| Author |
Message |
    
Troy
Veteran Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 986
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:35 pm: | 
|
I concede that I only watched about 30 minutes of the Broadcast on CNN; therefore I don’t know the ground rules and format. But for the life of me I could not fathom how the moderator (who was terrible) decided which candidate to post questions to.
I was sitting there (actually running on a tread mill) wonder when the heck they were going to direct a question to Keyes. I mean the must have asked Guliani, Huckabee, Thomson and others 3 or 4 questions without directing a single question to Keyes.
The only time Keyes spoke was when he interrupted I thought it was, frankly, f’ed up. Regardless of how you feel about the guy, I did not like what I was on CNN this afternoon.
|
Doberman23
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:42 pm: |
|
lol! alan keyes reminds me of the villain's side-kick's side kick. sorry troy i can't feel sorry for the dude, he may think he means something to his party but he's served his purpose. i think they are just wanting him to fade to black now. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 10889
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 12:26 am: |
|
In answer to your question, Troy. Yes, Alan Keyes was dissed. The moderator didn't even try to conceal how lttle regard she had for anything he had to say. poor ol Black Republican. |
Troy
Veteran Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 988
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 08:16 am: |
|
I wrote: "I did not like what I was on CNN". I meant to write: "I did not like what I saw on CNN. I wondering if that was somewhat of a Freudian slip...
Cynique, it actually bothered me the way he was treated. To me, it was like they were slapping all of our faces -- not just Keyes.
After seeing how much difficulty Obama is having getting the "Black" vote; I understand Keyes does not stand a chance getting our support.
Does not mean we should accept the way Keyes was treated... or is simply being a Black republican too unforgiveable a crime to warrant our backing?
|
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 5904
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 02:58 pm: |
|
Screw him. It's all a hustle for him anyway. He has no staff, no advertising no expenses. Pockets a cool 5 million everytime. The Republicans got hip to his jive. |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 2892
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 07:18 pm: |
|
”After seeing how much difficulty Obama is having getting the "Black" vote; I understand Keyes does not stand a chance getting our support.”
Bro Troy, I saw the debates also. Was Keyes dissed? Probably. But the man is a religious heretic and loon. I was stunned to see him ranting and hysterically rambling about God and never remotely answering any of the questions. The man was an embarrassment. The other GOP candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, et al) were giving their typical scripted dull and meaningless answers. But Mitt Romney and Alan Keyes caught my attention. Keyes for his spectacular impression of a fire and brimstone Islamic Jihadist and Romney for his SS-Oberführer demeanor.
”Does not mean we should accept the way Keyes was treated...”
Well, to be honest, I dunno…… I'm very familiar with Keyes and he has always sadden me.
”…..or is simply being a Black republican too unforgivable a crime to warrant our backing? “
I’ve never felt sorry nor empathized with any black person who sides with a party that openly snubs (even Newt Gingrich criticized his own party for this racist practice!) and unabashedly has a history of antagonism and disdain for black people. Even though Keyes has punched all the tickets for being a hard line Christian conservative, they still ignore and reject him. Yet he continues to be a witting dolt for a party that uses him only when they need him (running against Obama for Illinois senator). Sorry, but I can’t get excited about a black person who embraces the party of big business, class and race.
Faye Anderson was a black Republican house flunky until she got hip and left the GOP. She could no longer tolerate the racial duplicity and hypocrisy of the Republican party. She aggressively campaigned for Bush in 1988 and 1992 and Dole in 1996. She wrote a letter to the Republican Party Forum (which was published in The Washington Times) complaining about the outrageous snubbing of potential black voters. She also told the big suspender GOP bubba's she needed funding to aggressively recruit blacks for the GOP. It all fell on deaf ears. She exited.
I have no problems with anyone who has issues with the Democrats. I think their feet should be held to the fire as well. I know I have issues with the Dems. But for a black person to arrogantly proclaim themselves as a Republican is liken to a Arab trying to be an Hasidic Jew!
|
Troy
Veteran Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 991
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 11:27 pm: |
|
NTFS, yes Keyes, when he finally did speak, sounded like a fruitcake. But that is beside the point. He was dissed and I did not like who was doing it.
I agree with the spirit of your response.
But there are good Black people in the republican party and there are evil Black people in the democratic party.
So I do think it is unduly simplistic, and flat out wrong, to imply that "...disdain for black people..." is a Republican characteristic; when Democrats exhibit that very same distain.
Right now I'm an independent soon to be democrat (only so I can vote for Obmama in the NY Dem primary). I've even been a republican.
Honestly I don't think either party really cares about Black folks outside of getting our vote.
All of that said, it does strike me when a Black person "...arrogantly proclaim themselves as a Republican..." in a crowd of random Black people. It is almost like the guy who stands up in the men's locker room to proclaim to his football teammates that he is homosexual.
It takes a cetain amount of bravery to do either one. I have much more respect for the "out" Black Republican or the "out" football player than I do for the individual who has ceased thinking or is untrue to their nature and just goes along with the flow 'cause that is what everyone else is doing.
|
Jmho
Veteran Poster
Username: Jmho
Post Number: 311
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 08:35 am: |
|
Chrishayden wrote:
Screw him. It's all a hustle for him anyway. He has no staff, no advertising no expenses. Pockets a cool 5 million everytime
I heard on one of those shows last night, that was discussing the debate, that he was invited, because he met the qualification of having paid staff in Iowa.
Troy wrote:
After seeing how much difficulty Obama is having getting the "Black" vote; I understand Keyes does not stand a chance getting our support.
Why should this election cycle be any different? He's previously had no chance in getting the "Black" vote and support, and Obama was nowhere to be found.
As Ms Cynique reminded the board, Obama wasn't the first black (or black man, for that matter) who has run for president. So where were all those black voters before, when other black candidates, who couldn't or wouldn't win, but wanted to support and vote for a/the black candidate because it would send a message to the country, and more specifically black folks, or wanted to see a family in the White House or were willing to think out of their box?
Surely some black folks aren't only supporting Obama because he's black, but I'd wager, it's atop of their (very short) list of the reasons. |
Jmho
Veteran Poster
Username: Jmho
Post Number: 312
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 09:13 am: |
|
Troy wrote:
Honestly I don't think either party really cares about Black folks outside of getting our vote.
I agree.
Troy wrote:
All of that said, it does strike me when a Black person "...arrogantly proclaim themselves as a Republican..." in a crowd of random Black people. It is almost like the guy who stands up in the men's locker room to proclaim to his football teammates that he is homosexual.
It takes a cetain amount of bravery to do either one
I disagree. Announcing that you're a Republican won't get you killed whereas announcing that you're gay just might.
It seems to me that some black Republicans are only in that party or claming to be a Republican as to not be quote 'following the crowd' of other blacks, who are Democrats. They pretend as if being a Republican is so much better, and proves that they an independent black thinker/voter. Yeah, right.
Being ignored and being taken for granted are opposite sides of the same coin. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2487
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 09:54 am: |
|
Jmho, why do you think Obama's Black supporters have only a "very short" list of reasons for supporting him? Do you think that Black folks who are supporting other candidates have a longer list of reasons? Do you feel that "short" automatically equals "invalid"--in other words is quantity of reasons more important/relevnt than quality?
Just curious.
Re: Being ignored and being taken for granted are opposite sides of the same coin -- I absolutely love this. Well put. And so very, very true. |
Jmho
Veteran Poster
Username: Jmho
Post Number: 314
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Yvette,
In nearly all of the discussions, Obama being black is always mentioned. Rarely are Obama's qualifications (and even some of his current supporters don't think he is qualified, or is better qualified, but that's okay by them, because he's black), his record, his stance on issues, his solutions to remedy or get out of the mess(es) we're in now, etc., discussed or mentioned.
But the flip side is black folks will moan and groan when others will only vote for those of their same race or ethnicity or vote against someone who are not their race or ethnicity.
I understand sentimental/symbolic voting, probably done it a time or two myself, in the past, but are we any better off, in the long run, when voting for the symbolic rather than substance. (And, please, I am not saying that Obama isn't of substance.)
I wasn't trying or didn't mean to imply that those who are supporting other candidates have a better list, a much longer (more valid) list, etc, than the Obama supporters. |
Troy
Veteran Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 992
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 02:52 pm: |
|
JMHO, "Announcing that you're a Republican won't get you killed whereas announcing that you're gay just might."
