Michelle Obama, the Racist at Princeton

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
The thing is “guilt by association” argument has been used for EVERYTHING this election. And since she is wife of president elect Obama…“he must have the exact line of thinking.”

But what if he does or not…so far this thesis can’t be used an argument that Michelle Obama is against or hates white America…or whatever people are trying to claim.

If so,wouldn’t this have been evident in all areas of her life? Especially in her career…and among her peers?

Ya the only problem is no one really nows who Obama is let alone his wife. Give it about a year the media wont have Bush to destroy so they will need a new target. They are going to dig so every rally and every word she has ever written will be front page news…probably out of context, but it will happen none the less. [/quote]

LOL!! Like they didn’t do that for this election? Get fucking serious. This entire election process was about finding dirt. That is why Fox news even brought Rev Wright back up right before the election. If there was anything significant there, you can bet it would have been exploited by now.

What must hurt is that they didn’t find much of anything which made their extreme stance on what they did find seem laughable to many.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
The thing is “guilt by association” argument has been used for EVERYTHING this election. And since she is wife of president elect Obama…“he must have the exact line of thinking.”

But what if he does or not…so far this thesis can’t be used an argument that Michelle Obama is against or hates white America…or whatever people are trying to claim.

If so,wouldn’t this have been evident in all areas of her life? Especially in her career…and among her peers?

Ya the only problem is no one really nows who Obama is let alone his wife. Give it about a year the media wont have Bush to destroy so they will need a new target. They are going to dig so every rally and every word she has ever written will be front page news…probably out of context, but it will happen none the less.

LOL!! Like they didn’t do that for this election? Get fucking serious. This entire election process was about finding dirt. That is why Fox news even brought Rev Wright back up right before the election. If there was anything significant there, you can bet it would have been exploited by now.

What must hurt is that they didn’t find much of anything which made their extreme stance on what they did find seem laughable to many.

You act like I want everyone to hate the Obama’s. I DON’T GIVE A SHIT WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THEM.

  1. The Rev Wright issue is not dead and many people did see it as a pretty big deal.

  2. No one was looking into Michelle like they were Barrack…that is going to change now that he is president.

  3. The media is very liberal there in point in arguing that I read an article I believe on the wall street journal website showing the vast difference in the amount of negative time spent bashing the republican party in the media. I’ll see if I can find the article.

Lastly like I said earlier the media is going to need someone new to sell papers and they are going to find anything and everything they can on the Obama’s in the next few years.
[/quote]

Here’s a small tip from me to you concerning Michelle Obama…most black women (black men as well) in this country no doubt agree with her stance, especially concerning any period over 20 years ago.

If that is a shock to you or anyone else, then you are clearly in the dark about the world around you as it concerns minorities.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Isn´t it convenient that people in power get to write the laws?

Isn´t it also convenient that by the magical act of calling it something else in a law, killing suddenly is ok for most people?

Who would you like to right the laws? If you say the people don’t you think they would be against murder, but for defending themselve? If you are attaceked shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back or should we just roll over and let people do what ever they want to us? [/quote]

What can I say I am a libertarian.

We have this weird idea that ethical rules also apply to governments.

So yes, self defense is ok.

Travelling 6000 miles to kill a perfect stranger is not.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< Most of these guys seem to enjoy having their opinions given to them by blogs. They lash out when the truth is, they gave up thinking for themselves a long time ago.[/quote]

Speaking for myself, I’ve never been to any political blog, ever, even once.

My views are mine and have been pretty much unchanged for over 20 years. I simply take the principles that I unalterably believe and apply them to the situations and personalities I see before me. None of this is new with Barack Obama. I agree and or disagree with whoever and whatever is under discussion based on what they say and do. Not what party they’re in and not what color they are.

How bout the rest of the conservatives here? Who gets their views from somebody’s blog.

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Isn´t it convenient that people in power get to write the laws?

Isn´t it also convenient that by the magical act of calling it something else in a law, killing suddenly is ok for most people?

Who would you like to right the laws? If you say the people don’t you think they would be against murder, but for defending themselve? If you are attaceked shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back or should we just roll over and let people do what ever they want to us?

What can I say I am a libertarian.

We have this weird idea that ethical rules also apply to governments.

So yes, self defense is ok.

Travelling 6000 miles to kill a perfect stranger is not.

[/quote]

Traveling any distance CAN be self defense. Not necessarily, but it can be.

If had reliable information that someone in another town was planing on killing my family I’d contact the police immediately with the information in the hope that they stop them “over there” before they ever get near my family.

If inaction on their part caused the threat to continue I would do my best myself to stop them “over there” before they got close enough to endanger the people I’m responsible for protecting.

This has never and probably never will happen to me and it would have to be a credible threat, but the principle stands. I’m not waiting for my family to be in direct danger before neutralizing the threat. You can if you want. I’ll let the chips fall where they may for me.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< Most of these guys seem to enjoy having their opinions given to them by blogs. They lash out when the truth is, they gave up thinking for themselves a long time ago.

Speaking for myself, I’ve never been to any political blog, ever, even once.

My views are mine and have been pretty much unchanged for over 20 years. I simply take the principles that I unalterably believe and apply them to the situations and personalities I see before me. None of this is new with Barack Obama. I agree and or disagree with whoever and whatever is under discussion based on what they say and do. Not what party they’re in and not what color they are.

How bout the rest of the conservatives here? Who gets their views from somebody’s blog.[/quote]

Anyone commenting on her thesis in detail but has not read it at all.

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Isn´t it convenient that people in power get to write the laws?

Isn´t it also convenient that by the magical act of calling it something else in a law, killing suddenly is ok for most people?

Who would you like to right the laws? If you say the people don’t you think they would be against murder, but for defending themselve? If you are attaceked shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back or should we just roll over and let people do what ever they want to us?

What can I say I am a libertarian.

We have this weird idea that ethical rules also apply to governments.

So yes, self defense is ok.

Travelling 6000 miles to kill a perfect stranger is not.

[/quote]

Even if a perfect stranger killed your innocent country men? Wow I guess we are just different. They are your views I can respect that.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< Most of these guys seem to enjoy having their opinions given to them by blogs. They lash out when the truth is, they gave up thinking for themselves a long time ago.

Speaking for myself, I’ve never been to any political blog, ever, even once.

My views are mine and have been pretty much unchanged for over 20 years. I simply take the principles that I unalterably believe and apply them to the situations and personalities I see before me. None of this is new with Barack Obama. I agree and or disagree with whoever and whatever is under discussion based on what they say and do. Not what party they’re in and not what color they are.

How bout the rest of the conservatives here? Who gets their views from somebody’s blog.

Anyone commenting on her thesis in detail but has not read it at all.[/quote]

My mistake. I misunderstood you.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Isn´t it convenient that people in power get to write the laws?

Isn´t it also convenient that by the magical act of calling it something else in a law, killing suddenly is ok for most people?

Who would you like to right the laws? If you say the people don’t you think they would be against murder, but for defending themselve? If you are attaceked shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back or should we just roll over and let people do what ever they want to us?

What can I say I am a libertarian.

We have this weird idea that ethical rules also apply to governments.

So yes, self defense is ok.

Travelling 6000 miles to kill a perfect stranger is not.

Traveling any distance CAN be self defense. Not necessarily, but it can be.

If had reliable information that someone in another town was planing on killing my family I’d contact the police immediately with the information in the hope that they stop them “over there” before they ever get near my family.

If inaction on their part caused the threat to continue I would do my best myself to stop them “over there” before they got close enough to endanger the people I’m responsible for protecting.

This has never and probably never will happen to me and it would have to be a credible threat, but the principle stands. I’m not waiting for my family to be in direct danger before neutralizing the threat. You can if you want. I’ll let the chips fall where they may for me.[/quote]

What if all you had was vague unreliable evidence that they may possibly have a weapon that hypothetically could be sold to someone else and then used to harm your family?

Even if this scenario was ridiculously unlikely, could you use it to justify killing them?

Would it be ok to bomb their entire neighborhood?

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
<<< Traveling any distance CAN be self defense. Not necessarily, but it can be.

If had reliable information that someone in another town was planing on killing my family I’d contact the police immediately with the information in the hope that they stop them “over there” before they ever get near my family.

If inaction on their part caused the threat to continue I would do my best myself to stop them “over there” before they got close enough to endanger the people I’m responsible for protecting.

This has never and probably never will happen to me and it would have to be a credible threat, but the principle stands. I’m not waiting for my family to be in direct danger before neutralizing the threat. You can if you want. I’ll let the chips fall where they may for me.

What if all you had was vague unreliable evidence that they may possibly have a weapon that hypothetically could be sold to someone else and then used to harm your family?

Even if this scenario was ridiculously unlikely, could you use it to justify killing them?

Would it be ok to bomb their entire neighborhood?

[/quote]

If the people I trusted most, who’s job it was to know and who were in the best position to know, from several allied neighborhoods, all agreed that there was a threat, what kind of threat it was and how likely it was to materialize I would absolutely not be able to live with myself if I had that information ahead of time, did not act and those I am charged with protecting wound up dead.

Even if I couldn’t be absolutely certain until I showed up, I would.

The world is not an episode of Care Bears

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Isn´t it convenient that people in power get to write the laws?

Isn´t it also convenient that by the magical act of calling it something else in a law, killing suddenly is ok for most people?

Who would you like to right the laws? If you say the people don’t you think they would be against murder, but for defending themselve? If you are attaceked shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back or should we just roll over and let people do what ever they want to us?

What can I say I am a libertarian.

We have this weird idea that ethical rules also apply to governments.

So yes, self defense is ok.

Travelling 6000 miles to kill a perfect stranger is not.

Traveling any distance CAN be self defense. Not necessarily, but it can be.

If had reliable information that someone in another town was planing on killing my family I’d contact the police immediately with the information in the hope that they stop them “over there” before they ever get near my family.

If inaction on their part caused the threat to continue I would do my best myself to stop them “over there” before they got close enough to endanger the people I’m responsible for protecting.

This has never and probably never will happen to me and it would have to be a credible threat, but the principle stands. I’m not waiting for my family to be in direct danger before neutralizing the threat. You can if you want. I’ll let the chips fall where they may for me.

What if all you had was vague unreliable evidence that they may possibly have a weapon that hypothetically could be sold to someone else and then used to harm your family?

Even if this scenario was ridiculously unlikely, could you use it to justify killing them?

Would it be ok to bomb their entire neighborhood?

[/quote]

You know in most situations the US doesn’t just rush in guns blazing…Most situations are dealt with diplomatically if they can be.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
The thing is “guilt by association” argument has been used for EVERYTHING this election. And since she is wife of president elect Obama…“he must have the exact line of thinking.”

But what if he does or not…so far this thesis can’t be used an argument that Michelle Obama is against or hates white America…or whatever people are trying to claim.

If so,wouldn’t this have been evident in all areas of her life? Especially in her career…and among her peers?

Ya the only problem is no one really nows who Obama is let alone his wife. Give it about a year the media wont have Bush to destroy so they will need a new target. They are going to dig so every rally and every word she has ever written will be front page news…probably out of context, but it will happen none the less.

LOL!! Like they didn’t do that for this election? Get fucking serious. This entire election process was about finding dirt. That is why Fox news even brought Rev Wright back up right before the election. If there was anything significant there, you can bet it would have been exploited by now.

What must hurt is that they didn’t find much of anything which made their extreme stance on what they did find seem laughable to many.

You act like I want everyone to hate the Obama’s. I DON’T GIVE A SHIT WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THEM.

  1. The Rev Wright issue is not dead and many people did see it as a pretty big deal.

  2. No one was looking into Michelle like they were Barrack…that is going to change now that he is president.

  3. The media is very liberal there in point in arguing that I read an article I believe on the wall street journal website showing the vast difference in the amount of negative time spent bashing the republican party in the media. I’ll see if I can find the article.

Lastly like I said earlier the media is going to need someone new to sell papers and they are going to find anything and everything they can on the Obama’s in the next few years.

Here’s a small tip from me to you concerning Michelle Obama…most black women (black men as well) in this country no doubt agree with her stance, especially concerning any period over 20 years ago.

If that is a shock to you or anyone else, then you are clearly in the dark about the world around you as it concerns minorities. [/quote]

I actually have quite a few friends both male and female that do not feel the same way as Michelle Obama. I can’t speak for all black people like you can, but as far as my black friends go they agree with me.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
<<<< You know in most situations the US doesn’t just rush in guns blazing…Most situations are dealt with diplomatically if they can be. [/quote]

Not to mention that we are the most surgical aggressor in the history of the world. Sometimes hampering our own missions to avoid collateral damage even to historical buildings if possible.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
… Get fucking serious. This entire election process was about finding dirt. …

[/quote]

O, X, were it only so!

Instead Our Media has absolutely abandoned its responsibilty to research and present facts–whether one calls facts truth or dirt.

For example, had Michelle released her little thesis, it would have been an opportunity to appraise her remarkable evolution over 23 years to the “post-racial” woman in which we are lead to believe. (But truly, why would we care what she thought then, when we should have so much of Mr. Obama’s beliefs subject to scrutiny?)

Our Media would have pointed out that Mr. Obama, newly elected Senator, earmarked $1 million for the U of Chicago just 2 months after its medical school gave Michelle a $200,000 raise. How many readers here knew about that little quid-pro-quo?

No, Our Media did not do its job this election. If it had, it would have been abundantly clear and widely known that Mr. Obama

–supported corrupt Daley Machine politicians over true reformers (a Mr Stroger, for one, was elected with BHO’s help even after a stroke kept him incapacitated and out of sight for 6 months. But the checks still were signed!) For another treat, Google “Giannoulias” a truly remarkable young crook whose family gave him $10K in 2004 and pledged $100K this year.

–despite the rhetoric of change and reform, never once sponsored, let alone voted for, reform measures for schools, school choice (the Illinois Teachers Union supported him, big).

–never instituted a reform measure of any kind in his entire tenure in Springfield or DC, even when given the opportunity to do so.

–was associated with–and financially supported–by despicable slumlords and real estate “developers,” who obtained through him lucrative government contracts. (And no, Rezko was not the only one in this line-up). These bastards had to be sued–even by the City of Chicago–to provide heat in the winter and functioning toilets. Obama collected a lot of campaign funds from them.

–pledged to take Federal matching funds, and then renegged hypocritically claiming that McCain’s cronies were funnelling money into 527s. No such 527 orgs existed at the time! Obama’s purity,however, was above the reproach of Our Media.

These criticisms have nothing to do with racism, or with imputed opposition to reform or change. It is about dirt. Obama successfully deflected inquiry and placed himself above criticism and Our Media bought it all. And that is why (to Big Boss and others) he is subject to so criticism even before being sworn in as #44: the dirt was not washed away in this election!

Now it will not surprise me if the next administration has Clinton re-treads, or ideas that are no newer than a 1934 Packard. Because Obama’s chief concern, as a remarkably skilled old-school politician, has been to be elected. Because there is no new content to his ideas, there may be a few new faces, but no one should expect new governance.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
For example, had Michelle released her little thesis, it would have been an opportunity to appraise her remarkable evolution over 23 years to the “post-racial” woman in which we are lead to believe. (But truly, why would we care what she thought then, when we should have so much of Mr. Obama’s beliefs subject to scrutiny?)
[/quote]

Chris, you guys really can’t (or won’t) read…The Obama campaign released the thesis back in February.

She is a racist, and comes across as anti-American… how is this even debatable?

She stated just recently that it was the first time she was ever proud of America…

why is she getting a pass on this?

It is a little galling that a woman who would state this is the one that is representing my country as the first lady.

[quote]ninearms wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
For example, had Michelle released her little thesis, it would have been an opportunity to appraise her remarkable evolution over 23 years to the “post-racial” woman in which we are lead to believe. (But truly, why would we care what she thought then, when we should have so much of Mr. Obama’s beliefs subject to scrutiny?)

Chris, you guys really can’t (or won’t) read…The Obama campaign released the thesis back in February.[/quote]

And won’t you read the remainder of my sentence?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Well, I’m reading this thesis, and so far I’ve seen nothing “militant” about it.

Me either. I bet all of these other people just haven’t finished reading it yet.

LOL

Two extremists see nothing wrong with it. Case closed.

[/quote]

How did it come to pass that anyone who is not down with the ultra-conservative orthodoxy is now labeled an extremist? And how is it that a bigger fuss has not been made about it? Do you people have any idea what a radical left or right-winger actually looks like? Let me give you a hint, there are none in the US congress. If President Obama (the sound of it hasn’t gotten old yet) scares you, you would absolutely shit your pants if you met a bonafide socialist or communist.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Isn´t it convenient that people in power get to write the laws?

Isn´t it also convenient that by the magical act of calling it something else in a law, killing suddenly is ok for most people?

Who would you like to right the laws? If you say the people don’t you think they would be against murder, but for defending themselve? If you are attaceked shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back or should we just roll over and let people do what ever they want to us?

What can I say I am a libertarian.

We have this weird idea that ethical rules also apply to governments.

So yes, self defense is ok.

Travelling 6000 miles to kill a perfect stranger is not.

Traveling any distance CAN be self defense. Not necessarily, but it can be.

If had reliable information that someone in another town was planing on killing my family I’d contact the police immediately with the information in the hope that they stop them “over there” before they ever get near my family.

If inaction on their part caused the threat to continue I would do my best myself to stop them “over there” before they got close enough to endanger the people I’m responsible for protecting.

This has never and probably never will happen to me and it would have to be a credible threat, but the principle stands. I’m not waiting for my family to be in direct danger before neutralizing the threat. You can if you want. I’ll let the chips fall where they may for me.[/quote]

Why would someone in another town plan on killing me?

The only people who should realistically fear that are in the Middle East and they fear you.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Isn´t it convenient that people in power get to write the laws?

Isn´t it also convenient that by the magical act of calling it something else in a law, killing suddenly is ok for most people?

Who would you like to right the laws? If you say the people don’t you think they would be against murder, but for defending themselve? If you are attaceked shouldn’t you be allowed to fight back or should we just roll over and let people do what ever they want to us?

What can I say I am a libertarian.

We have this weird idea that ethical rules also apply to governments.

So yes, self defense is ok.

Travelling 6000 miles to kill a perfect stranger is not.

Even if a perfect stranger killed your innocent country men? Wow I guess we are just different. They are your views I can respect that. [/quote]

Why would a perfect stranger do that?