• 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!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

eohrnberger said:
How does one actually believe that the charge of racism in a policy disagreement is legitimate?

Which part of objecting and disagreeing with policy is racists in nature? I'm not sure that it can be.
Click to expand...

If it focuses on policy, I agree. But when the personal attacks go beyond reason, depending on what they are, there might be.
 
Boo Radley said:
If it focuses on policy, I agree. But when the personal attacks go beyond reason, depending on what they are, there might be.
Click to expand...

Many of the policy based disagreements, challenges and opposition have been falsely and wrongly accused as being racist in nature, resulting in much of the poisoning of the congressional well (i.e. cooperation).

So who's actually, and continually, playing the race card?
Biased Lame Stream Media (BLMS), from administration flunkies all the way up to Attorney General.

That's really poor form.
 
eohrnberger said:
Many of the policy based disagreements, challenges and opposition have been falsely and wrongly accused as being racist in nature, resulting in much of the poisoning of the congressional well (i.e. cooperation).

So who's actually, and continually, playing the race card?
Biased Lame Stream Media (BLMS), from administration flunkies all the way up to Attorney General.

That's really poor form.
Click to expand...

I'd have to see specifics to respond. You show a certain bias in your language, so give me an example.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'd have to see specifics to respond. You show a certain bias in your language, so give me an example.
Click to expand...

OK. Holder specifically.

“There's a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that's directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there's a racial animus."
Click to expand...
Holder sees 'racial animus' in opposition | TheHill

'If you object to our policies, you are a racist'.

Attorney General Eric Holder played the infamous race card while speaking before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on Wednesday.

Holder told the audience that he’s proud of the significant strides and lasting reforms his department has achieved “even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive adversity”

Holder then implies he and President Obama are encountering a different type of “treatment” from House Republicans due to their race.

“You look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee. It had nothing to do with me. Forget about that. What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What President has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” Holder asked.
Click to expand...
Eric Holder Plays Race Card | Washington Free Beacon

'They are objecting to my policies' and are racists. Waa Waa Waa. And this to the racist, race baiting and race hustling Al Sharpton’s National Action Network group.

The Biased Lame Stream Media is not any better.

Legitimate policy disagreements are not racist in the least. They are legitimate policy disagreements.
 
eohrnberger said:
OK. Holder specifically.

Holder sees 'racial animus' in opposition | TheHill

'If you object to our policies, you are a racist'.
Click to expand...

But that's not what he said. He specifically points to the vehemence, which is the manner in which they object. The hatred, the vile accusations, the attitude.

Eric Holder Plays Race Card | Washington Free Beacon

'They are objecting to my policies' and are racists. Waa Waa Waa. And this to the racist, race baiting and race hustling Al Sharpton’s National Action Network group.

The Biased Lame Stream Media is not any better.

Legitimate policy disagreements are not racist in the least. They are legitimate policy disagreements.
Click to expand...

Again, not the objection to policy but the treatment, the how it was done. Not the objection to policy.
 
Boo Radley said:
If there is a charge of racism it would not be in opposing Obama. It would be in the how. The over exaggerations, the mindless belief in him not being a citizen, being a communist, Muslim, terrorist, fascist, socialist, heathen antichrist. It's a little much even for American politics.

So, slow down, back up, and address the actual argument. Which is that racism is still with us, and that we should still address it where merited.
Click to expand...
Oh please. That is not what is going on today and you know it.
 
Boo Radley said:
But that's not what he said. He specifically points to the vehemence, which is the manner in which they object. The hatred, the vile accusations, the attitude.



Again, not the objection to policy but the treatment, the how it was done. Not the objection to policy.
Click to expand...
Are you for real? Talk about splitting hairs. So people have to oppose policy with a smile or they're racist. Talk about some real crybaby **** right there. Waaaa, the big bad opposition says things meanly.

I thought reality wasn't subjective?
 
You can add the head flunky. Remember a few months ago when asked about his poll numbers and he pulled the race card. So, according to his logic, a huge group of people who voted for him in 2008 and 2012 suddenly became racist causing his low poll numbers. Total d-bag.



eohrnberger said:
Many of the policy based disagreements, challenges and opposition have been falsely and wrongly accused as being racist in nature, resulting in much of the poisoning of the congressional well (i.e. cooperation).

So who's actually, and continually, playing the race card?
Biased Lame Stream Media (BLMS), from administration flunkies all the way up to Attorney General.

That's really poor form.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Oh please. That is not what is going on today and you know it.
Click to expand...

I know nothing of the kind. Have you actually read the exaggerated nonsense we see?
 
j-mac said:
Are you for real? Talk about splitting hairs. So people have to oppose policy with a smile or they're racist. Talk about some real crybaby **** right there. Waaaa, the big bad opposition says things meanly.

I thought reality wasn't subjective?
Click to expand...

Hardly. But they have to focus on the issue and not wild insults and exaggerations.

And I said reality isn't subjective. And it isn't. When hate exceeds reason, it's proper to ask why? Factually, Obama has done little to warrant the silliness he has to contend with.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know nothing of the kind. Have you actually read the exaggerated nonsense we see?
Click to expand...
Such as? And be specific. Also, don't give me any crap from 2007 either.