LOL, where are you from? Here in Harelm NY, I'd definitely take my chances being a gay Black man than a Black republican -- for real!
I also wonder about the discussion you are talking about. Every aspect of Obmama is discussed, as it is with every other candidate. Being Black is obviously not the only issue. Otherwise, I guess, black would rally behind Keyes.
We (the public) talk sabout all of the candidates lack of qualifications -- shoot we even levy the same critique against the current guy who has been in the white house the better part of a decade.
JMHO, you say "...black folks will moan and groan when others will only vote for those of their same race or ethnicity..."; you speak as if there were a bunch of opportunities for white folks to demonstrate their willingness to vote a black man into the white house.
I say we give Obama the benefit of the doubt (if you have any). For too long, and at every avenue, Black folks need more degrees, more drive, and more ambition, than the average white boy to just keep pace.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9751
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 07:17 am: |
|
If qualifications truly is the reason for Black foks to shying away from Obama, then WHY are so many of them siding with Clinton? Clinton does NOT have the best, most broad and deep resume of all the Democratic candidates.
Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd and, ESPECIALLY, Biden have records as elected officials that are superior to those of Clinton's and Obama's. So why are those four gentlemen largely ignored by wise, objective kneegrows?
And do Black foks remember what happen while Bill Clinton was president? There was so much active, willful LOATHING of the Clintons in the nation that the Democrats LOST the entire Congress for the first time since the Eisenhower Administration.
It is quite possible that electing Hillary, whom many hate even MORE than they do Bill (many of Bill’s enemies admire and envy his charm), will prove for many of us to be a Pyrrhic Victory. |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 2894
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 03:25 pm: |
|
”NTFS, yes Keyes, when he finally did speak, sounded like a fruitcake. But that is beside the point. He was dissed and I did not like who was doing it.”
Understood Bro Troy. Perhaps he was dissed. But you have to remember, Keyes is the one who decided to lay claim to a party that has an open policy of hostility towards blacks. What was to be expected? And what made him believe they would make an exception for him? They certainly don’t take him serious. And after this loony irrational ranting in this last debate, there is no way he can ever seriously hope they ever will. Disssed or not, I have zero sympathy for him.
”But there are good Black people in the republican party and there are evil Black people in the democratic party.”
Ok……I have no problems with that.
”So I do think it is unduly simplistic, and flat out wrong, to imply that "...disdain for black people..." is a Republican characteristic;”
Really? I have no idea why. Please tell me when the Republican party has made a concentrated effort to address the ills and problems of black Americans? Please tell me what Republican has made a serious effort to meet with so-called black political and social activists about their concerns? What Republican presidential candidate has made repeated trips to black forums and universities to answer questions and present their agenda that will benefit black people? And what major presidential Republican candidate has gone on record and stated his/her party must make serious efforts to address the problems of black Americans?
The shrill rhetoric from GOP leaders is always the same. Their concern is appeasing the religious right, big corporations, alienating our global allies with more “with us or against us” stances, slashing and eliminating programs that assist and benefit the working class, minorities, poor people, the elderly, military veterans, voluntary diversity recruitment programs, eliminating the legal choice of a woman to make choices with unwanted pregnancies, etc, etc, etc…… How does eliminating or reducing any of the aforementioned benefit black people as a group?????
”when Democrats exhibit that very same distain.”
Oh? Like how? Examples please. What Democratic candidate matches the indifference and racial intolerance of Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani (both refused to participate in the Sept. 27 debate at Morgan State University)? I’m willing to hear any specific examples you have.
"Right now I'm an independent soon to be democrat (only so I can vote for Obmama in the NY Dem primary). I've even been a republican".
I’m a total independent voter. I have not ties to either party. And for the record, there are moderate Republicans I have no major problems with. I was a fan of Senator John McCain until he stepped up his strident support for the debacle in Iraq. I was extremely disappointed with him for doing so. And after getting busted on Sixty Minutes for lying on about the security in Iraq, I was through with him. I once thought he was a fresh breath of air for his party. No more. But I do think he is an honest man and one of conviction, but I cannot support his pro-war stance.
I also like Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator who has been very vocal against the hard line right wing conservatives of her party. Whitman has gone on record as objecting to "social fundamentalists" who have undermined "core Republican values. " She has stated the hard line right wingers have created "a party within the party...the tail wagging the dog." Bottom line, I don’t dislike anyone for being a member of a particular party, it’s the position they take on issues that concern me.
”Honestly I don't think either party really cares about Black folks outside of getting our vote.”
That’s probably true. But please remember, any polices, programs, funding or initiatives that support poor people, working class folks, veteran benefits, minorities, medical insurance and health coverage, education, drug programs, affirmative action and environmental issues comes from the Democrats –NOT THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!
|
Troy
Veteran Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 995
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 09:50 pm: |
|
The distain of the democrats that I speak of are the ones who run the Board of Ed in New York City and have allowed this failed system to literally distroy the lives of generations of Black folk, while there own children attend private schools.
The democrats that for years enabled (rewarded) bad behavior by making all sorts of accomodations for pregnant teens, drug users, crimals, and those who refuse to work in the name of helping the underpriviledged. Or perhaps it is guilt for creating the conditions that help nuture this bad behavior in the first place...
At the same time, if it were not for democratic policies we would probably be working in sweatshops from the age of 8 for 50 cents a day and without medical care.
But again, to attribute everything you mentioned in the last paragraph in your post to the democrats is, on it's face, inaccurate.
Consider it another way: In many major cities peole, who can, send their kids to priviate schools do so. The reasons are obvious. People who want the kids "educated" AND have options do not send them to public schools.
The people who have the best "benefits", medical, dental, etc, typically get them by working for major corporations, or else where in the private sector, not from the federal government.
The dems who you want to give so much credit to are actually making education MORE expensive because everyone who pays for private school also pay taxes for the public school that they will never use.
Your typical Black family, not the one poor, ghetto bound, downtrodden, uneducation ones you hear about all the time, but your typical black family will contrinute for more to the government than they will ever get back from the gov't in regard to all the program you site. The reason is simple -- they don't need them. And all the extra mney is wasted.
Besides NTFS, assuming everything you say is true, all of the negatives you atribute to the republican don't just hurt Black folks they actually hurt more white folks. Believe it or not, there are actually more poor whites folks than there are poor black folks.
The republicans are not so much against Blacks as they are against big government or anything that stifles big business.
We have a Mayor in NYC elected as a republican (who I initally opposed because I thought he was just another power hungry rich guy). But this republican is actually taking steps to improve conidtions in the New York City Public school system and it is the Hillary Clinton supporting democrats that are fighting him tool and nail to maintain the status quo and continually complain that they are not getting enough money.
Note: the Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, I understand my actually be an independent now. There was some speculation that he ran as a republican to get elected
If Obama were republican I would still vote for him. But he has a much better chance getting elected as a democrat.
|
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 5925
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 11:24 am: |
|
Troy is still hanging in there. Much longer this time (he got rabbit in his blood a few months ago and dropped Obama until he got religion at that meeting in Harlem)
I guess it will take a string of humiliating defeats and an on camera meltdown to convince him. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 10920
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 01:13 pm: |
|
"Now let's have a Homo Sapiens comment on it!" |
Jmho
Veteran Poster
Username: Jmho
Post Number: 315
Registered: 03-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 03:11 pm: |
|
Troy wrote:
LOL, where are you from? Here in Harelm NY, I'd definitely take my chances being a gay Black man than a Black republican -- for real!
Can't really tell if you're serious or not. You LOLed but tacked on "for real", at the end of your statement. But, when was the last time you heard or read of a black republican who was a victim of violence because they are/were a republican, contrasted to the number of black gay men, either in your city or anywhere else?
Troy wrote:
I also wonder about the discussion you are talking about. Every aspect of Obmama is discussed, as it is with every other candidate. Being Black is obviously not the only issue. Otherwise, I guess, black would rally behind Keyes.
You know that was my point earlier, but I'll just say, just re-read some of the posts about Obama, on the board.
Troy wrote:
We (the public) talk sabout all of the candidates lack of qualifications -- shoot we even levy the same critique against the current guy who has been in the white house the better part of a decade.
Not sure what you mean here, but I haven't suggested that one shouldn't talk of a lack of qualifications, but the same folks who can overlook the qualifications, especially the lack thereof, of one candidate, then will also use the same to disqualify, and not vote another candidate. The yardstick changes based on whateva.
Troy wrote:
JMHO, you say "...black folks will moan and groan when others will only vote for those of their same race or ethnicity..."; you speak as if there were a bunch of opportunities for white folks to demonstrate their willingness to vote a black man into the white house.
I don't know how you would define a bunch, but there has been several previous opportunities for whites *and* blacks to nominate and vote a black person into the White House. |
Jmho
Veteran Poster
Username: Jmho
Post Number: 316
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 4 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 03:17 pm: |
|
Abm wrote:
Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd and, ESPECIALLY, Biden have records as elected officials that are superior to those of Clinton's and Obama's. So why are those four gentlemen largely ignored by wise, objective kneegrows?
Why the assumption that they have ignored those gentlemen? There are some voters who are undecided, and didn't jump on the first bandwagon that came marching by, no matter the music that was played.
By contrast, dare I say, those ole regular kneegrows, who appear to be unwise and biased, have already given their support to a candidate who they know isn't as qualified, and have also ignored those, who you deem to have superior records. Go figure.
Abm wrote:
And do Black foks remember what happen while Bill Clinton was president? There was so much active, willful LOATHING of the Clintons in the nation that the Democrats LOST the entire Congress for the first time since the Eisenhower Administration.
Sounds like you're speaking more of yourself than others. Or maybe your recall is highly selective. Clinton left office with the 65% approval, the highest end of term rating of any President since Eisenhower. And, the Republicans did gain control, in 1995, with the holier than thou bunch, headed by Gingrich, come to find out, they were not morally superior, just as unfaithful to their spouses, and in 2006, the Democrats regained control. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9752
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Jmho,
I’ve explained why I support Obama. And I’m quite comfortable with that.
No I do NOT think Obama’s the most "qualified" presidential candidate, if one judge such strictly on the duration and variety of one’s experiences as politician. My supporting Obama is a function of who and what I believe him to be AND the who’s and what’s I believe his competition to be.
I, like many Blacks, support him because he’s (and at least ‘partially’) a Black man who appear to be smart, decent and honest enuff to be a good president and I believe his election offers the opportunity (note, I said "opportunity", not guarantee) to broaden the perception and perspective of/about Black people throughout this country and world.
So, no, I make no apology for his race and background being factors in my supporting Obama. But I did not vote for or support the BLACK Sharpton’s, Mosely-Braun’s or Keyes’ recent presidential candidacies. And neither did many other Blacks.
So it’s NOT for me, and most Black foks, as simplistic as voting for the nearest kneegrow.
Moreover, if there were a man or woman, Black or non-Black, whom I felt would be a better president, that’s whom I would likely support. And I suspect if such person, say Al Gore, had early on declared his candidacy for the presidency, Obama might NOT be a presidential candidate.
Now. I have explained whom I am voting for and why? Care to do the same?
And it’s interesting that in spite of ALL you credit to the Clinton presidency, the Democrats still LOST the entire Congress for the first time in over 40 years (even Reagan, at the zenith of his powers, never had a fully-republican Congress) and they were succeeded by BUSH Jr. If Clinton truly were so popular and the country was in such great shape, his VP Gore should have won in a LANDSLIDE, Lewinsky blowjobs and holyrollin’ buybil thumpers be dayam. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 10928
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Where is it written that the popularity and charisma of a preceding president accrues to the next party member who runs for this office?? Al Gore was never able to shake the dorky image that included a chirping southern accent. Plus, he made a concerted effort to distance himself from the Clintons, striving to establish his own identity, something many experts insisted hindered rather than helped him. The fact the Gore lost the election had nothing to do with Clinton. It had to do with the Bush henchmen stealing Florida.
Being defensive about voting for Obama seems to characterize his black supporters. Why do they feel like they have to justify preferring him? If a black man wants to vote for another black man because he's black then what's the big deal. Why all of the breast beating?  |
|
Email This Page