Many blacks shrug off Obama's new view on gays

May 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Peninsula Clarion

ARDMORE, Pa. - Like many black Americans, Dorsey Jackson does not believe in gay marriage, but he wasn't disillusioned when Barack Obama became the first president to support it.

Comments (Page 59)

Showing posts 1,161 - 1,180 of1,367
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1229
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny; the antigay remind me of rapists and sociopaths, so.
<quoted text>
Do you cry like a stuck pig that you can't get them to stop?
<quoted text>
Well,*this* is bullshit if I ever saw it.
<quoted text>
You are powerless to tell others what to think. It's strange that you'd even attempt it.
<quoted text>
Naah, this is utter crap.
<quoted text>
Can we take your family members to court and call them whores and rapists and get them convicted? Hmmmm? Can we do that?
Because if we convicted them in open court by *LYING* about them, we'd be doing the same thing those *STATE VOTES* did: literally lied about gay people, then asked the state to vote on their rights.
The antigay *never* tell the truth; it freaks me out that you people are "proud" of lies and amorality.
<quoted text>
Well, no. They simply don't give a shit what you think of them; they think you're amoral, cancerous filth, and they want the same rights *EVERYONE ELSE* has. It's that simple.
You don't even use the word "perverted" correctly here, but that's no surprise: The antigay *NEVER* stop lying. Ever.
Sucks to be you if the bible's correct: You're headed straight to hell. But please,*SHOW NO CONCERN* for that and *PRETEND IT'S NOT TRUE* and you only give gay and pro-gay people the same ammunition to *IGNORE* the bible in *EXACTLY* the same way. Do it.
Spoken like a true fruit.
Realist

Greensboro, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1230
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Note this poster's constant self-involvement and selfishness. Always and constantly, he behaves as if my responses are for *him*; he behaves as if *what he thinks* governs "factually" what my life represents.
He literally believes he can *factually pronounce* what I am; yet somehow, THIS EXACT AND IDENTICAL LOGIC does not extend to him.
Somehow, by magic,*he* is "allowed" to do this but others aren't?
I smell horse shit.
A very, very large pile of it.
<quoted text>
And under no circumstance whatsoever are they *ever, ever* for this poster. One hundred percent (100%) of my posts are for anyone else on the board who wants to see his "logic" deconstructed.
He continually and very, very self-involvedly pretends the posts are for *him*; this need to control others is the HALLMARK of his behavior.
<quoted text>
Note how badly he needs to repeat this: over, and over, and over.
Note his *pathological need* to be sure everyone knows this -- when it proves nothing and means nothing, because *nothing about* my posts is for him.
In fact, if no one has caught on, what I am doing renders him *POWERLESS* and he cannot stand it.
<quoted text>
Note that in order to maintain his "supremacy," he must literally *introduce into his posts* images of me in an "inferior" position. This is not difficult to figure out, none of it. He needs to feel *superior* and he feels superior *WHEN HE THINKS HE IS IN CONTROL*. My responses to the board, based upon his posts, tireless and absolutely refusing to back down,*rip away* his perceived sense of "power." Thus, he has become obsessed with answering me and, in his responses,*with including certain specific statements* which he repeats over,
and over,
and over.
<quoted text>
Note again, for what?-- the fifteenth time? the twentieth?-- how the poster acts as if he is the only one here.
How many times has this poster now behaved as if he is the only one on the boards, or as if he is the center of attention here, or as if my posts are for him?
How many?
This poster feels an *almost neurotic* need for control. He will continue to act as if this is all for him.
Note that my posts are for *everyone BUT him*.
Systematically, no matter what he says, I *strip away* his soi-disant "authority" over me and what I post. This is why I do this. I do not stand for this type of abuse from others, and I never, never will.
He knows my posts can be seen by everyone else on the boards; only an idiot wouldn't. He is *hell-bent* upon pretending they are only for him -- and so watch, watch for yourselves: He will pretend again, and again, and again that they are only for him and that he is in a position of "superiority" here.
If that's true,
why does he need to keep responding?
Hmmmm?
Oh hi there, hi hi, I see that you are still responding to me with your lenghty verbose nonsense that still is being unread.
Yea, I know that you also take out your whip and lash yourself 20 to 30 times after each comment since you are truly a glutton for punishment.
You cannot win so kindly stop your irrational stalking. Just increase your lashing of yourself to 50 or more to satisfy your self hatred.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1231
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Change will be handled by the m.Brotherhood, we can sent someone else to talk about Hope, if BHO does not work out.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1232
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

So when Obama says government should see no difference between a black woman and a black man in marriage; that's like a kick in the balls, or in the ovaries. Shrug it off, try to breathe.
Janette

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1233
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, Blacks are (and have always been) disproportionately employed in hard poorly paid jobs.
As for a comparison of Blacks and Hispanicss, their levels of poverty, poorly paid work and unemployment are ver similar.
Talking about employment.There is still an unemployment crisis in U.S.,and Obama during his campaign for the Presidency, and every time he gives a speech,swears to get people to work,yet the unemployment is and has still remained a crisis,since his election 3 years ago,and likely will be when he steps down as president,so he's not done much to cure,unemployement.
Now he says as of today's news report,that he wants to allow illegals aliiens to be allowed to remain in this country,and not deport them,so that they can be employed here,stupidest move on his part that I have every heard of.
He can't even get the legal citizens here employed,yet he's blocking illegals from being deported,so that they can be gainfully employed?,he's nuts. You've not enough jobs to employ the legal population,thus unemployment.Then what do you do?-You add more people to compete for already insufficient supply of jobs,by retaining people who are in the country illegally,brilliant.
CommonSense

Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1234
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say homosexuality is a culture. You asked how it harms you. So, I said it harms the culture of which you are a part. I should have said that as long as it is private sex acts or whatever that is one thing. But when "gay" people go to Muslims countries like Iran and Somalia where it is known that if they get caught they will be punished, and they go there anyhow, I do not cry crocodile tears when they get punished no matter how severe the punishment is. Corrupt politicians like Obama my cater to them. But you have to know that no other decent or civilized country in the world will tolerate open and public homosexual behavior. Muslim countries will not allow any kind of public sexual behavior. It is that simple. The only ones who will even think about it are western countries. But the west does not even amount to 10% of the world's population. That means that 90% of the world will not allow this kind of homosexual behavior in public. If you are "gay" in 90% of the world, you had better keep it hidden and "in the closet" and secret. If you make it public in most Muslim countries you may be subject to the death penalty. Face facts and get over it.
Your position is completely immoral.
Your countries kill people for doing something that harms no one except arguably that it goes against what you believe "God" wants.
Let God be responsible for it then! If God has a problem with homosexuals let God punish them. Certainly being all powerful and omnipotent he doesn't need you to help him. What if you were wrong? Then God may be angry about you for executing homosexuals. If you are right then leave the punishment to be a glory for God himself instead of playing God and metting it out yourself to feel powerful and important. If God is real he's not impressed by your people doing his job for him it shows you think he is weak and can not do it himself. You are putting yourselves above your God.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1235
Jun 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jumping Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true fruit.
This response is literally meaningless, but makes you appear spineless. These types of things *always* make people look spineless, to me. Always.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1236
Jun 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Realist wrote:
<quoted text>Oh hi there, hi hi, I see that you are still responding to me with your lenghty verbose nonsense that still is being unread.
Note the poster's pathological need to claim *repetitively* that the posts are going unread.

One hundred percent (100%) of the times that this is stated, it is meaningless.

Note the poster's need *repetitively* to act as if he is the only person on the boards.

How many times has he now insisted upon behaving as if he has some "control" over this situation?

Note the repetitive need to "control" the situation.
Realist wrote:
Yea, I know that you also take out your whip and lash yourself 20 to 30 times after each comment since you are truly a glutton for punishment.
Note the need to assert "control"; the poster *repetitively* behaves as if he is somehow "in control of" the situation and "meting out punishment" by "not reading" responses, despite an assertion -- how many times now has it been asserted? count them -- that the posts are not for him.

Telling him that the posts are not for him *takes away his sense of control* and he must *repetitively* reassert it by acting as if *HIS* attention to these posts is "all that matters" -- clearly false.

Exponentially worse, he attempts to frame his attempt to reassert "control" in the context of "punishing" another person ON AN ANONYMOUS PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD by "ignoring" their posts, when this is fruitless, meaningless and contextually senseless.
Realist wrote:
You cannot win
In fact, this poster cannot win: He *cannot* assert control of any type whatsoever, LEADING TO HIS DOGGED REPETITION.

He *cannot* control the actions of others, and pretends *repetitively* that he can.

Everything he ever types here is about attempts to control others.

This is the first time that I am beginning to get a clearer picture of this person: In psychological terms, the individual may be in fact suffering from *an inferiority complex*. I cannot be sure, but several tenets of *what precisely is being said* make sense in this context.
Realist wrote:
so kindly stop your irrational stalking.
If the responses in this thread to this individual constitute "irrational stalking," then I am being "irrationally stalked" and I've got a court case, clear and simple. There is literally no context in which any legal authority in its right mind would categorize my *fair responses* as "stalking" without instantaneously indicting this poster, on more than one front:

1. Posts from this individual are addressed directly to me.

2. Posts from this individual have framed several *untruths* about me specifically and personally.

3. My responses to this individual seek to assert *as repetitively as the individual responds to me* that he has *absolutely no control* over the exchange and that I will *absolutely not put up with* his abusive methods and behaviors on the board.

I purposely and repetitively do *NOT* address the poster directly *BECAUSE* he has purposely and repetitively stated that he "does not read" my posts, despite responding to one hundred point zero percent (100.0%) of them.
Realist wrote:
Just increase your lashing of yourself to 50 or more to satisfy your self hatred.
Note how chillingly self-referential this statement is.

Note how, despite "not reading my posts," the poster seems to have a very interesting way of attempting to *mirror what I say back at me*.

Note, far worse, how the poster attempts to assert *constant, unending, pathological control* over the situation by claiming to be able to "diagnose" a complete stranger WHOSE POSTS HE IS SUPPOSEDLY NOT READING WHATSOEVER.

Yeah, this is self-referential: I believe that a need to control others stems, in this poster, from a type of self-hatred wherein he feels *inadequately assertive*; that is to say, he attempts to assert control *because* he feels inferior.
Realist

Greensboro, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1237
Jun 16, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Note the poster's pathological need to claim *repetitively* that the posts are going unread.
One hundred percent (100%) of the times that this is stated, it is meaningless.
Note the poster's need *repetitively* to act as if he is the only person on the boards.
How many times has he now insisted upon behaving as if he has some "control" over this situation?
Note the repetitive need to "control" the situation.
<quoted text>
Note the need to assert "control"; the poster *repetitively* behaves as if he is somehow "in control of" the situation and "meting out punishment" by "not reading" responses, despite an assertion -- how many times now has it been asserted? count them -- that the posts are not for him.
Telling him that the posts are not for him *takes away his sense of control* and he must *repetitively* reassert it by acting as if *HIS* attention to these posts is "all that matters" -- clearly false.
Exponentially worse, he attempts to frame his attempt to reassert "control" in the context of "punishing" another person ON AN ANONYMOUS PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD by "ignoring" their posts, when this is fruitless, meaningless and contextually senseless.
<quoted text>
In fact, this poster cannot win: He *cannot* assert control of any type whatsoever, LEADING TO HIS DOGGED REPETITION.
He *cannot* control the actions of others, and pretends *repetitively* that he can.
Everything he ever types here is about attempts to control others.
This is the first time that I am beginning to get a clearer picture of this person: In psychological terms, the individual may be in fact suffering from *an inferiority complex*. I cannot be sure, but several tenets of *what precisely is being said* make sense in this context.
<quoted text>
If the responses in this thread to this individual constitute "irrational stalking," then I am being "irrationally stalked" and I've got a court case, clear and simple. There is literally no context in which any legal authority in its right mind would categorize my *fair responses* as "stalking" without instantaneously indicting this poster, on more than one front:
1. Posts from this individual are addressed directly to me.
2. Posts from this individual have framed several *untruths* about me specifically and personally.
3. My responses to this individual seek to assert *as repetitively as the individual responds to me* that he has *absolutely no control* over the exchange and that I will *absolutely not put up with* his abusive methods and behaviors on the board.
I purposely and repetitively do *NOT* address the poster directly *BECAUSE* he has purposely and repetitively stated that he "does not read" my posts, despite responding to one hundred point zero percent (100.0%) of them.
<quoted text>
Note how chillingly self-referential this statement is.
Note how, despite "not reading my posts," the poster seems to have a very interesting way of attempting to *mirror what I say back at me*.
Note, far worse, how the poster attempts to assert *constant, unending, pathological control* over the situation by claiming to be able to "diagnose" a complete stranger WHOSE POSTS HE IS SUPPOSEDLY NOT READING WHATSOEVER.
Yeah, this is self-referential: I believe that a need to control others stems, in this poster, from a type of self-hatred wherein he feels *inadequately assertive*; that is to say, he attempts to assert control *because* he feels inferior.
Hi again hi hi, Amazing that you are still flogging yourself in attempts to have me respond to your unread postings. You really should take some time to heal yourself physically and mentally.
This is getting so boring but you will not win in demanding that I respond to your comments. How can I respond when they go unread?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1238
Jun 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
This response is literally meaningless, but makes you appear spineless. These types of things *always* make people look spineless, to me. Always.
From what you say, I guess I am not perfect after all.
Vote The Zebra Out

