Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
You know what makes me sick? Blaming the death of a US Ambassador on a video and lying about it. I have no respect for this President at all. He is the reason why I voted Republican for the first time in my life in 2008, and hopefully the last in 2012. It's an insult to my intelligence to blame that on a video and attempt to sell that as a coverup for his inability to protect a US diplomat.
The day after the attack, Obama said, in the Rose Garden, that it was a terrorist attack, and that the United States would bring those who committed the crime to justice.
Actually he never did call it a terrorist attack, his exact words in his rose garden speech was and I quote:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done".
So for him or Candy or anyone else to say he said it was a "Terrorist Attack" is just plan wrong and misleading. It doesn't matter to me if you like Obama or dislike him what matters is that the same standard that many hold Romeny to need to hold the President to that same standard
I disagree. "No acts of terror" means just that,"No acts of terror". You are splitting semantical hairs because he did not also include the word "attack", but the meaning is identical.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
You know what makes me sick? Blaming the death of a US Ambassador on a video and lying about it. I have no respect for this President at all. He is the reason why I voted Republican for the first time in my life in 2008, and hopefully the last in 2012. It's an insult to my intelligence to blame that on a video and attempt to sell that as a coverup for his inability to protect a US diplomat.
The day after the attack, Obama said, in the Rose Garden, that it was a terrorist attack, and that the United States would bring those who committed the crime to justice.
cool....then why did he tell me for two weeks straight that it was because of a movie....an apologized for it. Becuase I sure as hell heard a lot more blame going to the movie then a terrorist group. That's an insult to my intelligence and the people that died. Continually lying for two weeks about it.....covering a complete failure.
I do not share your description of those events, nor do I accept that your description is accurate. Many people blamed FDR for the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they were wrong too. I think your hatred for the man is clouding your judgement.
JDH you may be the biggest hypocrite on this thread. Only a few short weeks ago you were ready to try the film maker for treason for inciting a riot. You believed Obama and Hillary, and Susan Rice and supported their arguments on the thread "IMO Sam Bacile is an Idiot" that this wasn't a terrorist attack, but the reaction to a video. I suggest you re-read your comments sir.
"This is not about the President of the US, or the American Government, or the American people - they are not at fault here, and have done nothing wrong regarding this incident.
This is about a group of political / religious extremists who have deliberately incited another group of political / religious extremists, and the former put the USA squarely in the middle, for purely political reasons, I believe. This kind of behavior would make it tough for ANY sitting President just a few months out from an election.
If you love your country, I think the best thing to do is to support your country in time like this, not find fault with the President for something he didn't do."
I think your adoration for the man is clouding your judgement.
I'm very glad you aren't standing in front of me. It is very easy to hurl insults into a keyboard. I don't think you would do it to my face, though.
The fact of the matter is that the film DID incite violence across the Muslim world, and a group of terrorists in Lybia took advantage of a situation and attacked our embassy and killed American citizens. It is called the "fog of war", when the events that are unfolding are obscured and cannot be seen clearly. We are at war with Al Queida. This President has, and continues to kill them wherever they are, this time they hit us back, while using the opportunity of civil untest caused by that film as cover for their attack.
I am not a hypocrite. I have not contradicted myself, nor have I attacked the character of anyone on this forum. It is unfortunate that some people have to attempt to destroy the reputation or character of anyone who does not agree with their political views. Well, I don't play that game. You may attempt to provoke anger by hurling insults, but that behavior is not a reflection on me, it is a reflection on you.
The president said on many occasions that the attack in Benghazi was a result of the video. He even said it to the UN. Hillary Clinton has corrected him. Now he says that he called it a terrorist attack. Which is it???? You were quite clear that you believed the president then. Now you believe his back track. He was hypocritical and you perpetuated it. Go back and read. I said all along that it was not the video. IT WAS NOT THE VIDEO. Accept it. If you think that I attacked you for being a hypocrite, I'm only going by the words that you provided. My main point is that you seem to mimic this administration without forethought. And violence would be your response? I stand by my remarks. And sir, were we standing face to face, and you did what you have insinuating doing, I'd have even less respect.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
I used the word Hate regarding catfish because I believe the man does harbor a genuine hatred for this President. I believe this because of statements he made to me on a thread on this forum that was taken down by the forum administrator because of those comments. They were very hateful, and they were aimed, literally, at President Obama. I do not appologize for stating that I believe that catfishblues hates President Obama, because he has made statements directly to me that prove it my satisfaction.
You know what makes me sick? Blaming the death of a US Ambassador on a video and lying about it. I have no respect for this President at all. He is the reason why I voted Republican for the first time in my life in 2008, and hopefully the last in 2012. It's an insult to my intelligence to blame that on a video and attempt to sell that as a coverup for his inability to protect a US diplomat.
The day after the attack, Obama said, in the Rose Garden, that it was a terrorist attack, and that the United States would bring those who committed the crime to justice.
cool....then why did he tell me for two weeks straight that it was because of a movie....an apologized for it. Becuase I sure as hell heard a lot more blame going to the movie then a terrorist group. That's an insult to my intelligence and the people that died. Continually lying for two weeks about it.....covering a complete failure.
I do not share your description of those events, nor do I accept that your description is accurate. Many people blamed FDR for the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they were wrong too. I think your hatred for the man is clouding your judgement.
JDH you may be the biggest hypocrite on this thread. Only a few short weeks ago you were ready to try the film maker for treason for inciting a riot. You believed Obama and Hillary, and Susan Rice and supported their arguments on the thread "IMO Sam Bacile is an Idiot" that this wasn't a terrorist attack, but the reaction to a video. I suggest you re-read your comments sir.
"This is not about the President of the US, or the American Government, or the American people - they are not at fault here, and have done nothing wrong regarding this incident.
This is about a group of political / religious extremists who have deliberately incited another group of political / religious extremists, and the former put the USA squarely in the middle, for purely political reasons, I believe. This kind of behavior would make it tough for ANY sitting President just a few months out from an election.
If you love your country, I think the best thing to do is to support your country in time like this, not find fault with the President for something he didn't do."
I think your adoration for the man is clouding your judgement.
I'm very glad you aren't standing in front of me. It is very easy to hurl insults into a keyboard. I don't think you would do it to my face, though.
The fact of the matter is that the film DID incite violence across the Muslim world, and a group of terrorists in Lybia took advantage of a situation and attacked our embassy and killed American citizens. It is called the "fog of war", when the events that are unfolding are obscured and cannot be seen clearly. We are at war with Al Queida. This President has, and continues to kill them wherever they are, this time they hit us back, while using the opportunity of civil untest caused by that film as cover for their attack.
I am not a hypocrite. I have not contradicted myself, nor have I attacked the character of anyone on this forum. It is unfortunate that some people have to attempt to destroy the reputation or character of anyone who does not agree with their political views. Well, I don't play that game. You may attempt to provoke anger by hurling insults, but that behavior is not a reflection on me, it is a reflection on you.
The president said on many occasions that the attack in Benghazi was a result of the video. He even said it to the UN. Hillary Clinton has corrected him. Now he says that he called it a terrorist attack. Which is it???? You were quite clear that you believed the president then. Now you believe his back track. He was hypocritical and you perpetuated it. Go back and read. I said all along that it was not the video. IT WAS NOT THE VIDEO. Accept it. If you think that I attacked you for being a hypocrite, I'm only going by the words that you provided. My main point is that you seem to mimic this administration without forethought. And violence would be your response? I stand by my remarks. And sir, were we standing face to face, and you did what you have insinuating doing, I'd have even less respect.
I have insinuated nothing. I do not believe that you would use language like that if we were standing face to face. It is easy to hurl insults into a keyboard, but in real life, standing face to face, normal people do not behave like that.
I believe the terrorists in Lybia took advantage of and, were inspired by the film, to take an act of revenge against the United States for insulting Islam, and for killing Al Queida leadership all across the middle east. I believe the attack was an act of war, and that, in the "fog of war" it was unclear of what exactly was happening on the ground in Lybia and why.
