Obama College Videos: Critical Race Theory

[kentington]

I think if you wanted to compute how Obama's racism would affect your vote that you probably already would have by now.

That still doesn't answer my question other than that you believe that something someone did 20 years ago will affect that person's job now such that it's sufficient for you to not vote for that person and, further, spend time, energy, and resources making sure it affects other peoples' perceptions of him.

I would prefer that conservative pundits and politicians spend time trying to figure out how to make better policy decisions rather than spending time determining how racist Barack Obama was and/or is (when clearly it has not affected his policy to date).

What if the President was white and was racist against blacks? If he was Republican and didn't have the media in hand? He would be tossed down without a second thought, even if his policies didn't reflect his beliefs.

If someone commits a felony and twenty years go by should he now have that taken off his record? I mean it was twenty years ago.

You keep comparing Obama's racism to Bush and Clinton with drugs and women. I don't agree with what they have done, but those aren't core beliefs that are prejudiced. And again 20 years ago, plus however long he went to Jeremiah Wright's church. And continued to go until he was called out on it. Patterns.

[patches70]

None of this should come as any surprise to those who know what Obama is. Obamaphiles will ignore this, those that are opposed to Obama will only have their opinion reinforced. The independent minded will vote for/against Obama based on his record (now that he has a definitive record).

The conservative pundits want to claim that Obama will be "vetted" this time. It's too late. Hell, if nobody cared about the lack of vetting from the previous election won't care about it now.
Romney, who will probably get the nomination, will he go the same road as McCain and refuse to say anything bad about Obama?
Will Romney hit hard or will he take his customary "Obama's a nice guy but a bad President" line?

Obama will win reelection despite this video. It is the fault of the tow the line Republican establishment who refuse to embrace the Libertarian section who has more in common with traditional Republican values of old than the current Neo-Con faction that rules the party. The Republican party ought to get back to individualism instead of more Collectivism and Statism. As it stands now the two parties are the same. All roads lead to the same destination, the power and authority of The State is more important than the rights and dignity of the individual.

Buckle up everyone, we are in for a bumpy ride.

[thegreekdog]

I think if you wanted to compute how Obama's racism would affect your vote that you probably already would have by now.

That still doesn't answer my question other than that you believe that something someone did 20 years ago will affect that person's job now such that it's sufficient for you to not vote for that person and, further, spend time, energy, and resources making sure it affects other peoples' perceptions of him.

I would prefer that conservative pundits and politicians spend time trying to figure out how to make better policy decisions rather than spending time determining how racist Barack Obama was and/or is (when clearly it has not affected his policy to date).

His racism should not be discounted. But you'll notice that I think that the narrative is generally much more about his economic performance than associations and hidden beliefs where one has to extrapolate based on some speculation.

I did give you the very tangible example of the white cop / black Harvard professor. That was the first example that comes to mind. I thought that example was very black and white (pun not intended). I have my own personal conspiracy theories based on his background, actions and past subscriptions to various doctrines. I don't want to preach my own perception as an absolute gospel though.

I say this to point out that we all extrapolate much of what we surmise based on intuition and of course there is always going to be a margin for error (that'll be different for each person) in that event. None the less, if you merely just give someone the benefit of the doubt then you are essentially operating based on blind faith.

I'm not operating on blind faith. I'm operating with almost four years of policy from our president where (other than the irrelevant example you've given above) the policy has not been racist.

I think one could point to his class warfare-esque rhetoric as an example of something that's disturbing. However, nothing he's done or signed has shown that he's a socialist. In fact, his policies and the laws he's signed have helped big business.

What if the President was white and was racist against blacks? If he was Republican and didn't have the media in hand? He would be tossed down without a second thought, even if his policies didn't reflect his beliefs.

If a white presidential candidate had published pamphlets with his name on it with racially charged statements in them and the candidate did not know about it, I would not give it a second thought. That candidate's name is Ron Paul, for your reference.

[ViperOverLord]

I'm not operating on blind faith. I'm operating with almost four years of policy from our president where (other than the irrelevant example you've given above) the policy has not been racist.

