I apologize for claiming that blacks voted for Obama because he is black.
Why did I say something like that in the first place? I was obviously wrong right? How could I possibly say that blacks voted for Obama, because he's black and not have any proof to back it up? As at token of my apology to black Obama supporters. Here's a few videos I dug up by rappers Jay Z and NAS that were released a week or so before the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. Oh yeah and about that apology of mine. Just watch the videos. Listener discretion is highly advised in the videos due to the huge display of concentrated ignorance and profanity, but the videos will speak for themselves and once again back up everything I've been saying from day one.
Trying to deny the obvious is like trying to swim out of quicksand. Even parents have to come clean with the their children about Santa and the Tooth Fairy at some point. Don't doubt me.
Trying to deny the obvious is like trying to swim out of quicksand. Even parents have to come clean with the their children about Santa and the Tooth Fairy at some point. Don't doubt me.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 5:37 PM
14 Comments:
CB;"I apologize for claiming that blacks voted for Obama because he is black".
Even though I sense a veiled attempt at sarcasm...Apology accepted!
Jay-Zee and other rappers might "speak to" lots of people (Black, White, Asian, etc...) however, they don't "speak for" them.
I was oozing sarcasm allen. lol I figured using the title of me "apologizing" would get libs like yourself reading my commentary. Did you watch the videos allen? So blacks didn't vote for Obama because he is black right? That is what you and others have been claiming right? Can you find me that song "my president is white"? Funny but Itunes just don't seem to have it in their record inventory.
Love the sarcasm CB! It is very clever!
I don't think such a song like "My President is White" has ever existed. Obama's being black or in actuality half-white and half-black doesn't do anything for me.
The only thing I admire Tiger Woods for is the fact that he acknowledged all of his heritage and not just his black heritage. He's a brave man for doing that. I don't see blacks who acknowledge that they are biracial or triracial as self-hating or sellouts.
I find the notion of self-hatred to be an oxymoron because most of the usual cartoon characters who decry self-hatred cling to group identity rather than individual merit and worth.
One of my ancestors is from scottland(he's a white European) from my mother's side of the family.
I was also told that I have Native American Ancestry in addiction to my unmistakably African features.
I think my genealogical history is true of many American born blacks.
I figured Howard Stern proved that with his interviews with "Harlem Voters"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
Still, many people vote for people that share their background even when they disagree with them ideologically.
And to make matters worse, in THIS case, is that McCain was a terrible candidate....one almost tailor-made to lose. Romney was a better candidate on the economy, but even he probably would've lost to either Obama or Hillary.
This comment is from a previous essay post...
CB;"I have a story I'm going to post on the how liberalism destroyed the city of Detroit in a few days. It should be a very fascinating read".
Fascinating or "fabricating"??
So you like sarcasm? Okay....
Liberal auto manufactures gave in to the "librul" unions and paid auto workers far above their worth in wages, health care, retirement and other benefits. If they had not given in to these demands the auto industry wouldn't be in the shape they are now...right?
Had they followed the Chinese or Korean Government models and kept the wages extremely low, gave no health benefits or retirement, the auto companies would be the richest in the world! right?
In the late 60's and early 70's, Liberal policies kept the elected Detroit officials from squashing the Civil Rights Movement and the Detroit riot. Had they been more "conservative" and preserved the status quo by keeping the Blacks in their own neighborhoods by continuing the unwritten separatist policies, and eliminating those who fought against them, Blacks would be better off....right?
It was those "librul" policies of force busing and integration that have cause schools and an educational system that were once considered the best in the world, to now a system mired in ineptitude. Had they used the "conservative" approach and left the Blacks in their own schools, Blacks would be better off....right?
Here's the rub...I AGREE THAT THE ABOVE LIBERAL POLICIES ARE A MAJOR CAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS OF MANY BLACK COMMUNITIES!
It was wages and benefits of Ford, GM and Chrysler that drew many Blacks into the auto factories. Many Blacks dropped out of school to work for the Big 3. Had the factories been less attractive (even hostile) to Blacks, many would have chosen to start their own businesses and conglomerates.
Integration was the worse thing that could have ever happened to Blacks in America. Right here in Detroit, prior to forced integration policies, Blacks lived exclusively in a thriving area called Paradise Valley and Black Bottom. There were more Black owned businesses than there are now within the city.
When the federal government forcefully bussed kid's from their own neighborhoods, the Whites in turn either refused to get on the buses, left the school Blacks were being bussed to, or left the city altogether. Had Blacks refused and fought for own our educational system, (not the one that was "left" for us) we could have educated our kids according to our own productive political and social philosophy.
Look up Catholics and JFK.
And since you are in Baltimore, the white vote for O'Malley when he ran for mayor. You realize he got 95% of the white vote then, right?
Darkstar "Look up Catholics and JFK.
And since you are in Baltimore, the white vote for O'Malley when he ran for mayor. You realize he got 95% of the white vote then, right?
So your saying that two wrongs somehow make a right Darkstar? I guess the ends justify the means in your book then, how nice.
I'm saying you didn't write the entire story and find that fact, interesting.
Darkstar "I'm saying you didn't write the entire story and find that fact, interesting."
Interesting? It looks like you're the one who left out some facts Dark. You left out the fact that whites voted for both McCain and Obama where as blacks voted monolithically for Obama. Also I wrote several years back about the mayoral race here in Baltimore. I commented in great detail that whites in baltimore mostly voted for then councilman O'Malley and that black voters split their voters among the two black candidates which allowed for O'Malley to win his first term.
I also wrote stating that the black voters who voted for O'Malley obviously didn't vote for him because of race rather they voted for him based on the issues and I respected that where as I didn't respect those who voted for O'Malley, Lawrence Bell and Carl Stokes. I also wrote that Lawrence Bell ran a racially polarizing campaign calling on the black majority to not split the black vote and vote for him. And lastly I also stated that Martin O'Malley's campaign slogan of "there is more that unites us then divides us" resonated with black voters.
You never asked me what I wrote Darkstar, you "assumed" I said nothing. In an attempt to get a "one up" on me, you exposed yourself in not "having all the facts" yet you went with a hunch instead of asking. tisk tisk darkstar, you're getting sloppy in your deductive reasoning. I expect better from you.
You left out the fact that whites voted for both McCain and Obama where as blacks voted monolithically for Obama.
Given Blacks vote for whites many times and given Blacks will vote for white Dems over Black Dems, the only need to point out the voting pattern this time is to race bait, IMNSHO.
I commented in great detail that whites in baltimore mostly voted for then councilman O'Malley and that black voters split their voters among the two black candidates which allowed for O'Malley to win his first term.
Blacks split their vote between O'Malley, Stokes, and Bell. Each got 30% of the vote. The local media "cheered" Blacks splitting the vote but said nothing of the white vote going for one person, the only white person in the race.
And lastly I also stated that Martin O'Malley's campaign slogan of "there is more that unites us then divides us" resonated with black voters.
Despite the fact that he made direct appeals to white voters?
Darkstar "You left out the fact that whites voted for both McCain and Obama where as blacks voted monolithically for Obama. "
What you and allen are leaving out Darkstar are the following "FACTS"
1. When blacks were saying last year that it is time "to make "history", the historic aspect was the election of a black man as president, in other words RACE BASED
2. The calenders showing Barack Obama next to Dr. Martin Luther King with the title reading "A DREAM REALIZED". RACE BASED
3. When a black rapper told blacks to "lets paint the whitehouse black" he was telling blacks to vote for Obama because of his RACE.
4. My other example I gave with the song from Jay Z, The song is RACE BASED on the RACE of Barack Obama.
Why Darkstar is it such a taboo to say that blacks were motivated to vote for Obama based on his race? Why can't people just accept the obvious and move on? The evidence is overwhelming.
Darkstar "Blacks split their vote between O'Malley, Stokes, and Bell. Each got 30% of the vote. The local media "cheered" Blacks splitting the vote but said nothing of the white vote going for one person, the only white person in the race."
The media didn't say anything but I did.
Darkstar "Despite the fact that he made direct appeals to white voters?"
Was Martin O'Malley suppose to have ignored 35% of the population of Baltimore Darkstar? Is that what you are saying? If O'Malley would have focused strictly on trying to sway black voters, then he would have been accused of pandering. If I was stupid enough to run for Mayor of Baltimore, I would try to reach out to voters regardless of race. I would be a mayor for the people not a mayor for a particular race of people Darkstar.
jmk "Still, many people vote for people that share their background even when they disagree with them ideologically."
It just goes to show that those people really don't have any core values JMK. I voted for Michael Steele for the U.S Senate mainly because he ideology was way more in line then Ben Cardin's. I didn't vote for Obama, because he ideology is the polar opposite of mine. This is why people like Charles Payne really tick me off. He claims to be a conservative, yet he voted for Obama. Now he is upset at how Obama is governing. I knew the type of person Barack Obama was when he spoke at the Democrat National Convention five years ago. I wasn't going to sell out my beliefs and values because of the color of his skin.
JMK "And to make matters worse, in THIS case, is that McCain was a terrible candidate....one almost tailor-made to lose. Romney was a better candidate on the economy, but even he probably would've lost to either Obama or Hillary."
Mitt Romney would have destroyed Obama on the issue of the economy. One of the flaws with McCain was that he is a Senator. It was hard for him to distance himself when he voted for much of Bush's agenda. This is why Governors typically make better presidents. Obama wouldn't have been able to tar and feather Romney with the Bush brand. Obama doesn't know anything about the economy. I believe if Romney had a chance, he would have explained in great detail how it was liberal Democrats that caused the subprime bubble in the first place. Romney wouldn't have been Mr. Nice Guy like Juan Mclame was.
"It just goes to show that those people really don't have any core values JMK." (Tyrone)
Not entirely.....it shows that some people put ethnicity before ideology, as disastrous as that choice usually is.
My father's family was entirely Irish (came over around the start of the Civil War, driven out of Ireland by the "Potato Famine"), my mother's family was from Corsica and from Northern Italy....when JFK was elected, I was a very young child....going into the 1st grade.
I figured my Dad would be happy that an Irish Catholic was elected President, as all the Nuns at the Catholic School I attended were.
He wasn't.
When I asked him about it, he virtually spit out the word "Kennedy"....he saw JFK as a veritable Socialist. He'd voted for Nixon.
Looking back, many of today's "Republicans" were "JFK Democrats," including Ronald Reagan, who moved away from the Democratic Party when LBJ embraced an even more aggressive Leftist agenda than any since FDR's.
Hell, Robert Kennedy served proudly with Roy Cohen as Joe McCarthy's two legal pit bulls.
I've known a lot of Conservative working class Italians who proudly voted for Mario Cuomo who opposed the death penalty even though 80% of New York's electorate at the time (probably even higher among Italian-Americans) supported it, while supporting even 1st trimester abortion, something most Italian-Americans opposed....go figure.
Many people wrongly think that a candidate of their background will address their problems with more care and give them more attention - not so.
Even now, Barack Obama's "Karl Rove" is David Axelrod, his Chief-of-Staff is Rahm Emmanuel. President Obama has two Jewish Americans (one of whom....Emmanuel...engineered the "Blue Dog Revolution," which has Conservative "Blue Dog" Dems now comprising about a quarter of that Party's Congressional representatives).
The Health Insurer's and "Big Pharma's" lobbyists have written the current "health reform Bill....a Bill that will force young healthy workers who've previously opted out of their job's health insurance plans in favor of pocketing more money, while hammering most Union workers with a whopping 40 percent tax on insurance plans with premiums above $8,500 for individual coverage!
So far, the current administration's policies have hurt urban workers the most (GM, Chrysler and Ford have been allowed to jettison workers and drastically cut pension and health costs for retirees, while pushing a "healthcare reform" Bill that will punitively tax workers who now get health insurance via their employers), while banks who doled out government-backed mortgages to "non-creditworthy"/"low income borrowers" and Wall Street got over a TRILLION dollars in bailouts.
No wonder Wall Street gave five times as much money to the Democrats, since 2000....you couldn't get those policies passed by a GOP Congress and administration without some serious media outrage.
"Mitt Romney would have destroyed Obama on the issue of the economy....Romney wouldn't have been Mr. Nice Guy like Juan Mclame was." (Tyrone)
Mitt Romney certainly would've been a "better" candidate, even a "far better" one, but with the bulk of the mainstream media wrongly blaming "Republican" policies for a disaster they didn't create....Romney too, would've faced a serious uphill battle.
G W Bush was, at heart, as Keynesian as his father (G H W Bush Sr. called Reagan's Supply Side policies "Voodoo economics")...the ONLY lesson G W Bush seemed to learn from the Reagan and Gingrich years is that "tax rate cuts DO INCREASE tax revenues."
The Bush across-the-board income tax rate cuts greatly INCREASED tax revenues and halved the deficit by 2005!
Unfortunately, the rest of his agenda was hardcore Keynesian, from the prescription drug boondoggle to the over 1,000 pages of added regulation EVERY year of his administration, including the most expensive and far-reaching piece of financial regulation since the Carter administration in Sarbannes-Oxley.
The taint of that Republican Keynesianism created a barrier for ANY GOP candidate in 2008. The media's (MSM's) casting the Bush administration's Keynesianism as "free market economics" (we haven't had a "FREE market" in America since 1912) and "de-regulation run amok" proved that the bulk of the folks in the MSM know less about economics than....well, less than "Joe the Plumber."
Post a Comment
<< Home