About 2016.

[Gramps]

In a nation where the last two elected leaders were one who's record of accomplishments left a lot to be desired and the other a man who defied the odds by running for the job even though the electorate was still racially divided and he was black it makes sense to conclude anybody can give it a try and even win,

gramps

 

[Sunset Rose]

In a nation where the last two elected leaders were one who's record of accomplishments left a lot to be desired and the other a man who defied the odds by running for the job even though the electorate was still racially divided and he was black it makes sense to conclude anybody can give it a try and even win,

gramps

Wait a minute, Gramps. Our Republican friends here on PJ say we are not racially divided---this is a post racial society according to them.

 

[UPNYA2]

Wait a minute, Gramps. Our Republican friends here on PJ say we are not racially divided---this is a post racial society according to them.

Not exactly, dear.

More likely what your Republican friends here on PJ say is that 'WE" are not racially divided---"OURS" is a post racial society.


The very fact that so many of you dems/libs FIRST description of a man is so often based upon his race shows us all without a doubt that not everyone is as race-neutral, color-blind etc. as you all try to demand OTHERS be...........

As evidenced in this very top post if you care to look........

A dem sets out to describe 2 politicians;
First description of the first man is his record of accomplishments.
First description of the second??????????? His race.

For you see, once his race is mentioned, from that point on, no one can then dare question HIS accomplishments, or lack thereof least they be deemed to be "racist" by the very people whose initial concern is race.


Like being lost in the woods, unable to see the forest for all of the trees. You are obsessed with that which you disapprove of so in others. Sad.

 

[Gramps]

Wait a minute, Gramps. Our Republican friends here on PJ say we are not racially divided---this is a post racial society according to them.

Yeah! It is in their way of thinking. But not mine, One of the biggest lies told in modern time is their denial that racism is the basis for their anti-Obama strategy.

gramps
]

 

[Zam-Zam]

It seems to me that the President's ethnicity is pointed out by the left far more often than by the right (this thread being an example of that).

So, who's playing the race card?

 

[UPNYA2]

Yeah! It is in their way of thinking. But not mine, One of the biggest lies told in modern time is their denial that racism is the basis for their anti-Obama strategy.

gramps
]

You DO realize that, to people who are not themselves some sort of self-professed, "umber-enlightened", all-seeing, all-knowing, demi-god liberal, in order for one to state something being said is a "lie" would be followed with the facts, proof, evidence, etc. that one used to figure the "lie" out, know what I mean, grumps?

So care to do that?

Can you actually prove that, as YOU said, "One of the biggest lies told in modern time is their denial that racism is the basis for their anti-Obama strategy."?

Hey, if it IS in fact, "the basis for their anti-Obama strategy.", again, as you STATED, evidence of such should be readily available, just post some and end this right now.

Or, as I suspect, will you, as a good little dem/lib, merely elect to stick with your tried and true liberal defense of such offensive behavior, once again just go with that insane belief that there is no need to ACTUALLY prove a lie, stick with your self-appointed right to just dismiss the things you disagree with in any manner you desire, just label YOUR feelings and beliefs to be "the truth", damn whatever another says.

Because, seriously, who could even possibly KNOW better why another person may actually do as they do, themselves or one of you dems, right?

Hey, how you feel about letting those whose views differ from yours to label the reasons you take the positions that you do to be lies, you know, basically allow others to do and say the same things YOU do and say........Wanna?

 

[Gramps]

You DO realize that, to people who are not themselves some sort of self-professed, "umber-enlightened", all-seeing, all-knowing, demi-god liberal, in order for one to state something being said is a "lie" would be followed with the facts, proof, evidence, etc. that one used to figure the "lie" out, know what I mean, grumps?

So care to do that?

Can you actually prove that, as YOU said, "One of the biggest lies told in modern time is their denial that racism is the basis for their anti-Obama strategy."?

Hey, if it IS in fact, "the basis for their anti-Obama strategy.", again, as you STATED, evidence of such should be readily available, just post some and end this right now.

Or, as I suspect, will you, as a good little dem/lib, merely elect to stick with your tried and true liberal defense of such offensive behavior, once again just go with that insane belief that there is no need to ACTUALLY prove a lie, stick with your self-appointed right to just dismiss the things you disagree with in any manner you desire, just label YOUR feelings and beliefs to be "the truth", damn whatever another says.

Because, seriously, who could even possibly KNOW better why another person may actually do as they do, themselves or one of you dems, right?

Hey, how you feel about letting those whose views differ from yours to label the reasons you take the positions that you do to be lies, you know, basically allow others to do and say the same things YOU do and say........Wanna?

Wanna what? Get involved in a heated standoff with you or anyone else who happens to disagree with my opinion? Get lost!

gramps

 

[marvin martian]

In a nation where the last two elected leaders were one who's record of accomplishments left a lot to be desired and the other a man who defied the odds by running for the job even though the electorate was still racially divided and he was black it makes sense to conclude anybody can give it a try and even win,

gramps

It's sad that you see the world through a lens based on peoples' skin color, rather than their character. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be ashamed of you...

 

[Jen]

Wait a minute, Gramps. Our Republican friends here on PJ say we are not racially divided---this is a post racial society according to them.

It is the constant howling about racism from the left that divides us.
They want -- they NEED -- a divided America.
America is waking up to that FACT.

 

[BobbyT]

W

It is the constant howling about racism from the left that divides us.
They want -- they NEED -- a divided America.
America is waking up to that FACT.

Why does the left need a divided 'us'?

 

[Jen]

W

Why does the left need a divided 'us'?

So that they can gain votes from anyone stupid enough to believe that "It would be very important for Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if the Republicans win the Senate. It's really important," [nancy pelosi to bill maher]

 

[Gramps]

It's sad that you see the world through a lens based on peoples' skin color, rather than their character. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be ashamed of you...

I doubt that MLK would be anything of that sort. In fact he spent his adulthood spying on the system through such lenses and what he saw (or at the least what he thought he saw) prompted his long history of trying to change things. If nothing else I admire those who are not quitters and he wasn't one. I admire them for their steadfast approach even if I disagree with them; those such as you. MLK was not a hateful person and neither am I.

gramps

 

[Gramps]

W

Why does the left need a divided 'us'?

It's the old shoe -- divide and conquer. It works now and then but when push does finally come to shove it usually topples. As a rule Reps vote. It is some Dems who don't but if when they are really needed to tip the scales they show up and oftentimes change the course of governmental direction. I think 2016 is a long ways from decided yet.

gramps

 

[marvin martian]

I doubt that MLK would be anything of that sort. In fact he spent his adulthood spying on the system through such lenses and what he saw (or at the least what he thought he saw) prompted his long history of trying to change things. If nothing else I admire those who are not quitters and he wasn't one. I admire them for their steadfast approach even if I disagree with them; those such as you. MLK was not a hateful person and neither am I.

gramps

He wanted to see a world where people are judged by who they are, not what color their skin is. You've failed in that regard...it's not hateful, just disappointing.

 

[Gramps]

He wanted to see a world where people are judged by who they are, not what color their skin is. You've failed in that regard...it's not hateful, just disappointing.

I do not deceive myself. Or my eyes. Or my thoughts. I am probably more of a success as a person than you can imagine and have been told that many times over.

gramps

 

[marvin martian]

I do not deceive myself. Or my eyes. Or my thoughts. I am probably more of a success as a person than you can imagine and have been told that many times over.

gramps

Again, I have no doubt you've succeeded in many areas of your life. Judging people by their character, and not their color just isn't one of them...

But that's ok. Many, if not most, of your fellow lefties see only a person's skin color as their defining characteristic. It's guided your political philosophy and policies for decades, ever since the Democrats created the KKK as their political enforcement arm after the Civil War.

Without racial and class animus, the "progreSSive" movement as we know it today would cease to exist...