obama: what a joke

[BgMc31]

To be fair, he did note that his grandmother was a "typical white person" who was prejudiced against blacks. Apparently, to him, we're all the same.

And according to your previous posts we are all the same...

[BgMc31]

Ron Paul was never a viable candidate. Some of his ideas, while good, were so far fetched, could never really be achieved, that is why he is irrelevant. So you Ron Paul swingers can go on and on about his ideas and his radical changes but lets face the facts, he has no chance of ever being president and never did!

The problem many of you (except godfather) is you guys resort to personal attacks on Obama and Hillary and their supporters. There is no reason for that. And that is exactly how the republicans want it. Keep everyone distracted from the real issues.

Someone talked about illegal immigrants and Obama's position: For all those who want to kick them all out the country, how do we round up 12 million people. Someone please give me a viable way to devote law enforcement resources to this w/o raising taxes (something you republicans are so against). Stop being hypocrits. The only way to solve the immigrant problem is to step up border security now and find a way to assimilate those who are already here. Their is no way to kick them all out. Its just not possible.

[BgMc31]

Hm... Obama supports banning the sale and transfer of all semi-automatic firearms... and a ban on handguns? Obviously not a supporter of self defense, and we all know how well handgun bans work, look at Washington DC and Chicago, no handguns there! Works about as well as the illegal drug ban that the entire country is under.

Wants to leave illegal immigrants in the U.S.... screw that, send 'em back. Also supports giving drivers licenses to people who are here illegally.

Voted in favor of the Patriot Act... which throws our civil liberties out the window. Allows the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order, granted the ability for the government to detain and deport ANY immigrant, even if they're legal, for any reason.

But yeah, he's a good candidate. Cares more about the rights of illegal immigrants than sustaining the rights of U.S. citizens. Not really sure why anyone would want the government to take away any more rights such as the right to privacy, the right to self defense, the fourth amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), etc.

in reference to the drivers license for illegals, you have obama confused with Hillary. Do some research before making false statements.

[BgMc31]

where do him and hillary disagree? from what ive seen they are pretty much identical on every issue, obama just puts more sugar on top.

one major difference is on universal healthcare. Obama wants to make it 'available' to everyone while Hillary wants to force everyone to have it going so far as to garnish people's wages if they don't do it voluntarily.

One more thing. Who do you Ron Paul supporters plan on supporting this fall, John McCain? Why? Everyone says Obama only talks about platitudes like hope nd change. Doesn't McCain do the same? The man has no economic policy or experience and all he talks about are platitudes like duty and honor and victory w/o any substance.

[SMCengineer]

Ron Paul was never a viable candidate. Some of his ideas, while good, were so far fetched, could never really be achieved, that is why he is irrelevant.

Cite an example please. I see no reason why following the constitution is far fetched.

So you Ron Paul swingers can go on and on about his ideas and his radical changes but lets face the facts, he has no chance of ever being president and never did!

Of course, he has no chance of being president because when he talks about change he means it. That scares people who are interested in preserving the status quo and, yes, both democrats and republicans like the status quo.

The problem many of you (except godfather) is you guys resort to personal attacks on Obama and Hillary and their supporters. There is no reason for that. And that is exactly how the republicans want it. Keep everyone distracted from the real issues.

Um...quote me where I've made a personal attack please. Keeping everyone distracted from the real issues is not solely a republican trait. It's both republicans and democrats who do that. Is there even a difference between the two?

Someone talked about illegal immigrants and Obama's position: For all those who want to kick them all out the country, how do we round up 12 million people. Someone please give me a viable way to devote law enforcement resources to this w/o raising taxes (something you republicans are so against). Stop being hypocrits. The only way to solve the immigrant problem is to step up border security now and find a way to assimilate those who are already here. Their is no way to kick them all out. Its just not possible.

Of course rounding up 12 million people is ridiculous. Not to mention, our country was founded by immigrants. However, the problem arises when immigrants come here to take advantage of our welfare system and do so without contributing to society in anyway. You asked for an example of a way to devote more law enforcement to borders, well how about we take our border patrol agents off the border of Iraq and put them here where they belong. Let's not forget that the southern and northern borders aren't our only concern when it comes to illegal immigration it's also those overstay they're welcomes with expired visa's.

[lotaquestions]

When has he identified himself as being just black? And what black party are you referring to that he is a member of?

i mean the democratic, wich is geared more toward the black race. before you butcher me on this, yes i know that there are alot of white dem supporters, my point is that every thing he does seems to be geared toward his black half and for a man who is claiming to be able to reach out to people on the other side of the "isle" i havnt seen him do anything to reach out to the white race or to the republican side. i would love for some examples, if you have any of how he has united any thing. the man is running for highest position in the world and he shows up with a paper thin resume and viturally no experience, offering the vageist solutions to every thing and he is getting away with it. i wouldnt have such a problem with him if he would put his time in, pass a bill (that betters or nation) and wait 5 years and then run.

we all know that elections are won based solely on sterotypes and as long as every single american has the right to vote, will continue to be:

[AandF6969]

in reference to the drivers license for illegals, you have obama confused with Hillary. Do some research before making false statements.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNH1UL57Q.DTL

http://www.issues2000.org/Internatio...mmigration.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ma#Immigration

Do some research before making false statements about true statements.

[BgMc31]

Cite an example please. I see no reason why following the constitution is far fetched.


Of course, he has no chance of being president because when he talks about change he means it. That scares people who are interested in preserving the status quo and, yes, both democrats and republicans like the status quo.

Um...quote me where I've made a personal attack please. Keeping everyone distracted from the real issues is not solely a republican trait. It's both republicans and democrats who do that. Is there even a difference between the two?


Of course rounding up 12 million people is ridiculous. Not to mention, our country was founded by immigrants. However, the problem arises when immigrants come here to take advantage of our welfare system and do so without contributing to society in anyway. You asked for an example of a way to devote more law enforcement to borders, well how about we take our border patrol agents off the border of Iraq and put them here where they belong. Let's not forget that the southern and northern borders aren't our only concern when it comes to illegal immigration it's also those overstay they're welcomes with expired visa's.

I never said following the constitution is far fetched, but IMO the constitution is a fluid document, open to interpretation. You may disagree, but that is the way I see it because that is the way our leaders have used. They've interpreted to further their own ideas and Ron Paul is no different.

On illegal immigration, obviousy we are in somewhat of agreement but are you calling our military border patrol agents? If so that is not the purpose of our military. Again that's my opinion. I'm all for putting the national guard on the borders but once you put our military on the border, it looks like a sign of aggression and will be percieved that way by the international community. And with our international reputation already sullied by the current republican administration, we need not dig ourselves into a deeper hole.

[AandF6969]

Obviously rounding up 12 million people isn't feasible but there should be a system in place so when these illegals get popped for speeding, burglary, jaywalking, whatever, they get put on a truck and sent back.

[BgMc31]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNH1UL57Q.DTL

http://www.issues2000.org/Internatio...mmigration.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ma#Immigration

Do some research before making false statements about true statements.

I stand corrected.

[BgMc31]

i mean the democratic, wich is geared more toward the black race. before you butcher me on this, yes i know that there are alot of white dem supporters, my point is that every thing he does seems to be geared toward his black half and for a man who is claiming to be able to reach out to people on the other side of the "isle" i havnt seen him do anything to reach out to the white race or to the republican side. i would love for some examples, if you have any of how he has united any thing. the man is running for highest position in the world and he shows up with a paper thin resume and viturally no experience, offering the vageist solutions to every thing and he is getting away with it. i wouldnt have such a problem with him if he would put his time in, pass a bill (that betters or nation) and wait 5 years and then run.

we all know that elections are won based solely on sterotypes and as long as every single american has the right to vote, will continue to be:

That Democratic party isn't geared toward the black vote. There are many more white dems than black. Dems cater to all minorities and women moreso than the republican party which has time and time again geared itself largely towards white men.

Please site examples that everything he's done hs been for his 'black' side. And what's wrong with someone doing things for their community. White politicians cater to their constiuents (white people) so what's wrong with a black man doing the same for his?

Two of our most popular presidents had very little experience (JFK and Lincoln) and they did pretty well for themselves. Some of us are tired of the experience argument because the experience cats have ruined this country. Its time for something new.

[AandF6969]

Its time for something new.

Let's see how many rights we can revoke from the American people and how much better off the country will be...

