Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, we GET that crack is highly addictive, but for a US President -- a half-black, drug-using one at that -- to make a joke about an addictive drug that has blown apart black families is in questionable taste. And certainly beneath the Office of the President, if not this particular dweller.
The problems start for Obama when he's off the leash -- he's great at script-reading a teleprompter, but his choice of words when freestyling are often questionable.
It was Obama's version of a "joke" -- kind of like the last 5+ years have been -- but it wasn't perceived by all as "funny".
Yes, it is funny. Many, many people equate things with crack because of the "addictive" nature of what ever they happen to be talking about. While on the Mall in DC over the weekend I overheard a woman (probably in her 60s) say the same thing about a hot pretzel from one of the vendors. She said she has one almost everyday.
I'm no Obama fan, but that is something anyone would say. No big deal.
It actually IS a big deal when you are the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. There is a decorum that should be ahered to. This isn't Amy Schumer talking -- this is BarackO Who Has Tried CrackO™. Know your role, and know your limits. That's what handlers are supposed to do.
A half-black, drug-using Prersident should have a bit more sense than to make a comment like this. Perhaps his days in the ChoomGang destroyed what little sense he had?
Not me, I just get tired of the Obama haters being so selective. On the rare occasion I post in this forum, I almost always point out that I have equal disdain for both major parties, and that neither has our interest at heart.
Money controls our national politics. Neither party is exempt from that comment. Sadly, I doubt we'll have another President who is not owned by special interest. That is a non-partisan comment.
In the book "1984" government is know as 'the party' as there is but one. Dissenters disappear and their histories are erased forever.
It actually IS a big deal when you are the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. There is a decorum that should be ahered to. This isn't Amy Schumer talking -- this is BarackO Who Has Tried CrackO™. Know your role, and know your limits. That's what handlers are supposed to do.
A half-black, drug-using Prersident should have a bit more sense than to make a comment like this. Perhaps his days in the ChoomGang destroyed what little sense he had?
It's not a big deal because he's not out to impress people like you.
Yes, it is funny. Many, many people equate things with crack because of the "addictive" nature of what ever they happen to be talking about. While on the Mall in DC over the weekend I overheard a woman (probably in her 60s) say the same thing about a hot pretzel from one of the vendors. She said she has one almost everyday.
Perhaps you need to do a bit of research on the word "decorum".
The woman in her 60's isn't a public figure. Neither are you.
It actually IS a big deal when you are the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. There is a decorum that should be ahered to. This isn't Amy Schumer talking -- this is BarackO Who Has Tried CrackO™. Know your role, and know your limits. That's what handlers are supposed to do.
A half-black, drug-using Prersident should have a bit more sense than to make a comment like this. Perhaps his days in the ChoomGang destroyed what little sense he had?
I contend he is white as he has played black long enough.
Not me, I just get tired of the Obama haters being so selective. On the rare occasion I post in this forum, I almost always point out that I have equal disdain for both major parties, and that neither has our interest at heart.
Money controls our national politics. Neither party is exempt from that comment. Sadly, I doubt we'll have another President who is not owned by special interest. That is a non-partisan comment.
I don't think the US has ever had or will have a president not owned by special interest groups. Money has always bought a seat at the table.
From the start, states allowed only white males who owned at least 50 acres free and clear or in a few areas within some states, those who had taxable income were allowed to vote. The serious politics occurred at the state electorate level. Back then, the second runner up became VP.
As time went on, states and juristrictions within states, developed all sorts of ways to control who got to vote. Tactics included literacy tests in a time when most were illiterate and only the wealthy were taught to read, wealth and of course, religion requiring voters to be members in good standing in a Protesent church.
Then the industrialists took over and voting often occurred at one's place of employment. One's job depended on voting for the people the business owner had in his pocket. It's been one big ole cluster fudge all along.
The losers almost always claim the other side cheated.
When someone commits $100 million to a particular candidate, one expects something big in return.
I searched for and watched the video. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the room was full of people laughing. You guys need to lighten up.
By the way, plenty of people refer to addictive foods as being like crack. It's not exactly a controversial thing to say...unless your emotions tell you that you need to constantly whine about anyone Democratic.
The reference to crack when describing anything that is addictive is common place. Guess this chef makes a good pie.
The chef clearly should send one to both of us for the holiday.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.