• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid apologizes for 'no Negro dialect' comment

Funny how JFK, a Dem, sent troops into Nam, then Johnson, another Dem, escalted the war like no tomorrow with not much from the press - not until Nixon inherited their mess was the war and Nixon's part pounded in the press.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Dems got us into WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and that was all good until Nixon inherited Vietnam.

The Germans didn't hit our mainland, yet it was OK for the Dem president to send U.S. troops - and our losses were massive.

The Koreans didn't hit our mainland, yet it was OK for the Dem president to send our troops - and the lossses were great.

The Vietnamese did not hit our mainland, yet a Dem president sent our troops - and the losses were great.

Our biggest city was hit on 9/11, Bush took it to them, and out came the whining, hypocrital assholes. Bush went after the the ones who hit our mainland - and the losses are nothing compared to the losses under Dem presidents.

We lost tens of thousand on given days with the Dem's wars - thousand in individual battles, let alone throughout the wars - Bush's taking it to them for hitting us here resulted in excellent results with minimal losses.

It is evident that liberal loons are the most backward, asshole people on the planet.

So, you are saying that the US should not have fought in WWI, WWII, in Korea or in Vietnam. Is that correct?
 
So, you are saying that the US should not have fought in WWI, WWII, in Korea or in Vietnam. Is that correct?

No, it's not correct. I wrote that the liberal loons are hypocrital assholes, as well as some other things, but nowhere did I write that.
 
No, it's not correct. I wrote that the liberal loons are hypocrital assholes, as well as some other things, but nowhere did I write that.

Hmmm... so when you said this:

Oh, and let's not forget that the Dems got us into WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and that was all good until Nixon inherited Vietnam.

You meant that you were OK with all of that, correct?

And btw, stop the foolish partisan hack baiting.
 
I think that Nixon was a terrorist. He tried to poison his own people with paraquat.

Ayers lived in the era of the Kent State Massacre and Nixon who would have wound up in prison if not pardoned by Gerald [bite the bullet] Ford. When you live in an era of tyrants it makes some people get really pissed off.

Ugh... Too many Doobies brother.

Get your terrorists right: It was Carter and Paraquat Kelly


Panic over Paraquat
Monday, May. 01, 1978

Nation: Panic over Paraquat - TIME

Paraquat Is Carter's Cross; Eugene Register-Guard - Jul 6, 1978

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...hKmICA&usg=AFQjCNGBQAWBwCtlr4ktwEUtH5Xf9WZ4Dw

Don't Bogart that joint... my friend.

.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry but I would have to educate you before I explain because you can not understand my point.

You assume that you know everybody who is a decent human and it's a fact just because you say so.

Yes, that was the point of my post. Damn you're good.

I think that Nixon was a terrorist. He tried to poison his own people with paraquat.

No ****ing clue.

Ayers lived in the era of the Kent State Massacre and Nixon who would have wound up in prison if not pardoned by Gerald [bite the bullet] Ford. When you live in an era of tyrants it makes some people get really pissed off.

Which obviously excuses acts of terrorism. I mean, ****, Osama was living in an even worse era in Afghanistan, so we can't blame him for 9/11 either. Great argument.
 
This ought to clear things up....
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzKCtMr4CtI"]YouTube- Jive talkin subtitles-Airplane[/ame]
 
You think you have what it takes to educate Right, after this crap you just spewed? :roll:

Absolutely. I lived through it. The Pentagon Papers, the secret genocide bombing of Cambodia, the My Lai Massacre [Lt Calley now lives in Atlanta and is a jeweler], the abuses of the FBE [John Lennon, Martin Luther King, etc], body counts in viet nam, ad infinitum .

In the workds of John Paine, "These are times that try men's souls."

BTW, I don't appreciate your insulting manner. You could be more civil, please.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
That's why I refer to the Civil Rights Industry vice the Civil Rights Movement. Liberals, Democrats, Leftists, etc. are making millions, not only in dollars, but in political capital off the Black community in America.

So, is it a crime to make money in a capitalistic system if you are liberal? They are exploited by many different people with different ideologies and your assertion does not excuse right wing nuts.
 
Yes, that was the point of my post. Damn you're good.



No ****ing clue.



Which obviously excuses acts of terrorism. I mean, ****, Osama was living in an even worse era in Afghanistan, so we can't blame him for 9/11 either. Great argument.

You used to much profanity in your post which was replaced by asterisks. That made it too ambiguous for me to understand.

I don't understand some of the right wing nut code language.:shock:

I'll let the readers judge.
 
Last edited:
More coded racism.:roll:

Such as referring to "negro dialect?" As the Democrat Senate Majority leader?

See LA, your arguments that statements made here are "coded racism"...or your ability to call out any statement that could be possible racism..whether "coded" or not..is challenged by your inconsistency.

Would you call Senator Reid's comments "coded racism", for example? Beacuse if you do, should not your energies be spent throwing your racist coded Majority Leader out of office?

And if you don't call it "coded racism", well then, this argument is over either way.

Happy Friday.:)
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... so when you said this:



You meant that you were OK with all of that, correct?

And btw, stop the foolish partisan hack baiting.

I did not write that I was OK with it or not OK with it - please stop reading into it for what is not there.

"foolish partisan hack baiting."?

I am just stating facts - the Dems and liberals screamed about Bush sending in troops yet it was the Dems who sent many, many troops in to die in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam - they are OK with that but not with Bush sending in troops to take it to them after they hit our mainland for the first time in history - and Bush executed it all with a minimal amount of loss compared to the Dems who lost thousands in single battles, and who knows what when added up.

In WWII alone we lost half a million and it is said that somewhere between 50-70 million lives were lost - that's not counting WWI, Korea and Vietnam.

It's just a friendly reminder - sorry if it bothers you.
 
Charles, Reid's statement was clear on what he said. It was not said in a mean spirited manner. I think the senator's age had a lot to do with his rhetoric.

Obama even defended him after it occurred.

I do believe that the Obama haters are barking up the wrong tree.

In fact, rhetoric aside, it was true, I believe.
 
Charles, Reid's statement was clear on what he said. It was not said in a mean spirited manner. I think the senator's age had a lot to do with his rhetoric.

Obama even defended him after it occurred.

I do believe that the Obama haters are barking up the wrong tree.

In fact, rhetoric aside, it was true, I believe.

The truth of the matter is, Reid should have never opened his mouth with what he did, but he is an arrogant sob, so he did - and it is even more arrogant of him to speak for the hearts of the voters in this country - I can see if he was a know-nothing, do-nothing, no-effect common citizen and he said what he did, but he is a sitting U.S. Senator, the Democrat majority leader to be exact - it's obvious that he should have kept his big, dumb mouth shut.
 
Charles, Reid's statement was clear on what he said. It was not said in a mean spirited manner. I think the senator's age had a lot to do with his rhetoric.

Excuses, excuses. What you were labeling "coded racism" in here wasn't mean spirited either, but racist all the same according to you, correct?

Obama even defended him after it occurred.

Well if Obama doesn't think so, then, the racism whether coded or not...vanishes...is your argument?

I do believe that the Obama haters are barking up the wrong tree.

I do too. This remark is so irrelevant and look how Reid must cowtow and apologize. We're so sensitive, it's an absolute shame.

In fact, rhetoric aside, it was true, I believe.

Everyone knows it's true, many will continue to deny it, but, it is true. The fact that Reid must now apologize and sing songs to deflect is what is such a joke. The fact that you must use "Obama even defended him" as a defense quite telling as well. Obama is irrelevant Sir, in determining whether this was racism. A "negro dialect" is lost on no one, we're too sensitive to admit it. What you say today trumps your behavior. It's truly amazing. Reid should be judged by his actions...he's a staunch defender of civil rights. However, our Republican Party sees an oppotunity to point out the obvious double standards by the race baiting Left.
 
Last edited:
Max, I am glad that you are such a fervent crusader for civil rights.:roll:
 
I did not write that I was OK with it or not OK with it - please stop reading into it for what is not there.

"foolish partisan hack baiting."?

I am just stating facts - the Dems and liberals screamed about Bush sending in troops yet it was the Dems who sent many, many troops in to die in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam - they are OK with that but not with Bush sending in troops to take it to them after they hit our mainland for the first time in history - and Bush executed it all with a minimal amount of loss compared to the Dems who lost thousands in single battles, and who knows what when added up.

In WWII alone we lost half a million and it is said that somewhere between 50-70 million lives were lost - that's not counting WWI, Korea and Vietnam.

It's just a friendly reminder - sorry if it bothers you.

So, I asked you if you were OK with the US fighting those wars. Are you?

And yes, "foolish partisan hack baiting". Stop doing it.
 
Funny how JFK, a Dem, sent troops into Nam, then Johnson, another Dem, escalted the war like no tomorrow with not much from the press - not until Nixon inherited their mess was the war and Nixon's part pounded in the press.

It's quite obvious from just the first paragraph that you have no idea at all what you're talking about. If you're too young to remember the Johnson years, you could at least have paid attention in history class.

Let me refresh your memory a little bit:

Anti war protesters were staging demonstrations daily during the Johnson years, chanting things like, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and carrying signs, staging sit ins, marches, you name it. In 1968, Johnson had had enough, and did not run. If there is another example of a sitting president not running for a second term, it must be one from a history class I skipped, just as you seem to have skipped the ones dealing with the years 1963-68.

As for the rest of your partisan nonsense, I'll leave that for another time. This post is already long enough.
 
It's quite obvious from just the first paragraph that you have no idea at all what you're talking about. If you're too young to remember the Johnson years, you could at least have paid attention in history class.

Let me refresh your memory a little bit:

Anti war protesters were staging demonstrations daily during the Johnson years, chanting things like, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and carrying signs, staging sit ins, marches, you name it. In 1968, Johnson had had enough, and did not run. If there is another example of a sitting president not running for a second term, it must be one from a history class I skipped, just as you seem to have skipped the ones dealing with the years 1963-68.

As for the rest of your partisan nonsense, I'll leave that for another time. This post is already long enough.

LOL - I fought in Vietnam - I did 3 tours - those protesters were liberal loons spurred on by our enemy - if you bothered to read what I wrote you would have read that I was talking about how the press played in the various wars - so don't go patting yourself on the back there too quickly.
 
Can everyone agree that Reid was being racist when he said this about Obama, and the Republicans are justified in calling the Democrats out for a double standard? But, the GOP is stretching it when they call for Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader.
 
LOL - I fought in Vietnam - I did 3 tours - those protesters were liberal loons spurred on by our enemy - if you bothered to read what I wrote you would have read that I was talking about how the press played in the various wars - so don't go patting yourself on the back there too quickly.

The press did not ignore the war protesters during the Johnson administration, then begin to cover them when a Republican was elected. That's nonsense. The protesters may have been "liberal loons" in your estimation, but there were a lot of them, and they were well covered in the media. The party of the president in power at the time had absolutely nothing to do with the media attention, or anything else.
 
Can everyone agree that Reid was being racist when he said this about Obama, and the Republicans are justified in calling the Democrats out for a double standard? But, the GOP is stretching it when they call for Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader.

I agree - Reid was being racist when he said this about Obama, and the Republicans are justified in calling the Democrats out for a double standard.

And I agree that it is stretching it when they call for Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader - he will never step down - he's too arrogant for that.

But the people will put him out in November if he doesn't bow out before that.

I believe he will bow out, but he won't do it until the last minute, less those he is trying to convince to vote for the health care bill at their own peril see him jumping his own sinking ship because of it.
 
Last edited:
The press did not ignore the war protesters during the Johnson administration, then begin to cover them when a Republican was elected. That's nonsense. The protesters may have been "liberal loons" in your estimation, but there were a lot of them, and they were well covered in the media. The party of the president in power at the time had absolutely nothing to do with the media attention, or anything else.

No it's not nonsense - the press covered some of the protesting because it was news - they did not pound JFK or Johnson - the operative word being "pound" - not until Nixon inherited the war did the press start pounding on about the war - and the liberal loons kicked it up a whole bunch of notches too. After they got the backing of the pounding press they started spitting on returning soldiers.

Even in Johnson's biographies it boasts of how he brilliantly handled the press - it had to do with how he was treated with kid gloves by the press, especially compared to Nixon - just like how the press treated Bush versus Obama - you have to be a fool not to see the bias.

Anyway...........

Nice - the Dems gave the soldiers the draft, sent them off to Vietnam because Bobby Kennedy convinced his brother John to do so, and Nixon and the returning soldiers took the brunt of it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom