Ok, Now I Will Plea "Race"... - Page 6

Esther · #51 04-17-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If I am wrong, help me see by refuting the evidence that I've presented.

After all, if I am seeing men like trees, it's only because I know from the past what men and trees are supposed to look like.

Jermyn there are black men that are stating the same thing the whites are about what he is DOING.

There are white people that are agreeing with him as well.

It is NOT a racial thing.

He is simply the WORST president we have ever had, and he hasn't even finished his first term. There is nothing he can do at this point that I know of to turn it around. He is DESTROYING AMERICA which seems to be his agenda.

Can you not see that?

Jermyn Davidson · #52 04-17-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

need time to google it??

No I'm at work and need to get some stuff done.

Praxeas · #53 04-17-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I don't care what anyone else says, there's no convincing me otherwise. This is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Subjective statement

There's no reason at all that the idea of a state-run militia to defend against the Federal Government's taxes would even get off the ground if it wasn't for the fact that this Democrat President is a black man. Again subjective statement. Proof? How can you even prove that?

Given Oklahoma's illustrious history when it comes to matters of race, it all solidifies it in my mind. They have history in race relations? Slave owners? Race Riots?

No I don't have any proof. Of course not...which makes your next claim all the more perplexing

No I don't think that the idea has gotten to the place where some state lawmakers support this just because the Federal Executive is black.

It's just the gall and the resentment that this idea appears to be birthed from, and the anger it starts in me. Resentment over socializing America is politics not racism, again where is the proof?

Ok. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong. Your assertion are based on emotions and not facts

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/...AKcLph1iA.cspx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think Christians should demonize other people like this, especially without proof. What does the bible say ? 3 witnesses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I think I have provided proof for my premise, more than 3 examples.

You have not and can not prove your assertions in the first post. Sorry.

n david · #54 04-19-2010, 12:28 PM

JD,
If you cared to read into the Honduran crisis you would've found out that a) it wasn't a military coup as it was said to be by the press; b) the Constitution supported what happened and required it to happen and finally c) BHO stood against the rule of law, against the Honduran Constitution and stood with dictators like Chavez and others to demand a left-wing socialist be returned as President ... even though Honduran law was followed.

So think before supporting BHO on this. Look past his skin, check out what happened, read the part of the Honduran Constitution that was followed. By then I would say you'd be against BHO and upset he was against what happened there.

About the "it's the economy, stupid," comment. Carville didn't use that as a term of endearment for Clinton. It was neither a term of endearment, nor was it about Clinton. That term was aimed at George HW Bush. It was used during the 1992 campaign. I remember it well. It was a slap and rebuke of GHWB because GHWB was running on his foreign policy and wasn't paying enough attention to the enonomy.

Where did you come up with that being Carville's term of endearment for Clinton? :laughat Hilarious ... but absolutely 100% wrong. It was a smackdown remark against GHWB.

Also, about the SCOTUS attenting the SOTU address. I agree with Clarence Thomas - who doesn't attend these addresses. The SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial and non-biased in their politics and rulings. In today's political climate, the SOTU address has become extremely political. Protocol requires the SCOTUS Justices sit and not show bias one way or the other.

Since the beginning, not one POTUS has used the worldwide televised address to criticise a SCOTUS ruling. It has NEVER happened ... not once. It's against protocol and decorum to do so. BHO went way over the line in doing so - this has been agreed by even the liberal media. Alito shouldn't have taken the bait and reacted the way he did, but I don't blame him.

It's not poor sportsmanship or taking the ball and going home ... that has nothing to do with it. Saying such shows your naivete about the role of SCOTUS, their need to show impartiality and protocol and decorum required for the SOTU address.

I've said my bit. Obviously you have your mind made up. To you, anyone who disagrees with your boy is either a blatant or closet racist. It's wrong, but your head's so far down in the sand that it would be impossible for anyone, including God Almighty Himself, to say enough to make you change your mind about the issue.

Praxeas · #55 04-19-2010, 01:24 PM

Im still wondering why it's ok to demonize tea party, republicans, republican presidents, Oklahoma and not a democratic president...because he is a black man. I've seen no proof supporting the opening subjective assertion

Sam · #56 04-19-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im still wondering why it's ok to demonize tea party, republicans, republican presidents, Oklahoma and not a democratic president...because he is a black man. I've seen no proof supporting the opening subjective assertion

Some people brand any disagreement, questioning, or criticism as racism or sexism depending on the race or sex of the person being disagreed with, questioned or criticized.

BeenThinkin · #57 04-19-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Some people brand any disagreement, questioning, or criticism as racism or sexism depending on the race or sex of the person being disagreed with, questioned or criticized.

Boy, Sam I wish my wife would accuse me of being sexy..... oh, wait that wasn't sexy you said.. ???? sexiest or sexism??? That won't work will it?

Been Thinkin

Truthseeker · #58 04-19-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

No I'm at work and need to get some stuff done.

You work a long time.

Jermyn Davidson · #59 04-19-2010, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

You work a long time.

Jermyn Davidson · #60 04-19-2010, 04:30 PM

Before my stance is further mischaracterized, it is my opinion that Obama is getting the response he is getting from some people in part because of his race, skin color etc.

Is that clear?

I don't believe everyone who criticizes him is racist.

I don't believe everyone who criticizes him is not.

In fact, it is exactly my opinion that some are and that accounts for the intense hatred I've seen and heard expressed towards him.

I think the reaction in Oklahoma is a way beyond overboard. Miss B. explained some stuff to me and I appreciate her taking the time to do that.

What has me irked in all this is that it appears that some of you would like to say that race has absolutely nothing to do with the intensity of the disdain he is experiencing-- a disdain that appears to be personally directed at him as a person.

My head is not in the sand.

My opinion is based on fact, experiences, and history-- some of it recent and some of it not.

I can't believe that I am the only person on AFF that thinks that race has, at least a small part, something to do with the stuff he has endured.

I mean, look at the birther atuff for cryin' out loud!

Look at how long that dragged on and on, look at the people dragging it on and on, look at their demographics!

But some would have me believe that these folks were acting in the best interests of America, right? His skin color had nothing to do with the sheer madness over the birther junk (as if these folks had something over the CIA)!

I've got my umbrella already out this time....