Obama College Videos: Critical Race Theory

[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.

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?

I just want to make sure I understand your thinking - President Obama's support twenty years ago for a racist professor's decision to take an unpaid leave of absence until Harvard law school hired a black woman professor leads you to believe that the president lacks character and that this lack of character has manifested itself in his not supporting Israel enough. Is that your line of thinking?

First, given the president's recent State of the Union speech, it appears that he's quite ready to attack Iran. And I believe most of Congress supports that policy decision. So I'm not sure if your theory is true in any event.

Second, even if your theory is true, I will tell you that I have no interest in meddling with the affairs of Iran (I'm a Paulite after all).

[oVo]

Much like stereotypes, guilt by association is always a good thing, eh? Classes, lectures and discussion of CRT obviously caused unrepairable damage to the psychology of the nation as some social injustices were kicked to the curb in many corners of America. The change in the racial culture back in the sixties can't be undone. Oh the horror.

Republican candidates should change their election year mantra from "I can beat Obama" to "Say anything to get elected." I'm not sure the old methodology of cultivating a culture of fear mongering and paranoia is going to work this time around.

[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?

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.

The liberal professor is the one who hid the tape to make sure nobody saw it during the 2008 election, in the professors own words. But yeah, sure, it's a Republican conspiracy

[Phatscotty]

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?

yes, the people who run around saying Obama is brilliant and the smartest president in history without having any evidence whatsoever (in fact, the evidence is being kept from us) are the sane ones. The people who would like to see his college records (just like we normally always like to see from every other president) are the crazy conspiracy wingnuts.

It's crystal clear what is going on here, and it's sad

[Phatscotty]

Much like stereotypes, guilt by association is always a good thing, eh? Classes, lectures and discussion of CRT obviously caused unrepairable damage to the psychology of the nation as some social injustices were kicked to the curb in many corners of America. The change in the racial culture back in the sixties can't be undone. Oh the horror.

Republican candidates should change their election year mantra from "I can beat Obama" to "Say anything to get elected." I'm not sure the old methodology of cultivating a culture of fear mongering and paranoia is going to work this time around.

OOH! LET ME TRY!

Republicans should say:

"If we are elected, we promise unemployment won't go above 8%!"
"If we are elected, we will close Guantanimo Bay!"
"If we are elected, we will immediately start ending the wars!"
"If we are elected, we will not hire any lobbyist!"
"If we are elected, we will cut the deficit in half in 4 years!"
"If we are elected, when we propose bills the American people will have 5 days to look at the bill before we sign it!"

[oVo]

I said he's smart, not the smartest. His college record is not a secret
and is as accessible as anyone's. Duh?

What evidence do you think you're being deprived of? It seems that
avatar is clouding your assessment of reality through some strange
mental osmosis.

[Phatscotty]

I said he's smart, not the smartest. His college record is not a secret
and is as accessible as anyone's.

Can you please show us his college records?

[Crazyirishman]

Okay Im not really much of a fan of Obama but,

First off, even if Obama was born in bumfuck Rwanda, it wouldnt matter because his mom was born in Kansas, so he's a US citizen by default because of his mother.

2nd, is its not like he busted out a 1.5 GPA on his college records, because he would not have been able to get into law school if his grades were shit and his test scores sucked, so that shows some measure of intelligence.

Many of these things detract from what people should be focusing on- his policies and agendas. Focusing on these little nit pick things have virtually nothing to do with the candidate themselves in the larger scheme of things and just turns people away.

[Phatscotty]

Okay Im not really much of a fan of Obama but,

First off, even if Obama was born in bumfuck Rwanda, it wouldnt matter because his mom was born in Kansas, so he's a US citizen by default because of his mother.

2nd, is its not like he busted out a 1.5 GPA on his college records, because he would not have been able to get into law school if his grades were shit and his test scores sucked, so that shows some measure of intelligence.

Many of these things detract from what people should be focusing on- his policies and agendas. Focusing on these little nit pick things have virtually nothing to do with the candidate themselves in the larger scheme of things and just turns people away.

this is 100% about his agenda, 0% about where Obama was born (talk about detracting?)