Oh, and the assholes that actually make something of themselves and acquire a decent income? Take it!! Give it to crackheads!

[Act of God]

Someone talked about illegal immigrants and Obama's position: For all those who want to kick them all out the country, how do we round up 12 million people. Someone please give me a viable way to devote law enforcement resources to this w/o raising taxes (something you republicans are so against). Stop being hypocrits. The only way to solve the immigrant problem is to step up border security now and find a way to assimilate those who are already here. Their is no way to kick them all out. Its just not possible.

Absolutely inane to try to round up 12 million people, I agree. What you do is secure the borders now to prevent more from coming over and then you take away their incentive to be here like Arizona did. Stop the handouts and they will go away on their own.

Immigrants are more than welcome to come join the party, but you need to wait in line like everyone else.

[BgMc31]

http://factbeat.com/get_story.php?id=263

For all those who say he hasn't done anything bi-partisan or anything else for that matter while in the Senate.

[SMCengineer]

I never said following the constitution is far fetched, but IMO the constitution is a fluid document, open to interpretation. You may disagree, but that is the way I see it because that is the way our leaders have used. They've interpreted to further their own ideas and Ron Paul is no different.

It's not that I disagree with you. It's that your wrong. The constitution was not written as a fluid document and when it's perceived as such is when we see violations and encroachments of our rights. Case in point, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and George W. Bush. All believed the constitution was/is a "living document" that could be "interpreted." These were also some of the worst presidents.

The tenth amendement specifically states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to people." These powers are few and defined.

On illegal immigration, obviousy we are in somewhat of agreement but are you calling our military border patrol agents? If so that is not the purpose of our military. Again that's my opinion. I'm all for putting the national guard on the borders but once you put our military on the border, it looks like a sign of aggression and will be percieved that way by the international community. And with our international reputation already sullied by the current republican administration, we need not dig ourselves into a deeper hole.

No, I'm saying that the top border patrol agents who were taken to Iraq to train agents there and to protect their borders need to be taken back here to protect our borders. They are not militarty personnel.

[BgMc31]

Let's see how many rights we can revoke from the American people and how much better off the country will be...

Oh, and the assholes that actually make something of themselves and acquire a decent income? Take it!! Give it to crackheads!

Being a bit overly dramatic aren't we? No one is suggesting supporting crackheads. But whether you like it or not, there is a certain level of social responsibility we do have.

[Pooks]

Being a bit overly dramatic aren't we? No one is suggesting supporting crackheads. But whether you like it or not, there is a certain level of social responsibility we do have.

No.. take care of yourself, I'll take care of myself.

[Carlos_E]

Hm... Obama supports banning the sale and transfer of all semi-automatic firearms... and a ban on handguns? Obviously not a supporter of self defense, and we all know how well handgun bans work, look at Washington DC and Chicago, no handguns there! Works about as well as the illegal drug ban that the entire country is under.

Wants to leave illegal immigrants in the U.S.... screw that, send 'em back. Also supports giving drivers licenses to people who are here illegally.

Voted in favor of the Patriot Act... which throws our civil liberties out the window. Allows the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order, granted the ability for the government to detain and deport ANY immigrant, even if they're legal, for any reason.

But yeah, he's a good candidate. Cares more about the rights of illegal immigrants than sustaining the rights of U.S. citizens. Not really sure why anyone would want the government to take away any more rights such as the right to privacy, the right to self defense, the fourth amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), etc.

The only difference between Obama and McCain on the above issues is his view of weapons. So I guess you're no voting for McCain either.

That Ron Paul is irrelevant is not something that you should boast about when what the public and the msm consider relevant is whether or not Obama's preacher is racist, or whether or not Obama's speech "transended" racial boundaries. It's fvcking disgusting all the trivial garbage that we focus on when, in reality, we have mounting problems that I've never heard Obama or the other two candidates even mention. This whole process is about name recognition and celebrity status. So yeah, Ron Paul being irrelevant should give you an uneasy sense of where this country is and what we're concerned with. When "feel good" rhetoric and promises to make everything better is what's "relevant" than, yes, Ron Paul is irrelevant.

You forget about Ron Paul's racist news letters printed under his name with his name as the by line. So if you want to debate who is racist, more evidence points toward Ron Paul than Obama who's pastor holds views he does not agree with.

[alphaman]

Wow. I gotta come here more often.

I've got a couple things...

One... The numbers originally posted about Obama's giving were off, but let's be honest about it. He sure hasn't lived up to his ideology. He could have given much, much more. Especially considering what he wants to take from us and give to foreigners.

Two... The second amendment is in place so that if necessary, the American people can overthrow a tyranical government. Deeming any weapon illegal does nothing but take them out of the hands of the good guys... the bad guys will still have them.

Three... The constitution is not meant to be open to interpratation.... it was left open to be amended... but what is written, has been written. The statement that Ron Paul will never be elected because he has "outlandish" ideas is sad. Anyone who dismisses Ron Paul because they don't believe real CHANGE can take place should be ashamed of themselves. The fact that the United States exists is a testament that miraculous things can happen in this world when people have undying effort and faith. And for that matter.... should an Obama supporter ever say they don't believe in CHANGE?

So... the promise of CHANGE only sounds cool if it's empty? I don't get it.

[Act of God]

I guess you forget about Ron Paul's racist news letters printed under his name with his name as the by line. So if you want to debate who is racist, more evidence points toward Ron Paul than Obama who's pastor holds views he does not agree with.

Not even close Carlos. Ron Paul left that publication and had nothing to do with it in any way when those idiotic things were published. He didn't edit, oversee or manage that publication at that time. He merely allowed them (thinking he could trust them) to keep the name of the already established publication. Additionally, nice slant on calling it "Ron Paul's racist new letters" as if he had any ownership or control of them. We already know, as a fact, he did not. Additionally, unlike your Obama, he completely denounced what was written and the people who wrote it.

Obama's case is different, because he actively went to this church while this lunatic was spouting intolerance and vengeance. Obama then resorted to half truths along the lines of "I never heard him say anything like that personally" and then in his big speech said something like "Yes I heard those things, but I dont' agree with them". The reverend himself, before all this went down, was on record saying that he AND Obama discussed the potential strife this might caused by their relationship and they agreed Obama might have to distance himself from the reverend for political reasons.

So wait, he never heard anything right? If that is true, why would he have discussed distancing himself from the guy before this all went down? Oh yeah, he lied.

They (politicians) are all double speaking, two-faced, liars. Obama is no different.

[SMCengineer]

I guess you forget about Ron Paul's racist news letters printed under his name with his name as the by line. So if you want to debate who is racist, more evidence points toward Ron Paul than Obama who's pastor holds views he does not agree with.

I guess you forgot to read the post. What I said is that I find it abhorrent that we even discuss who might be rascist or what someones pastor says when our country faces real problems.

Or more specifically:

It's fvcking disgusting all the trivial garbage that we focus on when, in reality, we have mounting problems that I've never heard Obama or the other two candidates even mention.

Please read the post more carefully.

[thegodfather]

The Constitution is not a 'living document.' Additionally, you people have it seriously twisted if you believe that the government GIVES YOU RIGHTS. IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT! The Consitution is written so that government is RESTRAINED from violating your rights, therefore ENSURING your rights. It is impossible for the government to give you any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, because they are inalienable, YOU ARE BORN WITH THEM!! That is why on the Declaration of Independence it says "we hold these truths to be self evident, that people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."

Moving on in regards to Ron Paul and his policies. Many of his ideas/policies were once ALREADY IN PLACE in this country, and they were later done away with by self-interested parties. To suggest otherwise is foolish and points to a lack of understanding of the country's history. The Gold standard, we had that until the 1970s, and now we've seen what has happened to the dollar. We didn't have a central bank (Fed Reserve) until 1913, thats more than HALF of the country's history, and we did quite well without them. The Fed has been responsible for the boom&bust cycles over the passed hundred years. Anyway, this is not about Ron Paul, so I'm only touching this point briefly.

ANYWAY...with regards to illegal immigration. The saying is "when you subsidize something you get more of it." So we subsudize the lifestyle of the illegal immigrant, give them free schooling, healthcare, and housing. What do get? MORE OF THEM. We end their incentive to be in our country, and there is no longer a need to build a giant wall. The liberal would have you believe it is racist, or inhuman, to deny people entry into this country. What a crock of bleeding heart propagandized bullshit.

Second point, with regards to handguns, assault r***es, and the 2nd Amendment in general. Sorry guys, none of you have a foot to stand on when trying to argue AGAINST handguns or conceal&carry. Obama suggests Federal ban on conceal&carry(which the Federal government does not have the power to do, please see the Constitution for details). He does this despite A MOUNTAIN of statistics showing that it makes the people SAFER if they armed and are able to conceal weapons on their persons. So it makes me wonder if his intentions are to make the people safer, or to make government safer from the people.

You guys can argue the stupid little policies all day. When you take Obama's voting record and his stance on the issues into consideration, it becomes clear that his entire platform is in direct contraindictation to the Constitution of the United States, like most of the other candidates running for President.

The Constitution is the Bible of the United States. If it is not written in there, YOU CANT FU*KING DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus christ, its not that hard of a fu*king concept to grasp. Yet you guys will vote for candidates that want to wipe their ass with the most important document in our nations history, and support the people who support trying to strip your INALIENABLE rights.

[Carlos_E]

I guess you forgot to read the post. What I said is that I find it abhorrent that we even discuss who might be rascist or what someones pastor says when our country faces real problems.

I agree.

[Carlos_E]

Not even close Carlos. Ron Paul left that publication and had nothing to do with it in any way when those idiotic things were published. He didn't edit, oversee or manage that publication at that time. He merely allowed them (thinking he could trust them) to keep the name of the already established publication. Additionally, nice slant on calling it "Ron Paul's racist new letters" as if he had any ownership or control of them. We already know, as a fact, he did not. Additionally, unlike your Obama, he completely denounced what was written and the people who wrote it.

Then it shows poor judgement. Why let someone print something under your name with you as the by line and not read or edit it. It shows extremely poor judgement.

[Act of God]

Then it shows poor judgement. Why let someone print something under your name with you as the by line and not read or edit it. It shows extremely poor judgement.

I disagree, but I don't think your thinking is out of line in that statement at all. Along the same lines, you surely must agree that BO is guilty of the same in the very least.

What do you think about the lying I pointed out?

[BgMc31]

It's not that I disagree with you. It's that your wrong. The constitution was not written as a fluid document and when it's perceived as such is when we see violations and encroachments of our rights. Case in point, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and George W. Bush. All believed the constitution was/is a "living document" that could be "interpretated." These were also some of the worst presidents.

The tenth amendement specifically states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the onstitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to people." These powers are few and defined.



No, I'm saying that the top border patrol agents who were taken to Iraq to train agents there and to protect their borders need to be taken back here to protect our borders. They are not militarty personnel.

You can't say definatively that I'm wrong because from its inception the document was open to interpretation. The best example was the 'All men are created equal' part. The founding fathers initial interpretation was all white land holding men. And the fact that they weren't the only ones to 'interpret' the document proves I am not wrong. But trying to debate you on this is like trying to debate a fundamentalist christian about the bible and whether or not its open to interpretation. I assume you would be classified as a constitutional fundamentalist correct?

In reference to the border patrol agents in Iraq, where did you get that info. I'm not disputing your claim its just that is information I've never heard. And how would those agents be able to assist the Iraqis with military strategy (since Iraq borders are threatened by military force and not people wanting to come for jobs)? Isn't that best suited for our military (green berets)?

[Carlos_E]

They (politicians) are all double speaking, two-faced, liars. Obama is no different.

No one said he wasn't. But his policies fall more in line with my beliefs than McSame McCain or Billary.

As far as Obama's pastor. I'm sure you have friends that make prejudice or racist comments and you are still friends with them.

I have a friend and he says dumb prejudice statements about people. I correct him and tell him how stupid he sounds. I have distanced myself from him but I have not totally cut him off.

Just because my friend holds dumb prejudices doesn't mean I do. The same applies to Obama. You can't take his pastor's views and apply them to Obama.

[Act of God]

You can't say definatively that I'm wrong because from its inception the document was open to interpretation. The best example was the 'All men are created equal' part. The founding fathers initial interpretation was all white land holding men. And the fact that they weren't the only ones to 'interpret' the document proves I am not wrong. But trying to debate you on this is like trying to debate a fundamentalist christian about the bible and whether or not its open to interpretation. I assume you would be classified as a constitutional fundamentalist correct?

In reference to the border patrol agents in Iraq, where did you get that info. I'm not disputing your claim its just that is information I've never heard. And how would those agents be able to assist the Iraqis with military strategy (since Iraq borders are threatened by military force and not people wanting to come for jobs)? Isn't that best suited for our military (green berets)?

The constitution was referred to as a "living document" because it can be amended, need be. It wasn't called that because it was open to interpretation... hence "inalienable" rights and the clause specifically reserving all rights not expressly given to the Fed gov. to the states.

[joescobra03]

he is a joke

[Act of God]

No one said he wasn't. But his policies fall more in line with my beliefs than McSame McCain or Billary.

That's fine, as you know his policies are more or less polar opposites of what my beliefs are (freedom). What irks me, as I said before, is the "Fonzi" treatment he seems to be getting.

The same thing bugged me about Kerry in the last election when asshats like MTV and celebrities decided he was the "cool" candidate to vote for and pushed him ad nauseum upon us.

[BgMc31]

whether or not the constitution was 'supposed' to be interpreted or not is immaterial simply because from in its inception it was 'interpreted' by the framers. So its really a non-argument.

[Act of God]

whether or not the constitution was 'supposed' to be interpreted or not is immaterial simply because from in its inception it was 'interpreted' by the framers. So its really a non-argument.

lol nice backtrack, don't you hate it when "facts" get in the way of your ideas?

[BgMc31]

lol nice backtrack, don't you hate it when "facts" get in the way of your ideas?

When did I backtrack? Seems to me you don't read very well. I've held strong to my stance that the constitution has been interpreted whether it was meant to be or not. So no backtracking here. Try again!

[Act of God]

When did I backtrack? Seems to me you don't read very well. I've held strong to my stance that the constitution has been interpreted whether it was meant to be or not. So no backtracking here. Try again!

You said that from inception the document was open to interpretation. This is not true. It wasn't until modern times that the courts/politicians have been semi-successful at bastardizing it since the masses are clueless these days.

As for slavery, uhhhh...they actually had to amend the constitution to address it. Regardless, if anything the definition of "men" is what changed (not the interpretation of the actual document).

Whatever, I'm not wasting my time arguing semantics with you.

[thegodfather]

Supreme court decisions are what perpetuated slavery. These decisions led to black people being covered under 'property rights' and not as people. The framers made sure not to put anything in the Constitution about slavery.

[Act of God]

Supreme court decisions are what perpetuated slavery. These decisions led to black people being covered under 'property rights' and not as people. The framers made sure not to put anything in the Constitution about slavery.

Right, but we added 13 and 14 as a result. We didn't just interpret it differently. You are right, though, as I said...the definition of "men" was changed as blacks went from property to people.

[zartan]

Your point being?

My point being Obama's wife is an angry racist who 'will always try present and future to help the Black Community, first and foremost' and who hasn't been proud of her country until her husband started doing well in the polls. This is someone who's lead a life of luxury, attending the best schools, etc etc. And god knows she not afraid of her husband running for president, because he can be shot just going to the gas station as a black man.

Clearly a woman seeing life through the prism of race/color.

All that being said, I've come to realize we don't have much of a choice at this point, basically we have to pick the candidate we hate the least which might be Obama by a nut hair over Hiltlery.

[lotaquestions]

does any one but me think that raising the capital gain tax is insane? i like the way he consulted mr. buffett to see if he minded, since he already said that he wants to die broke.

[BgMc31]

My point being Obama's wife is an angry racist who 'will always try present and future to help the Black Community, first and foremost' and who hasn't been proud of her country until her husband started doing well in the polls. This is someone who's lead a life of luxury, attending the best schools, etc etc. And god knows she not afraid of her husband running for president, because he can be shot just going to the gas station as a black man.

Clearly a woman seeing life through the prism of race/color.

All that being said, I've come to realize we don't have much of a choice at this point, basically we have to pick the candidate we hate the least which might be Obama by a nut hair over Hiltlery.

Please post any racists comment made by Mrs. Obama.

[lotaquestions]

bgmc carlosE godfather act of god blome:thanks guys for helping me get some research done, keep it coming