okie
 
  2  
Tue 3 Nov, 2009 11:23 pm
@DrewDad,
Yes. Infantry. Big Red One, then the 25th Division after the 1st Division was withdrawn.

Many of the guys in the infantry were college grads, as I was, being drafted after our college deferments ran out. Alot of guys that enlisted were able to get an MOS other than infantry.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:59 am
@teenyboone,
teeny,
I have to ask a question.

You said that those who oppose Obama are racist, because Obama is black.

So will you agree with me when I say the people of Atlanta are also racist, because they havent elected a white mayor since 1973.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/04vote.html?_r=1

Quote:
In Atlanta, Mary Norwood, the front-runner whose success has raised the possibility that the city could elect a white mayor for the first time since 1973, will compete in a Dec. 1 runoff with her closest competitor, Kasim Reed, a black lawyer and former state legislator. Ms. Norwood won 43 percent of Tuesday’s vote, short of the majority needed to win outright. Mr. Reed had 38 percent.



Gala
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:35 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Show me an art from anywhere else that had perspective in space or in tone and I'll show my arse in Bloomingdale's window.

Southern Europe-- the Italians. Not exclusively, the Dutch and the Germans had a thing for perspective, but the Italians excelled at most things sfumato.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:35 am
@mysteryman,
Mysteryman... your argument is a logical fallacy.

Just because all humans are mammals doesn't mean that all mammals are humans.
mysteryman
 
  0  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 06:40 am
@ebrown p,
Except it wasnt my argument.
Teeny is the one who made the claim that the people that oppose Obama are doing it solely because they are racist.

So, using that as a starting point, my question is a valid one.

Are the people of Atlanta racist because they wont elect a white person as mayor?
djjd62
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 07:08 am
@mysteryman,
there's a form of racism, or at least prejudice on both parts

it goes beyond on colour, it's just the perception of the political parties

the liberals are all priviliged elitists and the conservatives are all christian nutjob hayseeds

there are definitely people who don't like obama because he's black, but at the same time i'd guess every card carrying republican dislikes him because he's a lib (or communist take your pick)
mysteryman
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 07:16 am
@djjd62,
I will generally agree with your assessment, except for this part...

Quote:
but at the same time i'd guess every card carrying republican dislikes him because he's a lib (or communist take your pick)


I think you are overlooking the fact that many repubs might oppose him because of his policies, nothing more.
To say that "all repubs" think he is a lib or whatever other name you choose to use is to ignore the evidence.
Are there some repubs that think the way you describe?
Of course there are.

But to say "every" repub thinks that way is wrong and minimizes every legitimate disagreement the repubs have with the dems and vice versa to the point of non- existance.
djjd62
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 07:23 am
@mysteryman,
true there's the center of every party that can be as close to the other party as it is their own

0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 08:22 am
@mysteryman,
You assume everything and know absolutely nothing. Nothing I say has any meaning except racial to you. While I was speaking on the Black Experience, it could have been any race's condition, as ALL ethnics have had some discrimination committed against them as they tried to assimilate into American Society. When the Irish Catholics came to Boston, they were depicted in newspapers as "monkeys" and drunks. "Catholics need not apply" signs were placed on buildings where employment might be possible.

They were seen as "not white" by their Protestant counterparts. In Louisiana, they were placed on the docks as stevedores, lived in a "segregated" part of the City uptown in the "American" section of the City, because the French wanted nothing to do with them. Kept in a permanent underclass; slaves and people of color were considered valuable and shipped off to the plantations in the countryside in the summer to avoid yellow fever, poor Irish were left to die in the summer heat. All you need to watch are some of PBS's series on "The Irish In America", "The Jews in America" and "Eyes on the Prize Series" about Blacks fighting for equality in a country they were "born" in, but kept separate by Jim Crow laws.

It's the same old story in every instance, where whites created a "class" system for lack of a monarchy. The Plantation Owners were the ruling class in the South, with Blacks and poor whites, as a permenant underclass. In the North, wealthy white bankers and factory owners made their millions off refining cotton and sugar in their factories, using blacks and poor whites as cheap labor. The insurance companies in the North, insured slave ships built by the Brown Family, that whatever losses they incurred would be covered by their insurance companies, so Plantation owners suffered nothing.

When the Civil War broke out poor Irish were conscripted to fight in order to "prove" their patriotism, while the rich paid someone to fight for them. Sound familiar? It resulted in race riots in New York against Blacks because the Irish felt that the Blacks should fight for their own freedom. Blacks were not allowed to join the Union until later and then they were all-Black regiments, like the one from Massachusetts. Blacks were forced to fight in the South for the Confederacy, because they were losing.

When I speak of racism, I speak from a Black perspective even though I know we are not the only ones discriminated against. We ARE the only race that were slaves for 450 years. The Congressional Black Caucus was formed to insure passage of certain legislation of which congressional whites won't pass or even come to the floor of the House. The NAACP was formed by whites with a coalition of free blacks in the north, thank you. It was formed by white abolitionists. Oh, I'm supposed to be a walking statistician to tell you their numbers? I'm not even a member of the NAACP. See them as backward and "regressive". How many members of the Skin-Heads and the KKK are there? Did you also know that acts of terrorism were carried out by whites? Who bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma? Just WHO were the Branch Davidians that killed FBI agents? Who're killing doctors that perform abortions? Domestic Terrorists, that's who! Since you know everything, you tell me!
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 08:26 am
@okie,
You're entitled to think however you want. Has nothing to do with Obama.
teenyboone
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 08:30 am
@mysteryman,
I have no opinion on who gets elected or not in Atlanta. Before Atlantans elected Maynard, how many white mayors were there? ALL of them, virtually because of Jim Crow!
mysteryman
 
  0  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 09:14 am
@teenyboone,
I didnt ask for your opinion on WHO gets elected.
I asked you if the voters of Atlanta are racist because they wont elect a white mayor.

You are the one that said everything has a racist component, so where is the racist component in Atlanta?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 09:58 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I didnt ask for your opinion on WHO gets elected.
I asked you if the voters of Atlanta are racist because they wont elect a white mayor.

You are the one that said everything has a racist component, so where is the racist component in Atlanta?


C'mon, MM. You're a smart guy. Why persist with these dumb arguments, based on false equivalencies?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 09:59 am
@teenyboone,
teenyboone wrote:

You're entitled to think however you want. Has nothing to do with Obama.

True, and you are entitled to think what you think, but when you post that you think the opposition to Obama is because of racism, I posted that you are wrong and challenged you to be consistent, and also show the opposition to Bush was due to racism.

teeny, you cannot show with evidence that the opposition to Obama is due to racism. There may be a very very small percentage, insignificant I believe, that is due to racism, but it would be from Democrats in this country as much or more than Republicans. Republicans have historically been at the forefront of individual rights and freedoms, keyed originally by Abraham Lincoln and continuing to this very day. Dwight D. Eisenhower was who jumpstarted the modern civil rights era, and he was a Republican. I would challenge you again to check out the National Black Republican Association and read the information with an open mind, not a mind that has been poisoned by the race hustlers in this country that pretend to speak for you, people like Jesse Jackson and other race hustlers. Also realize there is evidence that Martin Luther King was a Republican.

There are alot of blacks that have realized the Democrats are not the party of their future and have decided to leave the Democratic plantation. The key is to think for yourself and quit allowing the race hustlers to tell you how to vote, which is more about socialism, entitlements, and equality of outcome than it is about equality of opportunity. Essentially they are telling you that you are too inferior to succeed without the government "helping" you and telling you exactly what to do, which includes giving you handouts in exchange for your vote in every future election. It is about their power, the Democrats power, teeny, not you. The Republicans are more about equality of opportunity and a handup instead of a handout. Some of the biggest racists in this country have historically been Democrats and still are. Did you read my link about Clinton's political mentor in Arkansas, which was one of a bunch of the staunchest segregationists and racists of the south that Republicans had to face down to open up the schools, etc.

http://www.nbra.info/
djjd62
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:03 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

True, and you are entitled to think what you think, but when you post that you think the opposition to Obama is because of racism, I posted that you are wrong and challenged you to be consistent, and also show the opposition to Bush was due to racism.


i didn't think stupidity was a race
okie
 
  0  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:03 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
C'mon, MM. You're a smart guy. Why persist with these dumb arguments, based on false equivalencies?

Cycloptichorn

He is making a simple point of logic, which is not a dumb argument or false equivalence. It was teeny that made the false equivalence and he is pointing it out, while liberals like you attempt to divert the question, but the question or point that mm raises is totally and absolutely correct. I am attempting to point the same thing out as well to teeny. So far, she fails to answer it.
okie
 
  0  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:06 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

okie wrote:

True, and you are entitled to think what you think, but when you post that you think the opposition to Obama is because of racism, I posted that you are wrong and challenged you to be consistent, and also show the opposition to Bush was due to racism.


i didn't think stupidity was a race

Neither are ulta leftists or Marxist sympathizers. That is my point, djjd62, but apparently you haven't gotten the point yet. I made a ridiculous argument to counter her ridiculous argument, to try to get her to see the light.

By the way, Bush has to be looking better and smarter even to liberals these days, don't ya think?
djjd62
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:13 am
@okie,
granted obama's a bust, but, a compost heap would be smarter and better looking than bush

you guys need desperately to get a viable third party, just to mix it up a bit, moderate the rhetoric of the two party system
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:24 am
@okie,
Quote:


By the way, Bush has to be looking better and smarter even to liberals these days, don't ya think?


No, not to liberals OR conservative. I've seen recent polling, and he's still in the gutter, even amongst Republicans and Conservatives.

Your use of the term 'Marxist' shows a profound ignorance as to what Marxism really is, and your insistence that Obama or other national Dems are practicing it is asinine.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:25 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
you guys need desperately to get a viable third party, just to mix it up a bit, moderate the rhetoric of the two party system


I go further, I say that we must replace both parties if they continue to refuse to reform themselves, continue to fail to preform, but you are on the right track.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1463
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 04/20/2025 at 05:28:12