Post: #1

U.S. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) reportedly asked his wife to be his "porn star" in a hand-written letter from Iraq in 2003, detailing "non-negotiable" sex acts she was to perform on his return and ordering her to wear only two-piece bathing suits.

Former Palm Beach Post and Radar.com staffer Jose Lambiet published some of the contents of the letter on his South Florida site Gossip Extra, arguing the intimate details are news-worthy because the way the Tea Party Congressman relates to women has become an issue in his reelection race.

Lambiet said he exclusively obtained the letter written to financial advisor Dr. Angela West, whom the former Army Lt. Colonel married in 1989. Among the contents:

The congressman proceeds tells his wife he expects certain intimate acts upon his return that will be “the standard and it is non-negotiable.”
...Then: “Angela, I need to know, are you committed to being my porn star?

“I do not want to hear ‘no’ or ‘we’ll see about that.’ I want my fantasies to be with you. God has authorized you and you only as my partner for intimacy and that is what I want.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01...29812.html

Biden aint the only one putting heaux in their place tho

Post: #2

The words "black" and "Republican" (in the modern sense, anyway) really shouldn't go together in a sentence. When they do, the result (a black republican**) is usually less than ideal.

Exhibit A: Allen West

**: Trust me, I used to be one.

Post: #3

His God reference in the sentence on the above Meme is strange, but doesn't surprise me for a conservative religious dude. Anyway this was just a high-ranking man at war who was horny for his wife. I tend to ignore most of what religious people say when it relates to God and cut to the core, because usually they're just using God for justification in expressing their true emotional - in this case sexual - feelings.

Post: #4

I'm failing to see what the problem is with a man writing like this to his wife; especially when he's off for months at a time fighting a war.

Post: #5

(10-02-2012 03:45 PM)Smitty Wrote:  I'm failing to see what the problem is with a man writing like this to his wife; especially when he's off for months at a time fighting a war.

The problem is it's an election year and he's trying to get elected.

Post: #6

(10-02-2012 01:28 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  The words "black" and "Republican" (in the modern sense, anyway) really shouldn't go together in a sentence.

"Black" and "Republican" makes as much sense as a Republican Gay rights activist.

Post: #7

(10-02-2012 01:28 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  The words "black" and "Republican" (in the modern sense, anyway) really shouldn't go together in a sentence. When they do, the result (a black republican**) is usually less than ideal.

Exhibit A: Allen West

**: Trust me, I used to be one.

So what are you Athlone? I can't see why a black intellectual would want to be liberal (or be part of the Republican party for that matter).

Post: #8

(10-02-2012 04:49 PM)rakishness Wrote:  "Black" and "Republican" makes as much sense as a Republican Gay rights activist.

For most of US history, Blacks have voted Republican.

First, there was President Lincoln, who freed the slaves.

But then it was the Republican party that got the first two black Senators (look up Hiram Revels) and the first 21 House of Representatives members elected to Congress. Even the first black Governor was elected by the Republican party.

Meanwhile the Klu Klux Klan was part of the Democrat party, and created to repress Republican voters. Blacks were not even permitted to attend Democrat Conventions before 1924.

The change of black voters to the Democrat party is a relatively new phenomena, tied to union control of the Democrat party and union control over membership telling them which party to vote in exchange for access to jobs. There is today "a fairly long-term pattern of decreasing identification with the Democrats by younger African Americans." Republicans like Jennifer Carroll, Tim Scott, Allen West, and Mia Love continue to find support and success in the Republican party.

Post: #9

(10-02-2012 06:04 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 04:49 PM)rakishness Wrote:  "Black" and "Republican" makes as much sense as a Republican Gay rights activist.

For most of US history, Blacks have voted Republican.

First, there was President Lincoln, who freed the slaves.

But then it was the Republican party that got the first two black Senators (look up Hiram Revels) and the first 21 House of Representatives members elected to Congress. Even the first black Governor was also elected by the Republican party.

Meanwhile the Klu Klux Klan was part of the Democrat party, and created to repress Republican voters. Blacks were not even permitted to attend Democrat Conventions before 1924.

The change of black voters to the Democrat party is a relatively new phenomena, tied to union control of the Democrat party and union control over membership telling them which party to vote in exchange for access to jobs. There is today "a fairly long-term pattern of decreasing identification with the Democrats by younger African Americans." Republicans like Jennifer Carroll, Tim Scott, Allen West, and Mia Love continue to find support and success in the Republican party.

You have to be kidding me. They changed sides because of the Civil Rights act and the Southern Strategy, not because of unions.

Post: #10

Im half black, and Im also curious to hear what Athlone has to say. Its almost obvious that I was raised Democratic, but when I became an adult and a man and no longer wanted handouts I went republican and now I just dont bother with any of it.

Post: #11

(10-02-2012 01:28 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  The words "black" and "Republican" (in the modern sense, anyway) really shouldn't go together in a sentence. When they do, the result (a black republican**) is usually less than ideal.

Exhibit A: Allen West

**: Trust me, I used to be one.

[attachment=7970]

Post: #12

(10-02-2012 04:49 PM)rakishness Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 01:28 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  The words "black" and "Republican" (in the modern sense, anyway) really shouldn't go together in a sentence.

"Black" and "Republican" makes as much sense as a Republican Gay rights activist.

I present to thee Margaret Hoover, Herbert Hoover's granddaughter.

Post: #13

(10-02-2012 05:10 PM)jammer Wrote:  So what are you Athlone? I can't see why a black intellectual would want to be liberal (or be part of the Republican party for that matter).

Independent. I fall strongly conservative on some issues and strongly progressive on others, and very moderate on a few. I simply don't fit neatly into any kind of Republican or Democratic categorization.

(10-02-2012 04:49 PM)rakishness Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 01:28 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  The words "black" and "Republican" (in the modern sense, anyway) really shouldn't go together in a sentence.

"Black" and "Republican" makes as much sense as a Republican Gay rights activist.

Bingo.

(10-02-2012 07:05 PM)P Dog Wrote:  I present to thee Margaret Hoover, Herbert Hoover's granddaughter.

Still makes no sense.

(10-02-2012 06:04 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 04:49 PM)rakishness Wrote:  "Black" and "Republican" makes as much sense as a Republican Gay rights activist.

For most of US history, Blacks have voted Republican.

First, there was President Lincoln, who freed the slaves.

But then it was the Republican party that got the first two black Senators (look up Hiram Revels) and the first 21 House of Representatives members elected to Congress. Even the first black Governor was elected by the Republican party.

Meanwhile the Klu Klux Klan was part of the Democrat party, and created to repress Republican voters. Blacks were not even permitted to attend Democrat Conventions before 1924.

The change of black voters to the Democrat party is a relatively new phenomena, tied to union control of the Democrat party and union control over membership telling them which party to vote in exchange for access to jobs. There is today "a fairly long-term pattern of decreasing identification with the Democrats by younger African Americans." Republicans like Jennifer Carroll, Tim Scott, Allen West, and Mia Love continue to find support and success in the Republican party.

This conclusion is inaccurate.

The support of the Democratic Party today by blacks is primarily a result of the democratic party's shift in focus to more progressive social justice/welfare concerns prior to World War 2.
New deal relief programs and the more steady support democratic figures (like Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman) offered for civil rights initiatives got them to switch. This occurred during the middle of the 20th century, and had little to do with Unions at all (which, Democrat or otherwise, blacks largely remained locked out of until much, much later in the century-blacks were not allowed to partake in all of those lovely reforms).

This notion of blacks being strong-armed is typical of conservatives arguing on the issue, and is a highly patronizing, insulting, and inaccurate characterization. Blacks are not merely voting for democrats because they are gullible fools, nor did they originally favor Republicans for the same reason. Blacks have their own agency as voters, and vote according to their interests like anybody else. Until the early 20th century, they supported Republicans because the Republicans had freed them and welcomed them into the political conversation (though they failed to make them equal citizens).

The switch resulted as Democrats moved to create a few programs that benefited poor blacks and also took steps to desegregate America, steps that Republicans were not taking. This support grew as the Democrats continued to show the most concern for issues of civil rights (as they do today) and stays strong today as a result of Democratic focus on other socio/racial and urban issues Republicans simply don't pay much mind to (and, in many cases, seem woefully uneducated on).

(10-02-2012 06:41 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 01:28 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  The words "black" and "Republican" (in the modern sense, anyway) really shouldn't go together in a sentence. When they do, the result (a black republican**) is usually less than ideal.

Exhibit A: Allen West

**: Trust me, I used to be one.

Post: #14

allen west is ok with me. he stands his ground and doesnt appear to be owned by corporate interests. he appears to be dangerous to policital interests which is why this shit is being released.

btw ANYONE who says its a conflict of interest to be black and republican is crazy. democrats want to keep blacks(latinos as well) poor and marginalized so they can count on them for votes. the introduction of welfare into black communities several generations ago which was available only to single women helped break up the black family and by extention black communities. its not hard to see the results as 70% of black children are now born out of wedlock.

Post: #15

I'm feeling like a black Republican myself. With big tits. And actually I don't really care if she's a Democrat.

Post: #16

Post: #17

(10-03-2012 12:05 AM)bacon Wrote:  im a libertarian.

allen west is ok with me. he stands his ground and doesnt appear to be owned by corporate interests. he appears to be dangerous to policital interests which is why this shit is being released.

btw ANYONE who says its a conflict of interest to be black and republican is crazy. democrats want to keep blacks(latinos as well) poor and marginalized so they can count on them for votes. the introduction of welfare into black communities several generations ago which was available only to single women helped break up the black family and by extention black communities. its not hard to see the results as 70% of black children are now born out of wedlock. if blacks are really the beneficiaries of democrats you should visit baltimore or D.C. and see how democrat politics are benefiting black communities there. im not saying republicans are the answer but to say its nuts to see a black guy as a republican to me is outdated thinking.

Good post.

Post: #18

(10-03-2012 12:05 AM)bacon Wrote:  btw ANYONE who says its a conflict of interest to be black and republican is crazy.

My mental faculties are in the right place.

Quote:democrats want to keep blacks(latinos as well) poor and marginalized so they can count on them for votes.

You have some sourcing for that or is it just a theory of yours?

Quote:the introduction of welfare into black communities several generations ago which was available only to single women helped break up the black family and by extention black communities.

Welfare policy as it was applied was not beneficial, I agree.

Quote:if blacks are really the beneficiaries of democrats you should visit baltimore or D.C. and see how democrat politics are benefiting black communities there.

Two inner city communities don't make your point (my pointing out a couple of affluent, largely democratic black areas wouldn't be sensible either), nor is the association between democratic policy and the negative outcomes in said urban areas established by your argument.

Conservative policy is absolutely not friendly to blacks or most latinos.

Quote:im not saying republicans are the answer but to say its nuts to see a black guy as a republican to me is outdated thinking.

"Outdated"? It is common sense. It doesn't make any sense to join a party composed in any large part (note the lack of the word "entirely" there) of people who are openly hostile to you and/or your presence in "their" society, as the Republican Party of today quite clearly is. The strongest and most hostile modern attacks on blacks and latinos in this society have come from the right-this is why these people favor the left. Its mere common sense on their part-these folks aren't the idiots they are often portrayed to be. They know what is hostile to them and they avoid it.

Speaking as a black male in particular, one would have to be either blind or delusional to align themselves in such a manner (I was both, for the record).
Admittedly, if I were a young white male I'd probably be singing a different tune.

Post: #19

(10-03-2012 07:42 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Conservative policy is absolutely not friendly to blacks or most latinos.

Quote: "Outdated"? It is common sense. It doesn't make any sense to join a party composed in any large part (note the lack of the word "entirely" there) of people who are openly hostile to you and/or your presence in "their" society, as the Republican Party of today quite clearly is. The strongest and most hostile modern attacks on blacks and latinos in this society have come from the right-this is why these people favor the left. Its mere common sense on their part-these folks aren't the idiots they are often portrayed to be. They know what is hostile to them and they avoid it.

Just as you asked above, Athlone, "you have some sourcing for that or is it just a theory of yours?"

Post: #20

(10-03-2012 06:54 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 12:05 AM)bacon Wrote:  im a libertarian.

allen west is ok with me. he stands his ground and doesnt appear to be owned by corporate interests. he appears to be dangerous to policital interests which is why this shit is being released.

btw ANYONE who says its a conflict of interest to be black and republican is crazy. democrats want to keep blacks(latinos as well) poor and marginalized so they can count on them for votes. the introduction of welfare into black communities several generations ago which was available only to single women helped break up the black family and by extention black communities. its not hard to see the results as 70% of black children are now born out of wedlock. if blacks are really the beneficiaries of democrats you should visit baltimore or D.C. and see how democrat politics are benefiting black communities there. im not saying republicans are the answer but to say its nuts to see a black guy as a republican to me is outdated thinking.

Good post.

The city of Detroit is an even better example than those two.

Post: #21

(10-03-2012 08:08 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 07:42 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Conservative policy is absolutely not friendly to blacks or most latinos.

Quote: "Outdated"? It is common sense. It doesn't make any sense to join a party composed in any large part (note the lack of the word "entirely" there) of people who are openly hostile to you and/or your presence in "their" society, as the Republican Party of today quite clearly is. The strongest and most hostile modern attacks on blacks and latinos in this society have come from the right-this is why these people favor the left. Its mere common sense on their part-these folks aren't the idiots they are often portrayed to be. They know what is hostile to them and they avoid it.

Just as you asked above, Athlone, "you have some sourcing for that or is it just a theory of yours?"

Links added.

Post: #22

Bob Herbert, Mediaite, huffingtonpost, dailybeast, salon, etc those are the sources you use?

Come on man, I can counter each one of your links with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dailycaller.com, Tucker Carlson and you would call me biased.

Post: #23

(10-02-2012 03:41 PM)IQVX Wrote:  His God reference in the sentence on the above Meme is strange...

Not really. He believes that his wife is the one he is supposed to have sex with, and her alone. This is a traditional Christan belief, not really that strange. Was the bedrock of civlization in many cultures for a long time.

Post: #24

Before sweeping welfare reforms were ushered in 60's by LBJ, the incidence of Black illegitamcy was on par with that of while folks. Life, for most Black Americans at the time, was centered around family and the church. Well, welfare helped replace fathers. Government handouts, which include free cell phones these days, replaced the security and community of the church.

Post: #25

(10-03-2012 10:10 AM)Smitty Wrote:  Come on man, I can counter each one of your links with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dailycaller.com, Tucker Carlson and you would call me biased.

Would I say that? Strange, I don't recall having done so before nor do I recall a tendency on my part to engage in the ad-hominem. Is that what I would actually say, or is that merely a estimation on your part with no real basis in fact?
Please, fellow forumer I've never met, tell me more about the words you'd like to put in my mouth and the conclusions I'd make before I make them. You clearly know more about myself than I do.

On a serious note: I do consider the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to be lacking and ineffective. Merely stating this is not a rebuttal, and not an action I would take as I am not fond of the logical fallacy. Were you to present me with said sources to counter my claims regarding the hostility shown by the right to certain groups (and please, you're welcome to do so), I would attempt to refute them on their facts which, given my perception of their lack of credibility, I would likely not find too difficult a task.

That being said, if you don't like the sources I've presented to support my claims with regards to the nature of some aspects of the Republican party and its hostility to minorities, refute them (all of them) on fact. I will not merely accept your word with regards to their lack of credibility (I'm quite comfortable with them)-I want a demonstration of their inaccuracy (read: why their credibility cannot be affirmed), a demonstration of the kind I would provide were you to show me a Fox News source I found lacking. What you've offered so far cannot be considered a rebuttal, and is more accurately termed a lazy dismissal by ad-hominem.