"We'll bring a gun..." -Another Example of Obama's Poor Leadership

Originally posted by XyZeR
Yet another sad misinformed thread by an Obama hater, it's his latest in a series of more then 10 anti obama threads
The last even more ridiculous as the first...

So far Obama is Muslim, Hindu, christian, Gay, Black to white people , white to black poeple
The truth: he none of the above

This is becoming quite ridiculous,and yes, I'm starting to wonder, does anyone pay you/other Obamahaters to post this BS, repetitively ?

What was this site's motto again ? Spread Ignorance ?

Thanks for promoting my threads! I didn't realize you were such a big fan!!

And thanks for providing another great example of the knee-jerk overreaction that many Obama supporters have when Barry O. isn't worshiped.

This thread isn't about hating Obama, it's about questioning his authenticity in light of his "we'll bring a gun" comment. It's very poor leadership, in my opinion, to claim that you stand for ending a "cycle of violence" and then turn around and say, "If you bring a knife I'll bring a gun."

Poor choice of metaphors. Poor leadership. Doesn't mean I hate Obama.

Honestly, it sounds like you're self-projecting.

Originally posted by Rilence
reply to post by jamie83

 

nuh-uh....

You said this would lead to an escalation of violence perpetrated by people who identify with what Obama said, which is totally un-substantiated....

Heresy...

Shame that...I just sent you a GENUINE U2U...

Maybe I was wrong ?

I really don't remember saying that this would lead to an escalation in violence perpetrated by people who identify with Obama, but if you say so, I'll take your word for it.

It's not worth arguing over.

peace

Boy jamie, you take a beaten and keep on ticking, good luck trying to reason with people,
Human Behaviour

www.youtube.com...

edit sorry

[edit on 113030p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 113030p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Pittsburgh Tribune

Obama is anti-second ammendment rights.

To some extent, i agree with you. But the "right to bare arms" doesnt necessarily apply to uzi's, glocks, AK47's, hand grenades etc. What are you going to do? Fight a war? Or kill a deer? Lets get serious here.

He also likes to talk tough - sound street tough or something stupid like that. (remember his 'warning' about discussing his wife?

)

ALL politicans do this. It only sticks out more so with Obama, because its another tactic that obama-bashers can use to smear the black-man.
"well, he said AXE you a question, instead of ASK! He cant be presidetn!!!"
Politicians cater to their audience, otherwise *spoiler alert* their audience looses interest.

I've said it here before and I'll say it again - What Obama says with all his gun statements translates to - police are evil, racist, and fascist, but individuals cannot be trusted to protect themselves, either. (yes ... paraphrased from Michelle Malkin)

Totally disagree with everyting you said here. Everyting im about to say is backed up, nonpartisan like, HERE


Questioneer: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

Obama: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.


Obama supports

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
To me - this says that Obama thinks the fed. govt. should keep its greasy fingers off decisions that should be made out of need. IE: The Bronx needs a handgun ban much more than .... Smallville, Nowhere. (just M.O.)

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007) -- if police are tyranical and racist, why would he support giving them guns?

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
How can you argue with that?

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Agreed. What good does an assault weapon do anyone? Nobody is saying you can't collect a gun that has had its firing pin removed. You just can't "collect" a gun that can shoot through body armor at 40 rounds per second.

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
I disagree with this one. Semi-automatics can still be used in a sportsmanlike way (skeet shooting, etc)

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Disagreed here too. You dont sue Ford for making a car that was used in a hit and run that resulted in a fatality.


So there's Obama's stances on Gun control.
After reading this, i'd like to see how it, if at all, changes your mind.





[edit on 6/15/2008 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


I love all this second amendment stuff the righties allways get BENT up about...


When their.. Georgie Boy.... Had military and private Mercenaries SEIZE peoples Firearms after Katrina..


So that whole used up argument... That DEMS are going to take your guns..

Is BUNK!




I am a WELL armed liberal... I have no fear of anyone coming to take them away... Be they repigs or mealymouth dems.



As is the argument that Dems are TAX and SPEND...

George Bush has put this nation into debt the history of the world has never seen.. he has borrowed more money then all previous 42 Presidencies combined..

Oh hell .. he just needs to go sit in jail with the rest of the criminals.

How's he going to bring a gun anywhere after he's banned firearms?

I'm a big-time critic of Obama, but I think this is another example of things being blown out of proportion. That's a very common saying and it's clear he's not talking about shooting anybody.

reply to post by jamie83


And there is no one else that speaks in "violent metaphors"?

the bottom line here is that there is always going to be something someone says that another human equivalent of veal somewhere else is going to cry about. I really don't see the problem. In fact I am at a loss.

I really don't find anything he's said to be inappropriate since the same metaphor is a rather common saying in America. It doesn't necessarily even mean what he said.

And I'll tell you another thing. I'd be quickly pissed if people took stabs at my wife too. That is extremely low class. But of course it's only the guy who defends his wife who catches the flak. Perhaps we are not used to a president who actually cares about his wife? (right clinton and bush?)

