It doesn't MATTER just shot to kill
-
Belly35
Good day rmolin73 nice to see you jumped in on the thread mofo....rmolin73;1748497 wrote:Dafuq? You might want to proof read this. Rage on though.
-
BoatShoes
Pretty sure he has called for the need for more gun control every time brah.SportsAndLady;1748432 wrote:Black guy killed by white guy, White House claims racism problems. White guy kills black guy, White House claims gun problems (or some other political agenda topic).
Obama after the South Carolina shooting:
“Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times,” Mr. Obama said. “We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.”
He went on, “Let’s be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. At some point, it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it.” -
Belly35
Shit happens to me all the time...SportsAndLady;1748504 wrote:Oh sorry for the typo, how could my point have ever gotten through?! -
rmolin73
You had a point?SportsAndLady;1748504 wrote:Oh sorry for the typo, how could my point have ever gotten through?! -
rmolin73
You know I have to ruffle some feathers whenever I can.Belly35;1748505 wrote:Good day rmolin73 nice to see you jumped in on the thread mofo.... -
rmolin73
Please don't stand in the way of his illogical rant.BoatShoes;1748506 wrote:Pretty sure he has called for the need for more gun control every time brah.
Obama after the South Carolina shooting: -
BoatShoes
The Obama Ragers clinging to misconceived preconceptions in the face of evidence to the contrary is the casual entertainment that keeps me coming back to the OC.rmolin73;1748512 wrote:Please don't stand in the way of his illogical rant. -
like_that
Yes, because the reaction to kkk meetings have been exactly the same.... You can delete the video from my post and I stand by my comment. Obama has made this country more racially divided.rmolin73;1748501 wrote:I guess all the kkk meetings and rallies that have been going on for years are fictitious? Farakhan has been spewing his garbage long before Obama got in office. Nice reach though. Rage on.
No rage here, but if that's what makes you feel better go for it. Butthurt on. -
rmolin73
How does that make me butthurt. Oh I forget that's one of your buzzwords when you're made to look simple. This country has been racially divided from its inception. It was built on racism, white supremacy, and oppression. The only people that are saying that it wasn't or that race relationships were still not fragmented are white people in denial. Just because some of the oppressed that were victims of the attacks for years have become the attacker we have an issue. When it's always been an issue. You and your family just weren't affected by it. Now it's all of our fault so stop playing victim dude.
-
gut
Yes, there's absolutely no evidence that Obama vilifies one group to pander to another. That's to be expected from people in Congress and other lower office. I like to think the POTUS would embrace a higher standard and set a better example. The main issue here is candidate Obama never stopped campaigning and transition to being President Obama.BoatShoes;1748515 wrote:The Obama Ragers clinging to misconceived preconceptions in the face of evidence to the contrary is the casual entertainment that keeps me coming back to the OC. -
rmolin73
He's a politician name me one president that hasn't done this?gut;1748525 wrote:Yes, there's absolutely no evidence that Obama vilifies one group to pander to another. That's to be expected from people in Congress and other lower office. I like to think the POTUS would embrace a higher standard and set a better example. The main issue here is candidate Obama never stopped campaigning and transition to being President Obama. -
like_that
I figured if you were throwing buzz words at people who disagree with you, I would give it a try too. I never said this country was never racially divided I just said it has been worse since Obama took over.rmolin73;1748522 wrote:How does that make me butthurt. Oh I forget that's one of your buzzwords when you're made to look simple. This country has been racially divided from its inception. It was built on racism, white supremacy, and oppression. The only people that are saying that it wasn't or that race relationships were still not fragmented are white people in denial. Just because some of the oppressed that were victims of the attacks for years have become the attacker we have an issue. When it's always been an issue. You and your family just weren't affected by it. Now it's all of our fault so stop playing victim dude.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/poll-shows-most-americans-think-race-relations-are-bad.html?referrer=&_r=0
The fact of the matter is being black, Obama had many opportunities to bring all races closer together. Unfortunately, he has has failed. Stating Trayvon could've been your son, sending White House aides to Brown's funeral, showing no support for cops, being silent when the exact same shit happens to whites, etc is not going to improve racial relations. I am not really surprised though. Improving any relations would just place a damper on the democrats' divide and conquer strategy. -
gut
Ummm, name me one other POTUS who has repeatedly sought to divide America, with specific examples. You might argue they let prominent leaders in the House or Senate do their dirty work, but they themselves remained above it. Obama takes every opportunity to create a villain and victim and pander to his base, ultimately because it's easier to give a speech than it is to build coalitions and actually do something positive.rmolin73;1748526 wrote:He's a politician name me one president that hasn't done this? -
gut
ding ding ding!like_that;1748528 wrote:Improving any relations would just place a damper on the democrats' divide and conquer strategy.
Although, I suppose we could frame it as a positive that Obama is willing to lower himself and the Office to carry water for the party. -
Automatik
So when/if a Republican comes into office they will aim to improve relations?
When will the masses realize the bipartisan system is total bullshit? -
rmolin73
That's my whole point Automatik. These clowns in office could give two shits about us. Racism is all of "our" problem. We're responsible for fixing race relations. Not some politician.Automatik;1748538 wrote:So when/if a Republican comes into office they will aim to improve relations?
When will the masses realize the bipartisan system is total bullshit? -
like_that
Never said they would/wouldn't. I'm only discussing our current president's performance.Automatik;1748538 wrote:So when/if a Republican comes into office they will aim to improve relations?
When will the masses realize the bipartisan system is total bullshit? -
gut
Every relative recent POTUS prior to Obama has routinely built coalitions, something Obama has sometimes struggled to do even within his own party. He's been content, again and again, when he can't push something thru to get on the bully pulpit and demagogue the opposition.Automatik;1748538 wrote:So when/if a Republican comes into office they will aim to improve relations?
When will the masses realize the bipartisan system is total bullshit? -
DeyDurkie5
Blah blah blah black people matter blah blah blah -
Heretic
Of course not. Doing so would mean potentially alienating part of their core, much like doing so would have that same effect on part of the Democrats' core.Automatik;1748538 wrote:So when/if a Republican comes into office they will aim to improve relations?
When will the masses realize the bipartisan system is total bullshit? -
gut
I disagree. When it comes to police, plenty of conservatives have expressed concern/outrage over the militarization of police and excessive use of force. This never had to be about race, and a better POTUS would not take the lazy path of giving race-bating speeches but instead talk only about best practices, procedures and oversight. They would never qualify victims or address race, because ALL races have been victims of bad police.Heretic;1748544 wrote:Of course not. Doing so would mean potentially alienating part of their core, much like doing so would have that same effect on part of the Democrats' core.
Just like when Conservatives talk about welfare reform, it's the liberals that make it an attack on blacks and hispanics...even though more whites are likely to be impacted than either of those two races. -
BoatShoes
Actually, this is mostly a figment of your Obama Rage as you are one of those who acts like he is the worst president in the world and the sky is falling but really things are mediocre.gut;1748529 wrote:Ummm, name me one other POTUS who has repeatedly sought to divide America, with specific examples. You might argue they let prominent leaders in the House or Senate do their dirty work, but they themselves remained above it. Obama takes every opportunity to create a villain and victim and pander to his base, ultimately because it's easier to give a speech than it is to build coalitions and actually do something positive.
Here are some better examples of divisiveness by Presidents:
Jimmy Carter subtly garnering the white vote by pandering to ethnic whites opposed to integration:
Ronald Reagan famously pandering to the White Vote by demonizing people of color and deriding "Strapping Young Bucks" on food stamps in the South and exaggerating stories of social insurance fraud:I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian, or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This is a natural inclination on the part of the people. I don’t think government ought to deliberately try to break down an ethnically oriented neighborhood by artificially injecting into it someone from another ethnic group just to create some form of integration.
[video]<iframe src="" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>[/video]
George H.W. Bush pandering to the White Vote with the Willie Horton Ad:
[video=youtube;Io9KMSSEZ0Y][/video]
And of course your prince Mitt Romney disowned half of the nation.
Each of these examples is worse than Obama saying things like "If I had a son he would have looked like Trayvon Martin" and all of the other stuff that gets you folks so riled up.
Back to reality: He's not much different than any other president and we the American People are responsible for our inability to get along. -
BoatShoes
Only Rand Paul and he is basically a nobody outside of the Libertarian Movement.gut;1748545 wrote:I disagree. When it comes to police, plenty of conservatives have expressed concern/outrage over the militarization of police and excessive use of force. -
BoatShoes
Republican Political Consultant Lee Atwater disagrees:gut;1748545 wrote:
Just like when Conservatives talk about welfare reform, it's the liberals that make it an attack on blacks and hispanics...even though more whites are likely to be impacted than either of those two races.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N—, n—, n—.” [Editor’s note: The actual word used by Atwater has been replaced with “N—” for the purposes of this article.] By 1968 you can’t say “n—” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut taxes and we want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N—, n—.” So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner. -
gut
Yes, let's inject an opinion of a former political consultant that died almost a quarter century ago. Strong argument.BoatShoes;1748550 wrote:Republican Political Consultant Lee Atwater disagrees:
"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that"
It also doesn't disprove anything I said - it's disproportional but more whites are affected than blacks. And pretending things like budget and welfare reform are purely baseless, racist attacks is disgusting hyperbole.
You're confusing Atwater talking about the perceptions of some voters, 35 years ago, with Atwater claiming that as the basis behind the policies, rather than logic and fundamental realities. And he clearly isn't saying that, and he specifically says he isn't saying that.