Thread: The 'big bad black man' Obama thread

^ Belongs in the cartoons thread, eh?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Belongs in the cartoons thread

I'll add a few there too. This thread is for the overtly racist ones.

Originally Posted by sabang

Does anyone take these seriously?

Scarily enough yes, I think they do. Images like this, even the most blatantly ridiculous of them, distill and focus the feelings of some people.

I would be willing to bet any amount you care to name that somewhere in the US you'll be able to find an eligible voter who sincerely believes that Obama is a Muslim terrorist who plans to enslave the whites if he's elected.

From that extreme they'd be variations on the theme going all the way back to the centre and ojective reality.

Obama campaign says New Yorker cartoon goes too far

Last Updated: Monday, July 14, 2008 | 12:33 PM ET Comments155Recommend446

CBC News



The Obama campaign issued a statement condemning the cartoon.


"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in the statement.

Obama campaign says New Yorker cartoon goes too far

^Looks like they summed BO & his old lady to a Tee, eh?

There seems to be a problem here.

"coming from Australia"

"Obama (whom I support)"

Are you now a naturalized American citizen? If not, why do you "support" someone who is running for president in a foreign country?

Frankly, it seems strange that you have given this so much thought and energy since Obama is running for President of the USA, not President of the Western world.

I will have to go with McCain myself, but I am not worried for my country if we have an Obama presidency.

Whether or not Obama wins in November, just getting this far shows how far America has come in regards to race relations.

The race issue is a double edged sword for Obama. Many people want to show they are non-racist and automatically jump at this chance to prove it. Others are racist and will never vote for him because of his race.

But I think race is not the main issue this year, if Obama wins it will be because people want a change in economic and foreign policy. But be careful of what you wish for, change can be positive or negative. I have problems with both Obama's economic and foreign policy positions and don't see myself voting for him.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Are you now a naturalized American citizen? If not, why do you "support" someone who is running for president in a foreign country?

I guess thats addressed to me, so the short answer is that the Republican Bush administration has been such an unmitigated disaster that, after having lost both houses of Congress I would also like them to lose the Presidential election and use their time in the electoral wilderness to reform from within, and hopefully purge themselves of the Loonies.

Whilst having nothing against Mccain personally, I also think he is a pretty mediocre candidate.

Obviously, what happens in the USA interests and affects many of us internationally.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Whether or not Obama wins in November, just getting this far shows how far America has come in regards to race relations.

Agreed, I've said this before on TD.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

But I think race is not the main issue this year, if Obama wins it will be because people want a change in economic and foreign policy. But be careful of what you wish for, change can be positive or negative. I have problems with both Obama's economic and foreign policy positions and don't see myself voting for him.

I think race is still an issue for many voters. I thought Obama had some panache, but he's coming out as just a slick politician now. Whatever it takes to win the mantle. I still don't see any real economic policies from him that will get the gears moving to boost new biz and hence create more jobs. He just wants to lay blame. That is not positive momentum.
Let's see what happens when he visits Iraq.
BTW, I think the NYorker cover bombed in supporting him; too many folks identify with all the different issues that it displays and it sets these negatives more firmly in their minds. Lower-income folks can't afford or have no interest in the mag so they won't read the supporting article, but they will see the cover on display at every sidewalk newstand.

An interesting editorial.

Obama Hasn't Earned A Place At Berlin Gate

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast — a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins — would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn.
President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation.
When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop?
What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called "a Europe whole and free"?
Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)
Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times.
As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" — when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow."
As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.
Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.
After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: "I am the one we've been waiting for."
Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down.
He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" — a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French.
His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is? We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more.
As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall — I'm no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama Hasn't Earned A Place At Berlin Gate

^ Good find, Cujo. Thanks. The shallowness of BO's being and campaign is coming to the fore. God be with him with a warehouse of tissues when he loses.

Originally Posted by krauthammer

George Bush 41 — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called "a Europe whole and free"?

How un-American of him.

Can someone tell us more about Americans?

I can't stand BO, can't really explain why, probably that smug expression on a mug totally devoid of character.

well the peacenic says he will immediately dump 2 full divisions in Afghanistan because they need more bodys, after saying he gonna stop the warring, and here is something else I bet ya didn't know.

O'S HEALTH RX: COVER ILLEGALS

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in The New York Post on July 21, 2008.

Democrats' single most important domestic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up - mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?

Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.

Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.

Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions - as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.

John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance - and hit it hard.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

So the illegal immigrant who works in the US and sends boatloads of money back to Mexico, without paying any taxes, will now have his health care attended to under BO's plan? Might cut down on illegal immigration, eh?

I suppose it's cheaper than throwing them in prison for eight years.

this thread is crap.

Staunch republicans pasting biased articles to prove to each other they are right.

is there such a thing as unbiased journalism in the states?

is there such a thing as unbiased journalism in the states?

Another thread, CMN.

And the answer is no. Not anywhere. News that's delivered is always somebody's interpretation. An inherent flaw.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

is there such a thing as unbiased journalism in the states?

Oh, no. Just read the NY Times, LA Times, New Yorker (whose BO cover blew up in their face), MSNBC, etc. No unbiased coverage there.

How is it that a comment can be deleted from this thread yet an entire thread calling for a defence of murdering "queers" is allowed to stand?

Really do wonder about the priorities of the moderators at times.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

yet an entire thread calling for a defence of murdering "queers" is allowed to stand?

that one still in issues?

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

yet an entire thread calling for a defence of murdering "queers" is allowed to stand?

that one still in issues?

Yup. Along with others of equally dubious 'Issues' value.

It seems to me that if you happen to have right-wing political leanings you have more or less free licence to personally abuse people, make off-topic remarks, constantly change the topic and otherwise disrupt and make impossible reasoned debate.

Helps if you’re American too, apparently. Or maybe that's just an accident of coincidence based on the foregoing. Either way it’s not so much no standards as it is double-standards.

No shit antsy,, well as long as it is in US domestic issues, it is none of your business anyway, you being a Ginger haired KiWi.
Now if it was In "NZ Domestic issues", it would be different

blackgang,

This is Teakdoor, the 'Issues' forum constitutes a part of it. If you're looking for a forum for Americans, by Americans, and solely about Americans it's you who is in the wrong place not I.

Claiming someone cannot hold a valid opinion because they happen to be of a certain nationality and not another is spurious at best. Besides all of which... I thought you had me on ignore?

Took me 70 seconds to go get this
O’S HEALTH RX: COVER ILLEGALS at DickMorris.com
and if ya can't do that then just believe what you read or go back to your comic books cause you will never understand anything on this forum any, just go play with Anty.