Obama’s ‘Constituency Groups’ Checklist Offers No Options for Whites or Men

reply to post by Trustfund


Then why even include race at all? If you're going to even mention race, you at least need to include asians, blacks and whites. And I don't even want to hear the argument about women. You put women down but seem to just forget about men?

No, this should be an outrage. It shows just how the President thinks about the people that put him into office.

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
reply to post by Trustfund

 

Then why even include race at all? If you're going to even mention race, you at least need to include asians, blacks and whites. And I don't even want to hear the argument about women. You put women down but seem to just forget about men?

No, this should be an outrage. It shows just how the President thinks about the people that put him into office.

You guys get outraged about everything and anything. and really....how does it show how he thinks about the people who put him in office? How does not having a white option prove he hates whites? You've delusionally connected the dots on this issue.
To get outraged about this issue is asinine.

The outrage in this thread is being caused by white men not being put first place in society, like they were historically.

That's my e-psychologist diagnosis. It is an extreme insecurity and self importance issue.

reply to post by shelookslikeone


I go to the University of Florida and every Feb some students write "Black Power" on the buildings (in chalk) and put up fliers with this slogan. I complained to the University's President and got no response. This is complete crap. If I put up White Power, I would be kicked out and on the news.

Don't even get me started too about how "they" (every other race that isn't white and females too) get more opportunites than a white male. Why do "minorities" get additional funding? You want us to treat everyone equal regardless or their sex or race than maybe you SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH. I can honestly say I am beyond disappointed with the US government and when I graduate, I will be looking for a new country to call home (even if that just means Canada).

Originally posted by 1plusXisto7billion
I will be looking for a new country to call home (even if that just means Canada).

Enjoy their actual socialist healthcare system and stricter gun laws!
At least, it's mostly white people up there!

'Whites and men'? You must mean just white men.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by 1plusXisto7billion
I will be looking for a new country to call home (even if that just means Canada).

Enjoy their actual socialist healthcare system and stricter gun laws!
At least, it's mostly white people up there!

lulz As a Canadian, I always get a kick during the US elections and the "I'm moving to Canada" crew. Whilst I can somewhat understand the left wingers saying this as Canada fits more with their beliefs, I can't for the life of me grasp the right wingers reason for wanting to. Do they not realize what is Canada and what the majority of people stand for?

~ETA~ Oh yeah, forgot.....Canada doesn't just accept Americans moving here, you'll be inline with the rest of the worlds immigrants, unless you possess unique skills or have a sh1t load of cash to "invest".

reply to post by karen61560

once upon a time, you used to present a reasonable argument ... slipping are ya ?

Oh did Barack personally pen this objective? I guess he had time at the breakfast table between his coffee and saving Israel.

wrote it, sponsored it, approved it, who cares ?? ... he tweeted it and that's world-wide, not just to his potential "constituents".

and just what about this tread title includes Israel or Obama's stance regarding them ??

any chance you could focus on the opinion you quoted rather nonsensical ramblings about non-topic distractions ?

reply to post by Trustfund

What is traditional American values? Going back to what it was like in the 1950's or earlier? No thanks.

Jim Crow?
Women didn't have rights?
Slavery?
Hating gays?
Everyone religious nutcases?
Blind patriotism?
Killing Native Americans?

Traditional American social values are trash, thank GOD they are dying

If you believe this than you are seriously ignorant of history.

The US is the first nation that ever stood up for rights, anyone's rights, "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

While people in the US were able to support voting rights and other rights for women and minorities, most of the rest of the world was practicing conquest and slavery.

Not only do old fashion American values include freedom of speech and religion, still not protected in most countries, they also include principes like help thy neighbor.

Those who want to pretend third world leaders are a bunch of saints, superior to US values are living a fantasy.

reply to post by FreebirdGirl

This is not an official site of the president

to the best of my knowledge, Twitter never has been. why would BHOs twitter account be managed/manipulated by any outside group that merely supports him ??

regardless who published the story, the Obama Administration produced, sponsored, tweeted and now has to defend such belligerent tactics of divide & conquer.

it's well known that in his first 4yrs, Obama has been recognized as the BEST salesman in the weapons industry and it certainly wouldn't suprise me if his second 4 produce the biggest Klan resurgence in history.

reply to post by Honor93

he tweeted it

Yes, yes, Obama tweets his own tweets inbetween holes on the golf course. I heard he's on tumbler too......

I think you meant...someone on his staff tweeted it.

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by Honor93

 

he tweeted it

Yes, yes, Obama tweets his own tweets inbetween holes on the golf course. I heard he's on tumbler too......

I think you meant...someone on his staff tweeted it.

edit on 21-11-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)

i meant exactly what i said ...

the Obama Administration produced, sponsored, tweeted and

if you need to re-phrase it to comprehend it, feel free, but do not presume i misled anyone with my original statement.

reply to post by Honor93


lol....it's called factual writing.

You said:

he tweeted it

I said:

I think you meant someone on his staff

you said:

I stand by what I said

Sure most intelligent folks would know the pres doesn't tweet his own tweets. Then why not originally phrase it properly?

reply to post by poet1b

If you believe this than you are seriously ignorant of history.

No, I actually read books and have studied history thoroughly.

The US is the first nation that ever stood up for rights, anyone's rights, "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

That's why the constitution included slaves, the 3/5ths compromise? And how a huge portion of the founding fathers owned slaves? You should go read about how Georgey treated his slaves, which was deplorable, from first hand accounts of European nobles visiting him at Mt. Vernon.







^ Last first hand account describes how most white Americans saw black people during that time, as NOT human.

While people in the US were able to support voting rights and other rights for women and minorities, most of the rest of the world was practicing conquest and slavery.

Before the civil rights act (1964) was signed and voting rights act (1965) minorities were often prevented from voting, especially in the south. They were legally discriminate against and segregated only 50 years ago. What type of history are YOU reading? Was the civil rights movement just for kicks?

Those who want to pretend third world leaders are a bunch of saints, superior to US values are living a fantasy.

No clue what you're talking about, I'm talking about the USA and US history.

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by Honor93

 

lol....it's called factual writing.

You said:

he tweeted it

I said:

I think you meant someone on his staff

you said:

I stand by what I said

Sure most intelligent folks would know the pres doesn't tweet his own tweets. Then why not originally phrase it properly?

cherry-picking quotes from separate posts, then misrepresenting them is anything BUT factual writing.
unlike you, i quoted the full statement with context ... you on the otherhand ... well ... the phrase chop-shop comes to mind.

the original statement from a previous post that you semi-quoted ...

i cannot believe he actually tweeted this survey ... wtf ??

and, i also said specifically ...

wrote it, sponsored it, approved it, who cares ?? ... he tweeted it and that's world-wide, not just to his potential "constituents".

and, i then said ...

why would BHOs twitter account be managed/manipulated by any outside group that merely supports him ??

which of course, you negated to answer.

now, since the full statements and context are included above ... care to try again ?
He always represents the Administration.
He or His employees/Czars manage the @Barack Obama twitter address.
He or His flunkies disseminated this in/with his advisement/approval.

nit-pick something you actually can next time, k ?

is there ANY chance that you can prove he, personally, did not tweet it ??
unless you can, you are barking up the wrong tree.
and, if you are suggesting that he is less than responsible for his own PR department, enjoy your fantasy.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by Honor93

 

lol....it's called factual writing.

You said:

he tweeted it

I said:

I think you meant someone on his staff

you said:

I stand by what I said

Sure most intelligent folks would know the pres doesn't tweet his own tweets. Then why not originally phrase it properly?

cherry-picking quotes from separate posts, then misrepresenting them is anything BUT factual writing.
unlike you, i quoted the full statement with context ... you on the otherhand ... well ... the phrase chop-shop comes to mind.

the original statement from a previous post that you semi-quoted ...

i cannot believe he actually tweeted this survey ... wtf ??

and, i also said specifically ...

wrote it, sponsored it, approved it, who cares ?? ... he tweeted it and that's world-wide, not just to his potential "constituents".

and, i then said ...

why would BHOs twitter account be managed/manipulated by any outside group that merely supports him ??

which of course, you negated to answer.

now, since the full statements and context are included above ... care to try again ?
He always represents the Administration.
He or His employees/Czars manage the @Barack Obama twitter address.
He or His flunkies disseminated this in/with his advisement/approval.

nit-pick something you actually can next time, k ?

is there ANY chance that you can prove he, personally, did not tweet it ??
unless you can, you are barking up the wrong tree.
and, if you are suggesting that he is less than responsible for his own PR department, enjoy your fantasy.

Full quote for posterity and to show people your inability to debate coherently I didn't address any of your other points because I was only addressing the one......Barrack doesn't tweet his own tweets. I debate facts, not opinion or surmising. If I wanted to address the other points made in this thread I would have. I chose the factually wrong one. You posted an incorrect fact. I corrected you.

Have fun with your blind anger Adios

~ETA~ I should also point out.....I originally was replying to one post and then you replied quoting another not even related to me. Chop chop [

After some quick research....Obama does occasionally tweet. When he does, he adds BO to the message. If you go to his twitter account, you'll see it is updated by staff who even sign with their own name or directly say " the president said" etc.

@barackobama

See....I can play nice

reply to post by Trustfund


I expect everyone to get an equal chance to identify themselves, as opposed to a special privileged few groups.

Obviously you fully support have specially privileged groups.

reply to post by Trustfund

Before the civil rights act (1964) was signed and voting rights act (1965) minorities were often prevented from voting, especially in the south.

No, that is not completely true.
minorities were often denied voting rights due to the mere fact that they were not property owners, period.
pleny of black property owners voted, even in the South.
and let's not forget that the 1st Black Senator also came from the South.

apparently, you know very little about the 3/5's clause or the industry of the day.
surprisingly, the US was the first and ONLY country in the world to give voting weight to property, and that is what the 3/5's clause is about. until you understand that, you know nothing.

They were legally discriminate against and segregated only 50 years ago.

you say that like it's been that way forever and that isn't true either.
yes, we've made mistakes and we've corrected many of them.
however, if you keep picking at the scab, it will bleed again.

What type of history are YOU reading?

the whole truth, not the fables and partial truths of the Northern Aggression.

reply to post by Trustfund


Then why did you talk around the facts that prove you wrong, that the US was the first to recognize any human rights.

Compared to how slaves were treat in Latin America, Asia, or Africa, slaves in the US got a very good deal.

Face the facts, and deny the ignorance.

Missed this comment.

No clue what you're talking about, I'm talking about the USA and US history.

You are talking about the way the US was over a century ago, and trying to ignore how the US compared to other parts of the world. You are trying to take the issues out of context

reply to post by Connector

I didn't address any of your other points because I was only addressing the one

one that was never addressed to you in the first place.
then, you chopped it to suit your argument, then you claim i'm the one who lacks debating skills.

ok then, i'm still waiting to see any of yours

no debate on the topic, no debate on the commentary in full context, no support or dissent for the message delivered to the "constituency" and no comment about the OPs commentary ... usually means, you have no opinion.

Barrack doesn't tweet his own tweets.

any proof of that ?? he certainly has the ability to do so, why wouldn't he ?

I debate facts

you haven't presented ANY.