Featured If Obama was White He Wouldn't Be President

Okay, Revmitchell - since you are getting predictably snide in your replies, I will simplify this for you:

Why are we still discussing race? By "we" I am referring to the Baptist board, not (to usurp YOUR words) to "the black man in the video."

What did you hope to accomplish by rehashing President Obama's race (and only half his race, by the way) with this discussion? How does the race of the "man in the video" make a difference with respect to what being said, and why did you feel so compelled to reference it more than once?

Sorry: I didn't think my question was that hard.....

 

You're still not very good at this, Revmitchell.

My intial reply was a question - a simple one at that (or so I thought).
The video does nothing to address my question, even after I amplified it for you (above).

I find it interesting that you are seemingly fixated on race. Even the signature in your posts deals with race. Have you ever thought about the impression you give?

Since it's quite obvious that you have no intention of addressing my question, exactly why are you replying?
If you are going to reply, by all means - answer the question why "we" (the Baptist Board) are discussing race?

To amplify: exactly what does "the black man" (YOUR words) say that warrants a discussion of Obama's race? What do YOU hear in his words that justifies yet another discussion about President Obama's ethnicity?

 

You need to realize, if your have not figured it our by now, that Rev. never answers questions. He accuses and asks questions, but never replies to pertinent questions.

And he will never admit a mistake even when he is shown that something he quoted as truth is shown to be an urban myth.

 

How many ways can this be said?

Because his race is why he was elected, and his race is why he is given wide latitude. His survival as President is all because of his race.

Duh.

 

Voters, not race, put him in the White House. Where is your proof?

 

I think his race has less to do with him being in the WH than the fact that the majority of young people that voted for him have been dumbed down to the point where they think we won our independence from Mexico or China in 1973 or was that 74?

See Mark Dice's you tube channel for his "man on the street interviews with zombies" and other "man on the street" interviews. They're amazing, funny, sad and depressing to behold all at the same time.

 

Apparently, reading comprehension isn't yours - noticed that I asked a question - one you have repeatedly refused to answer.

Abject fatuity, nothing more: YOU are the one who is seemingly fixated on race, YOU are the one who refers to the gentleman in the video as "the black man" (you even wrote in bold, didn't you?) and YOU are the one with a signature that references race, yet I am the one with "the agenda."
Your response says more about you than it does about me, and appears to reinforce the point I was making. Um, thanks..... I guess.

Stated another way: YOUR words, YOUR agenda.

Well, just to humor everyone still reading along, let's go though the video to which you provided a link:

1. Did you notice the date the video was uploaded? It was published on October 26, 2012. This is old news. It is a video that was put on YouTube before the election, and you are only now finding it? Simply put, this isn't even a fresh take.

2. In the first minute, he said "You can't tell me that a white man, if he had the same credentials as Barack Obama, would be the President of the United States." Um, okay: a straw man. Exactly who told him that?

3. "If we had doubts about his birth, if we had uh, uh, uh, doubts, uh, where he was born at." [sic] - The whole birth certificate thing? Really? This isn't new, and has been discussed ad nauseum.

4. Then of course, he references Bill Ayers, and implies that Barack was somehow involved in criminal activity. Really? Barack was involved with Bill Ayers in criminal activity? Any proof for that charge? President Obama was born in 1961. Bill Ayers was linked to several bombings from 1969 to 1972. So does the gentleman in the video believe that Obama was participating in these acts - when he was ages 8-11?

5. He also threw in accusations about his father , his mother, and his grandparents. Nothing new here.

6. Who financed his college tuition? <crickets chirping> Really, Revmitchell? Is this something you would consider substantive? Is that something that would be researched during the "criminal background check?"

7. There is a reference to "Pakistan." (3:09) Really? Pakistan? Isn't Pakistan supposed to be our ally in the war on terror? Does his passport say he was in Pakistan? Of course, I have no idea - and he doesn't really offer anything but accusations. What is the concern? How long was he there? What is the potential wrongdoing?

8. He references "slavery" as well as "40 acres and a mule." Really? Is this something new?

9. There are the references to Herman Cain and Allen West. Herman Cain was destroyed by his own party. Did the former Florida Congressman ever run for President?

10. The gentleman in the video goes through a whole laundry list of items from Obama's past, then claims that nobody has looked into his past. Hmmmm....

Then my favorite quote in the video:
11. "You're willing to die, because you want to be politically correct. You're willing to die, because you want to support the black man. Can you go to another country and get yourself killed? Do it... we all have to go down with you bunch of idiots." What in the world does this mean? I have listened to it several times, and still have absolutely no idea what to which he is referring.

More than once he refers to the mental disorder. That isn't even original - it's a book by Michael Savage.

This guy is all over the page - going in and out of discussions. He makes several accusations, yet offers no proof. Exactly how is this speaking about Obama "in a fair way?"

Of course, you already know the answer to that question.

So there: I watched your video. Now answer my question - the one I have asked more than once.

 

Well hello there, Aaron.

Not unexpectedly, you resort to your juvenile and simplistic namecalling. Even your namecalling is sophomoric.

Perhaps you could point to some evidence that "his race is why he was elected?" So, it wasn't the completely unelectable candidates the GOP ran against him. It wasn't the backlash against the Bush Administration for their failures. It wasn't even the desire for a change. It was "his race." Any links you could provide for such a charge?

Anything here about the notion that "his race is why he was elected?"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx

And to which race are you referring, as Obama is biracial? Are you going down the same road as Revmitchell?

You can say it as many ways as you like, but - as usual - stating it in perpetuity doesn't qualify as evidence.

 

:laugh:

Hey Crabtownboy - hope all is well with you, and that your 4th of July was as great as mine (we spent it in Williamsburg).

Regards,
BiR

 

Actually, it's because the Republican Party is falling apart. The "Tea Party" people are killing it.

 

Once again, this is abject fatuity, nothing more.

With this post, you have managed to create an integrity issue for yourself. Please show me anywhere in this discussion (or in any of my posts for that matter), where I have ever referred to Obama as a "savior." Let's take that further, please show me anywhere - in any post - where I have referred to him in such a manner. Go back and read my posts: I discussed his race, and questioned why his race is a topic of discussion. I didn't discuss how I personally felt about him, nor did I discuss the job he has done thus far.

Calling you out on this one: put up or shut up.

I find it interesting that I took the time to watch this video, took the time to ask you a question, and you respond with the nonsense and false witness that you have shown. The simple fact of the matter is that you didn't answer my question. There is nothing new in this video, which I demonstrated and you reproduced in this awful reply.

The only thing your comments do is give the reader an impression of your issues with Obama's race. Is Obama's race really that big of an issue with you? Does the race of the man in the video somehow give new credence to these old charges/attacks? Why is race such a seemingly important issue for you? You reference race directly more than once in this discussion.

You could have started a discussion about the fact that Obama has continued many of the failed policies of the Bush Administration. You could have noted that the Obama Administration has gone after the 2nd Amendment with the same fervor as the Bush Administration did with the 4th Amendment. You could have discussed how the Obama Administration has jammed Romneycare (after all, that is the major source of much of Obamacare) down our collective throats. You might have even noted that he has not only perpetuated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but has gotten us involved in even more conflicts. You could have even asked those of us who are disappointed with Obama's policies how we are feeling now. But NO: you chose to discuss race.

I love your personal attack on our friend Crabtownboy: guess it didn't occur to you that - with this response - you demonstrated the behavior noted in the comment he made to me. That was a nice touch.

I would like to think the best of you, but once again you give reason to doubt that. The "extremist liberal" charge was a fine example of a seemingly angry spirit: does this mean that, from where you are politically, everyone who doesn't share your opinion is an extremist? [Once again, notice that this was a question.]

 

You are correct. Republicans do not want to hear this hard truth. If more moderate Republicans do not stand up to the Tea Party they will kill the party. As I have said before, we need two parties ... but two responsible parties.

 

Yeah why would anyone in their right mind want to give up the warfare/welfare state the responsible republicans and democrats built?

 

Moderate, RINO, Republicans are the most pathetic political creatures on the spectrum. They stand for nothing, fight for nothing, believe in nothing but their own political carcasses. As liberal as Democrats are, they at least stand up for what they believe.

 

The GOP is swimming upstream against the tides of the culture, the tides of the demographics, the tides of history ... longing for an era that never was nor ever will be. A party cannot win national elections by being against everything. Yes, it can win some local elections ... but those will become fewer and further in between as the culture and society changes.

I do agree that too many Republicans will blow in the wind and think only of the next election ... selling their souls to whatever they believe will win for them.

It is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

 

I do not agree with Poncho on much, (duh) but one thing I do agree with him on is the pitiful state of both parties. Both of them need to be dismantled. In place of them should arise two parties without attachments to lobbyists, corporations, the financial industry, or any other outside influence. Both parties should have the Constitution and serving the American people as their main goals. A good start would be something like a libertarian type party and a constitutional type party.

Over 90% of the present Congress should be in prison on chain gangs for treason, theft, bribery, and economic terrorism. I would make Joe Arpaio warden.

 

Saturn, I am curious and not arguing with my question. What would you like to see in a party that would make them appeal to the majority of voters and, thus, win elections?