Take it or leave it. Believe it or not. I don't care, however I do not lie, and I am not a hypocrite.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
I used the word Hate regarding catfish because I believe the man does harbor a genuine hatred for this President. I believe this because of statements he made to me on a thread on this forum that was taken down by the forum administrator because of those comments. They were very hateful, and they were aimed, literally, at President Obama. I do not appologize for stating that I believe that catfishblues hates President Obama, because he has made statements directly to me that prove it my satisfaction.
I am not to good at remembering what things were posted so please help me here...was it you in another thread that professed being a Christian and that we should love and care for others or was that someone else?
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
I used the word Hate regarding catfish because I believe the man does harbor a genuine hatred for this President. I believe this because of statements he made to me on a thread on this forum that was taken down by the forum administrator because of those comments. They were very hateful, and they were aimed, literally, at President Obama. I do not appologize for stating that I believe that catfishblues hates President Obama, because he has made statements directly to me that prove it my satisfaction.
I am not to good at remembering what things were posted so please help me here...was it you in another thread that professed being a Christian and that we should love and care for others or was that someone else?
I have retained the offensive portion of the thread in question if you do not believe me. Your statement ; "Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?" implies that there was no reason to use such strong language, and that it was only done for political purposes. The reason that I used this language is because I genuinely believe that the man does hate President Obama.
Hatred is very destructive. It is a fire that consumes everything, it is worse than crack, because it feeds itself, and demands more hate. I have only sympathy for catfishblues, and hope that he is able to heal himself of this hatred someday.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
It's a lost cause vulchor. There's no racism in America anymore. Nope, it's all gone, just like it never existed. There aren't any Americans who hate Obama because he's not white. No siree bob, You betcha. They hate him 'cause he's acommienazimuslimmaumausocialistic sob who warn't born here. It's not racism, it's all that other stuff - you know, "he's not really an American", "why can't he think like an American", "he's not like us", "He doesn't know how to be an American", "He's a Muslim who hates America", "He's an Arab", you know, all that stuff. It's not racism, it's all perfectly logical and reasonable. Hell, a blind man could see it.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
Do you honestly think that there were no black people that voted for him solely on the fact that he is black? Is that not racism?
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
Do you honestly think that there were no black people that voted for him solely on the fact that he is black? Is that not racism?
Racism only applies to white folk, Vision. How dare you make that accusation? You must be a racist.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
Do you honestly think that there were no black people that voted for him solely on the fact that he is black? Is that not racism?
Honestly, I think it cuts both ways as Vulchor said. People vote for him because he is black, vote against him because he isn't. Same thing for Romney and Mormonism. Call me a bigot if you would like, but I know him being a Mormon is a negative in my book. It isn't my only deciding factor by far, but I know it is there. The thing that frustrates me is that EVERY conversation about Obama seems to denigrate into discussions of who is and is not racist. It is equally annoying when some claim race is a huge issue as those that say there is no racism at all.
Long story short, Yes, some people vote for or against a candidate because of race. They also vote based on other pointless things like height, name, and how much they 'like the guy/gal'. Hell, I'm sure some of this stuff has influenced all of us at some point. That being said, it is neither a bigger nor smaller issue with this President than any other, so why not keep the debates on the things that are under the candidates' control, such as policy and honesty.
last election 98% of blacks voted for Obama and 38% of whites voted for Obama. Sounds like racists. (I looked up the stats btw I didnt just make them up)
President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.
American Crossroads, taking exception to Obama’s announcement last night that he really had declared Benghazi to be an act of terrorism, has sent out a memo, which reads:
The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office — and was even directly contradicted by his own spokesman several days later.
On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” — Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.”
From the gaggle on Air Force One, en route to Miami, 9/20/2012:
Q: Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.
Q: Yes, I just hadn’t heard you —
MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.
Q: No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just —
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Here, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney actually affirmed Gov. Romney’s position that the White House did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. Carney also said the now infamous video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi” the day before.
The memo goes on to argue that Obama’s position on Libya is “untenable.” That’s about the shape of things. Did he call it an act of terror and go around misleading the country for two weeks that it was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim movie? Or did he not call it terror on Sept. 12 and lie to the voters last night?
There is another problem with Obama’s response. Recall this part of his answer: “So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them”
So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page? (David Axelrod has refused to say.) It doesn’t sound like it. But you know Obama was busy that day — flying to Las Vegas for a campaign event. So really, why have a meeting? Well, the weeks of confusion and dissembling that followed should answer that.
Moreover, if he actually did instruct his team to heighten protection for the Libya Consulate, why was the consulate left unsecured so that CNN could waltz in to grab Ambassador Chris Stevens’s diary? Did Obama not make himself clear, or were his instructions not followed?
The more we learn the more we see how both dishonest and incompetent has been the handling of this entire incident. The Obama White House may be out spinning the press to buy into the Obama-Crowley line, but no one is buying it. As the rest of the information comes to light, the president retains less and less credibility. Like a fish on a line he flops this way and that, trying to break free of his self-created trap.
And finally, this Reuters report suggests the administration was entirely unprepared for the 9-11 attacks.:
In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
In short, it appears that the Obama administration didn’t take 9-11 all that seriously, and when tragedy hit, it went into spin mode. Now the president is caught in a tangle of contradictions. Not even Candy Crowley can get him out.
Our member from Kentucky is off the chain. Really, threatening people, is that where you want to go? Who is the hater now? Romney had to debate two people last night and held his own. I read as many accounts from as many sources as possible today from both sides and they pretty much agree the performance last night of both candidates will not impact the current polls much either way. BTW, why is it in every debate the Dems get 3-4 more minutes and now the Repub has to debate the moderator too? It is obvious even to the most uninterested observer that the POTUS stated for nearly two weeks either personally or through his surrogates that this was not a terrorist attack but a spontaneous demonstration gone awry. That was patently false, there was no demonstration in Benghazi.
He also said last night that he instructed all his resources by phone that day to ramp up security at all locations in the region but CNN was able to rifle through the remnants at will a week later, I call BS on that too.
What is even more outrageous was that media whale covering for him last night, which she backed away from today. How convenient, even the CNN brass is appalled according to some sources. The Lame stream media loves this man, I simply say I am not better off than I was 4 years ago and have made my choice. Romneys recap of the economic woes in one of his responses was textbook debating and was irrefutable and Obama made no attempt to refute it. He did promise us 4 more years of the same stuff. You can call me a racist too if it makes you feel better.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
Do you honestly think that there were no black people that voted for him solely on the fact that he is black? Is that not racism?
HEY VISION AND BEAT (and probably MTCelli too)----How about reading my f*cking post instead of just what you wanna believe before you respond???? Read the original post again godd@mn it and youll see I wrote "There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists." Think that pretty well addressed the point you thought you made...but in fact I already did. Goddamn read what someone writes and take your f*cking bias (to the point you cant even read a full post) out of it if we are gonna discuss something here
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
Do you honestly think that there were no black people that voted for him solely on the fact that he is black? Is that not racism?
HEY VISION AND BEAT (and probably MTCelli too)----How about reading my f*cking post instead of just what you wanna believe before you respond???? Read the original post again godd@mn it and youll see I wrote "There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists." Think that pretty well addressed the point you thought you made...but in fact I already did. Goddamn read what someone writes and take your f*cking bias (to the point you cant even read a full post) out of it if we are gonna discuss something here
Vulch, chill out. Yea, I read your post and I would agree that racism exists on both sides. But don't pretend that its even close to even. Only one side gets called out, losses jobs, gets ostracized, etc. If it were truly equal, SnoopDog and Sam L. Jackson would be out of work and charged with hate crimes. They just get more followers on their twitter accounts.
Why when the conversation is about Obama and someone disagrees his policies or with his supporters the accusation of Hate or Racist is implied?
Not all of them are, but there is a good percentage who fit this description. If you dont agree, youre choosing to ignore it----which is fine, many people do. I dont care either way, its just comical when denied. Its like the old "Ive got a lot of black friends" line.
What?!...so since I don't agree with you or your side I am ignoring it? Ignoring what...spit it out.
Ignoring the simple fact that racism is alive and well in America. Igoring that there are many white men (and women too Im sure) that are incensed over the fact a black man is in the white house. Ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel this way and are too scared or intimidated to admit it. You are free to disagree all you want, but if you dont believe these things are happening and in decent enough numbers it should be troubling then yes, you are ignoring it. There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists.
Do you honestly think that there were no black people that voted for him solely on the fact that he is black? Is that not racism?
HEY VISION AND BEAT (and probably MTCelli too)----How about reading my f*cking post instead of just what you wanna believe before you respond???? Read the original post again godd@mn it and youll see I wrote "There are just as many people not voting for Barry O because he is black as there are people who vote for him because he is-----moronic and closed minded either way, but it exists." Think that pretty well addressed the point you thought you made...but in fact I already did. Goddamn read what someone writes and take your f*cking bias (to the point you cant even read a full post) out of it if we are gonna discuss something here
Comments
I believe the terrorists in Lybia took advantage of and, were inspired by the film, to take an act of revenge against the United States for insulting Islam, and for killing Al Queida leadership all across the middle east. I believe the attack was an act of war, and that, in the "fog of war" it was unclear of what exactly was happening on the ground in Lybia and why.
Take it or leave it. Believe it or not. I don't care, however I do not lie, and I am not a hypocrite.
Hatred is very destructive. It is a fire that consumes everything, it is worse than crack, because it feeds itself, and demands more hate. I have only sympathy for catfishblues, and hope that he is able to heal himself of this hatred someday.
Do you honestly think that there were no black people that voted for him solely on the fact that he is black? Is that not racism?
Long story short, Yes, some people vote for or against a candidate because of race. They also vote based on other pointless things like height, name, and how much they 'like the guy/gal'. Hell, I'm sure some of this stuff has influenced all of us at some point. That being said, it is neither a bigger nor smaller issue with this President than any other, so why not keep the debates on the things that are under the candidates' control, such as policy and honesty.
President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse. American Crossroads, taking exception to Obama’s announcement last night that he really had declared Benghazi to be an act of terrorism, has sent out a memo, which reads: The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office — and was even directly contradicted by his own spokesman several days later. On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” — Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.” From the gaggle on Air Force One, en route to Miami, 9/20/2012: Q: Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that? MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition. Q: Yes, I just hadn’t heard you — MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred. Q: No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just — MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Here, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney actually affirmed Gov. Romney’s position that the White House did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. Carney also said the now infamous video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi” the day before. The memo goes on to argue that Obama’s position on Libya is “untenable.” That’s about the shape of things. Did he call it an act of terror and go around misleading the country for two weeks that it was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim movie? Or did he not call it terror on Sept. 12 and lie to the voters last night? There is another problem with Obama’s response. Recall this part of his answer: “So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them” So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page? (David Axelrod has refused to say.) It doesn’t sound like it. But you know Obama was busy that day — flying to Las Vegas for a campaign event. So really, why have a meeting? Well, the weeks of confusion and dissembling that followed should answer that. Moreover, if he actually did instruct his team to heighten protection for the Libya Consulate, why was the consulate left unsecured so that CNN could waltz in to grab Ambassador Chris Stevens’s diary? Did Obama not make himself clear, or were his instructions not followed? The more we learn the more we see how both dishonest and incompetent has been the handling of this entire incident. The Obama White House may be out spinning the press to buy into the Obama-Crowley line, but no one is buying it. As the rest of the information comes to light, the president retains less and less credibility. Like a fish on a line he flops this way and that, trying to break free of his self-created trap. And finally, this Reuters report suggests the administration was entirely unprepared for the 9-11 attacks.: In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials. Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States. In short, it appears that the Obama administration didn’t take 9-11 all that seriously, and when tragedy hit, it went into spin mode. Now the president is caught in a tangle of contradictions. Not even Candy Crowley can get him out.
He also said last night that he instructed all his resources by phone that day to ramp up security at all locations in the region but CNN was able to rifle through the remnants at will a week later, I call BS on that too.
What is even more outrageous was that media whale covering for him last night, which she backed away from today. How convenient, even the CNN brass is appalled according to some sources. The Lame stream media loves this man, I simply say I am not better off than I was 4 years ago and have made my choice. Romneys recap of the economic woes in one of his responses was textbook debating and was irrefutable and Obama made no attempt to refute it. He did promise us 4 more years of the same stuff. You can call me a racist too if it makes you feel better.