Mel Watt promoted by Obama

[Sinfix_15]

Newest promotion handed out by Obama. There seems to be a trend with Obama's selection process, but i cant quite put my finger on it just yet.

Mel Watt: Majority of whites won't vote for black candidate | The Daily Caller

[Vteckidd]

This guy is a race pimp, a slug, a slimeball.

I love the racist black position that you solve claimed segregation by...................segregation.

idiots

[Sinfix_15]

This guy is a race pimp, a slug, a slimeball.

I love the racist black position that you solve claimed segregation by...................segregation.

idiots

The type of man the Obama administration wants.

[Vteckidd]

He has a history of hiring black supremacists/ extreme radicals

[RandomGuy]

ooor a pointless talking point created to spawn even more useless news headlines/ media discussions /etc...

I think there's a LOT more serious stuff going on

[Vteckidd]

Obama doesn't vet people well who he hires oR appoints.

I mean i won't lose sleep ofver this, but as a white male I'm kinda tired of being called a racist .

[Vteckidd]

If a white candidate said "most black people wouldn't vote for a white candidate"

There would be outrage and racism charges. Its the double standard we live in

[Sinfix_15]

Obama doesn't vet people well who he hires oR appoints.

I mean i won't lose sleep ofver this, but as a white male I'm kinda tired of being called a racist .

Being anti-white has become politically correct. As a white person, if you're not actively promoting the eradication of your own race, you're a racist.

[.blank cd]

If a white candidate said "most black people wouldn't vote for a white candidate"

There would be outrage and racism charges. Its the double standard we live in

There wouldn't be outrage. It would just be incorrect. Black people have voted for white candidates since black people were allowed to vote. No one would ever say that.

Being anti-white has become politically correct. As a white person, if you're not actively promoting the eradication of your own race, you're a racist.

Thank you, Derek Vinyard.

[Vteckidd]

There wouldn't be outrage. It would just be incorrect. Black people have voted for white candidates since black people were allowed to vote. No one would ever say that.

This guy is also, "incorrect". Isnt that pretty much what Romney said in 2012? "There is a certain section of the voting population who depend on the govt and wont vote for me". he never even MENTIONED race yet was called racist.

Why make broad, inherently WRONG generalizations?

I disagree, if a GOP person was nominated for something and the left dug up a soundbite where he said that, it would be headline news. What he said doesnt bother me, its that The president of the united states feels that someone with this point of view (which is divisive and racially charged) is fit to serve in a high ranking position.

But, Obama has never had the best judgement

[Sinfix_15]

There wouldn't be outrage. It would just be incorrect. Black people have voted for white candidates since black people were allowed to vote. No one would ever say that.

You like statistics.... let's put statistics to work on evaluating the racial bias between voters in elections..... i think the statistics will not only show the opposite to be true, but also make Watt's comments appear asinine.

Thank you, Derek Vinyard.

Ed Norton is a great actor.

[.blank cd]

This guy is also, "incorrect". Isnt that pretty much what Romney said in 2012? "There is a certain section of the voting population who depend on the govt and wont vote for me". he never even MENTIONED race yet was called racist.

Why make broad, inherently WRONG generalizations?

It may not be a majority of whites, but there's still some voters who will not vote for a black candidate. That's a fact. And it may be more sizable than some will admit.

I disagree, if a GOP person was nominated for something and the left dug up a soundbite where he said that, it would be headline news. What he said doesnt bother me, its that The president of the united states feels that someone with this point of view (which is divisive and racially charged) is fit to serve in a high ranking position.

You believe acknowledging that racism still exists, which it does, is racially divisive?

[Sinfix_15]

It may not be a majority of whites, but there's still some voters who will not vote for a black candidate. That's a fact. And it may be more sizable than some will admit.

You believe acknowledging that racism still exists, which it does, is racially divisive?

And no black people voted for the black guy because he was black.

[Vteckidd]

It may not be a majority of whites, but there's still some voters who will not vote for a black candidate. That's a fact. And it may be more sizable than some will admit.

And there are black people who wont for a white candidate because they, are also, in turn, Racists.

You believe acknowledging that racism still exists, which it does, is racially divisive?

I think saying their is racism is one thing, but making broad generalizations about a voting population , which is clearly incorrect, is racially divisive.

[Sinfix_15]

It's white people who are the ones making everything a racial issue and injecting race into everything......

[.blank cd]

Obama doesn't vet people well who he hires oR appoints.

I mean i won't lose sleep ofver this, but as a white male I'm kinda tired of being called a racist .

So Obama said he didnt vet this guy? Or do you think that what you believe extreme radicalism and supremacism is isn't actually extreme radicalism or supremacism at all?

[.blank cd]

There were 19 pseudo-pilots who thought flying a couple passenger jetliners into some buildings that might take some contention with your cavalier use of the words "extreme radicalism"

[Vteckidd]

So Obama said he didnt vet this guy? Or do you think that what you believe extreme radicalism and supremacism is isn't actually extreme radicalism or supremacism at all?

You wont agree with me no matter what I say, its just philosophically different.

I dont think its good for a sitting president to nominate someone to a position of power that has views like this. Why? The same reason why you guys bashed Romney for saying what he said. Its below the office of the presidency. Leaders are to unite, and lead. Not divide and conquer, which is increasingly what i see from washington (notice i said washington not Obama).

Obama has not lead, and he has not brought anyone together. he campaigns, he divides, he conquers. he did it with the govt shutdown, the healthcare law, the elections, foreign policy, the IRS scandal, its all there. If a GOP President had nominated someone that had these types of views it would be headline news.

Does racism exist? yes. Do race pimps like Watt who use it for their own personal gain take advantage of the stereotypes to perpetuate this "you cant succeed because white america is holding you back" notion disgust me? yup.

We have a black president, who has won 2 elections, by decent margins. What has HE done to further the black cause? nothing, hes made it worse. The real racists are the race hustlers like watt, sharpton, etc.

[Vteckidd]

There were 19 pseudo-pilots who thought flying a couple passenger jetliners into some buildings that might take some contention with your cavalier use of the words "extreme radicalism"

not going to even dignify this strawman with a comment.

[Sinfix_15]

[.blank cd]

not going to even dignify this strawman with a comment.

You said Mel Watts was an extreme radical, did you not? If so, then not a straw man.

There are extreme radicals, and what you believe an extreme radical is. For some reason, they're different. They shouldn't be

[Sinfix_15]

You said Mel Watts was an extreme radical, did you not? If so, then not a straw man.

There are extreme radicals, and what you believe an extreme radical is. For some reason, they're different. They shouldn't be

Thinking white people shouldnt be allowed to vote based on a fabricated false perception of racism is pretty radical. Him being promoted could be mistaken for institutionalizing racism, especially when you combine it with Obama's other allstars. Funny.... a democrat, who is vocal about accusing republicans of trying to restrict black people from voting would make a comment like this. Sounds like black leaders have no issues with racism, as long as it's in the right direction.





Here we go again...... with Blank defending the indefensible.

The most annoying thing about you is how your principles shift based on the people involved.

[Vteckidd]

You said Mel Watts was an extreme radical, did you not? If so, then not a straw man.

There are extreme radicals, and what you believe an extreme radical is. For some reason, they're different. They shouldn't be

not true, i didnt say that.

I said "He has a history of hiring black supremacists/ extreme radicals "


did i say that Watts was an extreme radical? reading is fundamental.

Also, like i said, i cannot debate this with you, if you are going to tell me what a radical is and isnt, and use only your own opinion as the basis to make that determination.

[.blank cd]

Thinking white people shouldnt be allowed to vote based on a fabricated false perception of racism is pretty radical.

But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?

not true, i didnt say that.

I said "He has a history of hiring black supremacists/ extreme radicals "

But then Obama has never hired an extreme radical or a supremacist, based on the textbook definition of radicalism or supremacism. So what exactly were you implying?

did i say that Watts was an extreme radical? reading is fundamental.

Yes. You did. This is called a tacit implication.

[Sinfix_15]

But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?

But then Obama has never hired an extreme radical or a supremacist, based on the textbook definition of radicalism or supremacism. So what exactly were you implying?

Yes he did. Maybe you need to read it again......

And yes..... Obama does hire extremists....

[Vteckidd]

Can't debate with someone who tells you what you think and uses his own feelings and opinions as the basis for fact.

Won't get sucked into another 10 page thread where we debate everything but the topic

[.blank cd]

Yes he did. Maybe you need to read it again......

And yes..... Obama does hire extremists....

Read it again, still doesn't say what you said it says. Maybe the words will rearrange themselves if I read it a third time.

And I forgot you were islamophobic.

No I didn't.

[ISAtlanta300]

But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?.

It is called tacit implication.

[Browning151]

LOL

[Sinfix_15]

Read it again, still doesn't say what you said it says. Maybe the words will rearrange themselves if I read it a third time.

And I forgot you were islamophobic.

No I didn't.

Islamophobic..... more sensationalist left wing propaganda that you proudly puppet. Unlike you, my views are consistent across the board. I apply the same principles to every situation. I actually have my own beliefs and think for myself. You're just a sheep.... you say what you're told to say about the people you're told to say it about.


You constantly badger me about making generalizations, which i admittedly do.... but here you are defending the exact same generalizations when it's a black democrat saying them. Your beliefs change based on who's involved.

