FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


One step forward, three steps backwards?





LumberJack
If you haven't heard, there is apparently a song that is going around created by a Republican Candidate for Chairman, titled "Barrack the Magic Negro".

Set to the theme tune of children film "Puff the Magic Dragon," the song opens with: "Barack the Magic Negro lives in DC."

The song goes: "The LA Times, they called him that 'cause he's not authentic like me. Yeah, the guy from the LA paper said he makes guilty whites feel good. They'll vote for him, and not for me 'cause he's not from the hood."


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081230/usa/us_politics_race_obama_republicans_1

It is upsetting that people still feel that racist terms like this are acceptable in the political arena.... what do you think?
Nick2008
Welcome to the world of freedom of speech, where former people who represented us are now singing.

Chip Saltsman's song is showing his anger of Barack Obama's popularity among whites. If anyone is to be offended it is to be Chip Saltsman.

The Republicans are already a train wreck with their reputation, and now this? Just gets better and better. Maybe there will be no more republicans in 20 years or so?
officernarc
i think that's hilarious more than anything, and really just shows how entrenched in the old system of values that the republican party is.
lagoon
It is wrong, but its all you can expect from Republican politicians; they believe in the America of fifty years ago, when racism was rife.
Voodoocat
The preceding comments seem to indicate a belief that the Republican party is racist. Before you throw stones you should ask yourselves this: which party is actively blocking the legal appointment of the only black member of the Senate? The Democrats, thats who! Talk about hypocrisy! The political party that actively seeks the black vote, the same party that the majority of blacks identify with, is also the party actively blocking the appointment of the only black senator.

Care to explain?
liljp617
Voodoocat wrote:
The preceding comments seem to indicate a belief that the Republican party is racist. Before you throw stones you should ask yourselves this: which party is actively blocking the legal appointment of the only black member of the Senate? The Democrats, thats who! Talk about hypocrisy! The political party that actively seeks the black vote, the same party that the majority of blacks identify with, is also the party actively blocking the appointment of the only black senator.

Care to explain?

Yes, that particular situation is not about race? What would race have to do with Burris; he's taking the Senate seat of another African-American. Stop trying to make things about something they're quite obviously not about. Even Burris has denounced this has anything to do with race.

And the Republican party is prejudiced in more ways than one. It's not really a secret.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
The preceding comments seem to indicate a belief that the Republican party is racist. Before you throw stones you should ask yourselves this: which party is actively blocking the legal appointment of the only black member of the Senate? The Democrats, thats who! Talk about hypocrisy! The political party that actively seeks the black vote, the same party that the majority of blacks identify with, is also the party actively blocking the appointment of the only black senator.

Care to explain?

Yes, that particular situation is not about race? What would race have to do with Burris; he's taking the Senate seat of another African-American. Stop trying to make things about something they're quite obviously not about. Even Burris has denounced this has anything to do with race.

And the Republican party is prejudiced in more ways than one. It's not really a secret.


Looking from the outside in, would appear that as a whole the United States on the political party forums has managed to conquor major race issues almost along the lines of "been there done that" lines. It is still prevalent of course everywhere in the world including the United States, but for the nation to have voted as overwhelmingly as it did over the election platforms in the last Presidential election in the United States is fantastic. Major milestone has been reached, enormous progress made!
Voodoocat
Everyone is dodging the question: why are the Democrats not swearing in the duly appointed senator? Don't claim that it is because the Governor is a criminal, he has not been convicted of anything yet and still holds his office.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Everyone is dodging the question: why are the Democrats not swearing in the duly appointed senator? Don't claim that it is because the Governor is a criminal, he has not been convicted of anything yet and still holds his office.


Because of the taint. Even though Burris is apparently clean, it's surprising he would even accept the appointment under these conditions. The whole thing is just too mired in controversy and questions. That's why the appointment is being blocked.

It's about being an alternative to the sleazy politics of old (like Bush's unheard-of firing of Justice Dept officials for refusing to make politically-oriented prosecutions).
LumberJack
Voodoocat wrote:
Everyone is dodging the question: why are the Democrats not swearing in the duly appointed senator? Don't claim that it is because the Governor is a criminal, he has not been convicted of anything yet and still holds his office.


I would assume that most Americans would prefer their Senators to at least have the appearance of credibility. You are right in saying that he has not been convicted of anything yet, but what recourse do you have if he is put into office and you find out later he bought it?
Voodoocat
You miss the point: the Governor has not only the legal authority but the responsibility to appoint a senator. Do I think Burris is the best choice? No. That however is not the point. Burris has been legally appointed by the elected Governor and therefore should be sworn in. If he turns out to be dirty, then he can be removed.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
You miss the point: the Governor has not only the legal authority but the responsibility to appoint a senator. Do I think Burris is the best choice? No. That however is not the point. Burris has been legally appointed by the elected Governor and therefore should be sworn in. If he turns out to be dirty, then he can be removed.


Politics is not as cut and dried as you seem to think. Politicians sometime resign just over the appearance of impropriety, so just the fact that Drago isn't yet convicted doesn't mean that his duties and reputation have not been affected. Because he may soon lose the right to appoint the senator over charges of corruption concerning the selling of that very right, it is a very questionable and divisive thing for him to have gone ahead and made the appointment. It is also a very dodgy thing for the appointee to have accepted the position against his party's wishes.

Now if there is no effective legal recourse to block the Burris appointment, then obviously it will go ahead. But it's understandable that the party in question is going to try all their legal recourses in the meantime.

And the only reason this is even being discussed here is because you implied all this meant the Democrats were racist. But I guess you've dropped that now?
Voodoocat
There is no legal reason to block Burris, is there? Can you name another legally appointed senator that was blocked from the senate? No? Didn't think so. If you claim that the Democrats do not want to appoint Burris because he might have ethical problems, most of congress will have to leave for the same reason.

So the question remains: why do the Democrats, the champions of blacks, not seat a legally appointed black senator?
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
There is no legal reason to block Burris, is there? Can you name another legally appointed senator that was blocked from the senate? No? Didn't think so. If you claim that the Democrats do not want to appoint Burris because he might have ethical problems, most of congress will have to leave for the same reason.

So the question remains: why do the Democrats, the champions of blacks, not seat a legally appointed black senator?


Your continuing attempt to imply the Democrats are motivated by racism in this situation shows you to be too far out in lala land to be reasoned with.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
So the question remains: why do the Democrats, the champions of blacks, not seat a legally appointed black senator?


I am curious about this Voodoocat. Obviously there has to be a good reason for it. Do you have a theory for this?
OpposableThumbs
Voodoocat wrote:
Everyone is dodging the question: why are the Democrats not swearing in the duly appointed senator? Don't claim that it is because the Governor is a criminal, he has not been convicted of anything yet and still holds his office.


Congress is holding up his appointment -- not denying it -- pending further investigation. This is perfectly fair. You don't want a representative of your government to have his seat because he purchased it, at least not in the blatantly and stupidly public way the the governor of Illinois gave the seat away.
OpposableThumbs
Voodoocat wrote:
So the question remains: why do the Democrats, the champions of blacks, not seat a legally appointed black senator?


This is not a serious person. I'm going to answer him, but it really makes no sense to because some arguments (Creationism, for example), do not deserve responses.

Why do you think the American South went Republican from Nixon on? Specifically to keep America conservatively white. The Dems ran a woman for vice president a decade before the Republicans. The Dems have now had a serious woman presidential candidate; not so the Republicans. The Democrats ran and elected an African American man as president. The Republicans ran another white guy.
Related topics
Text stecked to the mouse
32 things u dont know
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Yo mama so fat...
Will Windows last forvever?
Fuel Prices!!!
Define Religion?
Writer's Circle -Read|Review|Critique-
Javascript and Dynamic Select Boxes
Dyslexic? How do you make sense of scripts.
Is Technology Good or Bad?
Hey, I'm Molle
Climate deal does not satisfy all ....
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.