• 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!

Obama wins over notre dame

I would like to bump this one more time so that it goes on the record that the first use of the "n-word" reference was by AS himself, further proving that intelligent discourse is being traded for histrionics, hysterics, and application of victimhood status with more alacrity and glee than we have ever seen before here at DP.

Blah, blah, blah

I had enough of it, I am tired of pushing your thanks button. I am not reading you here anymore or my pushing thanks button finger will fall off...
 
I don't think it's rejected, at least not by him. I mean he has written openly about it, it's how we know these things. I don't think it is entirely fair though to say he is "white". He looks black, and I believe identifies himself as black. That is to say, outside of his close circle of people, he was treated as a black man. Black men during the 70's where not treated particularly well as a rule. So while he was undoubtedly somewhat protected by his friends and family, it was impossible that he was 100 % protected.

Since he has achieved adulthood, he has done some noble charity work for blacks and poor people, and I think that is important to recognize as well.

Mostly though, I think it is important to realize that people are way too complex to worry about whether they are "black" or "white". it's really not germaine to whether President obama is doing good or bad, well or poorly.


The only fault I apply to Obama in this is his allowing it to occur and then using it. He could have shut down the rather blatant false stories about his "poor" upbringing..but in fact he not only did nothing he started using it himself.

IE he liked to mention his mom getting food stamps when he was a kid while paying for he and his sisters schooling. So he knew what it was like to live the "hard" life.
Whether she actually ever got foodstamps(or anything similar) or not is still up in the air.
During the period he was going to the private school I mentioned and its pretty clear he was primarily funded by his white grandparents.

Whatever... the stories of him being poor and all that are nonsense.
Yet they continue to be pushed and anyone who questions or even disproves them gets called a racist. Which is just stupid.
 
Last edited:
I am knowledgeable. In many fields of endeavor. I'm the worst kind of N-word.
An intelligent, thinking one. Sorry to disappoint.
And you're, of course, entitled to your opinion, as it is.

The fact you think of yourself as a nigger says allot about your racist attitude.

Someones political makeup has nothing at all to do with the race they were born.
 
Obama identifies himself as a black man. Who is anyone to say he isn't black?

I mean seriously, is there some sort of shade coloring that we are not aware of that if you go past a certain shade you are black and if not you are white?

Please let us know exactly what that shade is.

And yet you have no comment or apparently any problem when Aaronssongs calls other prominent blacks "uncle tom" because they have a different political view?

Interesting.
 
They simply forgot where they came from...and that is a big "no-no".

A sell out (aka Uncle Tom) would be someone who misleads others and deserts the ideals that got them to their important positions (like most politicians do today). I do not believe that Powell and Rice owe any blacks an apology for deserting any such ideals. They both earned their status through hard work and both supported many conservative policies through most of their life (although Powell seems to have second thoughts these days). How are they guilty of misleading anyone. You obviously can vote for whoever you want, but playing this race card by calling them "Uncle Toms" is a bunch of irreverent crap!
 
And yet you have no comment or apparently any problem when Aaronssongs calls other prominent blacks "uncle tom" because they have a different political view?

Interesting.

Considering I don't read anything from him, why would I have a comment on what he says? However, to answer your question if he said that, it is dumb and racist.

Is that REALLY all you have to say?
 
Although I have you on "self-ignore", let me come off for a moment to address your concerns. You disrespected me. You continue to disrespect me. Therefore I will not engage you. I will overlook your posts, and pretend you do not exist. You have operated dishonestly, and I can find no redeeming qualities to your posts. That being said, why don't you move on, as I have done...because my mission is not to leave here, under duress, but to try to contribute to this forum, in a meaningful way. Rather than to comment on my posts, feel free to ignore them, as I am ignoring you. You think me less than human. I'm not going to reciprocate. I'm going to let you alone. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

If you want to post controversial statements that appear to be racist, and you expect no response, then you're posting in the wrong place. You need to get a blog so you just rattle off any crap you desire with no debating response. Did you notice that it's called "Debate Politics"?
 
Moderator's Warning:
OK, American, rebelbuc, and Blackdog have now been thread banned for continuing the personal attacks and not heeding the mod warnings. Anyone else?

Now with three mod warnings in this thread, the next one to ignore them will get a thread ban and an infraction. I do hope I am being clear.
 
Back on topic--

What I got out of President Obama's speech today is finding common ground starts with not demonizing the other side.

I may have been guilty of that on another thread in my criticism of Keyes and Terry.:3oops:

On these passionate issues, it is difficult to take a step back and listen.
 
Back on topic--

What I got out of President Obama's speech today is finding common ground starts with not demonizing the other side.

I may have been guilty of that on another thread in my criticism of Keyes and Terry.:3oops:

On these passionate issues, it is difficult to take a step back and listen.




:lol: you are asking people to compromise with what they see as murder. I think his speech was his typical empty rhetoric, that the media can swoon over, ignoring the reality.
 
There is no common ground between Catholics and abortion. This "vastly intelligent" man doesn't GET THAT?!? He's so arrogant he thinks his pretty words spoken like Richard Pryor are going to change the core of Catholics?? Maybe if he had a soul he'd know better.
 
:lol: you are asking people to compromise with what they see as murder. I think his speech was his typical empty rhetoric, that the media can swoon over, ignoring the reality.

There are people who believe the use of condoms constitutes murder. Like you, they won't be persuaded by logic.
 
There is no common ground between Catholics and abortion. This "vastly intelligent" man doesn't GET THAT?!? He's so arrogant he thinks his pretty words spoken like Richard Pryor are going to change the core of Catholics?? Maybe if he had a soul he'd know better.

As a Catholic--I'll ask you not to speak for me. There is much common ground:

**Lessen the number of abortions
**Appropriate Health Education for young people
**Promoting of Adoption--something I am involved in.


If you believe we should criminalize women's health care choices, then how exactly would you suggest the government get involved with doing that?


Respectful and thoughtful discussion is what President Obama called for. Your response is to say your President has no soul. IMO a person looses credibility when he makes a statement like that about his President. When a leader reaches out to you and turn your back on him in a disrespectful manner, that will not help to accomplish anything.
 
There are people who believe the use of condoms constitutes murder. Like you, they won't be persuaded by logic.





I don't, I don't know anyone who does. When you find some of that "logic" you are talking about. get back to me. :lol:
 
As a Catholic--I'll ask you not to speak for me. There is much common ground:

**Lessen the number of abortions

**Appropriate Health Education for young people
**Promoting of Adoption--something I am involved in.


If you believe we should criminalize women's health care choices, then how exactly would you suggest the government get involved with doing that?


Respectful and thoughtful discussion is what President Obama called for. Your response is to say your President has no soul. IMO a person looses credibility when he makes a statement like that about his President. When a leader reaches out to you and turn your back on him in a disrespectful manner, that will not help to accomplish anything.




Question:


If Abortion is not killin a human life. Why then, would you care if there was more or less abortions being performed?
 
There is no common ground between Catholics and abortion. This "vastly intelligent" man doesn't GET THAT?!? He's so arrogant he thinks his pretty words spoken like Richard Pryor are going to change the core of Catholics?? Maybe if he had a soul he'd know better.
A clue would be more useful in this instance.

Thomas Sowell had an interesting comment in a column he wrote last week on the "torture" debate:

There is a big difference between being ponderous and being serious. It is scary when the President of the United States is not being serious about matters of life and death, saying that there are "other ways" of getting information from terrorists.
Dear Leader is not serious about abortion.

This is his take on the abortion debate in this country:
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)
What got overlooked is that, in all the applause lines, there is not a serious statement among them. Perversely, even obscenely, he is casual about a decision he acknowledges is not made casually, and even as he acknowledges the moral/spiritual dimensions to that decision, he declines to articulate the how and the why of his moral and spiritual views on the matter. His solution to the debate is to dodge the debate, even as he acknowledges the central issue that drives the debate: abortion as a form of birth control.

President Bush, when he opted to restrict funding for embryonic stem cell research in 2001 to 60 lines of stem cells created from already-destroyed embryos, had this to say:

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good - to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Bush's stance or his conclusion, one cannot argue that his is a serious statement on the moral dimensions of stem cell research: the benefits of medical research using destroyed embryos vs the destruction of human life. It is a serious statement because he directly confronts the moral conflict at the center of the debate. It is a serious statement because he states simply his position--it is a serious statement because he takes a serious stand. Indeed, Bush's entire stem cell speech is a serious statement on the moral debate on stem cell research.

Dear Leader did not give a serious statement on abortion--he gave a set of throwaway lines, a regurgitation of standard liberal applause lines, and he used them solely to garner applause.

In his "More Perfect Union" speech during his campaign he threw his grandmother under the bus to construct a long-winded apologetic for his pastor's virulent anti-American racism. At Notre Dame he threw the unborn under the bus for cheap applause.

Sowell is right.....it is scary when a President is not serious about serious things.
 
I don't, I don't know anyone who does. When you find some of that "logic" you are talking about. get back to me. :lol:

I'd like WillRockwell to support that assertion: ie: condoms = murder. I call :bs

Obama pointed out that the "caricatures" of opposing sides does nothing to forward the discussion.


Little bit of hypocrisy there, no?
 
I'd like WillRockwell to support that assertion: ie: condoms = murder. I call :bs

Obama pointed out that the "caricatures" of opposing sides does nothing to forward the discussion.


Little bit of hypocrisy there, no?




Oh that's just will. My big question is the next post to hazelnut. ;)
 
A clue would be more useful in this instance.

Thomas Sowell had an interesting comment in a column he wrote last week on the "torture" debate:

Dear Leader is not serious about abortion.

This is his take on the abortion debate in this country:
What got overlooked is that, in all the applause lines, there is not a serious statement among them. Perversely, even obscenely, he is casual about a decision he acknowledges is not made casually, and even as he acknowledges the moral/spiritual dimensions to that decision, he declines to articulate the how and the why of his moral and spiritual views on the matter. His solution to the debate is to dodge the debate, even as he acknowledges the central issue that drives the debate: abortion as a form of birth control.

President Bush, when he opted to restrict funding for embryonic stem cell research in 2001 to 60 lines of stem cells created from already-destroyed embryos, had this to say:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Bush's stance or his conclusion, one cannot argue that his is a serious statement on the moral dimensions of stem cell research: the benefits of medical research using destroyed embryos vs the destruction of human life. It is a serious statement because he directly confronts the moral conflict at the center of the debate. It is a serious statement because he states simply his position--it is a serious statement because he takes a serious stand. Indeed, Bush's entire stem cell speech is a serious statement on the moral debate on stem cell research.

Dear Leader did not give a serious statement on abortion--he gave a set of throwaway lines, a regurgitation of standard liberal applause lines, and he used them solely to garner applause.

In his "More Perfect Union" speech during his campaign he threw his grandmother under the bus to construct a long-winded apologetic for his pastor's virulent anti-American racism. At Notre Dame he threw the unborn under the bus for cheap applause.

Sowell is right.....it is scary when a President is not serious about serious things.

CelticLord:

You are comparing the substance of a few lines of a commencement address with that of entire speech specifically on one issue.

How do you justify that as a logical and fair comparison?

The point of a commencement address is to speak to the graduates in a congratulatory manner and encourage them in future endeavors. In his speech he addressed the philosophical divide on the issue that was used to embarrass him by parties outside the university and the Catholic church.

Bush's speech was following a decision on stem cell research policy. Obviously he is going to specifically address that issue.

A fair and honest comparison would be to find comments made by Bush a commencement address.

As an independent, I am open to honest and thoughtful criticism of our President, but when the right makes illogical and unfair criticisms similar to the one you made, they lose credibility IMO.
 
CelticLord:

You are comparing the substance of a few lines of a commencement address with that of entire speech specifically on one issue.

How do you justify that as a logical and fair comparison?
Actually, I'm comparing the lack of substance on Dear Leader's teleprompter with the substance of President Bush's stem cell speech.

The point of a commencement address is to speak to the graduates in a congratulatory manner and encourage them in future endeavors. In his speech he addressed the philosophical divide on the issue that was used to embarrass him by parties outside the university and the Catholic church.
No, he did not address the "philosphical divide." That's the problem. He raised it, worked it for some cheap applause, then kicked the can down the road. That is not addressing anything.

Further, if the point of a commencement address is "to speak to the graduates in a congratulatory manner," what in blue blazes is the agitprop on abortion even doing in the speech? If the point of a commencement address is to "encourage them in future endeavors" why is he dragging in shapeless and baseless political rhetoric? He could have just as easily dismissed the agitators without even mentioning abortion.

Going by your assessment, Dear Leader worked the abortion lines for applause as a tit-for-tat bit of one-upsmanship on the protesters, when he should have been focused on the graduates that were his audience. So we can add the Notre Dame graduates to the list of people thrown under the bus for the sake of Dear Leader's addiction to applause.

Bush's speech was following a decision on stem cell research policy. Obviously he is going to specifically address that issue.
And Dear Leader's comments were following a decision to speak at Notre Dame despite vocal opposition based in part on his stance on abortion. Obviously, he should have addressed that issue--but he didn't. Or he should not have mentioned the issue at all--but he didn't do that either.

Dear Leader confounded Yogi Berra: he came to the fork in the road and didn't take it.

A fair and honest comparison would be to find comments made by Bush a commencement address.
The fair and honest comparison was what was given.

As an independent, I am open to honest and thoughtful criticism of our President, but when the right makes illogical and unfair criticisms similar to the one you made, they lose credibility IMO.
Ok, I don't have credibility with you. Wow. Shocking. Devastating, even.:roll:
 
Any response Hazelnut, anyone? :2wave:

I think their probable response is that if one can avoid any medical treatment where complications can occur, one should. However, I think that it is actually understood that the REAL reason is that they know damn well that abortion kills a human being, and despite the denial that it commonly causes severe emotional issues.
 
There are people who believe the use of condoms constitutes murder. Like you, they won't be persuaded by logic.

Really?!!! I would LOVE to see some substantiation on this. And please, no idiotic fringe groups. No one gives them any validity anyway.
 
Yeah, it's a great speech. He never fails to deliver on that front.
It was a 'great speech' in that it very nicely said 'yes, I understand that Catholics are opposed to abortion -- but I don't care, so get over it' -- all under the guise of the need to 'bring people together'.
 
Back
Top Bottom