Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Obama: the most racist president?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Of course they have blood on their hands. They incited this !!!

    --------------------------------------------------------------------


    Bernard Kerik: De Blasio, Sharpton 'Have Blood on Their Hands'


    ...........

    Kerik told Newsmax that the officers' deaths resulted from a climate created by de Blasio, Sharpton and other New York City officials.

    "This guy's intent — based on that Instagram post — was retribution for Eric Garner and Michael Brown," he told Newsmax. "The people who encouraged these protests — you had peaceful protesters who were screaming 'kill the cops' — the so-called peaceful protesters.

    "Who was encouraging these protesters? De Blasio, Sharpton and other elected officials and community leaders. They encouraged this mentality. They encouraged this behavior.


    "They encouraged it — and these two cops are dead because of people like them," Kerik said. "They don't owe the cops an apology.

    "An apology isn't good enough. They have blood on their hands."


    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ker.../20/id/614261/

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Sad stuff happening in America today.................

    Many of us thought electing a person of color to the presidency would put an end to such craziness.

    ... and it might have . . if we had elected a person of color that wasn't a dangerous pyschopath.

    We are now at war with each other. Killing each other "just because."


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An armed man walked up to two New York Police Department officers sitting inside a patrol car and opened fire Saturday afternoon, striking them both before running into a nearby subway station and apparently committing suicide, police said.

    The shooting comes at a time when police are being heavily criticized for their tactics following the chokehold death of Garner. Several officers have been assaulted at New York City protests during demonstrations that have largely been peaceful.

    The Post said the suspect in a posting on Instagram wrote "I'm Putting Wings on Pigs Today," with a photo of a gun. Another post, just hours before the shooting, showed camouflage pants and blue sneakers, which matched the gunman's clothing, the Post reported.

    "They Take 1 Of Ours … Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” another post said. “This May Be My Final Post.”

    ............read more here



    http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-NYPD-Of.../20/id/614257/

    Leave a comment:


  • Imawhosure
    replied
    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    Michelle says she was the victim of racism when she was asked to get something off a shelf at Target by another shopper. I am asked that all the time as I am 6'4" tall. Guess I'm a victim of racism.
    OMD, it is because with the liberalism of the last 50 or 60 years, it is no longer the "intent" of the person who said or did something, but rather the supposed victims "perception" of what was implied.

    A great example was given to me quite a few years ago by someone in upper management at Ford-------------> If someone at work gropes a woman, what % of employees would say she was sexually harassed? ANSWER 99 to 100%. But what if it was more subtle? What if it was a company beach outing, and the woman came in a skimpy bikini! What if 3 men were standing there watching her, and we all had what at that time was called "elevator eyes" and checked out her exceptional form?

    Under these conditions he said, she could have all 3 of them men fired, but yet if one of those men was a temporary contractor named Brad Pitt doing research for a movie, she would undoubtedly give him a pass. It is her perception that she did not enjoy the first 2 looking at her, but did enjoy Mr Pitt doing it, eventhough we all had the same status with her as far as being married or related, she just enjoyed his ogling while not liking ours.

    She does not have to prove our intent, just her perception of our intent, while hoping that Brads intent was exactly what she insisted our crime was.

    That is LIBERALISM; which has this whole country screwed up. And in the instance I gave you, should you question the logic of the accuser, you have.....you guessed it. a war on women.

    Is it any wonder that the left continues to foster these types of sexist, or racial inequities? How can a logical thinking person answer to what a very possible illogical person feels/thinks? Since the illogical persons thoughts are the determining factor on if you are guilty or not depending upon how they feel, all you can do is avoid contact as much as possible. And that is exactly how leftists like everything, muddled!

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Michelle says she was the victim of racism when she was asked to get something off a shelf at Target by another shopper. I am asked that all the time as I am 6'4" tall. Guess I'm a victim of racism.

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Originally posted by Danny View Post
    So Obama commenting on racist cases makes him the most racist president ever? The Confederate flag in the OP's avatar is perhaps the most striking symbol of racism in existence and yet you display it proudly. Looks to me like if anyone is racist it's the OP.

    In fact, Obama has let down many in the African American community because he's done too little when it comes to race for fear of being labelled a racist.

    Obama has had to deal with more racist attacks then I ever thought he would when he was elected. Governing while black is apparently not permitted in America. At first I didn't think much of the pushback had to deal with race. I figured weather it was him or Clinton the pushback would have been the same. I now believe that to be incorrect.

    The most recent example: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politi...ama-daughters/

    Shorter GOP staffer: That nigger's daughters better learn their place and dress better in public.

    Honestly if these were the Bush daughters this never would have happened.

    So John, before you go accusing the first black president of being a racist because racial unrest still exists in your country, maybe take a step back and ask yourself if that make ANY sense what so fucking ever?
    First off, the Bush daughters caught a bunch of crap too, and it's just baseless and pointless as this ill-advised rant against Obama's daughters. Seems that up until Bush's admin, kids were pretty much off limits for criticism, as they should be. Can't possibly imagine who didn't, or why this wasn't, observed for the Bush daughters.

