Racist Anti-Obama ad

Why are some people allowed to vote...

 

I don't understand. If he gave you a phone, why complain?

 

I don't think she is. I'm fairly certain she said, "Keep Obama in President," because he made it possible for low-income families to obtain cell phones, and the purpose of the ad, I believe, was to show what kind of issues Obama is focusing on, and how he's spending taxpayer dollars. That last part is just my take on it, though.

 

16 trillion? That's a lot of phones.

 

This video is extraordinarily offense. Why is it that minorities must always be protray as ignorant. But surely this video wouldnt have been even slightly as effective if they showed a successful African American with an actual knowledge of politics to relay their opinion on foreign policy............


Though I do remember reading somewhere that the success minority is invisible to the Republican Party. Who knew

 

Again, I like how it's the Tea Party funding this, and I feel that it's comical that the number one thing they hated was being called on their racism. Basically, they'd say "oh, people are just saying that we're racist to distract from our message on the economy and the deficit."

Whatever one thinks about economic issues, we have to be objective about the fact that when one compares to their rhetoric on women's rights, queer rights, race and immigration policy, the only resonance they have is bigotry. Their ability to tap into the collective hatred just below the surface of the American political zeitgeist is, as far as I'm aware, unrivaled in the last 40 years.

 

At the end of the day, though, this isn't what our election should be about. Social issues, in my view, are much less important than economic issues. Although it might be detrimental to moving toward societal acceptance for now, I would rather vote for someone who is trying to save our country and is against same-sex marriage, so that we can continue to work on those issues in the future, rather than someone who would further deteriorate our country, and only says he is for same-sex marriage to get voters.

As hard as it may be, and as much as it may go against the grain, sometimes it's necessary to make sacrifices for the future.

 

Not to turn this into a debate, but I do agree with you. Sadly, a person's views on certain social issues affect how they handle their economic issues since they will most likely cut "extra expenses" from social programs and anything that isn't "important".

The problem with this is when do you determine the "future" starts so we can work on this issue? 10 year? 20? 60 years?

People had died, suffered and been through hell to get us where we are today. If we don't keep fighting, if we take a break, then we lose. Its as easy as that. And while I get where you are coming from, I don't understand why its so hard to do both things at the same time, and why we can't ask for it instead of settling.

Not to mention that there is a high possibility that whoever wins this election will be able to appoint the next two supreme court judges, which will determine how a lot for years in the future.

 

With respect, Dame, I disagree. I hope not to sound confrontational here, so please alert me if I make you feel unsafe or embattled. I take what conservatives say about the "culture war" seriously. It is a war, and I am going to fight it. I don't think that we have sound economic policy right now, but while I think we can make personal sacrifices, we cannot sacrifice other people. That is why I believe prioritizing economic issues is wrong. The thing is that the Republican party is objectively the party of hatred; hatred of women, hatred of sexual and gender minorities, hatred of racial minorities. That is not to say all conservatives are like that, but the party gains the most benefit from the most evil demographics in America. It is not that conservatism is evil; it merely profits from it. And right now, its willingness to profit from hatred shows that it can't advance anything good, even in the economic realm.

This video right here shows the lengths to which conservative forces are willing to go to get their men (and let's face it, it really is men, or at least male perspectives) into office.

How can they possibly have anything good to contribute?

 

I do agree with you, and I hate to see any progress made revoked. I would absolutely vote for someone else who sees things as I do, but unfortunately, when things are this close, when you split a party, they lose the race. If I were to vote for who I truly wanted to vote for (not able to vote this year, by the way, so my opinion doesn't have a whole lot of bearing in this election) then nothing would be accomplished, except that I would, in essence, be ensuring the "wrong" party's victory (not to say they are the wrong party, but the one I wouldn't vote for).

Also, keep in mind that people are much more open-minded than they were 20, or even ten years ago. There are whole LGBT communities, there are websites such as this, reaching out to people to give support, there are even LGBT celebrities. There will always be people who disagree with, and even condemn gays, simply because of their own personal views. Think about the Blacks. Yes, they went through years of oppression, but they now have a fellow African American in the White House (not turning it into a racial thing, just making a point.) It's proof of how far we've come as a country.

There is a party who feels the economy is important, as well as social issues. In my humble opinion, they hold the best views of both categories. Unfortunately, they are not electable in this two-party system. Research the Libertarian party. Gary Johnson is who I'd really like to vote for. Fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

The role of government is what this really comes down to. I don't believe that the government should have any say in our private lives, meaning they shouldn't force one person's social views on someone else. I believe they should have no say in my personal choices.

Sorry if I seem argumentative, I'm not trying to turn this into a troll session, I promise, lol. I respect everyone's view and position. :goodevil:

 

While I grant you that Gary Johnson is better than candidates LP has run in the past, I have done the research before and found them to be not at all in support of any civil liberty other than speech, privacy, and certain due process rights. They have not ever been queer positive, and going to their website just now, I find no mention of LGBT issues at all. I suspect that omission is extremely intentional.

 

Don't worry, I don't mind a little debate now and then, lol.

On the same foot, it's not just the conservatives who do this. Any other party who participates in mud-slinging is just as guilty.

---------- Post added 18th Oct 2012 at 10:43 PM ----------

Libertarian Party LGBT issues

The Libertarian Party advocates repealing all laws that control or prohibit homosexuality. According to the Libertarian Party's platform, "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws."

Gay activist Richard Sincere has pointed to the longstanding support of gay issues by the party, which has supported marriage equality since its first platform was drafted in 1972. Many LGBT political candidates have run for office on the Libertarian Party ticket,[51] and there have been numerous LGBT caucuses in the party, with the most active in recent years being the Outright Libertarians.

In 2009, the Libertarian Party of Washington encouraged voters to approve Washington Referendum 71 that extended LGBT relationship rights. According to the party, withholding domestic partnership rights from same-sex couples is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. In September 2010, in the light of the failure to repeal the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy (which banned openly gay people from serving in the military) during the Obama administration, the Libertarian Party urged gay voters to stop supporting the Democratic Party. The policy was repealed at the end of 2010. - Wikipedia

Basically, what they're saying, is that government should have no say and has no reason to regulate this issue. That's why it's omitted, because they don't see it as a political issue.

 

Onyxknight: It is good to hear that LP is not like Bob Barr all the time. There was actually a time I was thinking about seriously voting for libertarians, but the hints I got pointed to a slavish interpretation of federalism that leaves the most vulnerable people in our society living in jurisdictions with localized oppression unaddressed. I will reconsider my opposition to them.

 

How is that racist. Certainly shows stupidity though. I guess a black person is immune from being portrayed as stupid.

 

Oh wait, you have a typo in there. Let me fix that for you.

There you go

The mind boggling thing is that there will be people taking these kinds of ads seriously and shouting "F yeah!". I feel that the problem with everyone being able to vote is that even people that don't really understand what's going on or don't get the big picture before they make a rational decision can and will vote. At least their commitment is commendable, though. I just wish the more sensable people would go vote, too, because I know there are some. There has to be!

 

It's racist because the whole premise of the commercial is to use a very uneducated person of color (about whom such harmful stereotypes already exist) as the representative for Obama voters. The implication is that his supporters are stupid, and they are stupid because they are people of color.

This is not a serious comment--just an obvious troll. I'm not rising to the bait. I'll simply say that it is problematic to characterize individuals of any oppressed group in a manner consistent with negative stereotypes about them, because with oppressed groups, members of the dominant group take an individual to represent the whole group. The Tea Party could have just as easily taken some YouTube rant of a really camp gay man ranting about how evil Romney is on social issues all the while implying economic issues are more important. With the implication that queers are a bunch of wimps and selfish people who can't see the greater good.

 

Definitely. I'm glad it got you thinking. What you mentioned is the reason I like to find out what a candidate stands for, not what his political party is. I could be registered as Democrat or Republican, or Green Party, but if the candidate from my party isn't offering what I think is important, I'm not gonna vote for him if there's a better choice.

Lol, didn't wanna say that, but it is pretty amazing that some people vote.

Agreed! I was never into politics in high school. Didn't care, didn't really see how it affected me. Now that I'm a taxpayer, fending for myself (sorta, husband helps a lot, lol,) I see how these things make a big impact on my everyday life. Even after I moved out, though, I wasn't big into it until my husband started coming home from work everyday and ranting about the stupid crap these politicians are doing or saying they're gonna do. Ever since, I'm tried to make sure that I'm informed, because not only can other people's decisions impact me, my decisions can impact other people. So many people just vote for the candidate who represents their party, or for certain insignificant reasons like skin color, without actually looking at what they're bringing to the table, and it can be pretty detrimental to our country.

 

Serious? You can't see how it's racist?

 

I understand the intention behind it, but I would warrant that most educated people are aware that the entire black community is not this way. I grew up with both sides, I know there's a difference.