What's The Point ?

[cj's dad]

Obama Hangs Painting In White House Depicting Black Girl Being Taunted By Whites During 1960s…

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obama_ruby-550x298.jpg

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/08/24/obama-hangs-painting-depicting-black-girl-being-taunted-by-whites-during-1960s/

[PhantomOnTour]

Good question...seems more of a personal than professional move.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I apologize if I'm reading the yellow arm bands incorrectly, but aren't those US Marines leading the little girl into school (presumably)?

[rastajenk]

U.S. Marshalls

[Saratoga_Mike]

U.S. Marshalls

Thank you. I don't find the photo offensive in any manner. It's a part of history.

[FantasticDan]

http://www.blackradionetwork.com/painting

A better question would be what's the point of there being a critical thread about this..?

[DJofSD]

The president just wants to perpetuate the victim status. And then folks wonder why relations among the races is not better than it is.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The president just wants to perpetuate the victim status. And then folks wonder why relations among the races is not better than it is.

The little girl was a victim, no?

[lsbets]

I think the painting is a great reminder of how far we've come as a nation in the last 50 years. The fact that a 6 year old girl needed to be escorted into school with armed protection simply because she was black is pitiful. It doesn't hurt to remember our history - the good and the bad. And I think that 50 years after this happened the fact that a black man was elected President, shows how a great nation is able to right its wrongs.

Please don't mistake the above statement as in any way suggesting I think Obama is any good at his job. I do wish the first black President had been competent, but it is impossible not to recognize how far our nation has come in 50 years.

[cj's dad]

http://www.blackradionetwork.com/painting

A better question would be what's the point of there being a critical thread about this..?

Maybe the hypocrisy.


Anyway, I'm so happy you brought this up. BHO is, as you know, a member of the Democrat party. It was the Democrats that tried with all their power (read racism) to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That bill would be the precursor to allowing this young child and others to attend previously segregated schools.

For your enlightenment:

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Snip> The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr.) (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-5) Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality) and intermingling and amalgamation of the races (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation) in our (Southern) states."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-6)

· The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond) (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States) proposals and actions of the radical Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans) Congress."


Voting By party:

The original House version




Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-12)



Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)



Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)



Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Snip>Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875), Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General) to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions.<Snip

more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Hmmm: looks like the Republican Party, the Party of the President that freed the slaves, was more in favor of this Act than the Democrats.

[Robert Goren]

Like all of American History that era should not be forgotten anymore than the Revolutionary War or the Civil War. For Blacks in this country, The 60s Civil Rights Movement was their Revolutionary War. I think some people are a little uncomfortable about it because their fathers and grandfathers were on the wrong side of it. Anybody dumb enough to think that this fight is over should pay a visit to a small town in central Nebraska. You would be amazed at the racist crap you would hear.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think the painting is a great reminder of how far we've come as a nation in the last 50 years. The fact that a 6 year old girl needed to be escorted into school with armed protection simply because she was black is pitiful. It doesn't hurt to remember our history - the good and the bad. And I think that 50 years after this happened the fact that a black man was elected President, shows how a great nation is able to right its wrongs.

Please don't mistake the above statement as in any way suggesting I think Obama is any good at his job. I do wish the first black President had been competent, but it is impossible not to recognize how far our nation has come in 50 years.

GREAT POST!

[Saratoga_Mike]

Maybe the hypocrisy.


Anyway, I'm so happy you brought this up. BHO is, as you know, a member of the Democrat party. It was the Democrats that tried with all their power (read racism) to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That bill would be the precursor to allowing this young child and others to attend previously segregated schools.

For your enlightenment:

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Snip> The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr.) (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-5) Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality) and intermingling and amalgamation of the races (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation) in our (Southern) states."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-6)

· The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond) (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States) proposals and actions of the radical Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans) Congress."


Voting By party:

The original House version




Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-12)



Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)



Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)



Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Snip>Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875), Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General) to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions.<Snip

more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Hmmm: looks like the Republican Party, the Party of the President that freed the slaves, was more in favor of this Act than the Democrats.

But what does this have to do with a photo of a little girl being escorted by US Marshalls? Is your point that she was being terrorized (indirectly) by both sides of the political aisle? If so, fine.

[Robert Goren]

Many of the Dixiecrats voting against the civil right bill of 1964 became Republicans including the SC Sen Strom Thurmond. I doubt that many of the Northern Republicans that voted for the civil rights bill would be very comfortable in today's Republican party.
Strom Thurmond was a US Senator from 1954-2003. He changed parties in 1964 to support Barry Goldwater who had also voted against the Civil Rights Bill. He made no bones about the reason he changed parties. It was about Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Bill. He was a Democrat senator for less than 10 years and a Republican senator more than 38 years.

[Tom]

He can hang any damn pictures he wants to, as long he plugs the holes up when he moves out in a year.

[cj's dad]

Saratoga Mike – post #13 - But what does this have to do with a photo of a little girl being escorted by US Marshalls? Is your point that she was being terrorized (indirectly) by both sides of the political aisle? If so, fine.

*Louisiana was a heavily Democratic state at the time so it was hardly both sides. In the House, the vote was 39% nay by the Dems.

Fantasic Dan - post #6-- A better question would be what's the point of there being a critical thread about this..?

*The hypocrisy and divisiveness

Robert Goren – post #14 - Many of the Dixiecrats voting against the civil right bill of 1964 became Republicans

*From Wikipedia: The party did not run local or state candidates and after the 1948 election, its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

Robert Goren – post #14 - It was about Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Bill. He was a Democrat senator for less than 10 years and a Republican senator more than 38 years.

*But he WAS a Democrat in 1964

[Saratoga_Mike]

CJD - You seem to be shifting away from the topic (I'm guilty of that a lot too). Let's stipulate your point about Dems. Okay, now back to your first post. I don't understand your problem here - please respond to lebets' post --I could not agree with him more. Thanks.

[cj's dad]

CJD - You seem to be shifting away from the topic (I'm guilty of that a lot too). Let's stipulate your point about Dems. Okay, now back to your first post. I don't understand your problem here - please respond to lebets' post --I could not agree with him more. Thanks.

I think it is a divisive image that can do more harm than good. Then, as is obvious, that is just my opinion.

I also think that it is hypocritical since the Civil Rights Act, which preceded this event, was heavily opposed by the Dems.

And finally, the Title of this thread was "What's The Point"? and I still feel that way.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think it is a divisive image that can do more harm than good. Then, as is obvious, that is just my opinion.

I also think that it is hypocritical since the Civil Rights Act, which preceded this event, was heavily opposed by the Dems.

And finally, the Title of this thread was "What's The Point"? and I still feel that way.

The point is to mark history, as lsbets so eloquently noted (that was a great post).

Why is it hypocritical? Do you think Obama would have opposed the Civil Rights Act if he were old enough to have an opinion at the time? Who is being hypocritical? I'm not being a smart-a** - I just don't get the hypocritical point at all???

[Tom]

I think it underscores his desire to push reparations.
Maybe a better picture to post would have the little girl graduating.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Has he talked about repariations since becoming president?

[ArlJim78]

This president delights in highlighting America's faults, which this painting surely does. Is this part of a series of paintings on American history, showing the bad and the good? If so you might be able to say that the purpose is to mark history. Otherwise he has a very selective taste of US history. And why now to show this picture? curious.

9/11 is a painful part of recent American history, yet this president insists not to dwell on the negative, but to look forward and make that day about service. Probably no paintings of the 9/11 disaster and subsequent heroism will be put up in the WH.

This president allows his party to freely use the race card against his opponents, never calling them out on it, although he claims to be a uniter.

How would everyone take it if this picture were put up in George Bush's WH? with the "N" word and all. Would it be taken so lightly as merely marking history? or would he be pilloried as a racist?

The KKK is a part of American history, what if GWB had painting of a lynching by guys in white hooded robes put up prominently for all to see. Wouldn't that also be marking history? Is that a history that needs to be marked? or would it more rightly be called divisive and fanning the flames of hatred?

There are many pictures that capture American history good or bad, that don't belong on display in the Whitehouse. this is all about the campaign, fanning the flames, igniting his base, plaing the victim card, and nothing whatsoever to do with marking history.

that's the way I see it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

.

The KKK is a part of American history, what if GWB had painting of a lynching by guys in white hooded robes put up prominently for all to see. Wouldn't that also be marking history? Is that a history that needs to be marked? or would it more rightly be called divisive and fanning the flames of hatred?



And you would see that as the moral equivalent to US Marshalls leading a little girl to school? This picture underscores the country doing the right thing, sending out US Marshalls to protect this little girl. See, there's a redemptive message in this picture. What's the redemptive message in your hypothetical example?

Again, lsbets' post says it all!

[Greyfox]

Everything, Obama says and does is for a political gain reason. Everything.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Everything, Obama says and does is for a political gain reason. Everything.

Yes, like vacationing in MV--that's really helping him politically. Hey, you said EVERYTHING.

[Greyfox]

Yes, like vacationing in MV--that's really helping him politically. Hey, you said EVERYTHING.

I stand corrected.
I should have said Everything Obama says and does is for a political gain reason and self-interest.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I stand corrected.
I should have said Everything Obama says and does is for a political gain reason and self-interest.

Please contrast that with Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Thanks.

[Tom]

Has he talked about repariations since becoming president?

Yes. He has talked about re-distribution of wealth.
Code.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes. He has talked about re-distribution of wealth.
Code.

code - your opinion

[mostpost]

Obama Hangs Painting In White House Depicting Black Girl Being Taunted By Whites During 1960s…

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obama_ruby-550x298.jpg

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/08/24/obama-hangs-painting-depicting-black-girl-being-taunted-by-whites-during-1960s/
Why is this a picturing of a black girl being taunted by whites? Why is it not a picture of the United States affording a quality education to all of its citizens? Or a picture of the United States protecting even the smallest, least significant of its citizens.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why is this a picturing of a black girl being taunted by whites? Why is it not a picture of the United States affording a quality education to all of its citizens? Or a picture of the United States protecting even the smallest, least significant of its citizens.

It is just that.

[mostpost]

http://www.blackradionetwork.com/painting

A better question would be what's the point of there being a critical thread about this..?
So that CJ'sDad can have another excuse to issue a false claim of racism against Obama.

[TJDave]

Everything Obama says and does is for a political gain reason and self-interest.

And this makes him different from other politicians, how?

Wake up and smell the coffee. All the things he does, others do. He's where he is because he does it better.

[ArlJim78]

And you would see that as the moral equivalent to US Marshalls leading a little girl to school? This picture underscores the country doing the right thing, sending out US Marshalls to protect this little girl. See, there's a redemptive message in this picture. What's the redemptive message in your hypothetical example?

Again, lsbets' post says it all!
I didn't claim there was anything redemptive about it. I said it was an ugly part of American history. the marshalls escorting the girl isn't enough to give it an uplifting feel imo.

Okay for the sake of argument, throw a good guy into my scenario. During the lynching a little white boy is doing the right thing and trying to stop it. is that redeeming enough to hang on the wall of the white house? r

[Saratoga_Mike]

I didn't claim there was anything redemptive about it. I said it was an ugly part of American history. the marshalls escorting the girl isn't enough to give it an uplifting feel imo.

Okay for the sake of argument, throw a good guy into my scenario. During the lynching a little white boy is doing the right thing and trying to stop it. is that redeeming enough to hang on the wall of the white house? r

No, there's no violence in this picture. Please look at it again.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I didn't claim there was anything redemptive about it. I said it was an ugly part of American history. the marshalls escorting the girl isn't enough to give it an uplifting feel imo.

Okay for the sake of argument, throw a good guy into my scenario. During the lynching a little white boy is doing the right thing and trying to stop it. is that redeeming enough to hang on the wall of the white house? r

No, there's no violence in this picture. Please look at it again.

Here's the bottom line: you and others read way too much into Obama's every move. "He's wearing a red tie." That's it -he's a Commie, I knew it!

