http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/15 ... ed-us-all/ (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/15/obama-played-us-all/)
The scary thing is that there are people eating this up.
Okay, so lets assume its true; why is he still...
-"The second they look at us funny, we bomb them"?
-Lying about every other program (Drone Strikes, NSA, closing Gitmo, etc.)?
-Playing a game of chess with people's lives? Lets assume everything went exactly as he planned... if one piece went wrong, then you risked escalating the conflict into a more international conflict.
-Unable to use this type of strategic thinking in any domestic affairs? Instead he rolls over and gives the Republicans what they want 3/4th of the time. It isn't making the Republicans look weak, it's making the Democrats look like conservatives (which they are).
Seriously, Democrats... you realize this is the exact same thing that happened for Republicans under Bush, right? Does something right... look at how much of genius he is! It wasn't luck, he is just a smart politician! Does something wrong... well, I mean he didn't know, we didn't have the intelligence, we couldn't foresee it happening.
Face it; Obama was the one pushing for war... Congress wasn't, for whatever reason. His own party had members, including the Vice President, threatening to impeach him if he committed action. Obama came out of this looking like the weaker party, not the Republicans.
Yes Obama did, and Obama killed Hoffa and was the third man on the grassy knoll. And he did so with his magic decoder ring.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Obama came out of this looking like the weaker party, not the Republicans.
I'm surprised he misread America's lack of interest in another war, and then equally surprised that he should disregard polls that reflect it.
I don't think this issue redefines him as especially weak. He has been a weak president from the start. His skills are in oratory, not in policy. His legacy will not be that of a strong president, and he won't leave much behind that will be of great value.
(//http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/i-meant-to-do-that.png)
I planned to get drunk, drive around and get pulled over by police then panic, hit the gas, get boxed in and get the crap beat out of me THEN get convicted and be forced to go to AA meetings! My diabolical plans never fail! :)
Quote from: "Brian37"Yes Obama did, and Obama killed Hoffa and was the third man on the grassy knoll. And he did so with his magic decoder ring.
Where are the days when Obama was just your ordinary communist, muslim, Kenyan-born, no good community organizer who was totally clueless about the economy?
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Shiranu"Obama came out of this looking like the weaker party, not the Republicans.
I'm surprised he misread America's lack of interest in another war, and then equally surprised that he should disregard polls that reflect it.
I don't think this issue redefines him as especially weak. He has been a weak president from the start. His skills are in oratory, not in policy. His legacy will not be that of a strong president, and he won't leave much behind that will be of great value.
Obama's top 50 accomplishments (//http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all)
One word:
Mittens
I suppose he might have made a better president...but I think not. For one thing, his scotus appt would have been ultra conservative, anti-gay marriage and anti womans rights. If the only good legacy Obama leaves us is a slightly more socially liberals scj, since they serve for life, it counts for something! I have been reading about how once Reagan got into office and we got an ultra conservative scotus majority, they have proceeded to got the establishment clause, turning thousands of public schools into xtian churches, more every year. My local elem school is one, which is why I started researching it. So yeah, for thst one reason alone....he beats Romney.
But personally I am now fully aware that the American people get the shit end of the stick on most issues no matter who we elect. American politics have become soooo conservative that any actual liberal has no chance in hell of presidential election.
In order to appear to be in control he has to act as if he planned it. Kerry made a sarcastic, off the cuff remark and to his surprise everyone took it seriously. Obama's stuck - he can either denounce Kerry and admit he didn't want this, or he can go through with it in spite of not wanting it but pretending he wanted it.
It was 12-dimensional chess all along.
Obama isn't dumb, but he's not that smart. Furthermore, it makes him look like a hypocritical ass-hat for drawing the "red line" at chemical weapons and not artillery and air strikes. Like a government killing it's own people isn't inherently wrong. Even if he drew the line where he should have he'd still be a hypocrite for the drone strikes that killed innocent children in Afghanistan.
Obama looks like a fool to the Russians.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Shiranu"Obama came out of this looking like the weaker party, not the Republicans.
I'm surprised he misread America's lack of interest in another war, and then equally surprised that he should disregard polls that reflect it.
I don't think this issue redefines him as especially weak. He has been a weak president from the start. His skills are in oratory, not in policy. His legacy will not be that of a strong president, and he won't leave much behind that will be of great value.
Obama's top 50 accomplishments (//http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all)
Are you fuckin kidding me? Just a few examples-
Passed Health Care Reform – and then promptly started delaying implementation and issuing exemptions.
Passed the Stimulus – Horray! More money for the 1%. Gotta keep the corporations that fucked us alive so they can keep fucking us
Passed Wall Street Reform – see above. Nothing like more barriers to entry for the smaller financial institutions. Let's keep it concentrated in the 'too big o fail' group.
Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan – still there and still bombing wedding parties with drones.
Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry – remains to be seen but is giving taxpayer money to big assed corporations really a good thing?
Recapitalized Banks – more taxpayer money for the 1 percenters
Toppled Moammar Gaddafi – fucking with yet more middle eastern countries.
Told Mubarak to Go – still fucking with yet more middle eastern countries
Reversed Bush Torture Policies – reversed as in he doesn't brag about it. Gitmo's sill open for business along with the black sites in 'cooperating countries'
Improved America's Image Abroad – Hahahahahaha. That there's funny.
The list goes on and on with bullshit spin. How comforting it must be to be able to make the "good" choice of the two options presented. The "Democrats=good, Republicans=evil" (or vice versa) shit is about on par with theism as far as willfully deluding yourself in order to feel better about the world.
Heard a good article on Democracy now about who the greatest winner in this situation was Putin. Obama's reputation went down, and Putin came out looking like a competent statesman who was able to avert a war.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "SGOS"I'm surprised he misread America's lack of interest in another war, and then equally surprised that he should disregard polls that reflect it.
I don't think this issue redefines him as especially weak. He has been a weak president from the start. His skills are in oratory, not in policy. His legacy will not be that of a strong president, and he won't leave much behind that will be of great value.
Obama's top 50 accomplishments (//http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all)
Are you fuckin kidding me? Just a few examples-
Passed Health Care Reform – and then promptly started delaying implementation and issuing exemptions.
Thank the Republican governors who refused to have their states participating in it.
QuotePassed the Stimulus – Horray! More money for the 1%. Gotta keep the corporations that fucked us alive so they can keep fucking us
In just a few years, it got us out of the worst recession since 1929-45, which took 16 years to get out.
QuotePassed Wall Street Reform – see above. Nothing like more barriers to entry for the smaller financial institutions. Let's keep it concentrated in the 'too big o fail' group.
Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide "living wills" to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers' money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.QuoteBegan Drawdown of War in Afghanistan – still there and still bombing wedding parties with drones.
From a peak of 101,000 troops, most of them are back home.
QuoteTurned Around U.S. Auto Industry – remains to be seen but is giving taxpayer money to big assed corporations really a good thing?
It saved over 1 million jobs.
QuoteRecapitalized Banks – more taxpayer money for the 1 percenters
Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.
QuoteToppled Moammar Gaddafi – fucking with yet more middle eastern countries.
Ended Gaddafi's 42-year rule with no American lives lost.
QuoteReversed Bush Torture Policies – reversed as in he doesn't brag about it. Gitmo's sill open for business along with the black sites in 'cooperating countries'
Only because GOP controlled Congress won't allow him to permanently close it down
I buy the article. Obama is a player. I never saw him otherwise. I don't however, give Kerry that much credit- he doesn't move without a hand guiding him. As to the clever wow stuff, I don't know. But never buy Obama as dumb. He is anything but.
Aroura33 wrote in part:
QuoteBut personally I am now fully aware that the American people get the shit end of the stick on most issues no matter who we elect. American politics have become soooo conservative that any actual liberal has no chance in hell of presidential election.
Pretty much sums up my opinion on this. I didn't think Obama would make any real difference in how things were in America. But, I hoped I was wrong. Sometimes it really sucks to be right.
And no, Obama isn't smart enough to have thought all of this out ahead of time. He is just reacting as most of us would in his shoes. I still think a lot of what he is reacting to are the lobbyists like AIPAC and others.
Quote from: "stromboli"I buy the article. Obama is a player. I never saw him otherwise. I don't however, give Kerry that much credit- he doesn't move without a hand guiding him. As to the clever wow stuff, I don't know. But never buy Obama as dumb. He is anything but.
No one is saying he is dumb, just saying I don't believe that this is the one exception where he wasn't a Republican. And I don't think he is Sherlock Holmes & Julius Caeser combined to be able to have played this "chess game" with this as his end game.
Given his history of being a Republican in practice, it just feels very convenient to say, "Oh yeah, this was his endgame all along!" and not, "This is just what Obama is.".
Quote from: "Shiranu"Given his history of being a Republican in practice, it just feels very convenient to say, "Oh yeah, this was his endgame all along!" and not, "This is just what Obama is.".
That's SOP among Obama supporters. Instead of saying "he didn't give us what we want so therefore we will criticize him" they say "hooray the glass is 1/10 full and this is what Obama intended the whole time."
If there was an "R" instead of a "D" after Obama's name, he wouldn't be getting praise for those now praising him. Remember S-CHIP and Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors? Do those cheering Obamacare also cheer those? Exactly.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Shiranu"Obama came out of this looking like the weaker party, not the Republicans.
I'm surprised he misread America's lack of interest in another war, and then equally surprised that he should disregard polls that reflect it.
I don't think this issue redefines him as especially weak. He has been a weak president from the start. His skills are in oratory, not in policy. His legacy will not be that of a strong president, and he won't leave much behind that will be of great value.
Obama's top 50 accomplishments (//http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all)
50 Top Accomplishments? I quickly realized this list was pure political spin and stopped reading after the first 10. Some of these could also pass as his biggest failures. Others are questionable. Some were just things that happened.
1 Healthcare - A tongue in cheek response to Hillary Care by Republicans, and it's still pathetic 20 years later.
2 Stimulus - One would think America is doing well.
3 Wall Street Reform - Kidding right? At least George Bush sent Martha Stewart to jail.
4 Ended Iraq war - (and transferred the Military to Afghanistan).
5 Afghanistan - The Afghan people will finally be free!
6 Osama bin Laden. 1 point for not interfering with the Seals.
7 US auto industry - Detroit is a wealthy city again.
8 Recapitalized banks - Yay! Obama's top treasury advisers saved their cronies.
9 Don't Ask Don't Tell - Figured out it was discriminatory after vacillating for 5 years.
10 Toppled Gaddafi - Some Republicans say George Bush started the Arab Spring.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "SGOS"I'm surprised he misread America's lack of interest in another war, and then equally surprised that he should disregard polls that reflect it.
I don't think this issue redefines him as especially weak. He has been a weak president from the start. His skills are in oratory, not in policy. His legacy will not be that of a strong president, and he won't leave much behind that will be of great value.
Obama's top 50 accomplishments (//http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all)
50 Top Accomplishments? I quickly realized this list was pure political spin and stopped reading after the first 10. Some of these could also pass as his biggest failures. Others are questionable. Some were just things that happened.
1 Healthcare - A tongue in cheek response to Hillary Care by Republicans, and it's still pathetic 20 years later.
Not really. It was Newt Gingrich who first proposed it as against Hillary's plan. Then Romney instituted it in Massachussetts when he was governor. Then it became the ACA under Obama.
Quote2 Stimulus - One would think America is doing well.
The last Great Depression lasted 16 years, from 1929-45. This one lasts a mere two years. It would have lasted even shorter hadn't the GOP obstruct Obama and twarted his plan to get a second stimulus.
Quote3 Wall Street Reform - Kidding right? At least George Bush sent Martha Stewart to jail.
You're mixing apples with oranges. The reform is to regulate financial institutes when they delve into high risk investment like derivatives, which I'm sure you understand that market fully.
Quote4 Ended Iraq war - (and transferred the Military to Afghanistan).
Why is it so hard to give Obama the credit of ending the war in Iraq? Are you that much of a racist?
Quote5 Afghanistan - The Afghan people will finally be free!
Are you suggesting that we stay there indefinitely?
Quote6 Osama bin Laden. 1 point for not interfering with the Seals.
Another racist comment: A black guy can never, ever do anything right!!!
Quote7 US auto industry - Detroit is a wealthy city again.
The decline of Detroit started in the 1960's. As usual from a racist, Obama is guilty of that too.
Quote8 Recapitalized banks - Yay! Obama's top treasury advisers saved their cronies.
So according to your racist logic, letting the banks failed, putting the economy into the tank, and let the unemployment soared to 30% would be the right solution. Great thinking.
Quote9 Don't Ask Don't Tell - Figured out it was discriminatory after vacillating for 5 years.
So what no other president has ever done is still not enough to give him credit. Your racism is
beyond salvation.
Quote10 Toppled Gaddafi - Some Republicans say George Bush started the Arab Spring.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Are you that much of a racist?
Another racist comment:
So according to your racist logic....
Your racism is beyond salvation.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Bullshit. Go find a statement from me anywhere in this forum where I ever demeaned a person because he was black.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Are you that much of a racist?
Another racist comment:
So according to your racist logic....
Your racism is beyond salvation.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Gettin pretty hard to defend your guy on the merits eh?
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Are you that much of a racist?
Another racist comment:
So according to your racist logic....
Your racism is beyond salvation.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Bullshit. Go find a statement from me anywhere in this forum where I ever demeaned a person because he was black.
I don't have to. I know a racist when I see one. And you are.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Are you that much of a racist?
Another racist comment:
So according to your racist logic....
Your racism is beyond salvation.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Gettin pretty hard to defend your guy on the merits eh?
What I gave you are facts. What you gave back is your opinions. You're entitled to your opinions but not to
your facts.
All those whoppers on the list really are facts to you aren't they? Even the part where you said Obama couldn't shut down Gitmo because the republicans control congress is true in your mind I bet. You're like a YEC claiming there are no transitional fossils.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote2 Stimulus - One would think America is doing well.
The last Great Depression lasted 16 years, from 1929-45. This one lasts a mere two years. It would have lasted even shorter hadn't the GOP obstruct Obama and twarted his plan to get a second stimulus.
It's nice to know that unemployment is low, inflation is low, gas prices have come down, etc.
Since "recession" is only defined as the decline, one might be able to bullshit and say the economy is better. The recession that caused the Great Depression only lasted a few years as well, but the Great Depression outlasted the recession that caused it by many years. The same is true of Great Depression II which we are still in.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Are you that much of a racist?
Another racist comment:
So according to your racist logic....
Your racism is beyond salvation.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Bullshit. Go find a statement from me anywhere in this forum where I ever demeaned a person because he was black.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Are you that much of a racist?
Another racist comment:
So according to your racist logic....
Your racism is beyond salvation.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Gettin pretty hard to defend your guy on the merits eh?
JP isn't really capable of arguing without insulting people.
Quote from: "billhilly"All those whoppers on the list really are facts to you aren't they? Even the part where you said Obama couldn't shut down Gitmo because the republicans control congress is true in your mind I bet.
Get yourself informed. From a recent article, May 30, 2013:
QuoteLately Obama has tried speaking the language Republicans best understand—spending—by pointing out that each inmate at Gitmo costs $800,000 per year to house, for a total of about $150 million per year in operations. But when it comes to closing Gitmo, Smith says, many of the Republicans whose support Obama would need to approve transfers to U.S. prisons have boxed themselves in politically. House Speaker John Boehner, for instance, has called the prison a "world-class facility" and in 2010 said he wouldn't vote to close it "if you put a gun to my head."
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/wh ... z2fAEcRrjN (http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/why-gitmo-will-never-close/#ixzz2fAEcRrjN)
So with Obama's expansion of executive orders and a Democratic house and senate for the first few years of his presidency, he just couldn't quite get it done? Remember when the house speaker was Pelosi? Yep, no transitional fossils here.
You're not supposed to mention the time interval when Democrats controlled the House and the Senate under Obama. Even if every Republican voted "no" there would still have been enough votes to close Gitmo - if the Democrats actually believed in closing Gitmo.
Quote from: "billhilly"So with Obama's expansion of executive orders and a Democratic house and senate for the first few years of his presidency, he just couldn't quite get it done? Remember when the house speaker was Pelosi? Yep, no transitional fossils here.
That's another myth perpetrated by Fox News and the the nutjobs in the GOP. Considering that Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed, and Al Franken had to deal with an election contest, Obama had the two houses under Democratic control for less than a year, which BTW was marked by a record in fillibusters from the GOP. So in that very limited short time, in spite of the GOP deliberate obstruction, he was supposed to solve all the problems in the entire world. Wow! Of course when you make these ungrounded accusations, you're not a racist... riiight?!?!
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-th ... -how-long/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/)
RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, that all ya got? You and your ilk have diluted the racism charge down to nothing in a futile attempt at misdirection. Your dear leader didn't even try to make good on certain promises he made as a candidate and anyone who points that out is a racist. Fuckin pathetic.
:popcorn:
Quote from: "billhilly"RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, that all ya got? You and your ilk have diluted the racism charge down to nothing in a futile attempt at misdirection. Your dear leader didn't even try to make good on certain promises he made as a candidate and anyone who points that out is a racist. Fuckin pathetic.
All your accusations so far were shot down by facts. Yet you persist in denigrating the black guy in the oval office. If that doesn't smell racism, then what?
If you think the idea that the bailouts got us out of the recession is a fact then you're delusional. All that money went to help the guys who caused the recession in the first place, so they made bad bets and the taxpayers are the ones stuck with foreclosed houses and the bad mortgages. Congress should have been tarred and fucking feathered for that shit.
1. Barack Obama is a smart man. He, a "man of color" got elected to the most powerful job on the planet and then reelected. Dumb he ain't
2. He has managed to accomplish some very big things as president. Getting the Affordable Health Care Act all the way past the Supreme Court and into (supposed) reality, though it ain't happened yet. And various other shit that has already been listed here. This, against the stiffest opposition that any president ever faced. Ever.
3. He has access to ALL of the current secret, top secret, need to know, you name it, data on EVERYTHING. He has access to shit we don't have any knowledge of. He is advised by the top minds in the world as to how to proceed on these matters.
4. What he does involves literally juggling world power.
Could be, just maybe, we at this level, judging or no, don't have the complete picture.
The Syria thing happened. However it was manipulated we will only know in hindsight, and probably not for awhile. I don't fault him because the outcome was, intentionally or not, benign.
In case you hadn't thought about it, Israel has now been singled out as one of the countries (I think the only country) that has not signed the non-use of chemical weapons treaty. That puts the spotlight on them to comply. Another "oh, by the way" fall out from the Syria thingy.
I don't fault Obama for Syria. Gone and done. What I fault him for is the fact that Guantanamo is still in operation, the Keystone pipeline is still not dealt with, fracking is happening apparently with his blessing, and a list of other stuff.
Shot down by facts? Says the sycophant who screams racism at any disagreement on his dear leader's liberal bonafides.
How is it that they could get healthcare through congress and yet didn't even make an attempt to shut down Gitmo? Look around you. There are a lot of good liberals and progs who can see that there are problems with Obama. Deportations went up, pot arrests went up, drone assassinations, and an expansion of executive power that will eventually be handed to a republican president. What do you suppose a republican might do with the shiny new expanded powers?
Quote from: "billhilly"What do you suppose a republican might do with the shiny new expanded powers?
The same thing Obama's done with them; act irresponsibly because they know they won't be held accountable.
Quote from: "The Whit"If you think the idea that the bailouts got us out of the recession is a fact then you're delusional.
Fact: The last Great Depression lasted 16 years, from 1929 to 1945
This one, called the Great Recession, lasted, 18 months.
Fact: The Great Depression had an unemployment rate over 20%. In this Great Recession, it never went over 10%.
These are facts, not opinions. But you are so afraid to give the black guy in the oval office credit that you are will go to great lengths to demean him.
QuoteAll that money went to help the guys who caused the recession in the first place, so they made bad bets and the taxpayers are the ones stuck with foreclosed houses and the bad mortgages. Congress should have been tarred and fucking feathered for that shit.
How about proving your baseless accusations with facts?!?
Quote from: "billhilly"Shot down by facts? Says the sycophant who screams racism at any disagreement on his dear leader's liberal
Anyone who sees Obama as a liberal must be a fucking moron. Reagan was more to the left than Obama. Get real.
QuoteHow is it that they could get healthcare through congress and yet didn't even make an attempt to shut down Gitmo? Look around you.
Guess you can't read properly. Do it again, real slowly this time:
That's another myth perpetrated by Fox News and the the nutjobs in the GOP. Considering that Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed, and Al Franken had to deal with an election contest, Obama had the two houses under Democratic control for less than a year, which BTW was marked by a record in fillibusters from the GOP. So in that very limited short time, in spite of the GOP deliberate obstruction, he was supposed to solve all the problems in the entire world. Wow! Of course when you make these ungrounded accusations, you're not a racist... riiight?!?!
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-th (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-th) ... -how-long/QuoteThere are a lot of good liberals and progs who can see that there are problems with Obama. Deportations went up, pot arrests went up, drone assassinations, and an expansion of executive power that will eventually be handed to a republican president. What do you suppose a republican might do with the shiny new expanded powers?
Sure, but one should be evaluated with what was accomplished also. It's totally unrealistic to think that this president, any president for that matter, can solve everything. Now read his accomplishments one more time:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... p?page=all (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all)
Your list is still bullshit spin no matter how many times you link it. You sound like you're angling for Jay Carney's job or something.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "billhilly"So with Obama's expansion of executive orders and a Democratic house and senate for the first few years of his presidency, he just couldn't quite get it done? Remember when the house speaker was Pelosi? Yep, no transitional fossils here.
That's another myth perpetrated by Fox News and the the nutjobs in the GOP. Considering that Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed, and Al Franken had to deal with an election contest, Obama had the two houses under Democratic control for less than a year, which BTW was marked by a record in fillibusters from the GOP. So in that very limited short time, in spite of the GOP deliberate obstruction, he was supposed to solve all the problems in the entire world. Wow! Of course when you make these ungrounded accusations, you're not a racist... riiight?!?!
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-th ... -how-long/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/)
With Kennedy and Franken having difficulty with their seats, the Democrats controlled 58 out of 98 senate seats instead of 60 out of 100. That's hardly not a majority. And the filibuster is a procedural rule that the Senate can dispense with, so that's not really an excuse.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "The Whit"If you think the idea that the bailouts got us out of the recession is a fact then you're delusional.
Fact: The last Great Depression lasted 16 years, from 1929 to 1945
This one, called the Great Recession, lasted, 18 months.
Fact: The Great Depression had an unemployment rate over 20%. In this Great Recession, it never went over 10%.
These are facts, not opinions. But you are so afraid to give the black guy in the oval office credit that you are will go to great lengths to demean him.
With the Great Depression, the recession that caused it lasted from 1929 to 1934, after which the economy started growing even though the country was still in the Great Depression. You're confusing recession and depression.
A recession is when you have consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. A depression is not defined as exactly but is generally regarded to be long periods of high unemployment.
The Great Depression, lasting from 1929 to 1945, had a recession from 1929 to 1934. Great Depression II, which is still ongoing, started with an 18 month recession - and some analysts say that it was longer than 18 months.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Fact: The last Great Depression lasted 16 years, from 1929 to 1945
This one, called the Great Recession, lasted, 18 months.
Fact: The Great Depression had an unemployment rate over 20%. In this Great Recession, it never went over 10%.
These are facts, not opinions. But you are so afraid to give the black guy in the oval office credit that you are will go to great lengths to demean him.
The Obama administration predicted that without the bailout unemployment would reach over 8% and that would be the end of the world. So they passed it, and unemployment went straight to 9.5% and stayed higher than their doomsday predictions about the economy without the bailout. The "recovery" has been on Wall street alone.
I see a lot of people denegrating Obama on several issues even though they state in not so many words he is going in the correct direction albeit slow.
The fact is that this president more than any other has been handcuffed. He came into office facing not only the worst foriegn situation since WWII but also the worst domestic situation since the Great Depression.
The fact is that he has masterfully and tactfully handle everything. He has stimied a recession that was headed straight for depression, and he has restored the USA's respectability internationally. If Russia and Iran are the public opposition to us then we are most definately going the right direction. The fact that Obama doesn't commit blood or treasure without reason is a good thing. He gets results.
Gays are more recognized than ever in the past, GM isn't gone, and over all he has done not only a good job but an honorable one. All this while facing the worst of the worst from the conservative side of the aisle. I know many of you are frustrated, but compromise causes that. It's hard to reverse the stupidity that is the conservative movement, and Obama is not about strongarming. As he said he is the president of ALL Americans.
I'm sure some of you will fly off the handle and start insulting me, calling me names putting words in my mouth, claiming you know what I think then misquoting me. You'll say that I drink the Kool-Aide, and that I am a blind follower, the truth is that I want best for this nation, and I think Obama has done a great job especially given the circumstances he has had to work under.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Fact: The last Great Depression lasted 16 years, from 1929 to 1945
This one, called the Great Recession, lasted, 18 months.
Fact: The Great Depression had an unemployment rate over 20%. In this Great Recession, it never went over 10%.
These are facts, not opinions. But you are so afraid to give the black guy in the oval office credit that you are will go to great lengths to demean him.
The Obama administration predicted that without the bailout unemployment would reach over 8% and that would be the end of the world. So they passed it, and unemployment went straight to 9.5% and stayed higher than their doomsday predictions about the economy without the bailout. The "recovery" has been on Wall street alone.
When you deal with Congress, any president has to sell his plan, and like anything else, you need to bend the truth. The important thing is that we didn't get to 20%. But remove the bailouts, the stimulus package, and we would have gotten there or very near that. OTOH, had Obama been allowed by Congress to pass a second stimulus, the recovery would have happened a lot faster. Now with the sequestration, the recovery is still going on but at a much slower pace. You can thank your nutjobs in the GOP for that.
Quote from: "billhilly"Your list is still bullshit spin no matter how many times you link it. You sound like you're angling for Jay Carney's job or something.
You're entitled to your opinion but the facts show that you are dead wrong.
Quote from: "stromboli"Could be, just maybe, we at this level, judging or no, don't have the complete picture.
This x1000.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"When you deal with Congress, any president has to sell his plan, and like anything else, you need to bend the truth. The important thing is that we didn't get to 20%. But remove the bailouts, the stimulus package, and we would have gotten there or very near that. OTOH, had Obama been allowed by Congress to pass a second stimulus, the recovery would have happened a lot faster. Now with the sequestration, the recovery is still going on but at a much slower pace. You can thank your nutjobs in the GOP for that.
LOL the sequestration is slowing the economy! It was a cut of less than 40 billion in a budget of over 3 TRILLION. HA! That was a fucking paper cut!
PLEASE tell me how the bailout money saved the economy. I'd love to know how out of sync with reality you are.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "billhilly"Your list is still bullshit spin no matter how many times you link it. You sound like you're angling for Jay Carney's job or something.
You're entitled to your opinion but the facts show that you are dead wrong.
On the other hand, there are the facts that I added that you ignored.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"When you deal with Congress, any president has to sell his plan, and like anything else, you need to bend the truth. The important thing is that we didn't get to 20%. But remove the bailouts, the stimulus package, and we would have gotten there or very near that. OTOH, had Obama been allowed by Congress to pass a second stimulus, the recovery would have happened a lot faster. Now with the sequestration, the recovery is still going on but at a much slower pace. You can thank your nutjobs in the GOP for that.
LOL the sequestration is slowing the economy! It was a cut of less than 40 billion in a budget of over 3 TRILLION. HA! That was a fucking paper cut!
Get your facts straightened out. The sequestration cut $84.5B in fiscal 2013, since Jan 1st of this year. There was an additional $21B cut at the end of fiscal 2012 - this taking place after the summer showdown by the GOP to shut down the government. So cumulative cuts are of the order of $100B. What the economy needs in order to get traction is stimulus, not contraction. The result is what we see now, a very slow recovery, and this is due thankfully to Bernanke's monetary policies of QE's. Otherwise the economy would be tanking.
QuotePLEASE tell me how the bailout money saved the economy. I'd love to know how out of sync with reality you are.
Auto bailout saved more than 1 million jobs - http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/g ... tudy-says/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/gm-ipo-auto-bailout-saved-more-than-1-million-jobs-study-says/)
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Get your facts straightened out. The sequestration cut $84.5B in fiscal 2013, since Jan 1st of this year. There was an additional $21B cut at the end of fiscal 2012 - this taking place after the summer showdown by the GOP to shut down the government. So cumulative cuts are of the order of $100B. What the economy needs in order to get traction is stimulus, not contraction. The result is what we see now, a very slow recovery, and this is due thankfully to Bernanke's monetary policies of QE's. Otherwise the economy would be tanking.
OMG they cut 3% of the budget the world is going to end! Forget the national debt skyrocketing to 17 Trillion, an annual budget deficit of at or near a trillion dollars, trillions more in unfunded liabilities which include SS (that I'll never draw a penny from), what we need is to spend even more money we don't have. Where in the hell is this money coming from?
QuoteAuto bailout saved more than 1 million jobs - http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/g ... tudy-says/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/gm-ipo-auto-bailout-saved-more-than-1-million-jobs-study-says/)
Uh huh.
QuoteAt the rough pricetag of $80 billion in government assistance, each job CAR said was saved during the last two years cost taxpayers nearly $57,000.
But it was the next paragraph that really confused the shit out of me.
Quote...CAR figures Washington only needs to recoup $38 billion more on the taxpayer bailouts to "achieve a two-year break-even." Put another way, if the Treasury recovers 57 cents on the dollar or more in IPOs of GM and Chrysler, "the public will have been made full whole," CAR concluded.
So, what they're saying is if they get just over half of what they put in they'll break even? O.o
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009 ... y-chrysler (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-09-09/business/36872856_1_bankruptcy-auto-industry-chrysler)
QuoteThe report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is "highly unlikely" to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company's stock to reach unprecedented heights.
What a great investment that was. Gotta love GM's rosey out look:
QuoteWe are confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities
And Mitt Romney was sure he was going to be president. I'd hope they're doing better after getting billions of dollars they didn't earn.
Maybe if the government hadn't pushed home ownership so hard the housing market wouldn't have bubbled and we wouldn't have had the collapse in the first place. Too much credit caused the collapse in 1929 and 2007, and you're suggesting that the solution is EVEN MORE CREDIT!?
The "recovery" we've seen is just another bubble being inflated by government subsidies. This is obvious by the rate of inflation, the stock market, and the high unemployment rate.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Get your facts straightened out. The sequestration cut $84.5B in fiscal 2013, since Jan 1st of this year. There was an additional $21B cut at the end of fiscal 2012 - this taking place after the summer showdown by the GOP to shut down the government. So cumulative cuts are of the order of $100B. What the economy needs in order to get traction is stimulus, not contraction. The result is what we see now, a very slow recovery, and this is due thankfully to Bernanke's monetary policies of QE's. Otherwise the economy would be tanking.
OMG they cut 3% of the budget the world is going to end!
Are you drunk? Who said the world would end? You should stop watching Fox News.
And $100B is nothing to sneeze at. Such cuts represent well over a million jobs. The next thing you would complain about is that the unemployment is too high.
Like I said before, according to your racist logic, Obama is damned if he spends to save jobs, and he is damned if he cuts and puts millions of American workers out of a job.
You're showing your true colors.
As to the GM bailout, it cost $12B to save 1 million jobs, which is a bargain taking into account that these people would have not only lost their jobs, but their houses, their kids education fund and their pension, not to mention their health plan. Without the bailout, the cost would have been a lot higher.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"And $100B is nothing to sneeze at. Such cuts represent well over a million jobs.
No, it doesn't. If that were the case, and every job costed the same 57K the auto industry jobs cost us the 3.5 trillion the government spends should mean that the feds employ over 61 million people, but they don't. They employ 4.4 million.
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/ (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/)
Even IF they DID employ 61 million people, they are employed AT THE EXPENSE of the other 240 million private sector workers. That federal money goes to the same wall street bankers and brokers as well as the power hungry military industrial complex. Funny how you point the finger at the republicans for pandering to these people while but when your savior dumps billions of public dollars into their pockets it's for the good of the economy.
QuoteThe next thing you would complain about is that the unemployment is too high.
High unemployment is a good thing to you. Got it.
QuoteLike I said before, according to your racist logic, Obama is damned if he spends to save jobs, and he is damned if he cuts and puts millions of Americans workers out of a job.
No, he'd be a fuckin hero if he cut back on spending in my eyes. The 100 billion dollar sequester is as ridiculous as a 500lb person getting liposuction to remove 10 pounds. SS and Medicare/Medicaid take almost ALL of the federal revenue. That's where the restructuring has to be made.
QuoteYou're showing your true colors.
They're a hell of a lot brighter than yours, considering you only see in black and white.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"And $100B is nothing to sneeze at. Such cuts represent well over a million jobs.
No, it doesn't. If that were the case, and every job costed the same 57K the auto industry jobs cost us the 3.5 trillion the government spends should mean that the feds employ over 61 million people, but they don't. They employ 4.4 million.
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/ (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/)
Even IF they DID employ 61 million people, they are employed AT THE EXPENSE of the other 240 million private sector workers. That federal money goes to the same wall street bankers and brokers as well as the power hungry military industrial complex. Funny how you point the finger at the republicans for pandering to these people while but when your savior dumps billions of public dollars into their pockets it's for the good of the economy.
It doesn't work that way. When the government spends, it's not only in salaries for those who work for the government, it's also money it spends in buying stuff, like jet planes from Boeing. If the government cuts there, no government employees would lose their jobs, but ask those who work at Boeing. So no, $3.5 trillion that the government spends does not translate into only GOVERNMENT JOBS.
Try again.
QuoteQuoteThe next thing you would complain about is that the unemployment is too high.
High unemployment is a good thing to you. Got it.
No, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.