[oVo]

Can you please show us his college records?

Do your own digging, it's out there, all you have to do is look.

btw... Obama did okay at Harvard.

[Night Strike]

First off, even if Obama was born in bumfuck Rwanda, it wouldnt matter because his mom was born in Kansas, so he's a US citizen by default because of his mother.

I agree with Phatscotty that your post is just a distraction, but you also shouldn't be posting information that is completely false. You can only be a natural-born citizen if you are born on US soil. It doesn't matter the citizenship of your parents (which is part of the rationale for trying to change the definition to stop the practice of anchor babies).

[Crazyirishman]

First off, even if Obama was born in bumfuck Rwanda, it wouldnt matter because his mom was born in Kansas, so he's a US citizen by default because of his mother.

I agree with Phatscotty that your post is just a distraction, but you also shouldn't be posting information that is completely false. You can only be a natural-born citizen if you are born on US soil. It doesn't matter the citizenship of your parents (which is part of the rationale for trying to change the definition to stop the practice of anchor babies).

Im not just making shit up as I go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_United_States_citizens

A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (different rules apply if child was born out-of-wedlock):[8]

The person's parents were married at time of birth
One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth
A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.

A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.

Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual's birth.

I and wasnt the one who originally brought up the birth and college records ITT, so its not a distraction

[Phatscotty]

Can you please show us his college records?

Do your own digging, it's out there, all you have to do is look.

btw... Obama did okay at Harvard.

Keep digging? What happened to...

His college record is not a secret and is as accessible as anyone's. Duh?

and all your link shows is that he got into Harvard? That must make him smart.

Plus, you assume he got into Harvard based solely on his intelligence? Because of course it had nothing to do with affirmative action or critical race theory.

[The Bison King]

Boy Scotty you're really upset about this impending 2nd Obama term, aren't you?

[oVo]

Because of course it had nothing to do with affirmative action or critical race theory.

He was editor of the Harvard Law Review. No simple task
and not a result of affirmative action.

University transcripts and records are not sealed in a safe with restricted access
to all people unassociated with the school. So I don't understand what you believe
is being hidden from public scrutiny. Maybe if you remove your conservative bias
blinders the obvious will be easier to comprehend.

I don't expect Obama to be a sinless saint, but the constant witch hunt over the
past four years has been borderline absurd. I've given him the benefit of all my
doubts and remain optimistic that he's capable of better results while in office
than the previous administration.

[Phatscotty]

Because of course it had nothing to do with affirmative action or critical race theory.

He was editor of the Harvard Law Review. No simple task
and not a result of affirmative action.

University transcripts and records are not sealed in a safe with restricted access
to all people unassociated with the school. So I don't understand what you believe
is being hidden from public scrutiny. Maybe if you remove your conservative bias
blinders the obvious will be easier to comprehend.

I don't expect Obama to be a sinless saint, but the constant witch hunt over the
past four years has been borderline absurd. I've given him the benefit of all my
doubts and remain optimistic that he's capable of better results while in office
than the previous administration.

Oh he was editor? Can we see some of the stuff he edited? I would love to see his work so I could begin to make my own judgement as to how smart he is. Or is a job title enough to make someone super smart?

Is a press conference from the White House part of my Conservative blinders?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-vi ... s-briefing
45 days ago

“Now, I don’t know how many years – maybe you do – George Romney released of his college transcripts, but Republicans like to complain the president has not released his college transcripts. What is the stated reason for that?” he asked.

“I’d refer you to the campaign. I mean, I think,” Carney started.

“Is it a question you could take,” Henry said.

“Sure. I think we’ve answered this a bunch. I think that the tradition of releasing income tax records for presidential candidates, for serious potential nominees and nominees of the two parties is well established. It’s not a law, but it’s well established. And it’s one that this president abided by when he was a candidate as senator. It’s one that numerous Republicans and Democrats have abided by, and we just think it’s a good idea,” Carney said...

Among the other documents sealed by the Obama Administration are his, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago.

So....you were saying about his college transcript being open to all? Gee whiz Ovo, wouldn't you like to read some stuff from his past? Just to reinforce how smart you think he is? How about just out of curiousity? You would most likely enjoy them greatly. No interest tho huh?

