Obama Plays Race Card, Urges African Americans to Support His Campaign

[IdiotsOpposite]

In practise (and reality) they didn't

You clearly have no argument as to why it's factually false and so I am done here.

 

[useless]

I acknowledge blacks had rights, my point is (which you seem to be ignoring) that in practise these rights were not upheld.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I already acknowledged that, three times. Still you people kept arguing. It sort of went like this:

Me: "Yes, blacks did have rights. They weren't commonly upheld, but they did have rights."
You People: "No they didn't because they weren't commonly upheld!"

Over and over again.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Segregation is a right?

Being beaten is a right?

Being disenfranchised is a right?

Being a lesser citizen/human being is a lesser right?

I didn't say any of those things. And I didn't say that just because they had some rights, it was enough. But they were not 100% without freedom. They weren't slaves.

If you deserve X rights, and I give you Y rights, which is half of what you deserve (I'm not using a strict percentage, I'm making a point) you still have some rights, but you have less rights than you deserve. You have every right to complain that you deserve more rights than you are given, but you can't complain that you have absolutely no rights, because you do have some.

Could you please show me where Ghostwriter said that segregation is a right?

Could you please show me where Ghostwriter said that being beaten is a right?

Could you please show me where Ghostwriter said that being disenfranchised is a right?

Could you please show me where Ghostwriter said that being a lesser citizen/human being is a lesser right?

Thank you

I don't know bro, but all of those are not simply being the result of "mistreatment" but outright racism and bigotry.

It's especially galling to see that he's also using a flag that has been associated with supremecists, those who would re-apply segregation if they got their way...

So how does this invalidate his statement that blacks did not, in the 1960s, have "no rights"?



Ah, I see. If something gets associated with a group of people, then you should stop using it. We should go tell those swastika-using buddhists that.

Is it actually a swastika or is it just similar-looking? In any case, your point is correct.

That's true. For instance, when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed in Birmingham in 1963 it was actually against the law, as were the 40 other such bombings since WWI. Not that it did much good. The main perpetrator wasn't found guilty of murder until 1977, one finally died without ever being charged, and two others weren't convicted until the 21st Century.

I'm not trying to argue that life was fair to blacks back then in any sense, or that their rights were equal to ours in the eyes of the law, but they did have certain rights. And there were certain rights they should have had but didn't. But the blacks of the 1950's can't claim they had absolutely no rights. The slaves of the 1850's can.

 

[del62]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-plays-race-card-calls-on-churches-to-support-campaign.html

What are your thoughts about this move?
Is it alright for certain racial groups to form these sort of blocs?
Would you be opposed to a "White Americans for Romney/Paul/Gingrich/Santorum" campaign to form?
Is President Obama actively encouraging this sort of racial voting bloc a step backwards in racial unity?
Where does the division end? Is a "Asian Americans for x" voting agenda acceptable? A "Native Americans for x" group? A "Latino Americans for x" group?
Is it only inappropriate if a "White Americans for x" group forms to support a certain candidate?

My thoughts are it is pretty innocent stuff.

Whet othe blocs do you have in these terms in America, the Irish vote, the hispanic vote, the Italian vote, would it be wrong to have Hispanic Americans for Santorum.

I would say pretty innocent stuff to.

Could you get away with Anglo-Saxon americans for Romney, probably not.

 

[BasketCase]

The Youtube Video already has a 10-to-1 dislike-to-like ratio

Good. The video deserves it.

What are your thoughts about this move?

Standard boilerplate for Obama.

Is it alright for certain racial groups to form these sort of blocs?

No. Nobody, white or black or anybody else, should form these blocs.

Would you be opposed to a "White Americans for Romney/Paul/Gingrich/Santorum" campaign to form?

Yup.

Is President Obama actively encouraging this sort of racial voting bloc a step backwards in racial unity?

Not really. The ethnic groups form these racial voting blocks of their own volition, without Obama's help. Blacks and Latinos are always under enormous social pressure to vote Democrat at all costs; any black or latino who is discovered to be GOP gets hammered mercilessly by their compatriots. The pressure to conform is not being exerted by Obama--it's being exerted by blacks and latinos.

Under this President, more blacks are unemployed. More blacks are on food stamps. If I had to bet though, Obama will still pull 93% of the black vote. Again, just a wild guess.

Truth is, Obama doesn't have to actually do anything to help blacks; they'll still vote for him, pretty much no matter what. In fact, Obama's best game plan is to do nothing; being unemployed and/or on food stamps increases the pressure to vote left-of-center. Straight from George Orwell; one of the best ways for a ruling body to stay in power is for there to be some kind of crisis for that ruling body to fight against.

The right panders to whites constantly

Mostly wrong. Some fringe parties, way to the right of the GOP, do in fact do that, but the GOP doesn't. The reason the GOP draws more white people is simply because it's not the Democrats.

^^^ What's the fun in answering loaded questions? All the fun is in asking them! Like so:

"Is the GOP actively trying to annihilate America's prosperity and plunge the entire western hemisphere into a feudalist nazi dictatorship?"

Heheh. That's not a loaded question. This is: "how do you feel about the GOP's efforts to annihilate America's prosperity and plunge the entire western hemisphere into a feudalist nazi dictatorship?"

If I were to answer "no" to the first question (as you asked it), then the GOP is not trying to annihilate American prosperity and plunge the West into a feudalist Nazi dictatorship. But in the second question, no matter how the respondent answers, it's still assumed that the GOP is trying to annihilate and plunge. That's what makes it a loaded question. The most insidious thing about loaded questions is that the person answering is seen to be implicitly accepting the false presumption contained in the question.