Face it. Demo's are using the race card as an excuse.
 
j-mac said:
Such as? And be specific. Also, don't give me any crap from 2007 either.

Face it. Demo's are using the race card as an excuse.
Click to expand...

Nothing magical after 2007, but the entire birther, socailist, communist, Marxist, Muslim, terrorist, "you Lie!" stuff has been beyond the pale. Un-precedented. Little debate of any issue, but tons of exaggerations and name calling.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing magical after 2007, but the entire birther, socailist, communist, Marxist, Muslim, terrorist, "you Lie!" stuff has been beyond the pale. Un-precedented. Little debate of any issue, but tons of exaggerations and name calling.
Click to expand...
So you have nothing other than your own misguided perception based on what liberal talking points tell you to believe eh...thought so.
 
j-mac said:
So you have nothing other than your own misguided perception based on what liberal talking points tell you to believe eh...thought so.
Click to expand...

I notice when someone sees a point they don't want to address, they call it a talking point. No, I'm being very specific. I say clearly this stuff is beyond the pale, and Un-precedented. Now a reasoned response would either agree or show how it isn't. A hack response is to call it a liberal talking point. Which president other than Obama had someone from congress yell, "you lie!"? If you can show that it happens, and isn't un-precedented, you might have a case. Show me a ton of bithers for any other president that have persisted like those with Obama. Again, show that I'm wrong about this being without precedence. Read the vile, personal attacks on this president, much of it not based in any facts of actual charges. Mere exaggerations. It all begs the question as to why?
 
What's wrong with you? President Obama is one of the greatest POTUS we will have a chance to be witness to. I can lay out a list of accomplishments if you want, but I will just start by saying he got Osama instead of redirecting our troops into Iraq. The problem lies in what Congress is doing. You see, they have big money interests to see that what you or I want fails. I watch this every day, so don't try to poll me for a retracted answer.
 
Boo Radley said:
I notice when someone sees a point they don't want to address, they call it a talking point. No, I'm being very specific. I say clearly this stuff is beyond the pale, and Un-precedented. Now a reasoned response would either agree or show how it isn't. A hack response is to call it a liberal talking point. Which president other than Obama had someone from congress yell, "you lie!"? If you can show that it happens, and isn't un-precedented, you might have a case. Show me a ton of bithers for any other president that have persisted like those with Obama. Again, show that I'm wrong about this being without precedence. Read the vile, personal attacks on this president, much of it not based in any facts of actual charges. Mere exaggerations. It all begs the question as to why?
Click to expand...

Pretty good start, want more?

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have a very short selective memory.
 
Raven1 said:
What's wrong with you? President Obama is one of the greatest POTUS we will have a chance to be witness to. I can lay out a list of accomplishments if you want, but I will just start by saying he got Osama instead of redirecting our troops into Iraq. The problem lies in what Congress is doing. You see, they have big money interests to see that what you or I want fails. I watch this every day, so don't try to poll me for a retracted answer.
Click to expand...

LOL, spoken like that big govt. supporter who believes the role of the govt. is to provide you with what you want and need versus your own personal responsibility requirements. Rather interesting how you spout talking points but never offer specifics.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing magical after 2007, but the entire birther, socailist, communist, Marxist, Muslim, terrorist, "you Lie!" stuff has been beyond the pale. Un-precedented. Little debate of any issue, but tons of exaggerations and name calling.
Click to expand...

The birther, socailist, communist, Marxist, Muslim, terrorist stuff was all fringe.

The "you Lie!" accusation during SOTU was accurate, but in poor form. Just for the record.
 
Boo Radley said:
I notice when someone sees a point they don't want to address, they call it a talking point. No, I'm being very specific. I say clearly this stuff is beyond the pale, and Un-precedented. Now a reasoned response would either agree or show how it isn't. A hack response is to call it a liberal talking point. Which president other than Obama had someone from congress yell, "you lie!"? If you can show that it happens, and isn't un-precedented, you might have a case. Show me a ton of bithers for any other president that have persisted like those with Obama. Again, show that I'm wrong about this being without precedence. Read the vile, personal attacks on this president, much of it not based in any facts of actual charges. Mere exaggerations. It all begs the question as to why?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Pretty good start, want more?

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have a very short selective memory.
Click to expand...

Indeed a very short, selective memory.
RememeberthedissrespectyoushowedPresidentBush-SowheredoyougetthenervetocomplainaboutdisrespecttoPresidentObama_zpsbfd2a71a.jpg
 
eohrnberger said:
The birther, socailist, communist, Marxist, Muslim, terrorist stuff was all fringe.

The "you Lie!" accusation during SOTU was accurate, but in poor form. Just for the record.
Click to expand...

A pretty large fringe. And the poor form is the point. unprecedened.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, spoken like that big govt. supporter who believes the role of the govt. is to provide you with what you want and need versus your own personal responsibility requirements. Rather interesting how you spout talking points but never offer specifics.
Click to expand...

Yep, you have me pegged. I'm a supporter of government in excess. :roll:

If you actually want to know what I support, all you have to do is ask. I will give you the full answer.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yep, and still much, much worse with Obama. None of that reach Obama levels.
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree that both as equally misguided.

As for which is worse? :shrug: I suppose it depends on who you favor and how thin your skin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom