1
   

Pretexts, pretexts.

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 05:25 am
@kennethamy,
I see a lot of people aim charges at Mr. Obama that have been used by so called, well meaning people, to demean and discourage and discriminate against Black folks... A lot of it is code, and if you are insensitive to it, you do not get it; may ever mouth it; but the fact is that among the initiated, words like hostility mean we do not have to trouble with equal right for this group, and in fact, can freely exploit them..
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 08:09 am
@Fido,
Fido;141218 wrote:
I see a lot of people aim charges at Mr. Obama that have been used by so called, well meaning people, to demean and discourage and discriminate against Black folks... A lot of it is code, and if you are insensitive to it, you do not get it; may ever mouth it; but the fact is that among the initiated, words like hostility mean we do not have to trouble with equal right for this group, and in fact, can freely exploit them..


So, you were being sarcastic in your post. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 01:15 pm
@kennethamy,
In regard to politics, if I am not cynical I am sarcastic... That is clearing it up... Some time acerbic.
0 Replies
 
Rwa001
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 01:50 pm
@kennethamy,
I don't think a president has any obligation to honor commitments started by other presidents unless there is a written contract that is approved by congress and signed by the president, in which case honoring that contract serves the American people by valuing our word.

International contexts change, and any good president needs to react and execute in that context. I'm not incredibly versed in this situation, to be honest, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that any President has to be consistent with the actions of previous presidents if/when it doesn't serve the American interest.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 02:34 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;141234 wrote:
So, you were being sarcastic in your post. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.


Of course he was. I thought that was obvious. He was accusing me of attacking Obama from racist motives. There was nothing subtle about that. And, in fact, that is just what I said in my first post.

By the way, there was another post on this thread that was obviously anti-black, and used a most racist epithet. I was surprised that no one picked up on it.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 05:10 am
@kennethamy,
Still there are a lot of code words pointed at Obama, and hostile is just one of them...It is the sort of thing used to de legitimze democratic presidents, as if republican presidents are not hostile... Once you label anyone, Jews, Gentile, Blacks or what have you, you have turned them into an object and out of being human...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 10:00 am
@Rwa001,
Rwa001;141287 wrote:
I don't think a president has any obligation to honor commitments started by other presidents unless there is a written contract that is approved by congress and signed by the president, in which case honoring that contract serves the American people by valuing our word.

International contexts change, and any good president needs to react and execute in that context. I'm not incredibly versed in this situation, to be honest, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that any President has to be consistent with the actions of previous presidents if/when it doesn't serve the American interest.


It's a good thing that you are not president. Even in contract law, verbal contracts are (except in special instances, e.g. real estate) are just as binding as written contracts. The problem with them is that they are less enforceable because they are much harder to prove.

Other nations expect that president will honor the commitments made by their predecessors. If presidents did not do that, America's committment would not be trusted, and that would certainly do harm to American interests throughout the world. Imagine if a president were to say to another nation, "well, maybe my predecessor said that, but you can't prove it. It isn't in writing. So forget it"). There has to be continuity in foreign policy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:46:48