Obama just threw a lot of gas on the fire today. How could he be that ignorant, or was it on purpose?
Printable View
Obama just threw a lot of gas on the fire today. How could he be that ignorant, or was it on purpose?
I don't even think he prescreens the Teleprompter anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
I'm sure that question is rhetorical. Everything he does has a purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
The Judge gave instruction that they could look at "Stand your ground" when looking at the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
I know, my friend--see my post (above). I was referring to the Zimmerman defense team's not making it part of their case.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
Yes, but it wasn't relevant because Z couldn't retreat with M on top of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
So says Z, no one will ever really know what happened that night. No matter what it is a tragedy all the way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No one ever really knows what happened in court cases. They just hear the evidence and make a decision based on the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
True, but Z's story was also consistent with witness accounts and physical evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
Obama, Holder et al keep talking about how SYG laws promote violence, but they are ignoring that what SYG laws really do is promote the idea of avoiding physical altercations. You have no right to violently attack someone else. If you choose to do so, you might get shot, and the person that shoots you might be protected from criminal liability. That should be a powerful deterrent from getting into a fight - assuming you are at least somewhat intelligent.
That's a great point. If they do-away with SYG, you wouldn't have the right to shoot someone who is beating you to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Self defense laws vary by state, but all states that I am aware of allow you to use deadly force to defend against deadly force. The differences lie in whether you have an obligation to retreat, if possible, and whether you have an obligation to retreat in your own home.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
The race issue is unfortunately causing many people to miss a particularly useful teaching moment.
People generally have the right to follow you and verbally confront you when you are in public. That, by itself, does not give you a right to punch someone. Being macho in these situations (how Rachel Jeantel suggested Trayvon would have acted in this situation) can get you killed. Your life is more important than your ego.
Instead, the talking heads are suggesting that parents talk to their kids about how fast or slow they should walk. SMH.
I don't mean to suggest that is the only teaching moment in all of this. They are many, but this is the one that seems to be getting completely missed.
There are 15000-16000 homicides each year in the United States. Almost 7000 of those murder victims were black (43% of all murder victims, and 94% of that 43% were killed by blacks). Blacks commit 51% of all murders in the US, yet make up only 13% of the population. There is certainly a racial aspect to murder in this country, and it's not because Hispanics are killing blacks. This whole Zimmerman thing is nothing more than a diversion to keep everyone from focusing on the real issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
But you can't say that or it makes you a racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
I was offended when Eric Holder said America is "a nation of cowards" because we are scared to talk about race. I now think he was speaking truth, and I didn't realize it at the time (you can throw Islamaphobia in there too). We are scared to call radical Muslims "terrorists." We need to know if prisons are mostly populated with blacks because police officers are mostly racists... or if it's because blacks commit legitimate crimes more often than others. Let's talk about it.
Arkansas doesn't have a stand your ground law, but, according to the cop that taught my concealed weapon course, if there is someone on top of me beating the hell out of me, I have the right to pull my weapon and shoot him. The funniest thing I've heard in comments about this whole thing, is people saying that Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman shot him. Martin wasn't old enough to have a CC permit, and, if he hadn't attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn't have been shot.
You may be correct but if Zimmerman had followed directions none of this would have ever happened so you can't say fault is all on one side. There is no winner in this mess, everyone is a loser. Zimmerman has to live the rest of his life knowing he killed a person that his own actions caused due to him not following directions. Zimmerman was already convicted and no court in the country can get him out of that, he has to live the rest of his life knowing that his inability to do what he was told put him in a situation where he felt he had to kill to live.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
My heart goes out to Trayvon Martins family this is something you never wish on anyone even your worst enemy but I also feel sad for Zimmerman the guilt he has to live with knowing that he in to blame in part due to the choices made.
Very sad for everyone.
Now here is an opportunity for me to learn! I agree that Zimmerman was too aggressive trying to protect his community. He was a "wanna-be cop" who was not as skilled as the real police. But why should he feel guilt by shooting someone who was beating the hell out of him? I don't think he feels any guilt at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
This is the disconnect b/t the black and white community in a nutshell. Trayvon was just minding his own business vs Zimmerman shot him for beating his ass. Which is true? Can they both be true? What would a jury say (not guilty.. but they were all white / Hispanic). Blacks think Trayvon was just eating Skittles and got shot by a "white Hispanic." Hispanics and whites think Zimmerman was being attacked by Trayvon and defended himself. If Zimmerman shot an innocent man, he should feel guilty. But, if he shot a potential threat to the community who was kicking his ass, he should feel like a hero. Which is it?
After the fact, Zimmerman realizes Trayvon was just a knucklehead, but he didn't know that at the time he shot him. Right?
According to testimony given in the trial, Martin was the one that attacked Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground and got on top of him and was hitting him in the face and bashing his head on the concrete. If I had been in Zimmerman's place I would have shot him, too. This young lady didn't attack anybody and there was no outcry or marching in the streets for her and she was an honor student. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...n-chicago?lite. What is the difference in her death and Travon Martin's? Did nobody except her family care that she died a violent death just because she happened to be standing in the wrong place.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
Here is what people don't seem to get, we will never know exactly what happened with Trayvon and Zimmerman because there is no direct record of the events after the 9-1-1 call ended.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Witness says Trayvon was on top but can they be 100% sure, it was dark so we can't be 100% sure. We heard screaming on the second 9-1-1 call and then we heard a gun shot. The screaming ceased immediately there was no tapering off of the screaming it was just done.
I could be wrong but I know in emotional states of mind when the adrenaline is going you can't just stop something unless you have been silenced. I just suggest this if it were Zimmerman screaming for his life even after the gunshot would his screaming not have tapered off? I mean he was just screaming bloody gut wrenching screams would he gain his composure that fast. I know I wouldn't, I would still be trying to get myself together and see get my bearings about me.
We only know 100% for sure what the 9-1-1 calls played and even on the screaming we have no way of knowing 100% for sure who was doing the screaming. We don't know because we were not there, that is why I say there are no winners in this and I just can't wrap my head around how an individual could not have guilt knowing they took a life even if to save their own life.
I would be haunted by that for the rest of my life.
I also ask you this if Trayvon had been of age and armed with a gun, would he have been justified in killing Zimmerman for following him and Trayvon standing his ground?
That question was asked the other day and if any other answer than yes comes out then a conversation needs to be had over that law.
My heart goes out on both sides of the courtroom but always remember we will only ever hear one side of the total story as it unfolded.
Don that story about the young lady is another horrible event of many and it should have received the same media out cry are you aware if they ever found the person or people that shot her?
I think a loud gunshot is one of those things that makes everyone stop what they are doing. The defense had a well respected expert testify that based on the hole pattern in the shirt and the powder burn pattern and lack thereof on M's body, that M was leaning over Z. If Z were lying, he was pretty damn lucky that the evidence was also consistent with his lie.
If we truly don't know what happened then charges should have never been filed against Zimmerman. I don't understand the whole "Justice for Trayvon" argument. What was unjust about this? His best argument is "we don't know what happened because Zimmerman and the witnesses are lying." How do you get justice for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
I don't think shooting someone for following you would be considered legal. It would be too hard to prove that the follower was a threat to your life. If he had a visible gun or knife and it was in a kill position... and there were witnesses, then yes, I would think you would be justified in shooting them.
If he felt like his life was in danger and it was on the 9-1-1 call where you could hear Z chasing him. I would think that would be pretty hard to argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
I have another question that I never heard clarification on. Z said that M had one hand on his mouth or nose I forget which and another around his neck. I am guessing a third was going for the GUN or did Z ever retract where one of the hands were at? I never heard how he explained that one.
Maybe so. But I think if Trayvon would have just waited for the police to get there... he would still be alive today. The fatal decision was to attack Zimmerman. He didn't need to do that. He wanted to do that. And it cost him his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
Are we sure 100% that Trayvon knew the police were on the way?Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
Another little girl shot in Chicago yesterday. Where is the outcry? Where is Obama? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-memorial?lite=
[QUOTE=DONW;1362120]Another little girl shot in Chicago yesterday. Where is the outcry? Where is Obama? <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/20/19586750-6-year-old-girl-shot-in-chicago-while-at-family-memorial?lite=[/QUOTE">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...memorial?lite=[/QUOTE</a>] No creepy ass cracker involved, so this isn't even news.
The pros tried to argue that, but IIRC, the struggle lasted around a minute or so. It would be unusual for your hands to remain stationary during that time. My interpretation was that he moved one of his hands to go for the gun. Alternatively, Z thought he might have seen the gun and interpreted one of his movements as going for the gun. But whether M went for the gun or not, is not particularly critical in concluding that Z reasonably feared great bodily injury. Based on the injuries that ZQuote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
already sustained, the evidence was on his side.
The dead guy wasn't on trial, so it wasn't relevant in the trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
But, even if you don't know police are on the way, you can't just beat up someone that is following you and then asks you what you are doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
Z never chased M. Followed, yes, but chased, no. Also, he didn't have to obey the suggestion of the 911 operator. They are not legally binding. Heck, the operator most likely isn't even in law enforcement and/or doesn't have any law enforcement training. Therefore, Z could continue to perform his duties as the neighborhood watch which gave him every right to get out of the car to see where a suspicious looking person was going. I do agree, with you, that Z is probably feeling guilt over taking a life but not because he provoked it. If he doesn't feel guilty about it, then I suspect we will hear about him again in similar circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by philgarris
Finally, you and other justice for Trayvon zealots seem to be having a hard time grasping how the justice system works. Those who set it up pretty much knew that in most cases, it would be impossible to know 100% what actually happened in any case. Especially back then when they didn't have the luxury of video and other recording equipment. Therefore, no one needs to be 100% sure of how something happened. Most importantly, the defendant doesn't need to make sure the jury is 100% sure he is innocent. In fact, the defendant doesn't need to prove his innocence at all. Also, what's beneficial for the state is that the prosecutors don't have to make sure the jurors are 100% certain the defendant is guilty. They just have to deliver the evidence that leads to a logical conclusion that the defendant is guilty without the defense being able offer an opposing and equally or more logical conclusion refuting his guilt thereby causing reasonable doubt. I'm sure you and most others already know and understand this concept, but it's hard to tell because all of you justice for Trayvon zealots let your emotions get the best of you and start demanding irrefutable proof that Z is innocent when that is not what is required.
How about justice for all? That would have been the best outcome, wouldn't it? Many people act as though either Zimmerman or Martin had to be guilty. I assert that had this tragedy had a different outcome, there likely wouldn't have been enough evidence to find Martin guilty of a crime in a fair court system. This was a he said/he said story, so we may never know. But, just maybe, both were not guilty of a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
I assume you're post isn't directed at me specifically but is more of a blanket statement using my post as a reference because I, personally, agree with you that I don't think either could have been convicted of a crime. Even if it were simply a punching brawl in which Trayvon was getting the best of George and had someone break it up, I don't think either could have been convicted of assault, etc... unless someone had video showing one or the other to be the aggressor. I think they both were responsible for actions that make them equally culpable in this tragedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
You assume correctly--just used your references of "justice for Trayvon." Few are paying attention to the fact that justice was served because they are busy equating justice with vengeance. Some in the justice for Trayvon movement seem to think the only way justice could have been served was with a Zimmerman conviction. If that were true, we'd have no justice in our system at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
All around--this was a tragedy and nobody "won."
VERY good analysis. That's why it wasn't making sense to me. They want vengeance, not justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
Justice: The act of applying the law. (they got that)
Vengeance: Infliction of harm on a person by another who has been harmed by that person (they did not get this)
It's like watching an old western. There's always a bunch who wants to hang the person who killed somebody. They never want to wait on the trial nor do they care about the verdict. We need a Matt Dillon leading us instead of the community organizer.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
So true! First, this should have never received a comment from the President of the US. He is stirring up racial division. He studied law, he knows that this was a just decision by the jury. He chooses to ignore that and claim that this could have very easily happened to him because Hispanics are so racist (but of course he implies that the Hispanic man represents the white man). I can't believe we elected and re-elected this nutjob.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Crap... now I'm going to get audited!
Really not sure where to put this one. And not sure with O and Holder in charge where this is headed.
Feds to Map Every Neighborhood in Effort to 'Eliminate Segregation'...
For a group that wants to claim "pro-choice" in everything, they are very anti-choice.
My neighborhood is integrated already. We have NSU, LSU, TECH, Florida, Bama, and Baylor fans that I know of!Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
:D Perfect.
BAYHAM: America Under The Sharpton Administration
Posted by: Mike Bayham on Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 9:32 -
See more at: http://thehayride.com/2013/07/bayham....0LLuul7a.dpuf
And that is because O and Holder lean very hard at being racist themselves.
POLL: Race relations have plummeted since O took office...
I guess Oprah thought she could pull off race baiting like the rest of the Dems do on a weekly bases (Hillary yesterday).Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Race Hoax? Oprah 'Apologizes' After Accused Racist Calls Her a Liar
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...own-swiss-mess
Shocking. :rolleyes:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/White...231222981.html
What's shocking about a politician misleading voters? What a sleaze. Granted, voters should do their homework, but who he hell wants an ass like that as mayor?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Every time I see this thread title, my mind always thinks: "So they are still breathing"
It says he ran for mayor previously, but this was for a spot on a Houston Community College board.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
[QUOTE=atobulldog;1392763]Every time I see this thread title, my mind always thinks: "So they are still breathing"
It says he ran for mayor previously, but this was for a spot on a Houston Community College board.[/QUOTE
Thanks--read it quickly. That seems to make it even more pathetic. :o
I thought the color of your skin shouldnt matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
This is too rich. I love it, just shows how people really vote....Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
It shouldn't. So, why would this jerk try to mislead people about his? Or, because he's a Republican, are other Republicans willing to excuse his obvious lack of integrity? (and yes, I realize it's basically a meaningless race, but it's indicative of a larger problem)Quote:
Originally Posted by dhussdawg
You are assuming his mislead the voters. The voters are completely culpable. It is a falsehood to say withholding information is the same as lying or misleading, especially if it is not important information like his race.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
I don't think there is anything along the lines of Democrat vs Republican for this position. But I admit I don't much of anything about HCC.
Mav:
You're just mad that a conservative used the race card and won with it. I know, that's been reserved for you libtards up to now.
Everything's fair in love, war and politics!
Couldnt agree more. It is very indicative of the larger problem of people not knowing who or what they are voting for....Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
If they voted on the basis of racial prejudice, they got what they deserved.
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
I didn't say the voters were misled. I asked why this jerk would try to mislead voters. I'm sure some will, but it's hard to argue that wasn't his motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Libtard? I assume "lib" is derived from liberal; can you elaborate on the rest of the word?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Curious: how many "libtards" do you know who voted for Reagan, GHWB, GWB, and Romney?
BS! you're a libtard in sheep's clothing.
Anyone can post I voted for.....but your posts give you away.
Those folks in Houston got what they deserved. I personally don't think universal suffrage works now anyway, since the majority of people seem to be ignorant and lazy. I wish there were some sort of way of testing or something, or some criteria that could be used to at least ensure that not a huge mass of frickin' morons could vote. This ignorant mass is why we are happily whistling and skipping on our way down the path to communism.
A logical person might ask himself why I would be honest on liberal matters and dishonest on conservative ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
A logical person might ask himself why I would hold socially liberal views but try to fool anonymous internet posters that I voted for conservatives.
A logical person might ask himself whether it's possible for a person to not walk in lock-step with only one political party.
A logical person...wait, I think I see the flaw in your "logic."
I certainly have no reason to try to mislead you, or anyone else, about my views. And you certainly have no reason to question the veracity of my statements. I doubt we agree on much, but I wouldn't stoop to calling you a liar, particularly when I don't even know you.
Probably a word meant to demean mentally challenged people and alienate them and their families from the GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
Libtard = Tea bagger
Kids will be kids, right Mr. President?
All of those names are childish and demeaning. I wonder about adults who can't have ideological differences without silly name calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
We elect them president.... twice! :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
Our current president HATES half the country. It can't be proven, but I believe he sent the IRS after them. Ruthless, ruthless man.
*I meant "without" name calling, of course. I get your point, but I was talking about adults on a message board, not presidents. I've given up on holding presidents to the "adult" standard. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
The author of "On The Beach" also wrote a novel called "In The Wet" In it Australia had a voting system where every citizen had one vote. If you graduated from high school, you received a second vote. Graduation from college earned a third vote. Land ownership added another vote and military service counted for a vote. You could also receive another vote for outstanding patriotic action. I always thought the concept was interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktulu7
Sounds reasonable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRDawg81
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfP1FCJTlo0
Sara Palin said we are going to be slaves to China someday because of our massive debt to them.
Martin Bashir, a British journalist who works for MSNBC in America, said that comment is so dumb that someone should treat her like a slave owner would treat a slave and sh!t in her mouth to teach her how stupid her words are. On air!
And the right has a "war on women" in his worldview.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...snbc-gone-mad/
What's more dangerous:a) a "war on women" or b) the redefining of slavery?
Neither are dangerous because neither are true. There is no war on women and we are not slaves to the Chinese. I posted this here because the right/conservatives have been stereotyped as being mean and nasty and hateful. I think the left/Progressives are much nastier and hateful than the right but that's not how it is portrayed by the media. (maybe the wrong thread, but someone was talking about name-calling earlier in the thread as if Republicans hold a monopoly on that).Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Bingo, this is exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
Both were about the left. Sorry for not making that clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
Because he's black. Not his policy or anything else. Because he's black.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24924888
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2kp1wIMph
I said it back when Obama was running for president that the media would have you believe that the ONLY difference between a liberal and a conservative is racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
I doubt that. I'm sure some in the media would add homophobia and sexism.Quote:
Originally Posted by atobulldog
Wow I missed that one. Typical hypocrite, fouled mouthed, left loon.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
I don't think he's even been fired yet. I guess that means NBC approves of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
He apologized. Case closed for MSNBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
I missed the apology. I just watched it and that was an outstanding apology. I forgive him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Bashir has resigned from MSNBC.
Saw that!Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
ABC to MSNBC/NBC to hopefully deported back to Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Pulling the race card here as well as far as I'm concerned.
House Dems urge Obama to suspend deportations...
Dec 5, 4:54 PM EST
HOUSE DEMOCRATS URGE OBAMA TO SUSPEND DEPORTATIONS
BY DONNA CASSATA
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twenty-nine House Democrats are urging President Barack Obama to suspend deportations of immigrants living here illegally and extend relief to many of the estimated 11 million.
In a letter on Thursday, the lawmakers called on the president to act in the absence of immigration legislation that remains stalled in the Republican-led House.
Obama last year moved on his own to halt deportations for some young immigrants living in the country illegally who arrived as children. So far more than 550,000 young immigrants have been allowed to stay under the program.
She had to say she was sorry! Race baiting didn't work this time did it girl???
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1562152
MSNBC Host Apologizes To Romney Family After Mocking Mitt Romney's Black Grandchild
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...tmas-photo.png
That's the same crazy biotch who said children belong to the community, not their parents. Where do they find these people?
That particular one: Tulane
Tell us something we don't know about this race baiting racist.
MSNBC's Sharpton mentions 'race,' 'racist' 215 times on TV in '13...
After seeing the apology, it's easy to see she didn't "have to" say she was sorry. It was heartfelt, as Mitt Romney also noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
The "biotch" was talking about the U.S.'s failure to adequately fund public education and simply said we all have responsibility for educating children rather than saying "your kid, your problem." It was Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and Co. who said the ridiculous follow-up things such as "I'll come get your kid and make him mow my yard because he belongs to all of us," that people would start handing over their kids, and that the "biotch" wanted to destroy the nuclear family.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
Studied at Wake Forest, Union Theological Seminary, and Duke. Teaches now at Tulane.Quote:
Originally Posted by atobulldog
Wake Forest the Baptist school?Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
I assume. Apparently to counter that, she went to a very liberal seminary.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Conservatives are always labeled racist for being against funding the the welfare state and income inequality programs. So isn't Obama actually also playing the race card as well and in fact race baiting card to be exact? And yes I know there are just as many poor whites as blacks and ilegals.
Obama rekindles ‘poor’ war
By CHRIS STIREWALT | JANUARY 8, 2014 AT 2:30 PM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-...edium=referral
... and here goes holder again:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/10...ed-punishment/
Jan 2017 can't get here soon enough.
Unless of course the idiot voters (including hoards of dead ones...) put a bitch like Hillary in there....
:rolleyes4: You wouldn't be in the WH twice if whites hadn't voted for your racist community organizer, "vote present" self.
Obama: Some People 'Really Dislike Me' Because I'm Black
Obama says some people "really dislike me" because they don't like the idea of a black man occupying the Oval Office. But, he admits, that's not the whole story. "Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president," Obama told The New Yorker in an interview published Sunday.
He acknowledged that in the interview. Simply using the words "black" and "white" does not mean he "went racial." Do you disagree with what he said?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Dems bring up race too much. There are people who don't like a black man being president, but there are far more who don't like a socialist dictator-wannabe being president. That's a much more important national discussion to have than race.
I don't know whether Democrats bring race into the discussion too often or not--that's touch to measure. That said, I agree President Obama has placed too much emphasis on his detractors' focus on race. It's beyond time for him to acknowledge that his policies and programs are the real problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
They use race to distract from the real issues. "Those Republicans don't think the government should take over health care because Obama's black. Don't be a bigot like them. Vote Democrat."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I usually disagree with 100% of what his actual words mean to him and usually look at his actions instead. Obama is a "master of deception" for most of the low information folks in our country and the world. But again, why even bring race up except for the political advantage he perceives?Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
The only thing I disagree with is "maybe some white folks" give him a pass. Maybe????? The white guilt liberals would still love Obama if he sold us into slavery to the Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick