by freemindfade 86 Replies latest social current
Some of the most racist people are the light blacks against their more dark brothers.
True.
Why?
It goes the other way, also.
Two examples: I had the misfortune of being born very light-skinned. My maternal grandma disliked me intensely.
One of my grandsons is even lighter. His mother had to request that he be transferred to a different class due to his teacher's dislike of him.
Sylvia
This is the problem with having numbskulls in charge who do not understand the Constitution or how government works. Pfffft!
I hear you Sylvia, from your post I guess we're around the same shade, there will never be a color palate in the world that can represent all the different shades of African-Americans.
Even Oprah made a documentary of "the race within the race", some of us need to get over this "color" thing.
The old school thinking of black men marrying the lighter skinned women some how still holds true, ask some teenage guys what kind of black women they're attracted to and the answer would be the same as it was in 1937 and before that.
I have to honestly say that the Black Power civil rights movement did help, but then some black men have the same thinking like I"ve quoted above
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.
The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.
Let's keep up with the investigation into the Russian Connection.
I understand some will be going to jail.
Uh oh.
Sylvia
As usual, Occam's razor fails again when conspiracy theorists put their heads together. I see no proof presented to confirm that Rice's requests were political, aside from her being associated with Obama. She had every right to request the unmasking of individuals if it was pertinent to the understanding of the conversations being monitored. In some cases, unmasking is necessary to let an individual know if they are being discussed by other parties with ill intent. In such cases, it would be gross negligence if the third party were not informed, and then came to harm.
As I recall, the Slate article even brought out the fact that it most likely wasn't illegal for her to request that information. Also, any attempt to correlate unmasking with leaking is baseless.
From what I can see, the assumption has been made that solely because it was Susan Rice in the Obama administration who made the requests, it was automatically a nefarious plot. No proof given, only claims of malfeasance.
I found it comical that as soon as this report aired, the comment section on Slate was inundated by right wing trolls, who pounced on this little scrap of nothing like a pack of wild dogs in their need to have any confirmation of Trump's Tweet.
When you have any credible evidence to show that Susan Rice leaked the names of Trump's associates to anyone in the intelligence community who wasn't entitled to that information, I'll listen.
Till then, you are simply conspiracy theorists, with a clear bias that consumes you with hatred for anything Obama, and willingly led by any news, however baseless, that confirms your bias.
The Russian Connection ...
Sylvia
Spoletta
All I have been saying is it's worth looking into. I even said it's not likely she broke the law and this is probably more of an issue of propriety over legality. There was discussion of HOW she could have broken the law, but I don't expect you to not know the difference based on past discussions.
And FYI Rice has a history of saying and doing whatever is necessary to give political cover to Barack Obama, even if it meant stretching the truth, misleading or misinforming the public. Aka LYING for political reason. That's not anyone's conspiracy, but fact.
Rice blamed on “a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.” Why? Was she misinformed? Noooope. It was done for political reasons to cover up any policy failure in the area.
Also, this was pretty awesome
"I leaked nothing to nobody"-Susan Rice
Either her education was a waste, or she is using a double negative for some reason.
Susan's grammar is absolutely flawless.
Her saying, "I leaked nothing to nobody," is same as saying, "I did not leak anything to anybody."
Time for a refresher course, no?
Sylvia
