jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (290 posts)

Obama: Raising black army to overpower white civilians

  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6tjcmg671w

    It's true because some white guy with a thick, black beard said so!

    1. habee profile image92
      habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      lol

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      First of all,
      there are lots of racially-divisive things that Obama (and some other people in his Administration) have said.    People who've been paying attention to the News and his speeches for the past 5 years will know that.    And his insults toward anyone who dares question or disagree with him have bred distrust.   That's his fault and nobody else's.

      And second of all-----it's horrifying that you'd promote the views of that guy (whoever he is;  the narrator or host in the video) who outright says he would join a black army to kill white guys.    He may indeed have been joking,  but it's rather doubtful considering his name-calling rant at the end of the video.    And by the way, he's white (it looks like), so..........why else would he say such an atrocious thing if it weren't for the specific purpose of insulting people who fear Obama's tyrannical ways?

      Sorry,  but that guy comes off as a total jerk who has no business mocking anyone else.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "there are lots of racially-divisive things that Obama (and some other people in his Administration) have said."
        Then it should be a piece of cake for you to give lots of examples, right?

        "And his insults toward anyone who dares question or disagree with him have bred distrust."
        No doubt you have several examples of these insults that the President has directed toward whose who disagree with him, too. Do share them.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I've shared them so many times already that it's become a chore from me to inform the intentionally-uninformed.  I really expected that if people are still gonna try to defend Obama's actions, that they would've paid attention to his words all this time!    From all evidence over these last 5 years, liberals lose their willingness to listen to what he actually says; they seem blinded by his "historic" victory.    I wonder if they're still getting tingles up their legs like Christ Matthews did as they sit in blind mesmerization every time he's mentioned or his face shows up on tv...
          Do liberals not even read what he says?  Do they not even listen to what he says as they watch his speeches?
          There is much evidence left on the internet (although some of it has been wiped out in defense of the great Obama),  that anyone who can use Google can indeed find the info for themselves.   I sure do wish they would exercise their intellect in that manner,  once and for all, instead of claiming ignorance and trying to kick the can down the road to those of us who paid attention.

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "I have no examples and I think everyone is stupid because they don't agree with my extreme minority point of view, I also don't know that deleting things of the internet is pretty much impossible"

            Fixed it for you.

          2. tiffanyz profile image60
            tiffanyzposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think anyone said President Obama was great, but this hatred that some have for him has nothing to do with what he said or didn't say. Just be hones with yourselves and admit that your bias is because of his race. President Obama has said or done nothing that all the other Presidents before have done minus Richard Nixon.  Why is it when these same things were said or done by his predecessors everyone kept their mouth shut and now for some reason decided to speak up because it is President Obama.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am honest, with myself and with everyone else.
              It's not about his race.
              Matter of fact, he's part caucasian, remember.
              And for your information,  there are several men whose skin is black that I've seen on tv during the past few years who would probably make really great candidates for the Presidency.
              So, no, it's never been about the color of his skin.  Not with me.
              So stop trying to use that old tired false-accusation argument, please.  It does nothing but make you look like a false accuser.
              Perhaps you should admit YOUR bias!   Perhaps search your own conscience and admit that you defend Obama's actions simply because his skin is black.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am honest, with myself and with everyone else. Oh, it's pretty clear that you actually believe your own nonsense. That's great--you're not telling deliberate lies. But believing that false things are true doesn't make them true.

                It's not about his race.
                Yeah, you keep telling us that.

                Matter of fact, he's part caucasian, remember.
                Hang on--why is that even worth mentioning if "It's not about his race?"

                1. Drhu profile image60
                  Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Because you and every other supporter has made it about his race since 2008.
                  Remember.....no one could possibly disagree with him unless they were racist. That has been the meme and many hear on hubpages...well that's the only thing they know.
                  You want racial equality?
                  Then stop treating them as though the only way they are going to survive day by day is YOU.
                  Teach them trades and skills and give them self-respect.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Because you and every other supporter has made it about his race since 2008.
                    That statement has as much truth to it as the statement that "no one could possibly disagree with him unless they were racist."

                    Sure, some of Obama's supporters have made a big deal about how he's the first Black President--and that's because it's a historic thing. Just like Kennedy was the first Catholic President, and someday, we'll elect our first woman President, and that will also be a pretty big deal, because it's never happened before.

                    But it's also true that a lot of Obama's detractors have made it fairly clear that they don't like having a Black guy in the White House. 

                    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4612635_f248.jpg

                    You want racial equality?
                    Then stop treating them as though the only way they are going to survive day by day is YOU.

                    Heh, that's funny.
                    Do you really want racial equality?
                    Then stop pretending that a Black guy and a White guy with the same education, experience, and drive actually have an equal chance of getting a job in the USA. The White guy has an advantage--not because the hiring manager is racist, but because the White guy is more likely to have a connection of some kind with the hiring manager than the Black guy is.

