Ask Me Help Desk - America Needs a White Republican President

He's proud of his thread.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

So you really aren't all that concerned for the welfare of blacks after all, eh?

Over the welfare of other poor people, no I'm not.

excon

At least the articles you post are interesting in as much as they are open to a lot of criticism. This one included. It's a ordinary piece of journalism in my view.

I know it's rhetorical but you have to go a long way back to find any thing of substance

When an article is written with such inflammatory rhetoric my experience is that it does not lead to reasoned discussion.

Quote:

How many wars on women? Didn't even know there was one.

check out the Va .Governor's race where evidently the big issues is the contention by the Dem candidate that the Republican candidate would deny women access to birth control.

OK, but since when does a gov get to change laws like that?

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

the Va .Governor's race where evidently the big issues is the contention by the Dem candidate that the Republican candidate would deny women access to birth control.

He would? I wonder where he got that... Hmmmm

In 2007, Cuccinelli sponsored a bill that would give legal rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization, which would prohibit of any form of contraception (likely including IUDs) that could block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus. And in 2003, he urged his colleagues to vote against a bill establishing that contraception is different from abortion.

Cuccinelli wrote in a 2003 email to colleagues that he doesn't consider emergency contraception, or the morning-after pill, to be a form of birth control:

Quote:

One particularly troublesome bill escaped the Senate today on a 24-16 vote. That was Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple's redefinition of “contraception” as “not abortion” (SB 1104). Sounds simple enough, right? But her bill actually twists the definition in such a way that clears the way for “the morning after pill” or “emergency contraception.” These are abortion methods, not contraception. I am hopeful that this bill will be killed in the House of Delegates.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I know it's rhetorical but you have to go a long way back to find any thing of substance

I think it is unfortunate for people to use rhetoric in conjunction with a poor understanding of history. Even if the message is unintentionally conveyed- a historical message is being wrongly reinforced, viz: That back people are incapable of managing their own affairs and they are in need of a white president to maintain their dignity for them.

Statistics presented demonstrate that Obama is also a poor manager of economic affairs. So it becomes easy for others to add that he poorly manages everyone's economic interest in general.

It contributes indirectly to reinforcing the wrong message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I think it is unfortunate for people to use rhetoric in conjunction with a poor understanding of history. Even if the message is unintentionally conveyed- a historical message is being wrongly reinforced, viz: That back people are incapable of managing their own affairs and they are in need of a white president to maintain their dignity for them.

Statistics presented demonstrate that Obama is also a poor manager of economic affairs. So it becomes easy for others to add that he poorly manages everyone's economic interest in general.

It contributes indirectly to reinforcing the wrong message.

Tutt let's face it, it is observable that people govern themselves better when they are in a harmonous racial group. You and I can observe that in our own nation the governing of black people for black people by those of a different race has been a dismal failure with ideas being put forward that they should have automony. I suspect that in the US the same is true, they have not had a good history of governing to the benefit of minorities.

Obama is only as good as his advisers, this is true of any government, and he is been criticised for not resolving a crisis more quickly as well as implementing social reform at what could be described as an inopportune time. That he has dug himself a hole that it may be difficult to extract the nation from is observable but not inevietable or a reason of his race. Words from their civil war ring true in this instance, this was nothing more than a error which could not have been foreseen

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:
He would? I wonder where he got that... Hmmmm

In 2007, Cuccinelli sponsored a bill that would give legal rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization, which would prohibit of any form of contraception (likely including IUDs) that could block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus. And in 2003, he urged his colleagues to vote against a bill establishing that contraception is different from abortion.

Cuccinelli wrote in a 2003 email to colleagues that he doesn't consider emergency contraception, or the morning-after pill, to be a form of birth control:

excon

Still looking for proof that as Governor he would have any authority to ban birth control. An abortifacient is an abortion pill be definition . Still I'm very sure that any state action banning them would be blocked at the Federal level . Heck ,judges already ruled that you can't put age restrictions on them !

Hello again, tom:

The idea is that Cuccinelli BELIEVES the government has the authority to DO that, and the people of Virginia don't like it, EVEN if he CAN'T do it.

Terry McAuliffe is a WEAK, WEAK Democrat. That he's going to WIN, doesn't bode well for you wingers... Your hopes for a white right wing pres are fading fast.

excon

Quote:

Your hopes for a white right wing pres are fading fast.

I have no such hopes. I hope one day we get the best person for the job. There is the rare moment in our history .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

The idea is that Cuccinelli BELIEVES the government has the authority to DO that, and the people of Virginia don't like it, EVEN if he CAN'T do it.

excon

He has no such belief . Here is his answer to Judy Woodruff during the Governor debate about the issue .
“I do not expect to use the political capital of the governor’s office to be moving those pieces of legislation. My focus is on job creation and job growth.” That is the ONLY relevant comment related to the issue... that as Governor ,he will not attempt to change a law he has no power to change.
It's Cuccinelli who has been "weak" by not making an aggressive counter attack against this non-issue. He should do to McAuliffe what Lonegan did to Booker during their debate .
Lonegan : “What abortion would you make illegal?”
Booker “I believe in Roe versus Wade,”
Lonegan :“Imagine aborting a baby in the eighth month of pregnancy,”.. “He supports that.”
When McAuliffe calls him out on his supposed "extremism " ,he should've turned it around and made the case that McAullife is the one with extreme positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

When an article is written with such inflammatory rhetoric my experience is that it does not lead to reasoned discussion.

You still crack me up, apparently the only inflammatory rhetoric you ever see comes from the right. Just yesterday I posted on a fundraising email from Democrat Alan "Republicans want you to die quickly" Grayson, was this inflammatory?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attach...eenshot748.jpg

Quote:

You still crack me up, apparently the only inflammatory rhetoric you ever see comes from the right.

Not at all. The Grayson one falls into the same bucket, it is designed to be inflammatory as well (literally! :))

Hello again, tom:

Given that Cuccinelli is going to LOSE and lose BIG, it would seem that his (your) brand of extremism is OUT of favor.

excon

OK, I'll let you in on the point of this post. Remember Joe the Plumber, the guy who committed the sin of asking Obama some tough questions? That wouldn't do so Joe became a target, even had his records searched illegally looking for dirt. It happened again, ol' Joe cross-posted this column on his site and before you know it, Crooks and Liars picked it up and accused him of racism.

Next, Taegan Goddard at Political Wire referenced it on his website, attributing the column to Joe.. After being told it wasn't Joe's column, Goddard dug in his heels.

Quote:

Some want me to point out (again) that Joe the Plumber's racist post on his website is a cross post. That matters?

Next thing you know it went viral that Joe the Plumber is a racist, including on Huffpo (which later made a correction), and in a column by Roger Simon of Politico I mentioned earlier, telling us America would be saved if Boehner and Cruz would drown - as an example of TP racism.

Quote:

There were other signs of our descent. Remember Samuel Wurzelbacher? Known as “Joe the Plumber,” he was selected by John McCain as his presidential campaign mascot in 2008 with the same care McCain used to select Sarah Palin.

Over the weekend, Wurzelbacher posted an article on his blog titled: “America Needs a White Republican President.”

Joe of course is bewildered:

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-cont...-13-9-a.m..png

Quote:

So an African-American writer pens a blog on how it used to be okay to criticize the president without fear of being called a racist. Naturally, the Huffington Post calls me a racist for posting it..

Still waiting for others besides Huffpo to show a little remorse for the harm Joe again suffered at the hands of the tolerant left.

I have to say though I'm actually surprised I didn't get it like Joe did, thank you.

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors. Are we ever going to be able to discuss such things honestly or are we going to keep up the mythical wars, such as the one on women this has turned out to be?

I doubt it, I already see more manufactured charges of extremism.

Taegan Goddard ? That suprises me . He's usually pretty good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Given that Cuccinelli is going to LOSE and lose BIG, it would seem that his (your) brand of extremism is OUT of favor.

excon

The race is tightening . It's now 7 pts according to Quinnipiac.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors.

Because the racist in your post is black, doesn't make YOU any less a racist for posting it. Like Joe the Plumber, you seem surprised at that accusation... I dunno why.

That's like me posting a picture of a Klansman in his sheets, and saying I'm NOT the racist here. HE'S the racist.

Nahhh.. You don't get off that easy. In fact, you don't get off at all.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Because the racist in your post is black, doesn't make YOU any less a racist for posting it. And, you, like Joe the Plumber, seem surprised at that accusation... I dunno why.

That's like me posting a picture of a Klansman in his sheets, and saying I'm NOT the racist here. HE'S the racist.

Nahhh.. You don't get off that easy. In fact, you don't get off at all.

excon

Now that's exactly what I expected. So if a black guy concerned about the plight of blacks can't criticize Obama, who can? Why do you want to be at war with your friends and neighbors? And why is it ok for the media to spread a lie like that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point, Democrats are not doing blacks any favors. Are we ever going to be able to discuss such things honestly or are we going to keep up the mythical wars, such as the one on women this has turned out to be?

I doubt it, I already see more manufactured charges of extremism.

Yes, and one of the unfortunate aspects of the article is that reinforces old racist aspects of the past. That is also a point as well.

I outlined this aspect in my previous post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Yes, and one of the unfortunate aspects of the article is that reinforces old racist aspects of the past. That is also a point as well.

I outlined this aspect in my previous post.

You'll have to be more specific about which of those aspects are "past."

Yes we would all like to know that for future reference

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You'll have to be more specific about which of those aspects are "past."

The view that white people have an obligation to rule and encourage economic development of peoples from different racial and/or ethnic backgrounds so as these people can take their place economically and socially in white society. The racism manifests itself with the prevailing orthodoxy that in fact they, well never achieve this goal.

This prevailing orthodoxy manifests itself yet again with the view that African Americans need is a white president because under a white president they traditionally done better.under Obama they have slipped economically and socially.

THANK YOU tuttyd!

How is any of that past?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

How is any of that past?

Well, I guess that it is historically documented as a stage of colonialism. So I am saying that it is not past, it exists to this present day. Example being the article submitted by the OP

Quote:

Now can we drop this racism bullsh*t? The columnist, a black guy criticizing a black guy had a point,

Hello again, Steve

Last night, a right winger told me that every conservative he ever met was a closet homo, and wanted to smooch on Bill O'Reilley. He ALSO told me they're Nazi's, and have very little wieners..

Now, I didn't say that. Don't look at me.. I'm just reporting...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

hello again, steve

last night, a right winger told me that every conservative he ever met was a closet homo, and wanted to smooch on bill o'reilley. He also told me they're nazi's, and have very little wieners..

Now, i didn't say that. Don't look at me.. I'm just reporting...

Excon

lol, ok.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Well, I guess that it is historically documented as a stage of colonialism. So I am saying that it is not past, it exists to this present day. Example being the article submitted by the OP

And the point of the column is it does exist today under the banner of the Democratic Party, that Democrats are cheating them of their pride, respect and opportunities and keeping them enslaved to government. He isn't arguing for Republicans to rescue them, that's the failed, fraudulent policy of the left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And the point of the column is it does exist today under the banner of the Democratic Party, that Democrats are cheating them of their pride, respect and opportunities and keeping them enslaved to government. He isn't arguing for Republicans to rescue them, that's the failed, fraudulent policy of the left.

He is arguing for the point I mentioned indirectly.. One does not have to argue a point directly to convey meaning. It is that columnist's solution is to once again to call on the Republicans to shoulder the white man's burden. It is implicit racism.

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons . Their assumption seems to be that the unwashes commoner is just too stupid to make choices for themselves. We need these public guardians of the common good to choose FOR us... for our own good.And how do they justify this? Why, for the common good, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons . Their assumption seems to be that the unwashes commoner is just too stupid to make choices for themselves. We need these public guardians of the common good to choose FOR us... for our own good.And how do they justify this? Why, for the common good, of course.

Tom once again I have to tell you, you haven't got it. The very fact that the commoner is unwashed is the reason for benevolence. Since we have begun washing commoners the standard of public health has improved to the point where commoners have begun washing themselves. In order to facilitate this we have provided them with water. Having seen the impact of this small gain in public education, we have provided the commoner with light so they can study at night, and schools where their children can be educated in the benefits of hygene. I see that what you are objecting to is providing commoners in need with food and medical assistance when they are unable to provide for themselves

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd say the extensive nanny state is a manifestation of the "white man's burden ' on steroids .The benevolent government takes over the role of the 'white man' caring for all the vassals and peons .

If you were to say this then I would say you are probably correct. As you have pointed out on a number of occasions, a problem with the Republicans is that they think they can manage the nanny state better than the Democrats.

Going on the figures presented by author of the OP article I would agree especially when it comes to managing the affairs of African Americans. That is to say they are better at in than the Democrats.

If you agree with the above premises then this is by no means a rebuttal of my position, if in fact this is what you are trying to do. Conversely, it strengthens my position. Perhaps you could point this out to the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom once again I have to tell you, you haven't got it. The very fact that the commoner is unwashed is the reason for benevolence. Since we have begun washing commoners the standard of public health has improved to the point where commoners have begun washing themselves. In order to facilitate this we have provided them with water. Having seen the impact of this small gain in public education, we have provided the commoner with light so they can study at night, and schools where their children can be educated in the benefits of hygene. I see that what you are objecting to is providing commoners in need with food and medical assistance when they are unable to provide for themselves

oh yeah ...the government did all that for them
The price they pay for that 'benevolence' is permanent residency in the underclass . You know that saying about the difference between giving someone a fish opposed to teaching that person how to fish .I'd expand it and say free that person from the jackboot holding them down and preventing them from fishing and becoming a part of the market place.
Joseph Perkins gets it anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

oh yeah ...the government did all that for them
The price they pay for that 'benevolence' is permanent residency in the underclass . You know that saying about the difference between giving someone a fish opposed to teaching that person how to fish .I'd expand it and say free that person from the jackboot holding them down and preventing them from fishing and becoming a part of the market place.
Joseph Perkins gets it anyway.

Tom I obviously didn't have the right font envoked however let me say that these days you need a fishing licence to go fishing, keeping the poor from feeding themselves and whose idea is that? Not only that if you caught the fish you couldn't sell them in that market place. All of that may demonstrate that jackboot you claim but it is more likely that the fish would be contaminated by those captains of industry you love so well

You're asking me who's fault is it that there are licenses that keep people from competitng in the market place? I've addressed that many times. Those 'captains of industry ' you claim I "love" may be complicit in keeping the competition restrained . But they are bit players compared to the Leviathan behemoth who decides who can ,and who can't compete in the market .

(lol I intentionally misspelled 2 words in this (later corrected ) ,and the spell checker let it slide .. but it corrected my capitalization error at the beginning of the sentence )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Perhaps you could point this out to the OP.

What, I can't read?