Ulysses G. Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate? They already have - in this election and the last one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black". Nor has his imaginary incompetency. Imaginary? What executive experience did Obama ever have? What leadership experience did he have? What military experience did he have? And yet put him in charge of the largest economy in the world, and commander of the Executive Branch, and and make him Commander in Chief of the largest military in the world? You're kidding, right? Well, you tell us what leadership experience Bush had, please don't consider his failed business deals as executive experience, and i tell you about Obama. Gonna be very quiet now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black". Nor has his imaginary incompetency. "His imaginary incompetency?" Where have you been??? All one has to do is listen to what Obama says and does. So because his policies don't stroke with the republican point of view, he's a failure? Americans should feel privileged to have such a "failure" at the helm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Well, you tell us what leadership experience Bush had, please don't consider his failed business deals as executive experience, and i tell you about Obama. Gonna be very quiet now. "Quiet"? You've got to be kidding. He was the GOVERNOR of Texas. He became the first governor in Texas history to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms and had very high approval ratings. Does THAT count? Edited January 16, 2015 by Ulysses G. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CMNightRider Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate?Naah they wont, because it would proof that people don't vote in a president because he's black. Why is it important a presidential candidate needs to be black? What happened to qualifications? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate? They already have - in this election and the last one. You conveniently cut out the second part of my post didn't you, as it ridiculed the statement of your brother in arms in this thread. Here it is for you again. because it would proof that people don't vote in a president because he's black. And with presidential candidates I don't mean runner ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMNightRider Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black". Nor has his imaginary incompetency. "His imaginary incompetency?" Where have you been??? All one has to do is listen to what Obama says and does. So because his policies don't stroke with the republican point of view, he's a failure? Americans should feel privileged to have such a "failure" at the helm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate?Naah they wont, because it would proof that people don't vote in a president because he's black. Why is it important a presidential candidate needs to be black? What happened to qualifications? Isn't it YOU who said that being black is more important than qualities? CMNightRider, on 16 Jan 2015 - 11:30, said: I suspect besides the dead people who voted for Obama, many voted for him because he is black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate? They already have - in this election and the last one. You conveniently cut out the second part of my post didn't you, as it ridiculed the statement of your brother in arms in this thread. Here it is for you again. because it would proof that people don't vote in a president because he's black. And with presidential candidates I don't mean runner ups. I did not bother with the other sentence because I proved it was nonsense. The last black Republican candidate did very well until he quit the race himself and the latest one just started running. Your dishonest spin ain't working 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate? They already have - in this election and the last one. You conveniently cut out the second part of my post didn't you, as it ridiculed the statement of your brother in arms in this thread. Here it is for you again. because it would proof that people don't vote in a president because he's black. And with presidential candidates I don't mean runner ups. I did not bother with the other sentence because I proved it was nonsense. The last black Republican candidate did very well until he quit the race himself and the latest one just started running. Your dishonest spin ain't working Can you elaborate why the previous black republican candidate quit while he was one of the favorites for being president of the USA? Which direction the latest one has started running? So it is a fact, nobody ever voted for a black republican presidential candidate, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMNightRider Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 So because his policies don't stroke with the republican point of view, he's a failure?Americans should feel privileged to have such a "failure" at the helm. Well gee Anthony, try to look past political parties for a moment. Obama came into the White House with zip, nada, experience doing much of anything. Okay, given time and on the job training, one would expect this guy to come up to speed. It never happened. To make matters worst, almost every time Obama's lips start moving, he is telling a lie. Why on earth "should Americans feel privileged to have such a failure at the hem?" It appears your expectations are a little less than lofty. I believe it would be better to look for a person with stellar qualifications, and a proven track record. Obama's handlers did everything possible to cover up his past. Wow, what do you think that is all about? Have you ever given that fact any thought? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMNightRider Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate?Naah they wont, because it would proof that people don't vote in a president because he's black. Why is it important a presidential candidate needs to be black? What happened to qualifications? Isn't it YOU who said that being black is more important than qualities? CMNightRider, on 16 Jan 2015 - 11:30, said: I suspect besides the dead people who voted for Obama, many voted for him because he is black. What?? Huh?? Lol. How did you come to that conclusion? I merely stated, I believe many people voted for Obama because he was black. I never implied being black would be more important than qualities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choctastic Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 He became the first governor in Texas history to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms and had very high approval ratings. Only because of the numbers on death row he executed, then carried on that track record into the Presidency. Not for nothing is he a member of 'Skull & Bones'. Don't care who gets into the White House as long as they have bleached-teeth, are Pro-Israel, continue to blow up the planet, do the bankers and Wall St bidding and loot what little is left from the plebs. If they wave a colourful flag at you, cheer furiously. On a slightly less frivolous note, what are they going to do about this...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Maybe the republicans could come up with a black candidate?Naah they wont, because it would proof that people don't vote in a president because he's black. Why is it important a presidential candidate needs to be black? What happened to qualifications? Isn't it YOU who said that being black is more important than qualities? CMNightRider, on 16 Jan 2015 - 11:30, said: I suspect besides the dead people who voted for Obama, many voted for him because he is black. What?? Huh?? Lol. How did you come to that conclusion? I merely stated, I believe many people voted for Obama because he was black. I never implied being black would be more important than qualities. Well since you repeatedly claim Obama doesn't have any qualities, and the republican candidates were without doubt fully qualified and experienced, that's the only thing one can make from your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 So it is a fact, nobody ever voted for a black republican presidential candidate, right? Wrong again. Cain won the straw polls of the Florida Republican Party, and the National Federation of Republican Women's Convention. If you mean actually elected president. Barack Obama is the only black to ever win in either party. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Well, you tell us what leadership experience Bush had, please don't consider his failed business deals as executive experience, and i tell you about Obama. Gonna be very quiet now. "Quiet"? You've got to be kidding. He was the GOVERNOR of Texas. He became the first governor in Texas history to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms and had very high approval ratings. Does THAT count? He's a failed oil baron isn't he, same as the rest of his family, don't you think that could have anything to do with his election as governor of Americas oil state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 He became the first governor in Texas history to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms and had very high approval ratings. Only because of the numbers on death row he executed, then carried on that track record into the Presidency. Not for nothing is he a member of 'Skull & Bones'. Don't care who gets into the White House as long as they have bleached-teeth, are Pro-Israel, continue to blow up the planet, do the bankers and Wall St bidding and loot what little is left from the plebs. If they wave a colourful flag at you, cheer furiously. On a slightly less frivolous note, what are they going to do about this...? What are you, a communist? Do you believe in taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't? Do you want to remove the incentive for people to be highly successful? How about the kids who developed Google? Should they have to give it all up? Now that I know how deeply flawed your thinking is, I know you'd break any country you could make the rules in. You'd have a country like N. Korea or Cuba or Russia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 He became the first governor in Texas history to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms and had very high approval ratings. Only because of the numbers on death row he executed, then carried on that track record into the Presidency. Sounds like more dishonest spin. He was very successful in emerging as the education governor and he was an extraordinary popular governor, in part because he was so personable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Wasn't Herman Cain a sex pest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Wasn't Herman Cain a sex pest? Who cares? He was a joke candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Wasn't Herman Cain a sex pest? He was accused of sexual harassment. It happens to a lot of rich, famous people, so hard to tell, but strangely, they stopped as soon as he discontinued his campaign. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choctastic Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 What are you, a communist? Do you believe in taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't? Do you want to remove the incentive for people to be highly successful? Yeegads! You've exposed me. You're going to wow me with 'trickle-down' economics. Right? How's that working? Err.. lemme see. 46 million on food stamps. The middle class hollowed out, their jobs shipped off to China. Mass immigration bringing in cheap labour and the Goldman Sachs henchmen holding up the Treasury to bail out the 'too-big-to-fail' banks. Yep. You can't get a finer example of 'taking money from people who earned it and giving it to those who didn't'. But you forgot about that, perhaps. I thought 'Privatize the Profits and Socialize the Losses' and 'Welfare for the rich' were pretty much Bush's and now Obama's campaign promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Wasn't Herman Cain a sex pest? He was accused of sexual harassment. It happens to a lot of rich, famous people, so hard to tell, but strangely, they stopped as soon as he discontinued his campaign. Well it's knackered just about every Presidential aspiration I can think of. Still, Herman thought a higher power was at work.... Now serving as an associate pastor at a Baptist church in Atlanta, Cain speculated to the publication that the Devil may have masterminded the allegations. Makes a change from "The devil made me do it". Having looked it up, he wasn't accused of sexual harrassment, it was revealed that he'd paid off two employees who had made sexual harrassment allegations, and failed to properly address the issue. Edited January 16, 2015 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black". When the Number 3 Republican in the House has been found to have given speeches to David Duke's buddies and is still being protected by his peers, I think it's more systemic than you describe. His lame excuse that he didn't know is laughable - I'm not even American and I knew back then who David Duke was and what he represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 One of our most prolific and biased posters seems distraught that Romney goes by his middle name and not his first name, which is Willard. That makes me wonder why the current President doesn't go by his middle name, ala Mitt? Naw, never mind. Hussein Obama doesn't have quite the ring to it that Barack Obama has. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black". When the Number 3 Republican in the House has been found to have given speeches to David Duke's buddies and is still being protected by his peers, I think it's more systemic than you describe. His lame excuse that he didn't know is laughable - I'm not even American and I knew back then who David Duke was and what he represented. You're digging pretty deeply in the tabloid basket to come up with some unknown campaign speech made over 12 years ago. Got anything in the 2010's? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black". When the Number 3 Republican in the House has been found to have given speeches to David Duke's buddies and is still being protected by his peers, ONE Republican spoke ONE time to a group called the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, on taxes, 12 years ago and has shown no signs of racism since, That is some powerful evidence that they are ALL white supremacists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black". When the Number 3 Republican in the House has been found to have given speeches to David Duke's buddies and is still being protected by his peers, ONE Republican spoke ONE time to a group called the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, on taxes, 12 years ago and has shown no signs of racism since, That is some powerful evidence that they are ALL white supremacists. He's not just ONE Republican, he's a member of leadership. He should have stepped down because it's going to hurt the party going into 2016 and it's going to negatively affect fundraising. Speaker Boehner is in a tight spot; he can't force Congressman Scalise out because he'd have open mutiny from the lunatic fringe. One thing you can be sure of is that the Democrats are going to make as much out of this possible for as long as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Willard Mitt Romney (his full name) and George Walker Bush are are walking off awol on this issue when they need to speak out on it, as does every Republican candidate for president. Peter Whener, former adviser to Willard M. Romney for president and a former Bush White House staffer has spoken out and is the only Republican I've seen at the presidential level who has made a statement that is decisive, affirmative, supportive of moderation and even handedness in the Republican party and in the Republican controlled Congress.. The Chicago Tribune says Scalise needs to quit his Republican leadership role in the Congress and here's why.....Knight referenced in the quote is the KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's former campaign manager from when Duke was openly elected to the Louisiana legislature..... Peter Wehner, who has been an adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and an aide to President George W. Bush, said the obvious on Twitter: "The party of Lincoln shouldn't have as its #3 a keynoter at a white supremacist convention." Scalise needs to step down from his leadership post, or House Republicans need to remove him But that didn't stop him from accepting a 2008 campaign contribution from Knight. The trouble with Scalise is not that he is a racist. It's that he is more than willing to indulge white bigots and their sentiments when it suits his political needs. By playing footsie with this group, Scalise has disqualified himself from a position of leadership in a party that needs to do a better job of understanding and addressing the suspicions it arouses among many minority Americans. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-scalise-edit-1231-20141230-story.html Edited January 16, 2015 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 The right wing hyper-partisans need to decide if he's A: completely incompetent or B: thoroughly undermining the Constitution in a thinly veiled pursuit to destroy the United States. May I add? C. all of the above. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now