    Secondly, I challenge you to find that particular quote of yours as having been published by anyone other than yourself here. So talk about putting words in someome's mouth, and then castigating them for it? That's not very honest, and certainly not an honest form of debate.

    The criticism was over choice of dress for a formal (well more or less) White House function. A slightly more upscale attire choice would have been more appropriate.

    Criticism of dress isn't racist at all. Everyone has dress. Everyone can be criticized for it.

    Finally, due to the inappropriateness and none observance of president's kids are off limits, this person had their present job terminated.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDJarvis
    replied
    He comments on cases that aren't racist until the racebaiters and media get the mob fired up.
    Remember the beer summit from when he was first in office? No racism involved but the president seemed to think in was necessary to poke his nose in.

    As for the Bush daughters the press had no trouble finding flaws in them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny
    replied
    So Obama commenting on racist cases makes him the most racist president ever? The Confederate flag in the OP's avatar is perhaps the most striking symbol of racism in existence and yet you display it proudly. Looks to me like if anyone is racist it's the OP.

    In fact, Obama has let down many in the African American community because he's done too little when it comes to race for fear of being labelled a racist.

    Obama has had to deal with more racist attacks then I ever thought he would when he was elected. Governing while black is apparently not permitted in America. At first I didn't think much of the pushback had to deal with race. I figured weather it was him or Clinton the pushback would have been the same. I now believe that to be incorrect.

    The most recent example: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politi...ama-daughters/

    Shorter GOP staffer: That nigger's daughters better learn their place and dress better in public.

    Honestly if these were the Bush daughters this never would have happened.

    So John, before you go accusing the first black president of being a racist because racial unrest still exists in your country, maybe take a step back and ask yourself if that make ANY sense what so fucking ever?

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    I did answer the question and yes I think there were likely presidents in history who have divided the races more than Obama.
    I honestly think your dislike of Obama and what you see as his liberal policies (although I don't personally think he is all that liberal but then again US politics has shifted so far right that what would have been centre ground 20 years ago is now considered loony left) just makes you see everything he does in an ultra negative way.

    From the outside looking in he's not the radical you seem to paint him as and in fact he's not done much at all compared to someone like Clinton.

    Just for the record I'm not a fan of Obama I see him as a middling President who has had to deal with utter gridlock from an opposition determined to stop him doing anything. He's not great at foreign affairs and has done pretty much nothing for US UK relations which was rock solid under Bush.
    I don't understand how anyone can have a seat as far away fro the U.S. As you seem to have, Peter, yet be so clueless as to the many missteps Obama has taken since taking office. He lacks leadership, he is a poor decision maker, he has racial blinders on, he has never held a real, hour-to-hour job, he has zero capacity for military... ANYTHING (never mind any strategic sense). He over-uses his executive order (not in quantity, but in substance), he ignores requests from anyone with whom he disagrees, he pushes his own agenda down our throats, and I just heard he has now declared the Muslim Brotherhood is NOT a terrorist organization. AND he is a liar, in which he has been caught many, many times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by John Marston View Post
    Has there ever been a president who divided this nation racially than Obama? Has there ever been a president with such a racial chip on his shoulder?

    When people say that race relations in America have worsened under Obama, they just need to look at the president himself to understand why.

    This is what this administration wants: young thug racist blacks angry and filled with rage against whites. Afteral, it was this administration and it's lying theme of collective white racism and white privilege that created the irrational hatred against whites that helped to launch the dangerous knock-out game, the unprovoked assaults, violent crime directed at whites, and the public derision of whites, .. along with the Attorney General constantly suggesting that white racism is always depriving blacks of equality and justice.

    If one really thinks it through, that seems to be the message and in my opinion, .. that is exactly what most younger generational black thugs are hearing.

    If one couples all of that above with Obama's giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens from south of the border, along with the millions and millions of illegals who are already here in America, .. it does indeed seem and appear that this radical leftist administration is hell-bent on changing the color demographics in their effort to put whitey on notice, as well as letting whitey know that he is going to be the primary person who is going to pay for all the new entitlements and welfare programs of 'redistributive rights'.

    So the Obama admin wants young thugs, racist blacks to be filled with rage against whites? LOL... That is crazy talk.

    I don't hear now, nor have I heard him say anything that would lead anyone to believe in that rubbish.

    I know what racist language sounds like having heard my share of it during the late 50s and 60s, from whites here in the south.. Obama has done non of that.

    Some blacks feel that the repubs are racist, in the way they have gone after Obama, at every turn, when it was nothing more than the rabid partisan ideological driven politics that reflect the times we are living in. So, these blacks see it as racism, and that is understandable, given the repubs are the old white man's party, and given the fact blacks were discriminated against for a long, long time, and have been in their current position for a relatively short time.


    So, what you are saying is utter nonsense. Obama has not helped out the blacks in the ways they thought he would do, since he is half black. And if he would have helped them out, he would have been called a racist by the whites, some of them, for looking to play favorites.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDJarvis
    replied
    Obama's issue is he's only 1/2 black. He has struggled his whole life to find and affirm an identity (choosing race as a defining factor) ,and still is struggling with it, at his age. He's the resut of being raised by priveleged lefties who chose to retain the issue of race in raising Obama by finding a leftists activist african american to teach Obama what it meant to be black in the U.S..

    Leave a comment:


  • fishjoel
    replied
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    Are you honestly surprised that the first black president of the US which is a country with a less than perfect record for race relations has made some comments about race relations in the US?
    I'd put the U.S.'s race relations up against any other country in the world. I think we have the best relations, in reality. It simply seems bad because of politics trying to paint it that way. I don't see any black prime ministers. Hell, I hardly see anything but a bunch of whites in the House of Commons. Oh...and I can't imagine the complete and utter scandal that would erupt if anyone in the royal family marries a black person. Hell, it's probably so bad that they already know not to even bother.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterUK75
    replied
    I did answer the question and yes I think there were likely presidents in history who have divided the races more than Obama.
    I honestly think your dislike of Obama and what you see as his liberal policies (although I don't personally think he is all that liberal but then again US politics has shifted so far right that what would have been centre ground 20 years ago is now considered loony left) just makes you see everything he does in an ultra negative way.

    From the outside looking in he's not the radical you seem to paint him as and in fact he's not done much at all compared to someone like Clinton.

    Just for the record I'm not a fan of Obama I see him as a middling President who has had to deal with utter gridlock from an opposition determined to stop him doing anything. He's not great at foreign affairs and has done pretty much nothing for US UK relations which was rock solid under Bush.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    Are you honestly surprised that the first black president of the US which is a country with a less than perfect record for race relations has made some comments about race relations in the US?
    It would be like electing an American Indian and expecting him to never mention what happened to them.
    Are you also surprised that a black president also has more to say on the issue than previous presidents who are all white and lets be honest at least middle class.

    I'd have been bloody stunned if Obama didn't say as much about the subject as Bush as I'm not accusing Bush of insensitivity here as as far as I know he did as much as any president to further the black cause and never struck me as being unsympathetic to race relations it's just that's he's an old white guy who naturally has less to say about black issues than a black president.
    What a crock of hooey, Peter.

    First, you didn't answer John's question: He asked "Has there ever been a president who divided this nation racially [more] than Obama?" TO which a reasoned answer would be "no." After that, if you want to launch into your contrast of a black president with a white president, then by all means, indulge yourself... but at least answer the question.

    Second, electing an American Indian would be quite different in that the racial division Obama perpetuates did not happen to him (like we assume the injustices were done to an American Indian). he went to a top-tier school, then a top-tier law school (at least part of which was PAID for by scholarships from racially determined groups), he worked as a community organizer, became a state senator, a U.S. Senator, and President of the U.S.. Which is not, even you will have to admit, a normal experience for ANYONE, never mind for a bi-racial man from Kenya. So, yes, I DO expect a president to be the president of all of us and NOT just a president that panders to only the minority communities for votes.

    And finally, the country actually listens when a president says something. So for him to take sides like he did in the Trayvon Martin case, and in the Michael Brown case, is reprehensible. For him to remain silent on the many thousands MORE black-on-black deaths, gang-related deaths, and black-on-white deaths is further evidence that his intent is at least partly to divide and not to heal.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterUK75
    replied
    Are you honestly surprised that the first black president of the US which is a country with a less than perfect record for race relations has made some comments about race relations in the US?
    It would be like electing an American Indian and expecting him to never mention what happened to them.
    Are you also surprised that a black president also has more to say on the issue than previous presidents who are all white and lets be honest at least middle class.

    I'd have been bloody stunned if Obama didn't say as much about the subject as Bush as I'm not accusing Bush of insensitivity here as as far as I know he did as much as any president to further the black cause and never struck me as being unsympathetic to race relations it's just that's he's an old white guy who naturally has less to say about black issues than a black president.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Marston
    started a topic Obama: the most racist president?

    Obama: the most racist president?

    Has there ever been a president who divided this nation racially than Obama? Has there ever been a president with such a racial chip on his shoulder?

    When people say that race relations in America have worsened under Obama, they just need to look at the president himself to understand why.

    This is what this administration wants: young thug racist blacks angry and filled with rage against whites. Afteral, it was this administration and it's lying theme of collective white racism and white privilege that created the irrational hatred against whites that helped to launch the dangerous knock-out game, the unprovoked assaults, violent crime directed at whites, and the public derision of whites, .. along with the Attorney General constantly suggesting that white racism is always depriving blacks of equality and justice.

    If one really thinks it through, that seems to be the message and in my opinion, .. that is exactly what most younger generational black thugs are hearing.

    If one couples all of that above with Obama's giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens from south of the border, along with the millions and millions of illegals who are already here in America, .. it does indeed seem and appear that this radical leftist administration is hell-bent on changing the color demographics in their effort to put whitey on notice, as well as letting whitey know that he is going to be the primary person who is going to pay for all the new entitlements and welfare programs of 'redistributive rights'.
Working...
X