israels prime minister netanyhu"s speech.

did the speech by israli prime minister netanyhu undermine U.S. foreign policy? isn't it out of line for a world leader to attack U.S. foreign policy in front of the U.S. congress,

regardless what one thinks of the U.S. president, since when is it protocol to attack a sitting president and his secretary of state,

as much as the U.S.has done for the country of Israel wasn't this a slap in the face to all americans. you don't have to like Obama [I don't] to sense an underhanded move by the prime minister just because he didn't get his way.

does anyone agree with my assessement of this speech?

I agree. Such arrogance.Good luck finding any print or broadcast journalist to call him out for it though. Will get labeled anti-semitic. Prevents any honest discussion about Israel.

No, don't agree at all. Netenyahu and Israel are fighting for their very lives. If you listened to the speech and the content of what he said it should be obvious. Iran has and still does threatened to destroy Israel and all Jews. That's a fact. Iran has also been one of the world's largest sponsors of terrorism since 1979. Netenhayu as a right to make a case against a bad deal with Iran that could lead to it not only manufacturing nuclear weapons, but using them. He's also correct that Iran should be required to change its behavior BEFORE there's any deal. Finally, Israel is such a small country that one nuke could totally destroy it, whereas the U.S. and Iran could both survive nuclear attacks since they're so large. If I were in charge of Israel or any other threatened nation I would do everything I could for the survival of my people.

Forgot to mention that he thanked Obama and Kerry and spoke respectfully of both of them. He did not attack them even once.

@F1

followed the story briefly. I get the impression that it's as much about scoring political points back home as it is about "fighting for the survival of Israel"

Election is coming up for him, right?

What is the "honest discussion" about Israel?

Israel to me is a mixed bag.

I support them to exist as a nation obviously, as millions of radical Muslims want them dead or hate them. They have to fight and stand tough because as my friend once told me 'if we stand down, we get destroyed'

Many people who survived the Holocaust and those descended from them, won't take the chance that they'll get annihilated again and I don't blame them. That being said let's not pretend that Israel has always been scrupulous in their dealings with the Palestinians (the most miserable fucking people on the planet) or other Muslims. It's the attitude within the Jewish community of self defense and protection that causes this. I agree with Netenyahu on this important point though- Iran and the Arab world has to change before any Nuclear disarmament talks can continue.

Netenyahu is a tough cookie and can be a real bastard. Especially when he says he speaks for all Jews, I know Feinstein didn't take kindly to that. I didn't find him offensive in his speech, but the man himself isn't easy to get along with

Honest discussion is where individuals are allowed to express their opinions about individual jews, israelis, Israeli policies, without instantly being labeled anti-semites.

American media is disproportionately controlled by jews, and those working in those industries have to play politics or face repercussions.

If I could Vote for Him, he would have my Vote.

im not going to say they don't have a right to exist, however the way they treat the palestians is certainly worth a discussion about their tactics.

and because someone disagrees with Israel about their policies or their foreign aid, they should not be labled anti-Semitic, that is indeed wrong. it limits debate to be slurred as anti-semtic.

It's true that most of the people who run Hollywood are Jews, but that doesn't mean that they're Zionists who are pro-Israel. Noam Chomsky is Jewish by birth too, but tends to side with anyone who isn't on Israel's side. As for the antisemitism accusation, I think it depends how far people take it. When they take it to controlling America or the world, that's crazy conspiracy talk that probably is antisemitic.

At the same time we could say that Hollywood is controlled by Ivy Leaguers since many are grabbed from Harvard and Yale. Even more accurate would be to say that the Left-wing controls Hollywood since there is a very McCarthyite-like treatment of those who don't toe that political line (with some exceptions).

What's the specific issue with how they treat Palestinians? You do know that before Israel fought back during the last skirmish that Hamas had been shooting rockets/missiles into civilian areas of Israel for a month? You also do know that the Gaza Strip is controlled by Hamas, and that Hamas is a recognized terrorist group that's part of the Muslim Brotherhood and has the destruction of Israel in its charter? Do you also know that before Israel targets a building, whether a home or a business, that it will call first with a warning before bombing to minimize civilian casualties (tell me what other country in the world does that?)?

Completely agree Binnie and Getthe, I have never been a fan of Israel or their tactics, and whatever is said about Obama, the speech and set up by Netanyhu was completely undermining. The only country in the Middle-East I have time for at them moment is Jordan, who actually have fairly decent relations with Israel.
It is so true also that any negative opinion you have towards Israel you are labelled anti-semitic, America, and my birth country Britain I feel favour Israel far too much.
With Palestine, what seems to happen in my eyes is, Palestine will kill a few Israel's which of course is wrong, but in retaliation Israel will kill hundreds of Palestinians.
However I have sympathy that they share borders with neighbours hostile to them and Jews, so it really is a tough situation.

im never going to defend hamas or any terrorist group, but, Israel defends their occupation by never admitting that they are wrong.

I just feel that what Israel does to the palestinians does nothing to help the peace process in that region.

Binnie, can you name a SPECIFIC incident where they did something wrong? What would you like Israel to do with a group dedicated to kill them? Is Israel just supposed to stand by and do nothing while Hamas fires rockets on them? To me, that's not peace.

@F1,

I'm just saying that any individual, group, or country can be criticized. Nobody is above reproach.In my lifetime I've just noticed a continuous pattern where members of certain ethnic groups are allowed to be openly mocked, and others aren't. Members of certain faiths and beliefs are allowed to be openly mocked, and others aren't. Certain interests get more airtime than others.

Unfortunately, this year for example, some idiots are going to desecrate houses of worship like they do every year.A catholic church is going to be vandalized and a synagogue will be hit by vandals too. Note the emphasis of the coverage about the synagogue, which will without fail be greater than the story about the church, even though the history of anti catholic bigotry and prejudice in this country is longer and more violent than the legacy of anti jewish bigotry.

This disparity and others don't make sense from journalistic standpoint.

@gets - agreed that no one is above reproach, but in my personal opinion people's beliefs shouldn't be mocked. Criticism is one thing, but to make fun of someone's sincerely held beliefs at the very least create bad feelings and at worst can have serious consequences depending on the religion that's being mocked. I think it's better all around if people are treated with respect and that criticism be given in a fair and respectful manner.

Obviously there's no excuse for vandalism.

Did you actually listen to his speach? Or just get the liberal spin put on what they said he said in that speech?

I actually listened to it and he did not say that.

As bad as my Daddio was he was no fucking pussy. He was just an abusive husband and father who should never have had children.

Funny on the interpretation the liberal Democrates gave to the content of his speech it was practically identicle to what each other said.

Which means to me they were told exactly what to say so to keep their bull shit lies on point.

NBC News anchor Ann Curry interviewed the Foreign Minister of Iran who tried to dodge the question about Iran's Supreme Leader sending out a tweet saying Israel is to be annihilated:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-securi...bc-buries-lede/

Netanyahu was absolutely right to give that speech. And everything he said was right on. Would to God we in the U.S. had a real leader like that instead of the spineless, Godless, lib we have in the White House right now. And no shock that so many Democrats didn't attend the speech. They and the rest of the liberal moral relativst crowd have never been friends to Israel. Obama and his buddies didn't like it because they know the shoe fits.

What are the "repercussions"?

ask former cnn anchor rick sanchez

Former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez is now a commentator on Fox News Latino and Fox News, as well as Mundo Fox, and also has an a-m radio program in South Florida. I guess those are media that aren't controlled by "the Jews."

Sanchez made one stupid comment after another and eventually he was let go for it. The Jon Stewart thing was just the last example of him putting both feet in his mouth. In fact he had a "protector" at CNN named Jonathan Klein (a Jew) who was let go a week before Sanchez was. Stewart didn't think what Sanchez said was a big deal and said he shouldn't have been fired for it, but like I said, Sanchez was a liability because he couldn't control his mouth.

Anyway, he went on an apology tour to rehabilitate his name and went on to work for Fox Latino and got a radio show in Florida, so he's not doing so bad. All was forgiven, he learned from his mistakes, and one of his best amigos is Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, so his repercussions turned out pretty well for him.

A final note, Jonathan Klein was the president of CNN, but his boss was a non-Jew named Jim Walton who was president of CNN Worldwide. It was Walton who put both Klein and Sanchez out, so that kind of puts the lie to the Jewish-controlled media conspiracy.

The reason for the firings came down to ratings. Klein put on one liberal/left-wing host after another while Walton wanted it to be middle-of-the-road and non-partisan, sort in-between Fox and MSNBC. Klein even canceled a long-time staple of CNN, Firing Line. Klein, and Sanchez, both overstayed their welcome.

Agreed, sure wish he didn't have kids.

I found this by accident.

The show in living color. They introduce the cast in the second season. Jennifer lopezl was a fly girl. Even a future Oscar winner was introduced.

They did a bit on west side story. It was called crown heights story after the riot.

Could this bit ever be put on tv today? I doubt it but it was funny man.

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/AlTHbUrP_gE

nuff said

and what Sanchez said, regarding a personal feud with Jon Stewart, was



Rick Sanchez: I don't think it's a conscious thing. I just think it's important that people who are not minorities understand that those of us who are – and very few of us will say the things that I just said – are actually more complex than they think we are.

Pete Dominick: [Jon] Stewart's a minority as much as you are. He's Jewish.

Sanchez: Yeah. Yeah. Very powerless people. Please. What are you, kidding?

Dominick: You're telling me that....

Sanchez: I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they – the people in this country who are Jewish – are an oppressed minority? Yeah.




The interview was on Sept. 30....Sanchez was fired on Oct. 1

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/16/university-michigan-rescinds-invitation-alice-walker

Pulitzer wining author Alice Walker dis-invited from U. of Michigan event because of her comments about Israel/Palestine conflict.

@F1, Turn, everybody

If I personally offended ANYBODY with my words or my views I have to apologize. People write their views on this forum and outside of slurs or obvious trolling I don't have a problem with anything I've ever read on this forum about Blacks or "the Blacks". It's America and people are entitled to have their opinions. If anything,I welcome some of the comments as an opportunity to educate or inform people about topics that they may not know about. I welcome anybody to correct or educate me about topics that I am off base or misinformed about.

@gets - I'm not offended by what you wrote and I don't think you have anything to apologize for. I get offended when people aren't civil and throw out insults. You haven't done that. You've been very civil in all of your posts. Wish more people could engage in these healthy and friendly debates and discussions the way you have. Like they say, I may not agree with everything you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. Trolls and jerks, on the other hand, that's a different story.

Personally, I think there might be some things you can educate us on, especially with your Haitian background. Americans only see Haiti as a dirt-poor and corrupt country, but I've read up on its history about how it got that way and I think a lot of people would be surprised.

On the Sanchez-Stewart situation, I didn't write that what he said on Stewart wasn't connected to his firing, but rather that it was the final straw in a series of things he said. I also think he forgot that his protector was Jewish, which put the lie to some of what he said.

Are Jews an oppressed minority? In the USA they are a religious minority and there is a lot of prejudice against them. Not enough prejudice that it prevents them from getting jobs, but enough that people call them insulting names, tell false stories about them, and sometimes vandalize their homes and places of worship. The 1986 Crown Heights Riot was an example of persecution. If that qualifies as oppression or not, I'll let you decide.

On Alice Walker, kind of surprised since so many academics and students these days are anti-Israel. But don't forget that Condoleeza Rice was disinvited from Rutgers University and Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Brandeis: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/po...concerns-n90141

responding to gets.... I don't think you are off base, we still have free speech. and I hope everybody realizes this, I myself have had an experience with being called anti-semtic.

I made the mistake of merely mentioning that I thought the holocaust numbers were wrong, I did not deny the holocaust, I just questioned the numbers.

this was when I was in college, I was almost run out of town. I think there is a lot of truth in your views.

and I am not now or never have been anti-Semitic. but one must be careful what one says concerning Israel. you could be hammered. [my opinion only.]

I doubt anyone here thinks you are anti-Semetic. At least I don't think so. Now, anti-Israel? Perhaps.

You talk about wanting to have an "honest discussion" about Israel but, from what I've read of your posts, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Your knee-jerk reaction is to call Netanyahu "arrogant," even though - if you read or watch it - there was absolutely nothing arrogant in his speech. In fact, he went overboard in an effort to be conciliatory and complimentary to the U.S., including Obama and the Democrats.

Also, in the past your main focus seems to have been how "Israel treats the Palestinians," as if there is some moral equivalence between the two. Only someone who is willfully blind or has an agenda would fail to see that, generally speaking, Israel has been the good party while the Palestinians (who have allowed themselves to be exploited and brainwashed by Arafat, Hamas, etc) have been the bad ones. And you can extend that out to the other Muslim countries that surround Israel. Look at how disfuncional they are. If they aren't kept under thumb by a strongman tyrant, it doesn't seem long before the radical Islamists take over, which we have seen in several countries now. Yet, for one reason or another, liberals (which you have to admit you are) love to kick Israel while ignoring the vastly greater issue of the basket-case Muslim world which is an ever-present danger to Israel, the U.S. and the rest of the West.

I have to say watching it I didn't really think what he said was a big deal



Just a funny cartoon I saw following the speech

@F1,
thanks. I think people should speak the truth as they see it.The people whose opinions I respect aren't always the ones I agree with it. It's the people who, say ,will speak their version of the truth about another group and who won't shy away from possibly negative issues about THEIR group. There's no shortage of people who have opinions about others but, I've noticed, on subjects that are sensitive to their group(s)..some are conspicuously absent from discussions.Cowards. I think those who disagree with me about this or other topics will note that I don't run from topics that might paint one of the groups I identify as in a bad light.
My favorite Seinfeld episode and clip(which I post here sometimes) is where Jerry is making anti-dentite jokes...and his date laughs and says "yeah, and don't let me get started about the Jews and the Blacks"



@Binnie,

thanks..I happen to think that the terms anti-Israel pro-Israel, anti Palestinian, pro-Palestinian do NOT apply in general to outsiders who just have an opinion. Those terms apply to people who have blood ties, political, financial, or religious ties to the conflict. We've heard those terms thrown around on political shows , so we repeat them but it's an oversimplification to think of regular people like that.
Having a personal opinion about an issue, a policy, or a current leader doesn't make one pro or anti (insert nationality). Thanks for the support.


@Ivy,

thanks, I have to go back and look over my posts but I think you might be confusing me with another member. I'm not concerned enough about Palestinians or the conflict to write about how "Israelis treat Palestinians" unless I was making some type of comparison. When people are living that close to each other and killing each other I have enough respect to understand how serious it is.and that I can't possibly know enough to make an informed comment.

You mean kind of like how any honest discussion of african american issues that doesn't comport with the typical PC stance gets you labeled as a racist and, likewise, prevents an honest discussion. And similarly, how any disagreement with Obama's policies and blatant disregard of the constitution to force his agenda on Americans results in the same label (and, in the case of Bob Menendez, gets you prosecuted)? No, not like that at all.

Have you not been watching CNN and MSNBC? Perhaps not (Surprisingly), because if you did, you would see that there is no shortage of Netanyahu and Israel bashing on either network.

Ivy,

He clearly didn't watch the speech and his opinion therefore has no merit. He's one step away from cook.

Unfortunately, in this day in age, a-lot of people get their news from twitter. I am sure he got it through a Sharpton and/or MSNBC tweet.

Making any trolling remark about a specific religion won't be tolerated here. Footreads, you really have to reel yourself in!

So far, most of this discussion has focused on comments on Israel and Jews. The reality is that Iran is a threat to the entire Middle East, and ultimately to the world:

The Middle Eastern nations fear Iran far more than Israel. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sure to follow, turning the world's most volatile and dangerous region into a nuclear-armed camp. Can you imagine what would happen if ISIS and/or Al Queida, and/or the Muslim Brotherhood were to overthrow a nuclear-armed regime, or capture its weapons?

Iran already has missiles that can hit all of the Middle East, a good part of Africa, and all of Southern Europe. The next generation of Iranian missiles could hit the US mainland.

The US position as recently as 2010 was to demand that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment infrastructure in return for lifting sanctions. Since then, Iran has vastly increased the number of centrifuges for uranium enrichmenbt. Now the Obama administration has backed off--willing to cede to Iran unranium-enrichment capabilities as long as Iran "promises" not to upgrade them to weapons-grade uranium--with a "sunset" after 10 years. Iran has steadfastly refused to accept UN inspectors, and when it has, to correct violations of previous agreements.

Obama has refused to release details of the current negotiations with Iran, and has said he will decree a settlement by executive order, bypassing Congress. All this for Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Netanyahu isn't the only one who should be concerned about the US position on Iran--all of us should be.

turnbull, but isn't iran helping the U.S. in trying to drive isis out of Iraq? why wouldn't the U.S. not want Iran's help in getting rid of isis?

Turnbull, you said it perfectly. It addresses every point.

Binnie, I'd still like to know what SPECIFIC things you believe Israel is doing wrong. You haven't answered that one.

On ISIS, helping to get rid of ISIS is one thing, letting them get nuclear weapons that they can use to destroy Israel and the United States is something else. Iran has promised to do both and continues to say that to this day!

I just happen to believe that Israel is the barrier to peace talks with the Palestinians, to them they are not doing wrong but to many [myself included] their is a belief that Israeli occupation is indeed a barrier to peace.

and talks had broken down recently[2014] over these same issues. even Israel has agreed to a two state solution.

as far as iran goes, how do you propose to have peace with iran, and deter their nuclear program?

Iran is fighting ISIS to protect Shia Muslims who currently run Iraq's weak government. They want to defend their border with Iraq and, ultimately, to govern Iraq through an ally like Hezbollah. There is no quid pro quo--i.e., Iran fights ISIS in return for us looking the other way while they get the Bomb.
[quote]as far as iran goes, how do you propose to have peace with iran, and deter their nuclear program? [\quote]

The economic sanctions imposed by the US and other countries had a serious effect on Iran's economy and were responsible for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. Obama has eased up on important sanctions before Iran made any concessions about foregoing nuclear weapons. Those sanctions--and tougher ones as well--need to be in place until they do.

TB, sanctions are not going to compel Iran to do what many want Iran to do about its nuclear program. The application of sanctions, no matter how comprehensive or how dire their effects upon Iran's economy, can only be relatively brief. Unless such sanctions occasion a change in Iran's government, Iran can wait until the sanctions decrease or expire and then reengage their nuclear efforts years down the road.

What is never mentioned during any talk shows or news broadcasts is the inevitability of war with Iran if the West's non-belligerent remedies fail.

True. Regime change was/is one of the goals of sanctions.



Nobody wants war with Iran, starting with Israel. But if they get nuclear weapons, preventive military action may be inevitable. And if it comes to that, I'd bet it'd be led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey.

I've stayed out of this so far because it's getting heated, and because I've become too short-tempered when discussing religion and politics, especially online. But every word of this post is right on the fucking money.

Oh, and just to show that I'm not looking for brownie points: The American Left should be ashamed of themselves (as if they had any shame to begin with) for turning their backs on a voting block that has been overwhelmingly Democrat for the past century. Even now.

Although I 'd like to point out that "all Jews are Liberals" is overstating things in a big way. That's just another stereotype. But I guess at the end of the day, Obama doesn't give a shit about 2 percent of the population. I supported him, so I can say it: Fuck Obama. 2016 can't come soon enough, no matter who ends up in the White House. At least it won't be him.

Yeah but if those 7 million bucked the trend and voted Republican it would sway the election the other way.

Then I should clarify. He doesn't give a shit about two percent of the population now that he's in his second term, where he's showing his true colors (no racial pun intended).

TB, I'm not suggesting war only when Iran obtains nuclear weapons; I'm suggesting that once it's determined that sanctions are not working, then the only way to prevent Iran's obtaining such a weapon is war. While the sanctions so far applied have harmed Iran's economy, they haven't deterred Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Thus, there's every reason to attack Iran now.

Binnie, I'm just not understanding. You've said that you "feel" and that you "believe" that Israel is a hindrance to peace, but where's the evidence for this? Making an analogy, it's as if you said that you believe that John Gotti was the Boss of Bosses because you just "feel that way." There has to be a reason to believe things or you just don't like Israel because you've been influenced by the media or people you know by peer pressure.

As for Iran, maybe we can't have peace with them. Should we have been at peace with Nazi Germany? That doesn't mean I'm advocating for an active war, but it doesn't mean we can't fight them in other ways. War is always the final option.

Frankly after we took over Iraq we could have told Iran what we wanted them to do to avoid the same faith happening to them. That is how we should have used diplomacy.

If we had done that we would not be faced with our soldiers getting wounded and killed with weapons made in Iran.

Israel wants us to return to what we were doing diplomatically before we tried to deal with Iran. Under that regime no one can deal with them.

So there are only two things to do. Go back to trying to crush their economy or actually crush their nuclear capability by attacking it in every way we and Israel can do it.

If we do nothing then Israel will have to do it on their own. Actually I am for the economic solution. If Israel feels they can do it the other way alone let them I am for that as the second alternative.

My understanding is John Gotti is still considered the Boss of Bosses and a little fun fact he has such clout to this day during commission meetings they hold a seance to get his input.

Iran getting nuclear weapons and capacity is inevitable.I think what Obama with the other world leaders who are engaging in discussion with Iran are doing is part of a broader effort. I think you neutralize Iran by building bridges with the U.S. and the other P5 countries( and of course, weapons industry lobbies in said countries support the effort and stand to benefit.)

Listen, we all live here and are potential targets for hostile governments or terrorists groups so I agree that the administration should make efforts to protect security, but I'm not convinced that disengaging with Iran over this issue does that.

I don't think this is appeasement like Chamberlain and Hitler...which I've heard a few times. You're dealing with a very volatile area of the world and the chest beating tough guy stance doesn't work in every situation. By keeping a dialogue open with Iran, you are potentially weakening the recruiting/selling points that the war mongerers and terrorists are using to manipulate people to follow them.

This is so dang simple. Either the US applies dire sanctions that will work or won't work, or the US attacks Iran. It's that simple.

Sanctions yes, let Israel attack them

im glad we agree that war is the last option, a poster just posted his solution, let Israel attack Iran,

I sure don't see that as a solution, all hell would break loose in the region at that option, don't you agree?

Sanctions yes, let Israel attack them [/quote

Israel attacking Iran is the worst possible solution, that action could start ww3. don't forget china. and Russia both have extensive business interests in Iran.

to my mind bad solution.

and which way would they go once the actual fighting starts, does anyone actually know?

All hell will break loose, hasn't it already?

We attack Iraq take out Sadam-they are currently at war with Isis
We help take out Gaddafi- Our embassy is attacked and Isis has training grounds in Libya, I think the town is Derna
We supply Syrian "rebels" with weapons- Isis fights for Assad

The US presence and out attempt at nation building in the Middle East hasn't been exactly how we planned it, starting a war with Iran will just do the same.

boy, do I agree with that. you talk about a hornets nest, Israel attacking Iran, perish the thought. it could very well lead to ww3, and I will stand by that.

Sure Russia and China will start a nuclear war if Israel attacks Iran to destroy their nuclear capacity. You got to be kidding me man.

Iran getting the bomb that could definately lead to ww3

Yes.So, we agree about a double standard? I've written about how patronizing and condescending that the media treatment is for Black people. I've also shared my view that certain social programs, despite the stated intent, exist only to create more people who "need" the program.They aren't combating problems, just guaranteeing the future of the program. When people have written on this site about not wanting to say something non pc about Blacks, I've challenged them to speak the truth as they see it and we can discuss it. I don't run from honest discussion. I think though that people use the "oh, why do I have to be PC" idea as a shield. Some are not interested in DIAlogue, they just want to be able to say anything they want in whatever language they want and not be questioned or challenged. That's not discussion. That's a rant.



7 years into an 8 year presidency? I think not. There was such an outpouring of open racial hatred against Obama that his (legit)critics didn't want to be associated with that. Those who criticize his policies smartly distance themselves from THAT crowd so that their points are taken seriously. Initially I thought some of the public overtly racist rhetoric was planted by the dnc to give Obama political cover on certain issues. I figured that even if people thought some of this stuff, none would be fool enough to publicly use slurs,etc about the president.Then you had unapologetic racists like police commissioner Robert Copeland of New Hampshire who put a public face to some of this kind of hatred.
There are checks and balances in place for our government so the idea of a president being able to disregard the constitution and force his agenda on Americans sounds like talk show rhetoric.



???? On any given day, most elected officials can be investigated for corruption.In New Jersey?? Go look up the recent history of New Jersey elected officials and appointees who are under investigation or indictment and then come back with a straight face and repeat the line about Menendez.



I like to formulate my OWN opinions about issues so I tend not to watch the "editorials disguised as news stories" on fox,msnbc, or cnn,or a lot of mainstream press so you've got me there. Those channels are going to predictably recite the platforms they are told to say from one "side" or the other.I take it that you subscribe to this type of thinking because you later said that I "must have gotten my info from Sharpton on msnbc". Sharpton might as well be a tool of the "other side" of political debate.Very smart people use his presence or views on certain topics to manipulate people into the other direction. You don't have to appeal to logic or show people how an issue might affect THEM, if you have a polarizing figure like Al to point to. A Bogeyman.People often vote or think against their own best interests as a result of Sharpton standing on the "other side"of an issue. People on the other spectrum use Coulter,OReilly and Hannity to similar effect. Crowds want to boo the heel more than they want to cheer for the babyface in wrestling lingo.I try not to fall victim to any of that. I record c-span a lot. I gather that Netanyahu's speech and some of Israel's stances are being criticized....similar to how you alluded to criticism of Obama's stances and policies earlier. I'll concede that I over reached with my statement about media pundits being afraid to say anything critical about Jews or Israel.

To many on the Left any criticism of Obama is racist. That in itself is racist since it's saying that he's too weak to take criticism on account of his blackness. The fact is that all presidents get criticized. George W. Bush was hung in effigy, there were movies made in which he was killed, he was attacked in every possible way. He was unfairly blamed for Hurricane Katrina when it was the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana who failed to take appropriate measures in the wake of the storm, yet idiots like Kanye West attacked him as hating black people because that's what they saw on TV. If Bush hated black people he wouldn't have been the president who has done more for Africans than any other: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/they-miss-bush-in-africa.php. Bush's 2007 State of the Nation address was one of the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCDDzFJQO9M

In the case of President Obama, even the more extreme criticisms aren't racist.

1. The claim that he was born in Kenya. Obama dithered when it came to releasing his birth records which gave rise to this claim. He should have released everything immediately. He still refuses to release his college records, but that's another story. Moreover, even one of his own aunts is on record stating that he was born in Kenya. Is she racist? As someone who does genealogical research I believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he was born in Hawaii, but because others disagree doesn't make it racist. John McCain was challenged on his place of birth, as was Mitt Romney. It's a legitimate question for anyone who aims to be President.

2. The claim that he's Muslim. I don't believe he's Muslim. He said he's a Christian, but he's theology is probably more of the Black Liberation Theology that his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, preached. Yet as a child he attended Muslim schools in Indonesia and he was listed as a Muslim. He also refuses to call Islamic terrorism "Islamic" or Muslim. He also has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to meet with him in the White House multiple times. All together it is not difficult to see how people would believe he is really a Muslim.

3. The claim that he's unpatriotic. Obama himself when he ran for President called Bush "unpatriotic," so it's a double-standard to say people are racist for calling him that. That would make Obama racist for saying that about Bush. When Giuliani said that Obama hates America, it's based on Obama saying that he wants to fundamentally transform America. I don't think that Obama hates America and Obama has been ambivalent on what he meant when he said it. Some people think that means transforming it into a socialistic country. Again, if Obama would define and explain what he means and not pretend that he never said these things there wouldn't be all this room for multiple interpretations.

4. Thanks to you gets, I became aware of what this police chief said. He used the N-word for Obama and refused to apologize for it. Yes, that's racist and he shouldn't have said it. Most people don't think that way and it's wrong for the Left to turn that into representing the way all white people feel. He represents himself. In today's world this sort of language is marginalized. This is an example of real racism that's different for the false forms above.

Palestinians have suffered terribly from a lack of peace. But, so far they have failed to acknowledge how their delusions of "throwing the Jews into the sea," coupled with their own bad choices and decisions, have created barriers to peace. Case in point:

Arafat died in November 2004, leaving his family in Switzerland richer by the ~$2 billion he embezzled from his own people. Mahmoud Abbas became leader of the Palestinian Authority. He seemed to be interested in peace, so the Israeli government turned over Gaza to the PA--in the process uprooting 9,000 Jewish settlers, some forcibly, so the Palestinians wouldn't be troubled by any Jews in their midst. The Palestinians promptly installed Hamas, a Muslim terrorist organization whose charter calls for Israel's destruction. Article 13 of the Hamas Covenant states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Hamas rained 7,000 rockets on Israel, and provoked two wars with Israel, using its own people as shields, its own hospitals, schools and mosques as weapons centers, so that they could parade the suffering they inflicted on their own people to the world's media as "Israeli war crimes." Hamas still rules Gaza because the Palestinians want to believe that Israel, not Hamas, is responsible for their suffering.

If a Muslim terrorist organization like Al Quaeda, which wants to destroy the US because we are a Christian-majority
nation, won an election in southern Canada or northern Mexico and started raining rockets on Minnesota or Texas, how long would it take any of us to demand that our government do everything in its power to stop them?

Turnbull, I couldn't have said it any better.

On how smart Obama is the truth is he isn't. When someone see's what he is doing is not working spending. A smart person would try something else. Not this guy he thinks let's spend even more.

There is a reason why no one can see his marks in school. If he did well they would not keep his results sealed.

So am I racist because I think he is not smart?

And let's not forget Arafat was offered almost everything the Palestinians have ever wanted at the Camp David back in 2000. He turned it down. Why? Because he knew that the whole BS about fighting and being abused by Israel is their bread and butter. If every Israeli disappeared tomorrow, and the Palestinians actually did get all the land, they wouldn't know what to do with it or themselves. It's hard to have any sympathy for the Palestinians when they've so readily bought into the line of BS their leaders - whether it be the PLO or Hamas - are feeding them.

Don't feel bad. Few people could. He doesn't post nearly as much as he did five years ago, but TB is still the smartest guy on this board. By fifty IQ points.

Especially on this subject. Debating Israel with the man is like trying to talk defense with Parcells.

I mentioned the patronizing and paternal way that media tends to treat Black people.The far left uses that as political cover for Obama at times but there is a very real undercurrent of racial hatred for Obama in this country.Some of it because he is Black, some because he is perceived as being Arab.

When MCCain was running for prez I saw this clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpE6ljPjSAk

and I thought..the woman is a plant from the democrats....sent to make mccain look bad, but I heard this topic pop up again and again

certain popular radio host quoted as saying

"he's an arab from arab parts of africa"



fear mongering....manipulating people..
the woman in the mccain clip wasn't a plant, her views were/are shared by others





agree




He has Arabic name...first, middle and last .medium brown complexion....he could be an arab....except for the fact that his father is Black Kenyan(redundant) and his mother is a White American...but when do facts matter in propaganda? and for the most part arab=moslem and moslem=arab as far as perception


The narrative in many different ways is that he is an outsider,infiltrator..so the code words are....socialist, arab, muslim, hates America. The people who are paid very well to know these things, know which code words people will respond to about obama.

highest level of politics, pretty much there are no rules.


the admin. knows that this type of energy is out there, so similar to how judo works, they use the momentum of others to their advantage and use media to mix these voices with the legit critics to make people think that they are one and the same.I think some of Obama's ambivalent responses serve this purpose.


many of you guys out there are 3-5 generations removed from the times when American catholics were called papists.They were severely hated and discriminated against.Look up the articles about some of the pioneering American catholic politicians up to JFK..you'll see some of the same outsider/infiltrator "questioning their patriotism and true allegiance" talk expressed by the "American public" then.
Standard politics.....only the "villains" have changed.


4. thanks..the police commish only stood out because he stood behind what he wrote.Across the country several bloggers,writers,government workers and a few elected officials were caught using racial slurs about their president and denied it or apologized. I used to think the stories were made up by Dems. until it kept happening.

@gets - When I look at YouTube videos and read the comments or see tweets or Facebook posts, I know that racism is alive and well in this country. The racist posters are pretty open about it. The idea that there are secret racists is also true, but not as much as the Left seems to think it is. The same goes for the code words. That's why when I take the time to read comments about Obama being a Muslim (not an Arab, I've never seen one that claimed he was an Arab), they sincerely believe it but do not express any racial animus toward him. In fact, there are a number of black people who think he's a Muslim.

As for socialist, there's nothing racial about that either. Socialists come in all colors, and while I don't think he's a socialist, his policies and ideas are very socialistic/progressive and find a lot of agreement with senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (who is an actual socialist).

To those who believe he hates America, they mean he hates capitalistic America. They believe he hates the free market economy, and that he believes in government jobs over private ones. They believe that he wants an ever-increasing amount of control over the private sector, part of which is through the Affordable Care Act.

The racial code words were used in the 1950s to early 1970s by Democrat politicians. I've seen accusations, but no evidence that they've been used by Republicans. The Left claimed that Richard Nixon's campaign of "law and order" was a code word, but it wasn't. Nixon left the racist vote to George Wallace. The Left claimed that the use of an ad about Willie Horton was another code word for racism, but in fact it was a legitimate issue that a furlough was given to a murderer and a rapist, who committed another rape while out on this furlough. Moreover, Democrat Senator Al Gore was the first one to bring up Willie Horton in the primary. I could go on and on, but the point is that with rare exceptions the claim that racial code words are being used by the GOP is nothing more than left-wing propaganda. Again, I belong to neither party, but I am interested the truth.

Finally, on treatment of Catholics, again context is necessary. From the 1300s to the 1600s there were Catholic persecutions of Protestants. John Wyclif was burned at the stake as was Jon Huss. There were the persecutions by Queen Mary I. There was the St. Bartholomew's Massacre in 1572 in which 5000 to 30,000 French Protestants were killed. There was the Inquisition. Not only that, but until 1870 the Pope ruled a country called the Papal States that had its own army. To Protestants who had a history of experience persecution, to them the Pope was the anti-Christ and yes, Catholics were called Papists. There are historical reasons that Protestants did not trust Catholics, yet Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony and Charles Carroll was a Catholic and a Founding Father who signed the Declaration, and Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons both signed the Constitution. Moreover, until 1959 the Catholic Church considered Protestants to be heretics, from 1959 they became "separated brethren." This was only about a year before JFK ran for President. As I wrote, context is everything.

I personally think that Obama's position as president has brought a lot of racism to the surface.When govt. workers and law enforcement officials are caught sending emails with slurs....time and time and time again, that's a byproduct of people holding certain views about Blacks and resenting the fact that a member of a group that they despise is president.
It's not lazy or criminal Blacks that racists hate....they enjoy seeing those people as it reinforces their prejudices, it's successful Blacks that the true hatred is reserved for.

Later in this post, you write about history of Protestant/Catholic animus in Europe in an attempt to place American anti-Catholicism in context. Wouldn't you agree that there was anti Arab and anti-Moslem sentiment in general in America post 911 ? and on a level infinitely higher than whatever anti catholic sentiment that greeted the first large waves of catholic immigrants here? You cited examples of terrorism/persecution from 100s of years before large numbers of Catholics arrived in America and faced prejudice. Barack Hussein Obama ran for office six years after the 911 terrorist attack on the country by arab moslems. You don't think the false perception that he's not really Black but an Arab was fear mongering?


I wrote that the socialist and "hates America" tags are codes for an outsider infiltrator narrative about Obama.
Previous Dem. presidents have been accused of expanding govt., over regulation of business. Obama is the ONE labeled as "hating America" and one of the only ones of being a closet socialists.



Code words painting candidates in racial/ethnic terms or framing issues along race lines are part of political bag of tricks used by both parties. I don't think that I implied that only one side uses them. A simple search will turn up examples used by GOP.Democratic Black or White ethnic candidates for statewide or national offices surely were targeted by such tactics. The late Mario Cuomo. Former Sen. Braun of Illinois.Former Gov. of Virginia Doug Wilder. Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Joe Lieberman, an orthodox jew, certainly was targeted by "coded language" in campaign ads. Al Gore lost his HOME state in that election, though he and Clinton carried Tenn. both times when they ran in the previous two pres. elections.


F1, while I'm reading of the past persecutions I don't think I see them occurring in the countries that the majority of American protestants were from at the time when Catholics started arriving en masse to the U.S. For what you're saying to be true, about context, I think the ones exhibiting hatred to the new Catholic immigrants would have had personal family histories of persecution at the hands of Catholics. There were factors in Ireland that forced large number of Irish to come here and the anti-Catholic feelings and animus was a reaction to that...and how some felt that the Protestant fabric of the country was being threatened.

You may be correct that some of the racism has been brought to the surface. In the case of Obama, when racial slurs are used about him it is more personal because of his policies, not because he's part of a despised group. (I'm not defending, just explaining based on what I see.)



Have to disagree with you here. If you actually read what they write it's clear that they have no enjoyment in seeing "lazy or criminal" blacks. Just the opposite. Moreover, I see the greatest hatred toward successful blacks coming from other blacks. The label "Uncle Tom" is thrown around all the time, as is "token" and "Sambo." To me, these are hateful terms. White people don't attack other whites this way, it's a legacy from slavery where one group of blacks was set up to attack another. It's a form of fascist though-policing that forces independent thinkers to have conform to a viewpoint they don't agree with. Go read the comments under videos put out by black conservatives and the hate will be obvious. The language is often as bad as any white Neo-Nazi.





Again, the claim was that he was a Muslim, not an Arab. I never once read a claim by someone that said he was an Arab. I don't think there's been any doubts about his racial ancestry: he's biracial, half black and half white. He considers himself black and downplays his white heritage.

As for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment, yes, I agree that it increased after 9/11, but I think that most of the anti-Muslim sentiment is toward Muslim extremists. Again, it needs to be contextualized. Most of the claims of anti-Muslim sentiment comes from CAIR, which is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood so their claims have to be taken with a grain of salt. Second, many American Muslims in fact do want Shari'a in this country, do want a worldwide caliphate, are against Israel, and support apostates being put to death. Considering that, anti-Muslim sentiment, at least for those who believe in the above, is not unreasonable. I myself attended a mosque in Southern California years ago before 9/11, and the imam preached the destruction of Jews and Israel. I heard it myself.





I know that you believe that they're codes, but if his political positions actually ARE socialistic, then the complaints are true. As for hating America, the only well-known person who said that, as far as I know, is Giuliani. I don't agree with him, but I do agree that he wants to transform America from free market to a statist, progressive Democrat economy, and progressive is, historically speaking, socialistic. That's not a code, that's a fact based on his policies and his ideology.



Code words painting candidates in racial/ethnic terms or framing issues along race lines are part of political bag of tricks used by both parties. I don't think that I implied that only one side uses them. A simple search will turn up examples used by GOP.Democratic Black or White ethnic candidates for statewide or national offices surely were targeted by such tactics. The late Mario Cuomo. Former Sen. Braun of Illinois.Former Gov. of Virginia Doug Wilder. Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Joe Lieberman, an orthodox jew, certainly was targeted by "coded language" in campaign ads. Al Gore lost his HOME state in that election, though he and Clinton carried Tenn. both times when they ran in the previous two pres. elections.




Again, disagree. They don't need to have personally experienced persecution. It could be a historic memory of persecution. Compare this to Obama's Selma speech. He used "we" this and "we" that, yet not a single person present personally experienced slavery, and the young people present didn't experience Jim Crow. There's no indication that Obama himself ever experienced discrimination; to the contrary, he seems to have experienced only privilege. The original civil rights marches from the 1960s included Jews, Catholics and Protestants, blacks and whites, Democrats and Republicans. One of the most conservative Republicans in Congress until the 1990s was Representative Bob Dornan. He was there in his Air Force uniform in the crowd for King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Yet Obama created his own historical memory that included gay marriage, an issue that wasn't there in the 1950s and 60s.

I made the comment above on March 8,2015



news from March 9, 2015
North Bergen Town Hall Quiet After Agents Raid Parks Dept.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/...department.html

Disagreeing with a policy might evoke anger or even profanity but when slurs start being tossed around it's clear that the disagreement goes way beyond his policies. And while most youtube commenters/internet racists are teen trolls, the slurs about Obama I'm referring to are from adults..sometimes using work email accounts..basically not giving a F.


Racists love to see the groups they despise living up or down to expectations. Look at the tv ratings for some of the "ethnic" themed reality shows and you'll note that there aren't enough members of said group to explain the high ratings. There are Black ones and ones for other ethnic groups. Outsiders are watching and laughing.There's a website that I won't name that basically shows Black people in the worst light imaginable routinely, owned by a Haitian American actually.not enough black teens in america to explain the tremendous web traffic.Outsiders watching in droves and laughing.

Go look up ANY negative video about blacks on youtube...and I'd bet money that it attracts, like flies to dog ish, lot of comments from people who are outsiders.....they can't stay away....they love it.

You don't think a Harvard educated Black president invokes more hatred in the heart of a racist than a Black gangbanger who lives 5 states away?????

Are you saying that Blacks reserve hatred for "successful" blacks or for politically conservative Blacks?

There are surely elements of the Black community that resent both groups, and I can speak about that but those are separate factions of people. please clarify.




The famous radio host who I quoted as saying "He's(Obama) an arab, from Arab parts of Africa" was Limbaugh. The audio and transcript exists on line for sure.As you know Limbaugh is pretty influential so I'm sure you can find comments or clips of people honestly stating that they think he is an Arab......from the first election probably up to now. The McCain clip shows a woman repeating the sentiment and McCain being embarrassed for her.

Downplays his white heritage??? Are you familiar with the history of what race means in this country and the "one drop rule"? I alluded to race mixing and the law in the great migration thread. Pretty complex discussion but unlike say in Latin American countries where there were legal and social stratification of people based on % of Black,White, and Indigenous blood, in America there was White and there was Black....defined by the law.



Do you think the woman in the McCain video knows anything about Islam other than what she was told by Limbaugh,etc. Do you think the people who beat up Sikhs after 911 know or care to know the difference between Islam and Sikhism?

Do you think the average person ,makes a distinction between ANY of the branches of Islam or any organization rooted in Islam?
Average person doesn't read and formulate their own opinion..not about sports and definitely not about politics.

ever have sports debate with person who just repeats what espn shows say?

certain that you've read comments or had debates with people where you can hear other people's words coming out of their mouths.



I came of age during the latter part of the Cold War. Heard a lot of adults speak dismissively of pinko commie bastards,etc without the faintest idea about what communism was or why they were opposed to it .they just knew that "dem Ruskies" were communists and that it was "wrong"

Today...you can find clips of people from 2008 election spouting Obama is a socialist rhetoric without a clue about why that would be something they are opposed to.

Rush Limbaugh was under fire years ago for being a "racist" and you had people on camera who were fed false limbaugh quotes and who had never listened to the show just repeating the line.

Lot of people are puppets.
just give people simple narratives....code words and point them in the direction you want them to go.


Rudy is the latest to use the "hates America line" but variations of the same line have been used by limbaugh, other talk show hosts and celebs. trust me. i can search and list.



I said specifically that I think your point would ring true if the majority of Americans at the time of the Irish immigration descended from areas where the incidents you cited occurred . Not if they personally experienced it but if it was part of their cultural/regional/family history.If America was primarily made up of Protestants from Spain, for example, your point about deeply entrenched resentment for Catholics would ring true because of the horrors of the Inquisition and what kind of feeling would linger with Spanish protestants even centuries later.
Jews worldwide celebrate Passover for example..because the meaning of it/story behind it is part of their cultural history and identity.The Protestant denominations scattered across Europe weren't cohesive enough as a group for the legacy of oppression at the hands of Catholics to have the same effect.

About the Selma speech.
To a group of Americans in Alabama, Black and White..slavery segregation civil rights and modern era of living/working together as Americans is part of all of their cultural and regional history.

Obama never experienced discrimination? ??? Do you think that Obama or any person has a special lotion that makes them immune from discrimination for their entire life?
If you have any close friends who grew up in America and are not visibly "White"..ask them if they have ever experienced discrimination/prejudice/profiling?
Dr. Condoleeza Rice mentions instances of experiencing discrimination growing up in one of her books . Harvard professor Dr.Henry Louis Gates was famously arrested when a longtime neighbor called the cops on him for "breaking into his own house".Cops showed up....immediately saw pictures of the "culprit" all over the house...demanded id anyway...prof. got indignant and was arrested.
Obama probably mentions incidents involving discrimination in his books.
I wonder what would make you conclude that Obama had lived a life of privilege and hadn't encountered discrimination.
Privileged people don't graduate from law school tens of thousands of dollars in debt from undergrad and law school loans..
And discrimination didn't go away when Civil Rights legislation was passed.

I agree Binnie. The sight of Netanyahu, standing in front of the Senate...in the President's place, was outrageous.

Obama needs to take Darth Vader's advice and let that anger out.

This is going to be one long post LOL





Sad but true. I sometimes debate the internet racists, but more often I mock them since most don't listen to reason. Quite a few are from other parts of the world, and a lot of Arab Muslim posters use the "N-word" I have noticed. Often the same ones make anti-Jewish remarks too, but that's to be expected.




As the example with the Haitian American, many of the people who buy into the negative stereotypes are black Americans. One of the most popular shows on TV right now is Empire, about a black drug kingpin. If it were up to me there'd be more positive role models on TV, but not sure how they would do in the ratings. The same could be said for gangsta rap, which is followed by blacks, whites, and other ethnic and racial groups. When an entertainer goes public any member of the public is free to like that person, and often that celebrity goes after the lowest common denominator.



While a black president of Harvard may provoke anger for some white racists, my observation from reading their posts tells me that the most racist remarks are reserved for the gangbangers, the thugs, and the single mothers.

Yes, I am saying that there are many blacks who target conservative blacks for abuse. They call them the most horrible names, names that would make a klansman proud. Go to YouTube and look at some of the posts for Alfonzo Rachel, or just do a search for "black" and "conservative."






I did a search and found where Limbaugh said it, on Sept. 22, 2008. I didn't see the original transcript, the oldest one I saw is from Media Matters. I also saw it on a site called American Conservative. Both sites criticized him for it, but the American Conservative one really mocked him for it. I was unaware of it. I can guess that when he said "Arab" he meant "Muslim," because I've heard others make that same mistake (there are still a large number of Arab Christians). I remember talking with an older person a few years ago, don't remember who it was, but she said "Arab" when she meant "Muslim" in this same exact way and I corrected her. I don't know if Limbaugh ever corrected himself, but it's not important enough for me to spend my money to find out. While searching this I think there was someone else who made this same mistake, maybe Monica Crowley, but didn't go back to read the article.

As for the "one-drop" rule, that wasn't some federal law but a state law from Virginia. Other states, almost all in the South, had similar laws: "

Among them were hypodescent laws, defining as black anyone with any black ancestry, or with a very small portion of black ancestry. Tennessee adopted such a "one-drop" statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Virginia in 1924, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Oklahoma in 1931. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto."

I'm not sure if I'd qualify since I'm less than 1/8th black, but it's a stupid racist law that has since been removed. I think the funniest ironic moment happened when a white racist had DNA testing done and found out he had black ancestry. Hilariousness ensues: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/20/living/white-supremacist-one-drop-identity/

At any rate, my opinion is that Obama should have called himself biracial and role modeled the fact that the USA is becoming more racially mixed. In a couple hundred years we'll all be some shade of brown and hopefully we can put this stupidity behind us. We need to get to the point that we all belong to the human race and that's the only race there is.






I don't know which woman talking with McCain you're talking about. Could you post a link? I don't disagree with the rest of what you wrote. A lot of people just aren't all that bright, or they fail to research the facts before embarrassing themselves.





Agreed.





On Catholic discrimination, again, they didn't have to personally experience it but through historic memory. One of the most popular Christian books, maybe until the 1980s, was "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" by John Foxe. It was written in the 1500s and vividly described Catholic persecutions against Protestants. Just like watch a film like "12 Years A Slave" can ignite anger today, this book did the same thing among Protestants.

On Selma and Obama, Condoleeza Rice grew up in the South and personally experience murderous racism as a child. Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia and did not have those experiences. He even received private tutoring paid for by his wealthy white grandparents. He went to Occidental College, transferred to Columbia, then to Harvard. Yes, he had debts, but so do most students. It took me about 20 years to pay off my student debts.

In the Henry Louis Gates case there's no evidence of racism. The cop was called by a neighbor to investigate and Gates resisted. I've been stopped by the police before myself, but I was quiet, respectful and polite. Gates brought it on himself, and I speak as a longtime fan of Gates who has several of his books. Following the incident Obama stuck his nose in it, made a statement he later retracted, then said, "Hey guys, let's get a beer!" He spoke first when he should have let local justice take its course. As the President, he's also the highest law enforcement officer in the country, over the Attorney General. He should have done his homework instead of undermining the cop. I was pretty disappointed in Gates because I had high regard for him.

And I know discrimination hasn't gone away because of legislation, but on the other hand we shouldn't deny the progress that has been made. There are no racist laws on the books anymore and racism is generally considered shameful.

Holy shit. I needed to open my Kindle to get through that post, Faithful .

@F1,


I will try to tie in all of the tangents and side issues at once. I introduced some of these points into the discussion for comparison sake,not to have all these separate tangents.

1.Internet racists don't respond to reason or logic and they are not limited to White people and nowhere did I say or imply that.That's the issue with trolls, you never know who they are but their intent is just to get people angry. Prejudice and discrimination are practiced by ALL people on earth.

2. I brought up the fact that the owner of the disgraceful website is Black, specifically Haitian American ...just as a matter of fact.He's a sellout...promoting and normalizing images of violence and anti social behavior to a generation of Black kids who are being influenced to see themselves as less than .Again, it's one of the most popular sites in the country and the world..so clearly others enjoy seeing this type of Black imagery too.
The show that you brought up, Empire, about a former drug dealer turned record label owner...has made television history in terms of ratings and consecutive ratings increases per episode.Clearly being watched by millions of non Black people. So despite your assertion that" many of the people buying into stereotypes are Black Americans" the mainstream ratings for these types of shows & sites prove otherwise.

3.I maintain that the level of overt racism and the rise of ugly of Black stereotypes in popular media is a direct response to Obama being elected. For comparison(not to create another side issue)I bet that during the "women's lib" movement....Playboy magazine subscriptions and media depiction of women as sexual objects increased also...for similar reasons.

4.Youtube personality shows , politically based or otherwise, use hyperbole and provocative video titles to draw more views.The monetized videos make money based on number of views. Nothing excuses people using hateful language and slurs but the commenters are pawns unwittingly being used by people who are smarter than them.Internet racist and trolls(of all backgrounds) are losers so it's funny seeing them being manipulated and used.Black people who hold socially conservative views aren't rare at all but the yt ones are entertainers first,regardless of what views they hold. I can point you to some Blacks who are self described conservatives who promote their views without hyperbole, extremism, or attention grabbing titles who don't attract trolls.


5.(limbaugh meaning to say muslim instead of arab)Nobody...and I mean nobody believes that what Limbaugh said or says is an honest mistake.

6.About Obama and how he SHOULD use "biracial" as identity. On what grounds do you think that you can say how another person should identify themselves, especially a person that doesn't share your personal ethnic/racial background?
I mentioned the legacy or race and the one drop rule for context and mentioned the different system in Latin America for contrast.

As far as your implication that race mixing will reduce or eliminate racism,etc......it hasn't worked in Latin America where Blacks,Whites, and Indigenous have been mixing for close to 500 years, so I doubt that it will happen here in America.Human nature being what it is..a color caste system will eventually develop as it has elsewhere.

7.The woman calling Obama an arab is in one of my earlier posts her name is Gayle Quinnel.
Americans work and have children and lives....so when you read about people being able to have detailed views on just about every political issue, more times than not they have found a media outlet that they trust..and just through "osmosis" they develop views and outlooks that are fed to them. That was my point about people responding to code words and media narratives instead of having the time or inclination to read or develop their own takes or views. So Obama is an Arab because the news/talk show outlet they follow said he was.

8. I introduced the papist/nativist point in the thread to point out that the narrative used to paint Obama as an outsider/infiltrator is not a new one..only Muslims have replaced Catholics. I do not think that past terrorism of Protestants at the hands of Catholics had much to do with the anti-Catholicism that I made reference to...though it might have been used to bolster the point. I am under the impression that it was partly because of people thinking that due to the sheer numbers of Catholic immigrants...that the Prot. fabric and core of this country would be disrupted and that Catholics held allegiance to the the Roman Catholic Church FIRST....over national allegiance.

9. I used Dr.s Rice and Gates specifically to point out that this magic lotion that prevents one from being discriminated against doesn't exist.
Gates in fact was under the impression that the lotion did exist if you read the transcript of the police encounter. He said to the cop "do you know who I am?" I joked that he cop said "yeah, you're the 60 year old Black man who is going to jail".
F1, We've both been stopped by police and responded rationally ...me probably more rationally out of fear(because I'm 8/8th Black)....but until your longtime neighbor calls the cops and the police enter YOUR house and accuse YOU of breaking into YOUR house..I don't think you can honestly say what your reaction would be.

police can use discretion/judgement and a 60 year old man who walks with a cane being indignant while complying...didn't have to be arrested

charges were dropped later....so ....draw your own conclusion

About privilege and discrimination.Even the children of the most wealthy people who live in private communities and have trust funds, experience a different world when they step out of their cocoon to go off to school or work.
So Barack Obama, who is NOT from a privileged background, and who went to school in New York and Boston(area) was certainly going to experience all types of things(good and bad) that he may not have had to deal with growing up. To suggest otherwise is not realistic.

And again, when or if you ask a close friend about their life experiences....undoubtedly regardless of their socio economic background, they will have experienced some form of discrimination/profiling/prejudice.

Privileged people do not attend private schools on scholarships or have to pay off college/law school loans like Obama.

Children of hard working & successful or well off parents sometimes don't have to take out loans to go to college.
Privileged kids? absolutely not.

At various points during his presidency and first campaign, opposition tried to paint him as a privileged elitist..kept bringing up the schools he went to....for political reasons to certain demographic of voters.

His father LEFT the family when he was a child, and his mother's family is made up of hard working successful people. In what way is this considered a "privileged" background?


This country and our society have certainly moved forward and made progress, but like I said....speak to person who is close to you who is not visibly White and ask them about their experiences.

There is no doubt that some, perhaps more than some, in Congress don't want to give Obama what he wants because, consciously or not, they don't want a black man to succeed. But racism alone doesn't explain Obama's failures. And, remember that, despite pervasive racism in America, Obama was twice elected president by a largely white electorate, running against white candidates.

Well said.

I couldn't possibly agree more with that assessment. Obama could not have won a single election without the White vote, let alone two. Now I agree that his Presidency has awakened some latent racism in A LOT of White people. Some of them probably didn't even know they were racists until they had a Black President. But the man has been a complete and abject failure, on everything from the way he communicates to the masses to foreign policy. And he can't possibly blame that on racism (although his spin doctors and media puppets certainly try their best to present it that way).

Another good post

Kind of a scary thought, we say we've come along way but have we?

Yes, we've come a long way. I think it was Don Imus who said that we haven't advanced at all since Selma. This was around 2006. And that was about the most ridiculous fucking thing I've ever heard. And I always liked Imus. But Selma? Are people still burning crosses? Are Black folks still getting lynched? Give me a break, Don.

Faith1 and I have had a pretty long discussion , so perhaps it's a bit hard follow my points, but I haven't said or implied that any elected official is primarily motivated by race or racism.I most certainly haven't said that about the situation involving Iran. Partisanship trumps almost everything...always.(if only for survival)

I also never said or implied that the majority of American people hold racist views.

Never wrote or implied that Obama's failures were because of racism.

If you find instance of me writing any of these things..please provide a link so that I can edit them...but I can't defend points that I did not make.

What I will say.
The actual numbers of adults being "caught" expressing slurs and racial hatred on camera, emails, social media about Obama or Blacks is infinitely small relative to the population of the country, but it gives a public face to sentiment that obviously exists.The fact that Obama was elected twice doesn't change that.

As of today 3/11/15 there are at least two instances of members quoting film or tv scenes with Black ethnic slurs on this site for "fun". Still up.no warning from mods to "cut it out" or "tone it down".This is America so people have the right to write what they want and I have right to place them on ignore. Those comments have NOTHING to do with with the 99.99% of the people who, even when they disagree with me, show common courtesy. But the ones who wrote it felt comfortable enough to do it.

And like I wrote earlier...disagreeing with a policy might evoke anger or even profanity but when slurs start being tossed around it's clear that the disagreement goes way beyond his(Obama's) policies.

I couldn't possibly agree more with that assessment. Obama could not have won a single election without the White vote, let alone two. Now I agree that his Presidency has awakened some latent racism in A LOT of White people. Some of them probably didn't even know they were racists until they had a Black President. But the man has been a complete and abject failure, on everything from the way he communicates to the masses to foreign policy. And he can't possibly blame that on racism (although his spin doctors and media puppets certainly try their best to present it that way). [/quote]

Another good post

Kind of a scary thought, we say we've come along way but have we? [/quote]
Yes, we've come a long way. I think it was Don Imus who said that we haven't advanced at all since Selma. This was around 2006. And that was about the most ridiculous fucking thing I've ever heard. And I always liked Imus. But Selma? Are people still burning crosses? Are Black folks still getting lynched? Give me a break, Don. [/quote]

Something to be said for that.

I must be too young and idealistic, but having a problem with a man for the color of his skin rather that his policy is kind of sad. No doubt people don't like Obama because of his race but kind of scary to think that you dislike his policy because subconsciously you are racist.

But I have to say at this point the media (left) and race hustlers push the race card too much

@Gets,

I'll respond to the relevant numbers without the quote function so PB won't have to bring out his Kindle :-)

1. Some racists do listen to reason. Some. Most don't.
2. I don't think it does prove otherwise, I think it only proves that both blacks and whites like those kinds of images. Not all, but many.
3. Obama's presidency has brought some racism to the surface, agree with that.
4. I have watched numerous videos by black conservatives and even those who express themselves without hyperbole etc attract not just trolls, but haters. Yes, sometimes they use attention grabbing titles, but to me that doesn't justify that sort of treatment.
5. Most of the sites that are up today that discuss that from 2008 are left-wing sites that don't like him anyways. They're partisan and look for mistakes for political points. I only found one conservative site that mentioned and it was critical of him too, so you are correct that nobody, at least for politically oriented websites, believes it was an honest mistake. However, just because nobody believes it doesn't make it true or false. I'm only saying that it's possible based on the fact that I've heard other people make that same mistake. There was a talk show host I used to listen to sometimes, and when he would start talking fast he sometimes used the wrong word. In fact he'd use the opposite word of what he meant, then he'd repeat the wrong word several times. It wasn't intentional, some people call it having a "brain fart." It happens and it COULD have happened to him. Or not.
6. This was just my opinion for the reasons stated. Your prediction might be correct.
7. I never heard of Gayle Quinnel.
8. I understand what you're saying, but there was more historical context to that. Beliefs don't happen in isolation and often they take historical twists and turns.
9. In the case of Gates's neighbor, it seems like the neighbor was helping him out. I don't believe he was discriminated against, but that he acted out and there was no need for it. Even if a cop accused me of breaking in to my own house I wouldn't do it. What I would do is calmly explain what I'm doing. I've been in situations where I've done exactly that. Calm is the way to go when dealing with the police. That charges were dropped doesn't mean much. It happens all the time.

In terms of Obama's privilege, I think we're using it in two different ways. To me he was relatively privileged because he wasn't poor. He may also have gotten a scholarship to Occidental or Columbia, would have to verify this. It is also a privilege to be able to attend the elite colleges he went to.

@F1, (no kindle)

1.angry people in general won't listen to reason..throw in racism and forget about it
2.
3.aryan brotherhood guy arrested 3/17/15 for plotting to hit the prez......releasing of this info was meant to take heat off of secret service obviously, but we have to assume it's a true story..alegedly there is secret audio of the troubled guy ranting about slurs in the white house
4.I won't defend internet losers or trolls. My own take on Blacks who are married to any political ideology is that if you're serious about promoting that viewpoint, use a better sales pitch.
F1, if you, say, were promoting vegan lifestyle..and you tried to convert me by talking about saving animals...I'd just walk away. If you approached me and talked about modern processed foods and meats and health risks and looking into alternatives, it would be a better pitch. There's a Spike Lee film "get on the bus" and Spike, of course has a Black conservative character playing a broad stereotype.I won't tell you how many real life self identified Black conservatives act and think very much like that fictional character....down to the T.
5.limbaugh's rise and semi legitimacy tells us all we need to know about the dumbing down of our culture.
i used to watch morton downey jr for laughs......in 2015 his once fringe style is what political tv and radio is now...screaming matches and silly stuff

6.funny story in the news TODAY about First Lady's mom and her first thoughts about her daughter marrying "biracial" Barack....so maybe there's more truth to what you were saying than I wanted to admit
7. She's the older woman who mistook biracial Barack for an Arab
8. I totally get your point now about root of anti catholicism here and after reading the story of the president in Selma..I get your original point about him reaching with his comments. like i said in another thread......black people aren't doing well financially under Obama....so he uses rhetoric and smoke and mirrors to distract us.W. Bush was a well educated guy with elite connecticut roots..he played up the good ol boy texan image as part of the smoke and mirrors
9. gates spent too much time in the ivory tower and forgot who he was...i certainly would not have reacted that way...

black guys who talk back to cops get shot...crazed gunmen of other backgrounds get taken in alive by cops like here
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/03/18/mesa-shooting-near-light-rail/24961403/

or here story from Dec 2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...peacefully.html


A Tennessee woman is facing multiple charges including attempted first-degree murder for driving around shooting at people, leading a police chase, and pointing her gun at an officer.

Julia Shields, 45, drove around a Chattanooga neighborhood Friday just before 4pm dressed in body armor, randomly shooting into vehicles, WRCB reports.

Officers responded to a call from two victims who said Shields pulled up to their vehicle at a stop sign in a dark colored sedan and began firing into the car. No one was reportedly hurt.


Charges: Julia Shields, 45, (photographed) is facing multiple charges for driving around shooting at people, leading a police chase, and pointing her gun at an officer Friday afternoon


Fired: Officers responded to a call from two victims who said Shields pulled up to their vehicle at a stop sign in a dark colored sedan and began firing into the car

Soon, police received several calls about the woman firing into other vehicles or pointing a loaded gun at drivers, threatening to shoot, as she drove by, WCYB reports.

A witness told WRCB that Shields approached a vehicle with her window down, poised to shoot.

'She had black baseball cap on,' the witness said. 'Her hair was frizzy and pulled back. And I just saw, like, a silver 9 millimeter pointed outside.'



She allegedly fired into two vehicles, and pointed her gun threateningly at several others.

Officers found Shields in a church parking lot and when the patrol cars approached, Shields fled, leading the officers on a chase.

Shields pointed her gun at motorists as she passed them while leading the police chase, WDEF reports.

She led the officers down Highway 153 and Hixson Pike, according to WDEF.

The short chase ended at an intersection where Shields allegedly pointed her gun at an officer.

Shields was taken into custody without incident or injury and charged with three counts of attempted first-degree murder, seven counts of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, felony evading arrest, and felony reckless endangerment, according to WRCB.

As of Saturday night, Shields was being held at the Hamilton County Jail, according to WCYB.

wow, and a black guy gets shot in the back 7 times, pulled over because of a taillight. HELLO.

@Binnie

compare that case to the incident involving Marlene Pinnock from 2014

driver captured video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eciO9EfktRQ

Woman with possible mental disorder....walking on the highway..officer arrives to prevent her from getting run over...at some point he knocks her down...to keep her out of traffic, then for some reason he starts punching her out



officer was asked to resign as part of the settlement..but no charges filed

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-chp-beating-20140926-story.html



A settlement requiring a California Highway Patrol officer to step down after he was videotaped punching a woman along the 10 Freeway is highly unusual and could lead to similar demands in future police misconduct lawsuits, lawyers said Thursday.

An attorney for the woman, Marlene Pinnock, said Officer Daniel Andrew's resignation was a crucial element of the $1.5-million deal reached Wednesday, which CHP officials said was the largest excessive force award they could recall in recent years. The agreement said Andrew would leave the agency "voluntarily for personal reasons."

Experts said the move could have broader repercussions. Officers have significant employment rights and union representation, and an officer's job is usually not up for negotiation in civil rights lawsuits, said Glen Jonas, an attorney who last year secured a $4.2-million settlement for two women shot at by LAPD officers during the manhunt for ex-Officer Christopher Dorner.

"It sets a new bar for us," Jonas said. "It's usually not open to discussion.... When the public is behind you, it changes the dynamics."

The bulk of the settlement will go toward a special-needs trust to support Pinnock's long-term care. The 51-year-old said she was happy the lawsuit had brought at least a partial resolution following her July 1 encounter with Andrew on the freeway.

"I was glad he lost his job because I didn't want him to hurt no one else," Pinnock told reporters.

Wednesday's legal settlement ends Andrew's employment with the CHP on Dec. 1, and prohibits him from reapplying to the agency. He joined the department as a cadet in April 2012 and became an officer six months later.

Pinnock's attorney, Caree Harper, said that although she was pleased with the settlement — which came after about 10 hours of negotiations Wednesday — she still wants to see criminal charges filed.

"We want him in prison," Harper said. "I'm not done."
We want him in prison. I'm not done. - Attorney Caree Harper

Harper said Los Angeles County prosecutors have contacted her about interviewing Pinnock in coming weeks. Andrew and his attorneys did not return calls seeking comment. Officials with the union representing CHP officers could not be reached for comment.

The district attorney's office is reviewing the CHP's criminal probe of Andrew. The investigation began after video of the encounter shot by a passing motorist was posted online. The uniformed CHP officer can be seen punching Pinnock at least nine times as she was pinned to the ground.
cComments



The CHP initially said Andrew was trying to keep Pinnock from walking into traffic, but that she ignored his commands and became "physically combative." Pinnock has said she did nothing to provoke the officer. She said she was walking to a place to sleep when Andrew came up behind her and threw her on the ground.

At a news conference Thursday at the site of the incident, several civil rights advocates again called on the district attorney's office to file charges against the officer.

"The CHP did their job. Now it is D.A. Jackie Lacey's turn," said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable.

Despite the settlement and the public outrage over the video evidence, legal experts were divided on whether the officer's actions amounted to criminal conduct.

Police have the legal authority to use force, and the standard for what is reasonable depends on the circumstances of each encounter, said attorney John Barnett, who represented officers accused of assaulting Rodney King in Los Angeles and, more recently, Kelly Thomas in Fullerton.

A defense attorney, he said, could successfully argue that the force was necessary to keep Pinnock from continuing to put her own life and that of others at risk by walking on the freeway.

"Every video they show always looks horrible on TV. … It is very easy to be outraged and horrified," Barnett said. "That doesn't tell you what the officer's perception is. Right or wrong, it is the perception that counts."

Attorney Howard Price, who successfully sued the CHP on behalf of a pregnant woman who was hogtied by officers in 2011, disagreed. He said Andrew could have restrained Pinnock without delivering nine punches, which Price said amounted to excessive force.

"He just apparently lost control," the attorney said.

Price said he was surprised that the officer's resignation was tied to the resolution of Pinnock's civil rights lawsuit.

"The next case that comes down the pipe — and there will be another one — the outcry will be to have the officer step down," he said.

Another lawyer, Carl Douglas, praised the decision to require Andrew to resign, saying the public outrage sparked by the video likely had an effect. But he said he believed the outcome is unlikely to be repeated in many other civil rights lawsuits against police.

good post, it seems as though this violent conduct by police is coming to the fore time and again because of cameras.

my thought is what if none of these incidents were recorded, look what the police would have got away with.

personally I feel the video from Cleveland where a disturbed police officer shot and killed a ten year old boy for no reason, was indeed terrifying. I would recommend to you see that video.

the officer drove up to the ten year old sitting on a bench and in 5 seconds the kid was dead.

is this what America has come to? police beating and murdering citizens.

The story from Los Angeles was a big story here in So. Cal. In some states the police of more authority to beat the crap out of someone. I can go back several years on these cases in California and almost never is the officer charged. The only time in recent memory that a California officer was charged and convicted for a serious felony was a few years back when a Long Beach PD officer was put away after he shot at a driver. If the Tennessee woman or the thug from Arizona did that here the results might have been a lot different. Don't forget Kelly Thomas, a homeless schizophrenic was the son of a retired OC Sheriff Deputy. The officers were charged, put on trial, and found not guilty. Black Civil Rights attorney Leo Terrell called it, saying that they wouldn't be convicted.

Sorry to hear that. If it weren't for the weather, that place would be even more done than it is. My cousin lives in Ventura County, it's a shall issue concealed carry jurisdiction.

In Arizona Walmart parking lot a family attacks cops.....cops hesitant to use deadly force during the attack...dash cam video in the article

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/04/11/3745511/arizona-police-release-video-of.html

full video here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLMuxqKkGw


COTTONWOOD, Ariz. — Police at the scene of a deadly brawl outside a Wal-Mart store in a small Arizona town deployed electronic stun guns and made multiple efforts to stop a large family from attacking them, according to a video recording released Friday.

But one officer was injured and one man was killed during the violent confrontation in which officers were tackled to the ground and put in chokeholds.

The video released by Cottonwood Police reveals how the confrontation unfolded on March 21 after officers were called about a Wal-Mart employee being shoved. The family involved lived in Boise for a number of years, but had recently left and was living out of a Chevrolet Suburban SUV in the Arizona Wal-Mart’s parking lot.

Scroll down for highlights from the police video.

The melee resulted in the non-fatal shooting of Sgt. Jeremy Daniels, who can be seen throughout the video being attacked and struggling for what appears to be his gun. Enoch Gaver, 21, was killed in the confrontation; 18-year-old David Gaver was shot in the abdomen but has since been released from the hospital and is being charged with aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer.

The brawl broke out after police tried to separate the family members while they investigated the incident that took place inside the store. Several men punched and shoved the police officers, who used batons to fight back while yelling commands telling the suspects to get down. At one point, a suspect had an officer in a chokehold on the ground as others around him threw punches.

Around two minutes in, several men tackled Daniels to the ground, holding him down as they punched and kicked him. The officer can be seen struggling with a suspect for what appears to be his gun before it goes off.

“I’ve personally never seen the tactic applied. So I am not sure where they learned it; obviously someone had taught them that,” said Cottonwood Police Chief Jody Fanning.

Daniels was shot in the leg during the confrontation. He crawled off to the side before another officer administered aid.

But the confrontation continued for another three minutes as one suspect refused to get on the ground after being repeatedly told to do so.

David Gaver and four other members of the family — 55-year-old Peter Gaver, 52-year-old Ruth Gaver, 27-year-old Nathan Gaver and 29-year-old Jeremiah Gaver — were indicted in late March on varying charges of aggravated assault, riot, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and hindering prosecution.

Two juveniles were also arrested but not identified.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety is investigating the incident.

I hear what you're saying, and the cops out there DID beat the daylights out of the guy recently who at one point was fleeing on horseback. Look at the footage of the family beating up the cops in the story I linked to, and witness how much restraint the cops used.

Like I said before, Black men who talk back to cops get shot....people of other backgrounds...whether crazed gunmen or a psycho family who pounce on cops and go for their weapons get taken in alive.

Binnie...thanks
I read the case and watched the video.

I believe cops have right to do their job and if there's a call about a person with a gun and they think he's reaching for it...they have to protect themselves and the community.

My problem overall with these types of stories is the different approaches police seem to take based on physical appearance/race of the suspect...and whether the same tactics would have been used if the suspect was of a different background at a different location.

Like you said...cops pulled up....pulled out and shot within 5 seconds and I'm not sure that they decide to go that route in a different situation.


Like I've said and pointed out examples of....crazed gunmen of different racial backgrounds get taken in alive..so

Based on what data? Beyond you googling "white guy pulls gun on cop and cop doesn't shoot". Please, you're preaching to your own choir. You have no interest in facts, statistics, or data. You only have an interest in looking for racial issues so you can justify your position in life.

Guys like DL Hughley, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Farrakhan would be shit broke if it wasn't for "racism." They need racism more than racists do. When the leaders of the black community earn a living off of ensuring racism continues, you know there is a big problem.

OK I'll bite. What is my "position in life"?

Oh...right..I'm Black so "I must be cook county or one step removed", right?"




read this

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...true#Post828835

and try again.

@ItalianForever,

While you're busy holding that L, do you want me to look up the NJ officials, appointees who have been put under investigation or indictment since your post about Menendez?

Or do you want me to wait until next week when the Bridge Gate indictments come down?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/okla...fd8?ocid=HPCDHP

gets, can you believe this!!

now, gets, I sincerely believe this has to stop, its over the top now.

a 73 year old cop!!!

im glad they wound up charging this guy, just a clear case of incompetence. hopefully it might make them look at the way they bring in these weekend warriors and just throw them into the shit. that grandpa had no business having a gun in his hand.

I think if white and black folks shared an l together alot of issues would be resolved.