my Top 10 reasons to not vote Obama (LONG)

[Ddawg]

I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.

Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.

Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.

Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.

Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso ... y_in_chief

2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/ ... vers-stunn ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Inciting a particular race of people to anger and action against another race for your own personal/political gain does not mean that you dislike one of the races or that you're racist, it just makes you egotistical and a terrible person. We've seen Obama get involved in very local stories because of race (Trevon Martin, Cambridge Police), there's no denying that.

Also, our language is a living language and is therefore always evolving. Can you tell what Merriam Webster defines "noms" as?

Noms: National Organization of Marijuana Smokers? Am I close?

[Ddawg]

I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.

Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.

Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.

Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.

Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso ... y_in_chief

2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/ ... vers-stunn ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Yes, Race Baiting is using racially charged language to incite a group of folks up against another racial group - to incite anger racially.

However, you are mistaken that a race baiter is a racist. Yes, "racists" can and do use race baiting. But, just because a person is using "race baiting" language, it does not automatically mean they are a racist.

For instance - folks that have used race baiting in the past are Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan. Are they racists? I don't know. But they have used race bating for political purposes.

Has Obama used race baiting in the past? You bet. His speech at Hampton University is blatant, dishonest race baiting. If you remember what Obama did for a living before running for political office - he was a community organizer in Chicago. Where do you think he learned his race baiting?

The issue here though is NOT whether Obama is a racist. I never accused him of that. I do not believe that. The is "is" - Obama used race baiting for political gain - by telling a LIE. That is the issue.

Obama's conduct was wrong - and he needs to be called out for it. The combo of race baiting and using a lie to incite racial animosity, and for personal political gain is off the charts reprehensible.

[BoiseBYU]

I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.

Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.

Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.

Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.

Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso ... y_in_chief

2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/ ... vers-stunn ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Inciting a particular race of people to anger and action against another race for your own personal/political gain does not mean that you dislike one of the races or that you're racist, it just makes you egotistical and a terrible person. We've seen Obama get involved in very local stories because of race (Trevon Martin, Cambridge Police), there's no denying that.

Also, our language is a living language and is therefore always evolving. Can you tell what Merriam Webster defines "noms" as?

Noms: National Organization of Marijuana Smokers? Am I close?

No Obama (for) Mr. Schmoe?

[BoiseBYU]

I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.

Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.

Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.

Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.

Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso ... y_in_chief

2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/ ... vers-stunn ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Yes, Race Baiting is using racially charged language to incite a group of folks up against another racial group - to incite anger racially.

However, you are mistaken that a race baiter is a racist. Yes, "racists" can and do use race baiting. But, just because a person is using "race baiting" language, it does not automatically mean they are a racist.

For instance - folks that have used race baiting in the past are Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan. Are they racists? I don't know. But they have used race bating for political purposes.

Has Obama used race baiting in the past? You bet. His speech at Hampton University is blatant, dishonest race baiting. If you remember what Obama did for a living before running for political office - he was a community organizer in Chicago. Where do you think he learned his race baiting?

The issue here though is NOT whether Obama is a racist. I never accused him of that. I do not believe that. The is "is" - Obama used race baiting for political gain - by telling a LIE. That is the issue.

Obama's conduct was wrong - and he needs to be called out for it. The combo of race baiting and using a lie to incite racial animosity, and for personal political gain is off the charts reprehensible.

I see where you are coming from and do not defend the speech. I just put it in the same category as Romney's 47 percent pandering pitch to the donors. That was wrong too. I think both men are better than those two episodes. You no doubt disagree and think Obama by far the worst, but a speech five years ago without subsequent evidence of racist behavior means I will give zero crede to it the same that I see a man who serves and donates to less advantaged persons and thus is not a class divider. Romney is a good man at heart. So cheers and let us stomp Beavers!

[Ddawg]

a speech five years ago without subsequent evidence of racist behavior means I will give zero crede to it

You keep mis-stating, or mis-understanding the point. Let me say this very clearly: I have not said, nor, am I saying, Barack Obama is a RACIST. I have said, and do say, Obama is a "Race Baiter." And yes, he has done it since 2007.

It is you who are saying if you are a "race baiter" you are a "racist." Being a "race baiter" does not mean, automatically, that you are a racist. You could be. But it is not a guaranteed, cast in concrete, done deal. Race baiting is a tactic.

What is a "race baiter" doing? They are appealing to the baser, emotional, easy trigger points within people - (and here's the point) - for Personal Political Gain.

What Obama did in that speech was very calculated. It was a prepared speech. Not an off the cuff remark. He appealed to the baser, lower, racial animosity of the crowd - by telling a lie. It was not a mistake. Obama knew he was lying and appealing to the racial animosity.

But, and here is what is so troubling. Obama lied and race baited in a calculated way to help himself politically. It is a repugnant and low tactic. That's the point.

And the topic of Obama lying? He continues that practice. We haven't even touched Benghazi, Libya where four Americans died, and Obama lied.

[CougarClaw]

I think Romney said "47%" when he meant to say 47 Million americans, which IS a number he repeated a few times in the Presidential debate.

And I think he correctly identified a group of people that would not and should not be a focus for his campaign. They've already made their decision, and in essence, are being paid to make it by my taxdollars. It's the same rationale that arguing politics on facebook does no good. No one listens, they've already made up their minds and all your well-thought of arguments will amost always end in ad-hominen attacks. Both parties focus on the small sliver of people in this country who have not made up their minds. And yes, Romney mispoke, but he accurately identified the same strategy that all campaigners use when they focus on those that are on the fence. not those that have already made up their minds.

as for not caring about the poor. That's not what he said at all. Romney was a Bishop, and a stake president. He ran Boston's LDS welfare program for years. He's no stranger to the face of poverty or compassion.

[CougarClaw]

2. Blame Culture- GOP and Tea party Stonewalling definitely played a significant role to today’s Washington culture. We can vote them out too.

This makes no sense to me. It seems to me that "stonewalling" is exactly the responsibility of both the Tea Party and GOP when there is no other way to stop fascists/socialists.

What are they supposed to do, capitulate?

you are right, GOP freshman did exactly what they said they would do in Washington. And as a result, we've had the most divided, locked, do-nothing Congress with a disastrously low approval rating at a time when we need plans, compromise and action. I think the question is, with today's problems and the ever-advancing tsunami of debt and budget problems, would you prefer that Congress do nothing at all to a compromised solution that involves some of the principles the tea party was voted in to stop?

Yes, it's true that there may well be fascists/ socialists/ socialites or whatever in Congress, The real problem is that they were voted there by americans. That means they get to have an opinion and a vote and a say in the direction of this democracy even if you and I don't like it. And yes, I realize that hitler was democratically voted into power. But INACTION I fear might be worse here and that's what we've had. a lack of WH leadership, and a complete deadlock in congress.

And there were some decent compromises on the table the last four years that were turned down because of inability to compromise. The GOP is not blameless here. That's my only point. If you can't compromise in a democracy, (or republic) then you have stalemate. and no one wins in a stalemate.

[imuakahuku]

I think I need to clarify a few things.

1. Tea Party - a grass roots group (in other words spontaneously created with no one group or person being the organizer). It's central purpose is to lobby for less taxes and government spending. All the other "issues" are incidental to the fact that those associated with the tea party are generally social conservatives in addition to being fiscal conservatives. It is not racist to any degree, it represents probably 70% of Americans, and is made up of people from all walks of life including differing race, political party and so on. I am proud of the work they do in getting the "silent majority" to stop being silent.

2. Race baiting. It is present in both verbal attacks and in verbiage that is intended to incite the feeling of racism. This is just a small part of his overall strategy which is to be the most divisive President in history. Divide and conquer. That is evident in the adds and the speeches he continues to deliver. Old people, war on women, blacks being ignored, Latinos, poor vs rich, every race vs whites, gay marriage, government vs religious institutions, and so on.

3. 47% This is not comparable to the Obama speech from 2007. First, it was done in answer to a donor's question about target audiences. Romney explained in not the most political manner but was accurate and concise in explaining why he did not target those he deemed as "deep blue" that were not sway-able. He explained who and why they targeted the way they did with adds and campaign money and it was completely innocent. Also, two minutes of his answer including the question have been left out. Hmmm. I wonder why? Actually, I know why. It would put the lie to the dems 47% argument. There is more to this but I think that should answer why this is in no way comparable to the 2007 Katrina speech (see below).

4. Obama's speech to the mostly black audience in N.O. was divisive and misleading to say the least. His claim that N.O. was not getting the money it was entitled to was because they were black. First, Katrina victims got five times what the people of NY got. Second, the Stafford Act was waived for Katrina and Barack voted against the waiver. He lied about the government not waiving the Stafford Act, acted incensed because of it when he himself voted against the waiver, and then claimed the bullet (of racism) hasn't been removed. He also admitted that he was close with Wright in that speech, something he denied before his election.

If you want a reason to vote for Romney how about this: character. Romney has very strong and good character while Obama is just a character who tries to portray whatever the person is you want to believe he is. Look at it this way, If a gunman took aim at the candidates, Obama would jump behind his secret service agent, Romney would jump in front of the agent. That is the difference between the two men.

[imuakahuku]

2. Blame Culture- GOP and Tea party Stonewalling definitely played a significant role to today’s Washington culture. We can vote them out too.

This makes no sense to me. It seems to me that "stonewalling" is exactly the responsibility of both the Tea Party and GOP when there is no other way to stop fascists/socialists.

What are they supposed to do, capitulate?

you are right, GOP freshman did exactly what they said they would do in Washington. And as a result, we've had the most divided, locked, do-nothing Congress with a disastrously low approval rating at a time when we need plans, compromise and action. I think the question is, with today's problems and the ever-advancing tsunami of debt and budget problems, would you prefer that Congress do nothing at all to a compromised solution that involves some of the principles the tea party was voted in to stop?

Yes, it's true that there may well be fascists/ socialists/ socialites or whatever in Congress, The real problem is that they were voted there by americans. That means they get to have an opinion and a vote and a say in the direction of this democracy even if you and I don't like it. And yes, I realize that hitler was democratically voted into power. But INACTION I fear might be worse here and that's what we've had. a lack of WH leadership, and a complete deadlock in congress.

And there were some decent compromises on the table the last four years that were turned down because of inability to compromise. The GOP is not blameless here. That's my only point. If you can't compromise in a democracy, (or republic) then you have stalemate. and no one wins in a stalemate.

What you are missing is that the Republicans are being portrayed as stonewalling but that is not true. they have presented numerous deals etc but the Dems will not bend. The Senate will not even take up a republican bill when it is passed by the House even with the support of the dems in the House. This whole mess falls on the dems in congress and the white house. They will not yield, they had all the power for two years and instead of addressing the real issues they rammed Obamacare and other such legislation through. They could have passed anything so why no jobs bills? Why no budget? Why are we still having all the issues? Because the agenda came first and the country second (if that).

[CougarClaw]

What you are missing is that the Republicans are being portrayed as stonewalling but that is not true. they have presented numerous deals etc but the Dems will not bend. The Senate will not even take up a republican bill when it is passed by the House even with the support of the dems in the House. This whole mess falls on the dems in congress and the white house. They will not yield, they had all the power for two years and instead of addressing the real issues they rammed Obamacare and other such legislation through. They could have passed anything so why no jobs bills? Why no budget? Why are we still having all the issues? Because the agenda came first and the country second (if that).

The GOP refused to accept a single tax increase. That was the primary stonewall. They refused to compromise because that's what we sent them there to do. And it worked, to the detriment of all progress. Oh, and of the 4 years of house control and 4 years of Senate control, the democrats have controlled 6 of those 8 years. And yet the democrats have posterized the GOP for their inability to compromise and are to blame (obama's favorite word!) for inaction the last four years. But you look at that 6/8 figure and it's really hard to accept.

I don't disagree with you. The senate in particular has acted atrociously by preventing all riders and any minority input into legislation. As a backlash, GOP has has to run more filibusters than virtually any congress in history. It's their only way to provide input. I do think the democrats have the lion share of the blame. But the GOP is not without blame either.