not what happened. So let's not kid ourselves into believing the Northern white man grew a heart for the black man. It was all a political money grab and when slavery was no longer profitable to the folks in the North they wanted to renege on slavery because it was only profitable in the South.

Let's also not forget that in the early 1900s most white people in the US (over 90%) were supporters and members of the KKK. That includes the whites up North. Grew a heart for the black man huh? Nope.

Let's also not forget about the Union army, after the civil war, going around killing off the native Americans. Genocide. The North has a lot to answer for and were not the Saints they made themselves out to be today with their versions of history. Again, I stand proudly with the version of history passed down within my own family. I course I know it's not common for a black man to stand so proudly with the South but there are many of us who still do though we get silenced by the ignorant blacks of today who only want to be victims.


But let's get back on topic here. I feel obligated to answer all these off/topic comments aimed at me and I only was replying to the first guy who was curious as to why I'm a conservative minded black man.

[August]

Let's also not forget that in the early 1900s most white people in the US (over 90%) were supporters and members of the KKK. That includes the whites up North. Grew a heart for the black man huh? Nope.Got a source for this claim?

[Platapus]

Seriously?! I don't think the POTUS should be involving himself at such a ... low... level. Is the rest of what he said really as bad as the headlines are making it sound? Honestly, I can't make myself read anymore then the story highlights.

President Obama should realize that as the POTUS, he does not have to comment on every issue. Since President Obama is POTUS 24/7, he has voluntarily given up his right to state an opinion as "Mr. Obama". Everything he says is linked to his office and he needs to be very aware of that.

Since President Obama can't actually comment on every single issue (there is simply not enough time), how he chooses which issue to comment on is a comment in itself. The President has to understand that everything he says is recorded and evaluated and that many people will attempt to make many inferences on what he said or did not say about an issue. The President needs to be aware of this too.

Sometimes the smart thing is not to comment at all.

[Sailor Steve]

Free without any rights? .... Thanks a lot North. Might as well been on a ship in the middle of the ocean and kicked the blacks into the water without any lifejacket at all. It would have had about the same effect.
If that tyrant Lincoln hadn't been killed things likely would have been a lot different.

which lead to the forming of the KKK btw
So the Noble Klan didn't terrorize black folks? Or if they did it was the North's fault.

Let's not forget that black men continued being slaves (indentured servants) in the North long after the war was over.
In fact indentured servitude continued until 1917. What you fail to mention is the fact that most indentured servants at that time were white Europeans who, like others before them, saw it as a ticket to America, and were more than willing to pay the price.

Up North blacks were not allowed to use the same water fountains as whites. Couldn't own property like whites could. Couldn't vote. Were lynched up North just as well as they were in the South.
Sure they could vote. Free black men were voting in Massachussetts during the Civil War. As for the other charges, nobody denies that there was evil in the North as well. You're trying to blame it all on the North, exonerating the South from any culpability.

It was all a political money grab and when slavery was no longer profitable to the folks in the North they wanted to renege on slavery because it was only profitable in the South.
That is your opinion. Can you show facts to support it?

Let's also not forget that in the early 1900s most white people in the US (over 90%) were supporters and members of the KKK. That includes the whites up North. Grew a heart for the black man huh? Nope.
Actually in the mid-1920s the Klan claimed to include 15% of the nation's population.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2730

If you have any factual basis for your "90%" claim, please show it.

Let's also not forget about the Union army, after the civil war, going around killing off the native Americans. Genocide.
I've heard that claim made before, by a former member here. Yes, the treatment by the Americans in general of the native population was heinous. Genocide? I think that if that was intended it would have been carried out, but it wasn't.

The North has a lot to answer for and were not the Saints they made themselves out to be today with their versions of history.
Can you show where any serious historian, even in the 1860s, claimed that the North were saints. I don't argue that they were, or even that they were any better in a lot of points than the South. You seem to be the only one with an agenda here.

But let's get back on topic here. I feel obligated to answer all these off/topic comments aimed at me and I only was replying to the first guy who was curious as to why I'm a conservative minded black man.
But nobody made you go on a tirade about the Civil War and the evil North. You chose to do that on your own, and you made numerous claims that are provably false. When I showed you that you decided to make it about me and my supposed "shame" instead of sticking to facts.

[AVGWarhawk]

I saw this the other day and it seems to illustrate the problem with a POTUS picking sides really well:

This crime was determined not to be racially motivated. It did receive news time but not to the extent like the GZ case. Plus the NAACP, Al Sharpeton, CNN, MSNBC and Jackson did not feel it was worthy enough for true national attention. He was just a kid. Huh, were have we heard that before?

[JU_88]

I don't know too much about the details of the Zimmerman case, but I do have mixed feeling about the reaction.... or should I say over reaction.
I feel bad for Martin and his family as it appears that an innocent man was murdered that day.
But I also agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy in all this 'outrage' which I don't think would exist under conditions where a) Zimmerman had been black or b) Martin had been white/Hispanic.
I don't understand why with so many white on white and black on black killings taking place every year no body seems to so much as raises an eyebrow at them, but the moment we have a cross race killing, everyone is up in arms, seems like irrational BS if you ask me.
....I say 'We' because its the same deal in the UK pretty much.

[Mr Quatro]

You know what cats do in cat boxes when they are through?

They cover stuff up, that's what they do ... :yep:

That graphic illustration would make a great political cartoon :o

I think his speech yesterday was from President Obama's heart and soul while denying that Zimmerman got a fair trial with the verdict of "not guilty" reached by six fair jury women saying in effect that Martin was shot in self defense.

Conscious or unconsciously I do not know, but this speech smacks' of being able to derail the IRS, NSA, ATF and DOJ problems facing this country right now.