A guy has all types of racist/radical associations and you want to assume Obama is not racist. There is an incident between a white cop and black professor. (President) Obama condemns the white cop without knowing the details and you want to assume Obama is not racist. Obama goes to an extremely racist church for 20 years and you want to assume that Obama is not racist. I'd say your blind faith tank has a lot of fuel in it.

I think one could point to his class warfare-esque rhetoric as an example of something that's disturbing. However, nothing he's done or signed has shown that he's a socialist. In fact, his policies and the laws he's signed have helped big business.

Again, I believe that Obama is a pragmatist. He will abandon some of his racist values for personal gain. The class warfare is his shtick. It's his base. And Obama has been bought off by big business and there is a very legitimate argument that he is more beholden to big business/unions than social causes. I think you're trying to assume that I think all of his decisions will be based on racism and I am not stating that at all.

I think if you wanted to compute how Obama's racism would affect your vote that you probably already would have by now.

0%?

inb4: Just wait to see what he does against you whiteys in a second term knowing he won't need to seek re-election!

Shameless race baiting.

[Neoteny]

I love the last post.

[thegreekdog]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

[kentington]

What if the President was white and was racist against blacks? If he was Republican and didn't have the media in hand? He would be tossed down without a second thought, even if his policies didn't reflect his beliefs.

If a white presidential candidate had published pamphlets with his name on it with racially charged statements in them and the candidate did not know about it, I would not give it a second thought. That candidate's name is Ron Paul, for your reference.

I was unaware of this, but I haven't said anything in support of Ron Paul. Do you have a link to anything I can read about this? I would be interested in it.

[thegreekdog]

What if the President was white and was racist against blacks? If he was Republican and didn't have the media in hand? He would be tossed down without a second thought, even if his policies didn't reflect his beliefs.

If a white presidential candidate had published pamphlets with his name on it with racially charged statements in them and the candidate did not know about it, I would not give it a second thought. That candidate's name is Ron Paul, for your reference.

I was unaware of this, but I haven't said anything in support of Ron Paul. Do you have a link to anything I can read about this? I would be interested in it.

Yeah, I'll find a link. And I'm a Ron Paul supporter and think the whole issue is stupid.

[ViperOverLord]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

The executive branch not only outlines the agenda for creating laws, but is charged with the enforcement of laws. If you're not placing a significant value on character then you probably deserve whoever you vote for.

Also, I don't know why you pressed me on why Obama's affiliations matter if you're going to turn around and say that it doesn't matter at all Perhaps just part of the feeling out process. I find it quite ironic though.

[Phatscotty]

oh, I see. so he was protecting us from the truth....got it

The truth is... we currently have a well educated and very intelligent President.

Source?????????

...when a candidate had a history of drinking, snorting coke and partying....

Maybe you should check out Obama's book in his own words, since he was drinking and snorting coke and partying also.

Even though the OP is entirely too vague and lacking factual details of any kind, is this a problem because --even though it's decades old-- it's more recent than a Hawaiian birth certificate? I suppose it's better than Breitbart's videos of his scatological rants while confronting "occupiers" or images of Wiener's weiner.

All it is is more evidence that Obama chumming around with radicals and communists. But you could get that from Obama's own words if you read his book as well, but most likely you will just pretend I am the one making those accusations.

[Phatscotty]

I need some more explanation about this before I understand why this matters to me.

I saw that they released the video. I didn't watch it because it was "Watch Obama talk about race when he was in law school." When I was in law school I got drunk and fell asleep in my car (which obviously means I'm an alcoholic and dangerous driver and shouldn't be president). When I was in law school I took a shit in the upper deck in the law school bathroom (which makes me a vandal and criminal and shouldn't be president). When Barack Obama was in law school he had a professor he liked who supported some race theory that is virtually irrelevant (which means he hates white people and wants to kill us all and shouldn't be president). I think he also smoked pot too (which means he's a criminal, drug addict, and dealer and shouldn't be president).

Barrack was 30 years old at the time of the speech (much older than the average law student). He was the chosen introductory speaker for a very racist instructor. He soon after attended a hate whitey church for the next 20 years. I don't think that your sophomoric actions when you were younger correlate as much as you'd like to think they do.

The man has been president for almost 4 years. I have not yet had the gestapo burst through my door arresting me for being white.

So, again, I ask you and Phatscotty - how is this video or any reports relative to this video relevant?

Well, nobody knows just how smart Obama is because his college records are sealed and off limits. (Ovo seems to know though). It's relevant because Obama was not vetted in 2008. Those were his wishes, and the media was complicit and granting them. Guess this is just what it looks like when we have to vet a president for ourselves. And already having been president does not give him a pass for everything he got away with either.

[Phatscotty]

I think if you wanted to compute how Obama's racism would affect your vote that you probably already would have by now.

That still doesn't answer my question other than that you believe that something someone did 20 years ago will affect that person's job now such that it's sufficient for you to not vote for that person and, further, spend time, energy, and resources making sure it affects other peoples' perceptions of him.

I would prefer that conservative pundits and politicians spend time trying to figure out how to make better policy decisions rather than spending time determining how racist Barack Obama was and/or is (when clearly it has not affected his policy to date).

it's not 100% about what people have done in their past and how that will effect what they do in the present. Knowing what people have done in the past are key indicators to knowing who they are today.

Example: Obama went to Harvard (in the past). Even though nobody knows what his grades were, they automatically assume he is (in the present) super intelligent.

[Phatscotty]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

Well, maybe Obama should just release his college records? Then we wouldn't have to go through this death by a thousand cuts.

bottom line is this: why would you defend something that was intentionally hidden from us? Why don't you have any question why it was hidden? Why don't you think there is a good reason this video was hidden from us, hidden by Professor Bell himself?

[Symmetry]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

Well, maybe Obama should just release his college records? Then we wouldn't have to go through this death by a thousand cuts.

bottom line is this: why would you defend something that was intentionally hidden from us? Why don't you have any question why it was hidden? Why don't you think there is a good reason this video was hidden from us, hidden by Professor Bell himself?

Probably the only conspiracy is that this kind of stuff just ends up making fringe conservative groups look a bit nutso. It's birtherism all over again. If he released all his records, there'd just be more to follow, or accusations that they were faked. Let the wingnuts tie themselves up in conspiracy theories, it simply drives away the independents.

I guess my question would be, what do you think is being hidden? What would any of this show?

These are the weird fringe who think that Obama was influenced by a racist Christian preacher, but also can't be sure he's not a Muslim. Who think that he somehow faked his own birth announcements. Who can read two autobiographies and say that they just don't know anything about him.

Wingnuts.

[kentington]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

Well, maybe Obama should just release his college records? Then we wouldn't have to go through this death by a thousand cuts.

bottom line is this: why would you defend something that was intentionally hidden from us? Why don't you have any question why it was hidden? Why don't you think there is a good reason this video was hidden from us, hidden by Professor Bell himself?

Probably the only conspiracy is that this kind of stuff just ends up making fringe conservative groups look a bit nutso. It's birtherism all over again. If he released all his records, there'd just be more to follow, or accusations that they were faked. Let the wingnuts tie themselves up in conspiracy theories, it simply drives away the independents.

I guess my question would be, what do you think is being hidden? What would any of this show?

These are the weird fringe who think that Obama was influenced by a racist Christian preacher, but also can't be sure he's not a Muslim. Who think that he somehow faked his own birth announcements. Who can read two autobiographies and say that they just don't know anything about him.

Wingnuts.

I seriously think something is up with him. I am skeptical of people, because I have come in contact with a lot of people and the majority (90%) aren't who they make themselves out to be. I try to act exactly the way I am in my head. Now I am sounding really crazy.

I just get a bad feeling from him, and don't believe half of what he says. Of course this goes for most politicians.

I know what you are saying Symmetry. Give a mouse a cookie. If he does release his birth records and college stuff then they will want something else or claim they are all fake. My point is: It is a simple matter to release those documents. Release them and you have done all you can do. As a President you should be willing to have everyone look into all aspects of your life. In serving you are paying a price.

I don't know if I am being clear about this point.

[patches70]

I just get a bad feeling from him, and don't believe half of what he says.

You'd do all right if you just go all the way and believe nothing he says. I don't think the man is capable of telling the truth.

[Symmetry]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

Well, maybe Obama should just release his college records? Then we wouldn't have to go through this death by a thousand cuts.

bottom line is this: why would you defend something that was intentionally hidden from us? Why don't you have any question why it was hidden? Why don't you think there is a good reason this video was hidden from us, hidden by Professor Bell himself?

Probably the only conspiracy is that this kind of stuff just ends up making fringe conservative groups look a bit nutso. It's birtherism all over again. If he released all his records, there'd just be more to follow, or accusations that they were faked. Let the wingnuts tie themselves up in conspiracy theories, it simply drives away the independents.

I guess my question would be, what do you think is being hidden? What would any of this show?

These are the weird fringe who think that Obama was influenced by a racist Christian preacher, but also can't be sure he's not a Muslim. Who think that he somehow faked his own birth announcements. Who can read two autobiographies and say that they just don't know anything about him.

Wingnuts.

I seriously think something is up with him. I am skeptical of people, because I have come in contact with a lot of people and the majority (90%) aren't who they make themselves out to be. I try to act exactly the way I am in my head. Now I am sounding really crazy.

I just get a bad feeling from him, and don't believe half of what he says. Of course this goes for most politicians.

I know what you are saying Symmetry. Give a mouse a cookie. If he does release his birth records and college stuff then they will want something else or claim they are all fake. My point is: It is a simple matter to release those documents. Release them and you have done all you can do. As a President you should be willing to have everyone look into all aspects of your life. In serving you are paying a price.

I don't know if I am being clear about this point.

Fairly clear, but I just don't see where it stops. High school records? Primary school drawings? The guys been president for nearly four years. Time to cut the crap on the "he's hiding something from his past" line. Whatever he produces won't stop you having a bad feeling about him, nor will it convince you that he's not just another politician.

So why bother?

[kentington]

Give a mouse a cookie. If he does release his birth records and college stuff then they will want something else or claim they are all fake.

Fairly clear, but I just don't see where it stops. High school records? Primary school drawings? The guys been president for nearly four years. Time to cut the crap on the "he's hiding something from his past" line. Whatever he produces won't stop you having a bad feeling about him, nor will it convince you that he's not just another politician.

So why bother?

Sorry. I had two points and maybe this one didn't get noticed. I don't know if you are familiar with the story, "Give a mouse a cookie."
The point of the story is If you give a mouse a cookie then he will ask for something else, and if you give him that something else, then he will again ask for something new.

You are right it will either affirm my suspicions or make me think the ones provided are doctored because I trust my instincts more than him. I think their hope is that it will keep him from getting re-elected or get him booted out of office.

[Symmetry]

Give a mouse a cookie. If he does release his birth records and college stuff then they will want something else or claim they are all fake.

Fairly clear, but I just don't see where it stops. High school records? Primary school drawings? The guys been president for nearly four years. Time to cut the crap on the "he's hiding something from his past" line. Whatever he produces won't stop you having a bad feeling about him, nor will it convince you that he's not just another politician.

So why bother?

Sorry. I had two points and maybe this one didn't get noticed. I don't know if you are familiar with the story, "Give a mouse a cookie."
The point of the story is If you give a mouse a cookie then he will ask for something else, and if you give him that something else, then he will again ask for something new.

You are right it will either affirm my suspicions or make me think the ones provided are doctored because I trust my instincts more than him. I think their hope is that it will keep him from getting re-elected or get him booted out of office.

So why bother? This stuff effectively alienates independents, as it's a fairly fringe conspiracy theory leading on from all the "where's the birth certificate?" nonsense and the guff about "secret Muslim", or the weird bits about how he's out to destroy America, somehow. It won't stop questions from those who already drank deep of the anti-Obama kool-aid to the point where they say that they just don't trust him but can't say why- a "bad feeling" in your case, or trusting your "instincts".

[kentington]

I don't know why they bother. Maybe they have their money in something that benefits when Dems are in office but they don't want to look bad doing it themselves.
Republicans and weirdos don't have the best track record for getting people on their side. Maybe they are also hoping that if they actually find something, then they can gain support, kind of like a hero.

[Symmetry]

I don't know why they bother. Maybe they have their money in something that benefits when Dems are in office but they don't want to look bad doing it themselves.
Republicans and weirdos don't have the best track record for getting people on their side. Maybe they are also hoping that if they actually find something, then they can gain support, kind of like a hero.

I meant more, why should Obama bother releasing even more of his personal stuff? The Trump Birtherism debacle was kind of the nail in the coffin. Loudmouth conservative demanding that the President talk about his birth certificate for weeks. Meantime, Obama is busy taking out Bin Laden. There's a gulf of seriousness between those who want to look at his college records to find some dirt, or can't say for certain that he isn't Muslim, or aren't sure if he's really a US citizen, and those who want to debate his policies and actions.

And that gulf is widening.

[kentington]

Ah now I understand you.
I was missing your point.
If he really has nothing to hide he should bother, because it doesn't take much effort and even if he fakes them most of the people will believe him. It would help make those craziers seem crazy. Like you said the gulf is widening, releasing the documents would only help him.

[Symmetry]

Ah now I understand you.
I was missing your point.
If he really has nothing to hide he should bother, because it doesn't take much effort and even if he fakes them most of the people will believe him. It would help make those craziers seem crazy. Like you said the gulf is widening, releasing the documents would only help him.

Nah, didn't stop the crazies last time he tried it, or the time after that. Best let them stew in their conspiracies.

Let them say to themselves that "this time we're gonna be right, promise!- The big secret!". It's like compulsive gambling. Always the next big win will make up for everything that went before. Why? Well, they just got a feeling, it's instinct, ya know?

[thegreekdog]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

The executive branch not only outlines the agenda for creating laws, but is charged with the enforcement of laws. If you're not placing a significant value on character then you probably deserve whoever you vote for.

Also, I don't know why you pressed me on why Obama's affiliations matter if you're going to turn around and say that it doesn't matter at all Perhaps just part of the feeling out process. I find it quite ironic though.

I'm saying it doesn't matter at all because you haven't provided a reason (neither has Phatscotty). Actually, you provided one reason - when the president sided with the Harvard professor against the police officer. Apparently this was extremely important to you. That's rather ridiculous, don't you think? Especially when the president then had the police officer and the professor to the White House for some beers.

Conservative pundits will say the reason is because he will impose racist policies, but that hasn't happened in four years and I don't believe it will happen (given that the president is not a dictator, despite that he can outline an agenda for Congress). Intelligent and honest conservative pundits will say that it all started with Robert Bork where this crap is relevant to the political discussion.

[ViperOverLord]

Look... here's my deal. I don't like any of these things. I think focusing on issues like this is stupid, no matter the party of the person who is the focus of the scrutiny. Arguably, this was started with the Robert Bork confirmation hearings back in the 1980s, but by now it's become ridiculous. It seems that all we care about is crap like this, rather than actual policies.

So, instead of having articles on websites or journalists or commentators focusing on real issues, we focus on this stuff. I mean it's the top headlines on Drudge and msn. Stupid.

The executive branch not only outlines the agenda for creating laws, but is charged with the enforcement of laws. If you're not placing a significant value on character then you probably deserve whoever you vote for.

Also, I don't know why you pressed me on why Obama's affiliations matter if you're going to turn around and say that it doesn't matter at all Perhaps just part of the feeling out process. I find it quite ironic though.

I'm saying it doesn't matter at all because you haven't provided a reason (neither has Phatscotty). Actually, you provided one reason - when the president sided with the Harvard professor against the police officer. Apparently this was extremely important to you. That's rather ridiculous, don't you think? Especially when the president then had the police officer and the professor to the White House for some beers.

Conservative pundits will say the reason is because he will impose racist policies, but that hasn't happened in four years and I don't believe it will happen (given that the president is not a dictator, despite that he can outline an agenda for Congress). Intelligent and honest conservative pundits will say that it all started with Robert Bork where this crap is relevant to the political discussion.

You want me to make an argument that I never said I was making. I haven't been arguing a level of racism in Obama's policies. I point out that his racism is a character flaw. Bad character can manifest itself in many ways. I've also argued that Obama is a pragmatist. He's not going to go out and make a bunch of racist policies that will cost him popularity.

I would argue though that his racism very much does affect his Israel policies. He has not stood stalwart with them like other presidents. And his representatives are calling Iran "rational" as a regime that wants to eliminate Jews is working on a nuclear bomb. Is that significant enough for you?