That's just my opinion of course, and I suspect you disagree - perhaps strongly.

[mostpost]

Maybe the hypocrisy.


Anyway, I'm so happy you brought this up. BHO is, as you know, a member of the Democrat party. It was the Democrats that tried with all their power (read racism) to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That bill would be the precursor to allowing this young child and others to attend previously segregated schools.

For your enlightenment:

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Snip> The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr.) (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-5) Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality) and intermingling and amalgamation of the races (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation) in our (Southern) states."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-6)

· The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond) (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States) proposals and actions of the radical Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans) Congress."


Voting By party:

The original House version




Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-12)



Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)



Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)



Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Snip>Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875), Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General) to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions.<Snip

more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Hmmm: looks like the Republican Party, the Party of the President that freed the slaves, was more in favor of this Act than the Democrats.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
[edit]

As you see above All Southern Republicans opposed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 93% of Southern House Democrats opposed it and 95% of Southern Senators were opposed.

Among Northern House members 94% of Democrats favored the bill while 85% of Republicans voted yes. In the Senate, the respective numbers were 98% and 84%.

Clearly the opposition was based on region, not on party.

As Robert Goren has pointed out, many of the southern Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 left the Democratic party and became Republicans. And they were welcomed with open arms by the Republican Party
which, then as now, is more interested in winning elections than in serving the nation.

[Greyfox]

And this makes him different from other politicians, how?

Wake up and smell the coffee. All the things he does, others do. He's where he is because he does it better.

The point is that picture is there for his political reasons. It's purchased on the tax payer's dime (dollars), not his own. He was not acting in the general best interests of Americans in having it purchased and placed.
It's not there for aesthetics, adding to the beauty of a wall, or anything else.
It is there for Obama's political agenda. Have some coffee, the penny might drop and you'll "see the picture."

[mostpost]

I think the painting is a great reminder of how far we've come as a nation in the last 50 years. The fact that a 6 year old girl needed to be escorted into school with armed protection simply because she was black is pitiful. It doesn't hurt to remember our history - the good and the bad. And I think that 50 years after this happened the fact that a black man was elected President, shows how a great nation is able to right its wrongs.

Please don't mistake the above statement as in any way suggesting I think Obama is any good at his job. I do wish the first black President had been competent, but it is impossible not to recognize how far our nation has come in 50 years.

Kudos to lsbets and other conservatives in this thread who have recognized this for what it is.
Unkudos to those who are portraying it as racist or divisive or hypocritical.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The point is that picture is there for his political reasons. It's purchased on the tax payer's dime (dollars), not his own. He was not acting in the general best interests of Americans in having it purchased and placed.
It's not there for aesthetics, adding to the beauty of a wall, or anything else.
It is there for Obama's political agenda. Have some coffee, the penny might drop and you'll "see the picture."

The picture is on loan from the Norman Rockwell Museum. It will remain in the White House until October. So what are you talking about?

[ArlJim78]

No, there's no violence in this picture. Please look at it again.

Here's the bottom line: you and others read way too much into Obama's every move. "He's wearing a red tie." That's it -he's a Commie, I knew it!

That's just my opinion of course, and I suspect you disagree - perhaps strongly.
and my opinion is that you and others are still a bit oblivious to what is going on.

no violence! huh? the epithets and whatever it is that was hurled and splattered against the wall do not suggest violence? There wouldn't be marshalls there if there was no violent element to it.

Look I could go on forever, and change my description until it matched whatever your concept is of this painting, but my only point is that the Whitehouse is not a proper setting for this painting, and that to discount the politics and timing of it is a bit naive.

[Saratoga_Mike]

and my opinion is that you and others are still a bit oblivious to what is going on.

no violence! huh? the epithets and whatever it is that was hurled and splattered against the wall do not suggest violence? There wouldn't be marshalls there if there was no violent element to it.

Look I could go on forever, and change my description until it matched whatever your concept is of this painting, but my only point is that the Whitehouse is not a proper setting for this painting, and that to discount the politics and timing of it is a bit naive.

How is the timing good? The piece is on loan until October. By next fall, the "gesture" will be long forgotten. Why didn't they wait until next fall?

The words in the picture are vulgar and disgusting, but they don't depict violence like your would-be lynching picture.

[Greyfox]

The picture is on loan from the Norman Rockwell Museum. It will remain in the White House until October. So what are you talking about?

My mistake. I assumed otherwise.
It is still there for political purposes though.

[Saratoga_Mike]

My mistake. I assumed otherwise.
It is still there for political purposes though.

I disagree with you on the "political purposes" point, but you just did a rare thing for this board: you admitted you made a mistake. Most would have just ignored it. Thank you for owning up to it.

[Robert Goren]

My mistake. I assumed otherwise.
It is still there for political purposes though.I agree. It does carry a political message. That message is: There are was time in this country that we are not proud of, but unlike other countries we live with are history both good and bad. And we don't care if the sons and grandsons of the people who made presence of the US Marshalls necessary don't like it.
I think that picture hits a little too close to home for some people. That why they object to it hanging the White House. The question I have for the people who object to it, which side of the Civil Rights Movement was your father or grandfather on? And are you proud of their actions?

[bigmack]

The question I have for the people who object to it, which side of the Civil Rights Movement was your father or grandfather on? And are you proud of their actions?
Wow, heavy shit. :lol:

Aren't you the one who thinks 100% of Nebraskans are racists?

[Robert Goren]

Wow, heavy shit. :lol:

Aren't you the one who thinks 100% of Nebraskans are racists?Not 100%, but there are no shortage of them here. The futher you get from Lincoln and Omaha, the more overt it becomes.

[Pell Mell]

It's there because the little girl depicted is Maxine Waters. :p

[JustRalph]

This is an attempt to gain back some of the black vote. It also appeals to white guilt ridden independents. Pure an simple politics. A reminder that he considers himself black, and they should too

[cj's dad]

So that CJ'sDad can have another excuse to issue a false claim of racism against Obama.

Since you brought up racism:

He and you (IMO) are racists in as much as you never see the underlying reason(s) for what has been done since he was sworn into office. Then again, that's on you.

The posting of this picture has no merit, it only seeks to divide us which this a---ole has done quite well since his ascension to the presidency. Then again with your limited education (you are after all a retired postal worker, ala Cliff Claven) how would you possibly understand that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Since you brought up racism:

He and you (IMO) are racists in as much as you never see the underlying reason(s) for what has been done since he was sworn into office. Then again, that's on you.

The posting of this picture has no merit, it only seeks to divide us which this a---ole has done quite well since his ascension to the presidency. Then again with your limited education (you are after all a retired postal worker, ala Cliff Claven) how would you possibly understand that.

Why does it divide us CJD? I'm proud of those US Marshals and happy for the little girl. Why do you feel divided by it?

[Tom]

code - your opinion
Shared by many.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This is an attempt to gain back some of the black vote. It also appeals to white guilt ridden independents. Pure an simple politics. A reminder that he considers himself black, and they should too

It also appeals to people who aren't insane. And I will NOT be voting for Obama.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Shared by many.

Sadly, yes.

[Tom]

It's there because the little girl depicted is Maxine Waters. :p

MLK's niece gave her a baaaaaad review today on FOX.
To bad MLK's spirit lives on in so few these days.
Crude like Maxine shame his memory and his good work.
Then again, Maxine shames humanity.

[Saratoga_Mike]

MLK's niece gave her a baaaaaad review today on FOX.
To bad MLK's spirit lives on in so few these days.
Crude like Maxine shame his memory and his good work.
Then again, Maxine shames humanity.

Who got the bad review - Maxine Waters or the litte girl in the picture (now an adult obviously)? I hope it was Maxine - she's a disgrace.

[Tom]

Sadly, yes.

Sadly = your opinion.

Tag.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Sadly = your opinion.

Tag.

True.

[Tom]

I think the painting is a great reminder of how far we've come as a nation in the last 50 years. The fact that a 6 year old girl needed to be escorted into school with armed protection simply because she was black is pitiful. It doesn't hurt to remember our history - the good and the bad. And I think that 50 years after this happened the fact that a black man was elected President, shows how a great nation is able to right its wrongs.

Please don't mistake the above statement as in any way suggesting I think Obama is any good at his job. I do wish the first black President had been competent, but it is impossible not to recognize how far our nation has come in 50 years.

This is same America that Michelle was not proud of.

[mostpost]

Since you brought up racism:

He and you (IMO) are racists in as much as you never see the underlying reason(s) for what has been done since he was sworn into office. Then again, that's on you.
You see this picture as an attempt to divide the country. I see it as a celebration of a time when we began moving beyond a bad time in our history. The important thing about the picture is not the people yelling epithets or the word written on the wall, it is the commitment to what is right epitomized by the U.S. marshals. The painting is about the future. You are about the past.
People who rarely agree with me-ie lsbets, Rastejenek, and Saratoga Mike-agree on this.
Posting this picture has no merit, it only seeks to divide us which this a---ole has done quite well since his ascension to the presidency. Then again with your limited education (you are after all a retired postal worker, ala Cliff Claven) how would you possibly understand that.

The merit in posting this painting is that it shows us where we we and where we are now. It does not divide us except that it divides me form the angry white parents at that school.

BTW No one ascends to the Presidency. One is elected.

Thank you for pointing out that I am a retired postal worker again. I think everyone gets it. They get that you have no real argument and must resort to insult and distraction. Can I have a show of hands of those who think this is getting really old?

[boxcar]

The merit in posting this painting is that it shows us where we we and where we are now.

I always thought the motto of progressives is that it's time to move on? Why do you want to live in the past?

When you get a wound and it starts to heal, do you pick at it so it starts to bleed again? And then when it heals again, do you irritate it another time to open it up again? You do that enough times, you wind up with permanent scars, right? Oh wait...that exactly what a racist like BO would want, isn't it? To show the world that American blacks are perpetual victims of an evil, white man's society. Exactly what he was taught in Sunday school and in "sermons" by Wright for 20+ years.

Boxcar


It does not divide us except that it divides me form the angry white parents at that school.

BTW No one ascends to the Presidency. One is elected.

Thank you for pointing out that I am a retired postal worker again. I think everyone gets it. They get that you have no real argument and must resort to insult and distraction. Can I have a show of hands of those who think this is getting really old?[/QUOTE]

[newtothegame]

The WH in my opinion, is NOT a place for this type of art.
I thought the idea was to get past racism? Not relive it daily. Next, for those that say it is not devisive, apparently you are not offended by the word in the back ground of the picture. There are still plenty of folks in this country who the "N" word offends greatly. The mere mention of that word can take a sane person, and turn them into a raving mad man.
For those who say it's a part of history which is ok to display....Then I would pose the same question if it were a white president and bush had displays of KKK, swastika's etc etc would that be appropriate in the name of history?

This guy, Obama, has a history! It's with Rev J Wright (who it has been shown trinity united isnt an exactly all encompassing, loving ALL people church.

It's with a wife who has said as recent as a few years ago, she isnt proud of america....

It's with a history of putting his nose into police affairs that involved a BLACK professor from Harvard and WHITE cops....(has there been a case yet where a white man arrested by black men and the president has intervened?? maybe I am not sure)..

It's with a justice department who has turned a blind eye to the New Black Panther Party and some voting place possible violations.....

It's with a justice department that led by Holder and ultimately Obama, has been OPENLY accused of reverse racism by federal prosecutors....

And, I am sure more people could post more things that show "racism"....
Problem with all of the above is that I again (as posted in another thread) do NOT believe he ahs helped the poor blacks any more then the poor whites. he is a politician. That, ultimately is the reason I believe as to why this "art" is hanging in the WH. He is trying to appeal to a certain group.

As was noted earlier in this thread...problem is if people knew the truth about the history of parties, maybe they would realize that the democrats were the real racist in this all.

Again, I just don't believe the WH is the appropriate place for this type of ART....

[cj's dad]

Thanks NTTG. you get the racism, divisiveness, and the hypocrisy of the Dems. and this Pres.