I hope the planned marches tomorrow are peaceful in all respects and if they are not this President only has himself to blame for stirring it up with a race relations speech.

How many speeches did he make about the murder of a border patrol guard after the failure of fast and furious gun running program was discovered?

Notice this article is just a few days old, not a few years:http://www.mainjustice.com/2013/07/08/fast-and-furious-gun-used-in-murder-of-mexican-police-chief/

The murder of a Mexican police chief and one of his bodyguards was committed using a rifle lost during a botched ATF gun-walking operation, according to Justice Department documents obtained by The Los Angeles …

[soopaman2]

Listen to this on a Saturday night.

http://www.chicagoscanner.com/

Where is the noble President on that?

Can find the same on the Boston Police scanner, but not as exciting.

2 weekends ago, 12 murders in 2 days.

He had no right to speak on it pre trial, and he is only further stoking the fires, and utterly disrespecting our jury trial and letter of laws, blatantly.

Inciting a riot.

At the cost of being branded a rascist, I am sick of whitey being a villain, when they refuse to look inwards, only victimize themselves.

[Armistead]

As I reflect on they dynamics of race, like many, I question the motives of all the race charges regarding the Zimmerman trial. We know the majority of blacks killed in America are useless killings by other blacks. It seems we do have a race war, the black race against the black race, but it hardly gets any attention and certainly nothing has been done to deal with the issue. Along comes George Zimmerman getting into an altercation with Trayvon Martin, resulting in his death and it gets more attention than the thousands of black on black killings each year. You won't see Al Sharpton leading a million man protest in Detroit. It makes no sense, or does it.

Our nation has come a long way regarding race issues. The problem is, as race relations got better, our ecomony got worse. I would dare say, if we had worked off a proper economic model starting in the 70's, the black race would be in much better shape because race issues have improved, just no economy to substain it. The real racism of today is economic racism, the elite few, corporate America supported by politicians.

I think blacks feel the only way real change can happen is when white people, the majority of the population, takes action. Black on black crime simply isn't an issue to most white people or blacks for that matter. The only thing that brings attention to racism is making it a white black issue, even if it's not, then white people get involved. The issue doesn't have to be a real issue of race, such as I believe is the case of GZ, but has to have the elements and the proper motivation to become one. Mark O Mara was correct, if a black man shot Trayvon, this case wouldn't have made the morning news. Sadly, the liberal media turned this into a marketing profit scheme, only to incite for ratings. It will be a dead issue with them soon enough.

Most whites have made great strides to deal with racism. The truth is if we all became color blind, nothing would change. The elties, corporate America love all the smoke and mirrors, love to make it a white black issue, instead of an economic issue. It keeps our attention off them. They back it with all their media whores and politicians to incite us and mislead us.

Our debt is near 17 trillion, our nation is really bankrupt. Millions of whites are falling into poverty. Yes, many of us are getting by, in debt to our necks, but the future of America is one of economic crisis.

I guess we all better get along or hope our children will as a great majority of us will be living in poverty together unless we face hard facts and work off a new economic model that will work for all Americans in a global economy, not just for a select few.

[Platapus]

. Sadly, the liberal media turned this into a marketing profit scheme, only to incite for ratings.


Good point. I seem to recall that no conservative news program ever covered the Zimmerman/Martin story nor has any conservative news media every made any profit from this case.

You actually had a good post going there. Was making a lot of sense. But then you chose to identify this as a "liberal" problem. :nope:

We really need to stop thinking of problems in the pigeonholes of liberal and conservative (or worse right or left. Thank you for not using those terms). We will never be able to solve problems if we continue to think of them as conservative or liberal problems.

It is a news media as entertainment for profit business problem. It is not linked to any political position. :nope: It is about the change from news being a service to news being a profit maker.

It was not all that long ago that news programs were loses to the broadcasting corporations. The revenue of other programs was used to pay for producing the news programs. Sadly that changed about 20+ years ago.

Perhaps news programs became too expensive. Perhaps the corporations just wanted more profit. Who knows? Probably both.

But it was not a conservative or liberal decision. :nope:

[garren]

I don't know too much about the details of the Zimmerman case, I feel bad for Martin and his family as it appears that an innocent man was murdered that day.


If Zimmerman hadn't shot Martin then Zimmerman would most likely be dead. He had a right to defend his life no matter what transpired before the shooting.

If Zimmerman was a racist that was never proven in court and would be irrelevant anyways because the use of violence is never warranted against racists unless they pose a clear and imminent threat to your life. Being followed is not a clear and present danger to your life.

We know that Zimmerman took a black girl to prom and tutored black children. Doesn't seem very racist to me towards black people but just to entertain the really ridiculous, maybe he was a closet racist who used black people as a cover for his true intent. LOL!

Martin's girlfriend however testified that Martin was a bit of a racist himself with what she said he told her over the phone before he died - and she was a witness for the prosecution trying to make Zimmerman out to be the racist for simply following Trayvon.

That backfired on the prosecution very badly. It was like them saying it's OK for blacks to be racists towards whites but never the opposite. And them not even having a shred of proof to back up their claim that Zimmerman was a racist to begin with just sunk their battleship. Their whole argument was based on pure speculation and the very racist notion that whenever a white man kills a black man it's automatically an act of racism.

Here's some facts - Following someone is not a crime in America and does not make you a racist. But smashing someone's head against the concrete and breaking their nose is a crime and is a serious act of violence that would lead the person being assaulted to believe their life was in danger - warranting the shooting of their attacker.

Remember, Trayvon wasn't shot in his back. He was shot in his front which makes all the difference in the world in this case. The bloody pictures of Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head sealed the deal in proving his side of the story. He was the victim of Trayvon's assault. He had to defend his life by taking Trayvon's.