HOME | DD
IAmTheUnison — Character vs Color
Published: 2013-11-15 12:45:10 +0000 UTC; Views: 12034; Favourites: 160; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
It is actually rather disgusting that there are some people who are so oblivious and delusional that they would DARE to compare that swine-shit, Barack Obama, to a man of such integrity as Martin Luther King, Jr. There is NO SIMILARITY between these two men. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought and gave his life for truth and equality. Obama is just a immoral arrogant hypocritical low-life back-stabbing boot-licking lying shit stain who has done nothing but deceived, misled, corrupted, and wiped his ass with the Constitutional rights he took an oath to uphold! These men are NOT similar by any stretch of the imagination.Frankly, if Dr. King was alive today he would probably be disgusted that the first "black president" of the United States was elected not because of his character but because of his skin color...and don't pretend like that isn't the only significant reason he was elected. Often during elections people vote for candidates based upon petty unsound reasoning like political parties and false promises anyway...throw a distraction like race into the mix and people just lose track of everything which is important. Political Parties and ethnic background are not important, the content of a person's character is!
Related content
Comments: 425
An impressive list of quotations. Do you suppose that Obama would disagree with any of them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
amazing insight, thanks so much for sharing!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Amen.
That significant seismic activity on Cal-Tech's charts? That's the reverend spinning like a dynamo in his grave -_-
I'm very disappointed in the cult of personality that Obama has brought about.
Obama is only as strong as his supporters make him, after all. And in their eyes, he can do no wrong.
In fiction, we have a word for that.
Mary Sue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess to understand that it is not a cult of personality, one has to be able to understand and respect ideas with which one may disagree. Obama, and his supporters, reject something you accept, so it cannot be that they are thoughtful people who disagree with you. No, you must reduce them to mindless zombies, because otherwise you might be tempted to actually look at the facts, and the failures of the last 30 years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They aren't mindless zombies, in spite of a public school system that encourages that.
But they've been washed into a mindset of obedience to the first thing that simply says its different and has NO evidence, even after five years, to support that.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/…
Now these poor dumb shmucks are acting like it's a big fucking shocker.
They got in my face for years, telling me how TOTALLY wrong I was about ObamaCare, insulting me, belittling me, trying to hack my profile, trying to intimidate me by figuring out my home address and more.
Well fuck them. They wanted this so badly, they're going to have to suffer through it.
They are the fiddling cricket who didn't have a care in the world and I'm the ant who prepared for the hard times.
And now that the winter has hit and I'm saying 'Told you so!' ninnies like yourself are getting pissed at me all over again.
Thoughtful? Pfft... no. Just.... no. Thoughtfulness would require READING THE FUCKING BILL! Which I'll remind, nobody in a position to stop the rolling ball, EVER did.
It was not thoughtfulness that led to the frenzied support parties in favor of ObamaCare, nor thoughtfulness behind SEIU and Teamsters thugs beating Tea Party activists.
It was a LIE that led most people to support the ObamaCare law. Because for those who already had health insurance reasoned 'Well, *I* already have it, but it would be nice for those that don't to get it.'
Well surprise-surprise, folks... MILLIONS of plans are being cancelled and the plans themselves are anything but 'affordable'.
And all the while, the bastard who used his shimmering star power to tell this lie is lying again, saying he's super-bummed about what happened.
Thoughtful you say? No. Zombies? No. Starstruck and rolling along with the 'super historical magic president'? YES.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly. Martin Luther King would have far, far more in common with strong, principled, street wise black males like Herman Cain and Thomas Sowell than he would relate to rich, spoiled, narcissists with daddy issues.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
After working to get the government to legislate African-Americans the equal opportunity in employment which the "free market" denied them, Dr. King was killed in Memphis working to help African American sanitation workers to get a better Union contract. He rejected the libertarian "principles" of Dr.Sowell, and certainly would not blame the poor for being poor, as Mr. Cain famously did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, Rev. King was a pro-life clergyman who understood the value of personal responsibility. You're hilariously confused if you think being in favor of racial equality automatically means you're not a conservative. Here's a little history lesson chum, the 13th amendment that abolished slavery? 100% Republican support, 23% Democrat support. The 14th amendment that gave citizenship to freed slaves? 94% Republican support, 0% Democrat support. The 15th amendment that gave the right to vote for all? 100% Republican support, 0% Democrat support. The Democrat party elected to the senate a former KKK leader who was repeatedly re elected until he finally died in 2010. If Rev. King were alive today, he'd be called an uncle Tom house nigger oreo by the normative liberal, just like with Dr. Ben Carson and Stacey Dash.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
History lesson: The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party, so it is not surprising that it took those positions at those times. That is good. Eventually the Republican party was more concerned with power than with racism and slavery, so they made a deal to end Reconstruction, and white Democrats were able to re-establish their political power in the south. Even during WWII FDR was stuck with having to ignore the racism of the South (and its impact on national policy) because of his political dependence on the segregationist Democrats of the south. It is pretty well established that his wife campaigned for equal treatment even then, sometimes successfully. And historians often include urban African-Americans as part of the Democratic coalition which FDR forged. Down south however, Dr. King's father was a Republican. That is he was, until his son was imprisoned during the 1960 Presidential election season, and while Nixon stayed out of it, Kennedy called Mrs. King to offer support, even though it posed a threat to his support from segregationist Democrats. Dr. King Sr. made that call public and announced his support of JFK over Nixon. That was the thin edge of the wedge. LBJ had already tried to shift the segregationists by getting them to not filibuster an anti-lynching law. LBJ, & some of the Dixiecrats, understood that during a Cold War with Russia, the US could not afford alienating the new nations being formed from former colonies, composed substantially of non-whites. Eventually LBJ and the rest of the Democrats abandoned the segregationists completely by supporting the raft of Civil Rights laws which Dr. King sought, and for which LBJ had to shame Sen. Dirksen to get the Republicans to support. Once the segregationists were abandoned by the national Democrats, they could have become marginalized and faded away. But the Republicans saw them as a way to grow the party, and so by 1964, the Republican party convention in Georgia was all white. Look up Nixon's Southern Strategy, and you will see that the good things the Party of Lincoln did are far in the past. Today they are the Party of Nixon & Reagan, who celebrated his nomination by going to Philadelphia, Mississippi, and talking about how important states rights were to him. (And who subsequently supported the Apartheid government of South Africa, because he considered them a good friend against the Communists.) And if you wish to speak of "former" segregationists, lets not forget Senator Strom Thurmond who switched from Democrat to Republican (as a lot of Dixiecrats did) with the advent of the Southern Strategy, and stayed in the Senate as long as he wanted. You remember Strom Thurmond, the one who ran for President on the Segregationist ticket. Then there was Sen. Jesse Helms, who criticized Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, the only African-American woman in the Senate, for not being "sufficiently respectful" of The Daughters of The Confederacy. You may think African Americans should be Republicans, but they moved away for a reason. And only looking into the remote past while ignoring the recent past, will not help you to understand it. As for Abortion, I have never seen a direct Dr. King quote on the subject. Since he was murdered nearly 5 years before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the US, that is not too surprising. I do know he was anti-war, and would certainly opposed the 2nd Gulf War, if not the first, as he opposed Viet Nam.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A myth about conservatism goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.
It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won't be tolerated." It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of "dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people" through the use of so-called racist "codewords." All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP's reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party's victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.
Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context.
The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must be traced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallace blended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of Barry Goldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.
The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, you argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.
Let's start with policies. Like many others, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed to Southern racism not explicitly but through "coded" racial appeals. Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace's racialism can be seen, varying in style but not substance, in "Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers."
The problem here is that Wallace's segregationism was obviously racist, but these other positions are not obviously racist. This creates an analytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimate viewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that second view—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held for entirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectuals might not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition to busing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the other hand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. To be persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which is which. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highly prone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for something else that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater, who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term "states' rights," which to many whites in the Deep South implied the continuation of Jim Crow.
The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist "code," the GOP's positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don't even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist.
In effect, these critics want to have it both ways: they acknowledge that these views could in principle be non-racist (otherwise they wouldn't be a "code" for racism) but suggest they never are in practice (and so can be reliably treated as proxies for racism). The result is that their claims are non-falsifiable because they are tautological: these views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. This amounts to saying that opposition to the policies favored by today's civil rights establishment is a valid indicator of racism. One suspects these theorists would, quite correctly, insist that people can disagree with the Israeli government without being in any way anti-Semitic. But they do not extend the same distinction to this issue. This is partisanship posturing as social science.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for expressing the truth in a sea of lies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I consider it both my honor and my duty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree with the central point of the graphic, but strongly advise 'trash' be changed to something less insulting. Perhaps 'hypocrite' or 'phoney' would be good choices. Or 'warmonger' 'war criminal' ...etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seriously, what was Obama thinking when he started those wars?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
75% of the U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan happened during Obama's term in office. Obama ran as the "anti-war" liberal, but has paid absolutely no attention to the regursengce of Islamist extremism that's murdering Coptics and our international allies by the thousands.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
If it was possible to fight extremists, someone had already done it by now.
Those wars can't be won, but retreating is not possible either, because then those countries would be worse then before. It is kind of like turning a shower so hot you can't reach the valve.
There is a lot of reasons to bash Obama, but that is not one of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Those wars can't be won"? Then you disagree wholeheartedly with Obama, who's stated that Afghanistan was the real war that should be fault, and that we took our eyes off the ball when calling for a surge in Iraq. I can bash Obama all I like on the fact that under his command, more American blood has been spilled than in the entire Bush presidency, including an attack on an American embassy, which just got blamed on a Youtube video. What about closing Guantanamo? Is that another shower nozzle that somehow can't be reached? At some point you just have to realize that you don't have to keep holding water for an incompetent administration. It's ok.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I am not defending Obama, I just want you to research your arguments.
And by that I don't mean watching FOX.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is all you can do is think in cliches? My arguments are well researched, intellectually vetted and logically sound. I take in a variety of information sources, not just television, you dismissive jackass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Right on target, one guy on City-Data forums compared Obama to the former mayor of Detroit, Coleman A. Young www.city-data.com/forum/electi…
Another user on City-Data, Rick Roma posted the following on the following thread then I decided to quote:
"Liberal/Obama Supporter Auto Response Protocol™
1. The source isn't valid
2. That's racist
3. GOP obstruction
4. But...but...but George W. Bush
5. Haters gonna hate
6. Sour grapes- your guy lost
7. The insurance companies are at fault, Obama didn't lie
8. Repeat 1,2,3,4,5, 6 and/or 7 as needed then insult the opposition for failing to support this great man, declare victory, and move on"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well then, you're an UNCLE TOM!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |