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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by yubba

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/0...f-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]

Originally Posted by garren

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.

Originally Posted by garren

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.

Originally Posted by garren

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]

Originally Posted by garren

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

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by garren

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

Originally Posted by garren

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/n....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]

Originally Posted by August

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 ...

That graphic illustration would make a great political cartoon

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/2013/07/0...-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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

. 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.

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. 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.