I suppose you will probably likewise blindly deny that Obama's grandfather has his FBI records sealed?

How could you ever be of the opinion he is NOT trying to hide all this shit? You have to suspend reality to ignore that, and you've already made a giant stretch of reality to assume his college records are out there and available. Oh yeah, we are being protected from the truth.

[oVo]

Are you one of those ever vigilant citizens who received the email about Barack Obama that "raised questions" about his eligibility/qualifications to be President of the United States that began circulating on April Fool's Day 2009?

That hoax is where this college transcript inquiry originated.

Is it an AP news story? No, but it can be found on hundreds of anti-Obama websites and blogs.

Is it true that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on Obama's citizenship and eligibility? No, The Supreme Court has refused to hear every Obama citizenship case submitted to date.

Did a group called "Americans for Freedom of Information" release Obama's Occidental College transcripts? No, the organization doesn't exist, or didn't when the hoax first began circulating.
← his student picture from 33 years ago

Has anyone released Obama's Occidental College transcripts? No, the transcripts haven't been released (federal privacy laws forbid it), nor has any court of law "ordered" them released.

Did Obama attend Occidental under the name "Barry Soetoro"? No. Soetoro was the surname of his stepfather, but there's no evidence Barack Obama used it when he attended college. Fellow alumni quoted in the press remember him as "Barry Obama." According to an Occidental spokesperson the college has no records showing Obama used his stepfather's last name.

Did Obama attend Occidental under a Fulbright Scholarship for Foreign Students? No. According to various news sources Obama did attend on a scholarship, but it wasn't a Fulbright scholarship, let alone a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students. The Fulbright Foreign Student Program accepts Master's Degree and Ph.D. candidates only. Obama, an undergraduate, was neither. He couldn't have been awarded a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students even if he had been born outside the U.S.

Did the Daily Mail discuss these "revelations" in a news story entitled "Obama Eligibility Questioned"? No. No such story turns up in a search of any London newspaper.

Did Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation release research showing Obama has spent $950,000 or more "to block disclosure of his personal records"? No record of any such "research" has been published. The U,S. Justice Foundation does exist and its executive director is indeed a man named Gary Kreep, but he's on record saying the above claim is a hoax.

Yes, there is no limit to the amount of contrived bullshit floating around the interwebs.

Yes, it's possible that Obama's Occidental College grades were just above average for the two years that he attended the school and that affirmative action may have helped him transfer to Columbia University. But that is pure speculation and not confirmed as fact. It is a fact that Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, a distinction awarded to the top 10% of students.

Obama was an editor of the Harvard Law Review (85 out of an estimated 1,000 students) and also elected President of the Law Review, a prestigious position not based on academics, but other qualities as would occur with any university organization.

[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?

yes, the people who run around saying Obama is brilliant and the smartest president in history without having any evidence whatsoever (in fact, the evidence is being kept from us) are the sane ones. The people who would like to see his college records (just like we normally always like to see from every other president) are the crazy conspiracy wingnuts.

It's crystal clear what is going on here, and it's sad

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Obama is the smartest president in history, but anyway, I guess Ron Paul is your guy, could you post Paul's birth certificate and college records for me. I assume you consulted them before throwing your support behind him. Surely he has nothing to hide...

[Aradhus]

Can you explain more about this. How is Obama exactly what we get from people like Breitbart and whatever. I had never heard of Breitbart before his death?

Are you saying that Obama was put into office by the media? I am not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to find out exactly what you mean by that statement. Sometimes my skull is too thick or too full.

Im saying that the kind of candidates who will win elections are not the kind of people who will be good at managing states or countries, they are people who are good at navigating the media and political landscape.

And yes hiding the truth, but not hiding the truth from your average american, your average american prob doesnt care (assuming they can see the forest for the trees so to speak). It's hiding it from idiotic media hypers who dont care about stories, let alone policy debate, but care only about selling advertising.

Wake me up when something meaningful is released.

I agree in that I thought there would be more, and there are more tapes still to come, but this is still interesting to me and I have since began to identify what it is that makes progressives so different from honest and respectable liberals.

I'm progressive, and not progressive in that bullshit strawman way you and BBS describe progressivism. I'd love to know who are these honest and respectable liberals you are referring to, and why has it taken you so long to realise that progressives are evil manipulative liars?! My god man, did you miss the Glenn Beck show, you're years behind the rest of your ilk.

[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?

I just want to make sure I understand your thinking - President Obama's support twenty years ago for a racist professor's decision to take an unpaid leave of absence until Harvard law school hired a black woman professor leads you to believe that the president lacks character and that this lack of character has manifested itself in his not supporting Israel enough. Is that your line of thinking?

First, given the president's recent State of the Union speech, it appears that he's quite ready to attack Iran. And I believe most of Congress supports that policy decision. So I'm not sure if your theory is true in any event.

Second, even if your theory is true, I will tell you that I have no interest in meddling with the affairs of Iran (I'm a Paulite after all).

If you want to understand what I'm thinking, why do you completely frame my arguments by referring to matters and premises I never stated? I stated that the professor had radical and racist views that were well known. I never objected to a particular cause of the professor (or even referenced it). On that basis (and the basis of Obama's racist church and other racist associations) I think it is clear that he has engaged in extreme racial politics in the past.

And you can state that you are for the Paulian mode of not being involved in the Middle East affairs. But if you're voting for a guy that is meddling in Middle East affairs then what does it matter? Colin Powell said it best. "If you break it you own it."

To take it further, I believe that Obama's racism has made it so he distanced himself from Israel while trying to legitimize Iran in the process. He has stood by on the sidelines and played politics while Iran develops a nuclear bomb that could annihilate a nation that he looks down upon. Even Obama's own officials have stated that the Iran sanctions were clearly too little too late. Would that have been the case if we elected a man that wasn't a racist?

[Aradhus]

To take it further, I believe that Obama's racism has made it so he distanced himself from Israel while trying to legitimize Iran in the process. He has stood by on the sidelines and played politics while Iran develops a nuclear bomb that could annihilate a nation that he looks down upon. Even Obama's own officials have stated that the Iran sanctions were clearly too little too late. Would that have been the case if we elected a man that wasn't a racist?

(we need a facepalm smilie}

[oVo]

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.

Because it would have to exist, beyond the typical biases most people possess. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be there or you could prove your point by actually giving an example.

He has not stood stalwart with them like other presidents.

Is there a logical reason that Obama should blindly support everything Israel does?

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?

No it isn't. You've combined completely separate ideas about the situation that no representative of government has ever expressed.

I stated that the professor had radical and racist views that were well known.

And this is evidence of racism in relation to Obama how?

[...] and the basis of Obama's racist church and other racist associations. I think it is clear that he has engaged in extreme racial politics in the past.

Poppycock! It isn't a racist church and being a black man with activist acquaintances doesn't make anyone a racist.

... if you're voting for a guy that is meddling in Middle East affairs then what does it matter? Colin Powell said it best. "If you break it you own it."

What a load of crap. America was already "meddling" in both the Middle East and Iran before Obama was even born and all presidents since World War II have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. Also by the "examples" you've presented, General Colin Powell Ret. is also a racist so why do you bother quoting him?

To take it further, I believe that Obama's racism has made it so he distanced himself from Israel while trying to legitimize Iran in the process. He has stood by on the sidelines and played politics while Iran develops a nuclear bomb that could annihilate a nation that he looks down upon. Even Obama's own officials have stated that the Iran sanctions were clearly too little too late. Would that have been the case if we elected a man that wasn't a racist?

Legitimize Iran. WTF does that mean? You don't believe the sovereign nation of Iran is legitimate and what is too little too late? Obama has been in office three years and you're somehow convinced these nuclear developments just occurred? Pakistan and Korea's nukes are also Obama's problem, do you also think it's Obama's fault those threats exist?

[thegreekdog]

If you want to understand what I'm thinking, why do you completely frame my arguments by referring to matters and premises I never stated? I stated that the professor had radical and racist views that were well known. I never objected to a particular cause of the professor (or even referenced it). On that basis (and the basis of Obama's racist church and other racist associations) I think it is clear that he has engaged in extreme racial politics in the past.

The videos that circulated in reference to this thread were videos of Barack Obama supporting his professor for taking an unpaid leave of absence until Harvard hired a black woman professor. I assumed that your arguments were framed in the context of the videos (considering the name of the thread, the opening post, etc).

And you can state that you are for the Paulian mode of not being involved in the Middle East affairs. But if you're voting for a guy that is meddling in Middle East affairs then what does it matter? Colin Powell said it best. "If you break it you own it."[/qoute]

I'm not actually going to vote for President Obama. Even if I did, I don't think there's any evidence that President Obama is meddling in the affairs of the Middle East in a way that supports Iran and does not support Israel. For the third time in this thread, I point you to the president's state of the union address. What policies are you referring to?

To take it further, I believe that Obama's racism has made it so he distanced himself from Israel while trying to legitimize Iran in the process. He has stood by on the sidelines and played politics while Iran develops a nuclear bomb that could annihilate a nation that he looks down upon. Even Obama's own officials have stated that the Iran sanctions were clearly too little too late. Would that have been the case if we elected a man that wasn't a racist?

I suspect I know what President John McCain would have done.

If the president is racist against white people in favor of black people, which people are the black people and which are the white in the Iran-Israel conflict? Your jump from "racist 20 years ago" to "racist now" to "because he's racist he doesn't support Israel (even though he was there supporting them last week) or, alternatively, because he's racist he doesn't sanction/invade/attack Iran (even though he has already said he woul do so)" is pretty presumptive.

[ViperOverLord]

I suspect I know what President John McCain would have done.

If the president is racist against white people in favor of black people, which people are the black people and which are the white in the Iran-Israel conflict?

Do you really have to ask.

Your jump from "racist 20 years ago" to "racist now" to "because he's racist he doesn't support Israel (even though he was there supporting them last week) or, alternatively, because he's racist he doesn't sanction/invade/attack Iran (even though he has already said he woul do so)" is pretty presumptive.

How was Obama supporting Israel last week? Any support he has offered them has been half ass or superficial at best.

Obama hasn't towed a line with Iran at all. Donald Trump said it best. These guys are paying attention. They saw what happened to Mubarek, Sadam, Gaddafi, etc. They aren't stupid. They know they have a third rate military also. If Obama laid down an agenda for them and the American people to know we could've ended all this nonsense already. I don't care if he's left the war option on the table. That just means he'll go to war (or not go to war) when it's politically convenient for him. It has nothing to do with keeping the world more safe. That is not leadership.

The videos that circulated in reference to this thread were videos of Barack Obama supporting his professor for taking an unpaid leave of absence until Harvard hired a black woman professor. I assumed that your arguments were framed in the context of the videos (considering the name of the thread, the opening post, etc).

My original postings were pretty clear and did not regard that at all.

[thegreekdog]

I suspect I know what President John McCain would have done.

If the president is racist against white people in favor of black people, which people are the black people and which are the white in the Iran-Israel conflict?

Do you really have to ask.

Your jump from "racist 20 years ago" to "racist now" to "because he's racist he doesn't support Israel (even though he was there supporting them last week) or, alternatively, because he's racist he doesn't sanction/invade/attack Iran (even though he has already said he woul do so)" is pretty presumptive.

How was Obama supporting Israel last week? Any support he has offered them has been half ass or superficial at best.

Obama hasn't towed a line with Iran at all. Donald Trump said it best. These guys are paying attention. They saw what happened to Mubarek, Sadam, Gaddafi, etc. They aren't stupid. And they know they have a third rate military. If Obama laid down an agenda for them and the American people to know we could've ended all this nonsense already. I don't care if he's left the war option on the table. That just means he'll go to war when it's politically convenient for him. It has nothing to do with keeping the world more safe.

Don't you think those last two statements are rather naive? Nevermind that political convenience is not the same as being racist. Nevermind that Iranians and Israelis are neither white or black.

Just trying to connect the dots VOL. Maybe I'm too dense to get it, but what does the video in the OP have to do with how the president currently runs our country.