                    White privilege exists. Pretending that it doesn't won't make it go away any more than ignoring that suspicious lump of tissue will make it not be cancer. Acknowledging that it exists, and making a conscious effort to end it--to make everyone actually equal instead of just theoretically so--will help.

          3. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, you have also said desegregation was a mistake so I don't listen to you on this issue any more.

            And I actually listen to what people say not what twisted minds tell me they are saying. And no, that is not a personal attack on you... I have never seen a persons words twisted as much as President Obama's, everyone thinks they can read between the lines to discover some communist, liberal agenda...

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have said that FORCED desegregation was a mistake.
              Quite a difference there.

              1. Credence2 profile image88
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well, Brenda , do you know your history? We all know that separate was in practice inherently unequal. Rather than say that it was a mistake, it was necessary to equal the playing field. Where do you come from to fail to acknowledge this long accepted truth? I will not force anyone to intergrate, but until resources are equally available to all as in the school system, I say to mix it up to make sure that problems of the past do not reoccur.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe I need to make something clear.
                  I wasn't talking about the separation of race at restaurants and bathrooms and voting etc.
                  Those got corrected long ago.
                  I was referring to forced desegregation of schools and any other forms that are just too intrusive on EACH race.   Schools didn't have to be deliberately desegregated.   It was silly to bus students out of their area schools just to try to equalize the number of black and white students.    I feel the same way now about the "charter schools" or waivers or whatever it is that's meant by "school choice".   I think kids should be educated in the district where they live.   I don't think taxpayers should pay for any parent who decides their child should go to some school outside the area where they live.

                  And another reference is to something that Eric Holder (I think it was)  who complained about personal stuff like there weren't enough mixed groups at churches and weekend barbeques!   What the heck was THAT?    Neighbors and friends know how to associate with each other if they want to.   There aren't nearly as many prejudiced people as he made it sound like, and his complaint was sooo personally intrusive that it was ridiculous.   And churches, just like individuals (at least the churches  I've visited, and some of those were either predominantly black or else where mixed) are very accepting of all races.   Unless of course the person tries to tout Islam or something!   I've never known a "white" church that shunned anyone because of their skin color.    I assume most "black" churches would welcome white people there................but then....I've never gone to the dear Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church,  and sure as hay wouldn't want to unless I could teach him a lesson about how his racism (and his protegee) has done much harm to American society.

                  What so many people don't seem to understand is that we're all (black or white) perfectly capable of making friends with whoever we want to make friends with.    There's no need to go seek out a person of a different race deliberately to make friends with them!   To do so would be like saying ya think they're weird or something and ya just gotta find out what they're about!   People are people, period.    Now, they may have different habits or some cultural ways, etc.,  and so what?  Who cares?   

                  Now, I do think it's good to make an effort to welcome new neighbors, etc., who may feel ignored or etc., whether they're black or white or whatever.   But that's just common courtesy and friendliness, isn't it?!   I would expect that from anyone, black or white, just as I would do too.

                  It totally amazes me when people like Holder and Obama and Pelosi and whoever,  want to be our teachers and our judges at the same time, when they themselves don't exhibit any common social sense at all,  and do exhibit outright racism themselves.    And intrusiveness into people's personal lives.   Good grief!   Nuts like that just need to leave people alone while they go learn some lessons themselves.

                  1. Credence2 profile image88
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Of, course we all have the right to associate among whom we wish, privately. I don't have to invite the rainbow tribe to eat at my supper table. FORCED  busing was necessary, particularely in the beginning, since the Supreme Courts 1954 ruling was not going happen willingly or voluntarily.  BUT, I do not want to see another instance of unequal educational opportunities based solely on which school you attend and minority children to not have access to all the choice tools and talent available in more affluent neighborhoods since we all have to pay taxes without this consideration. I have the right to demand equal facilities for my children otherwise Brown vs the Board of Education was an exercise in futility. I am not always convinced that this does not happen in a segregated environment. Me and mine should not be educationally or economically placed at disadvantage because the conservatives insist on segregating their tribe or race with all the best of  the public's resources.
                    To take on another issue, if you operate a restaurant or other business, you do not have the right to discriminate as this violates law associated with equal access to public accomodations. If Senator Paul an others have a problem with this, move your restaurants to your private residence.

                    BTW, Don't use 1 black church as an example as how you be greeted at the thousands of others, it skews things

          4. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I've shared them so many times already that it's become a chore from me to inform the intentionally-uninformed.

            Translation: I have NO examples that will stand up to scrutiny, so I'll bluster, and insult the people who ask for evidence in support of my ill-informed, psychotic, delusional wing-nut echo-chamber-driven nonsense.

            1. Credence2 profile image88
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Jeff, the system would not let me provide an immediate reply to last response but it is important that I pass this on.  To recap, here is what you said:
              "Thanks, Credence2, that was nice of you to say.

              I think the problem that well-meaning, but clueless White guys have (and I have been guilty of well-meaning cluelessness myself in the past!) is that they think if they acknowledge the existence of White privilege, then they're saying that they didn't work for what they have, or admitting that they're racist when they aren't (or at least don't see themselves that way).

              A hiring manager doesn't have to be prejudiced against other groups to feel more connected with someone from his own group. But. Every time the manager favors his own group, he by default shows disfavor to all the others, and that's the functional equivalent of being prejudiced against them. Plus, honest self-examination is hard."


              If we can begin by acknowleging truthfully where the disperities exist in our race relations, that in itself is a very encouraging beginning. It is human nature to tend to give preferential treatment to those of our own tribe. But in the interests of civility and a fair and cohesive society, I have to resist that tendency, no more than I would go to the corner market in my underwear just because it was more comfortable.
              It all comes down to treating others like you would desire to treated in the public square

              Conservatives often cited the late Robert Byrd of west Virginia as a former Klansman, implying that the Dems were the 'racist" party. But rather than going GOP  during the era of the "Southern Strategy" in the late 1960's and early 70's, he chose to stick with the Dems making his transition from the past and his apology for a wrongheaded view more believable and sincere. I would have supported him in a New York minute over those that converted to GOP, changing the style but not the substance.
              If I could get others to see what is obviously clear to you, then my time on hub pages has not been in vain. I would like you opinion on a couple or articles, am I on target, do you think?

              I try not to self promote so I did not hyperlink, the articles are entitled
              "A Message from and to Black America Parts I and II"

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If we can begin by acknowleging truthfully where the disperities exist in our race relations, that in itself is a very encouraging beginning.....It all comes down to treating others like you would desire to treated in the public square.

                Indeed! That's basically been my position when I talk about race. I don't speak with much authority on the subject, being a White guy who benefits (whether I want to or not) from White privilege, and therefore don't experience the difficulties that women, people of color, non-Christians, etc have to deal with on a daily basis. But I try to help my fellow White guys see that yes, White privilege exists; no, it's not your fault, but; yes, it is your responsibility to be aware of it and help fix the problem.

                Sure, I'll take a look at your articles when I have a few minutes to give them my full attention. In return, would you give me your feedback on one of mine? It's called "A WASP's Guide to Political Correctness."

                1. Credence2 profile image88
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You betcha!

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lol... wait for the Obama haters to show up here smile

    4. Greekgeek profile image99
      Greekgeekposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Cause he HATES HIS GRANDMA
      Er wait

      (I keep wondering whether the critical thinking faculties of our species are really plummeting, or whether it's just that the web allows everyone to say what they think, even if they don't)

      1. tiffanyz profile image60
        tiffanyzposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, ROFLMAO

    5. dspallino profile image60
      dspallinoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lulz.

    6. Credence2 profile image88
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obama raising a "black army", that is utter bilge. While the rightwinger denies it, racism is definitely part of his or her formula as to  how they approach the issues of the day.

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And you know this is true how? Oh, because you said it.

    7. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I suddenly hear the theme song from The Twilight Zone..............
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7743307_f248.jpg

      Will THIS ever end..........Oh no, more and more ad nauseam remarks..........ugh...........

  2. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    If he really wants to overpower white civilians he will use a Hispanic army!
    lol

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Si! Esta la guerra!

  3. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 3 years ago

    Never waste a good dose of paranoia.

  4. LisaMarie724 profile image84
    LisaMarie724posted 3 years ago

    Oh my, it's 2013.  Can't we all just love each other already? I love all my fellow hubbers no matter what color, race, etc. they are, I hope you all feel the same smile

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes I do.    And I hope others do too.
      But that's not the subject of the thread.
      The thread is about actions.
      A person can love someone and hate what they do.

  5. TB Bullock profile image61
    TB Bullockposted 3 years ago

    I have seen some foolhardy and ill-thought out arguments, but this was honestly comical rather than offensive to me. People who buy into things like this should seriously consider educating themselves about the system of checks and balances that we instituted as a fundamental part of American democracy as well as the role of watchdog journalism in modern mass media. Presidents absolutely cannot and have not had the ability to attack their own citizens since the civil war.

  6. Drhu profile image60
    Drhuposted 3 years ago

    Let's not forget Hollywood who will tell you to get along, then one of their hallowed directors makes a movie wherein the main character delights in killing white people. The result....they nomnate him for their highest honor.
    Oh, and The First Lady took part in the ceremonies.

    1. TB Bullock profile image61
      TB Bullockposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hollywood (for the most part) abandoned their human capacities for the exercise of rationality long ago. They really should not participate in any social activities other than producing movies, in my opinion. While their hypocrisy is often excruciatingly frustrating and the influence they wield over public opinion is slightly disturbing, I don't believe that there is anything to fear as far as them being used as a tool to help raise a black army to overpower white people. However, i don't feel as if you actually believe that,Drhu. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your intent in any way.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't believe Hollywood has any more influence on politics than most other industries do.

        But, actors and producers and directors are also citizens and have a right to voice their opinions and political beliefs. Otherwise, Ronald Reagan would never have moved from SAG union president to a political career.

        1. TB Bullock profile image61
          TB Bullockposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely, I agree that everybody can and should voice their opinions. I ought to have described exactly what I meant in my previous statement more explicitly, which would be the claim that the public in general seems to follow a subtle trend of offering the opinions of celebrities (specifically actors, actresses, and singers) more credence than what may be due to those particular opinions in actuality. As far as directors and the rest of the film industry, I believe that at times, they follow a loose pattern of critically assessing historical or contemporary events in a manner that specifically targets the mistakes or tragedies a group of people has committed in the past, illuminating the injustices and evils performed by the given characters associated with the story they wish to tell. While this serves the purpose of bringing the perpetrators of the wrong to accountability and vindicating the injured party, therefore discouraging future behavior of this sort, it also carries the side effect of rehashing events that have long since been resolved and creating somewhat of a barrier to social tolerance and forgiveness. For example, the movie in this instance is a re-telling of the tragedy of American slavery, an unacceptable evil that was fully dismantled so long ago that no individual that is alive today bears any responsibility for the atrocities of the 1860's, yet white Southerners are again brought under the proverbial gun sight of moralistic public criticism when the issue is once again brought to public's attention in the form of movies. I do not believe under any circumstances that these events should ever be forgotten, I'm merely asserting that there can be a negative social side-effect that is manifested with the re-opening of tragic mistakes. However, I believe this harm is negligible, and certainly not sufficient grounds for limiting director's freedom to produce and market their films.Conversely, movies that extol heroism and positive actions have the positive side-effect of encouraging this sort of action, which would be a positive endeavor for a director to undertake under almost any circumstances. I do apologize for posting such an inappropriately lengthy response.

        2. Drhu profile image60
          Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So it's socially unacceptable for this loon to make that youtube video but it's ok for Quentin Tarantino to celebrate race hatred in a feature film?
          You are proving my point.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, one was a fictional film...

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Celebrating race hatred!

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I don't know because I won't be going to see it. The awards were for acting performances and for writing... not for the subject. That is the way art works, sometimes you bring nasty things to the surface.

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I just told you what the film was. Would you be ok with a film celebrating the murder of Blacks? Somehow I think you would sing a different tune.

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You should actually read this article
                    http://www.businessinsider.com/django-u … asy-2013-2


                    Did you see the film yourself?

                  2. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Slave owning blacks? Sure.

                    The point is not their race but what they were doing and the atrocities they were committing and yes slave owners where usually white.

                    If you don't like the idea of seeing some slave owners be shot then don't watch it but I don't find them very sympathetic characters.

            2. Drhu profile image60
              Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Let some well known Conservative....there actually are such in Hollywood...produce a fictional film that even skirts the topic of race and watch what happens.
              Hypocrisy abounds on the liberal intelligentsia of the US.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As far as I have heard, Tarantino has been attacked by a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum. I have no idea what his politics are, he may not even follow politics for all I know.

                I really pay no attention to the political beliefs of actors or directors; I let their work speak for them.

                I like Tarantino's films but I am not interested in seeing this particular film, I'm not a fan of Westerns.

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well there have been a couple films that were meant to be historical ones that skirt the the topic of race. No controversy on that score at all. You might be familiar with them:
                One is called Gettysburg. Only one black character makes an appearance in the film, and he has NO LINES! Oh, but several white men talk about slavery at length.

                The other is called Gods and Generals. It's not a very good movie. (Gettysburg is a cinematic triumph, even if it has a tin ear when it comes to race issues.) Even worse, it contains a particularly awkward wasplanation of how the antebellum south really wasn't such a bad place to be enslaved and how conflicted about slavery the south's slaveowners were, and how they really didn't want to be slaveowners, but maybe we'll work that problem out when we're done fighting this war for our right to own slaves.....

                Controversy? Virtually none.

                1. Drhu profile image60
                  Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But if I am to believe the conversation about Django...no I have not and don't plan to spend money on it, I get these impressions from the trailer which states the racism bluntly........he utilizes the same "tin ear" you accuse Gettysburg of yet it is not a problem there?

                  Are you sure you understand the word hypocrisy?

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There was really no tin ear about it, white people owned slaves sometimes under horrible conditions it's really as simple as that.
                    Do the poor slave owners deserve to tell their story about how they just had to treat humans as property for profit so they didn't have to do hard work like most people. Oh the poor things.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Drhu, I haven't said a single word about Django, so I don't understand why you're accusing me of hypocrisy.

                    Are you sure you know what the word means? smile

          2. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Celebrate race hatred? It was a period piece where the main character had been a slave it would make no sense for him not be resentful of that. It's wonderful how certain people are so eager to shove their skeletons under the rug that they resent anyone noting they exist.

            SLAVERY HAPPENED! WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT! ALABAMA BANNED INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE UNTIL 2000! 46% OF Mississippi GOP voters believe interracial marriage should be illegal, only 40% believe it should be legal!!!

            Racism is and was a problem, a period piece set during slavery is not race hate it's simply a period piece.

            1. Drhu profile image60
              Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for showing you have no understanding of what I was talking about, now do you?

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You said the film celebrated race hatred I said it did not, the problem is your "argument" was ridiculous so instead of responding to the facts you are trying to disguise that.

          3. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's what you get from the movie?

      2. Drhu profile image60
        Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No just pointing out the hypocrisy which is always socially acceptable from that direction for some warped reason.

  7. Credence2 profile image88
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    Yeah, sure, the rightwinger does not want to acknowledge that slavery in the United States was once enshrined in law. That part of history does not go away because you don't like it. Yes, the movie Django was garish, exploitative to the point of irritation. But, the targets in the film were white slavers and Uncle Toms, did they not deserve the mayhem visited upon them? Not exactly a "Gone with the Wind" was it?

    But on the other hand the white folks got all defensive and irritated when the miniseries Roots (relatively mild) appeared in early 1977, So there is never a nice way to approach the topic, is there?

    1. Drhu profile image60
      Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Pardon me....

      Did you just advocate murder????

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am fine with slave owner murder. Since the law at the time was not willing to prosecute the most blatant abuse of human rights and dignity I have no issue with the people who did so both in real life and in fiction, obviously trial and incarceration is preferable but when not possible killing them and releasing their slaves is just fine too.
        Injustice demands punishment one way or the other.

        1. 59
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm with you violence has a way of solving all problems!

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            In certain situations it does, I suppose you would have preferred we bargained with Hitler and treated him real nice so he would leave us alone?

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I just agreed with you Josak.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sure you did tongue

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I actually did Josak, I have seen up close what violence has solved and was completely satisfied with the result.

            2. S Leretseh profile image81
              S Leretsehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hitler was a socialist Josaaak (of course you know that).  He should be one of your heroes.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Who is that? Oh wait, you're another who does not understand socialism aren't you!

        2. Drhu profile image60
          Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          uh-huh...ok.

          So by extension a movie which shouts this from the rooftops is just good art and should be enjoyed by all. I am not really a Tarantino fan to begin with.
          As I have said. Anyone who would be perceived Conservative would not be getting away with this and having his film celebrated and yes it's celebrated if it is nominated for Best Picture. Would have been interesting had it won to have Michelle Obama giving the award.

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't say it was good art the film was mediocre in my inexpert opinion which is irrelevant to the point discussed.

            We see countless films about heroic white men killing non whites and if they are part of a logical story that is fine too, I enjoyed Black Hawk Down it's just it turns out conservatives have really thin skins unlike the rest of the world and can't handle a portrayal of Southerner's as bad guys, pretty wimpy if you ask me.

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't believe they were bad guys at all. They were legal owners of at that time was property.

            2. Drhu profile image60
              Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Look history is history. It is what it is.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Much like fiction is fiction.

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And fact is fact, ever hear of Nat Turner?

                2. Drhu profile image60
                  Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Fine...I capitulate.
                  You are Liberals which gives you moral authority over ALL. Therefore if you wish to use what you would otherwise rant as hate speech without any responsibility for it of course YOU have all the right in the world to do so.
                  Right?

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't even know what that means...

                    I don't see why you are taking a fictional film so seriously and personally.

      2. Credence2 profile image88
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don't get simple on me, Dhru, you know what I meant!

        1. Drhu profile image60
          Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yep...killing someone.

    2. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I just watched all six episodes of Roots for the first time since 1977 and for a completely fabricated story it was alright.

      1. Credence2 profile image88
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It wasn't completely fabricated whoisit, It was excellent in my opinion, better than Django.

  8. healthyfitness profile image85
    healthyfitnessposted 3 years ago

    What a kook!
    The president does not have 100% power over this country.

  9. 59
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    Interesting thing about Gettysburg and Gods and Generals Jeff Daniels plays the same character in both films!

  10. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    You guys make a great tag team.


    Yes, I was very moved by the Confessions of Nat Turner.

    1. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Moved? In what way was that fabrication moving?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And by the true story. What are you trying to say by bringing up his name?

        1. 59
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That Nat Turner was a murderer and that is a fact.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Or a rebel trying to help overthrow slavery. It all depends on how you look at it.

            You can argue the same about many, many, many so called white heroes in American history.

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And al-Qaeda are freedom fighters.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As were those who fought against the British in what was to become the United States.

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You think al-Qaeda and the American revolutionaries are equal? You think that men who subjugate and murder women and children are somehow the same as Thomas Jefferson? You think flying planes into building killing thousands is the same as throwing tea off a ship?

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So your definition of murderer is not on whether you unlawfully kill people but who they are, how and why they do it?

                    Interesting because that is exactly what we are saying.

                  2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But not all freedom fighters are equal. Some are more ruthless than others and some actually have a good cause...  Sometimes ones freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

                  3. Credence2 profile image88
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Whoisit, you are rightwinger squared, people that resist heing held in bondage against their will are terrorists, quite frankly I wish he had slaughtered all the slave holders in the ante-bellum south, thats justice.

                    Rightwingers seem to get everything ass backwards....

          2. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So was Washington.

            1. 59
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Which Washington, George?

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yup.

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Who did he murder, I must have missed the trial. How did it turn out?

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Murder is the act of killing a man outside of legally sanctioned norms, since Washington as a non state entity had no right to declare war every person killed by American revolutionaries was a murder. Don't misunderstand I don't think it was wrong it's just that sometimes violence and killing are the only solution sad as that is.

                  2. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you living under the impression that people are only murderers if tried for it and found guilty? That is only true within our current legal system, Hitler was a murderer despite the fact he was never tried.

  11. tiffanyz profile image60
    tiffanyzposted 3 years ago

    OMG, I cannot believe this discussion, President Obama is what? that comment is so idiotic, it doesn't even deserve a response!!! but I will say this, whether you approve of it or not Sir; He is the President Of The United States.

    As Far as Quentin Tarantino, the person who made that comment obviously is not living in the same world I am.  The cast of the film was wonderful, the screenplay was excellent (BTW it won the Oscar for just that), not once during the film did I get confused as to whether or not is was fiction or non fiction. Slavery is a part of American History, and Mr. Tarantino wrote a screenplay based on an historical topic surrounded by fictional characters in a story that he created.

  12. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    Let me tell ya about this issue of black and white people, the way it is.

    My family is white, from what I know.  Yet I don't know all the facts.  My grandfather supposedly came to America by stowing away on a boat ...from.....I dunno where!   And it doesn't matter where.  Really it doesn't.   And supposedly I also have a certain percentage of Indian blood in me.  That doesn't matter either.

    What matters is what I do, how I react to life's circumstances.
    My father raised me and 6 brothers, plus had raised 4 children by previous marriage.   He did that by working for farmers and however he legitimately could;  good honest hard work.   We were dirt poor.  But we were taught to work in the garden and the fields just like he did as we got older.   I'm proud of that!

    No one EVER heard him complain that he didn't get the same opportunities as anyone else.  He never said he was deprived of money by someone else or by his ancestors or their situations in life.
    The point I'm trying to make is that we were raised just as poor as any black person was.  We had just as few and as many opportunities as any black person, or any Indian person, etc.    Matter of fact,  because I made really good grades,  I had the opportunity to go to summer College on a scholarship, and if I had continued, would've had a full College education paid for free.   Guess what--------at that summer College, there were many black kids, in the same program that I was in.   They had the same opportunities I did.   It wasn't based on skin color;  it was based on financial considerations and desire/ability to learn;  it was fair.    That's been...what?....35 or 40 years ago.   All people were free, praise God!   And any necessary "rights" that weren't covered then were soon  made into law.

    It's so tiresome to hear Obama and others talk about "civil rights" when all they mean is advantage based on skin color.  Obama wants to appear to be some great civil rights leader, when in fact he doesn't hold a candle to Martin Luther King and others.   THEY already did the work; THEY already were instrumental in bringing equality to American society.   ALL are free,  ALL have the same rights.   Obama is a man way behind the times.  Rallying groups of people who are already free, wrapping them up into his own personal social agenda, all for his fame and glory.       I wish he had listened in history class; I wish he had been taught correctly.  But alas, he was not.
    I also wish the NAACP and other specifically-racial-based institutions would see that they're behind the times and need to start considering everyone simply American instead of furthering racial division.   THAT would be new progress!

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "I wish he had listened in history class; I wish he had been taught correctly. "

      And I really wish you had listened in history class, and perhaps did some reading on your own. I wish you had been taught correctly, and not somehow internalized the falsehood that white people don't get treated any differently than people of color in the US.

      I wish ignorant white people would open their eyes to the fact that people of color are still the targets of racial discrimination in this country, stop pretending that Martin Luther King magically ended all of our racial differences, and actually work to create an America without racial divides instead of ignorantly pretending that it already exists. That would be real progress.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, blacks are targeted for discriminatory practices.  So are hispanics, orientals, whites, indians, innuits, and every other race or people with differences, perceived or real.

        I, too, wish ignorant people would open their eyes to all of it.  Including those that never seem to see the discrimination that whites, innocent of any discrimination themselves, have been subjected to for decades for the sins of their fathers.  It's past time to stop that, too.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "ALL are free,  ALL have the same rights."

      Quick! How many states still won't let gay people be married?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Didn't Mississippi only just recently get around to ratifying the 13th Amendment?
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 … n-slavery/

        Didn't Alabama only just recently repeal a ban on interracial marriage?
        http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/A … endment_2_(2000)

        Etc....

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Explain that all are equal in rights to the affirmative action people, please.   I'd really like a job or education that colleges or employers aren't being forced by law to give to someone else because they're a different race.

      3. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Quick!   Don't you know that any man is allowed to legally marry any woman of legal age, and has had that freedom long before anyone came up with the idea to fight for the so-called "right" for a man to marry another man?
        Don't you even know that a marriage consists of....gulp......a wife and a husband?
        A man cannot be a wife, a wife is, by both tradition and biological definition, a female;  so that shoots down the very idea of two men getting married.    Likewise the idea of lesbian "marriages".

        America came such a long way and finally corrected its mistakes about black rights.
        And now liberal activists want to say they have some special rights that tromp all over everyone's basic rights.    Some people seem to have to have a "cause" to fight for;  and when all people already have the same freedoms, they will create a "cause" because that's what they want to do----create controversy where there is none, and make a name for themselves.   
        When one person or group's "rights" violate the very definition and basis of someone else's true rights,  that's an atrocity.    Obama is an eternal "community organizer";  that seems to be his only true talent.    So that's why I say let him go to some Nation that truly DOES discriminate against gays (as in....actually prosecute and kill them, etc.)  because maybe he can actually have an impact there for a good reason.    He certainly has no good influence here in America.    Yet liberals are sooo very willing to let him pretend he's doing a humanitarian thing;  they keep voting for him;  and will probably still kiss his feet as he sits in retirement at their and all taxpayers' expense after only 8 years of pretend "service" to America.     Disservice is what it is.

        Just like the rights of women have been overemphasized and blown up into so-called "rights" that totally tromp on the rights of a helpless child to even have an opportunity to live outside the womb.    A holocaust of major proportions!     How anyone can ignore that is beyond conscience.

        1. Credence2 profile image88
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So if a woman does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, how are you going to prevent it when the mother can take the RU-486 or go to another state, again,  Brenda, not fertility, but futility

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Brenda thinks that if you just stamp your foot and say very loudly "DON'T" then nobody will.
            That desperate women won't return to back street abortionists who will just as likely kill the mother as abort the foetus, but then I suppose you would be happier with that outcome Brenda?

            1. Credence2 profile image88
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The problem is that the life of the fetus is inextricably linked to the life of the mother. Unfortunately, the reality is that there is not much hope for an unborn child if its mother does not want it. Creating a womb police is impractical and can have an adverse effect on the right of the woman and by extension all women that are not pregnant, thanks John!

          2. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Apparently I'm not gonna prevent anything, since our lawmakers and judges keep allowing the nonsense to go on.
            The NAF needs to be shut down, of course, as do other facilities that advocate killing a child under the guise of calling it "health care".
            And that abortion pill should be banned from availability to doctors who use it for anything other than an actual medically-needed termination of pregnancy.
            It's that simple.
            I'm appalled at how little the people in charge use their human common sense.   Any uneducated person with common humanitarian sense could do as good a job as most of our Federal Judges do.   Crazy fact.
            So, no, I don't think standing up for Life and traditional marriage is futile at all.   It's just a probably-long fight for true civil rights.   Those ARE the current grounds for civil rights work---protecting innocent babies and keeping the liberal agenda from forcing crap upon us.   
            And actually, the work is steadily going forward!   There are more and more individuals and groups who keep standing, keep growing.   People like that are patient but steadfast.   I'm glad they're like that.   That's what it takes to fight the discrimination against conservatism (to do it legally anyway).

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And how do you prevent a desperate women from seeking a back street abortion Brenda?

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't.
                No one does.
                If she's that stubborn, then she needs to be the one to take responsibility for her actions.
                Legally condoning her actions is just wrong.

                Tell ya what-----why don't we just legalize drunk driving?   It's a similar concept.
                Why not legalize murder (not just for self-defense, mind you, but murder because someone made ya feel "desperate"?)    Similar concept.   After all, that person probably actually did something to ya in order for ya to feel so angry and desperate that you'd shoot them, right?   Alrighty then.   But what has a fetus done to the mother?   NOTHING.   It's the mother who caused the fetus to even be.    So, if it's okay to kill an unborn baby who did NOTHING wrong, then it's common sense that a person should just be able to blow someone else away if they actually DO something to bother them.   

                Edit-disclaimer-the paragraph above is OF COURSE a sarcastic assessment of how the mindset of abortion advocates is twisted when it comes to responsibility about even basic right and wrong.
                Abortion is murder unless there's a real medical/moral reason for termination of pregnancy.    Whether it's done by a doctor who slices the kid in pieces or whether it's a little pill that slowly kills the fetus.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "But what has a fetus done to the mother?   NOTHING.   It's the mother who caused the fetus to even be."

                  Wow, what? What?! This is why we need to have Sex Ed in our schools, people!

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?
                    Tell me, who doesn't already know the facts of life?
                    Seriously.
                    What teenager doesn't know that having sex can produce pregnancy?

                    But (whether you were mocking or what, I dunno and don't care),  I'll give you agreement on the sex education in schools.   BASIC sex education.  We had that even 40 years ago in little country schools, even, when I was in school.

                    These days, "sex education" has gone too far in schools.  Kids are taught crap instead of just the basic facts of life.

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You know Brenda that I could much more easily share your point of view if every unwanted foetus that came to term was taken on and cherished by all these anti abortionists instead of being told "we've done our bit, you have been born but now you are on your own".

                  If you really think that drink driving and abortion are similar concepts then I despair.

                  And a further by the way, I'm not an advocate of abortion, I believe that it is something so personal that it is entirely up to the mother whether she aborts or not and certainly not up to people who have absolutely connection.

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who doesn't take care of the babies?
                    For as long as I've been alive and even aware of the facts of life,  there've been either ways to adopt a child out, or some benefactor who helps a young mother, or government programs that help the parent raise a child.   All the way from food stamps and WIC to well-baby clinics etc.
                    And America has grown more compassionate.  Used to be, a school girl who got pregnant was kinda shunned by schools,etc.  (But still, as I recall, given the opportunity to finish her schooling at home in privacy but connected to school).
                    So I think that all the complaints about how a pregnant teen gets no help are simply false and used as a vehicle for abortion advocacy.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Don't you even know that a marriage consists of....gulp......a wife and a husband?"

          Not according to the Bible, it doesn't. All the great men of God had multiple wives and even more concubines.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Brenda doesn't seem to think the Bible's actual words are important (except for Leviticus, maybe).

  13. SoManyPaths profile image60
    SoManyPathsposted 3 years ago

    Yeah, Brenda discrimination still exists but not as much as 30 to 50 years ago. Even well paid minority (or non-white) celebrities, politicians, CEOs notice it against their race.
    Yes we are all American but discrimination will probably always exist in some fashion. No revelation there, I know. You just have to live and simply do your best in society. I don't see any type of us against them rhetoric from Obama.
    Is there discrimination the other way? Yes, but it exists from Asians and Latinos against whites too in certain areas. North easterners towards Southerners and so on. You know this. Let's not try to divide society. From what I heard is he wants "everyone" to attend college and graduate. Maybe this way, our society will become stronger.

  14. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    Ah.  Being overly racist apparently will still garner support in some circles.

  15. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    the mooslum hoodlum conundrum continues
    while the half-something-whit-nuthin denies
    that he dun had not anything to do whit the drain
    but his deficit budgets dun nothing but extend the strain
    he clambers and stammers trumpeting crisis blame
    he shouts racism and class-warfare spreading divisive disdain
    making hard workers pay more so he can continue his damaging game.

  16. Eaglekiwi profile image74
    Eaglekiwiposted 3 years ago

    Seems like as soon as anyone puts Obama's name to anything ,it becomes a headline whether its true or not. Crazy.

    A Black army lol.....Mighty Mom said it best , if that ever had a shred of truth to it ,their would be greater numbers using Hispanic....

  17. Eaglekiwi profile image74
    Eaglekiwiposted 3 years ago

    Btw
    Whats the question again?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Even if drugs were legalised and then taxed they would still be cheaper and safer than heavily cut street drugs.

      Not really a question, more a statement of opinion which Drhu refused to address preferring instead to sound off about politicians.

      1. Drhu profile image60
        Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because you see their immorality as just. You rightly rant against the dealers.
        We all do. But that;s ok John let the politicians turn another ugly dollar. They deserve it.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How on earth do you reach that conclusion?

          1. Drhu profile image60
            Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your words and your reasoning.

 
working