If a democrat says something racist, you defend them. If a republican says something racists, you attack them. If we're talking about the historical crimes of Christianity, you jump for joy..... if we're having the same conversation about Islam, you go on the offensive and call me Islamophobic.

Your beliefs are a perfect cookie cutter mold of the MSNBC watching radical. You fall in line with the hive no matter what the topic is.

[.blank cd]

Can't debate with someone who tells you what you think and uses his own feelings and opinions as the basis for fact.

Won't get sucked into another 10 page thread where we debate everything but the topic

You don't have to debate it with me. I'm not really saying anything that is debatable. I understand you like to use hyperbole to make a point, but I, myself, try not to make a habit of changing words in the dictionary to suit my ideology.

It's perfectly fine if you think an extreme radicalist is just someone who has a different opinion than you. But I'm just saying that your definition of radicalism and the dictionary definition of radicalism are COMPLETELY different. And I'm gonna have to go with the dictionary definition, if that's ok with you.

The topic was Mel Watt, whom you tacitly implied was an extreme radical. You are wrong. You may disagree with something he says, but he's not an extreme radical. That's all I'm saying. I'm not debating dictionary definitions of words. They are what they are.

[.blank cd]

It is called tacit implication.

Fortunately, he made that distinction. So no, not tacit implication. Sorry.

[BanginJimmy]

But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?

“There would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate,” Watt said Oct. 14, 2005 during a Washington hearing held by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act should be expanded to “adjust districts to take [racially motivated voting] into account,” Watts said.

Such voters “need to be factored out of the equation,” Watt said, because “I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”



If you dont believe Watt means majority of white people shouldnt be allowed to vote I would LOVE to hear how you interpret it. And yes, that is coming directly from the article. Want to refute it, find another source that refutes it. Until then we have no choice but to assume it was an accurate quote.


Huffingpaint post has a nice article from June about Watt also.

Mel Watt Confirmation Fight May Be Win-Win For White House

Apparently he wants to use racial and income preference in deciding who gets loans backed by Freddie and Fannie. The author also assumes he would try to fast track principle reductions. My mortgage is an FHA, am I going to get a reduction in principle? I know for damn sure I would like to get my house paid off even sooner.


My final comment, Watt is a race pimp that desperately wants to see more black victims. What I really find funny is that WAtt and the rest of his ilk truly think they are special and that most blacks are not capable of standing on their own. In their minds, an average black man or woman MUST have the govt there to give them an advantage, that without the govt, they will be poor, uneducated, and exploited by evil white people at every turn.

[.blank cd]

“There would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate,” Watt said Oct. 14, 2005 during a Washington hearing held by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act should be expanded to “adjust districts to take [racially motivated voting] into account,” Watts said.

Such voters “need to be factored out of the equation,” Watt said, because “I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”



If you dont believe Watt means majority of white people shouldnt be allowed to vote I would LOVE to hear how you interpret it. And yes, that is coming directly from the article. Want to refute it, find another source that refutes it. Until then we have no choice but to assume it was an accurate quote.

Was that what he said? Or did he say something else?

If that's what he said, that means he has no use for white people who under no circumstances would vote for a black candidate, or racially motivated voters. I would agree with him 100%. There is no other way that could be interpreted any other way unless he said something that isn't quoted here.

[Browning151]

Was that what he said? Or did he say something else?

If that's what he said, that means he has no use for white people who under no circumstances would vote for a black candidate, or racially motivated voters. I would agree with him 100%. There is no other way that could be interpreted any other way unless he said something that isn't quoted here.

Would you say the same about black voters who under no circumstance would vote for a white candidate?

[.blank cd]

You just don't get to make up what someone says to suit your agenda. That's not how it works.

[.blank cd]

Would you say the same about black voters who under no circumstance would vote for a white candidate?

Yep. But until recently, they didn't have much of a choice. It was pretty much vote for a white candidate or don't vote at all.

[Sinfix_15]

In a theoretical scenario where we could eliminate people who were voting based on race.......



Mitt Romney would be president right now.

[Sinfix_15]

You just don't get to make up what someone says to suit your agenda. That's not how it works.

Nobody is making up what he said......

We just dont view these democratic radicals with the same rose colored glasses and affection that you do. These people are your heroes..... you know how they say "love is blind"

[Sinfix_15]

Was that what he said? Or did he say something else?

If that's what he said, that means he has no use for white people who under no circumstances would vote for a black candidate, or racially motivated voters. I would agree with him 100%. There is no other way that could be interpreted any other way unless he said something that isn't quoted here.

So you believe that based on someone's opinion, that their freedom should be taken away?