In trying to point out that black Republicans often have to against many of their "own" Ann Coulter said:

 

“That’s why our blacks are so much better than their blacks,” Coulter said. “To become a black Republican you don’t just roll into it. You’re not going with the flow. You have fought against probably your family members, probably your neighbors, you have thought everything out and that’s why we have very impressive blacks in our party.”

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/156040/ann-coulter-defends-our-blacks-are-better-than-their-blacks-statement/

 

She then trumped that with:

 

“The only racism you hear in America is against conservative blacks.”

 

 

 

What world does she live in that:

 

A. It's acceptable to refer to blacks as "our blacks?"

B. Where she thinks only black conservatives experience racist talk and attitudes?

 

I'm not arguing the point she was trying to make initially that it's not easy being a black conservative. Numbers support that.

 

Her rhetoric gets her the attention she so desperately craves and sells her books.

Absolutely. She gets paid to say those outlandish things. I should have finished college.

 

 

Plus, the blacks in her party are not impressive. That's the problem. Impressive blacks bring more blacks with them. When blacks that I consider to be the intellectual blacks, such as my father, begin to lean the republican way then I'll listen and see why for myself. That day hasn't come.

If anyone is confused as to why nearly 90% or more of black voters do not support Republican candidates, the fact that sentiments such as these are expressed by prominent conservative voices is Exhibit A.

It is humorous to me how people think Ann Coulter needs to make outlandish statements in order to sell her books. Apparently 'vile' words and phrases don't sell books or make people watch you. Otherwise MSNBC would be up in the ratings.

 

Second, I think, if we use common sense, its easy to clarify that Coulter was talking about blacks on our side. What is wrong with saying 'our blacks'? Seriously? Are you guys just looking for something to complain about?

 

I'm sure you guys were this upset when Harry Reid described Obama as a " light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." And how that will help him get elected. Puh-lease.

She was right up until the last line. That was ignorant.

Also, I am curious as to why Black voters vote for the democrats now days. I mean, what have the democrats done ever-more so than republicans- to further their place in the US? It wasn't the Civil Rights act of 1866, that was Republicans. It wasn't the Civil Rights act of 1964 or the voting acts or '65. Republicans voted those on a heavier scale than the democrats. Can anyone help?

It is humorous to me how people think Ann Coulter needs to make outlandish statements in order to sell her books. Apparently 'vile' words and phrases don't sell books or make people watch you. Otherwise MSNBC would be up in the ratings.

 

Second, I think, if we use common sense, its easy to clarify that Coulter was talking about blacks on our side. What is wrong with saying 'our blacks'? Seriously? Are you guys just looking for something to complain about?

 

I'm sure you guys were this upset when Harry Reid described Obama as a " light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." And how that will help him get elected. Puh-lease.

 

Marvel, you're a good young man from all indications on here. I mean that.

 

However, you're too young to appreciate the impact that words have especially when it comes to "blacks."

 

Blacks are not owned by any one or any group. Any wording using any hint of ownership even as innocent as this one was is ignorant. While in another thread many assumed I was a black man I am not. However, I'm smart enough to know that if I were a black man I sure as heck do not want some white chick using "our blacks" in ANY CONTEXT.

 

She is an intelligent person. I can't stand her. I think she is 100% symbolic of the problems we have when it comes to the vitriol in today's politics. She should be smart enough (and she is) to know what words to use.

 

To your "tit for tat" comment regarding Harry Reid I say "absolutely."

 

Black men and women still pick out the code words and the intended or unintended slights like Mr Reid gave.

 

This is pure ignorance and simply inexcusable.

She was right up until the last line. That was ignorant.

 

The point she was trying to make is irrelevant.

 

However, are you saying black Rs are more impressive than black Ds?

The point she was trying to make is irrelevant.

 

However, are you saying black Rs are more impressive than black Ds?

 

I believe so and I think she expressed that part very well.

I believe so and I think she expressed that part very well.

 

You believe one party's "blacks" are better than another's? How in the world could you ever quantify that or validate that theory?

You believe one party's "blacks" are better than another's? How in the world could you ever quantify that or validate that theory?

 

I can't but I did notice you haven't challenged PP92 in post 2 for having the same thoughts the other way. Why is that?

Absolutely. She gets paid to say those outlandish things. I should have finished college.

 

 

Plus, the blacks in her party are not impressive. That's the problem. Impressive blacks bring more blacks with them. When blacks that I consider to be the intellectual blacks, such as my father, begin to lean the republican way then I'll listen and see why for myself. That day hasn't come.

Would you consider Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice to be "intellectual blacks"?

Also, I am curious as to why Black voters vote for the democrats now days. I mean, what have the democrats done ever-more so than republicans- to further their place in the US? It wasn't the Civil Rights act of 1866, that was Republicans. It wasn't the Civil Rights act of 1964 or the voting acts or '65. Republicans voted those on a heavier scale than the democrats. Can anyone help?

 

Possibly.

 

1866 isn't nowadays. Even 1964 and 1965 isn't nowadays. The Republican party of Lincoln isn't quite the same as the Republican party of Coulter. The Southern Democrat bloc of the middle 60s I would guess isn't quite the same either, I would speculate.

Edited November 3, 201114 yr by Birdsfan

I can't but I did notice you haven't challenged PP92 in post 2 for having the same thoughts the other way. Why is that?

 

Only because I was stunned by your response.

 

I totally disagree with PP92 . There is no party that has "better" blacks. That's offensive at every level and it's simply incapable of being proven.

 

Who has the better Chicanos? Jews? Come on. This is pure ignorance.

 

The ONLY true thing she said is that it is harder being a black R and a black D.

Possibly.

 

1866 isn't nowadays. Even 1964 and 1965 isn't nowadays. The Republican party of Lincoln isn't quite the same as the Republican party of Coulter. The Southern Democrat bloc of the middle 60s I would guess isn't quite the same either, I would speculate.

 

Correct.