The Moral Equivalency President

[IcebergSlim]

7. And, more of the speech that didn't belong, wasn't appropriate to the occasion.....perhaps inappropriate to any occasion....

.......Obama goes on with his attempt to foment division:


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????

READ: Full transcript of President Obama's speech at Dallas memorial service

Imagine....hinting that the police behave illegally at a ceremony eulogizing five assassinated policemen.
How disgusting.




Ask yourselves whether race relations have improved or devolved under this administration.



Now ask yourself whether Obama wanted race relations to improve.

Lawrence Wilkerson is a contradictory figure.

Wilkerson is a career military man, who served as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell; but he has also voiced reluctance to involve American forces in foreign conflicts, and slammed the Bush administration for its handling of the Iraq War. He is also a lifelong Republican who, far from just criticizing his party, has actually gone on the warpath against it at times.

When Powell was attacked by conservatives in 2012 for endorsing Barack Obama for reelection — Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu famously suggested that the endorsement was motivated by race — Wilkerson sprung to the defense of his former boss, saying that the Republican Party was “full of racists.”

Wilkerson stands by those assertions. In a recent conversation with Salon, the retired U.S. Army colonel renewed his criticism of the GOP and the Bush administration. He also addressed recent saber rattling by Republicans on the issue of Iran. The following interview has been lightly edited.

You have been very critical of the Republican Party. Why do you stay?

There are sane and sober people in the Republican Party. The public persona of the Republican Party has changed since the days of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.

In the past you have said the Republican Party is full of racists. Do you stand by that and aren’t you afraid of a backlash?

I’m not afraid of a backlash. The GOP has scores of racists. Under Richard Nixon’s blessing, the GOP took advantage of disgruntled Democrats in the South. They are still there and their children are there. This is very much known in our party. This was a conscious strategy.

“The GOP has scores of racists”: A former Bush official condemns modern Republican orthodoxy


Then there was the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks. No, the majority of Republicans are not bigots. But they have certainly been enablers.....



Who was it who opposed any plausible means of dealing with the genuine problem of illegal immigration, forcing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to cower, abandon his principles — and his own immigration legislation — lest he be driven from the presidential race before it had even begun? It was not Trump. It was not even party yahoos. It was Republican Party pundits and intellectuals, trying to harness populist passions and perhaps deal a blow to any legislation for which President Obama might possibly claim even partial credit. What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed?


Then there was the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified.


Robert Kagan: The GOP Created Trump with "Wild Obstructionism"


and those are just Republicans....

More smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.

How about that plan I suggested: try honesty.


The question you are trying your feeble best to avoid is why Obama indulged in racial division in the Dallas speech.


5. During the celebration of the lives of five hero Policemen of Dallas.....

...the reprobate President used the occasion to find justification for the killer.


And I quote Obama:

"We’re here to honor the memory, and mourn the loss, of five fellow Americans...."


Then he began to get into his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."


(Yet, 65,915,796 voted for him. What a slap in their faces.)




Did the words above belong in an eulogy supposedly honoring the five assassinations???




Gonna dodge the reason for the thread once again???

I have demonstrated that your premise is invalid......that you repeat your idiocies is merely a sign of your imperviousness to linear reasoning...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have any evidence that I said that they have the bomb?


In the future, try to use words with precision, as I do.

"Obama Gives Iran the Bomb"


How do you translate the above?

He did exactly that.



Now...is there some Liberal gene that prevented you from using the link I provided?

'Fraid it may destroy your current worldview....before the DNC orders some new one?

I understand that TAS is shiny and new to you, but I discontinued my subscription in the early 90s.....

Obama Gives Iran the Bomb​

note that this is in the present tense......

He did exactly that.
​

this is in the past tense...

Between these two statements, one is obliged to conclude that the action in question is completed...Now I am asking you to provide any evidence that Iran has this bomb.....

​

You conclusion is misguided by you bias.

You know exactly what Obama did, and what it means.

Try honesty.

No...that is the logical conclusion in light of those comments........

What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound - and obliges Iran to surrender all of its highly enriched uranium, and to either decommission or destroy a large number of centrifuges......This is the exact OPPOSITE of "giving Iran the bomb".....Again, logically, one is obliged to conclude that you and your source are lying....

Bushwa!

The question you are trying your feeble best to avoid is why Obama indulged in racial division in the Dallas speech.


"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


Why does your candidate make every attempt to stoke the flames of racial division?

Why?


And why do you support his every attempt?


Why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. And, more of the speech that didn't belong, wasn't appropriate to the occasion.....perhaps inappropriate to any occasion....

.......Obama goes on with his attempt to foment division:


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????

READ: Full transcript of President Obama's speech at Dallas memorial service

Imagine....hinting that the police behave illegally at a ceremony eulogizing five assassinated policemen.
How disgusting.




Ask yourselves whether race relations have improved or devolved under this administration.



Now ask yourself whether Obama wanted race relations to improve.

Lawrence Wilkerson is a contradictory figure.

Wilkerson is a career military man, who served as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell; but he has also voiced reluctance to involve American forces in foreign conflicts, and slammed the Bush administration for its handling of the Iraq War. He is also a lifelong Republican who, far from just criticizing his party, has actually gone on the warpath against it at times.

When Powell was attacked by conservatives in 2012 for endorsing Barack Obama for reelection — Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu famously suggested that the endorsement was motivated by race — Wilkerson sprung to the defense of his former boss, saying that the Republican Party was “full of racists.”

Wilkerson stands by those assertions. In a recent conversation with Salon, the retired U.S. Army colonel renewed his criticism of the GOP and the Bush administration. He also addressed recent saber rattling by Republicans on the issue of Iran. The following interview has been lightly edited.

You have been very critical of the Republican Party. Why do you stay?

There are sane and sober people in the Republican Party. The public persona of the Republican Party has changed since the days of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.

In the past you have said the Republican Party is full of racists. Do you stand by that and aren’t you afraid of a backlash?

I’m not afraid of a backlash. The GOP has scores of racists. Under Richard Nixon’s blessing, the GOP took advantage of disgruntled Democrats in the South. They are still there and their children are there. This is very much known in our party. This was a conscious strategy.

“The GOP has scores of racists”: A former Bush official condemns modern Republican orthodoxy


Then there was the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks. No, the majority of Republicans are not bigots. But they have certainly been enablers.....



Who was it who opposed any plausible means of dealing with the genuine problem of illegal immigration, forcing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to cower, abandon his principles — and his own immigration legislation — lest he be driven from the presidential race before it had even begun? It was not Trump. It was not even party yahoos. It was Republican Party pundits and intellectuals, trying to harness populist passions and perhaps deal a blow to any legislation for which President Obama might possibly claim even partial credit. What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed?


Then there was the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified.


Robert Kagan: The GOP Created Trump with "Wild Obstructionism"


and those are just Republicans....

More smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.

How about that plan I suggested: try honesty.


The question you are trying your feeble best to avoid is why Obama indulged in racial division in the Dallas speech.


5. During the celebration of the lives of five hero Policemen of Dallas.....

...the reprobate President used the occasion to find justification for the killer.


And I quote Obama:

"We’re here to honor the memory, and mourn the loss, of five fellow Americans...."


Then he began to get into his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."


(Yet, 65,915,796 voted for him. What a slap in their faces.)




Did the words above belong in an eulogy supposedly honoring the five assassinations???




Gonna dodge the reason for the thread once again???

I have demonstrated that your premise is invalid......that you repeat your idiocies is merely a sign of your imperviousness to linear reasoning...

The only thing I've repeated are his words.

Happy to offer them again....but a coward like you will simply pretend they don't exist.....


....why?

 

[IcebergSlim]

"Obama Gives Iran the Bomb"


How do you translate the above?

He did exactly that.



Now...is there some Liberal gene that prevented you from using the link I provided?

'Fraid it may destroy your current worldview....before the DNC orders some new one?

I understand that TAS is shiny and new to you, but I discontinued my subscription in the early 90s.....

Obama Gives Iran the Bomb​

note that this is in the present tense......

He did exactly that.
​

this is in the past tense...

Between these two statements, one is obliged to conclude that the action in question is completed...Now I am asking you to provide any evidence that Iran has this bomb.....

​

You conclusion is misguided by you bias.

You know exactly what Obama did, and what it means.

Try honesty.

No...that is the logical conclusion in light of those comments........

What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound - and obliges Iran to surrender all of its highly enriched uranium, and to either decommission or destroy a large number of centrifuges......This is the exact OPPOSITE of "giving Iran the bomb".....Again, logically, one is obliged to conclude that you and your source are lying....

Bushwa!

The question you are trying your feeble best to avoid is why Obama indulged in racial division in the Dallas speech.


"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


Why does your candidate make every attempt to stoke the flames of racial division?

Why?


And why do you support his every attempt?


Why?

Because you know nothing, you will believe anything.......you've been told that Obama is "stoking the flames of racial division", and, Being a Useful Idiot of the first order, you embrace it and dutifully recatapult it....

Only a hysterical ninny would argue that talking about the context in which the 5 officers were shot is a racial issue......failing to do so would be to ignore the very reason the officers were at their post on that day....

 

[IcebergSlim]

7. And, more of the speech that didn't belong, wasn't appropriate to the occasion.....perhaps inappropriate to any occasion....

.......Obama goes on with his attempt to foment division:


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????

READ: Full transcript of President Obama's speech at Dallas memorial service

Imagine....hinting that the police behave illegally at a ceremony eulogizing five assassinated policemen.
How disgusting.




Ask yourselves whether race relations have improved or devolved under this administration.



Now ask yourself whether Obama wanted race relations to improve.

Lawrence Wilkerson is a contradictory figure.

Wilkerson is a career military man, who served as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell; but he has also voiced reluctance to involve American forces in foreign conflicts, and slammed the Bush administration for its handling of the Iraq War. He is also a lifelong Republican who, far from just criticizing his party, has actually gone on the warpath against it at times.

When Powell was attacked by conservatives in 2012 for endorsing Barack Obama for reelection — Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu famously suggested that the endorsement was motivated by race — Wilkerson sprung to the defense of his former boss, saying that the Republican Party was “full of racists.”

Wilkerson stands by those assertions. In a recent conversation with Salon, the retired U.S. Army colonel renewed his criticism of the GOP and the Bush administration. He also addressed recent saber rattling by Republicans on the issue of Iran. The following interview has been lightly edited.

You have been very critical of the Republican Party. Why do you stay?

There are sane and sober people in the Republican Party. The public persona of the Republican Party has changed since the days of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.

In the past you have said the Republican Party is full of racists. Do you stand by that and aren’t you afraid of a backlash?

I’m not afraid of a backlash. The GOP has scores of racists. Under Richard Nixon’s blessing, the GOP took advantage of disgruntled Democrats in the South. They are still there and their children are there. This is very much known in our party. This was a conscious strategy.

“The GOP has scores of racists”: A former Bush official condemns modern Republican orthodoxy


Then there was the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks. No, the majority of Republicans are not bigots. But they have certainly been enablers.....



Who was it who opposed any plausible means of dealing with the genuine problem of illegal immigration, forcing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to cower, abandon his principles — and his own immigration legislation — lest he be driven from the presidential race before it had even begun? It was not Trump. It was not even party yahoos. It was Republican Party pundits and intellectuals, trying to harness populist passions and perhaps deal a blow to any legislation for which President Obama might possibly claim even partial credit. What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed?


Then there was the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified.


Robert Kagan: The GOP Created Trump with "Wild Obstructionism"


and those are just Republicans....

More smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.

How about that plan I suggested: try honesty.


The question you are trying your feeble best to avoid is why Obama indulged in racial division in the Dallas speech.


5. During the celebration of the lives of five hero Policemen of Dallas.....

...the reprobate President used the occasion to find justification for the killer.


And I quote Obama:

"We’re here to honor the memory, and mourn the loss, of five fellow Americans...."


Then he began to get into his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."


(Yet, 65,915,796 voted for him. What a slap in their faces.)




Did the words above belong in an eulogy supposedly honoring the five assassinations???




Gonna dodge the reason for the thread once again???

I have demonstrated that your premise is invalid......that you repeat your idiocies is merely a sign of your imperviousness to linear reasoning...

The only thing I've repeated are his words.

Happy to offer them again....but a coward like you will simply pretend they don't exist.....


....why?

No....you insist on lending your interpretations........which are predictably cretinous....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have any evidence that I said that they have the bomb?


In the future, try to use words with precision, as I do.

"Obama Gives Iran the Bomb"


How do you translate the above?

He did exactly that.



Now...is there some Liberal gene that prevented you from using the link I provided?

'Fraid it may destroy your current worldview....before the DNC orders some new one?

I understand that TAS is shiny and new to you, but I discontinued my subscription in the early 90s.....

Obama Gives Iran the Bomb​

note that this is in the present tense......

He did exactly that.
​

this is in the past tense...

Between these two statements, one is obliged to conclude that the action in question is completed...Now I am asking you to provide any evidence that Iran has this bomb.....

​

You conclusion is misguided by you bias.

You know exactly what Obama did, and what it means.

Try honesty.

No...that is the logical conclusion in light of those comments........

What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound - and obliges Iran to surrender all of its highly enriched uranium, and to either decommission or destroy a large number of centrifuges......This is the exact OPPOSITE of "giving Iran the bomb".....Again, logically, one is obliged to conclude that you and your source are lying....

"What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound..."

Even you can't believe that.

He gave Iran the green light to build nuclear weapons.


After this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_print.html


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Now....why is Obama an apologist for Micah Johnson?

Why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

He did exactly that.



Now...is there some Liberal gene that prevented you from using the link I provided?

'Fraid it may destroy your current worldview....before the DNC orders some new one?

I understand that TAS is shiny and new to you, but I discontinued my subscription in the early 90s.....

Obama Gives Iran the Bomb​

note that this is in the present tense......

He did exactly that.
​

this is in the past tense...

Between these two statements, one is obliged to conclude that the action in question is completed...Now I am asking you to provide any evidence that Iran has this bomb.....

​

You conclusion is misguided by you bias.

You know exactly what Obama did, and what it means.

Try honesty.

No...that is the logical conclusion in light of those comments........

What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound - and obliges Iran to surrender all of its highly enriched uranium, and to either decommission or destroy a large number of centrifuges......This is the exact OPPOSITE of "giving Iran the bomb".....Again, logically, one is obliged to conclude that you and your source are lying....

Bushwa!

The question you are trying your feeble best to avoid is why Obama indulged in racial division in the Dallas speech.


"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


Why does your candidate make every attempt to stoke the flames of racial division?

Why?


And why do you support his every attempt?


Why?

Because you know nothing, you will believe anything.......you've been told that Obama is "stoking the flames of racial division", and, Being a Useful Idiot of the first order, you embrace it and dutifully recatapult it....

Only a hysterical ninny would argue that talking about the context in which the 5 officers were shot is a racial issue......failing to do so would be to ignore the very reason the officers were at their post on that day....

"Because you know nothing, you will believe anything.......you've been told that Obama is "stoking the flames of racial division", and, Being a Useful Idiot of the first order, you embrace it and dutifully recatapult it...."

Here are his own words:

Then he began to get into his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????



How about it, you fraud.....

....explain Explain why he takes ever opportunity to make a problem worse; to say or do something that makes a bad situation worse; to make an angry person get even angrier....to do what he did in Ferguson, telling the rioters to "stay the course."


How about you try to explain his motives?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. And, more of the speech that didn't belong, wasn't appropriate to the occasion.....perhaps inappropriate to any occasion....

.......Obama goes on with his attempt to foment division:


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????

READ: Full transcript of President Obama's speech at Dallas memorial service

Imagine....hinting that the police behave illegally at a ceremony eulogizing five assassinated policemen.
How disgusting.




Ask yourselves whether race relations have improved or devolved under this administration.



Now ask yourself whether Obama wanted race relations to improve.

Lawrence Wilkerson is a contradictory figure.

Wilkerson is a career military man, who served as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell; but he has also voiced reluctance to involve American forces in foreign conflicts, and slammed the Bush administration for its handling of the Iraq War. He is also a lifelong Republican who, far from just criticizing his party, has actually gone on the warpath against it at times.

When Powell was attacked by conservatives in 2012 for endorsing Barack Obama for reelection — Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu famously suggested that the endorsement was motivated by race — Wilkerson sprung to the defense of his former boss, saying that the Republican Party was “full of racists.”

Wilkerson stands by those assertions. In a recent conversation with Salon, the retired U.S. Army colonel renewed his criticism of the GOP and the Bush administration. He also addressed recent saber rattling by Republicans on the issue of Iran. The following interview has been lightly edited.

You have been very critical of the Republican Party. Why do you stay?

There are sane and sober people in the Republican Party. The public persona of the Republican Party has changed since the days of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.

In the past you have said the Republican Party is full of racists. Do you stand by that and aren’t you afraid of a backlash?

I’m not afraid of a backlash. The GOP has scores of racists. Under Richard Nixon’s blessing, the GOP took advantage of disgruntled Democrats in the South. They are still there and their children are there. This is very much known in our party. This was a conscious strategy.

“The GOP has scores of racists”: A former Bush official condemns modern Republican orthodoxy


Then there was the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks. No, the majority of Republicans are not bigots. But they have certainly been enablers.....



Who was it who opposed any plausible means of dealing with the genuine problem of illegal immigration, forcing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to cower, abandon his principles — and his own immigration legislation — lest he be driven from the presidential race before it had even begun? It was not Trump. It was not even party yahoos. It was Republican Party pundits and intellectuals, trying to harness populist passions and perhaps deal a blow to any legislation for which President Obama might possibly claim even partial credit. What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed?


Then there was the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified.


Robert Kagan: The GOP Created Trump with "Wild Obstructionism"


and those are just Republicans....

More smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.

How about that plan I suggested: try honesty.


The question you are trying your feeble best to avoid is why Obama indulged in racial division in the Dallas speech.


5. During the celebration of the lives of five hero Policemen of Dallas.....

...the reprobate President used the occasion to find justification for the killer.


And I quote Obama:

"We’re here to honor the memory, and mourn the loss, of five fellow Americans...."


Then he began to get into his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."


(Yet, 65,915,796 voted for him. What a slap in their faces.)




Did the words above belong in an eulogy supposedly honoring the five assassinations???




Gonna dodge the reason for the thread once again???

I have demonstrated that your premise is invalid......that you repeat your idiocies is merely a sign of your imperviousness to linear reasoning...

The only thing I've repeated are his words.

Happy to offer them again....but a coward like you will simply pretend they don't exist.....


....why?

No....you insist on lending your interpretations........which are predictably cretinous....

What???


Still can't come up with an answer????


I presented Obama's inflammatory words.....how about you give your interpretation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh nooozzzzzz!!!

I gave IcebergSlime the truth....and truth to a Liberal is like a cross to a vampire!


He's gone in a puff of greenhouse gas!

 

[SYTFE]

Oh nooozzzzzz!!!

I gave IcebergSlime the truth....and truth to a Liberal is like a cross to a vampire!


He's gone in a puff of greenhouse gas!

Uh, it's been 16 minutes since he last posted. Give him a chance to respond to your crazy ranting, not everyone is waiting on you hand and foot, ya nutter.

What is it with these nutjob conservatives and their pathological levels of narcissism? They all seem to think that their little opinions are so fucking important.

This is one of the craziest threads I've seen since joining this forum. Political Chick -- seek help. Now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh nooozzzzzz!!!

I gave IcebergSlime the truth....and truth to a Liberal is like a cross to a vampire!


He's gone in a puff of greenhouse gas!

Uh, it's been 16 minutes since he last posted. Give him a chance to respond to your crazy ranting, not everyone is waiting on you hand and foot, ya nutter.

What is it with these nutjob conservatives and their pathological levels of narcissism? They all seem to think that their little opinions are so fucking important.

This is one of the craziest threads I've seen since joining this forum. Political Chick -- seek help. Now.

1. I never indulge in 'crazy ranting.' Said description is offered by those who my posts eviscerate....i.e., you.

2. "Give him a chance to respond...":
How about I give you a chance to respond.

The following are Obama's words.....hardly a one is mine.

Have someone read them to you....then you explain why your candidate goes out of his way to stoke up the flames of racial unrest.


his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????



Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

Go for it ......

.....if you dare.

 

[SYTFE]

 

[PoliticalChic]

And so...another lily-livered Liberal bites the dust!


NEXT!

 

[IcebergSlim]

"Obama Gives Iran the Bomb"


How do you translate the above?

He did exactly that.



Now...is there some Liberal gene that prevented you from using the link I provided?

'Fraid it may destroy your current worldview....before the DNC orders some new one?

I understand that TAS is shiny and new to you, but I discontinued my subscription in the early 90s.....

Obama Gives Iran the Bomb​

note that this is in the present tense......

He did exactly that.
​

this is in the past tense...

Between these two statements, one is obliged to conclude that the action in question is completed...Now I am asking you to provide any evidence that Iran has this bomb.....

​

You conclusion is misguided by you bias.

You know exactly what Obama did, and what it means.

Try honesty.

No...that is the logical conclusion in light of those comments........

What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound - and obliges Iran to surrender all of its highly enriched uranium, and to either decommission or destroy a large number of centrifuges......This is the exact OPPOSITE of "giving Iran the bomb".....Again, logically, one is obliged to conclude that you and your source are lying....

"What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound..."

Even you can't believe that.

He gave Iran the green light to build nuclear weapons.


After this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Now....why is Obama an apologist for Micah Johnson?

Why?

Here are the FACTS.....

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (in Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎‎, acronym: برجام BARJAM),[3][4] known commonly as the Iran deal, is an international agreement on the nuclear program of Iran reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran, the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany),[a] and the European Union.​

Now....why is Obama an apologist for Micah Johnson?

He isn't......why are you lying? (rhetorical)


President Barack Obama on Monday described the Dallas shooting as a "hate crime" against police, according to a top law enforcement representative in the meeting with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.


“One really striking thing the president said in his opening remarks was that the shooting in Dallas in many ways was strikingly parallel to the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston in the sense that it was a hate crime,” said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, in an interview with POLITICO.

Obama to police: Dallas shooting was a 'hate crime'

 

[IcebergSlim]

Oh nooozzzzzz!!!

I gave IcebergSlime the truth....and truth to a Liberal is like a cross to a vampire!


He's gone in a puff of greenhouse gas!

No...I went to hit some golf balls at the range.....now I'm off to party on a big yacht.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Oh nooozzzzzz!!!

I gave IcebergSlime the truth....and truth to a Liberal is like a cross to a vampire!


He's gone in a puff of greenhouse gas!

Uh, it's been 16 minutes since he last posted. Give him a chance to respond to your crazy ranting, not everyone is waiting on you hand and foot, ya nutter.

What is it with these nutjob conservatives and their pathological levels of narcissism? They all seem to think that their little opinions are so fucking important.

This is one of the craziest threads I've seen since joining this forum. Political Chick -- seek help. Now.

1. I never indulge in 'crazy ranting.' Said description is offered by those who my posts eviscerate....i.e., you.

2. "Give him a chance to respond...":
How about I give you a chance to respond.

The following are Obama's words.....hardly a one is mine.

Have someone read them to you....then you explain why your candidate goes out of his way to stoke up the flames of racial unrest.


his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????



Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

Go for it ......

.....if you dare.

Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...

Whether or not they were killed is not a matter of "adjudication", it is a matter of FACT.

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.

The "scale of rectitude"?

What makes you such an f....ing moron?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh nooozzzzzz!!!

I gave IcebergSlime the truth....and truth to a Liberal is like a cross to a vampire!


He's gone in a puff of greenhouse gas!

Uh, it's been 16 minutes since he last posted. Give him a chance to respond to your crazy ranting, not everyone is waiting on you hand and foot, ya nutter.

What is it with these nutjob conservatives and their pathological levels of narcissism? They all seem to think that their little opinions are so fucking important.

This is one of the craziest threads I've seen since joining this forum. Political Chick -- seek help. Now.

1. I never indulge in 'crazy ranting.' Said description is offered by those who my posts eviscerate....i.e., you.

2. "Give him a chance to respond...":
How about I give you a chance to respond.

The following are Obama's words.....hardly a one is mine.

Have someone read them to you....then you explain why your candidate goes out of his way to stoke up the flames of racial unrest.


his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????



Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

Go for it ......

.....if you dare.

Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...

Whether or not they were killed is not a matter of "adjudication", it is a matter of FACT.

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.

The "scale of rectitude"?

What makes you such an f....ing moron?

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber


What makes you such a coward?

Why not try to actually respond, rather than ducking under your desk?

Again.....these are the words of Barack Hussein Obama...the most merciful....at the MEMORIAL RECOGNIZING THE ASSASSINATIONS OF FIVE HEROIC DALLAS POLICEMEN.


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????




Now...what's is your 'interpretation' of his creating this tire-fire at the memorial???????


Speak up, you wimp.
Stop dodging, stop lying, no equivocation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

He did exactly that.



Now...is there some Liberal gene that prevented you from using the link I provided?

'Fraid it may destroy your current worldview....before the DNC orders some new one?

I understand that TAS is shiny and new to you, but I discontinued my subscription in the early 90s.....

Obama Gives Iran the Bomb​

note that this is in the present tense......

He did exactly that.
​

this is in the past tense...

Between these two statements, one is obliged to conclude that the action in question is completed...Now I am asking you to provide any evidence that Iran has this bomb.....

​

You conclusion is misguided by you bias.

You know exactly what Obama did, and what it means.

Try honesty.

No...that is the logical conclusion in light of those comments........

What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound - and obliges Iran to surrender all of its highly enriched uranium, and to either decommission or destroy a large number of centrifuges......This is the exact OPPOSITE of "giving Iran the bomb".....Again, logically, one is obliged to conclude that you and your source are lying....

"What Obama did was work with the rest of the nations on the UN Security Council (and China) to negotiate am agreement regarding Iran'a nuclear program which, according to arms control experts, is sound..."

Even you can't believe that.

He gave Iran the green light to build nuclear weapons.


After this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Now....why is Obama an apologist for Micah Johnson?

Why?

Here are the FACTS.....

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (in Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎‎, acronym: برجام BARJAM),[3][4] known commonly as the Iran deal, is an international agreement on the nuclear program of Iran reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran, the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany),[a] and the European Union.​

Now....why is Obama an apologist for Micah Johnson?

He isn't......why are you lying? (rhetorical)


President Barack Obama on Monday described the Dallas shooting as a "hate crime" against police, according to a top law enforcement representative in the meeting with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.


“One really striking thing the president said in his opening remarks was that the shooting in Dallas in many ways was strikingly parallel to the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston in the sense that it was a hate crime,” said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, in an interview with POLITICO.

Obama to police: Dallas shooting was a 'hate crime'

"Now....why is Obama an apologist for Micah Johnson?

He isn't......why are you lying?"


I never lie.
Here is Barack Hussein Obama making the case for Micah Johnson:

"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????

 

[SYTFE]

 

[IcebergSlim]

Oh nooozzzzzz!!!

I gave IcebergSlime the truth....and truth to a Liberal is like a cross to a vampire!


He's gone in a puff of greenhouse gas!

Uh, it's been 16 minutes since he last posted. Give him a chance to respond to your crazy ranting, not everyone is waiting on you hand and foot, ya nutter.

What is it with these nutjob conservatives and their pathological levels of narcissism? They all seem to think that their little opinions are so fucking important.

This is one of the craziest threads I've seen since joining this forum. Political Chick -- seek help. Now.

1. I never indulge in 'crazy ranting.' Said description is offered by those who my posts eviscerate....i.e., you.

2. "Give him a chance to respond...":
How about I give you a chance to respond.

The following are Obama's words.....hardly a one is mine.

Have someone read them to you....then you explain why your candidate goes out of his way to stoke up the flames of racial unrest.


his real theme...


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????



Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

Go for it ......

.....if you dare.

Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...

Whether or not they were killed is not a matter of "adjudication", it is a matter of FACT.

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.

The "scale of rectitude"?

What makes you such an f....ing moron?

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber


What makes you such a coward?

Why not try to actually respond, rather than ducking under your desk?

Again.....these are the words of Barack Hussein Obama...the most merciful....at the MEMORIAL RECOGNIZING THE ASSASSINATIONS OF FIVE HEROIC DALLAS POLICEMEN.


"..... they were assigned to protect and keep orderly a peaceful protest in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota. They were upholding the constitutional rights of this country.


Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...



".....centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed."


"...we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it."

"....some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments."


"....unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir” -- but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door,...."


"....all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts."


" As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. (Applause.) We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. (Applause.) We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book -"


"But even those who dislike the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. (Applause.) We should -- when we hear a friend describe him by saying that “Whatever he cooked, he cooked enough for everybody,” that should sound familiar to us, that maybe he wasn’t so different than us, so that we can, yes, insist that his life matters. Just as we should hear the students and coworkers describe their affection for Philando Castile as a gentle soul -- “Mr. Rogers with dreadlocks,” they called him -- and know that his life mattered to a whole lot of people of all races, of all ages, and that we have to do what we can, without putting officers' lives at risk, but do better to prevent another life like his from being lost."



And....

"With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged,..."

WHAT????

Clearly an attempt to put his thumb on the scale of rectitude.




".... ensure no one is above the law..."

Know who he is indicting here????




Now...what's is your 'interpretation' of his creating this tire-fire at the memorial???????


Speak up, you wimp.
Stop dodging, stop lying, no equivocation.

But, bot........I directly addressed this:

Not "death"....but "killing" ...as if adjudicated as such already...


and I did so in the very post to which you responded....