Page 73 of 93 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 921

Thread: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

  1. #721
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Now, you're just being disingenuous. No one parsed Rep. Carson's words. If you watched the video clip, you heard exactly what I heard, read exactly what I read because the man's words were displayed right on the screen as he uttered them. There was no parsing; no bleeping out certain words other than an "inaudibable" word that came long before Rep. Carson's rant against certain unnamed members of the Tea Party and one line FoxNews omitted. However, you could still hear the man speaking. Those two edits and one omission occurred on the first screen shot. The words Rep. Carson spoke that has caused such a ruckus were displayed on the second screen. If you still doubt, go back and watch the video. If you still deny his words were parsed or that he didn't include the entire Tea Party movement in his commentary, then I really don't know what to say to you except you simply refuse to accept the truth.
    They were wrong and hateful, period. There is nothing else to discuss.

    Look, I openly admit there are Blacks within the Republican Party, as well as, within the Tea Party. We've seen them - folks like Allen West and Herman Cane are two such examples. I'm sure there are others. Those who have studied politics let alone U.S. history should know that it was the Republic party who freed the slaves and first gave Blacks the right to vote. But somewhere along the way the Republican party became a party of separatist moreso than the Democrat party which few people acknowledge was the party that started the Klan.
    Sorry, Klan members were largely (D's). Argue all you want that the (D)'s in the klan switched sides later but this claim is absolutely wrong. Byrd was a (D) then just as he was when he died.

    Why do you think they use to call some southern Democrats "Dixicrats"? President Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat, opposed freeing the slaves. So, there were people in high positions of power among the Democrat party who did not want to see Blacks with the freedoms we all now share. But again, somewhere along the line for a time, the Republican party stopped being inclusives and took a more separatist stance on issues of race. No time illustrated that populist mentality more than the Civil Rights era. But that's starting to turn around again.
    What if they did? How does what happened 50 years ago justify these hateful words today?

    Still, to put things even more in focus, there are still some elements of racism within the Republican party. It was fully on display during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election and we've seen it at times throughout President Obama's tenure. Such behavior is still on display today. Who do you think was the first to bring up the Rev. Wright "God Damn America" video? Was it a Democrats? The only Democrat who stood a chance to gain anything from having that video go public was Hillary Clinton. Did she plant it?
    I see, because Rev Wright was black it should have been off limits. It was a very valid point.

    What about the Shirly Sherrod NAACP video? It first aired on FoxNews, not CNN or MSNBC nor MediaMatters. FoxNews admitted they got the video from Mr. Brightbart who owe all know is a member of the Tea Party movement. And we also know that her words from the NAACP conference were taken out of context. Yet, the seeds of racism had been planted by an agent of the Right - two if you count FoxNews as such (I certainly do because as most people acknowledge FoxNews is a Right-leaning media outlet same as MSNBC is a Left-leaning media outlet.)
    Breitbart has been around for years. Things are taken out of context in politics. It's never a good tactic but it's commonly done. It's always wrong no matter who does it.

    Now, here's a shocker...there have been Black presidential candidates long before the Rev. Jesse Jackson. The first was Clennon King in 1960; the first Black female, Charlene Mitchell. But the first to run and actully win the primary nomination of a major political party (Democrat) was Shirley Chisholm. The first Black Republican to ever be placed on the ballot for the presidency was also a female, Margaret Chase Smith. She lost to Barry Goldwater.

    This and other "Black American firsts" can be found here. So, where President Obama is concerned, he wasn't the first Black presidential candidate to win a major party primary nomination. He was just the first most Black (and White) people believed could actually stand a chance to win! So, of course, millions of African Americans threw their support behind him. As the comedian, Chris Rock, has said, "Barack was Black and qualified". What I found crazy about this whole "Blacks voted for one of their own kind" argument is that African Americans have been voting for White presidents since they first were given the right to vote. But suddenly when a viable Black presidential candiate burst upon the sceen and takes the country by storm suddenly we're all racist because we put the power of our vote to work for one of our own? What does that say about the millions of White people who have voted for nothing but White presidential hopefuls throughout this country's history? Sounds rather idiotic doesn't it considering there weren't a whole lot of candidates from other races to choose from, doesn't it? But then again, it was White America who took issue with electing a Roman-Catholic to the White House in the 60's.
    I never had a problem, not did I express one for blacks voting for Obama for this reason. Chris Rock was wrong though, he wasn't qualified. I wouldn't qualify what happened here as racism. People were voting for the guy they felt was most like them. It would have only been racism if they would refuse to vote for someone of another race with the same positions. If Obama hadn't run, most of those who voted for Obama would have voted for Hillary.

    My point to all this is there are racist elements in both parties, some perhaps more obvious than others. I try to ignore it, try not to get so caught up in it, but some people make it very difficult to remain above the fray because every time someone tries to have an open and honest dialog about race in America the topic gets thrown completely off track. Look at how this thread suddenly went from being honest about Rep. Carson's comments to cultural issues within the Black race? What does marital statistics among African Americans have to do with anything Rep. Carson said? Why is it so difficult for people to admit they've overracted when the evidence of the man's words are put right before them to read for themselves? Why is it considered misleading when the President points out an obvious political strategy that he knows full well will be levied against him? Why was it wrong for the future First Lady to openly say, "Black Americans traditionally stay away from the voting booths during Presidential elections considering their numbers were low in the Democratic presidential primaries. Thus, all she was saying was when asked of the matter was "hopefully, African Americans will wake up and get out there and put the power of the collective vote behind a viable Black candidate who happened to be her husband?" Why was that so wrong in light of history among African Americans as a voting block?
    No way was the reaction an overreaction. As a U.S. Senator you do not falsely accuse anyone of wanting to lynch blacks. You simply do not do that. He's just pissed that people disagree with him and he's lashing out by indefensible means. Yet, some (including yourself) seem to want to try and excuse it.

    If we're going to truly talk about the racial divide can we atleast acknowledge the history behind it and try to place events of today in their proper context?
    There has been racism. There are still far smaller elements. That is no excuse for what he said here. It's no excuse for instittutionalized racist organizations being a part of of our government.

    There is no excuse for racism from anyone. Why is that so hard to accept?
    Last edited by 1Perry; 09-05-11 at 10:45 AM.

  2. #722
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.

    In fact, not one of these “progressive” cities even reaches the national average for African American percentage population in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group.

    Why did they artificially exclude "tier one" cities from one side, but not the other? They compare Austin to the tier one cities of Dallas and Houston (4th and 5th largest metro areas in the nation) when Austin is far more comparable to San Antonio population wise (Austin has the 25th largest metro area, while San Antonio is 27th.).

    To me, there is clear cut data manipulation going on based on an attempt to get the data they desire.

    Source used for metro area sizes: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/b...e=&CPIorderBy=

  3. #723
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Sorry, Klan members were largely (D's). Argue all you want that the (D)'s in the klan switched sides later but this claim is absolutely wrong. Byrd was a (D) then just as he was when he died.
    Actually that claim is spot on. The South - Klan stronghold - used to be primarily Democrat and now it's primarily Republican. It's true that certain politicians stayed in the party but the staunch racist constituency moved to the Republican Party during the Civil Rights movement because it felt that civil rights was a states' rights issue. To be fair to both parties though, racism was more of a North/South issue for both parties.

  4. #724
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Actually that claim is spot on. The South - Klan stronghold - used to be primarily Democrat and now it's primarily Republican. It's true that certain politicians stayed in the party but the staunch racist constituency moved to the Republican Party during the Civil Rights movement because it felt that civil rights was a states' rights issue. To be fair to both parties though, racism was more of a North/South issue for both parties.
    I can't pick a fight there.

  5. #725
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    when did i suggest force?
    The only way to get people who don't want to be married to each other to get married is force unless you're arguing for huge structural changes in the black community, but then that goes far beyond marriage making conditions other than marriage the focus of your argument.

  6. #726
    Advisor Binky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In the land that is now.
    Last Seen
    07-19-14 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    595
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Isn't about time we moved past such vile, angry bull****?

    Oh wait, I can't say that about the esteemed Rep. Carson, to criticize him, since I am a white male and tea partier, is racist.

    Just reading that filthy dung heaps rant makes my stomach churn in disgust.
    yep, it is disgusting and is just another stab at keeping racism alive to further any agendas. But of course, not a soul has ever heard of reverse racism either. Go figure.
    Last edited by Binky; 09-05-11 at 11:24 AM.

  7. #727
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

    Quote Originally Posted by Binky View Post
    yep, it is disgusting and is just another stab at keeping racism alive to further any agendas. But of course, not a soul has ever heard of reverse racism either. Go figure.
    There's no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism.

  8. #728
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That's true, but you can legislate what they do. You can use the law to fight against discrimination. Does that mean you'll have some people out there complaining about how you are "race baiting" and claiming you're just making it up? Yeah, but that price is well worth paying.
    So liberals are the arbiters of what is racist, and what isn't? I don't buy that for a second. See, I don't want blacks to be unduly disadvantaged because of the color of their skin, but in many cases the unintended consequence of what you are proposing through the force of law, goes beyond leveling the playing field to skewing it.

    Right now you have businesses out there that have black employees that are not pulling their weight, that other white employees in the same position would have been let go, but the employer is hesitant to do such with the black employee due to litigation, and fines. The unintended consequence here is that the employer must keep on the substandard employee out of racism, not his, but liberal laws that cede power to the employee to ruin the man's business.

    I would certainly not agree with any of those memes.
    Maybe not intentionally, but you already have in an earlier post.

    I don't think it has anything to do with Obama except that maybe some of the actual racism was stirred up by some people being uncomfortable with the idea of a black man being president. People don't get attacked for criticizing Obama on policy and the vast majority of conversations about racism don't have any connection to Obama at all.
    Nonsense, most people don't give two craps what color Obama is, as evidenced by the huge white independent turn out to elect him. Are you really trying the Geraffalo (sic) gambit, because she is just one huge ass hole that has no idea what she is talking about, she just spews hate.

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive
    People will continue to talk about and debate race and racism so long as they remain relevant to experiences of many Americans. Attempts by conservatives to sweep the issue under the rug by accusing those who bring it up of "pulling the race card" and similar arguments will not stop the discussion from happening. In fact, it is those attempts that make conversations about race and racism more frequent and intense than they have to be. There's nothing like covering one's ears to a reality that one doesn't want to face that inspires people to shout louder.

    Discussions about racism can and do coexist with discussions about policy. From what I know, most liberals understand this. It seems to be conservatives who think it must be one or other as they are the ones who accuse liberals of using race to divert from policy discussions when the hundreds of threads on policy w/o any mention of race are proof enough that that assertion is a myth.
    Dismissing the debate because you think that only liberals have some special sense of what is racist, and what isn't is laughable. I could just as easily point out the liberal attack of any black conservative as 'sell out' or 'uncle Tom' or worse as proof that the liberal today has constructed a 21st century plantation, and get upset when any black strays from that plantation. Liberals have had 50 years of failed promises, and policies aimed at the black community to buy their votes. And I for one think that the damage done by liberals to that community may just take generations to resolve.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #729
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Dismissing the debate because you think that only liberals have some special sense of what is racist, and what isn't is laughable.
    Where did I dismiss "the debate"? Where did I say that liberals have a "special sense of what is and isn't racist?"

    I could just as easily point out the liberal attack of any black conservative as 'sell out' or 'uncle Tom' or worse as proof that the liberal today has constructed a 21st century plantation, and get upset when any black strays from that plantation. Liberals have had 50 years of failed promises, and policies aimed at the black community to buy their votes. And I for one think that the damage done by liberals to that community may just take generations to resolve.

    j-mac
    You didn't address anything that I said. You just changed the subject of the conversation, so let me repeat myself:

    Discussions about racism can and do coexist with discussions about policy. From what I know, most liberals understand this. It seems to be conservatives who think it must be one or other as they are the ones who accuse liberals of using race to divert from policy discussions when the hundreds of threads on policy w/o any mention of race are proof enough that that assertion is a myth.

  10. #730
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    They were wrong and hateful, period. There is nothing else to discuss.
    Actually, according to a recent survey conducted by the American Political Science Association as discussed in this article from the WashingtonTimes.com:

    "Academics dub tea partyers devout, racist"

    ...several professors argued that tea party Republicans are more likely than other voters and more likely than most others in the GOP to harbor racial hostility, as judged by their answers in a broad pre-election survey administered in October.

    “Tea Party activists have denied accusations that their movement is racist, and there is nothing intrinsically racist about opposing ‘big government’ or clean-energy legislation or health care reform. But it is clear that the movement is more appealing to people who are unsympathetic to blacks and who prefer a harder line on illegal immigration than it is to other Americans,” Gary C. Jacobson, a professor at the University of California at San Diego, wrote in his paper, “The President, the Tea Party, and Voting Behavior in 2010.”
    So, it's not just Rep. Carson who holds this view about some elements within the Tea Party movement.

    Sorry, Klan members were largely (D's). Argue all you want that the (D)'s in the klan switched sides later but this claim is absolutely wrong. Byrd was a (D) then just as he was when he died.
    See commentary by theplaydrive in post #723.

    What if they did? How does what happened 50 years ago justify these hateful words today?
    Again, see commentary in post #723. Furthermore, if people within a certain political party are still conducting themselves in a dispicable manner today, wouldn't you want to call them out for it no matter when it happens? It's like saying earmarks shouldn't be allow yet one party continues to use it despite calls to stop the practise by both the opposing political party and the people.

    I see, because Rev Wright was black it should have been off limits. It was a very valid point.
    If you haven't read or heard the entire serman, then you really have no right to an opinion on the matter. If on the other hand, you have then I have to question how you can still come away thinking anything Rev. Wright said was untrue? Nonetheless, you still didn't answer the question at hand, towit, who really planted the video (snippet) of that sermon? Someone within the Republican party of a Democrat out to win at any cost by planting the seeds of racism? Regardless of who did it, it was wrong because the sermon wasn't a condemnation of America overall, but rather a condemnation of the atrosites committed by this nation's government over the years towhich slavery was just one aspect.

    Breitbart has been around for years. Things are taken out of context in politics. It's never a good tactic but it's commonly done. It's always wrong no matter who does it.
    Glad we can agree. And with that as a framework for concilation, can we not agree that this very topic is one of those that has been taken way out of context?

    I never had a problem, not did I express one for blacks voting for Obama for this reason. Chris Rock was wrong though, he wasn't qualified. I wouldn't qualify what happened here as racism. People were voting for the guy they felt was most like them. It would have only been racism if they would refuse to vote for someone of another race with the same positions. If Obama hadn't run, most of those who voted for Obama would have voted for Hillary.
    To that last part in bold, I agree. Which makes the entire racial argument that Blacks voted for Obama just because he was Black all the more odd considering as you well pointed out those same Black voters likely would have voted for Hillary or even John Edwards had he not fallen prey to inmoral behavior.

    No way was the reaction an overreaction. As a U.S. Senator you do not falsely accuse anyone of wanting to lynch blacks. You simply do not do that. He's just pissed that people disagree with him and he's lashing out by indefensible means. Yet, some (including yourself) seem to want to try and excuse it.
    See the linked article above on the APSA survey and get back to me on that.

    There has been racism. There are still far smaller elements. That is no excuse for what he said here. It's no excuse for instittutionalized racist organizations being a part of of our government.
    Again, the survey says...

    And if you truly feel that strong about not having "instittutionalized racist organizations being a part of of our government," I suggest you start researching the validity of the claims being rendered against the Tea Party membership and vote accordingly come 2012 for those House seats that are up for re-election.

    There is no excuse for racism from anyone. Why is that so hard to accept?
    To this we 100% agree. So, why are you fighting so hard to defend what appears to be the indefensable?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-05-11 at 12:14 PM.

Page 73 of 93 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •