"Barack the Magic Negro," a Republican Song

[Orville]

Now you are posting exactly like the other person you criticize.

I would not be surprised if you were a sock of the other

Will you announce to all that you are going to put me on your ignore list?

What I often find most interesting is how the lack of understanding for some people is almost used as free ticket to spouting stupidity.

And now, in keeping with your current weak MO, you make take this statement, and turn it around. Bravo on your use of "sock" too. It shows how current you are in your pop culture vernacular.

The wonders never cease.

 

[JustOneWay]

What I often find most interesting is how the lack of understanding for some people is almost used as free ticket to spouting stupidity.

And now, in keeping with your current weak MO, you make take this statement, and turn it around. Bravo on your use of "sock" too. It shows how current you are in your pop culture vernacular.

The wonders never cease.

"A small mind delivers small insults."

I think that was one of yours

 

[Colonel Klink]

Rush Limbaugh needs to go to the cooler at least until Colonel Hogan talks me out of it.

 

[JGL53]

It just seems a little odd to me that any offensive remark would be defended, especially when those who bear the image of God and are commanded to love one another. I don't see the love on either side. I guess I understand better now when asked "What does being a Christian Forum have anything to do with it? I just thought the standard was higher for believers, maybe even biblically higher. My bad.

If you stick around this forum for a while you will begin to easily discern the difference between the Christians and the "Christians", especially the "Christians" who are too intellectually and emotionally naive to grok when someone is mocking their blatent childishness and hypocrisy. But my mocking in not meant to be mean - it's actually a form of Tough Love.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

Then it seems they are using racism to combat racism (so to speak). Which creates a type of paradox the way only collectivism can.

The UNCF was created to raise money for black colleges and black students. The black students could not get into normal colleges because of institutionalized racism.
I don't understand how you can consider this 'racist' in any way. They addressed a problem and went about solving it.

You are a racist if you use the collective concept of "race" to discriminate. It is really that simple.

Agreed. Good thing the UNCF doesn't do that.

If this is true then how often does their decisions not use race as a discriminating attribute? How many examples do you know of that show such an assumption to be incorrect? In other words, how may individuals do not fit into their category "negro" that receive scholarships? Do you have any examples of Mexicans, Asians, Eskimos, etc... getting a scholarship on merits that don't have to do with race? [/quote]
I don't have those stats on me, however UNCF has a phone number and address. I am sure they'd be more than happy to answer your questions.

By Mail:
United Negro College Fund
8260 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 10444
Fairfax, VA 22031-8044
By Phone:
1-800-331-2244

The best way to fight racism (collectivism) is through individualism. Using some type of collectivism to fight some other collectivism just creates a logical paradox.

Go into more detail.

 

[joebudda1]

The UNCF was created to raise money for black colleges and black students.

Then they are racist being they use "race" as their motivation to discriminate who doesn't get their scholarship. Which can easily be shown if this wasn't true.

The black students could not get into normal colleges because of institutionalized racism.

Which highlights how collectivism harms individuals.

I don't understand how you can consider this 'racist' in any way. They addressed a problem and went about solving it.

I don't believe they solved anything if they are using racism to "solve" racism. What they did is use racism to discriminate who gets their attention or not.

Agreed. Good thing the UNCF doesn't do that.

And I am waiting on you to show that they don't.

I don't have those stats on me, however UNCF has a phone number and address. I am sure they'd be more than happy to answer your questions.

By Mail:
United Negro College Fund
8260 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 10444
Fairfax, VA 22031-8044
By Phone:
1-800-331-2244

So in other words you can't support your claim that seems to go contrary to their very function.

Go into more detail.

Do you understand the difference between individualism and collectivism? They are contrary to one another. In collectivism you create groups to categorize individuals into taking the identity of the individual in favor for the group you put them in. Individualism understands that people are individuals regardless of what group someone attempts to cram them into.

We must understand that these "groups" only exist as a manifestation within our own psychology, attempting to rationalize the world in a more simplistic way. Like the "forest" doesn't really exist out side of our minds, what does exist are the trees and whatnot that make up this collective we call "forest". But that collective concept (forest) becomes meaningless for any practical application in the real world, other then a group to put trees and whatnot into in order to mentally simplify its complexity.

Collectivism creates mental illusions which create these issues such as racism. Individualism sees through these categories such as "race" as being nothing more then our own mental illusions. It is the individuals that really exist, not the groups we cram them into.

 

[JGL53]

Then they are racist being they use "race" as their motivation to discriminate who doesn't get their scholarship. Which can easily be shown if this wasn't true.

Which highlights how collectivism harms individuals.

I don't believe they solved anything if they are using racism to "solve" racism. What they did is use racism to discriminate who gets their attention or not.

And I am waiting on you to show that they don't.

So in other words you can't support your claim that seems to go contrary to their very function.
Do you understand the difference between individualism and collectivism? They are contrary to one another. In collectivism you create groups to categorize individuals into taking the identity of the individual in favor for the group you put them in. Individualism understands that people are individuals regardless of what group someone attempts to cram them into.

We must understand that these "groups" only exist as a manifestation within our own psychology, attempting to rationalize the world in a more simplistic way. Like the "forest" doesn't really exist out side of our minds, what does exist are the trees and whatnot that make up this collective we call "forest". But that collective concept (forest) becomes meaningless for any practical application in the real world, other then a group to put trees and whatnot into in order to mentally simplify its complexity.

Collectivism creates mental illusions which create these issues such as racism. Individualism sees through these categories such as "race" as being nothing more then our own mental illusions. It is the individuals that really exist, not the groups we cram them into.

What about the collectivism of the rather large group of fat white heterosexual gun-loving flag-waving tobacco-chewing Southerners who vote Republican like it is a some prerequisite for going to Heaven upon death? Is that bad too, or is that particular example of group-think an exception to the rule?

 

[MountainCappuccino]

And I am waiting on you to show that they don't.
So in other words you can't support your claim that seems to go contrary to their very function.

You are the one who made the claim that they discriminate. I pointed out the FAQ on their website about who can apply and who is eligible (everyone), but of course you aren't buying it. The burden of proof is now on you to prove that they do in fact not give scholarships to Asians, Arabs, Indians and others.

Do you understand the difference between individualism and collectivism? They are contrary to one another. In collectivism you create groups to categorize individuals into taking the identity of the individual in favor for the group you put them in. Individualism understands that people are individuals regardless of what group someone attempts to cram them into.

We must understand that these "groups" only exist as a manifestation within our own psychology, attempting to rationalize the world in a more simplistic way. Like the "forest" doesn't really exist out side of our minds, what does exist are the trees and whatnot that make up this collective we call "forest". But that collective concept (forest) becomes meaningless for any practical application in the real world, other then a group to put trees and whatnot into in order to mentally simplify its complexity.

Collectivism creates mental illusions which create these issues such as racism. Individualism sees through these categories such as "race" as being nothing more then our own mental illusions. It is the individuals that really exist, not the groups we cram them into.

Gotcha.

 

[joebudda1]

You are the one who made the claim that they discriminate. I pointed out the FAQ on their website about who can apply and who is eligible (everyone), but of course you aren't buying it. The burden of proof is now on you to prove that they do in fact not give scholarships to Asians, Arabs, Indians and others.

So essentially you are asking me to prove a negative.

How can I do that? Do I post every scholarship they have ever issued with a picture of the individual who received it?

When all you need to do to show my assumption, that they do discriminate the way I believe, is incorrect with only one example.

Can you see my dilemma?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Barack the Magic Negro was the title of an LA Times editorial in which the author pointed out that Obama might just be the kind of guy who guilty whites could vote for.

This got a great reaction from the race hustlers who questioned whether Obama was actually black enough. They insisted that he had no idea what it was to be a black man in America because he didn't have any slave blood.

