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

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

...
The disrespect the President is enduring is so offensive and I don't think it would be so bad if he wasn't a mixed black man named Barack Hussein Obama.

I personally think you are seeing "race" as an issue where it doesn't really exist. Maybe you are right in some of your examples you cited but I doubt if you are right in all of them.

The man is not liked, and is perceived as very arrogant and completely out of touch with the desires of the majority of Americans. His campaign pledge for transparency and subsequent action has made him a laughing stock. His winning of the Nobel prize was a joke. His apologies for the U.S. have angered many. And his blaming of everything on Dubya is considered childish and irresponsible.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Sam

I personally think you are seeing "race" as an issue where it doesn't really exist. Maybe you are right in some of your examples you cited but I doubt if you are right in all of them.

The man is not liked, and is perceived as very arrogant and completely out of touch with the desires of the majority of Americans. His campaign pledge for transparency and subsequent action has made him a laughing stock. His winning of the Nobel prize was a joke. His apologies for the U.S. have angered many. And his blaming of everything on Dubya is considered childish and irresponsible.

Sam,

With all of the examples I've given, you really think that none of this has anything to do with his race?


When I bring this up, I'm not talking about anything on a surface level.


I don't even know how to describe it really.



I can compare it to the studies about the death penalties and how had been meted out in the recent past, the studies about the punishments in general of people who kills whites over blacks-- none of these modern situations are clear examples of racial bigotry.

But the examples are there.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

A Supreme Court Justice mouths, "not true" and shakes his head in public comment over the President while he is still speaking,

Jermyn, n_david answered your points pretty well, but I'll reiterate--on THIS one, it was OBAMA who was WAY out of line. You don't scold the Supreme Court Justices in the SOTU speech! That was just as lacking in decorum and protocol as the guy who yelled "liar."

The press, Hollywood, and his Democratic peers were EXTREMELY disrespectful toward GWB during his presidency. If you don't recall that, it's either because you had your head in the sand or you have a short term memory.

To me, it all adds up to disrespect-- a profound level of disrespect for the President, were not talking about late-night jokes and huorous stuff.

People were just as blatantly contemptuous of Bill Clinton--because of his liberal policies. I remember people being practically hysterical about the Clintons and related conspiracy theories. Frankly, I would MUCH prefer to have a Clinton in office right now.

Americans have a penchant for being brutal toward leaders whose policies they don't appreciate. And up until this last term, they've all been white [Presidents]. Ergo, the ranting about racism is silly. Are there racists in this country? Sure. And they're not just white people. Do they really represent the majority of people who object to President Obama's heavy handed, socialist policies? No way.

Personally, I consider ANYONE who voted for Obama just to get a black man in office to be shallow at best and racist at worst. Do I understand the historical significance based on the oppression black people have suffered in the past? YES! Do I understand the warm fuzzies many people felt when he was voted in, because of that historical significance? Yes--I had a few emotional moments myself--based more on the reaction of people who voted for him, though, and not on my pleasure that he was put into office.

The office of the President isn't [supposed to be] about race--it's about ability to lead. President Obama has shown his serious lack of ability in that already, barely able to pass his pet healthcare bill, and having numerous detractors in his own party. That's just one point among many.

I have a feeling the next election will have a vastly different outcome.

What makes me a little sad when I read your posts is that I have this sinking feeling that no matter what is posted, you'll still sit back at the end of the day, shake your head, and think we're all hiding the fact that we're closet racists. And I understand it, because that's what the media, Hollywood, and some black political activists would have us all believe. I just expect more insight from intelligent people.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

...


No I don't have any proof.

...

Ok. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.


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

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Ok.

So maybe I'm over reacting.

Who was the last President to:

Have an elected official (of course from a southern state) call him a "liar" yelled it at him, while he was speaking to how many thousands of Americans,

The President did lie. Moreover, when was the last time the President of the United States called out the Supreme Court and fibbed on them while they had to sit motionless and speechless?

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Have members of Congress behave in a way that amounts to treason when the President sets the country to support another country's elected government official and the Congressman flies to that country to publicly support the opposition,

What Jim McDermott (D-WA) did was reprehensible in visiting a dictator with blood on his hands on the eve of the UN Security Council sanctioned action in Iraq, but... oh wait a minute... you're looking for a Republican? Lemme see, Nancy Pelosi's visit to the dictators in Syria, no... Bill Delahunt's (D-MA) visit to Cuba, no... Delahunt's courting of Hugo Chavez, no...

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

When giving a speech to the country, parents refused to let their children listen to him out of whatever reasons they could think of,

What President ever targeted our nation's school children with a political campaign?

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

A Supreme Court Justice mouths, "not true" and shakes his head in public comment over the President while he is still speaking,

See above - the President clearly... uhm, "fibbed" or "stretched" things a bit while publicly scolding members of the Supreme Court in a forum where they could not speak for themselves. It was a disgusting, arrogant and ugly thing for Obama to do. Constitutionally, those judges are his equals.

The McCain/Feingold law that was overturned by the SCOTUS was a new and "innovative" attempt at addressing the new and unregulated ways politicians were beginning to raise money for their campaigns. It was NOT "over 100 years of law!"

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

To me, it all adds up to disrespect-- a profound level of disrespect for the President, were not talking about late-night jokes and huorous stuff.

We're talking blatant contempt.

Yes, blatant contempt on the part of Barack Obama toward anyone who disagrees with him. I can only imagine what you'd be saying if Obama was getting anything like the disrespect Clinton got. I was at "The Wall" back when draft dodger Clinton spoke there. There were several hundred Harleys lined up behind him roaring to drown him out. There were black vets alongside white vets merrily making a terrible racket and race wasn't an issue.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So you guys know me from here and you should know that I myself am not ignorant or racist.

The disrespect the President is enduring is so offensive and I don't think it would be so bad if he wasn't a mixed black man named Barack Hussein Obama.

Take it from me when it comes to "mixed" kiddo. We get it from BOTH sides and it ain't ever pretty. And, my immediate family completely "passes for white" despite several generations of "race mixing" from just about every race that there is going back to the times when the "White Man," "Red Man," and "Black Man" all happily met for the first time on this continent.

"Nobody's white enough" (my father). "Nobody's black enough" (my father-in-law). Where does it end?

Our political system was set up to be adversarial. It was intended to be the "battleground of ideas." Things have always been rough and tumble.

Every President walks into a maelstrom. They know this going in. I think Obama is probably a whole lot stronger on the inside then you've given him credit for being. He has made some very egregious protocol blunders, he has completely alienated the White House Press Corps that was literally slobbering all over him at the start. His cracks are showing and now it's time for the mid-term elections.

BTW- Did you see the pictures I posted of the Democrats assaulting - and breaking the leg of - Republican Governor Bobby Jindal's finance aide on the BET thread? Comments? Can you imagine if she had been a Dem? It might even have been reported in the news.

[Praxeas]

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.


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.


Given Oklahoma's illustrious history when it comes to matters of race, it all solidifies it in my mind.



No I don't have any proof.

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.



Ok. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.


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

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

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Who was the last President to:

Have an elected official (of course from a southern state) call him a "liar" yelled it at him, while he was speaking to how many thousands of Americans,

BHO was lying. It was a statement of fact. Southern state doesn't have anything to do with it ... it just shows you have some racial problems yourself. BHO was lying and he was called out on it. Was it the right thing to do ... no. Protocol and decorum should be followed. If the Senator wanted to call out the President on his lie, then the Senator should have released a statement after the SOTU address.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Have members of Congress behave in a way that amounts to treason when the President sets the country to support another country's elected government official and the Congressman flies to that country to publicly support the opposition,

Who has done this while BHO has been President? What acts of "treason" did they really commit? I do know while W was President, Nancy Pelosi ignored warnings from the Pentegon, State Dept and WH and traveled to Syria to meet with the government there. Where was your indignation then? That was a blatant slap in the face to the W admin

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

When giving a speech to the country, parents refused to let their children listen to him out of whatever reasons they could think of,

This isn't because of BHO nor his skin color. Remember Clinton's little line about the economy, here it is with a twist ... It's BHO's policies, stupid. It's not about his skin or BHO himself. It's about his policies.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

A Supreme Court Justice mouths, "not true" and shakes his head in public comment over the President while he is still speaking,

Let's re-ask the question....when has a President berated and condemned the SCOTUS in front of Congress and before a worldwide audience on live tv? The answer ... NEVER. Not one time has a sitting US President done what BHO did. He stepped way over the lines of protocol in doing this. Where's your indignation over that, JD?

I can only hope that next year the SCOTUS, or at least the conservatives on the court won't attend the SOTU address.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

To me, it all adds up to disrespect-- a profound level of disrespect for the President, were not talking about late-night jokes and huorous stuff.

We're talking blatant contempt.

Yeah, silly us. All those jokes about W and the demonstrators' signs comparing him to a terrorist and burning posters and mock-ups of him ... that was just silly humorous stuff.

It's disingenious to whine about the way people treat BHO when you were silent about the way people treated W.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The disrespect the President is enduring is so offensive and I don't think it would be so bad if he wasn't a mixed black man named Barack Hussein Obama.

He could be purple or pink and people would still be angry. Again ... it's his policies, stupid.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Again ... it's his policies, stupid.

n david,

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

BHO was lying. It was a statement of fact. Southern state doesn't have anything to do with it ... it just shows you have some racial problems yourself. BHO was lying and he was called out on it. Was it the right thing to do ... no. Protocol and decorum should be followed. If the Senator wanted to call out the President on his lie, then the Senator should have released a statement after the SOTU address.

Ok, at which point did the President lie? Which exact statement was it?

How has it been proven to be a lie? Even if you have valid answers, you have admitted that protocol and decorum should be followed. My opinion is that it was not follwed because of the disrespect the President is enduring-- in part because of his darker skin tone.

Originally Posted by n david

Who has done this while BHO has been President? What acts of "treason" did they really commit? I do know while W was President, Nancy Pelosi ignored warnings from the Pentegon, State Dept and WH and traveled to Syria to meet with the government there. Where was your indignation then? That was a blatant slap in the face to the W admin

"Treason" is defined as disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior.

The President stated his support for the democratically-elected government.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-honduras.html

A group of Republican U.S Senators, led by Senator DeMint (R-SC), publicly supported the coup, defying America's stance on the matter and decided to take a trip to Honduras, legitimizing the coup leaders illegal means of kicking their elected President out of office.

The language DeMint used, "I hope that as President Obama grows in office..." is insulting in that backhanded kind of way that almost seems like he's giving him the benefit of doubt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_225209.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...73-503544.html

Originally Posted by n david

This isn't because of BHO nor his skin color. Remember Clinton's little line about the economy, here it is with a twist ... It's BHO's policies, stupid. It's not about his skin or BHO himself. It's about his policies.

When Carville coined this phrase for Clinton, Carville was referring to Clinton as "stupid" as a term of endearment, to help him focus his campaign message. I doubt you are using this in the same way towards me.

I'm not stupid and you are forgiven.

Originally Posted by n david

Let's re-ask the question....when has a President berated and condemned the SCOTUS in front of Congress and before a worldwide audience on live tv? The answer ... NEVER. Not one time has a sitting US President done what BHO did. He stepped way over the lines of protocol in doing this. Where's your indignation over that, JD?

He spoke on the behalf of amny Americans, most Americans who feel that this was the wrong conclusion for the SCOTUS.

His words, "The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities."

This is not berating or condemning the SCOTUS, he stated a fact and an opinion.


Truth is, accountants can fix the books so that foreign entities can give to an agency here in America while that same agency uses their domestically acquired funds solely for political purposes. The ruling has in essence created a money shelter for politicians.

Originally Posted by n david

I can only hope that next year the SCOTUS, or at least the conservatives on the court won't attend the SOTU address.

Oh yeah, that's the right and professional decision-- someone expresses disagreement, take your ball and go home.

Originally Posted by n david

Yeah, silly us. All those jokes about W and the demonstrators' signs comparing him to a terrorist and burning posters and mock-ups of him ... that was just silly humorous stuff.

Though W had critics among blacks, most of the stuff you are speaking of were performed by whites and even then, that level of hatred was something that W. had to earn, something that he grew into.

The sensible critics and the hateful ones were spread out all over the country, coming from a diverse background.


Obama started his term with the ire of many.
Their criticisms, some valid, some not, has been relentless and on many occasions (seemingly) presented in a way to evoke a sense of disrespect and resentment.

His critics, do not appear to come from such a diverse background.

Originally Posted by n david

It's disingenious to whine about the way people treat BHO when you were silent about the way people treated W.

Your use of the word "whine" has connotations that don't match me as a person or the way that I have presented my opinions.

I wasn't a member of AFF for most of W's presidency. I was busy serving for all of his Presidency. I think he made some terrible decisions, following the advice of people close to him who had their best intentions in mind, not the country's.

Be that as it may, as a Registered Republican for over 6 years now, I have constantly criticized the attitude that many blacks have in blindly voting for a Democrat "just because" and for Republicans taking stances that seem insulting to many blacks in a way that shows that Republicans "just don't care."

Originally Posted by n david

He could be purple or pink and people would still be angry. Again ... it's his policies, stupid.

To completely disregard his skin color in analyzing the roots of such bitter, sometimes hateful, unfounded criticisms would be disingenious.

Even the way that some of the valid criticisms are presented smack of deep resentment and disrespect, unnecesarily so.



And just so you know, I want to reiterate that I am not stupid, the presentation of my opinions is not disingenious and I am certainly not a whiner.

If you want to criticize me as a person, bring to light facts, character flaws and legitimate issues for me to addre --oh that's right, you don't know me like that do you.


Stick to the subject of my thread and we'll be fine. I'm not on trial, the opinion expressed is.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Ok, at which point did the President lie? Which exact statement was it?

The President said (of his health care bill), ""The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

The truth was, at the time they did. That provision was removed later and before the bill was passed.

Since, however, there is no requirement that anyone show they are in the country legally in order to benefit from this Trillion Dollar windfall (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ant-healthcare) illegal aliens can still participate.

Moreover, it is already a fact of law that NO ONE who requires medical treatment can be denied care anywhere in the U.S. no matter what their status is. These bills are often paid through the Medicaid program, but with the cut backs to Medicaid required by "Obama Care," care for the illegals will be paid through the Byzantine labyrinth of bureaucracy created by the President's plan.

In the end, "Illegals" have always gotten the medical care they needed and that will continue under Obama Care - it will just cost the taxpayer more.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

How has it been proven to be a lie? Even if you have valid answers, you have admitted that protocol and decorum should be followed. My opinion is that it was not follwed because of the disrespect the President is enduring-- in part because of his darker skin tone.

Just proved it was a "lie." And, wouldn't it be a form of racism if Obama got "kid glove" treatment BECAUSE of his skin color? That's what you seem to want. This guy hasn't even taken the hits that Clinton took, but then Clinton was in there longer.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

"Treason" is defined as disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior.

The President stated his support for the democratically-elected government.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-honduras.html

A group of Republican U.S Senators, led by Senator DeMint (R-SC), publicly supported the coup, defying America's stance on the matter and decided to take a trip to Honduras, legitimizing the coup leaders illegal means of kicking their elected President out of office.

The language DeMint used, "I hope that as President Obama grows in office..." is insulting in that backhanded kind of way that almost seems like he's giving him the benefit of doubt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_225209.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...73-503544.html

The "coup" was happened when the Supreme Court of Honduras issued an arrest warrant for the sitting president on charges that he had acted illegally and unconstitutionally in canceling a scheduled election.

Now, whether or not the Honduran Supreme Court can constitutionally issue such an order is something that only the Honduran Supreme Court can decide, but those are the facts.

To suggest any "outsider" who takes one side in the dispute or the other is "Treasonous" goes a bit too far. You seem to have gone to a dictionary to get your definition, however the United States Constitution (Article 3) clearly limits just what "treason" in the United States shall be:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The Supreme Court of Honduras is not now nor has it ever been an "Enemy" of the United States.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

When Carville coined this phrase for Clinton, Carville was referring to Clinton as "stupid" as a term of endearment, to help him focus his campaign message. I doubt you are using this in the same way towards me.

I'm not stupid and you are forgiven.

Uh... no. James Carville famously put up that "It's the Economy Stupid" in B.C.'s campaign headquarters to get the press to focus on the issue HE wanted them focused on, and not on the line of bimbos going out the back door. The "Stupid" was the United States media and anyone else who dared question Clinton's extracurricular sexual activities. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

He spoke on the behalf of amny Americans, most Americans who feel that this was the wrong conclusion for the SCOTUS.

His words, "The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities."

This is not berating or condemning the SCOTUS, he stated a fact and an opinion.

It was an egregious breech of protocol - comparable to Joe Wilson's outburst at the previous Joint Sessions address..

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Truth is, accountants can fix the books so that foreign entities can give to an agency here in America while that same agency uses their domestically acquired funds solely for political purposes. The ruling has in essence created a money shelter for politicians.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Oh yeah, that's the right and professional decision-- someone expresses disagreement, take your ball and go home.

President Obama has held the fewest news conferences of any president in the modern era. Talk about "taking your ball and going home."

President Obama was scheduled to make an important policy address in front of "thousands" of NASA workers the other day. All NASA workers were held out of the meeting and only 200 people allowed in - mostly local Democrat party people and office holders.

MSNBC's account of this was spiked but someone then leaked it to Rush Limbaugh. Just play the audio of MSNBC's Barbee interviewing a NASA official. It's very revealing as to just how this administration operates.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/...114.guest.html

[Jermyn Davidson]

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?

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