What will Obama's reaction be if a black man walks into a church and murders nine white people?

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The ******* LIBs are going to be shitting themselves when it's Hillary against Trump.

I have never liked trump but he's saying some things right now i like. Doesn't look like he's scared of the press like all the other repubs are.

 

[tigerred59]

What will Obama's reaction be if a black man walks into a church and murders nine white people?

With all this hate being stirred up, it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

LOLOLOLOL...you do know the "if" theory? Like "if" grandma had balls, we'd call her grandpa? First off, not only don't thugs vote, they also don't go to church and sit for 5 minutes, let alone a hour. Also, a lone nigga in a church full of white people, is usually the janitor...so chill out!!

 

[Liminal]

What will Obama's reaction be if a black man walks into a church and murders nine white people?

With all this hate being stirred up, it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

Is that your happy prediction, is that what you're hoping for?

 

[snapzz]

What will Obama's reaction be if a black man walks into a church and murders nine white people?

With all this hate being stirred up, it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

*****************
I would hope in the same Manner.

 

[Liminal]

Obama has had many opportunities to try and unite the country on this issue and he has failed miserably. I don't believe he is mature or strong enough to even attempt to lead the country on this issue. He's a child.

Yes, and the Republicans have done such a good job with the problems of racism, they're all about uniting people.

 

[emilynghiem]

"What will Obama's reaction be if a black man walks into a church and murders nine white people?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

The lack of critical thinking and reasoning skills common to most on the right is in general consistent with being conservative.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Don't you find inconsistency on both sides?

Examples:
When the conservatives demand religious freedom for Christians and denounce religious persecution,
but it's okay to blame "all Muslims" for what jihadist terrorists do, and without due process, diminish
and deny rights and liberties to innocent Muslims by "guilty until proven innocent" or by collective association

CF
When liberals demand "separation of church and state" and to keep beliefs out of govt,
but with belief in the right to marriage, suddenly this should be endorsed by the state -- not just
striking down the ban but establishing and integrating it as public policy. How would liberals feel if Christians
took their beliefs in "spiritual healing of homosexuality" and didn't just strike down a ban on it so it could be practicely freely, but ESTABLISHED through govt institutions as a standard policy all taxpayers fund and support.

???

Don't you find it curious at all
that with the ACA mandates, suddenly the prochoice sound like they are making prolife arguments putting the saving of lives before individual free choice while the prolife suddenly sound like prochoice, demanding the free choice of buying insurance instead of being penalized by govt over a private decision.

Same with gay marriage, now the tables are turned:
Conservatives are arguing for separating church and state to keep beliefs out of govt
and Liberals are saying values are more important to establish through the state for protection.

Aren't they both being selective in applying their arguments to their own agenda?

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama has had many opportunities to try and unite the country on this issue and he has failed miserably. I don't believe he is mature or strong enough to even attempt to lead the country on this issue. He's a child.

Yes, and the Republicans have done such a good job with the problems of racism, they're all about uniting people.

Liminal both major parties have succeeded in dividing
rich against poor, and poor against rich: both perceiving the
other group as living off the taxpayers, but without "due process"
to hold ACTUAL wrongdoers accountable for crimes, but instead painting the entire party with a broad brush,
demonizing whole classes of people for political points.

You don't think both are playing that game, and the media racks in millions per election campaigns
to keep this knockdown drag out catfight going?

 

[emilynghiem]

What will Obama's reaction be if a black man walks into a church and murders nine white people?

With all this hate being stirred up, it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

I don't think that compares to a Black man walking into the White House
passing mandates like ACA that establish a national belief in health care as right through govt on the public.

While 9 people on the Supreme Court (who can't distinguish political beliefs inherent in
gay marriage, health care mandates, and the death penalty) effectively kill any sense of Constitutional check and balance on govt.

It's kind of hard to beat that. Once you can stomach this level of political oppression,
pretend it's okay, and act like this is how govt is supposed to work,
what difference does it make if a man, black or white, kills 9 people in a church.

Your own govt is showing no respect for law, or consent of others.
So it opens the door to anyone doing anything and claiming they had that right, despite the objections of others.

The consent of others doesn't count next to one's own political agenda to make a public statement.

When Obama, Congress and the Supreme Court are too busy making political statements,
that they forget about the equal right of beliefs, consent and dissent of people affected by these laws,
how are you supposed to enforce law and order for others?

If our own FEDERAL govt and leaders aren't respecting the spirit of the laws based on consent of the governed?
What authority does anyone have to enforce laws they are breaking themselves? Who is going to respect that?

You're losing it lady, get it together.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Hi MarcATL you don't believe that laws and social contracts
draw their authority from CONSENT of the parties?

You sound like my neighbor who just badmouthed me, saying people are never going to be treated equal.
And I said if you don't demand equal respect, of course people will exploit and run right over you.

She thought I was crazy for trying to save African American history by having the actual community own the property and preserve it themselves. I said that is the only way people are going to be equal,
is to experience and exercise equal ownership.

So who is lying and delusional. The person pretending equal ownership and responsibility is not the key?
Or the person pushing for shared responsibility for govt. How else are people going to be equally the govt?

If you think you can ever be equal by having "other people make decisions for you"
that sounds like the teenager arguing with the parents for the right to the car keys.

And the answer to that is go work, pay for your own car and, sure, you have the right to that car.

 

[Liminal]

Obama has had many opportunities to try and unite the country on this issue and he has failed miserably. I don't believe he is mature or strong enough to even attempt to lead the country on this issue. He's a child.

Yes, and the Republicans have done such a good job with the problems of racism, they're all about uniting people.

Liminal both major parties have succeeded in dividing
rich against poor, and poor against rich: both perceiving the
other group as living off the taxpayers, but without "due process"
to hold ACTUAL wrongdoers accountable for crimes, but instead painting the entire party with a broad brush,
demonizing whole classes of people for political points.

You don't think both are playing that game, and the media racks in millions per election campaigns
to keep this knockdown drag out catfight going?

No argument there, both parties are held together with a mish mash of special interests. So much so that both parties now find themselves in the minority as more people identify with being politically independent. Only 20% now admit to being Republican, while the Democrats manage to hold on to a coalition of about 27%. The problem is that there is no viable third alternative, so supposedly independent voters end up casting their lot with Republicans or Democrats anyway. What's needed is a third party. There have always been arguments against undermining the two party system, mainly concerns over the possible political dead lock that could result. How could the dead lock get much worse than it is now?