• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe that opposition to Obama is mostly based on his race

Is opposition to Obama mostly due to his race?

  • Total voters
    106
Devil505 said:
OK...So what is your explanation for the GOP loses in recent national elections?
Click to expand...

Unpopular wars, down economies, incompetence, the cyclical nature of politics, and thousands of other reasons, just like any other election. Do you REALLY think the primary reason why they lost was because the vast majority of people don't like their "scare tactics"?

When you get down to it, any negative campaigning is using scare tactics, and negative campaigning works.

And by the way, did you not notice how nasty and low the Democratic primary got this past year? That was against each other. Do you think they suddenly get all nicey-nice against their actual ideological opponents?

And on that, Hillary's campaign brought out an awful lot against Obama, and a lot of scare tactics to boot, many of which Republicans still use today, but HER campaign were the ones who brought it up first. Was that mostly racist?
 
Do you believe that opposition to Obama is mostly based on his race
Click to expand...

Absolutely friggin not.

Actually it seems that the race issue was fabricated by the left to shut down any opposition no matter how valid.

Lets not forget that if we had not had politically correctness jammed down our throats for so many years that tactic would be worthless.

Personally I am getting a little sick and tired of these tactics, and I think many Americans feel the same.

These various attempts to conspire to make it appear as if anyone who is not in full support of all the beliefs and policies of the administration to be a racist is only creating more racial tensions and possibly even erasing the many gains in racial relations.

Maybe if the administration really or honestly valued racial equality and relations etc they would not abuse such things for their own personal gain.

Shame!!
 
UtahBill said:
people who simply DENY racism perpetuate problems WITH racism....

Just yesterday I heard a nice old gentleman say "blacks and mexicans" with an inflection and in a context that indicates racism.

What is kind of funny is when one of those secretly bigoted white men finds out that his daughter is living "in sin" with one....or one of his kids adopts a black child.
Click to expand...

One might well ask why you didn't call him on his "covert" racism. Many, many LDS folks have served missions around the world, in Africa, South America, the far east, and elsewhere. They are fluent in any number of languages. Alot of LDS families have adopted children of other races, and there is a considerable degree of interacial marriage in the church, as well. Far more than you will see in, say, the southern Baptists.

The LDS are HARDLY the most racist folks out there, and most of the racism resides in the minds of the older generation. I.e., the Ezra Taft Benson generation, and the John Birchers.

I will agree that they tend to be RELIGIOUSLY discriminatory, but they certainly aren't, for the most part, racists.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I agree with most of what you say & I never claimed that opposition to Obama means the person must be a bigot. The topic question is: "Do you believe that opposition to Obama is mostly based on his race?"
I say YES to that in that the many lies & smears (Obama wants to kill old people, etc) are BASED from a few GOP bigots who lead the party. (Limbaugh, etc) Most of the rest of the Obama opposers simply bought the lies they keep hearing, but are probably not bigots.
Click to expand...

Possible. However, if it exists at all, I think it a symptom of both sides. A few persons who make statements which are then agreed to by a large portion of their followers.

Which doesn't mean that those few are incorrect.

That's the downside to such a situation... Opponents can claim that their enemies have blind, unthinking followers, even if such is not the case, and the "followers" are simply in agreement with the statements of the "leaders".

It happens on both sides.

Devil505 said:
True to an extent, but the far right have much more propensity for racism & violence than the left. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
One might well ask why you didn't call him on his "covert" racism. Many, many LDS folks have served missions around the world, in Africa, South America, the far east, and elsewhere. They are fluent in any number of languages. Alot of LDS families have adopted children of other races, and there is a considerable degree of interacial marriage in the church, as well. Far more than you will see in, say, the southern Baptists.

The LDS are HARDLY the most racist folks out there, and most of the racism resides in the minds of the older generation. I.e., the Ezra Taft Benson generation, and the John Birchers.

I will agree that they tend to be RELIGIOUSLY discriminatory, but they certainly aren't, for the most part, racists.
Click to expand...

I agree, are you implying that I think most LDS are racists? Most of my neighbors are LDS, and only a few are most definitely racist. Happens in even the best neighborhoods...
I grew up in east Texas in the 50's and 60's. Surprisingly, there were only a few openly racist types that I was aware of, but those few were really bad about it.
 
Harshaw said:
That, of course, is a form of bigotry in and of itself.
Click to expand...

I preach this all the time, I am very happy to see that Im not the only one who thinks this way.
 
Harshaw said:
Unpopular wars, down economies, incompetence, the cyclical nature of politics, and thousands of other reasons, just like any other election. Do you REALLY think the primary reason why they lost was because the vast majority of people don't like their "scare tactics"?

When you get down to it, any negative campaigning is using scare tactics, and negative campaigning works.

And by the way, did you not notice how nasty and low the Democratic primary got this past year? That was against each other. Do you think they suddenly get all nicey-nice against their actual ideological opponents?

And on that, Hillary's campaign brought out an awful lot against Obama, and a lot of scare tactics to boot, many of which Republicans still use today, but HER campaign were the ones who brought it up first. Was that mostly racist?
Click to expand...

I hate to admit it but you hit some excellent points & it was refreshing to hear you admit things like "Unpopular wars, down economies, incompetence, "......under a Republican Administration.
As far as this: ...."Hillary's campaign brought out an awful lot against Obama, and a lot of scare tactics to boot, many of which Republicans still use today, but HER campaign were the ones who brought it up first. Was that mostly racist?"....
It most certainly WAS racist.
I make no claims of Democratics being Angels, but that in no way excuses today's GOP from criticism.
 
I’m not a Republican. I’m a right-leaning Libertarian., and I’m right-leaning because I’m pro-strong military, ambivalent on drug legalization, and I think open borders is completely nuts. And I “admit” it because I’m about truth, not ideological blinders.

Now, as for your post . . . I’m just curious as to what would constitute, legitimate, NON-racist criticism of Obama in your world.

And as for Hillary . . . that pot still simmers. This, I can promise you – the moment she smells blood in the water, and it’s looking increasingly likely that she will, she’s going to come at Obama so hard that it’ll make even the Daley boys wince – ‘coz now, she has a record to work with.
 
Harshaw said:
Now, as for your post . . . I’m just curious as to what would constitute, legitimate, NON-racist criticism of Obama in your world.
Click to expand...

There are many things to legitimate complaints about Obama's policies & I have said so here on different threads.

1. We should immediately get out of Iraq & turn Afganistan over to NATO. (if NATO doesn't want main responsibilty, get out ourselves)
2. Get rid of Treasury Sec. Guethner
3. Pelosi & Reid need to go for not stopping war funding or impeaching Bush & Cheney
4. Obama needs to get out of the way & let Atty General Holder investigate/prosecute criminals from Bush's admin.


Those are just a few, but I could go on at length. No President (Dem or Repub) is ALL bad or ALL good. I just happen to hate R. Nixon & GW Bush for abusing their power in truly un-American, dictatorial ways.

Harshaw said:
And as for Hillary . . . that pot still simmers. This, I can promise you – the moment she smells blood in the water, and it’s looking increasingly likely that she will, she’s going to come at Obama so hard that it’ll make even the Daley boys wince – ‘coz now, she has a record to work with.
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong. Hillary is a real Bi__ch, but she's no dummy & I think she realizes that she'll never be President or even the Democratic nominee. She's a liar & all her past crap would bury her.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
There are many things to legitimate complaints about Obama's policies & I have said so here on different threads.

1. We should immediately get out of Iraq & turn Afghanistan over to NATO. (if NATO doesn't want main responsibility, get out ourselves)
2. Get rid of Treasury Sec. Guethner
3. Pelosi & Reid need to go for not stopping war funding or impeaching Bush & Cheney
4. Obama needs to get out of the way & let Atty General Holder investigate/prosecute criminals from Bush's admin.

Those are just a few, but I could go on at length. No President (Dem or Repub) is ALL bad or ALL good. I just happen to hate R. Nixon & GW Bush for abusing their power in truly un-American, dictatorial ways.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your 1st point.

The rest I either don't know enough about to form an opinion, or agree with you on.

Firstly, I was under the impression that we had various countries support in Afghanistan, so I don't see much point in "turning it over to NATO".

Secondly, regarding Iraq. IMO, "pull out immediately" is not a sound strategy.

IMO, regardless of the positive or negative merits of our original entrance into Iraq, withdrawing immediately would have negative effects. I was under the impression that there is a gradual withdrawal ongoing atm, but perhaps I was wrong.

Devil505 said:
I think you are wrong. Hillary is a real Bi__ch, but she's no dummy & I think she realizes that she'll never be President or even the Democratic nominee. She's a liar & all her past crap would bury her.
Click to expand...

Insert almost any party or political figure into that opinion, with appropriate adjectives, and it still applies.
 
Devil505 said:
There are many things to legitimate complaints about Obama's policies & I have said so here on different threads.

1. We should immediately get out of Iraq & turn Afganistan over to NATO. (if NATO doesn't want main responsibilty, get out ourselves)
2. Get rid of Treasury Sec. Guethner
3. Pelosi & Reid need to go for not stopping war funding or impeaching Bush & Cheney
4. Obama needs to get out of the way & let Atty General Holder investigate/prosecute criminals from Bush's admin.
Click to expand...

So, only criticizing him for not being liberal enough isn't racism? Otherwise it is?


I think you are wrong. Hillary is a real Bi__ch, but she's no dummy & I think she realizes that she'll never be President or even the Democratic nominee. She's a liar & all her past crap would bury her.
Click to expand...

She damn near won last year. I'll bet she thinks she can.
 
The Mark said:
I disagree with your 1st point.

The rest I either don't know enough about to form an opinion, or agree with you on.

Firstly, I was under the impression that we had various countries support in Afghanistan, so I don't see much point in "turning it over to NATO".
Click to expand...

While various NATO countries have sent combat troops, the majority of the "Heavy Lifting" (& casualties) is born by us & the Brits. Most NATO countries have small "Token" forces in Afghanistan & have no interest in taking over our lead role.
To my way of thinking, Afghanistan is not where most of the enemy is anyway. They (enemy) are hold up in the tribal regions of Pakistan, so we will just be bogged down for years, accomplishing nothing.
What is our "End Game" there anyway? When can/should we leave?

I say...Declare victory ("Mission Accomplished" ;)) & get out TOMORROW!:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
While various NATO countries have sent combat troops, the majority of the "Heavy Lifting" (& casualties) is born by us & the Brits. Most NATO countries have small "Token" forces in Afghanistan & have no interest in taking over our lead role.
To my way of thinking, Afghanistan is not where most of the enemy is anyway. They (enemy) are hold up in the tribal regions of Pakistan, so we will just be bogged down for years, accomplishing nothing.
What is our "End Game" there anyway? When can/should we leave?

I say...Declare victory ("Mission Accomplished" ;)) & get out TOMORROW!:2wave:
Click to expand...

Well, as we were the ones attacked by forces originating from Afghanistan, it seems reasonable that we would send a larger force, as we had the most at stake.
If we leave Afghanistan, would those in Pakistan move back to Afghanistan? I am not very knowledgeable as to the success or lack thereof that NATO has had in it's endeavors. Would they do the job effectively?

As to "End Game". I would assume our "End Game" for Afghanistan is when there is no longer a possibility that it can be used as a terrorist base against us.

Declare "Victory" and leave? But we haven't won! There are still terrorists! :shock:

And not to make any comparisons (yeah, right), but that sounds like Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Well, as we were the ones attacked by forces originating from Afghanistan, it seems reasonable that we would send a larger force, as we had the most at stake.
Click to expand...
Al Quieda is a world-wide terrorist/criminal group that has planned attacks from many different sites. Do we invade the entire world?

The Mark said:
If we leave Afghanistan, would those in Pakistan move back to Afghanistan?
Click to expand...
Who cares?..No matter where the terrorists are, they are a threat.
Bogging our army down in any location will just make us easier targets.


The Mark said:
As to "End Game". I would assume our "End Game" for Afghanistan is when there is no longer a possibility that it can be used as a terrorist base against us.
Click to expand...
Ah...The Bush doctrine.....but....since there will always be criminals & terrorists, we will never be able to leave, right?

The Mark said:
Declare "Victory" and leave? But we haven't won! There are still terrorists! :shock:

And not to make any comparisons (yeah, right), but that sounds like Vietnam.
Click to expand...

See my above response
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Al Qaeda is a world-wide terrorist group that has planned attacks from many different sites. Do we invade the entire world?
Click to expand...
Where did I suggest that I supported that? If we locate a terrorist base or operations, I would think through diplomacy and/or force we could attack it, if we so desired. Leaving it in place to gain intel from it is another option. But terrorists don't use bases that much, as they know such can be attacked as well as the next guy. So intelligence/special ops are the way to go for combating terrorism.

Devil505 said:
Who cares? No matter where the terrorists are, they are a threat.
Bogging our army down in any location will just make us easier targets.
Click to expand...

Using conventional military forces against terrorism is ineffective unless against a group of said terrorists who have gathered and are fighting in a somewhat conventional manner. As Afghanistan was, in part.

Devil505 said:
Ah...The Bush doctrine.....but....since there will always be criminals & terrorists, we will never be able to leave, right?

See my above response
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said "As to "End Game". I would assume our "End Game" for Afghanistan is when there is a reduced possibility that it can be used as a terrorist base against us."

So once the people of Afghanistan are capable of preventing terrorists from taking over their country again, and have the capability to search out and eliminate terrorists hiding in their country, we can leave.

Although I would assume, as with most if not all friendly countries, that we would have liaison military and intelligence persons there.

But you are correct, there will always be criminals and terrorists...and we will never be able to stop fighting them. As we never have been able to stop fighting them, since whenever humans started existing and were capable of criminal and terroristic acts.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
But you are correct, there will always be criminals and terrorists...and we will never be able to stop fighting them. As we never have been able to stop fighting them, since whenever humans started existing and were capable of criminal and terroristic acts.
Click to expand...
I never said we shouldn't fight criminals & terrorists. My point is to not use a sledge hammer (army) to kill a fly.
(Personally, I think terrorists fall into a different category than criminals or enemy combat troops & probably will require a pseudo military/police type SWAT unti specifically designed to fight them)
The idea that we (U.S.) are in a WAR, giving any President permanent war powers is a very dangerous concept. Our WAR against terrorism is no different the our WAR against drugs or our WAR against poverty, etc.....A WAR in name only that should not authorize vast, Presidential War Powers!
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I never said we shouldn't fight criminals & terrorists. My point is to not use a sledge hammer (army) to kill a fly.
(Personally, I think terrorists fall into a different category than criminals or enemy combat troops & probably will require a pseudo military/police type SWAT unit specifically designed to fight them)
The idea that we (U.S.) are in a WAR, giving any President permanent war powers is a very dangerous concept. Our WAR against terrorism is no different the our WAR against drugs or our WAR against poverty, etc.....A WAR in name only that should not authorize vast, Presidential War Powers!
Click to expand...

Well, in effect, much of the terrorist world has declared war on the USA.

So yes, we are "at war" with terrorism.

The other "wars" were never actually wars, they were just called that as a nice, catchy term. And they were both bad ideas, and still are.

But a "war on terrorism" is not really something we can decide not to partake of. Terrorists would attack us dispite our decision to not make war against them, if we so chose.

As to determining if what our methods in this "war" should be, I agree that the potential for misuse of "presidential war powers" exists.

But that does not mean they necessarily will be misused, or that they are not necessary to combat terrorism.

I agree that the most effective method of combating terrorism is not the conventional military. I would say that conventional forces could be used to support, or to combat large numbers of terrorists if unconventional forces drove them into a situation which conventional forces could be used in.

But, indeed, unconventional forces are needed to combat terrorism.

However, this is a bit off-topic, partially my fault I suppose.

So back to the main topic.

No, I don't agree. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
while the time has passed by many years, given the history of Afghanistan and its horrific terrain, I would have just ordered a few nukes into the mountainous terrain of the Taint of the World backwards ass, **** for brains no womans land country and been done with it rather than engaging in a war taht the USSR showed us can not be won. The fight by attrition. They have the advantage, and other than our drones and HUGE ****ING BOMBS, we have nothing to gain in the ****hole

time to turn mountainous terrain into glass and move on
 
DeeJayH said:
while the time has passed by many years, given the history of Afghanistan and its horrific terrain, I would have just ordered a few nukes into the mountainous terrain of the Taint of the World backwards ass, **** for brains no womans land country and been done with it rather than engaging in a war taht the USSR showed us can not be won. The fight by attrition. They have the advantage, and other than our drones and HUGE ****ING BOMBS, we have nothing to gain in the ****hole

time to turn mountainous terrain into glass and move on
Click to expand...

Could be a few side-effects from this method.

I assume you those do not bother you?

Well, some of them bother me, so I cannot agree to your method. Although it has the merit of being the Alexander to the Gordian knot which is Afghanistan.

But did anyone think about what the rope felt?

:mrgreen:
 
The Mark said:
Could be a few side-effects from this method.

I assume you those do not bother you?

Well, some of them bother me, so I cannot agree to your method. Although it has the merit of being the Alexander to the Gordian knot which is Afghanistan.

But did anyone think about what the rope felt?

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

errrrr what ?
 
DeeJayH said:
errrrr what ?
Click to expand...

Read well, and learn, young padawan.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot]Gordian Knot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
So, to get back to O being a racist and setting back race relations 50 (or more) years in this country....

Does anyone know what possible reason the eminent Eric Holder, attorney general of the United States has for not pursuing prosecution of the black panther thug threatening voters in Philadelphia. Guess he was an ACORN member, huh. If you don't think this is primafacia administration racism just substitute a white man in a white robe with a club and reevaluate your feelings. How about a president calling police stupid for detaining a publically ranting uncooperative witness at a reported crime scene. I don't think he called the police stupid for detaining Bob Dylan and confirming his identity this weekend did he. I guess the difference was that Dylan wasn't ranting and uncooperative.
 
Liberals, this may shock some of you, but not all of us care for continuing auto bailouts and bank bailouts, trying to expand government more into the health care industry, cash for clunkers, trying to force through a cap and trade bill that will have a far greater effect on our economy than our climate, spending hundreds of billions of dollars into an economic "stimulus" that none had time to read, or the Federal government generally and unconstitutionally taking as much power as it can. Most of us couldn't care less if he was black, but we could care less if he's one of the biggest statist politicians that this country has ever seen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom