CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
11
True False
Debate Score:18
Arguments:7
Total Votes:25
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (4)
 
 False (4)

Debate Creator

TERMINATOR(6778) pic



Obama is an horrendous, pitiful excuse for a president!

True

Side Score: 7
VS.

False

Side Score: 11

From the article 'Obamination' by Erik Rush

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/rush/070221

"How many Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who was the member of a church that

professed the following credo?

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the White Community

3. Commitment to the White Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White

Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and

Supporting White Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

The question is rhetorical, of course. The answer is that such a candidate wouldn't have a

snowball's chance in hell of getting elected dog catcher (apologies to America's animal rescue and

public safety personnel) let alone President, because that candidate would be instantly branded a

racist, among the most vile and frightening of white supremacists.

And those holding the branding irons would be 100% right.

Yet, in the "About" section of the U.S. Senate website for Barack Obama, Democratic senator from

Illinois and contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, it states

that Obama and his family "live on Chicago's South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of

Christ."

So...?

Well, to say that the Trinity United Church of Christ (http://www.tucc.org) is afrocentric in the

extreme would be a gross understatement. It's not simply afrocentric, it's African-centric. In

fact, one could argue that this organization worships things African to a far greater degree than

they do Christ, and gives the impression of being a separatist "church" in the same vein as do

certain supremacist "white brethren" churches — or even Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

Shocking? An overstatement? An overreaction?

One can see for oneself on the Trinity United Church website, which is replete with confirmation

of what I present here. What follows is an excerpt from their Mission Statement:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in

the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African

people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.

God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the

long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address

injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through

cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd

Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts

and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches,

nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the Black Community

3. Commitment to the Black Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black

Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and

Supporting Black Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."

Sound familiar? Of course it is, since it's identical to the 12-point list at the beginning of

this column — the one from the theoretical white supremacist candidate's church; the only

difference is the substitution of the word "Black" for "White."

Trinity United Church of Christ's congregation also claims to hold to a "10-point Vision" which is

similarly afrocentric, or if you will, separatist. Again, like the Nation of Islam, a white

separatist church or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United more resembles a cult than a church.

Only this one has as one of its most prominent members a serious contender for the White House.

And George W. Bush's born-again Christian status scares people?

These revelations, of course shed all the light we need on Obama's inscrutability; since before he

announced his candidacy, both the Right and Left have commented on the lack of information vis-à-

vis just who Barack Obama is and what he's about.

From The Chicago Tribune, February 06, 2007, Column: Against Middleclassness? by Rich Lowry.

"Vallmer Jordan, a church member who helped draft the precepts, said they were designed to empower

the black community and counter a value system imposed by whites. 'The big question mark was

racism,' he said. 'Black disempowerment was an integral part of that historical value system. It

became increasingly apparent to me that we black people had not developed our own value system . .

. to help us overcome all we knew we had to battle.'"

"A value system imposed by whites..." Is Jordan speaking of the value system that kept families

together and promoted morality, industry and integrity, or the one imposed by liberal dependency

pimps since the Civil Rights Movement?

True enough that many blacks did abandon values; again, this was due to the corruption of the

black clergy by white socialists and their black foremen. Trinity United seems to have thrown out

the baby with the bathwater. Gravitation toward an Africanized "year-round Kwanzaa"-based pseudo-

Christianity seems less of a solution than returning to the moral and social conservatism Blacks

held prior to the aforementioned socialists gaining their stranglehold in the black community.

So is Obama seeking to be our first black president, or our first stealth black nationalist

president? You see, were he a run-of-the-mill insincere Christian of convenience like Bill

Clinton, Obama might belong to a run-of-the-mill, lukewarm, large nondescript church. But he

doesn't. He belongs to a church which is (as I indicated before) blatantly afrocentric and even

suggests the supremacy of Africa's descendants in America.

Granted that the Left will have no qualms about this highly questionable affiliation, but what

about all of the American swing voters to whom Obama has built broad appeal by presenting himself

as sort of a generic, open-minded moderate Democrat (as Bill Clinton also did, by the way)? Are

they going to go for a candidate whose heart is actually closer to that of a refined Black

Panther?

Trinity United clearly embraces things African above things American. The content of their website

makes this undeniably clear. Aside from this tack being divisive, separatist and calls into

question its adherents' identification as Americans, if they're looking for values, they — and

Obama — would be better served by looking to modern political conservatives and traditional

Christianity than retrograde African precepts and the Democrat Party.

Obama's affiliation with this church, if I must call it that, should be as alarming to the

American voter as a Republican candidate for president belonging to the Aryan Brethren Church of

Christ. Any argument against this assertion is politically-correct delusion, reverse

discrimination and a hypocrisy — a very dangerous one."

So, it would seem that racism on the part of a white candidate is the worst of evils - all it

takes is common sense to realize that few people would dare vote for such a candidate - whereas

racism on the part of a black candidate is considered completely acceptable. Why? Is it because

people are still convinced that we - the white Americans - owe something to the blacks? It seems

like it, though I ardently disagree.

If they were in Africa, what conditions would they be living under? Constant threat of malaria,

jiggers, starvation, drought, etc., etc. People will say that the slave traders were responsible

for causing so clamitous a condition in Africa, and I agree with them. However, it is important to

remember that America was not solely responsible for the slave trade, and that a great portion of

it occurred BEFORE the United States of America ever even existed !! Thus, had they never been

brought to the USA, they'd still be in Africa, i.e. living in third-world countries rather than

what many refer to as 'the Greatest Nation on Earth'. Now, the umpteenth great grandchildren feel

some sort of need to repay them for giving their ancestor's descendants a good - rather than a

horrific - life? It is complete and utter lunacy!

From the article 'Obama and the Trinity United murders'

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/rush/080916

"Members of Chicago's Trinity United Church (the house of worship attended by Democrat

presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama for 20 years) already had their Christmas trees up when

members of the Chicago press circulated through the city, interviewing many of them as they

mourned Donald Young, their 47-year-old choir master who has been found shot dead in his South

Side Chicago home on December 3, 2007.

Young, known for having a flamboyant persona, was an openly gay man.

The choir director's murder and the execution-style murders of two other gay Trinity United

congregants within 60 days of each other had gays and blacks terrified over the winter of 2007-

2008. They feared that a serial killer targeting either blacks, gays or both might have hung out

his shingle in Chicago.

Curiously, neither Sen. Obama, his surrogates nor law enforcement had anything to say regarding

the circumstantial connection. Nowhere in the news reports of the killings has there been any

mention of Obama, or the questioning of him or any of his cohorts or staffers by Chicago police.

To suggest that Sen. Obama was somehow involved in these murders is obviously a leap. However, one

would imagine that if any other prominent citizen had been publicly accused of being a closet

homosexual, then three gay men from their church were murdered in the months that followed, local

law enforcement would have crawled up one of their excretive orifices with an entire forensics

lab.

Although this columnist and Fox News' Sean Hannity have been accused of similar transgressions,

the Rev. James David Manning appears to have taken on the mission of preventing the election of

Barack Obama as a holy and personal crusade. The minister, who presides over New York-based Atlah

World Ministries, has released a flurry of anti-Obama videos that depict the candidate as "an

emissary of the devil."

Manning asserts that Barack Obama is at least bisexual, if not a closet homosexual and former drug

abuser, an unregenerate sinner who is only using the issue of faith to advance himself in the

political realm. Manning is also opposed to the progressive agenda for blacks, maintaining that it

has only served to render blacks irresponsible and dependent.

Although former Obama associate and accuser Larry Sinclair — who precipitated Obama's short-lived

"gay bimbo eruption" at the beginning of his campaign — failed a polygraph test following his

assertions that he had done cocaine and had sex with Obama in 1999, it does give pause that the

candidate continues to be linked with sex and drugs.

Though Obama did admit to experimentation with drugs years ago, some speculate that he was

concerned that his experimentation with (or immersion in) sexually adventurous realms might not

sit so well with American voters. If Rev. Manning's charges contained any truth whatever, it might

lend credence to accusations that the three men murdered in Chicago were victims of a conspiracy

to silence those who might bring Obama's homosexual dalliances to light.

Left wing blogs and some YouTube posters portray Manning as a veritable psych ward escapee. Others

find him — though brutally frank — as one who simply possesses a certain orthodoxy as regards

literal obedience to Christian doctrine in the tradition of a Pat Robertson, though possibly being

singled out because he is black (an because some are so slavishly dedicated to Obama).

In conversation, Rev. Manning is entirely lucid. He maintains that his sources and information

pertaining to Obama are "rock-solid and incontrovertible" He has met with Larry Sinclair and while

Sinclair "obviously has other things going on in his life relating to his credibility," the pastor

said that, in general, Sinclair speaks easily and knowledgably when he talks about Obama's

bisexuality and crack cocaine use.

So what do we really know? What we know is that three gay members of trinity United Church were

murdered in close temporal proximity during late 2007. It is extremely unlikely that Obama never

met these men, particularly the choir director. We also know that somewhat earlier, a former Obama

acquaintance claimed that he and Obama had participated in gay sex and drug use. Though it was

revealed that the man was lying about something, law enforcement operatives know that polygraphs

are not universally reliable and even pathological liars don't lie all the time.

The tabloids The National Enquirer and The Globe have been investigating Obama's alleged

homosexual adventures and drug use for some time. A private investigator who works with the

Chicago Police Department allegedly told the tabloid The Globe that Donald Young was silenced

because of something he knew about Obama.

As we know, despite the outlandish tales sometimes spun by these publications, quite often they

are spot-on as regards the lives of people in the spotlight. A prime example is the case of Sen.

John Edwards' love child. If the tabloids know anything, however, they are clearly biding their

time.

As may be some others..."

So, it would seem that Larry Sinclair allegedly had a homosexual affair with Obama many years ago,

that Lewis revealed it to the media, and that the media completely ignored it. I don't remember

hearing all that much - if anything - about it from CNN. Why? Perhaps it's just possible that they

were trying to ignore anything which could show Obama from a bad light - as a man rather than the

god as which American view him.

Come to think of it, I didn't hear all that much about his drug use, either...

From "Obama's war on the traditional family"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/30/obamas-war-on-the-traditional-family/

"President Obama has wasted little time in using his executive branch power to give the country a

leftward shove. In just the past few weeks, the administration has ramped up programs intended to

reshape conceptions of the family. When it comes to moral values, it is clear that radical

leftists are driving the agenda.

On June 10, the State Department unveiled new "transgender" passports that will be issued to

anyone who finds the question of "are you male or female?" difficult to answer. To qualify, one

must produce a doctor's note confirming the gender confusion. Bearers will be treated with special

care, as U.S. officials have been instructed to "only ask appropriate questions to obtain

information necessary to determine citizenship and identity," according to a State Department news

release. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health helped re-write the rules to

ensure the primary goal at the border is acceptance of those offended by the concept of "man" or

"woman."

Even hardened criminals can enjoy the special treatment. The Department of Justice last month

posted the availability of a $75,000 grant to pay for the creation of guidelines for prison

workers who might deal with "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) offenders."

The goal of the taxpayer-funded program is the "identification of policy and practice with

unintended consequences that can negatively affect LGBTI offenders." Prison, apparently, is a

place where respecting the feelings of inmates should be a top priority."

I'm a libertarian - I don't really give a damn what people do 'behind closed doors', so to speak;

however, I consider paragraphs two and three to be an atrocity! As the last sentence states,

"Prison, apparently, is a place where respecting the feelings of inmates should be a top

priority."

I wholly disagree.

Prison is a place where criminals must be punished for the wrongs they have committed; 'feelings'

are irrelevant! It is quite well known that people get raped in prisons, that drug abuse is

rampant and that pedophiles are the scum of society's scum of society; it is NOT a place where

people 'suffering' from some sort of 'gender identity crisis' should be given special treatment!

Then, when it comes to paragraph two, they are trying even just as hard to keep people from being

offended (easily the aspect I loathe the most in liberalism). Gender is something you are born

with - if your chromosome is XY, you are a man; if your chromosome is XX, you are a female. That

is a person's gender, not some confusion they've got going on in their head!

THE REMAINDER SHALL BE LINKS TO ARTICLES, NOT THE ACTUAL ARTICLES THEMSELVES. I'll still include

my commentary, though.

"The Hope of a Sophist: The Rhetoric of Barack Obama".

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08030507.html

Now this has got to be the thing about Obama that I have hated the most - he is just too darn

ambiguous! Hope, this; Hope, that. Change, this; Change, that. I'm never going to agree unless you

finally reveal what all this 'hope' is for and what these 'changes' will be, and when they will

happen, and how they will come about. So far I've seen quite a few 'changes' that I dislike (more

on that later.)

"Obama supports sex-education in Kindergarten, Romney Strikes Back"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07072005.html

Okay, I'll admit that I've got no problem with teaching sex education in school. I've got no

problem with teaching various methods of contraception. Hell, I don't even mind it when they

include condom machines in high schools.

HOWEVER, I DO believe that there is an appropriate time to begin teaching these things. Just a

rhetorical question: What did you know about sex when you were in Kindergarten? I knew nothing,

and I didn't learn anything for quite a few years after that. Indeed, I'd be quite surprised if

anybody reading this knew much about it at that age. Were you better off not knowing about it?

What benefits are there to letting four-year-olds know about sex?

Children begin adolescence at about twelve, maybe a little earlier. So, when should you begin

teaching sex-education? Perhaps begin teaching a bit about the physical changes at age ten (so

grade 5) and, as the pupils mature, so ought the teachings. But Kindergarten? COME ON!

"Is Obama BP's Poodle?"

http://www.infowars.com/is-obama-bps-poodle/

This article goes on about Obama being a pawn of some large company (in this case, BP). Big

surprise.

"Barack Obama's Missing Girlfriends"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/barack_obamas_missing_girlfrie.html

So, it would seem that Obama most likely had a friend of his (aka a terrorist bomber

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization)] named Bill Ayers) to ghost-

write his book [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=77815].

Another odditity is that it would seem quite a bit of Obama's history is still a mystery, along

with the fact that - if Ayers truly did write the book - Obama surely is one hell of a liar...

--------------------------------

I've been so busy researching all this that I've only been able to watch parts of this video, but

it seemed pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Side: True
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

I truthfully wouldn't vote for any overtly religious person applying for office, because if they are open about their beliefs and using it to gain votes, I don't think they deserve the position. However, we're in America, and you don't get that option, because every candidate does this.

About the whole afrocentric part, this doesn't worry me because each minority uses a form of this to band together and make themselves heard by the majority. Besides this fact, again, living in America each and every president belongs to some weird, extreme, or insane church that is loud. So what's the point?

Side: False
1 point

Obama was never overly religious, and just by looking at his policies you can see that he doesn't practice race based politics at all. Just because he's a member of a Church doesn't mean he subscribes to all of that Church's beliefs. He even publicly condemned the statements of his preacher. Guilt by association is a fallacious argument.

In addition, maybe you should read a little about this guy before you go quoting him. Another one of his ideas is to annex mexico to solve the border problem. Not exactly the most trustworthy source.

The fact is, almost all of the claims you copy and pasted are meaningless to the debate considering the fact that none of them have affected the actual decisions he made as president. Whether he was maybe gay, or belongs to some awful church are only relevant if they have affected his presidency. Maybe you think this is evidence of him being a bad person, and in that case make a debate about that. When looking at the actual decisions he has made as president, you can see that all this ridiculous fear is overblown. He is a left leaning moderate president, not whatever you make him out to be.

Also as a side note, in previous debates you claimed that many of your arguments are "original". Based on the number of times you either copy and paste arguments, or just repeat other things that people have said. You even got pissed at people for posting videos because you thought they shouldn't be so lazy that they couldn't come up with their own argument:

let's spell it out H I P O C R I T E. What does that spell? Apparently it's terminator.

Side: False
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

Just like I said before, you are a fucktard liberal.

Obama was never overly religious, and just by looking at his policies you can see that he doesn't practice race based politics at all. Just because he's a member of a Church doesn't mean he subscribes to all of that Church's beliefs. He even publicly condemned the statements of his preacher. Guilt by association is a fallacious argument.

He knew about the church's beliefs, yet he continued to go there for 20 years. He had many other options, but chose to remain.

Of course he condemned the church, doing so got him votes.

In addition, maybe you should read a little about this guy before you go quoting him. Another one of his ideas is to annex mexico to solve the border problem. Not exactly the most trustworthy source.

You disagree with the writer political stances, thus all that he says is invalid? let's spell it out I D I O T I C L I B E R A L H I P O C R I T E What does it spell? The mockery of a conservative with actual sources against childish dumbass.

The fact is, almost all of the claims you copy and pasted are meaningless to the debate

Well, it is my debate! Besides, at least I give sources.

considering the fact that none of them have affected the actual decisions he made as president.

You grossly overestimate the president. Think you not he is a pawn of powerful companies and people, simply there to serve their will? He is clearly an idiot.

Whether he was maybe gay, or belongs to some awful church are only relevant if they have affected his presidency.

How did he possibly get elected? How many people would have voted for a white man who was: accused of being gay just months before three gay people he most likely knew were murdered, had a terrorist for a friend, did drugs during childhood, or were horrifically ambiguous?

When looking at the actual decisions he has made as president, you can see that all this ridiculous fear is overblown.

You are a liberal. I am not. Therefore, that which you consider to be good, I do not.

Based on the number of times you either copy and paste arguments, or just repeat other things that people have said

Based on these things ... what? After 3,000+ arguments, can't I change my ways once in a while?

(I am now convinced that you stock me)

let's spell it out H I P O C R I T E. What does that spell? Apparently it's terminator.

You really are just a childish 19-year-old, if that.

P.S. By the way, did you happen to notice that I wrote my own thoughts at the end of each article?

Side: True
1 point

In as few words pretty embarrasing. One term president thank god. Fiscal conservatives going to take over.

Side: True

It is now 2015 and President Obama is a great President who is inclusive of all.

Side: False