Does Obama "Hate White People? Native Americans"?

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by Preacher

the ACTUAL argument was NOT about Obama or Bush, but about how the press and talking heads played up the race card with Bush, and play it down with Obama SPECIFICALLY for political reasons of their own.

....still not seeing anything about the press or talking heads in the OP. the ambiguity and open-ended nature of all, leads me to believe it was directed at anyone who voted for obama.

anyways, to be fair, isnt revs playing it up with obama and playing it down with bush?

but i forgot that only republicans are allowed to twist arguments to devalue both the argument and arguer unchecked so to be fair, i see what revs is asking.

however its a bit out of context. bush took alot of heat and scrutiny for not delivering on the war in iraq and finding the WMD.

on the flipside, if obama ignored a WMD threat and we were consequently attacked, the media would be just as quick to call him a white, indian, and everybody under the sun but muslim hater.

BTW the talking heads already imply he is a muslim lover so this so called double standard isnt quite as blatant as you guys make it seem.

[SteelersMongol]

Obama don't hate the whites or Natives Americans. I've seen him on TV chilling with em all the time. But he sure does hate the Mongols. He hasn't visited Mongolia since he took office.

Originally Posted by PisnNapalm

Just me talking but... I never quite understood why it was so important for the president to be seen visiting a disaster area. It's just a photo op. What's he really gonna do while there? Grab a shovel and help clean up? No...

He can see how bad things are on a tv like the rest of us. He has people under him who coordinate the recovery.

I dunno... I'd think it's more important for FEMA to be there rather than the president.

WORD!!!

Originally Posted by Dino 6 Rings

My two cents.

Obama does not hate White People or Native Americans.

Obama doesn't realize the job he's in isn't the kind of job that you can just "pretend at" twice a week. He is overwhelmed and under prepared for the task of POTUS. He clearly should have visited ND, as well as the recent Tornado areas. But he's too busy, picking out a dog, and giving speeches in Europe to understand that he Doesn't Get to Sleep, doesn't get to Rest, needs to be out there everyday showing his Love of America and Americans.

One could argue that Obama doesn't hate White people or Native Americans, but that Obama doesn't love Americans for who we are and where we come from Historically. He's too busy trying to make us in the image of Europe to care about our Current Affairs or Current Natural Disasters.

So true.

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

oh brother...

well this much we do know... bush loved the indians. so much so, that his grandpappy stole (graverobbed) geronimos skull and they rest of the bush clan who attended yale ceremoniously burned candles on it in satanic rituals.



so i guess obama not going to flood zones is proof bush didnt hate black people? okay, but the race card being played by either side is/was pretty weak.

im almost 100% positive NOBODY POSTING ON THIS BOARD ever said bush hated black people.

more misdirected angst imo....

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

....still not seeing anything about the press or talking heads in the OP. the ambiguity and open-ended nature of all, leads me to believe it was directed at anyone who voted for obama.

From the first post:

Why not?

This is NOT a partisan attack. I am sincerely asking why it was so bad for Bush to VISIT New Orleans and it's okay for Obama to NOT visit N. Dakota?

Seems to me it was directed more at those who played up the "bush is a racist" card with hurricane Katrina. That would be, 1. The Press and 2. Certain elements of the democrat caucus.

anyways, to be fair, isnt revs playing it up with obama and playing it down with bush?

I think Revs was specifically matching the over-the-top rhetoric that we heard about Bush and New Orleans.

but i forgot that only republicans are allowed to twist arguments to devalue both the argument and arguer unchecked so to be fair, i see what revs is asking.

Um, nope. But I have found that in pretty much EVERY thread since the election, you have done this. Why? and I ask that seriously. I have seen you when you are not a smartass, actually step by step make excellent and compelling arguments.

however its a bit out of context. bush took alot of heat and scrutiny for not delivering on the war in iraq and finding the WMD.

on the flipside, if obama ignored a WMD threat and we were consequently attacked, the media would be just as quick to call him a white, indian, and everybody under the sun but muslim hater.

I sincerely have my doubts, especially that "no WMD" was the cause of it all. Especially when the press HAS TO ignore the fact that the previous administration AND most ALL western intelligence agencies were in agreement with the intel. No, I think that is quite a reach.

BTW the talking heads already imply he is a muslim lover so this so called double standard isnt quite as blatant as you guys make it seem.

Hmm, I haven't seen that at all on the national news, nor on any of the cable channels. I gotta ask for sources on this one.

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by Preacher

however its a bit out of context. bush took alot of heat and scrutiny for not delivering on the war in iraq and finding the WMD.




Hmm, I haven't seen that at all on the national news, nor on any of the cable channels. I gotta ask for sources on this one.

i dont recall seeing "bush hates blacks" all over the national news either. you show me your sources and i will show you mine. but atleast we agree on it being a bit out of context.

I sincerely have my doubts, especially that "no WMD" was the cause of it all. Especially when the press HAS TO ignore the fact that the previous administration AND most ALL western intelligence agencies were in agreement with the intel. No, I think that is quite a reach.

but the rest of the western world and the previous administration showed resistance in declaring war.

appearantly the previous administration was too "obsessed" about some dude named osama bin laden. "wag the dog" , right? a legitimate terrorist threat was pretty much ignored because the outgoing prez got head.

Um, nope. But I have found that in pretty much EVERY thread since the election, you have done this. Why? and I ask that seriously. I have seen you when you are not a smartass, actually step by step make excellent and compelling arguments.

seriously...? i find that most of these threads are complete bullshit and not even worth an excellent or compelling argument (however i have no problem extinguishing a panic article- remember obama planting prayers at the wailing wall or not having an american flag on his campaign plane?)). and when youre outnumbered 15-20:1 often times just being a smartass is a much more entertaining and effective way of getting a point across.

in all honesty, i actually make myself laugh. i really do. and sometimes i will go back and read an old thread (whether its blasting litp, bunglebrian, the columbus thread, or alot of these political ones) and laugh even more.

[Steeldude]

i blame the governor and the mayor of NO for the disaster efforts, pre-cautions etc... than i do bush.

many of the citizens weren't too helpful either.

as for the topic, IMO, the media is more pro-obama than it was pro-bush. whatever brings in the viewers/ratings has a key role too.

[GBMelBlount]

tony hipchest
i dont recall seeing "bush hates blacks" all over the national news either. you show me your sources and i will show you mine. but atleast we agree on it being a bit out of context.

Bush returns to New Orleans, denies prejudice in recovery effort
Last Updated: Monday, September 12, 2005 | 3:56 PM ET
CBC News

U.S. President George Bush insisted Monday morning that skin colour was not a factor in the federal government's hurricane recovery activities.

"The storm didn't discriminate and neither will the recovery effort," he said.

Vice Admiral Thad Allen, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, President Bush and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, tour the French Quarter of New Orleans. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Vice Admiral Thad Allen, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, President Bush and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, tour the French Quarter of New Orleans. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

There have been allegations that federal response was poor because so many victims were poor and black.

* RELATED STORY: Divers off Alabama coast join Canadian effort to help U.S. South

U.S. President Bush made his third trip to the Gulf region since the disaster. This visit includes a stop in New Orleans, and a helicopter tour of surrounding parishes before flying to Gulfport, Miss.

In other hurricane-related news:

# New Orleans is slowly recovering from the hurricane. Dozens of pumps continued to drain the flooded city. Aerial scans showed the city still about 50 percent flooded. Recovery teams have found at least 197 bodies, far fewer than originally expected.

# Business owners in New Orleans were allowed to return to the city's central business district on Monday. The business people were issued passes and allowed to retrieve data or equipment needed to run their companies.

# Swiss Reinsurance, the world's second-largest reinsurance company, has doubled its estimate of claims the global insurance industry will face from hurricane Katrina. It said it now faces a payout of $40 billion US.

# On Sunday, more than 350 Hurricane Katrina evacuees staying in Charlotte, N.C. watched their New Orleans Saints beat the Carolina Panthers 23-to-20. Panthers football players donated the tickets, and the team collected $176,000 US on behalf of the relief effort.

# As of Friday,

-- 71,100 U.S. federal personnel had been deployed in the relief effort.

-- 47,089 lives have been saved and rescued.

-- 253,177 people have been evacuated to shelters in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/0..._20050912.html

[revefsreleets]

Once again, my point is NOT a partisan attack. I am not questioning Obama's action (or lack of action) pertaining to ND. I am NOT questioning Bush's actions (or lack of action) pertaining to NO.

I am questioning why it's okay for one president to not go, and not okay for another President TO go.

There is a HUGE disparity here. First Bush was roundly criticized for not immediately heading to NO, and, when he did, he was ripped up for going too late or for the wrong reasons. And Obama did next to nothing about North Dakota and there hasn't been a peep from the media about it either way.

These are facts, people. I don't need to cite sources or quote articles because I lived through both events, and can clearly see and hear with my own two eyes and ears the VAST difference in the way these two presidents are being treated by the press and in popular culture...

It makes a BIG difference because the media and pop press are probably the most important shapers of public perception today for most people. And they are not being fair and balanced here.

[kittenfantastico76]

I do think it's good faith for a president to visit the disaster sights. Be it photo op, truly caring or showing his support for the people struggling.

Of course the minute he goes there to help, he'll get slack from people because he should be at the white house figuring out what on earth to do about bail outs, our economic status etc.

It's a double edged sword, I didn't have an issue about Bush going to New Orleans personally or not. He went, great, what's more important is that things were handled to help the people there. I know they were told in advance to get out, etc. I know there are more people involved in getting the balls rolling, we all learn from our mistakes.

If everything was handled as needed with New Orleans, I think Bush would have gotten less flack for it, and people may have given him a bit more slack in visiting, not visiting or getting there sooner vs. later.

As far as North Dakota, I have to read more about this situation, but in my opinion, if things are being handled there, food, water, help for the homeless victims etc, I don't see the huge issue of him not being there RIGHT NOW.

Did anyone visit the victims in Texas after their huge disaster? [Asking in all seriousness - I didn't follow the stories about whether the president made it there or not].

Bottom line - I think it's amazing when the President takes time to get out to these sights to help, to lift hopes and to say HEY, I DO CARE ABOUT YOU. I don't know that it should be expected, unless as said before it's a national disaster such as 9-11, Pearl Harbor etc. This is something where ALL Americans need answers. And NO I'm not saying that these few Americans aren't as important, but if their needs ARE being met, and their questions are being answered I don't see the need for the president to be there, unless he truly feels he needs to. IF they aren't getting what they need or having answers to their questions then he needs to get his ass there and help these people figure out where to go next. Or at least let them know help is coming/there/what to do.

I'd be lost if I lost my home etc. I'd want answers from someone, but that doesn't mean Obama needs to come to my town to tell me in person, he just needs to be sure everything is in line to give me the answers/ assistance I need to get back on my feet, back to work and back to making the money to fix my home/community etc. I don't want a hand out, I want answers, I pray my insurance would cover it and that I could get back on my feet.

[Preacher]

[quote=revefsreleets;590070]Once again, my point is NOT a partisan attack. I am not questioning Obama's action (or lack of action) pertaining to ND. I am NOT questioning Bush's actions (or lack of action) pertaining to NO.

I am questioning why it's okay for one president to not go, and not okay for another President TO go.

There is a HUGE disparity here. First Bush was roundly criticized for not immediately heading to NO, and, when he did, he was ripped up for going too late or for the wrong reasons. And Obama did next to nothing about North Dakota and there hasn't been a peep from the media about it either way.

These are facts, people. I don't need to cite sources or quote articles because I lived through both events, and can clearly see and hear with my own two eyes and ears the VAST difference in the way these two presidents are being treated by the press and in popular culture...

It makes a BIG difference because the media and pop press are probably the most important shapers of public perception today for most people. And they are not being fair and balanced here.[ /quote]

Exactly

[HometownGal]

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

These are facts, people. I don't need to cite sources or quote articles because I lived through both events, and can clearly see and hear with my own two eyes and ears the VAST difference in the way these two presidents are being treated by the press and in popular culture...

It makes a BIG difference because the media and pop press are probably the most important shapers of public perception today for most people. And they are not being fair and balanced here.

I think anyone with a fraction of a brain cell can clearly see that through the media's eyes, one President did EVERYTHING wrong (but was re-elected to a second term, mysteriously) and another President can do NO wrong. I compare it to a football/hockey player who plays an extremely physical game being consistently flagged for looking at an opponent the wrong way and on the flip side, a primadonna player being overly protected by the refs.

The media has really never been totally "fair and balanced", but the bias has become even more pronounced over the last 4 years, and particularly, during and since this last election.