Opposition To Michael Steele Mounts, Race Rearing Ugly Head

[daveman]

Obama is well spoken...

Only when reading from a Teleprompter.

Really? How do you know? He never released his transcript, did he?

Oh. You just want it to be true. That's good enough for you, isn't it?

...andd look at how you stupid ass rightwing dipshats treat him, its racist to criticize black conservatives but not black liberals, dumbass caveman.

There are some people who object to Obama because of his race...but they are a small minority. Certainly far, far few than you want to believe. Most opposition to Obama is due to his policies.

But you can't accept that, so you pretend it's all racism. Fool. Well-programmed fool.

Did you ask for and request Bush's transcript to see if he was truly educated? Why is it that you asking for Obama, who happens to be black, for proof of his education and not Palin, Boehner, McConnel, Bachmann and Joel Miller? Is it because of your own lack of educational credentials? matter of fact lets see your transcript, failure to produce one makes you an uneducated retard.

I haven't asked for anyone's transcripts. And the reason people asked for Obama's was because he was touted as educated and intelligent. Apparently, it's racist to ask for corroboration of claims about a black person. Retard.

 

[daveman]

What's easy is talking to yourself, never actually engaging in any real debate ... shivering in your own lacking.

If you want to talk about me, then step up and tell me ... so I can tell you.

That's easier than thinking .. and a lot less adult.

Okay. You're a well-programmed fool, too. You see everything...EVERYTHING...through the lens of race.

Hint: Most people don't give a shit about race. Pretending that all opposition to Obama is due to racism is not only wrong, it's stupid.

Guess what's even more stupid .. thinking that I voted for Obama because I'm black.

Didn't vote for Obama homeboy .. not a democrat. I present more real opposition to Obama and his right-of-center policies than do teabaggers and right-wing republicans who'd much rather talk about his "religion" and his birth certificate.

You know why you thought that I supported Obama?

Because you're a well-programmed fool. You haven't heard a word I've said.

If I, as you say, saw everything .. make that EVERYTHING .. through the lens of race, wouldn't I have voted for Obama?

Unless I'm mistaken, this thread is about race .. thus I talk about race. But I talk about a lot of issues .. even wrote legislation that has nothing to do with race .. but as I said .. this thread ....

Here's your chance to back up and try again.

This time try debating what I actually say, not unfounded emotion.

Hey, dumbass...where did I say you supported Obama?

 

[daveman]

I'd like to reiterate BlackAsCoal's question and direct it to the CON$:



Well....??

Of course there is. What a silly question.

"Of course there is?" Really? So why are so many of your fellow crazed and delusional RWers have been and are screaming and moaning for the last 2 years about taking the country BACK to a time (supposedly of more freedom?)

You act as if there's NO reason or base in my question.

I await your response.

Why are you insisting I defend statements I haven't made?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Only when reading from a Teleprompter.

Really? How do you know? He never released his transcript, did he?

Oh. You just want it to be true. That's good enough for you, isn't it?

There are some people who object to Obama because of his race...but they are a small minority. Certainly far, far few than you want to believe. Most opposition to Obama is due to his policies.

But you can't accept that, so you pretend it's all racism. Fool. Well-programmed fool.

Did you ask for and request Bush's transcript to see if he was truly educated? Why is it that you asking for Obama, who happens to be black, for proof of his education and not Palin, Boehner, McConnel, Bachmann and Joel Miller? Is it because of your own lack of educational credentials? matter of fact lets see your transcript, failure to produce one makes you an uneducated retard.

I haven't asked for anyone's transcripts. And the reason people asked for Obama's was because he was touted as educated and intelligent. Apparently, it's racist to ask for corroboration of claims about a black person. Retard.

Well Bush was touted as educated too, nobody from the right asked for his transcripts, not that he must provide them anyway, but we get a black president and suddenly people are demanding his birth certificate now his college transcript, pathetic since there is no precedent, the only thing being that all the other presidents were white and he's the only black one, never mind that Harvard has not denied he graduated from there. maybe it has a lot to do with insecure whites like yourself unable to accept the fact that a black president you despise is more educated than you so your superiority complex demands the he prove everything.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Okay. You're a well-programmed fool, too. You see everything...EVERYTHING...through the lens of race.

Hint: Most people don't give a shit about race. Pretending that all opposition to Obama is due to racism is not only wrong, it's stupid.

Guess what's even more stupid .. thinking that I voted for Obama because I'm black.

Didn't vote for Obama homeboy .. not a democrat. I present more real opposition to Obama and his right-of-center policies than do teabaggers and right-wing republicans who'd much rather talk about his "religion" and his birth certificate.

You know why you thought that I supported Obama?

Because you're a well-programmed fool. You haven't heard a word I've said.

If I, as you say, saw everything .. make that EVERYTHING .. through the lens of race, wouldn't I have voted for Obama?

Unless I'm mistaken, this thread is about race .. thus I talk about race. But I talk about a lot of issues .. even wrote legislation that has nothing to do with race .. but as I said .. this thread ....

Here's your chance to back up and try again.

This time try debating what I actually say, not unfounded emotion.

Hey, dumbass...where did I say you supported Obama?

Right here asswipe ..

Pretending that all opposition to Obama is due to racism is not only wrong, it's stupid.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

That is probably because all the above (except Obama) are traceable (there are announcements in the paper or with the media). The press was only to happy to put out every school Palin ever attended in to disrespect her accomplishments.
Obama is a giant question mark. There is no documentation of his life: no birth hospital, no records of who paid for his high dollar schools (since he was from a middle class white family), none of his written works from said schools, no records of his citizen status as a college student (did he claim to be a foreign citizen for student aid?).

You want to make it about race? How about treating him like the "white man" that was the republican canidate? That man had to have a special inquiry by congress to prove he was eligible. Or do you want to declare that he is inferior, therefore he needs special rules?
Why don't you talk to some of these people that you think are "racists"? You might find they have a problem with people that want to make this country like the European countries: the same place that a huge percentage of this country's population escaped from, long ago. You might find that those people have a problem with politicians telling them that "charity" is giving money to the government so the government can decide who needs it, instead of the individual looking at their community and giving where "they" perceive the money is needed. You might find that their problems are with people that will not read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but go around saying what is in it. You might find they have a problem with people declaring there are not equal rights when they are trying to "blackmail the government" into giving them "additional rights": the Bill of Rights covers all of us.
There are racists out there. Your attitude is extremely hostile. Your attempt to "bully" people into agreeing with you by calling them racists, voids any legitimate points you may be trying to make. Unless someone gives you a "straight-up" racist comment, please stop wasting our time. If we are conservative, we have been called far worse names by the "tolerant". Get over it, there is a big difference between ignorance of someone culture and the deliberate berating of said culture.

If I may .. The Bill of Rights?

Are you serious?

The Bill of Rights was in effect all through this nations shitstained history of oppression and terrorism against its own population .. and it did NOTHING to protect them. The only "additional rights" required was protection from an insane and racist population.

What you fail to recognize is that it was and is the duty and responsibility of government to protect that portion of the population from the horror and terrorism of monsters.

Go here .. and explain to me what the Bill of Rights did to protect innocent people.
AFRICAN AMERICAN HOLOCAUST

The Bill of Rights was meant for all citizens. Because the government justice system did not do its job, more legislation was required to force the government to do its job. That was the government controlling another part of citizens' lives, and it did a bad job (and now the same people are trusting their health to the same system).

That is the whole point: the government is not doing its job. Its job is listed in the Constitution. Our Congress and our President seem to think they need to do all kinds of things that are not in the Constitution while they are ignoring their duties (now all citizens are being terrorized and living with horrors).

The government has very straight forward duties listed in the Constitution. Those duties are complex and hard; instead the government chooses to meddle into citizen's lives to appear they are doing ....something. They are not keeping the justice system efficient. They are not protecting our borders. They are not ensuring freedom for future generations.

It doesn't matter what you think the Bill of Rights is for .. it did not protect innocent citizens from monsters. GOVERNMENT had to step in and do that .. and you seem to have a problem with that.

No concern for the people who suffered under tyranny and oppression .. just an academic dodge about the constitution.

The constitution is a living document .. that was the genius of the Framers.

The Bill of Rights can not, did not protect innocent citizens from the terrorism of racism. It wasn't designed to do so.

I do not share your perspectives on either the constitution or the Bill of Rights. I do not see government as the evil.

 

[goldcatt]

No, he's really not a very good speaker. It's okay, neither was Bush.

and therein lies the problem. you *can't* compare him to bush. that's why the whole 'ooh... he reads off a teleprompter' stuff. the only modern president we had who could speak extemporaneously was bill clinton who once went off script for 20 minutes in the middle of a state of the union address. every other president from washington on down used notes... a teleprompter is just the modern day version of the envelope lincoln used to write the gettysburgh address.

I think you may have some bias here, Counselor.

But by refusing to release his transcripts, the impression is he has something to hide.

bias or knowledge about what law review is and what is required?

i'm going to go with the fact that i know how you get on law review.

i figure that he knows it doesn't matter what he releases. it only gives the impression he has something to hide to people predisposed to believe that. and none of the people predisposed to believing that would vote for him anyway.

my own feeling? i'd bet he exaggerated some part of his background to gain an admissions advantage (you know, check here if you're a chinese eskimo living in guam type of thing). is that a sin? i dunno... i'm gong to be anyone who wants to go to columbia and has an advantage card to play does so.



well, i know what i've seen. have i been under misconceptions in the past? i'm sure i have.

props back to ya, btw. and thanks.



lol.. i like joe. i know he suffers from foot in mouth disease, but i'm very fond of him.




well, perhaps its a matter of degrees. lol.. but i think you underestimate it as a basis for all the noise that started on the day he was sworn in. you know, like when they threw tantrums about him addressing school kids to encourage education.

you don't think that was a race thing? you ever hear of that type of disrespect before... regardless of the politics of the president?

I agree he hasn't done a very good job, although he seems to have raised lots of money.

true. he's a good fundraiser. but i think he overspent as much as he raised.

I disagree, however, that the GOP has a horrible track record on racial issues. The GOP was founded on the principle of civil rights for all, and has been true to that principle.

the southern strategy was not helpful to the GOP among minorities. That has worked very well for them in terms of holding onto red states. it is, however, really dumb when minorities are going to be the majority in this country.

what you call equality for all, doesn't always translate into practice. when they call the first latina justice a racist because she is proud of her background, it doesn't look good. when they hound the first black president by having it's party leaders say they are going 'to do an investigation a day' for no reason, it takes on a racial overtone even if one isn't intended sometimes.

the interesting thing is that a huge part of the black community is christian conservative and would be a natural constituency for the GOP but for social justice issues. that's why when they did come out to vote en masse, they voted against gay marriage.

If I may, I'd like to interject something here.

The problem the GOP has with minorities, and I'm not going to touch whether it's a problem of perception or reality but it's clear a problem exists, doesn't rest entirely with the Southern Strategy. If that were the sole or even primary issue you would see a larger portion of the younger generation removed from the history split and ready to at least consider the GOP in areas outside the South. That doesn't seem to be happening.

IMO, part of it has just as much if not more to do with the different lifestyles and cultures existing in urban and rural areas, and the differences in policy that necessarily arise because of the very different realities. The GOP plays heavily to the rural lifestyle and culture in both policy and rhetoric on issue after issue. But the vast majority of minorities outside the South are in urban or densely populated suburban settings. The GOP's perceived failure to care about their issues isn't just based on the Southern Strategy, but on current attitudes toward the very real policy issues that matter to them.

 

[daveman]

Did you ask for and request Bush's transcript to see if he was truly educated? Why is it that you asking for Obama, who happens to be black, for proof of his education and not Palin, Boehner, McConnel, Bachmann and Joel Miller? Is it because of your own lack of educational credentials? matter of fact lets see your transcript, failure to produce one makes you an uneducated retard.

I haven't asked for anyone's transcripts. And the reason people asked for Obama's was because he was touted as educated and intelligent. Apparently, it's racist to ask for corroboration of claims about a black person. Retard.

Well Bush was touted as educated too, nobody from the right asked for his transcripts, not that he must provide them anyway, but we get a black president and suddenly people are demanding his birth certificate now his college transcript, pathetic since there is no precedent, the only thing being that all the other presidents were white and he's the only black one, never mind that Harvard has not denied he graduated from there. maybe it has a lot to do with insecure whites like yourself unable to accept the fact that a black president you despise is more educated than you so your superiority complex demands the he prove everything.

The retardery is strong with you. I don't despise Obama -- I just disagree with him.

Can you tell the difference? Apparently not.

 

[daveman]

Guess what's even more stupid .. thinking that I voted for Obama because I'm black.

Didn't vote for Obama homeboy .. not a democrat. I present more real opposition to Obama and his right-of-center policies than do teabaggers and right-wing republicans who'd much rather talk about his "religion" and his birth certificate.

You know why you thought that I supported Obama?

Because you're a well-programmed fool. You haven't heard a word I've said.

If I, as you say, saw everything .. make that EVERYTHING .. through the lens of race, wouldn't I have voted for Obama?

Unless I'm mistaken, this thread is about race .. thus I talk about race. But I talk about a lot of issues .. even wrote legislation that has nothing to do with race .. but as I said .. this thread ....

Here's your chance to back up and try again.

This time try debating what I actually say, not unfounded emotion.

Hey, dumbass...where did I say you supported Obama?

Right here asswipe ..

Pretending that all opposition to Obama is due to racism is not only wrong, it's stupid.

Are you at all familiar with the English language? Because that doesn't say what you think it says.

Retard.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Hey, dumbass...where did I say you supported Obama?

Right here asswipe ..

Pretending that all opposition to Obama is due to racism is not only wrong, it's stupid.

Are you at all familiar with the English language? Because that doesn't say what you think it says.

Retard.

The retard is what you crawled out of.

Interpret it .. if you can.

 

[daveman]

No, he's really not a very good speaker. It's okay, neither was Bush.

and therein lies the problem. you *can't* compare him to bush. that's why the whole 'ooh... he reads off a teleprompter' stuff. the only modern president we had who could speak extemporaneously was bill clinton who once went off script for 20 minutes in the middle of a state of the union address. every other president from washington on down used notes... a teleprompter is just the modern day version of the envelope lincoln used to write the gettysburgh address.

Why can't you compare him to Bush?

I think you may have some bias here, Counselor.

But by refusing to release his transcripts, the impression is he has something to hide.

bias or knowledge about what law review is and what is required?

i'm going to go with the fact that i know how you get on law review.

Okay, I'll grant you that.

i figure that he knows it doesn't matter what he releases. it only gives the impression he has something to hide to people predisposed to believe that. and none of the people predisposed to believing that would vote for him anyway.

my own feeling? i'd bet he exaggerated some part of his background to gain an admissions advantage (you know, check here if you're a chinese eskimo living in guam type of thing). is that a sin? i dunno... i'm gong to be anyone who wants to go to columbia and has an advantage card to play does so.

Good point about not swaying the opinions of supporters and opposition alike. But how many undecideds could he have pulled in by being totally open and honest? Hell, he admitted to drug use, didn't he?

well, i know what i've seen. have i been under misconceptions in the past? i'm sure i have.

props back to ya, btw. and thanks.

Yer a doll.

lol.. i like joe. i know he suffers from foot in mouth disease, but i'm very fond of him.

I like my buddy Mark at work, too, but I don't want him to be President.

well, perhaps its a matter of degrees. lol.. but i think you underestimate it as a basis for all the noise that started on the day he was sworn in. you know, like when they threw tantrums about him addressing school kids to encourage education.

Every President has done things that inspired tantrums. I think the dismissal of opposition to this one as racism, though, is mostly an attempt to shame the opposition into silence. That, and being unable to defend his actions.

you don't think that was a race thing? you ever hear of that type of disrespect before... regardless of the politics of the president?

I heard a lot of "Bush is a Nazi!!" bullshit, using his grandfather and irrational hatred of Bush himself as "proof". That's a bit disrespectful, don't you think?

true. he's a good fundraiser. but i think he overspent as much as he raised.

Yet another reason for him to be fired, then.

I disagree, however, that the GOP has a horrible track record on racial issues. The GOP was founded on the principle of civil rights for all, and has been true to that principle.

the southern strategy was not helpful to the GOP among minorities. That has worked very well for them in terms of holding onto red states. it is, however, really dumb when minorities are going to be the majority in this country.

what you call equality for all, doesn't always translate into practice. when they call the first latina justice a racist because she is proud of her background, it doesn't look good. when they hound the first black president by having it's party leaders say they are going 'to do an investigation a day' for no reason, it takes on a racial overtone even if one isn't intended sometimes.

What happens in the media if a white guy (especially a conservative white guy) says he's proud of his heritage? Why the double standard?

the interesting thing is that a huge part of the black community is christian conservative and would be a natural constituency for the GOP but for social justice issues.

"Social justice" -- code for "taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to those who didn't". That's not a conservative value. Should the GOP compromise their principles?

that's why when they did come out to vote en masse, they voted against gay marriage.

An awful lot of Democrats voted against it, too.

 

[Flaylo]

I haven't asked for anyone's transcripts. And the reason people asked for Obama's was because he was touted as educated and intelligent. Apparently, it's racist to ask for corroboration of claims about a black person. Retard.

Well Bush was touted as educated too, nobody from the right asked for his transcripts, not that he must provide them anyway, but we get a black president and suddenly people are demanding his birth certificate now his college transcript, pathetic since there is no precedent, the only thing being that all the other presidents were white and he's the only black one, never mind that Harvard has not denied he graduated from there. maybe it has a lot to do with insecure whites like yourself unable to accept the fact that a black president you despise is more educated than you so your superiority complex demands the he prove everything.

The retardery is strong with you. I don't despise Obama -- I just disagree with him.

Can you tell the difference? Apparently not.

If you're going to troll at least be a happy troll and not a bitter, crybaby troll.

 

[logical4u]

Did you ask for and request Bush's transcript to see if he was truly educated? Why is it that you asking for Obama, who happens to be black, for proof of his education and not Palin, Boehner, McConnel, Bachmann and Joel Miller? Is it because of your own lack of educational credentials? matter of fact lets see your transcript, failure to produce one makes you an uneducated retard.

That is probably because all the above (except Obama) are traceable (there are announcements in the paper or with the media). The press was only to happy to put out every school Palin ever attended in to disrespect her accomplishments.
Obama is a giant question mark. There is no documentation of his life: no birth hospital, no records of who paid for his high dollar schools (since he was from a middle class white family), none of his written works from said schools, no records of his citizen status as a college student (did he claim to be a foreign citizen for student aid?).

You want to make it about race? How about treating him like the "white man" that was the republican canidate? That man had to have a special inquiry by congress to prove he was eligible. Or do you want to declare that he is inferior, therefore he needs special rules?
Why don't you talk to some of these people that you think are "racists"? You might find they have a problem with people that want to make this country like the European countries: the same place that a huge percentage of this country's population escaped from, long ago. You might find that those people have a problem with politicians telling them that "charity" is giving money to the government so the government can decide who needs it, instead of the individual looking at their community and giving where "they" perceive the money is needed. You might find that their problems are with people that will not read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but go around saying what is in it. You might find they have a problem with people declaring there are not equal rights when they are trying to "blackmail the government" into giving them "additional rights": the Bill of Rights covers all of us.
There are racists out there. Your attitude is extremely hostile. Your attempt to "bully" people into agreeing with you by calling them racists, voids any legitimate points you may be trying to make. Unless someone gives you a "straight-up" racist comment, please stop wasting our time. If we are conservative, we have been called far worse names by the "tolerant". Get over it, there is a big difference between ignorance of someone culture and the deliberate berating of said culture.

Get your facts straight. McCain voluntarily asked the Senate to look over his documentation and issue a non-binding resolution regarding his citizenship.....before the 2000 election. Where, BTW, the race of his adopted child was used against him as a vicious lie and smear by none other than the Bush campaign, causing a poor showing in SC among people who thought he'd had an affair with a black woman resulting in an interracial child and ending his primary bid.

Race or allegations of racism and race baiting are used as weapons and/or strategy constantly. Steele himself openly attempted to play his race in the beginning of his term as Chair, and was so awkward and stereotypical about it even I cringed for the guy. And I'm no fan of his.

Race will probably play a role in the election, although IMO he should and will be tossed for his performance alone. Race isn't invisible. Treating it like the elephant in the room and never bringing it up at all unless it somehow benefits "your" side to pull it out as an accusation won't make it go away.

Did Obama (the canidate) "voluntarily asked the Senate to look over his documentation and issue a non-binding resolution regarding his citizenship".....before the 2008 election?

 

[logical4u]

If I may .. The Bill of Rights?

Are you serious?

The Bill of Rights was in effect all through this nations shitstained history of oppression and terrorism against its own population .. and it did NOTHING to protect them. The only "additional rights" required was protection from an insane and racist population.

What you fail to recognize is that it was and is the duty and responsibility of government to protect that portion of the population from the horror and terrorism of monsters.

Go here .. and explain to me what the Bill of Rights did to protect innocent people.
AFRICAN AMERICAN HOLOCAUST

The Bill of Rights was meant for all citizens. Because the government justice system did not do its job, more legislation was required to force the government to do its job. That was the government controlling another part of citizens' lives, and it did a bad job (and now the same people are trusting their health to the same system).

That is the whole point: the government is not doing its job. Its job is listed in the Constitution. Our Congress and our President seem to think they need to do all kinds of things that are not in the Constitution while they are ignoring their duties (now all citizens are being terrorized and living with horrors).

The government has very straight forward duties listed in the Constitution. Those duties are complex and hard; instead the government chooses to meddle into citizen's lives to appear they are doing ....something. They are not keeping the justice system efficient. They are not protecting our borders. They are not ensuring freedom for future generations.

It doesn't matter what you think the Bill of Rights is for .. it did not protect innocent citizens from monsters. GOVERNMENT had to step in and do that .. and you seem to have a problem with that.

No concern for the people who suffered under tyranny and oppression .. just an academic dodge about the constitution.

The constitution is a living document .. that was the genius of the Framers.

The Bill of Rights can not, did not protect innocent citizens from the terrorism of racism. It wasn't designed to do so.

I do not share your perspectives on either the constitution or the Bill of Rights. I do not see government as the evil.

Newsflash: what government was in charge when those "monsters" were being allowed to run loose?

No concern for the people that will suffer from tyranny and oppression: the generations going forward. (BTW, how can I change any of what happened in the past? I can educate about history, so that it doesn't happen again.) The same people whose ancestors were victims are currently giving the future government the power to repeat history.

The process for "amending" the Constitution is clear. The process of circumventing the Constitution is relatively, new.

The Bill of Rights was made to "list" (define the rights so the government would not infringe on those) rights of every citizen. If that "law of the land" is not applied equally, who is responsible? Would that be the people? Would that be nature? Or would that be the "government" that did not uphold citizens' rights, equally?

I do not believe the government is evil. I do believe that there are people in the government that are evil. The founding fathers planned for that and purposely limited the powers of the branches of the government and even split power from within the branches. Why would voters want to change that? If you think it is a great idea with the current government, consider what it would be like with the worst people you could think of in that position of power (government changes hands, often), then vote for those that will keep the government in check.

 

[DiveCon]

That is probably because all the above (except Obama) are traceable (there are announcements in the paper or with the media). The press was only to happy to put out every school Palin ever attended in to disrespect her accomplishments.
Obama is a giant question mark. There is no documentation of his life: no birth hospital, no records of who paid for his high dollar schools (since he was from a middle class white family), none of his written works from said schools, no records of his citizen status as a college student (did he claim to be a foreign citizen for student aid?).

You want to make it about race? How about treating him like the "white man" that was the republican canidate? That man had to have a special inquiry by congress to prove he was eligible. Or do you want to declare that he is inferior, therefore he needs special rules?
Why don't you talk to some of these people that you think are "racists"? You might find they have a problem with people that want to make this country like the European countries: the same place that a huge percentage of this country's population escaped from, long ago. You might find that those people have a problem with politicians telling them that "charity" is giving money to the government so the government can decide who needs it, instead of the individual looking at their community and giving where "they" perceive the money is needed. You might find that their problems are with people that will not read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but go around saying what is in it. You might find they have a problem with people declaring there are not equal rights when they are trying to "blackmail the government" into giving them "additional rights": the Bill of Rights covers all of us.
There are racists out there. Your attitude is extremely hostile. Your attempt to "bully" people into agreeing with you by calling them racists, voids any legitimate points you may be trying to make. Unless someone gives you a "straight-up" racist comment, please stop wasting our time. If we are conservative, we have been called far worse names by the "tolerant". Get over it, there is a big difference between ignorance of someone culture and the deliberate berating of said culture.

Get your facts straight. McCain voluntarily asked the Senate to look over his documentation and issue a non-binding resolution regarding his citizenship.....before the 2000 election. Where, BTW, the race of his adopted child was used against him as a vicious lie and smear by none other than the Bush campaign, causing a poor showing in SC among people who thought he'd had an affair with a black woman resulting in an interracial child and ending his primary bid.

Race or allegations of racism and race baiting are used as weapons and/or strategy constantly. Steele himself openly attempted to play his race in the beginning of his term as Chair, and was so awkward and stereotypical about it even I cringed for the guy. And I'm no fan of his.

Race will probably play a role in the election, although IMO he should and will be tossed for his performance alone. Race isn't invisible. Treating it like the elephant in the room and never bringing it up at all unless it somehow benefits "your" side to pull it out as an accusation won't make it go away.

Did Obama (the canidate) "voluntarily asked the Senate to look over his documentation and issue a non-binding resolution regarding his citizenship".....before the 2008 election?

he was born in Hawaii, there was no need

 

[goldcatt]

That is probably because all the above (except Obama) are traceable (there are announcements in the paper or with the media). The press was only to happy to put out every school Palin ever attended in to disrespect her accomplishments.
Obama is a giant question mark. There is no documentation of his life: no birth hospital, no records of who paid for his high dollar schools (since he was from a middle class white family), none of his written works from said schools, no records of his citizen status as a college student (did he claim to be a foreign citizen for student aid?).

You want to make it about race? How about treating him like the "white man" that was the republican canidate? That man had to have a special inquiry by congress to prove he was eligible. Or do you want to declare that he is inferior, therefore he needs special rules?
Why don't you talk to some of these people that you think are "racists"? You might find they have a problem with people that want to make this country like the European countries: the same place that a huge percentage of this country's population escaped from, long ago. You might find that those people have a problem with politicians telling them that "charity" is giving money to the government so the government can decide who needs it, instead of the individual looking at their community and giving where "they" perceive the money is needed. You might find that their problems are with people that will not read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but go around saying what is in it. You might find they have a problem with people declaring there are not equal rights when they are trying to "blackmail the government" into giving them "additional rights": the Bill of Rights covers all of us.
There are racists out there. Your attitude is extremely hostile. Your attempt to "bully" people into agreeing with you by calling them racists, voids any legitimate points you may be trying to make. Unless someone gives you a "straight-up" racist comment, please stop wasting our time. If we are conservative, we have been called far worse names by the "tolerant". Get over it, there is a big difference between ignorance of someone culture and the deliberate berating of said culture.

Get your facts straight. McCain voluntarily asked the Senate to look over his documentation and issue a non-binding resolution regarding his citizenship.....before the 2000 election. Where, BTW, the race of his adopted child was used against him as a vicious lie and smear by none other than the Bush campaign, causing a poor showing in SC among people who thought he'd had an affair with a black woman resulting in an interracial child and ending his primary bid.

Race or allegations of racism and race baiting are used as weapons and/or strategy constantly. Steele himself openly attempted to play his race in the beginning of his term as Chair, and was so awkward and stereotypical about it even I cringed for the guy. And I'm no fan of his.

Race will probably play a role in the election, although IMO he should and will be tossed for his performance alone. Race isn't invisible. Treating it like the elephant in the room and never bringing it up at all unless it somehow benefits "your" side to pull it out as an accusation won't make it go away.

Did Obama (the canidate) "voluntarily asked the Senate to look over his documentation and issue a non-binding resolution regarding his citizenship".....before the 2008 election?

No, why should he? He wasn't born outside the US. And frankly, as the right often points out, he really hadn't been in the Senate long enough to have long-time allies, trusted friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle with whom he was long famous for bipartisan efforts, necessarily look past their party affiliation to give him a non-binding stamp of approval.

Not that I think there was any doubt about McCain's eligibility either. The law is clear. But let's face it, if McCain really wanted a neutral opinion on the matter his long-time workplace wouldn't have been his choice to vet it. That would be like a judge deciding his own clerk's case.

And that is how the game is played.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The Bill of Rights was meant for all citizens. Because the government justice system did not do its job, more legislation was required to force the government to do its job. That was the government controlling another part of citizens' lives, and it did a bad job (and now the same people are trusting their health to the same system).

That is the whole point: the government is not doing its job. Its job is listed in the Constitution. Our Congress and our President seem to think they need to do all kinds of things that are not in the Constitution while they are ignoring their duties (now all citizens are being terrorized and living with horrors).

The government has very straight forward duties listed in the Constitution. Those duties are complex and hard; instead the government chooses to meddle into citizen's lives to appear they are doing ....something. They are not keeping the justice system efficient. They are not protecting our borders. They are not ensuring freedom for future generations.

It doesn't matter what you think the Bill of Rights is for .. it did not protect innocent citizens from monsters. GOVERNMENT had to step in and do that .. and you seem to have a problem with that.

No concern for the people who suffered under tyranny and oppression .. just an academic dodge about the constitution.

The constitution is a living document .. that was the genius of the Framers.

The Bill of Rights can not, did not protect innocent citizens from the terrorism of racism. It wasn't designed to do so.

I do not share your perspectives on either the constitution or the Bill of Rights. I do not see government as the evil.

Newsflash: what government was in charge when those "monsters" were being allowed to run loose?

No concern for the people that will suffer from tyranny and oppression: the generations going forward. (BTW, how can I change any of what happened in the past? I can educate about history, so that it doesn't happen again.) The same people whose ancestors were victims are currently giving the future government the power to repeat history.

The process for "amending" the Constitution is clear. The process of circumventing the Constitution is relatively, new.

The Bill of Rights was made to "list" (define the rights so the government would not infringe on those) rights of every citizen. If that "law of the land" is not applied equally, who is responsible? Would that be the people? Would that be nature? Or would that be the "government" that did not uphold citizens' rights, equally?

I do not believe the government is evil. I do believe that there are people in the government that are evil. The founding fathers planned for that and purposely limited the powers of the branches of the government and even split power from within the branches. Why would voters want to change that? If you think it is a great idea with the current government, consider what it would be like with the worst people you could think of in that position of power (government changes hands, often), then vote for those that will keep the government in check.

I am so far removed from your perception of government that it makes debate on this issue useless brother.

No one asked you to pay for the sins and evils of the past .. just to understand that innocent people lived under terrorist rule and they were being tortured, castrated, hung, and shot .. often on a sunny day in from of thousands of people with their children in tow.

How difficult is it to understand that they sought and fought for freedom by any means necessary?

 

[daveman]

Well Bush was touted as educated too, nobody from the right asked for his transcripts, not that he must provide them anyway, but we get a black president and suddenly people are demanding his birth certificate now his college transcript, pathetic since there is no precedent, the only thing being that all the other presidents were white and he's the only black one, never mind that Harvard has not denied he graduated from there. maybe it has a lot to do with insecure whites like yourself unable to accept the fact that a black president you despise is more educated than you so your superiority complex demands the he prove everything.

The retardery is strong with you. I don't despise Obama -- I just disagree with him.

Can you tell the difference? Apparently not.

If you're going to troll at least be a happy troll and not a bitter, crybaby troll.

Oh look. Another retard chimes in.