Now as far as his wishes to sit down with Kim Jong and Ahmedinejad, why the hell not? They are not thugs. They are leaders of other nations that we should boost relations with rather than condemn them with BS stories about how evil they are and the like. At least he has the stones to sit down with them and open dialogue. That's a first. Especially asfter all the crap this administration has put them through.

There are far more benefits to sitting down and coming to agreements with other nations than bombing them and killing their people who I DO NOT consider my enemies.

The approach we have taken in the past ten years has isolated us, made us weaker, and also left us with no allies.

And lastly, with pertinence to being a role model for young blacks...

Where has he failed there? He's a presidential candidate. He's endured tons of racial slurs, all kinds of games, threats and slander, but rather than react violently like you're trying to portray, he weathered the storm and here he is. He IS INDEED a role model.

He has my respect. I don't agree with him on everything, but that goes back to where you can't please everyone.

All I really want is someone who is going to practice what they preach, and what McCain is preaching along with those evangelical idiot friends of his, I want no part of. And I don;t care what ways he tries to twist his disastrous military record into like he's some kind of hero. He's a failure.

Based on all of that, i am far more willing to embrace the idea of Obama as our president. He seems to have a lot of the right ideas. And like I said I don't agree on everything, but I don't agree with that other Bush Clone at all.

reply to post by SavageHenry


Bush didn't take the guns away from the Katrina victims and you know it. It was New Orleans Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley "the black establishment" that took the guns away and they were found at fault in a court of law for doing it.

Here is what really happened during Katrina.
Here is another article.
Here is another chilling article

The feds gave no such order. Further the Governor of the state gave no such order. It was all a local power grab and those that started taking the guns are lucky they didn't get shot in the process. Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley and his thug gang are lucky to be alive if you ask me...

SavageHenry you are an open liar and have no credibility here and you are not to be believed. It is in fact the liberal left like you that would love to take every gun in America away but allow Obama to get away with his gun quip and not take him to task on it.

Again, you are a liar unless you can prove your statement you made about Bush and "private mercenaries" taking the guns..... If you can't prove it then anything further you say in these forums will be taken with a grain of salt.

[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]

[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]

[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]

Originally posted by rocknroll
Please tell me why this kind of talk is shocking coming from a black man?
This doesn't surprise me at all. I'm glad this idiot is showing his true colors. He's not a black man, he's an [snip]

Mod edit: removed derogatory reference.

Peace

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Dr Love]

I am not "name calling" but you have shown yourself to be an ignorant racist. What disgusting drivel. Another thread, same posters. Isn't there some skinhead forum you can post on?

[edit on 17-6-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by EverythingYouDespise


I agree but it was still a stupid blunder by Obama. We are led to believe he is this worldly scholar with wisdom beyond his age… What this really tells me is he is heavily scripted and when he shoots from the hip he blunders big time...

Or to use the analogy as I think it was intended... If McCain comes after him with a dirty bag of tricks he is going to come after him with a bigger bag... Clearly not the diplomacy skills we were led to believe Obama has or the higher moral ground he was "expected" to take in this contest...

Originally posted by Perplexed
Or to use the analogy as I think it was intended... If McCain comes after him with a dirty bag of tricks he is going to come after him with a bigger bag... Clearly not the diplomacy skills we were led to believe Obama has or the higher moral ground he was "expected" to take in this contest...

What's really more significant is that his tough talk, "we'll bring a gun" rhetoric is directed at his own fellow Americans.

Where's this tough talk when it comes to Iran? I hear him say he wants to sit down and talk with Iran. I'd feel better if he'd talk tough to our enemies instead of to the guy he's running against.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by jamie83]

This thread isn't about hating Obama, it's about questioning his authenticity in light of his "we'll bring a gun" comment. It's very poor leadership, in my opinion, to claim that you stand for ending a "cycle of violence" and then turn around and say, "If you bring a knife I'll bring a gun."

Poor choice of metaphors. Poor leadership. Doesn't mean I hate Obama.

Honestly, it sounds like you're self-projecting.

Pardon me for coming to the party in such a belated fashion.

My first issue with your proposition would be that Obama's statement "If you bring a knife, I'll bring a gun" is necessarily a poor choice of words. I would argue that's a rather subjective proposal. I may agree with you, I may not -- I might feel it was just the boisterous talk needed to "rally the troops". If I did so, my interpretation would have as much weight as yours. It therefore serves as a shaky premise for your conclusion, being that Obama has demonstrated poor leadership by saying such. So now we're left with something a little bit more specific: that in your subjective opinion, Obama's words are actually harmful to certain people. Namely, if I understand your following posts, impressionable children living with inner city crime.

So, one might clarify your proposal to state: "Because Obama uses a choice of words which I find personally distasteful and would argue send the wrong message to certain elements of our society, he is a poor leader." The problem with this clarified proposition is that you must now accept the burden of proof for demonstrating that Obama's words 'send the wrong message' in a way that has a meaningful negative impact. So let's suppose for a moment that you were able to rally a panel of psychological experts who would confirm for you that having heard Obama utilizing such rhetoric drove young inner-city children to acquire firearms and enter a life of crime. The next burden would be to demonstrate that he's done so in a way that's different from all the many cases in which well meaning and influential speakers are misinterpreted by their listeners. You would need to show that "game of telephone" is not at fault and that the responsibility lies more with the choice of words than with other factors. Suppose again that we can accept this as fact. For your criticism to have any real meaning in context you have to show that Obama's misstep in this regard would have consequences beyond those of his competitor's.

For example, you would need to show that Obama's choice of words in this case is more damaging than a POTUS who is on the record as having flippantly sang about bombing Iran. I've seen it stated earlier in this thread that such comparisons aren't fair play. I put to you that avoiding them would be somewhat like criticizing a Toyota for depending on internal combustion when the only alternative is a Honda that does the same thing.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama wants to look like a street thug. Well .. for THAT audience he does anyways.

His new pastor, Otis Moss III has a love affair with street thugs. He calls some of them ‘prophets’.

Obama changes accents and changes messages to fit the crowd he is pandering to. Black accents … white accents … street ‘lingo’

Jay-Z lyrics -
If you feelin’ like a pimp nigga, go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
Niggaz is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulders

And then there’s Jay-Z’s lyrics - ‘stab the ladies, middle finger to the law’

Obama doing the shoulder brush off and the Wall Street Journal talks about it.

“Lately I’ve been listening to a lot of Jay-Z

Obama giving Hillary the finger … and yes, he knew what he was doing.

The Los Angeles Times talks about the mischievous smile he had after he did it.

He’s a Jay-Z fan But so are his 6 and 9 year old daughters. Heck of a thing to let children that age listen to those lyrics!!
theres a lot of negitive stuff about obama sec amendment and his music. first you can still go in walmart and by a muzzle loader no back ground check just proof of age and walk right out the door.and if you dont think a muzzle loader cant be efective in combative sistuation then you dont know guns.secound his music is his way of enjoying himself,it should be said the same of gorge bush he listens to country are we to assume he has tentencys to get drunk beat on his wife and cheat on her with a man up on broke back mountain?


[edit on 6/15/2008 by FlyersFan]

Where's this tough talk when it comes to Iran? I hear him say he wants to site down and talk with Iran. I'd feel better if he'd talk tough to our enemies instead of to the guy he's running against.

Couldn't one similarly argue that this is sort of like demonstrating machismo amongst friends where a bit of a social pecking order is at stake while dealing with your belligerent rivals more conservatively so as to ensure you deal with them on your terms? And a bit more seriously, wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between "tough talk" dealing with a country whom you might actually bomb and boisterous rhetoric intended to galvanize morale in a political competition where it's understood your meaning isn't a literal one?

edit: Removed spurious instance of "in your".

[edit on 17-6-2008 by JohnnyElohim]

Oi...

I have decided to handle this in a rational manner.



DEBATE CHALLENGE

To Jamie83 or JetxNet...

Debate Challenge Page

I will be posting this in all threads related to this particular topic.



Coven

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

So, one might clarify your proposal to state: "Because Obama uses a choice of words which I find personally distasteful and would argue send the wrong message to certain elements of our society, he is a poor leader."

Here's another interesting pattern. Instead of addressing my direct statements, Obama backers need to re-word the statement into form that they can try shoot down, totally ignoring that the premise of the topic is Obama's statement, not how I phrased my argument.

For example, you would need to show that Obama's choice of words in this case is more damaging than a POTUS who is on the record as having flippantly sang about bombing Iran. I've seen it stated earlier in this thread that such comparisons aren't fair play. I put to you that avoiding them would be somewhat like criticizing a Toyota for depending on internal combustion when the only alternative is a Honda that does the same thing.

Here's a distinction:

Using a violent metaphor like "we'll bring a gun" when referring to your political opponent is different than veiled threats against foreign countries that are sworn enemies.

Maybe this will help:

"If you don't comply with U.N. sanctions re nuclear production we will bomb you." -Ok

"If I'm running for office and you say things against me, I will bring a gun." -not so good judgment

See the difference? The first statement is about *foreign* policy. The second statement touches on *domestic* issues, one of which is a pledge to stop the "cycle of violence."

You mean you seriously can't see the incongruity here?

McCain isn't campaigning on the promise that he won't bomb Iran. Obama is campaigning on the promise that he'll stop the "cycle of violence."

Get the difference?

reply to post by coven



I don't have permission to post in the forum where you linked to, but I will accept your challenge if you promise to take it easy on me!

I never did a formal debate and I have no idea what the Socratic method or whatever means. Also, I don't agree that AP is an unbiased source. How about Fox News instead?

Please advise on the next step.

Thanks!!

reply to post by jamie83


So to not derail this thread, please U2U each other about the debate and then contact Chissler, I think he can set this up for you.



Good Luck to both of you.