Gwaan choo barack

[Emperah]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Obama wasn't black nuff a unno wouldn't have unno back up bout him atall.
Tell mi seh mi a lie



</div></div>

i make no apologies for seeing the racism that obama faces in his own country and wanting to pull for him so he can succeed despite the racists for whom everything obama says is &quot;anti-american&quot;, even when it is exactly what a white predecessor has said (e.g., the israel border issues). </div></div>

With many of us in here who are saying what ever we're saying about Obama, has nothing to do with racism. This post started out as just us from the board in here, and this is where I'm coming from.
The majority of us are judging him from his works not his colour, we were here saying the samething when Bush was in. Now he's doing pretty much the same as bush not much has changed and many of you in here are defending him because of what if not his colour

The people who supported bush are Obama haters only cause he's black as he's carrying on the same foolishness so obviously that makes no sense. Wrong is wrong and right is right. It just seems like many of you are ok with supporting wrong just because he's black. I know black pride is a serious thing but I think we need fi check our pride with some of our ppl, but of course we will differ in who we are proud of and not still.
How come some of you were not defending Bush, what really has changed?

The health care system is not that great if you check it. Ppl are force to buy health care if they make over a certain amount of money. The insurance companies have so much power that Obama couldn't even give them the kind of health plan I believe he wanted to. So in a sense ppl are getting screwed unless they make below a certain wage and are poor enough fi get it supplemented.

[Gen]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Sage. Coming from smaddy who nuh haffi worry bout healthcare. Maybe you can jine di republican dem fi repeal &quot;Obamacare&quot;

/o\

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack



what woudl you have him do on these specific issues? [/quote]


Oh I don't know.
Maybe something that would represent a CHANGE .
Something a moral person would do.

Stop supporting Israel.

Stop vetoing EVERY U.N. resolution against the criminal state of Israel

Demand the peace settlement voted upon by the U.N.

Stop promoting dictators and totalitarianism.

Leave Iran alone.

Close Guantanamo, stop all U.S directed torture.

Close all &quot;black&quot; CIA torture prisons.

Stop spying on U.S citizens.

Free the Cuban Five

Free Bradley Manning-stop torturing Bradley Manning

End the embargo on Cuba.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Obama apologists may like this article taken from today's ZNET:


The Political Quandary of Barack Obama
By Immanuel Wallerstein

Friday, June 03, 2011
Change Text Size a- | A+
Immanuel Wallerstein's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace


The President of the United States is considered to be the most powerful single individual in the modern world. What Barack Obama is learning to his chagrin is that he still has enormous power to do harm. But he has virtually no power to do good. I think he realizes this, and doesn't know what he can do about it. The fact is that there is very little he can do about it.

Take his biggest single concern at the moment - the second Arab revolt. He didn't start it. He was obviously taken by surprise when it began, as was almost everyone else. His immediate response was to think, correctly, that it posed great dangers to the already shaky geopolitical order in the region. The United States sought in every way it could to limit the damage, maintain its own position, and restore &quot;order.&quot; One can't say that the United States has been very successful. Every day in every way the situation has become more disorderly and beyond the control of the United States.

Barack Obama is by conviction and by personality the quintessential centrist. He seeks dialogue and compromise between &quot;extremes.&quot; He acts with due reflection, and makes major decisions prudently. He is in favor of slow, orderly change - change that doesn't threaten the basic system of which he is not merely a part but the ordained central figure and most powerful single player.

He is today constrained on all sides from playing this role. Nonetheless, he continues to try to play it. He is obviously saying to himself, what else can I possibly do? What happens, as a result, is that other players (including those who were once upon a time his subordinate allies) defy him openly, and shamelessly, and get away with it - diminishing his power further.

Netanyahu addresses the U.S. Congress, which enthusiastically and endlessly applauds his dangerous self-interested nonsense as though he were George Washington reincarnated. It was a direct slap in the face of Barack Obama, even though Obama had already, in speaking to AIPAC, withdrawn de facto his timid attempt to propose the 1967 Israel/Palestine borders as the basis of a solution.

The Saudi government has made it very clear that it will do everything in its power to defend existing regimes in the Arab world and is angry at Obama's occasional concession to &quot;human rights&quot; language. Pakistan's government is telling Obama very clearly that, if it tries to be tough with it, they have a firmer friend in China. The Russian, Chinese, and South African governments have all made it very clear to Obama that, if the United States tries to get Security Council action against Syria, it will not have their support and it probably couldn't get even a simple majority of votes - echoes of Bush's failure in 2003 with the second Iraq resolution. In Afghanistan, Karzai is calling on NATO to stop drone attacks. And the Pentagon is feeling pressure to pull out of Afghanistan on the grounds that it is too expensive.

Lest one think that U.S. weakness is exclusively a Middle East issue, take a look at Honduras. The United States had virtually endorsed the coup against now former President Zelaya. Because of the coup, Honduras was suspended from the Organization of American States (OAS). The United States then struggled hard to get Honduras restored to full membership in the OAS on the grounds that a new president had been formally elected. Latin American governments resisted this because Zelaya had not been allowed to return with all phony legal charges dropped.

What happened next? Colombia (supposedly the U.S.'s best friend in Latin America) and Venezuela (supposedly the U.S.'s nemesis in Latin America) got together and jointly arranged with the Honduran government in power Zelaya's return under Zelaya's conditions. Secretary of State Clinton smiled wanly at this de facto rebuff to U.S. diplomacy.

Finally, Obama is in trouble with the U.S. Congress over the war in Libya. Under the War Powers Act, Obama was supposed to be able to commit troops in Libya only for 60 days without explicit further endorsement by Congress. Sixty days have now passed, and there has been no Congressional action. Continuing the Libyan action is clearly illegal, but Obama is unable to get the endorsement. Nonetheless, Obama remains committed to the Libyan action. And U.S. involvement could escalate. So he can do the harm, but not the good.

Meanwhile, Obama is concentrating on getting re-elected. He stands a good chance of achieving this. The Republicans are moving further and further to the right, and politically they are no doubt overdoing it. But once re-elected, the president of the United States will have even less power than today. The world is moving on at a rapid pace. In a world with so many uncertainties and unpredictable actors, the most dangerous &quot;loose gun&quot; is turning out to be the United States.

[RichD]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
With many of us in here who are saying what ever we're saying about Obama, has nothing to do with racism. This post started out as just us from the board in here, and this is where I'm coming from.
The majority of us are judging him from his works not his colour, we were here saying the samething when Bush was in. Now he's doing <span style="font-weight: bold">pretty much the same</span> as bush <span style="font-weight: bold">not much has changed</span> and many of you in here are defending him because of what if not his colour
</div></div>

could it be the support is based on those small changes and the potential for them to grow?

What is offensive to many here is the argument being made that we obviously lack the intellect to make a decision based on anything more that superficial skin colour.

[kia027]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
With many of us in here who are saying what ever we're saying about Obama, has nothing to do with racism. This post started out as just us from the board in here, and this is where I'm coming from.
The majority of us are judging him from his works not his colour, we were here saying the samething when Bush was in. Now he's doing <span style="font-weight: bold">pretty much the same</span> as bush <span style="font-weight: bold">not much has changed</span> and many of you in here are defending him because of what if not his colour
</div></div>

could it be the support is based on those small changes and the potential for them to grow?

What is offensive to many here is the argument being made that we obviously lack the intellect to make a decision based on anything more that superficial skin colour. </div></div>

right on brother

[Blackstar*]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="font-style: italic">What is offensive to many here is the argument being made that we obviously lack the intellect to make a decision based on anything more that superficial skin colour.</span> </div></div>No matter how many times and different ways you and R_C say it, peeps still not hearing.

[Gen]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Exactly !!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackStar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="font-style: italic">What is offensive to many here is the argument being made that we obviously lack the intellect to make a decision based on anything more that superficial skin colour.</span> </div></div>No matter how many times and different ways you and R_C say it, peeps still not hearing. </div></div>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack



With many of us in here who are saying what ever we're saying about Obama, has nothing to do with racism. This post started out as just us from the board in here, and this is where I'm coming from.
The majority of us are judging him from his works not his colour, we were here saying the samething when Bush was in. Now he's doing pretty much the same as bush not much has changed and many of you in here are defending him because of what if not his colour

The people who supported bush are Obama haters only cause he's black as he's carrying on the same foolishness so obviously that makes no sense. Wrong is wrong and right is right. It just seems like many of you are ok with supporting wrong just because he's black. I know black pride is a serious thing but I think we need fi check our pride with some of our ppl, but of course we will differ in who we are proud of and not still.
How come some of you were not defending Bush, what really has changed?

The health care system is not that great if you check it. Ppl are force to buy health care if they make over a certain amount of money. The insurance companies have so much power that Obama couldn't even give them the kind of health plan I believe he wanted to. So in a sense ppl are getting screwed unless they make below a certain wage and are poor enough fi get it supplemented. [/quote]


Emperah_dehyah,

There are a great many people who do not see that Obama is not different enough from a Bush or a Clinton to make much of a change in long term foreign and domestic policies.

Those people vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils just as people have always done, just as Jamaicans swap PNP for JLP and vice versa periodically to no avail.

RichD talks about these incremental changes becoming something bigger as if that is how things happen.

There is a general reluctance to accept the hard truth about just how corrupted the electoral politics have become and they have adopted a fantasy in which the U.S./Jamaica actually have systems that respond to what the voters want.


Obama supporters are under the illusion that he is doing as much as he can when the reality is that he is doing as little as he has to.

The question never asked is why would Obama be any different from any other candidate whom the elites of the two twin parties would give us to vote for?

Why would either party put up a candidate who would change things when the two parties thrive under the status quo.


The level of political understanding, democracy, electoral systems I see in Obama supporters is of the high school civics level with little of the cynicism and the questioning of authority that any informed and sensible person would have in such an obviously corrupted system.

[Cultcha]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Sorry to re-visit this thread but if President Obama is not directly responsible for the death of these folks then who is?

Serious question

<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">NATO acknowledges airstrike went astray in Tripoli</span></span></span>


<span style="font-style: italic">Libyans inspect the rubble of a house, which was damaged by coalition air strikes according to the Libyan government, in Tripoli June 19, 2011.</span>

TRIPOLI, LIBYA—<span style="font-weight: bold">Libya’s government said NATO warplanes struck a residential neighbourhood in the capital Sunday and killed nine civilians, including two children. Hours later, NATO confirmed one of its airstrikes went astray.</span>

The incident gave supporters of Moammar Gadhafi’s regime a new rallying point against the international intervention in Libya’s civil war. The foreign minister called for a “global jihad” on the West in response.

Early Sunday morning, journalists based in the Libyan capital were rushed by government officials to the damaged building, which appeared to have been partly under construction. Reporters were later escorted back to the site, where children’s toys, teacups and dust-covered mattresses could be seen amid the rubble.

In a statement issued late Sunday at Brussels headquarters, the trans-Atlantic alliance said airstrikes were launched against a military missile site in Tripoli, but “it appears that one weapon did not strike the intended target and that there may have been a weapons system failure which may have caused a number of civilian casualties.”

<span style="font-weight: bold">“NATO regrets the loss of innocent civilian lives and takes great care in conducting strikes against a regime determined to use violence against its own citizens,” said Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of the anti-Libya operation.</span>

Foreign Minister Abdul-Ati al-Obeidi told reporters nine civilians, including two children, were killed in the explosion and said 18 people were wounded. He said the strike was a “deliberate attack on a civilian neighbourhood,” and follows other alleged targeting of non-military targets such as a hotel, an oxygen factory and civilian vehicles.

It has not always been possible to independently verify the government’s reports of strikes on non-military targets since NATO began its air operations in March.

“The deliberate bombing ... is a direct call for all free peoples of the world and for all Muslims to initiate a global jihad against the oppressive, criminal West and never to allow such criminal organizations as NATO to decide the future of other independent and sovereign nations,” al-Obeidi said. He did not take questions.

Journalists were shown the bodies of at least four people said to have been killed in the strike, including the two young children. Foreign reporters in Tripoli are not allowed to travel and report freely and are almost always shadowed by government minders.

Salem Ali Garadi, 51, who said his brother and sister were among the victims, said five people were killed. There was no explanation for the discrepancy in death counts.

Before Sunday’s alleged strike, Libya’s Health Ministry said 856 civilians had been killed in NATO air attacks since they began in March. The figure could not be independently confirmed. Previous government tolls from individual strikes have proved exaggerated.

Alliance warplanes struck Tripoli again Sunday afternoon. Explosions could be heard in the city, and smoke could be seen rising over the southern part of the capital.

A coalition including France, Britain and the U.S. launched the first strikes against Gadhafi’s forces under a U.N. resolution to protect civilians on March 19. NATO, joined by some Arab allies, assumed control of the air campaign over Libya on March 31.

While NATO warplanes have stepped up their campaign against Gadhafi’s regime over the past week, fighting has intensified between rebels and government troops outside the port city of Misrata, the main rebel stronghold in western Libya.

For weeks, the rebels had been bottled up in the city, 125 miles (200 kilometres) east of Tripoli. The eastern third of the country is controlled by rebels from their de facto capital, Benghazi.

On Sunday, Gadhafi’s forces unleashed a heavy barrage of Grad rockets and mortars on the rebel front lines in Dafniya, about 15 miles (25 kilometres) west of Misrata. A medical official in Misrata hospital said that 10 rebels were killed and 54 wounded in clashes Sunday in Dafniya.

As the barrage continued into the afternoon, a stream of pickup trucks rushed casualties to a field hospital in Dafniya, where medics and volunteers quickly unloaded the dead from the back of the pickups and placed the wounded on stretchers. One truck pulled up with three bodies covered in blood.

“They are shelling us really badly today with everything — mortars, Grads, heat-seeking weapons, anything you can imagine,” said Mustafa, 30, who was helping drive the wounded from the front.

Gadhafi’s forces also ambushed a group of rebels near Dafniya early Sunday with AK-47s and heavy machine-guns, according to rebel fighter Mohammed Khalil. He said the fighting was intense, with the two sides as close as 50 yards (meters) from each other. Five rebels were killed in the ambush, he said.

The two sides have also been fighting in a mountain range southwest of the capital that runs to the border with Tunisia and controls a critical supply route for the rebels.

Three days of fighting there in the border town of Nalut has killed 15 people and injured many others, said Brigadier Gomaa Ibrahim, a spokesman for the rebel military council in the Nafusa Mountains.

“The Gadhafi forces outnumber the rebels and they are better armed and equipped,” he said. Gadhafi forces are also taking shelter inside the residential suburbs of Nalut, making it hard for rebels to chase and hunt them down, he said.

Despite daily clashes in places, the rebels say they control about half of the mountain range.

In new defections from Gadhafi’s military, 35 army officers led by Brig. Gen. Fouad al-Adrisi announced in a video message that they had joined the rebel ranks. The video was posted on a Facebook page for the uprising.

[Cultcha]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">NATO regrets the loss of innocent civilian lives and takes great care in conducting strikes against a regime determined to use violence against its own citizens,” said Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of the anti-Libya operation.</span>
</div></div>

Whatever!

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">NATO regrets the loss of innocent civilian lives and takes great care in conducting strikes against a regime determined to use violence against its own citizens,” said Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of the anti-Libya operation.</span>
</div></div>

Whatever!

</div></div>


Thank You Kotch_Foot_Milo,

During the Clinton years the United States enforced an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 (that's half a million ) children there; children who would not otherwise have dies.

Madeline Albright (sp?) then Secretary of State when asked later about these deaths deliberately caused by the United States said: &quot;It was worth it&quot;.

Clinton was even more a progressive than is Obama so what makes anyone think that Obama doesn't know what he is ordering?


I will now wait for the usual bunch to come back with the usual and incredible ; &quot;He is being forced to do these things but really doesn't want to. He's a moral person. He's a good person. He didn't know that he would have to do these things when he was running for president&quot;

WWMXSAT?

(What would Malcolm X say about them?)

[diabolical_Tanya]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">NATO NATO acknowledges airstrike went astray in Tripoli</span>
</div></div>

Whatever!

</div></div>Is Obama the leader and dictator of NATO?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: diabolical_Tanya</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">NATO NATO acknowledges airstrike went astray in Tripoli</span>
</div></div>

Whatever!

</div></div>Is Obama the leader and dictator of NATO?

</div></div>


The United States IS the leader of NATO and is financing most of the war on Libya.

NATO would not exist were it not for the United States.

If the United States were not involved, no other nation would likely get involved.

If the United States were AGAINST what is going on in Libya, no other nation would DARE do what they are doing.

[Cultcha]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: diabolical_Tanya</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">NATO NATO acknowledges airstrike went astray in Tripoli</span>
</div></div>

Whatever!

</div></div>Is Obama the leader and dictator of NATO?

</div></div>

Regarding the NATO war against Libya. The United States BY FAR has the most personel and BY A HUGE amount has the most weaponry. Actually, compared to the #2 contributor, the United Kingdom, the numbers are not even close at all.

Make no mistake, this is a U.S operation with other countries along for the ride.



Link