Does anyone remember what the Rev. Jesse Jackson said on a live microphone about Obama? 'I wanna cut his nuts off.'

 

[TheGuide]

Barack the Magic Negro was the title of an LA Times editorial in which the author pointed out that Obama might just be the kind of guy who guilty whites could vote for.

This got a great reaction from the race hustlers who questioned whether Obama was actually black enough. They insisted that he had no idea what it was to be a black man in America because he didn't have any slave blood.

Does anyone remember what the Rev. Jesse Jackson said on a live microphone about Obama? 'I wanna cut his nuts off.'

Jesse Jackson got into trouble for what he said, too. So what's your point? My post isn't about what Jesse Jackson said, but what Saltsman did by duplicating and distributing inflamatory CDs. If Saltsman was black it still would've been inappropriate for someone aspiring to lead the RNC, and who may someday have influence over every person--black, red yellow and white--in this country.

Jesse Jackson is in no position of power, and Saltsman's CD distribution wouldn't have even made the news if he wasn't being courted by the GOP to lead their party. Nor would I have cared.

 

[romanov]

Republicans! Making blacks work for them, telling them what to do. Sigh. Will it never end?

Good grief, how on earth can you be so blatantly racist.

 

[romanov]

lol....

Can I have the chicken Caesar salad? What??? The price is 800 billion?

The repubs dont bother with the McDonald's solution....they use the Ruth's Chris Steakhouse approach for the rich....

I'll make this nice, big and bold so you can read it... again. Bush could have ranted, raved, cajoled and begged until he was blue in the face and he could not have gotten TARP through congress without the dems' support so if you want to pin this 800 billion (more like 2 trillion) worth of corporate welfare on anyone, you need to pin it on the democrats. They were the one's saying that if we don't pass this bill, all of our financial institutions were going to collapse. Now if you want to pin the largess to the big 3 auto makers on anyone, you can pin that on Bush. But I will guarantee you, the dems are quite happy that he did it. It saved them the embarrassment of doing it themselves knowing the bailout is for the UAW not GM. Ford, or Chrysler.

 

[Avatar]

Good grief, how on earth can you be so blatantly racist.

say whatnow?

 

[jamesrwright3]

The United Negro College fan is racist..One has to be a minimum of 1/4 black to receive any consideration

 

[romanov]

say whatnow?

My apologies. I misread the thread. Basically I got lost as to who is who. I see now you were being facetious

 

[JustOneWay]

I'll make this nice, big and bold so you can read it... again. Bush could have ranted, raved, cajoled and begged until he was blue in the face and he could not have gotten TARP through congress without the dems' support so if you want to pin this 800 billion (more like 2 trillion) worth of corporate welfare on anyone, you need to pin it on the democrats. They were the one's saying that if we don't pass this bill, all of our financial institutions were going to collapse.

Nice. Because Bush's mega-bailout would have not succeeded without the help of the dems, it is the dems fault Bush wanted it and Bush signed it, however it is the dems who are to blame.
(hopefully this is big and bold enough....)

Bush seeking $700 billion for financial bailout



Bush Signs $700 Billion Financial Bailout Bill

Now if you want to pin the largess to the big 3 auto makers on anyone, you can pin that on Bush. But I will guarantee you, the dems are quite happy that he did it. It saved them the embarrassment of doing it themselves knowing the bailout is for the UAW not GM. Ford, or Chrysler.

Shame you cant blame this on the dems, however you still were able to get in a zinger against them.

 

[romanov]

Gotcha.

That is it, just gotcha. After Joe's quite eloquent diatribe you go with gotcha. Wow! What a scathing retort.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

That is it, just gotcha. After Joe's quite eloquent diatribe you go with gotcha. Wow! What a scathing retort.

He made a good point.

 

[romanov]

He made a good point.

Oh, I did not understand that was what you were getting at. Usually when some-one says gotcha they are making some point other than complementing the eloquence and correctness of the statement.