Gwaan choo barack

**remo** · 05-31-2011, 03:32 PM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R_C</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hitchens "made a mistake" and was "wrong" when he voted for Obama.

Black people were "stupid" and "ignorant" when they did.

Interesting... </div></div>

But,Don't call it racism

**Gen** · 05-31-2011, 03:38 PM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Because then you would be considered intelligent and yuh wouldn't over yah a get classify as claffy

<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: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The "opinions" to be found at ZNET have more intellectual content and fact than does the entirety of the corporate media.

If you were to rely solely on ZNET for your information on U.S. foreign policy, you'd be considered really well informed.

Were you to rely 99% of the time on the corporate media for your information on U.S foreign policy and the media, you'd be what the American people are today and that is woefully, criminally ignorant of what their president and their Congress is doing to the world.

Lastly,

Your questions seems to indicate that YOU think that the opinions of the right and those of the left cancel each other out leaving the "sensible" middle when this is one of the biggest fallacies in liberal non-thinking there is .

Take almost any major foreign policy decision and there is always a question of morality that is very clearly black or white.

Most people go along with the immoral stuff.

No one on the left does.

I know you and others would like the right and left to both be wrong and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle but this is rarely so no matter how cute the argument to justify the immorality.

The only way to see that it is the left media that are more accurate is to read them and very few people are willing to do that. </div></div>

So if i read CNN only i would surmise that US foreign policy is to intervene where it has an interest..be it financial or political

how is that any different that the i would have arrived at from reading Znet? </div></div>

**johnnycakes** · 05-31-2011, 05:15 PM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R_C</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hitchens "made a mistake" and was "wrong" when he voted for Obama.

Black people were "stupid" and "ignorant" when they did.

Interesting... </div></div>

Hitchens is as stupid as anyone else who would vote for the lesser of two evils. Whether he voted for him out of ignorance, I cannot say as he is generally not an uninformed person as so many people are.

You cannot compare the black electorate with Christopher Hitchens.
You cannot compare the white electorate to Christopher Hitchens.
The majority of the electorate is stupid, is ignorant.

They are stupid for voting against their own interests and ignorant for not having learned the facts that would clearly show that they are doing so.

Most people and not just most black people are guilty of that.

**Wahalla** · 06-01-2011, 03:11 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Following on from RC comments on Gitmo. there are those who will deny that ur description of the events are in accurate because it does not come from a European source....)

Yet it is all the irish mans fault....

New charges for 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba in 2006
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Guantanamo trial for 9/11 accused
Guantanamo trial for 9/11 accused
US to restart Guantanamo trials
US military prosecutors have filed new charges against self-described 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators, held at Guantanamo Bay.

The charges of murder and conspiracy could result in the death penalty.

Five defendants had previously been charged at Guantanamo over the attacks.

But the charges were set aside as the Obama administration tried to move the trial into US civilian courts; a move which was reversed in April.

The new charges are similar to those laid under President Bush's administration.

'Responsible A to Z'

The five men are charged with conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking aircraft and terrorism.

The Pentagon has said before that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted to being responsible "from A to Z" for the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, which claimed about 3,000 lives.

He was captured in Pakistan in March 2003 and sent to the US detention centre in Cuba in 2006.

US prosecutors say he has confessed to involvement in a host of terrorist activities in addition to 9/11.

Waterboarded 183 times

These include the 2002 nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl and a failed 2001 attempt to blow up an airliner using a shoe bomb.

In a 2007 hearing, Mr Mohammed alleged that he had been tortured at Guantanamo Bay. CIA documents confirmed that he had been subjected to waterboarding - simulated drowning - 183 times.

The other four accused are: Waleed bin Attash, a Yemeni; Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who allegedly helped find flight schools for the hijackers; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, accused of helping nine of the hijackers travel to the US; and Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, accused of helping set up the hijackers with money, clothes and credit cards.
<span style="color: #FF0000">
President Barack Obama's original intention was to close Guantanamo Bay, and have the five tried by federal courts on US soil.

He abandoned that plan in April, because of opposition in Congress.</span>

Instead, the five accused will be tried by a military commission, sitting at Guantanamo Bay.

**R_C** · 06-01-2011, 07:42 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Wahalla, thanks for noting that my post to jc addressed his assertion that Obama could close Guantanamo simply by saying so and that he never wanted to in the first place. In his haste to call me "stupid" he responded by completely sidestepping what I said about Gitmo and placed words in my mouth in regards to Obama's waging war. I'm used to this kind of intellectual dishonesty in jc's posts however so left it alone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the notion that the president could not get out of his numerous wars because congress wou ldn't approve? REAL stupid. The presidents go to war without feeling the need for Congressional approval. They can also stop the wars without Congressional approval.Stop making excuses for the black guy.</div></div>

Here is what actually transpired:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And it is as simple as Obama doing what he's already doing by waging war in violation of the law, just come out and say 'We're pulling out of Guantanamo immediately." .....Obama does not WANT to do it.He never did</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R_C</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First of all, are you genuinely unaware of the facts or are you deliberately trying to misstate them.? Do you plan, for example, to admit that Obama did in fact sign an order in January of 2009, 2 days after his inauguration as president instructing the Secretary of Defense to halt the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission and then an executive order to shut down the facility by the end of the year? Or acknowledge that he in fact had already identified a facility in his home state of Illinois when he did so to which the prisoners were to be relocated ? And that the Senate voted to block funding for the transfer in May of that year? And that he then issued another order for the closure of Guantanamo in December of 2009 and that in January of 2010 the Guantanamo Review Task Force agreed with him and recommended transfer of the prisoners either back to their homeland or to Illinois ? And that it was a Republican controlled Congress that effectively nullified Obama’s plans by including provisions in the Defense Authorization Bill (that funds the ongoing operations of the Defense Department) that blocked transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo ?</div></div>

**Wahalla** · 06-01-2011, 09:06 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

I dont agree with u always. I dont think u expect me to either. but I do not accept the rudeness that is implied in calling any one who disagrees with an<span style="color: #FF0000"> opnion</span> as stupid.

Neither do I accept that the majority of Yankis are stupid as implied.

I have been insulted repeatedly with similar words on here as u were and more irulantly I dont forgive, nor do I forget.. I chose to ignore, after all I accept that there are rascist, I just avoid contact with rascists..

I only read ur posts, which I think was reasoned, logical and clear, so I took no note of the insults.

My opinion is that of all the world leaders Barak O'bama an Irish american is best leader at the moment. He is not perfect. Like it or not look at his record....compare it to other leaders.

Who has done a better job ? Sarkosy ???? Cameron, Medelev, Zuma ????

There is a diference as u pointed out. POTUS is limited by congress.. He is not Gaddaffi or Raul.. He cannot conince Congress to grant power of dictatorship like Chavez in Venezuela...

There are some very dangerous people in GITMO... There were alot of innocents as well.. and Gitmo is against the Blackstonian principle of better 100 murders to go free than innocent dies.

Gitmo was created out of fear. Those yankis who on the 12th of september ten year ago saying that they were not afraid were delusional. And it was led by the POTUS, and all the great and the good...That normalisation of fear led to the rationalistion of Gitmo.

GWB was scared, that image of him at the school was of a man afraid unclear of his options.. paralized.. unsure what to do...out of fear.

For me unlike many was in Tripoli at the time. I was a meeting in Al Fatah Towers and Dhat Al Imad towers. I expected the yanki to bomb, Libya... But hell I have been throughj bombing, land mines machine guns and death before and since in Africa. Added to which my family and I stayed in a compound that was run and guarded by Libyan state security where one or more than the Gman sons maintained multiple residents...I was more than just concerned.

Gitmo exists. The irish man has to solve it... My opnion is that it is ananthema to him as it is to me. In Tripoli as else where I heard men being tortured and the high pitch scream from men under pain is shears the soul.. This is not the scream of a man hurt.. it is different.. Nor is the scream of a woman giving birth without anesthetic.. To me torture is not a theory.. it is etched on my soul.

He cannot open the prison and let these people out. They cannot be tried under civilian court as the information that they would be inadmissible. The US does not have the option of the UK or Europe where the inteligence serices can give evidence without being identified.. Nor can they bring to US courts the informers in hoods as many were arrested by the words of such men.

Obama like every leader has to temper principle against pragmatism.... just like the rest of us.. none of us would use mobile phones, or use petroleum products out of principle... But we all do. the same idea applies.

No one offers an alterntive to shut it down on Gitmo.... The use of a military tribunal is an option.. But htey should open it up to live broadcast... or international courts...

