Barack Obama is anti-American.

[lord of flies]

Firstly: Barack Obama Rejects the Multinational Identity of Americans

In 2004, Barack Obama rejected the multinational nature of the United States, saying "There's not a Black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

[Humodour]

fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

 

Hmm, how enlightening.

[Hurlshort]

tl;dr

 

Don't feed the troll.

[obyknven]

tl;dr

 

Don't feed the troll.

I think he just expressed his views and ideas. Suggest you look at the world from a different angle, to learn something new about your country.

[Blarghagh]

You might think that, but we've learned that isn't true from experience.

[Walsingham]

tl;dr

 

Don't feed the troll.

[213374U]

I think he just expressed his views and ideas. Suggest you look at the world from a different angle, to learn something new about your country.

That's cute. Aren't you the one suffering from the "imperialist propaganda!" knee-jerk response to anything that doesn't agree with your prefab views on Russia?

 

Suggest you start taking your own advice.

Edited April 12, 2010 by 213374U

[Killian Kalthorne]

I think he just expressed his views and ideas. Suggest you look at the world from a different angle, to learn something new about your country.

 

You are indeed a newbie.

[lord of flies]

tl;dr

 

Don't feed the troll.

You can't say "tl;dr" and "Don't feed the troll." The very statement "tl;dr" is a simple, childish, obnoxious troll in every scenario. Its sole purpose is to **** on the poster who it describes, solely for the "crime" of being long-winded. In fact, if I had been much shorter in the expressions of these ideas you wankers would be whining about what would be extreme brevity, to the point where each individual idea would be ill-expressed or ill-explained.

 

Every idea expressed in this topic can be backed up by actual, undeniable, facts. Barack Obama has not withdrawn United States troops from Iraq or Afghanistan, he has not enabled health care, he rejects the multinational identity of Americans, etc.

[Trenitay]

Your ideas aren't backed by any facts. You give an idea and put unrelated statements behind it as your proof.

[lord of flies]

Your ideas aren't backed by any facts. You give an idea and put unrelated statements behind it as your proof.

Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Multinational Identity of Americans

Statements: Barack Obama rejects the Multinational Nature of the United States. There is a multinational identity within the United States, with multiple large groups which identify themselves as a separate and unique people, having separate territory, dialect, economy, etc.

 

Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Rights of the American Working Class

Statements: Barack Obama rejects the right of Americans to affordable (or, I would say, free and universal) health care.

 

Idea: Barack Obama Ignores the Class Interests of the American Working Class

Statements: The United States currently has high unemployment. However, if the money which had been spent on the bailout (targeted at the rich) had been spent on the American working class, every single currently unemployed person could be given a salary of over $65,000 dollars (a fact which can be obtained by simple division; 1 trillion dollars [bailout] divided by 15 million [unemployed workers] = $66,666.67)

 

Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Moral Principles of the American Populace

Statements: Barack Obama maintains a torture facility where he not only violates the rights of PoWs, but also tortures people who military tribunals have determined are innocent civilians.

 

Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Anti-War Sentiment of the American Working Class

Statements: Barack Obama maintains the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war sentiment is high. The American working class bears the brunt of these wars of US imperialism.

 

How are these statements "unrelated"?

[Hurlshort]

Perhaps if we say his name three times he will go away? I'll need some help on this one.

 

Lord of Flies

[Volourn]

"Opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is mounting and (especially for Iraq) has been high since nearly the start"

 

Lie. Amerikans supported the wars at one time. Nice try unles you define 'high from the start' as a minorty. Nice try, though. Please don't make stuff up.

[I want teh kotor 3]

**** it... I'm done arguing w/ him...

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Lord of Flies

 

Lord of Flies

[lord of flies]

Perhaps if we say his name three times he will go away? I'll need some help on this one.

 

Lord of Flies

Perhaps if you keep posting worthless **** like this intended solely to get a rise out of me, I'll report you and you'll get banned?

[Krookie]

Perhaps if we say his name three times he will go away? I'll need some help on this one.

 

Lord of Flies

Perhaps if you keep posting worthless **** like this intended solely to get a rise out of me, I'll report you and you'll get banned?

 

Probably not.

[lord of flies]

"Opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is mounting and (especially for Iraq) has been high since nearly the start"

 

Lie. Amerikans supported the wars at one time. Nice try unles you define 'high from the start' as a minorty. Nice try, though. Please don't make stuff up.

Good job missing the "nearly." Obviously in the immediate aftermath of the propaganda campaign, there would be high support, before the reality of war set in. ****ing duh. Even in the immediate aftermath, characterizing "Amerikans" as supporting the war is a bit of an exaggeration; even in October 2001 36% of non-whites were not in support of the use of ground troops in Afghanistan. By June 2002, only 51% of the general public was in favor of mounting a long-term war against terrorism. The majority felt that the United States would not be a success in Afghanistan unless they captured bin Laden. And these statistics were all obtained while Americans were still in a "siege mentality," fearing that major terrorist attacks would soon take place within the United States. All statistics are from Gallup.

 

Of course, the statistics are even worse for Iraq, seeing as it was a war on false premises.

[Volourn]

"even in October 2001 36% of non-whites"

 

Racist.

 

 

"were not in support of the use of ground troops in Afghanistan."

 

And, oh, lMAO. That would mean 64% of non whites were in support of it. The easy majority.

 

Why are you such a tool? You have to be a troll as you can't even use your 'facts' correctly.

 

 

"By June 2002, only 51% of the general public was in favor of mounting a long-term war against terrorism."

 

A majority yet again.

 

Aren't you suppsoed to at least try to prove what you are claiming? It's embarassing.

[lord of flies]

It's also important to realize that the war in Afghanistan was, in its initial stages, very mild (at least on the US side). The number of coalition forces fatalities per month was less than fifteen until April 2005, when it began to spike and rapidly increase. After the initial action, the United States effectively took little to no role in the country, preferring to focus on Iraq; by 2002, opium production was back to its original level.

Racist.

Non-whites disproportionately suffer in the United States armed forces, their opinion is thus more important in this matter.

And, oh, lMAO. That would mean 64% of non whites were in support of it. The easy majority.

 

Why are you such a tool? You have to be a troll as you can't even use your 'facts' correctly. Obviously in the immediate aftermath of the propaganda campaign, there would be high support, before the reality of war set in.

try reading my posts. Obviously in the immediate aftermath of the propaganda campaign, there would be high support, before the reality of war set in.

A majority yet again.

 

Aren't you suppsoed to at least try to prove what you are claiming? It's embarassing.

49% disapproval isn't high? Oh, okay, why don't you just tell me what is "high." Edited April 12, 2010 by lord of flies

[Theinternet]

Some people take me waaaay too seriously.

[Junai]

Firstly: Barack Obama Rejects the Multinational Identity of Americans

In 2004, Barack Obama rejected the multinational nature of the United States, saying "There's not a Black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

[Volourn]

"Non-whites disproportionately suffer in the United States armed forces, their opinion is thus more important in this matter."

 

Racist.

 

 

"49% disapproval isn't high? Oh, okay, why don't you just tell me what is "high."

 

At absolute minimum, a clear majority. And, for it to be 'high', 65%.

 

 

"Listen;

If Obama succumbs to the desire to throttle racist republicans, Fox commentators or Tea Party crazies, he's sure to lose. When you start a fight, the enemy has an arsenal of techniques at their disposal with which to drag you down. He can't afford to do that, not even once. That's why he can't be a "Black Panther" or mount the barricades the way you dream of. He's gotto have a heart for every American, whites and blacks, rich and poor. He's gotto want what's best for everyone. That's the only way a good person stays in power. If he forced the average American to face even one of the many lies they live every day, you'd be stuck with Sarah Palin sooner than you could say "creationist"."

 

Ooo.. Another implcation where only white people can be racist. LMAO

 

NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: Racism is not a white disease. It's a disease that all races can suffer from.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Volourn

[lord of flies]

Racist.

So the people most effected by policies, don't have a more valid say in their application?

At absolute minimum, a clear majority. And, for it to be 'high', 65%.

Disagreedo.

Ooo.. Another implcation where only white people can be racist. LMAO

 

NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: Racism is not a white disease. It's a disease that all races can suffer from.

NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: White racism in the United States is fundamentally different from black racism. Black people have a legitimate reason to be angry at white people: white people benefit from the United States political, social and economic systems in a way that blacks do not. Whites do not "suffer" under the "black jackboot."

 

Racism in its most virulent forms is always an institution. In the United States, that institution is white dominated and directed at minority groups, especially blacks. Individual opinions pale in comparison to the might of the institution of white racism.

 

To put it in another way: Suppose that I am being mugged, but the man who is mugging me does not have a lethal weapon (knife, gun, etc), nor do I have a reasonable belief that he has one. I remove my pistol and shoot him dead. While wrong (I have applied lethal force in a situation it was not necessary), it is fundamentally different (and less wrong) than if I had been shot by the man mugging me, while I did not have a lethal weapon (or, for that matter, even if I had one).

 

With the force of the US political, legal, social and economic systems behind them, white racists have a fundamentally different character from black racists, who have the force of the US political, legal, social and economic systems against them (even when they are not racist).

Edited April 12, 2010 by lord of flies

[Volourn]

"White racism in the United States is fundamentally different from black racism. Black people have a legitimate reason to be angry at white people: white people benefit from the United States political, social and economic systems in a way that blacks do not. Whites do not "suffer" under the "black jackboot."

 

Racist. Racism is racism. Period.

 

 

"To put it in another way: Suppose that I am being mugged, but the man who is mugging me does not have a lethal weapon (knife, gun, etc), nor do I have a reasonable belief that he has one. I remove my pistol and shoot him dead. While wrong (I have applied lethal force in a situation it was not necessary), it is fundamentally different (and less wrong) than if I had been shot by the man mugging me, while I did not have a lethal weapon (or, for that matter, even if I had one)."

 

Has nothing to do racism. It's hialrious you think it's okay for minorities to be racist. That's bullocks.

 

Racism is NOT a white disease. All hauman no matter their race can be afflicted by it. That's a fact. Some of the most well known racists are black. Or chinee. And, yes, white.

 

Whites cna be racist. So can blacks. This is FACT.