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1239
Jun 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Blacks don't have the intelligence to shrug off Obama.

They be waitin for their Boss Man's Obama money so they can throw a big party on the democrat plantation.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1241
Jun 17, 2012
 
I keep *repeatedly* forgetting about this, and am reminded again by the abuse of this individual.
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>Hi again hi hi, Amazing that you are still flogging yourself
Note the constant, unending need for control. Nothing this poster says has anything to do with anything *but a need to attempt to control the situation* and to characterize others.

I believe this to be self-referential, at this point: I believe that this poster believes *he is punishing himself* because he "wants to stop" but will not stop being abusive to someone else -- because his pride gets in the way.
Realist wrote:
in attempts to have me respond
Note the *salient* attempts to mischaracterize what is going on. In fact,*logic itself* dictates that if this poster isn't reading *a single word I write*,

there is literally no way

he could possibly know

my motives or objectives.

Literally *EVERYTHING* he says smacks of contradiction.
Realist wrote:
to your unread postings.
Note the constant and unending, obsessive (at this point) need to pretend there could be *no purpose* to the posts except for HIM to read them. The selfishness inherent in these statements masks a need to *control* the situation; it is literally and absolutely *all* this poster is about.
Realist wrote:
You really should take some time to heal yourself physically and mentally.
Here's a poster *diagnosing a complete stranger online*.

Wonder why I'm not buying this.

Because the poster *is obsessed* with a need to control this situation.
Realist wrote:
This is getting so boring but you will not win in demanding that I respond to your comments.
In a court of law,*this poster could literally not support this contention* on at least two grounds:

1. He claims not to be reading what I write, and so *is literally powerless* to speak to my motives of objectives.

2. My posts have explained *several times, and explicitly*, what the purpose of my responses is.

Why does this poster lie about my objective? He is obsessed with a need to control the situation.

Watch. Watch and see. He *will continue to lie* about my objectives and motives, despite the fact that he has no grounds upon which to do so.
Realist wrote:
How can I respond when they go unread?
Note the literal nonsensical "basis" for this statement:

The poster is responding repetitively and obsessively.

Mark my words: This poster is *clinically obsessed* with a need to control others, and has grown abusive in this context. With each post, I will literally rip apart his objectives for making the post and lay them bare upon the board, repeatedly refusing to back down and repeatedly refusing to allow this type of abusive behavior against those whom this poster "opposes." I do not suffer fools gladly and, by now, this poster knows that full well.

His responses have nothing to do with any higher or noble cause: His motives are 100% parasitic and selfish. He merely wants to "win" in the most meaningless, contextless way possible -- hence my unswerving assertions that he needs to "control" a situation.

Nothing he says has anything to do with motives for telling the board his objectives; his responses represent his unending need to attempt to "control" the situation. He has *LOST* control of the situation, and note what behavior this produces: At this point, he is almost obsessively repetitive with the *content* of his responses.
Realist

Greensboro, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1242
Jun 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

hi hi wrote:
I keep *repeatedly* forgetting about this, and am reminded again by the abuse of this individual.
<quoted text>
Note the constant, unending need for control. Nothing this poster says has anything to do with anything *but a need to attempt to control the situation* and to characterize others.
I believe this to be self-referential, at this point: I believe that this poster believes *he is punishing himself* because he "wants to stop" but will not stop being abusive to someone else -- because his pride gets in the way.
<quoted text>
Note the *salient* attempts to mischaracterize what is going on. In fact,*logic itself* dictates that if this poster isn't reading *a single word I write*,
there is literally no way
he could possibly know
my motives or objectives.
Literally *EVERYTHING* he says smacks of contradiction.
<quoted text>
Note the constant and unending, obsessive (at this point) need to pretend there could be *no purpose* to the posts except for HIM to read them. The selfishness inherent in these statements masks a need to *control* the situation; it is literally and absolutely *all* this poster is about.
<quoted text>
Here's a poster *diagnosing a complete stranger online*.
Wonder why I'm not buying this.
Because the poster *is obsessed* with a need to control this situation.
<quoted text>
In a court of law,*this poster could literally not support this contention* on at least two grounds:
1. He claims not to be reading what I write, and so *is literally powerless* to speak to my motives of objectives.
2. My posts have explained *several times, and explicitly*, what the purpose of my responses is.
Why does this poster lie about my objective? He is obsessed with a need to control the situation.
Watch. Watch and see. He *will continue to lie* about my objectives and motives, despite the fact that he has no grounds upon which to do so.
<quoted text>
Note the literal nonsensical "basis" for this statement:
The poster is responding repetitively and obsessively.
Mark my words: This poster is *clinically obsessed* with a need to control others, and has grown abusive in this context. With each post, I will literally rip apart his objectives for making the post and lay them bare upon the board, repeatedly refusing to back down and repeatedly refusing to allow this type of abusive behavior against those whom this poster "opposes." I do not suffer fools gladly and, by now, this poster knows that full well.
His responses have nothing to do with any higher or noble cause: His motives are 100% parasitic and selfish. He merely wants to "win" in the most meaningless, contextless way possible -- hence my unswerving assertions that he needs to "control" a situation.
Nothing he says has anything to do with motives for telling the board his objectives; his responses represent his unending need to attempt to "control" the situation. He has *LOST* control of the situation, and note what behavior this produces: At this point, he is almost obsessively repetitive with the *content* of his responses.
Oh no, say it isn't so hi hi, you are addressing me again since your self flogging is not enough punishment to satisfy your need for pain.
Ok, here you go. There is absolutely nothing you can say or do that will encourage me to respond to any of your comments since I do not read what you post.
I did read two of your postings ages ago and determined that your comments were lacking in depth and were totally stupid. In my world two strikes you are out. Your comments are not worth responding to so I don't bother reading them.
You need to get on with your life and quit the stalking.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1243
Jun 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Yawn.
Realist

Greensboro, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1245
Jun 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Eighthman wrote:
Yawn.
Agree, this thread is over unless hi hi continues his pursuit of attempting to be relevant. Naw, I'm out of here.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1246
Jun 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

ON TOPIC

The fact seems to be that homophobia is gradually declining in the national black community.
I bumped into a gay philosophy prof of European descent who teaches as an historically Black university where I taught for awhile in the mid-1990s.
I asked him if things have gotten any better for him or for gay students on campus.
"Much better than when you taught here, Savant" he replied. "Students seem more tolerant in 2012 than back in 1995. A new generation is on the scene."

And a recent poll indicates that 55% of Blacks in Maryland are in favor of marriage equality,
Things are changing. I doubt that Obama's stance on gay marriage rights will sink him in the Black community.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1247
Jun 18, 2012
 
Same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. I can't see anyone wanting to go back to the segregationist period of American history.
Democrat Douchebaggers

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1248
Jun 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ghost of Golem wrote:
Black people in general hate gays and so do latinos.
B.S.

The blacks and latinos will kiss their asses at high noon on main street if the gays will vote for Obama.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1249
Jun 18, 2012
 
What would it be without a chior director?
Vote The Maggot Out

Georgetown, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1250
Jun 18, 2012
 
RayOne wrote:
What would it be without a chior director?
I'm not real sure RayOne. What's a chior?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,161 - 1,180 of1,367
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••
•••