Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Barack Obama does not care about black people

Posted 2 years ago on March 16, 2012, 9:14 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Where's Kanye at? Someone needs to tell Barack Obama that he does not care about people affected by natural disasters and crimes against humanity! After over 80 tornadoes ravaged, destroyed, and killed hundreds of people, the government and specifically FEMA refuse aid to most devastated cities. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jscUUPzPu9I

And more and more videos like this one below continue to surface from the Libyan Rebels themselves proving them to not be people we should have helped - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE

A vote for the GOP or Obama is a vote for continued destruction. But hey the electoral college will decide for ya anyway.

68 Comments

68 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

No, there's no difference, so why bother to vote. The 1% have the economic power, the House, a gag rule on the Senate, control of the police, the media, the power of the oligarchy and the shadow government. Obama, is essentually powerless, so let's further their power by letting them sweep the next elections too! That will make things a lot easier for Occupy, and it's goals! Way to put the whole picture in prospective!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Occupy and Obama share 2 completely different goals.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

To put what I was saying more clearly, Obama is surrounded by the mob. So, who knows what he really thinks?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

He thinks "I should start more wars and take control of all the USA's resources."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for/

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

He does?!! Now you really make me laugh!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

True or False: Obama signed an executive order to control the USA's resources

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

[-] 2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

True !!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Some people can't see the forest for the trees. I can't change that. Who do you recommend we vote for in November, of do you recommend that we should not vote, thus voting republican?

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Vote for whoever you want. I just highly suggest that it not be for a fraud like the GOP nominee or Obama. The democrat and republican nominees have created massive financial problems, higher taxes, wasteful spending, and of course they have started many wars and are responsible for the deaths of innocent people. I highly suggest voting for a person who won't do that.

The 2 party system wants you to believe they are the only options. That way they can continue their fraudulent game of divide and conquer.

Do you know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Need i remind you this current administration assumes the power to kill American citizens without charge or trial.

The ACLU doesn't even like Obama. That is a big warning sign.

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I agree with you completely, but there is a more subtle question of tactics. If we can really turn out and vote, and vote for the most progressive candidates, the more supporters we'll have inside the system and the less overt violence is likely to be turned against this movement. The question is, how are we going to actually make the changes we want, and I think with Republicans in power it will simply not be possible. The Gestapo tactics once again used by Bloomburg against free demostrators yesterday is an example of what we are up against. During the Bush years, police departments were armed like paramilitary units, and I think we must have more people in Congress and the judiciary to uphold civil rights. The Republicans have been blocking Obama's appointments to the federal bench.

My point is that unless we can get hundreds of thousands of people out on the streets and literally take over the country, which now seems unlikely. but not impossible - then we need to put pressure on from many angles including political. I believe we should vote for Obama to prevent the situation from further deterioration, and then immediately go about creatig a third party to break the two party/one party stranglehold. A constitutional covention would be great, but given what we've seen from Bloomburg, and no help from Washington to put a stop to it, I'm not sure a constitutional convention would be allowed under present politcal conditions.

In short we have a very nuanced game we must play to achieve our ends. and it will take determination over the long haul. The other option is slavery.

Obama has proven himself a stooge, But the repubs are all but openly wearing swasikas, and there's no time to form a third party between now and the election, so what choice to we really have, even though it's a miserable one?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Obama always gets blocked by republicans

a constitutional convention should always be allowed

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

So should demonstrations on the streets of New York!

I'll tell you what I frankly believe. Under the present circumstances I think Obama is the President and also a prisoner. Every other branch of power is in the hands of the 1%, and his hands are almost completely tied. That is what we must end in the next election. We need a huge democratic landslide, to avert their almost established effort to blend of government and corporate power, in other words create Fascism.

Can we remember what Fascism really was? THIS IS NOT A GAME, and it's no time to get too squmish to vote, or do anything else in our power to blunt this attack on democracy!

We must be intelligent enough to play the right hand at EVERY turn, and Republican victory would effectively end democracy in America. They would have so much power that revolution would be the only option left, and that would be almost too horrible to contemplate in a country so heavily armed. We must find a way, and a peaceful way to restore democracy, and that is going to take some really acute thinking at every step of the way.

[-] 2 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

Obama is just a puppet for the oligarchs. The oligarchs are insane. Elections are rigged via electronic voting machines and so voting is useless. The 99% is going to have to get awfully shrewd to outdo these bastards. A national strike as a tactic comes to mind but how to get the majority of the US population to rally round this idea. I hate to say it but maybe conditions have to get worse here in the US before the majority will get off their asses to do something. Sticking with Obama keeps us status quo, that's no good.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I agree with everything except the part about there being NO difference between the current existing parties. If we can get beyond the next election without MAKING THINGS A WHOLE LOT WORSE, than this movement stands a real chance of making the changes we seek.

Obama may be a puppet of the oligarchs, but Romney, and Santorum, and Gingrich, like Bush, ARE the oligarchy.

The descent people made the same mistake in 68, they boycotted the voting booth and the result was Nixon. That's when all this trouble really began. The Left wing was split and the Repubs had it all their own way just about ever since. Just look at income distribution since then If you think there is NO difference.

You simply don't seem to realize that we WILL have one or the other. There is NO alternative choice in the next election.

"Those who don't learn history are bound to repeat it."

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What do you know about the recent history of wars and war crimes?

Obama's repeating them.

The GOP and Obama both want war and they don't care if they have to violate laws to do it. They both work for the military industrial complex and the 1%

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

The changes began with the asassination of JFK. I think we know only as much as "they" want us to know. Our political system has lost so much credibility that it makes it very unapproachable. I'm not sure what the answer is but I don't believe change can be made within the current system. Voting in this election is sort of like not learning from history and repeating the same mistakes. Unless the forces of change can get the attention and support of the people who still have jobs and still function in a somewhat normal existence, there is not enough power to push through the kind of change ows is trying to do.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well, it is if we are willing to stop there, but I don't think we can stop there. On the other hand, just putting the only arm of government that isn't in Republican hands into their hands by not voting seems like a good way to kill this movement before we can even get started making the sweeping changes that are necessary to save the nation and the planet. Not voting, or throwing your vote away, is exactly what the 1% wants you to do.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I get what you're saying. I myself just cannot vote for a person who is responsible for wars and the deaths of innocent people. Not no way not no how. I can't have innocent people's blood on my hands.

Peace not drone strikes.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

That is of course your option, but I think it just opens the door for Mitt Romney, who is already the pre-selected republican candidate, a 1%er, and will be even far worse.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes... I guess not wanting to support wars that have killed thousands of innocent people is my opinion.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Mitt Romney has much more qualifications to lead now that Obama did when he was elected. Obama is learning on the job.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Both options suck. Romney is a robot.

"I love cars y'all!"

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 2 years ago

Well the Libyan Rebels now in power were able to reinstitute polygamy which had been banned by Gaddafi (for the 1% of course as there are not enough women to go around, damn these sexually egalitarian spermatoza).

Mitt's granpappy had 20 wives I hear - so perhaps the Mormons will pick up votes from "American 1% Rebels" and of course the wannabes!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The Libyan rebels also instituted hate crimes against black people for being black as well as the slaughter of anyone who disagrees with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&feature=mh_lolz

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 2 years ago

Yes, your video is convincing - and we were also getting this message from Libyan bigots as well as blacks fleeing the country.

Britain and France seem not to have cared - and nobody outside Africa seems to have taken them to task over it. Mugabe of course is furious but noone listens to him or anyone south of the Sahel.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

If we can have gay marriage why can't we have multiple wives?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Marriage should have nothing to do with the government in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 2 years ago

Very true! But its those spermatozoa which prevent there being enough women (in theory anyway).

KMFM (i.e. kiss Mitt for me).

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

You mean destroying a lot of businessess? Is that the kind of expierence we want in the White House?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

And Obama has done what?

He was the junior senator from Illinois with no business experience. Romney is battle tested. He would run circles around Obama.

Putin laughs everytime he talks to Obama.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

"THE TREES ARE THE PERFECT HEIGHT!"

"I'm even beginning to say things like "Y'all"

"I love cars"

"Oh beautiful for spacious skies"

Romney's speeches are absolutely pathetic. Worse than GWB somehow. I always thought no one could be a worse public speaker than GWB, but then Romney popped his head out in the open.

Romney is a warmonger fraud. He should not be allowed anywhere near the government.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Battle tested? LOL!!!!!

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

True, good points.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

And what he really thinks makes a difference how? Careful now but boy...you might have to veer off your orders.......

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Hey, still can't string more than three sentences together, and still they don't really say anything. You don't dare say what you really think, so all we get is this vague, muddled inuendo. Keep up the good work. It's not just anybody who can't make themselves clear in a single sentence.

You might be a candidate for affirmative action!

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

And you still can't answer anything not listed on your masters orders. Piss off commie.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Profound! Can we hear anymore of that deep wisdom? Where did you come across it in your extensive travels, Tibet, Bhutan, Greece, India perhaps, or just at the nearest bar where other savants discuss philosophy while watching gold on the TV?

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Keep talking..... Just keep talking.... And it's Bhutan.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Glad to see you have spell check. You may be of some use here after all.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Why are you still responding to my posts? You said you were through with me yet here you are again. Do I make you feel alive? Do you now feel like you are somebody?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This isn't your post.

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Lol! Oh yeah....I was right. Go away little boy/girl/thing.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

On the contrary - you can get the heck off the OWS site. That's the only time I'm going to say that to you, if you don't wash your mouth out with soap and water.

Patience with your worthless presence is very nearly exhausted.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Umair (24) 2 years ago

Yeah let's complain by not voting. That is the best use of the system that we have. I would love to see the Republican President, House, Senate & maybe even a Supreme Court kiss and make up with the Occupy movement. That seems like it in the best interests of the 99% and therefore my vote will go to the candidate that has literally no chance of winning and instead of going with lesser of two evils. So instead of me getting robbed for the few dollars that I will have in my wallet I will fight back and end up in the hospital to show him that he can't mess with me.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Agreed.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

It's interesting to me that people continuously refer the the actions of the United States with words like "we". Unless you wrote a piece of military strategy or economic policy or drafted some legislation, why equate yourself with those who did? And why would you want to equate yourself with one of the largest criminal organizations on the planet? Especially while decrying their actions?

[-] 2 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Because we are Americans. We can disagree with our government and we are still Americans. I did not vote for Obama but he is still MY President. "I" can only vote in three people into the Federal Government. I may have 2 in Congress and the President and that is it. (It use to be that it was one 1 in congress). That is my total voting power. and I still think of the Government has "MY" Government.

Criminal Organization huh. funny....

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

My point is not that we are not Americans. It is that those in power are acting above and beyond the restrictions we have set out for them. They are no longer acting within the bounds we have set and we are no longer responsible for them. A master can be held liable for the deeds of his slave only so long as that slave acts within the provisions of the master.

Any organization which regularly and purposefully commits criminal acts can and should be considered a criminal organization.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

If you are talking about the restrictions of the Constitution then you are correct. But then how do you correct the corruption without destroying the core of what the Constitution was meant to be. What do you call a criminal act for a nation? This is not a trap just really want to known from your view point. What is the standard? Is there a nation that has met this standard? In the end for a crime to happen then there was a law broken. Law either man made or a law of nature.

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

One of two things is true. Either the Constitution is not a document explicitly stating what government may or may not do, or the United States is violating it. Given that, upon prima facie, the Constitution is a document explicitly stating what government may or may not do, let us go with the second option: that the United States is violating it.

Currently, any time there is a question of constitutionality in the courts, the issue is turned over to the supreme court. This essentially treats the constitution as if it were nonexistent, or written in a language only interpretable by the supreme court. It is a ridiculous notion that the supreme court exists to "interpret" the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution are they given the power to "interpret" the constitution. They exist for the purpose of having the final say in all judicial matters. The meaning of the words in the constitution is not a judicial matter, it is a grammatical matter. The only way the constitution can serve the purpose of forming a foundation for the laws and structure of a country is if it is set in stone. There is much talk about the "imprecise" nature of words. This is rubbish. There are dictionaries and have been for quite some time. Surely the founding fathers were aware of this and took great care to use words which they understood to convey the meaning they intended. It cannot be assumed that they put a bunch of gibberish on paper and expected it to be accepted as a valid legal document. The only proper conclusion is that the words they used convey their intentions.The Bouvier Law Dictionary is considered to be the official dictionary of the Constitution. Any time there is any question of the meaning of an article in the Constitution, all one need do is pick up the dictionary and look up what the words mean! That should settle the issue. Instead, for whatever reason, the supreme court is given the power (not by the constitution, but by the acquiescence of those who do not challenge it) to violate the constitution. The lower courts will uphold rulings of the supreme court even when those rulings are in direct conflict with the language of the constitution. Why?

For example, I put forward the case of Lopez vs. United States, in which the commerce clause was interpreted in such a way that it gives congress power to regulate "channels of commerce", "instrumentalities of commerce", and "things which significantly affect commerce". Not only are these things impossible to define before a case is brought before a court (which would be an example of indirect ex post facto law, since the person charged with a crime could not have known that what he did fell under any of those undefined categories), but they essentially give congress the power to regulate non-commercial activities and cite the commerce clause as justification!!!

For instance, congress now has the power to pass (and has passed) laws which punish someone for possessing material which has traveled in interstate commerce, regardless of how that person obtained it! This means that a case can be brought against you for performing a non-commercial activity, not covered by the literal meaning of the commerce clause, and it will be justified by the supreme court's ruling. The constitution is ignored.

Regarding how one can determine what is a criminal act for this country's government, I will refer to natural law (rights) which it was established to protect. Human beings are a specific type of being, having specific requirements in order to live a such. These requirements include the use of one's own rational faculty in order to identify and solve problems presented by the reality of existence, more commonly referred to as the right to life. Human life requires a body and a mind. One cannot exist without the other. They are not separate entities. A body with no mind is just a body. A mind with no body is... well... I've never met one :) In order to live as a human being, one must exercise one's own ability to make decisions based on one's own experience. When this process is interfered with by others, one's right to perform that action is violated. When the United States implements censorship or prohibits the sale of certain products, it interferes with the rights of both those wishing to proliferate the material to willing customers and the rights of those who wish to obtain that information or product. The most obvious real-life examples are pornography and drugs, though the prohibitions of the United States are certainly not limited to the two. In trying to determine whether or not something is a criminal act when commited by the United States, ask this question: "Would this be considered criminal if I were doing it to my neighbor?" If the answer is yes, then it is criminal. Now, there is some confusion regarding the use of the word criminal. In the United States system of law, "crimes" are violations of the mandates of the state; not necessarily violations of anyone's rights. When I have used the word "crime" above I am always referring to violations of right.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

That was a lot more information then i ever expected. I may not have the skill you write up something like this or put it into a coherent words. You did both very well. So then this is the question, If the Government is not following the Constitution, then is the Government committing a crime? Is this part of why you call it a criminal organization?

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Yes and yes.

If the current "government bodies" are acting outside of the authority granted to them by the constitution, they can not claim to be lawful institutions. They are then nothing more than imposters and criminals. If they take any action against an American citizen which falls outside of their legitimate power, they are merely acting as thugs and should be treated as such.

The constitution was written as a means of allowing the people to control their government, not the other way around.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

I have no problem with what you said here and agree with it even before hand. I just wanted to be clear on the facts.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

It's like a football team. I want to be on the team but the coaching blows!

That and it's a turn of phrase.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I think he does care about black people. As does his Attorney General.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

caring about black people,.............you mean the Critical race Theory, by derrick bell? obama's friend and mentor? or franklim marshall davis , another mentor of obamas? or jeramiah wright, another mentor of obama?

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Now just stop it! What are you trying to do? Equate the terrible suffering of "Africans " in this country with the evils of ANYTHING to do with whites? How DARE you!

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

unless they were born in africa, came to the USA and became citizens,...........they're not " african americans."

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Well I do not fully agree with that. If you can trace you family to slavery you can claim to be African American. There where no black folk here in the European new lands until the Europeans brought them over.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

so? most US citizens , when asked their nationality refer to themselves as americans, not some form of hyphenated american.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

If only that was true. I fill out a form i can not call myself an American, I have to wear a label of my race first. So have to choose mixed.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The skin color check box doesn't change how American you are. Diversity is supposed to be the best part about America, the repubs are just trying to ruin that. It's like they've never seen the Statue of Liberty.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

In what way are the reps trying to ruin it?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

when you fill out a form you can write what you want, you do NOT have to accept the choices that are printed. have you ever tried thinking for yourself?

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Yes you can write anything on a farm you want. Then they will call you or come to your home for NOT filling out the form correctly. When the census was done in 2010 I only gave the minimal info. How many live in this home. that is all the Constitution demands, but wanted more, Much more. I never gave them the info they wanted, but i did get harassed about it.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

really? any time i have filled out a form that asks for race,.....i go to the blank line left for "other" and write in human race. I have never been called on it, NEVER. i did this for the census too. when a census taker came to my house , i gave the minimal information, she tried to get me to give more but i cited the constitution and she went away.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

It took three times to get them to understand that. On The second call that person said it was the LAW to get this info. A tactic to scare the uninformed. The Government does not like it when you do not fill out their forms correctly. But getting back to a part of the point is i an mixed race, but i looks are that of a blue eyed white man.

[-] -2 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

It's nice to hear someone who speaks the truth,thanks.