Ok, Now I Will Plea "Race"...

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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....

WELLLLL...... JD I see you're sticking by your guns! Your first statement on this post, by you, was the following......"I don't care what anyone else says, there's no convincing me otherwise. This is my opinion and I am sticking to it." Also the statement above in this post, (bolded) ([SIZE="3"]
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.
) should cause you some pause. Kinda like the mother watching her son march in the Army. She suddenly proclaimed she couldn't understand why all of the troops, other than her son, were out of step. Never considered it was her son that was out of step. Were all the horrible things that were said about George W. Bush, said because he was a white man?

Been Thinkin

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

WELLLLL...... JD I see you're sticking by your guns! Your first statement on this post, by you, was the following......"I don't care what anyone else says, there's no convincing me otherwise. This is my opinion and I am sticking to it." Also the statement above in this post, (bolded) ([SIZE="3"]
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.
) should cause you some pause. Kinda like the mother watching her son march in the Army. She suddenly proclaimed she couldn't understand why all of the troops, other than her son, were out of step. Never considered it was her son that was out of step. Were all the horrible things that were said about George W. Bush, said because he was a white man?

Been Thinkin

Honestly, it depends on who was speaking at the time.


I heard disparaging words about him and his race and how that along with his political ideology he was the perfect white guy-- "wanting to rule the world" and other stuff that is not worhty of even posting.


Did I agree with it? No.
Did I hear it? Yes, more than a couple times.

The VAST amount of criticism against Bush had nothing to do with his race.

However, there were those who looked at Bush, coupled with their interpretations of his actions, and saw nothing but another arrogant white man that "doesn't give a @@@@ about anyone except his own."

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Honestly, it depends on who was speaking at the time.


I heard disparaging words about him and his race and how that along with his political ideology he was the perfect white guy-- "wanting to rule the world" and other stuff that is not worhty of even posting.


Did I agree with it? No.
Did I hear it? Yes, more than a couple times.

The VAST amount of criticism against Bush had nothing to do with his race.

However, there were those who looked at Bush, coupled with their interpretations of his actions, and saw nothing but another arrogant white man that "doesn't give a @@@@ about anyone except his own."

Let the bolded statement above also apply to Obama. It would "I think" be true.

Been Thinkin

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

First of all, though the removal of that leftist President was legal, most legal scholars questioned the way it was done-- which is why most of the world community called it for what it was, a coup and illegal.

Carville originally coined that phrase for Clinton, to help keep him focused on the economy. What it became is something else.

The decision by the SCOTUS was highly controversial and the President expressed the opinion of most Americans at the time.

So how is there any justification for Alito, but not the President?

For them to, as you suggested, not show up to any other SOTU addresses over or in light of this event is the equivalent of "taking your ball and going home."

Saying your naivete about the role of SCOTUS, their need to show impartiality and protocol and decorum required for the SOTU address, just emphasizes the fact that Alito was so far out of line with what he did.

The President did not lie in that SOTU address.

[StillStanding]

I actually pull for Obama to do well because he is black. He makes a better role model than sports stars and rappers.

But....I believe he is taking our country in the wrong direction. He will be soundly defeated when he runs for reelection, and I don't think it will be because of the color of his skin.

I sincerely wish we had a viable conservative black candidate that would defeat him! That would be fine with me!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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....

The "Birther stuff" isn't even as crazy nor as mean spirited as the Alex Jones - "Truther" rants that accused President Bush of orchestrating 9/11. Was GWB being falsley accused of murdering 3,000 Americans simply because of his race?

In fact, a high ranking black Obama administration official - a man who vetted most of the cabinet appointments - Van Johnson used his official White House position to accuse GWB of plotting and carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't get anymore hateful than that.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

First of all, though the removal of that leftist President was legal, most legal scholars questioned the way it was done-- which is why most of the world community called it for what it was, a coup and illegal.

No, "most legal scholars" did not question the way it was done. You made that part up. Either issuing the arrest warrant was a Constitutional act by the Supreme Court of Honduras or it wasn't.

I see though that you have taken a big step back from your charges of "treason."

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Carville originally coined that phrase for Clinton, to help keep him focused on the economy. What it became is something else.

Carville did not coin that phrase for Clinton and Carville was not calling Clinton "stupid." Carville put up the banner to focus the media on the 1992 economy and recession and not on the long line of women that Clinton had philandered with.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The decision by the SCOTUS was highly controversial and the President expressed the opinion of most Americans at the time.

Do you have some sort of polling data concerning McCain/Feingold? You're making an unsubstantiated claim here about "Americans at the time." The decision wasn't "controversial" - it was expected. McCain/Feingold clearly violated the First Amendment and legal pundits on both the left and the right all saw it being overturned.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So how is there any justification for Alito, but not the President?

For them to, as you suggested, not show up to any other SOTU addresses over or in light of this event is the equivalent of "taking your ball and going home."

Saying your naivete about the role of SCOTUS, their need to show impartiality and protocol and decorum required for the SOTU address, just emphasizes the fact that Alito was so far out of line with what he did.

The President did not lie in that SOTU address.

The President made a statement that may be construed as simply being his opinion. However, the President is a Harvard Law School grad and it is difficult to see how someone with that background could possibly think McCain/Feingold in any way represented "over 100 years of legal opinion."

McCain/Feingold was new and innovative. It was crafted to address methods of fund raising that had only come into existence in the previous 10 or 15 years. There was no legal precedent for it let alone any lengthy track record in the courts.

Any lawyer would know that... except one, I guess.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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....

JD I think you are listening to racist so much you have swallowed their bait hook, line and sinker.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

First of all, though the removal of that leftist President was legal, most legal scholars questioned the way it was done-- which is why most of the world community called it for what it was, a coup and illegal.

Carville originally coined that phrase for Clinton, to help keep him focused on the economy. What it became is something else.

The decision by the SCOTUS was highly controversial and the President expressed the opinion of most Americans at the time.

So how is there any justification for Alito, but not the President?

For them to, as you suggested, not show up to any other SOTU addresses over or in light of this event is the equivalent of "taking your ball and going home."

Saying your naivete about the role of SCOTUS, their need to show impartiality and protocol and decorum required for the SOTU address, just emphasizes the fact that Alito was so far out of line with what he did.

The President did not lie in that SOTU address.

pelathais already answered most of this well enough. I'm through.

[pelathais]

More bigoted racists and their attacks against President Obama.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...hts-protesters

Can't we all agree that these protesters were motivated at least in part by the color of the President's skin?