I would like to bump this one more time so that it goes on the record that the first use of the "n-word" reference was by AS himself, further proving that intelligent discourse is being traded for histrionics, hysterics, and application of victimhood status with more alacrity and glee than we have ever seen before here at DP.
I don't think it's rejected, at least not by him. I mean he has written openly about it, it's how we know these things. I don't think it is entirely fair though to say he is "white". He looks black, and I believe identifies himself as black. That is to say, outside of his close circle of people, he was treated as a black man. Black men during the 70's where not treated particularly well as a rule. So while he was undoubtedly somewhat protected by his friends and family, it was impossible that he was 100 % protected.
Since he has achieved adulthood, he has done some noble charity work for blacks and poor people, and I think that is important to recognize as well.
Mostly though, I think it is important to realize that people are way too complex to worry about whether they are "black" or "white". it's really not germaine to whether President obama is doing good or bad, well or poorly.
I am knowledgeable. In many fields of endeavor. I'm the worst kind of N-word.
An intelligent, thinking one. Sorry to disappoint.
And you're, of course, entitled to your opinion, as it is.
Obama identifies himself as a black man. Who is anyone to say he isn't black?
I mean seriously, is there some sort of shade coloring that we are not aware of that if you go past a certain shade you are black and if not you are white?
Please let us know exactly what that shade is.
They simply forgot where they came from...and that is a big "no-no".
And yet you have no comment or apparently any problem when Aaronssongs calls other prominent blacks "uncle tom" because they have a different political view?
Interesting.
Although I have you on "self-ignore", let me come off for a moment to address your concerns. You disrespected me. You continue to disrespect me. Therefore I will not engage you. I will overlook your posts, and pretend you do not exist. You have operated dishonestly, and I can find no redeeming qualities to your posts. That being said, why don't you move on, as I have done...because my mission is not to leave here, under duress, but to try to contribute to this forum, in a meaningful way. Rather than to comment on my posts, feel free to ignore them, as I am ignoring you. You think me less than human. I'm not going to reciprocate. I'm going to let you alone. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.
Moderator's Warning: |
Now with three mod warnings in this thread, the next one to ignore them will get a thread ban and an infraction. I do hope I am being clear. |
Back on topic--
What I got out of President Obama's speech today is finding common ground starts with not demonizing the other side.
I may have been guilty of that on another thread in my criticism of Keyes and Terry.:3oops:
On these passionate issues, it is difficult to take a step back and listen.
:lol: you are asking people to compromise with what they see as murder. I think his speech was his typical empty rhetoric, that the media can swoon over, ignoring the reality.
There is no common ground between Catholics and abortion. This "vastly intelligent" man doesn't GET THAT?!? He's so arrogant he thinks his pretty words spoken like Richard Pryor are going to change the core of Catholics?? Maybe if he had a soul he'd know better.
There are people who believe the use of condoms constitutes murder. Like you, they won't be persuaded by logic.
As a Catholic--I'll ask you not to speak for me. There is much common ground:
**Lessen the number of abortions
**Appropriate Health Education for young people
**Promoting of Adoption--something I am involved in.
If you believe we should criminalize women's health care choices, then how exactly would you suggest the government get involved with doing that?
Respectful and thoughtful discussion is what President Obama called for. Your response is to say your President has no soul. IMO a person looses credibility when he makes a statement like that about his President. When a leader reaches out to you and turn your back on him in a disrespectful manner, that will not help to accomplish anything.
A clue would be more useful in this instance.There is no common ground between Catholics and abortion. This "vastly intelligent" man doesn't GET THAT?!? He's so arrogant he thinks his pretty words spoken like Richard Pryor are going to change the core of Catholics?? Maybe if he had a soul he'd know better.
Dear Leader is not serious about abortion.There is a big difference between being ponderous and being serious. It is scary when the President of the United States is not being serious about matters of life and death, saying that there are "other ways" of getting information from terrorists.
What got overlooked is that, in all the applause lines, there is not a serious statement among them. Perversely, even obscenely, he is casual about a decision he acknowledges is not made casually, and even as he acknowledges the moral/spiritual dimensions to that decision, he declines to articulate the how and the why of his moral and spiritual views on the matter. His solution to the debate is to dodge the debate, even as he acknowledges the central issue that drives the debate: abortion as a form of birth control.That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Bush's stance or his conclusion, one cannot argue that his is a serious statement on the moral dimensions of stem cell research: the benefits of medical research using destroyed embryos vs the destruction of human life. It is a serious statement because he directly confronts the moral conflict at the center of the debate. It is a serious statement because he states simply his position--it is a serious statement because he takes a serious stand. Indeed, Bush's entire stem cell speech is a serious statement on the moral debate on stem cell research.My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good - to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.
And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.
I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.
I don't, I don't know anyone who does. When you find some of that "logic" you are talking about. get back to me. :lol:
I'd like WillRockwell to support that assertion: ie: condoms = murder. I call :bs
Obama pointed out that the "caricatures" of opposing sides does nothing to forward the discussion.
Little bit of hypocrisy there, no?
Obama Notre Dame Speech: FULL TEXT
Excerpt from President Obama's speech:
No wonder he won them over....the man is just the right one for these times.
What a privilege and a distinct blessing it is, that I am alive to witness it.
A clue would be more useful in this instance.
Thomas Sowell had an interesting comment in a column he wrote last week on the "torture" debate:
Dear Leader is not serious about abortion.
This is his take on the abortion debate in this country:
What got overlooked is that, in all the applause lines, there is not a serious statement among them. Perversely, even obscenely, he is casual about a decision he acknowledges is not made casually, and even as he acknowledges the moral/spiritual dimensions to that decision, he declines to articulate the how and the why of his moral and spiritual views on the matter. His solution to the debate is to dodge the debate, even as he acknowledges the central issue that drives the debate: abortion as a form of birth control.
President Bush, when he opted to restrict funding for embryonic stem cell research in 2001 to 60 lines of stem cells created from already-destroyed embryos, had this to say:
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Bush's stance or his conclusion, one cannot argue that his is a serious statement on the moral dimensions of stem cell research: the benefits of medical research using destroyed embryos vs the destruction of human life. It is a serious statement because he directly confronts the moral conflict at the center of the debate. It is a serious statement because he states simply his position--it is a serious statement because he takes a serious stand. Indeed, Bush's entire stem cell speech is a serious statement on the moral debate on stem cell research.
Dear Leader did not give a serious statement on abortion--he gave a set of throwaway lines, a regurgitation of standard liberal applause lines, and he used them solely to garner applause.
In his "More Perfect Union" speech during his campaign he threw his grandmother under the bus to construct a long-winded apologetic for his pastor's virulent anti-American racism. At Notre Dame he threw the unborn under the bus for cheap applause.
Sowell is right.....it is scary when a President is not serious about serious things.
Actually, I'm comparing the lack of substance on Dear Leader's teleprompter with the substance of President Bush's stem cell speech.CelticLord:
You are comparing the substance of a few lines of a commencement address with that of entire speech specifically on one issue.
How do you justify that as a logical and fair comparison?
No, he did not address the "philosphical divide." That's the problem. He raised it, worked it for some cheap applause, then kicked the can down the road. That is not addressing anything.The point of a commencement address is to speak to the graduates in a congratulatory manner and encourage them in future endeavors. In his speech he addressed the philosophical divide on the issue that was used to embarrass him by parties outside the university and the Catholic church.
And Dear Leader's comments were following a decision to speak at Notre Dame despite vocal opposition based in part on his stance on abortion. Obviously, he should have addressed that issue--but he didn't. Or he should not have mentioned the issue at all--but he didn't do that either.Bush's speech was following a decision on stem cell research policy. Obviously he is going to specifically address that issue.
The fair and honest comparison was what was given.A fair and honest comparison would be to find comments made by Bush a commencement address.
Ok, I don't have credibility with you. Wow. Shocking. Devastating, even.:roll:As an independent, I am open to honest and thoughtful criticism of our President, but when the right makes illogical and unfair criticisms similar to the one you made, they lose credibility IMO.
Question:
If Abortion is not killin a human life. Why then, would you care if there was more or less abortions being performed?
Any response Hazelnut, anyone? :2wave:
There are people who believe the use of condoms constitutes murder. Like you, they won't be persuaded by logic.
It was a 'great speech' in that it very nicely said 'yes, I understand that Catholics are opposed to abortion -- but I don't care, so get over it' -- all under the guise of the need to 'bring people together'.Yeah, it's a great speech. He never fails to deliver on that front.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?