<span style="color: #FF0000">Dont listen to me though, I lack legal expertise and I am melanin containing Jamaican equavalent of a Native American.. And yankis tell me I am stupid.. Black men tell me I am a sell out...</span>

(Though I have been told by Africans I am very smart, and Raul Castro did institute my advocated reforms !)

Unlike many leaders he has a functioning judicary, two legistletures, a press that can call him to brook.. (as for those who dont think the us has an active press, they should hae lived in Egypt, libya, Saudi, France and compare their presses).

I make no bones.. I thought Mcain wouyld have made a better POTUS till he chose that lady as his runniung mate. I thought Barry the Irish man would have made the fundamental mistakes of Manley, beleiving his own propoganda.... I think as a leader he has done better than expected.

He has faced 2 active wars, a legal quadmire of gitmo, a enviromental disaster of unpresident proportions, calls for his intervention in Egypt, libya Bharain, Syria, Health care disaster, a national debt of mega proportions... (yep those who say there is no crisis in the US... ), a collapsing bank system, his major natural ally EU undergoing a schism, his natural rival Soviet Union long term regeneration on track, his major financer and rival china wanting him to reduce his national debt to enhance the value of their investment, insecurity in energy supply...

~All of this and more in a near perfect storm, plus the left wingers like that fellow thinks he is stupid because he otes, the right wing thinks he is less than a man.. He is married ot a strong will woman with assertive opnion, ahs two prepubsecent daughters..

I think he did well.. Better than I could....

**Wendy** · 06-01-2011, 09:28 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

OMG ..Thank you MG. I was going to respond to something Jah_yout said to which i totally disagree Look at the title of this post and the originator for example.

Jay_yout ...Neutral posted this thread to give Barack Kudos for a speech well done in front of the British Parliament and to acknowledge the significance of the historical event. Neutral by NO stretch of the imagination has BLIND LOVE for Barack He is a staunch critic of this President where he opposes him (So have I in the past pan dis forum) and look what has become of the thread because of <span style="font-weight: bold">BLIND HATE </span>for this President. He can Do NOTHING RIGHT for some. I am truly truly truly disturbed when I come in this thread because quite frankly some of the vitriol in here is quite misplaced given what Natral's post was about.

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
the debate i think is about what constitutes "blind love" for obama.

many are quick to judge others who think obama can do no wrong, but they are silent against those who think obama can do no right. both sides are extremes.

"blind love" in many cases is not that at all. obama supporters readily acknowledge he is not perfect.

but any defence of obama at all these days is dismissed as "blind love" by those who wish to give him no credit for doing a tough job against forces that GWB never faced in his own country. and yes, i mean racism.

</div></div>

**jah_yout** · 06-01-2011, 09:47 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WeNdY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OMG ..Thank you MG. I was going to respond to something Jah_yout said to which i totally disagree Look at the title of this post and the originator for example.

Jay_yout ...Neutral posted this thread to give Barack Kudos for a speech well done in front of the British Parliament and to acknowledge the significance of the historical event. Neutral by NO stretch of the imagination has BLIND LOVE for Barack He is a staunch critic of this President where he opposes him (So have I in the past pan dis forum) and look what has become of the thread because of <span style="font-weight: bold">BLIND HATE </span>for this President. He can Do NOTHING RIGHT for some. I am truly truly truly disturbed when I come in this thread because quite frankly some of the vitriol in here is quite misplaced given what Natral's post was about.

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
the debate i think is about what constitutes "blind love" for obama.

many are quick to judge others who think obama can do no wrong, but they are silent against those who think obama can do no right. both sides are extremes.

"blind love" in many cases is not that at all. obama supporters readily acknowledge he is not perfect.

but any defence of obama at all these days is dismissed as "blind love" by those who wish to give him no credit for doing a tough job against forces that GWB never faced in his own country. and yes, i mean racism.

</div></div> </div></div>

first i will always maintain criticism of politicians regardless of their skin color or 'race' because it is only through pressure that any legislation for the benefit of the people was gained...
people never gained legislation by being swooning rock fans of politicians...we are here to hold their feet to the fire to ensure they will act...
as far as 'blind love'...i have never used the term but never-the-less it is absoluteley true that some would not think of criticising president obama because of the racial dynamic & history of this nation; same way that some will never accept anything he does as good because of the racial dynamics & history of this nation...
the statement about "being silent toward those who think obama can do no right" is also not directed at myself, as i have always defended obama in terms of the right-wing attacks...as i did in the recent post about israeli p.m. netenyahu's speech to congress which i found outrageous...

i have mostly avoided this thread for the same reason you state...
it seems one can not voice dissent against obama without being attacked;
people are so weary of the irrational right-wing attacks & racist attacks aginst obama that any criticism is seen as unacceptable...

i won't get into the nawsiness about who is stupid or ignorant or who is racist...
but i maintain my right to criticize any politician...i am not a fan of politicians...i am their employer---they work for me/ the citizenry...not the other way around...so when they take up policies which i consider misguided, i will voice my opinion as i do not get swayed by color or ethnicity but by wrong & right

**jah_yout** · 06-01-2011, 09:57 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

i wonder why you keep referring to him as an irishman...
i guess you have your reasons...

will be interesting to see if he visits kenya with the same fanfare as it was in ireland...
and if you will refer to him then as 'an african'

**Wendy** · 06-01-2011, 10:01 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

You may have not used the term "Blind Love" .. but I was responding to <span style="font-style: italic">"don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of our pride of having a half-'black' president"</span>

Again .. you debate and argue that you are not swayed by color or ethnicity and that you hold your President feet to the fire. I am all for that. So do I. But while you mope about people not accepting anything negative about the President, I am arguing the point that some people (and HE know who he is) will NOT accept ANYTHING POSITIVE about the President. You don't see something scathingly wrong with that?????????

Imagine if someone had posted that the President took a bath everyday and the person rebutted with, well just because he bathes everyday, doesn't mean he is clean. He probably doesn't wash behind his ears and in his butt crack. Always freeking negative with very racist undertones. I am sick of it quite frankly

**Wahalla** · 06-01-2011, 10:04 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

The reason is that the Irish claimed him... and to twist the concept that his soley of African heritage.... He is of European and African ethnicity.... He is taken as an African American.. He could be equally be Irish american....

If he went to Kenya and they diefied him as in Ireland.. He would then be a Kenyan American... Grant me the right to have an inverted view...

**jah_yout** · 06-01-2011, 10:05 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral_browning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He,s achieved a first again for a US president,a first for a black man,he addressed BOTH houses of the british parliament,the house of parliament,and the house of commons,what a man eloquent..Baxide !

Our ancestors would have been shedding a little tear of pride, seeing him stood up there in front of all the great modern politicians of the united kingdom. </div></div>

<span style="font-style: italic">Bernie Grant met with the full force of the racism of the British press and media, but refused to compromise, even though his position as a Parliamentary candidate hung in the balance. He was however elected to Parliament in 1987, as one of the first black MP's in modern times. Famously, he entered his first State Opening of Parliament in African dress, attracting outrage in some quarters - but huge respect in others.</span>

**jah_yout** · 06-01-2011, 10:10 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WeNdY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You may have not used the term "Blind Love" .. but I was responding to <span style="font-style: italic">"don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of our pride of having a half-'black' president"</span>

Again .. you debate and argue that you are not swayed by color or ethnicity and that you hold your President feet to the fire. I am all for that. So do I. But while you mope about people not accepting anything negative about the President, I am arguing the point that some people (and HE know who he is) will NOT accept ANYTHING POSITIVE about the President. You don't see something scathingly wrong with that?????????

Imagine if someone had posted that the President took a bath everyday and the person rebutted with, well just because he bathes everyday, doesn't mean he is clean. He probably doesn't wash behind his ears and in his butt crack. Always freeking negative with very racist undertones. I am sick of it quite frankly </div></div>

yea i see your point...
as far as this: <span style="font-style: italic">don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of our pride of having a half-'black' president</span>"
i see some blacks who will simply never give obama any wrong...just as i see some whites who will simply never give him any right;
i can't join either camp, but hope to maintain a level of objectivity...

**jah_yout** · 06-01-2011, 10:13 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason is that the Irish claimed him... and to twist the concept that his soley of African heritage.... He is of European and African ethnicity.... He is taken as an African American.. He could be equally be Irish american....

If he went to Kenya and they diefied him as in Ireland.. He would then be a Kenyan American... Grant me the right to have an inverted view... </div></div>

yes, i for one will be awaiting his kenyan visit and toast

**Wendy** · 06-01-2011, 10:15 AM

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Kool... I shouldn't mek dis bodda mi soh much but Lawd, it gets to be too much.
Anyway, glad we have an understanding

Gwaan choo barack

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads