Memo to Obama - blame the Dems for racism, not Republicans

"I don't suppose a lack of black Republican candidates whose views resinate with enough of the electorate has anything to do with it, huh?"

Bwaaahaaahaaahaaaaaaaa.....

res·in·ate [ rézzə nàyt ] (past and past participle res·in·at·ed, present participle res·in·at·ing, 3rd person present singular res·in·ates)


transitive verb
Definition:

permeate something with resin: to impregnate, saturate, or flavor something with resin


Too freaking funny...no doubt you have the former ET moderator in mind.

So black republicans just don't "resinate" with the white republican voters...

Well, no kidding.

Racism is the only logical reason why...as the black republicans run in the same party as white republicans, embracing the same conservative values...

Oh man, you are such a laughing stock...

<img src=http://www.theinterpretersfriend.com/misc/humr/laugh.gif>

 

Zzztroll, you know, I've actually been kind to you on this thread and haven't pointed out all of your fuckups. Since you've decided to point out a simple spelling error, let me direct your attention to this whopper of yours:

Why, I had no idea that there are no Republican congressmen or senators in DC!! Amazing! The Dems control both houses in their entirety! Imagine that!

You are the joke, troll!

ROFLMAO!!

Still waiting for a reasonable argument from you that does not include strawmen, conspiracy theories, revisionist history, and pathetic attempts to evade the issues by bringing up a rare spelling error.

BTW, is it that odd for the name of your ass-licking moderator to come up? After all, he is the pathetic soul who, when vested with more power than he has ever held in his sad life (a real ET moderator! Wow!), used it to cover up your ASSertions and silence your critics? It's obvious you miss him greatly, and could use his deleting skills on this thread and many, many others where you are being similarly and thoroughly owned.

Have a great evening in the cave.

 

ZZzzz, above response is as honest an answer you can get. Yes, lack of black republican candidates whos views do not resignate with republican. Why? Becasue black people feel they are turning thier back on thier people by being conservative. And in general find comfort in being led by the nose by thier black leaders who preach they are the victim...when those preachers should be teaching them to not play the victim, but use thier talent, energy and resources available to get ahead.
ps Condoleeza probably doesn't grow afro for the same reasons most black men and women in america don't. Its not in style anymore. Just like long hair from 60's is not the average white guys style now. Not in the world of politics and business. It is not opression of black afro, it is a business and political code in general.

 

Yeah. According to this logic, Eminem is "blacker" than Clarence Thomas. Go figure.

 

Keyes is black. In color, diction ect.


Obama is a half breed who grew up in Hawaii.

So who is blacker?

 

I can imagine Pasthisprime listening to Cher singing "Half Breed" while he was writing this post...wistfully dreaming of a time when we will have the second coming of his hero Adolph Hitler who will usher in the new era of the pure master white race...

Noun 1. half-breed - an offensive term for an offspring of parents of different races (especially of Caucasian and American Indian ancestry)
derogation, disparagement, depreciation - a communication that belittles somebody or something
half-caste - an offensive term for the offspring of parents of different races or cultures
Adj. 1. half-breed - (of animals) having only one purebred parent
half-blooded, half-bred
animal, animate being, beast, creature, fauna, brute - a living organism characterized by voluntary movement
crossbred - bred from parents of different varieties or species

 

OBAMA'S WEAKNESS IS WEAKNESS

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on April 8, 2008.

The USA Today/Gallup Poll of late March suggests a strategy for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the general election. The poll compared Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and McCain on certain key variables. Here were the results:

Obama won:

• Cares about the needs of people like you, 66% to 54%
• Shares your values, 51% to 46%
•Understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives, 67% to 55%

McCain won:

• Is a strong, decisive leader, 56% to 69%
• Is honest and trustworthy, 63% to 67%
• Can manage the government efficiently, 48% to 60%

Neither won:

• Has a clear plan for solving the country’s problems, 41% to 42%
• Has a clear vision for the country’s future, 67% to 65%
• Would work well with both parties in Washington to get things done, 62% to 61%
• Is someone you would be proud to have as president, 57% to 55%

So Obama won the traditional Democratic (and female) virtues of understanding problems and caring about people. McCain won the usual Republican (and male) virtues of strong leadership and efficient management.

In an age of terrorism, weakness is a capital crime. McCain needs to base his campaign on establishing Obama’s weakness and his own strong leadership by comparison.

It is in this context that we must analyze Obama’s problems with the Rev. Wright and his emerging problems with former terrorist Bill Ayers. The American people are not about to judge Obama guilty by association, even with a lowlife type like Ayers and an anti-American like Wright. But they will see, in Obama’s tentativeness in handling these controversies and his “decency” in refusing to cut off his relationships and condemn these men, a sign of weakness that will hurt his campaign.

There is in Obama something of the Democratic candidate for president in the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson. Both from Illinois, they share an eloquence that lifts them above normal political figures and a profundity of thought that lies behind it. But each was seen as weak, and Stevenson as indecisive. Obama’s over-intellectualization of issues and of the problems that crop up in his campaign will increasingly harden into a perception of a lack of sufficient strength to deal with America’s problems.

The right wing tried to attack John Kerry in 2004 for a lack of patriotism and commitment to American values, just as it is now doing to Obama. It likely fell short of its goal. But the pressure it brought to bear on Kerry, through the Swift Boat ad and other attacks, led people to conclude that Kerry flip-flopped on issues and led them to discount what he said during his campaign.

Similarly, Americans will not buy that Obama is un-American. But the pressure the right brings to bear on him will cause him to appear weak in the face of attacks.

McCain needs to hammer away at the issue of strength and leadership and deal decisively with the problems that crop up in the campaign, while Obama dithers, thinks things through and tries to parse hairs in his responses.

Here the Iraq issue opens a real opportunity for McCain, where otherwise his support for the war would be a real negative. Iraq is a lot like Social Security. Everyone knows there is a problem, but any solution is immediately shot down. The issue earned the label “the third rail” in our politics, a status that was underscored when Bush’s momentum from his 2004 reelection was smashed against the rocks of Democratic and elderly opposition to his Social Security reform plan.

So it is with Iraq: He who proposes an alternative is doomed. McCain’s position, that we have to stay until we win, is far from popular, but it’s a lot better than unilateral and immediate withdrawal.

And Obama’s opposition to the war begs a host of questions: Shall we retain any presence? What about al Qaeda? What happens if the government falls? Can we let Iran take over? Obama will dither and seem far from decisive as he answers each of these questions. They will make him look terrible, just as Kerry — in opposing the war after voting for it — looked like a flip-flopper.

McCain can use the predisposition of voters to see Obama as weak, coupled with the Iraq issue, to make the strength issue his key advantage.

 

me, like most every conservative american,has never had he opportunity to vote for a qualified conservative black congressmen and/or senator. Why don't you provide a list of black conservatives who have run who have lost due to lack of support from white conservatives based on his/her race

I'll get you started ....

NONE

simply more invective from the left meant to make white people feel bad about themselves and hand over their money and influence, it be funny if fewer white-leftists fell for it..... certainly, the right doesn't.

 

Still waiting for a reason that we don't have black republicans in the senate or the house in D.C., especially from states who have a majority of republicans and white folks, think of Utah, Wyoming, etc.

Racism still is the most logical conclusion.

That you feel about republican racism...well that just means you have a little bit of a conscience remaining.

No worries though, just keep listening to Rush Fatman, Spam Hannity, and the other right wingers, keep reading Mann Coulter and the other right wingers, that conscience will vanish completely in time...

 

Then:

<img src=http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/images/then_map_2.jpg>


and the 2004 election results:

<img src=http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/images/now_map_2.jpg>


In case it's hard to read, on the Pre-Civil War Map, the red areas were slave states and the brown areas were territories open to slavery, while the green areas were free states and territories. These distinctions eerily correspond to the red states vs. blue states on the 2004 Election Map ~~ i.e., the blue (Kerry) states correspond to the pre-civil-war free states and territories, while the red (Bush) states correspond to what were the slave states and territories. As one of my co-workers said to me, this might be the most "devastatingly accurate explanation I've seen for what happened on Tuesday." There's a little more discussion about all this, here.

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html