What President Obama should be saying

A little free help and advice for our floundering President.



“When Christopher Stevens was murdered I said that this could’ve been my son,” Obama said in an unannounced visit to the White House press briefing room. “Another way of saying that is Christopher Stevens could be me in a few years.”



He said the country needs to do a little “soul-searching” on issues of truth and transparency from the government, and that he wants to think more long-term about what can be done to support accurate and honest information. He suggested Justice Department work with FBI and other organizations to investigate the Benghazi coverup.

I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

BoiseBYU wrote:
I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

So the president needs to insert himself into certain cases that have nothing to do with race simply because one of the people involved happens to be black? I completely disagree. Not to mention your comparison to Romney is way off base as one is a decision of how to live one's life, morals, etc. and the other is simply the way someone looks.

Aaron Goldstein at spectator.org made the same point, but with a bit more oomph:



http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/22/big-lie-egomania" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Ben Stein's take on the Zimmerman case is also worthwhile: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/22/feeling-the-heat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very good articles.

Schmoe wrote:

I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

So the president needs to insert himself into certain cases that have nothing to do with race simply because one of the people involved happens to be black? I completely disagree. Not to mention your comparison to Romney is way off base as one is a decision of how to live one's life, morals, etc. and the other is simply the way someone looks.

Agree to disagree

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

So the president needs to insert himself into certain cases that have nothing to do with race simply because one of the people involved happens to be black? I completely disagree. Not to mention your comparison to Romney is way off base as one is a decision of how to live one's life, morals, etc. and the other is simply the way someone looks.

Agree to disagree

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I suppose the esteemed Harry Reid should have gotten personal about this case, then, and talked about how much Chris Servini could have been his son?



and this one: http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/black-teens-murder-white-baby-for-the-fun-of-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



and this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



It's bullshit that the president gets involved in local cases, I can't put it any more simply than that. Automatically taking someone's side because of the color of their skin is setting us back decades and goes against everything that true civil rights leaders stood for. It's despicable.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

Do you support him not talking about Benghazi? Seems like he should focus on things that pertain to him before going on about other stuff that may be interesting but not under his purview.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

It's too bad he couldn't find a single instance of a crime where race was actually a factor to start this oh so necessary conversation.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points memo tonight (7/22) is pretty much spot on and what President Obama and other black leaders should be saying.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

So the president needs to insert himself into certain cases that have nothing to do with race simply because one of the people involved happens to be black? I completely disagree. Not to mention your comparison to Romney is way off base as one is a decision of how to live one's life, morals, etc. and the other is simply the way someone looks.

Agree to disagree

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I suppose the esteemed Harry Reid should have gotten personal about this case, then, and talked about how much Chris Servini could have been his son?



and this one: http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/black-teens-murder-white-baby-for-the-fun-of-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



and this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



It's bullshit that the president gets involved in local cases, I can't put it any more simply than that. Automatically taking someone's side because of the color of their skin is setting us back decades and goes against everything that true civil rights leaders stood for. It's despicable.

I understand your view. I disagree. Your anger and language do not lend well to discussion and I am pretty sure you could not care less about my views, so we'll leave it at that.

hawkwing wrote:

I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

Do you support him not talking about Benghazi? Seems like he should focus on things that pertain to him before going on about other stuff that may be interesting but not under his purview.

I'm not trying to be cute. I do not understand the connection between the two. I think addressing the two items--Benghazi and race--are not mutually exclusive.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

Do you support him not talking about Benghazi? Seems like he should focus on things that pertain to him before going on about other stuff that may be interesting but not under his purview.

I'm not trying to be cute. I do not understand the connection between the two. I think addressing the two items--Benghazi and race--are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why they are mutually exclusive to Obama either, yet he has commented one twice and not the other, when it seems like it should be him talking about Benghazi first and then if he has free time talking about his other scandals, then he can touch on local criminal cases.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

So the president needs to insert himself into certain cases that have nothing to do with race simply because one of the people involved happens to be black? I completely disagree. Not to mention your comparison to Romney is way off base as one is a decision of how to live one's life, morals, etc. and the other is simply the way someone looks.

Agree to disagree

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I suppose the esteemed Harry Reid should have gotten personal about this case, then, and talked about how much Chris Servini could have been his son?



and this one: http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/black-teens-murder-white-baby-for-the-fun-of-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



and this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



It's bullshit that the president gets involved in local cases, I can't put it any more simply than that. Automatically taking someone's side because of the color of their skin is setting us back decades and goes against everything that true civil rights leaders stood for. It's despicable.

I understand your view. I disagree. Your anger and language do not lend well to discussion and I am pretty sure you could not care less about my views, so we'll leave it at that.

I don't think you do understand my view, but I greatly appreciate your condescending tone and implication that you are a more understanding and open-minded person than I am. Thanks for that.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

So the president needs to insert himself into certain cases that have nothing to do with race simply because one of the people involved happens to be black? I completely disagree. Not to mention your comparison to Romney is way off base as one is a decision of how to live one's life, morals, etc. and the other is simply the way someone looks.

Agree to disagree

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I suppose the esteemed Harry Reid should have gotten personal about this case, then, and talked about how much Chris Servini could have been his son?



and this one: http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/black-teens-murder-white-baby-for-the-fun-of-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



and this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



It's bullshit that the president gets involved in local cases, I can't put it any more simply than that. Automatically taking someone's side because of the color of their skin is setting us back decades and goes against everything that true civil rights leaders stood for. It's despicable.

I understand your view. I disagree. Your anger and language do not lend well to discussion and I am pretty sure you could not care less about my views, so we'll leave it at that.

I don't think you do understand my view, but I greatly appreciate your condescending tone and implication that you are a more understanding and open-minded person than I am. Thanks for that.

Schmoe, I did not and do not suggest that I am more open minded or understanding of anything here than you. I think I know where you stand on President Obama's comments and disagree with you, but if you think I don't understand where you stand, so be it. I am not trying for more contention but less. I apologize for coming off condescending to you.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

Do you support him not talking about Benghazi? Seems like he should focus on things that pertain to him before going on about other stuff that may be interesting but not under his purview.

I'm not trying to be cute. I do not understand the connection between the two. I think addressing the two items--Benghazi and race--are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why they are mutually exclusive to Obama either, yet he has commented one twice and not the other, when it seems like it should be him talking about Benghazi first and then if he has free time talking about his other scandals, then he can touch on local criminal cases.

I am not here to defend the President. He greatly disappoints me in so many ways. The President or his Administration could and should discuss more about many many matters of import. But to have the President speak of matters of race is good in my book and doing so helps. We are a country that has made great strides on matters of race, but we have work to do. I have talked to black professionals who have expressed to me stories of profiling and singling out based in their view on race. I don't want to overstate that this happens all of the time or everywhere, but I guess enough that it bothers these people enough to talk about it. For the President to raise the issue strikes me as a good thing.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

Do you support him not talking about Benghazi? Seems like he should focus on things that pertain to him before going on about other stuff that may be interesting but not under his purview.

I'm not trying to be cute. I do not understand the connection between the two. I think addressing the two items--Benghazi and race--are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why they are mutually exclusive to Obama either, yet he has commented one twice and not the other, when it seems like it should be him talking about Benghazi first and then if he has free time talking about his other scandals, then he can touch on local criminal cases.

I am not here to defend the President. He greatly disappoints me in so many ways. The President or his Administration could and should discuss more about many many matters of import. But to have the President speak of matters of race is good in my book and doing so helps. We are a country that has made great strides on matters of race, but we have work to do. I have talked to black professionals who have expressed to me stories of profiling and singling out based in their view on race. I don't want to overstate that this happens all of the time or everywhere, but I guess enough that it bothers these people enough to talk about it. For the President to raise the issue strikes me as a good thing.

I don't disagree that talking about race and race issues in America is a good thing, though it's far down the list of things the President should be doing right now, and he's not doing very much that he should be doing. But as has been proven time and time again, this particular case had nothing to do with race so to bring up the discussion in regards to this case is actually a negative thing. A hugely negative thing.



Obama is doing nothing more than trying to stir up animosity among the people to cover his multiple scandals. And in doing so he has thrown a perfectly ordinary, non-racist American citizen under the bus and put his life in extreme danger. If you consider that a positive thing, then we have vastly different ideas of the American dream.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

I do not have a problem with President Obama getting personal and talking about race. One of the best talks I heard from Governor Romney is when he talked about his Mormon heritage and how it has impacted him. The dialogue the President shared is neededand welcome in my view

Do you support him not talking about Benghazi? Seems like he should focus on things that pertain to him before going on about other stuff that may be interesting but not under his purview.

I'm not trying to be cute. I do not understand the connection between the two. I think addressing the two items--Benghazi and race--are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why they are mutually exclusive to Obama either, yet he has commented one twice and not the other, when it seems like it should be him talking about Benghazi first and then if he has free time talking about his other scandals, then he can touch on local criminal cases.

I am not here to defend the President. He greatly disappoints me in so many ways. The President or his Administration could and should discuss more about many many matters of import. But to have the President speak of matters of race is good in my book and doing so helps. We are a country that has made great strides on matters of race, but we have work to do. I have talked to black professionals who have expressed to me stories of profiling and singling out based in their view on race. I don't want to overstate that this happens all of the time or everywhere, but I guess enough that it bothers these people enough to talk about it. For the President to raise the issue strikes me as a good thing.

I don't disagree that talking about race and race issues in America is a good thing, though it's far down the list of things the President should be doing right now, and he's not doing very much that he should be doing. But as has been proven time and time again, this particular case had nothing to do with race so to bring up the discussion in regards to this case is actually a negative thing. A hugely negative thing.



Obama is doing nothing more than trying to stir up animosity among the people to cover his multiple scandals. And in doing so he has thrown a perfectly ordinary, non-racist American citizen under the bus and put his life in extreme danger. If you consider that a positive thing, then we have vastly different ideas of the American dream.

I don't but have not seen it that way. I respect your view and if you are correct, then shame on the President. But like I said, I have not seen it that way. Peace out

I am not with you or Jv on this Boise. The president is using the Zimmerman/Martin issue to bring up race for the umpteenth time. If you keep picking at a scab it will never heal. I agree with Hawk and others, Zimmerman has been acquitted so leave it alone. There have been many other murders of blacks since this incident and there is little or nothing being said about them by the president or the other race predators. I also agree that there are huge problems with Benghazi, Solendra, fast and furious, the IRS attacks, employment/economy, spying on citizens, etc. Why isn't the president making impassioned speeches about any of those or the other murders?

nuk13 wrote:
I am not with you or Jv on this Boise. The president is using the Zimmerman/Martin issue to bring up race for the umpteenth time. If you keep picking at a scab it will never heal. I agree with Hawk and others, Zimmerman has been acquitted so leave it alone. There have been many other murders of blacks since this incident and there is little or nothing being said about them by the president or the other race predators. I also agree that there are huge problems with Benghazi, Solendra, fast and furious, the IRS attacks, employment/economy, spying on citizens, etc. Why isn't the president making impassioned speeches about any of those or the other murders?

As elaborated upon in one of the articles I linked, this President is obsessed with pontificating on issues where others bear the responsibility, but resolute in his refusal to address matters for which he bears any responsibility.