QuoteQuoteLike I said before, according to your racist logic, Obama is damned if he spends to save jobs, and he is damned if he cuts and puts millions of Americans workers out of a job.
No, he'd be a fuckin hero if he cut back on spending in my eyes. The 100 billion dollar sequester is as ridiculous as a 500lb person getting liposuction to remove 10 pounds. SS and Medicare/Medicaid take almost ALL of the federal revenue. That's where the restructuring has to be made.
Like I said, you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.
QuoteQuoteYou're showing your true colors.
They're a hell of a lot brighter than yours, considering you only see in black and white.
No, I see facts, you watch Fox News.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"It doesn't work that way. When the government spends, it's not only in salaries for those who work for the government, it's also money it spends in buying stuff, like jet planes from Boeing. If the government cuts there, no government employees would lose their jobs, but ask those who work at Boeing. So no, $3.5 trillion that the government spends does not translate into only GOVERNMENT JOBS.
Try again.
Government money is taken from the private sector, so any money the government spends on funding JSFs and a war in Afghanistan he said we'd be out of 5 years ago is money the rest of us CAN'T use to grow the economy. Any jobs created by the government come at the expense of the economy. The only jobs the government should fund are jobs that help the economy like the judicial branch, law enforcement, and infrastructure.
QuoteNo, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.
Yeah, well the cotton gin put hundreds of thousands out of work but you wouldn't argue that we should destroy all the machines and go back to hand filtering would you? Do you want to pick seeds out of cotton strands for 12+ hours a day while being paid just enough to afford food for tomorrow and a shack to sleep in? That would put HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people to work, but IT'S NOT ECONOMIC GROWTH!
QuoteLike I said, you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.
If it's a job that doesn't need to be done. I'd rather NOT pay someone to waste their time strip searching 90 year old wheelchair bound women at the fucking airport, thank you VERY MUCH.
QuoteNo, I see facts, you watch Fox News.
No, I don't and no matter how many times you assert something it doesn't magically become true. If that were the case god would exist and money would grow on trees (thereby making it worthless).
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"It doesn't work that way. When the government spends, it's not only in salaries for those who work for the government, it's also money it spends in buying stuff, like jet planes from Boeing. If the government cuts there, no government employees would lose their jobs, but ask those who work at Boeing. So no, $3.5 trillion that the government spends does not translate into only GOVERNMENT JOBS.
Try again.
Government money is taken from the private sector, so any money the government spends on funding JSFs and a war in Afghanistan he said we'd be out of 5 years ago is money the rest of us CAN'T use to grow the economy. Any jobs created by the government come at the expense of the economy. The only jobs the government should fund are jobs that help the economy like the judicial branch, law enforcement, and infrastructure.
Where have you been? Big corporations are right now sitting on trillions of dollars, and they aren't hiring anyone. Your moto is: put more money into the private sector, which will only enrich the top 1%, not creating a single job, and screw everybody else.
QuoteQuoteNo, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.
Yeah, well the cotton gin put hundreds of thousands out of work but you wouldn't argue that we should destroy all the machines and go back to hand filtering would you? Do you want to pick seeds out of cotton strands for 12+ hours a day while being paid just enough to afford food for tomorrow and a shack to sleep in? That would put HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people to work, but IT'S NOT ECONOMIC GROWTH!
That is totally irrelevant as the auto industry is going to be around for quite a while.
QuoteQuoteLike I said, you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.
If it's a job that doesn't need to be done. I'd rather NOT pay someone to waste their time strip searching 90 year old wheelchair bound women at the fucking airport, thank you VERY MUCH.
Sure, and according to your insane logic, leave the terrorists complete freedom to kill innocent people. Great thinking!
QuoteQuoteNo, I see facts, you watch Fox News.
No, I don't and no matter how many times you assert something it doesn't magically become true. If that were the case god would exist and money would grow on trees (thereby making it worthless).
Since you are using the same insane logic, the same racist arguments, the same distorted facts that anyone would find on Fox News, then I'm willing to bet that you do watch Fox News.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Where have you been? Big corporations are right now sitting on trillions of dollars, and they aren't hiring anyone.
Trillions of dollars the government gave them.
QuoteYour moto is: put more money into the private sector, which will only enrich the top 1%, not creating a single job, and screw everybody else.
No, it's not. I didn't expect to have a reasonable conversation but, jeebuz dude, do you have reading comprehension? The only people I said we should have screwed were the big businesses who invested incorrectly and cause the economic collapse in the first place by letting them reap what they sew. You're the one calling for us to pour billions into the pockets of the 1% in the hopes they might let a few people keep jobs that wouldn't have been around if they weren't investing improperly anyway. Tell me, how has Warren Buffet done during this recovery compared to the average worker?
QuoteNo, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.
I'm for us not wasting peoples time by making them do jobs they don't need to do, especially if it takes tax funds to do so. These people will not be permanently unemployed. Cutting back labor regulations and payroll taxes would have a far greater beneficial effect on unemployment.
QuoteThat is totally irrelevant as the auto industry is going to be around for quite a while.
The auto industry is around because of the cotton gin you dim-wit. The cotton gin freed up thousands of people to do other things and made cotton much cheaper, making it more affordable for everyone. Machines taking the jobs of humans has had this effect in every industry. The reason you don't have to farm all day to make a living is because we made a machine that took that job for you. So the next time you think job loss is an inherently bad thing I want you to think about why it is you're not harvesting wheat by hand so you can eat tonight.
QuoteSure, and according to your insane logic, leave the terrorists complete freedom to kill innocent people. Great thinking!
Yeah, because they stopped the underwear bomber!
AMIRITE!?!?!?!QuoteSince you are using the same insane logic, the same racist arguments, the same distorted facts that anyone would find on Fox News, then I'm willing to bet that you do watch Fox News.
Name one time I ever brought up race? The funny thing about it is you fill the Fox News propaganda stereotype for Liberal, and that's pretty fuckin' scary.
Wow! I now know I'm a racist, atheistic, sexist pig who sold out his own race. Probably a traitor and terrorist too. Let's see what other categories I fall into, probably a Nazi Commie, dumb ass red-neck, trailer park scum, male chauvinist pig, uneducated dimwit, and a worthless SSI recipient. Then the Democrats wonder why I don't like them. When they call me names and then tell me what I am really thinking, I find it annoying. My fault no doubt. Had I been born to different parents then maybe I could be of use to them, and then they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my existence.
Oh well, carry on with the name calling. It seems to be working.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Where have you been? Big corporations are right now sitting on trillions of dollars, and they aren't hiring anyone.
Trillions of dollars the government gave them.
Where did you get that? Oh wait, from Fox News. For your info: the government never gave trillions. There was a bailout to the auto industry, a recovery package for the banks, and a stimulus package, of which most of the money went directly to the states to balance their budgets.
QuoteQuoteYour moto is: put more money into the private sector, which will only enrich the top 1%, not creating a single job, and screw everybody else.
No, it's not. I didn't expect to have a reasonable conversation but, jeebuz dude, do you have reading comprehension? The only people I said we should have screwed were the big businesses who invested incorrectly and cause the economic collapse in the first place by letting them reap what they sew.
The problem with that logic is that millions of workers in the auto industry, who had little say in the management of that industry, would have lost their jobs, their houses, their retirement funds, their health insurance. If you want to punish someone, punish the CEO's who made the bad decisions. Obama wisely saw through this and correctly saved millions of jobs for those workers. But you don't give a damn, you want your money, and screw everybody else.
QuoteYou're the one calling for us to pour billions into the pockets of the 1% in the hopes they might let a few people keep jobs that wouldn't have been around if they weren't investing improperly anyway.
No, I'm on the side of the working class, asshole.
QuoteQuoteThat is totally irrelevant as the auto industry is going to be around for quite a while.
The auto industry is around because of the cotton gin you dim-wit. The cotton gin freed up thousands of people to do other things and made cotton much cheaper, making it more affordable for everyone. Machines taking the jobs of humans has had this effect in every industry. The reason you don't have to farm all day to make a living is because we made a machine that took that job for you. So the next time you think job loss is an inherently bad thing I want you to think about why it is you're not harvesting wheat by hand so you can eat tonight.
Like I said, totally irrelevant to this discussion.
QuoteQuoteSure, and according to your insane logic, leave the terrorists complete freedom to kill innocent people. Great thinking!
Yeah, because they stopped the underwear bomber! AMIRITE!?!?!?!
Oh, according to you, 9/11 never happened??? Did Fox News tell you that too?
QuoteQuoteSince you are using the same insane logic, the same racist arguments, the same distorted facts that anyone would find on Fox News, then I'm willing to bet that you do watch Fox News.
Name one time I ever brought up race? The funny thing about it is you fill the Fox News propaganda stereotype for Liberal, and that's pretty fuckin' scary.
You finally admit that you watch Fox News, oh wow! As to bring up the race issue, you didn't have to, everything you've been saying is what racists have been saying about Obama: the black guy in the oval office can't do nothing right.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Where did you get that? Oh wait, from Fox News. For your info: the government never gave trillions. There was a bailout to the auto industry, a recovery package for the banks, and a stimulus package, of which most of the money went directly to the states to balance their budgets.
What does "Too big to fail" mean to you?
QuoteThe problem with that logic is that millions of workers in the auto industry, who had little say in the management of that industry, would have lost their jobs, their houses, their retirement funds, their health insurance.
So we should have bailed out Enron?
QuoteIf you want to punish someone, punish the CEO's who made the bad decisions. Obama wisely saw through this and correctly saved millions of jobs for those workers.
How is giving CEOs billions of dollars to prop up their companies punishing them?
QuoteBut you don't give a damn, you want your money, and screw everybody else.
You don't give a damn about facts, you're right, screw everyone else. They're racists.
QuoteNo, I'm on the side of the working class, asshole.
Are say you are but the policies you support say you're not.
QuoteLike I said, totally irrelevant to this discussion.
No, it's not. You're irrelevant to this discussion, because I could have a more intelligent conversation with my floor.
QuoteOh, according to you, 9/11 never happened??? Did Fox News tell you that too?
It would be ironic if you are fat because you do a lot of beating around the bust and jumping to conclusions.
QuoteSince you are using the same insane logic, the same racist arguments, the same distorted facts that anyone would find on Fox News, then I'm willing to bet that you do watch Fox News.
For the same reason I listen to Catholic Radio: laughs.
QuoteAs to bring up the race issue, you didn't have to, everything you've been saying is what racists have been saying about Obama: the black guy in the oval office can't do nothing right.
So if a racist likes the Celtics, everyone who likes the Celtics is a racist? Got it. Didn't you say something about logic?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic)
Odd, I don't see any of this from you.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Where did you get that? Oh wait, from Fox News. For your info: the government never gave trillions. There was a bailout to the auto industry, a recovery package for the banks, and a stimulus package, of which most of the money went directly to the states to balance their budgets.
What does "Too big to fail" mean to you?
That has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that government gave out trillions.
QuoteQuoteThe problem with that logic is that millions of workers in the auto industry, who had little say in the management of that industry, would have lost their jobs, their houses, their retirement funds, their health insurance.
So we should have bailed out Enron?
So you're comparing a company that produced nothing with a company that has been around for over 100 years, and has produced in the intervening years, billions of cars???
QuoteQuoteBut you don't give a damn, you want your money, and screw everybody else.
You don't give a damn about facts, you're right, screw everyone else. They're racists.
Facts?? So far, you've been wrong on government giving trillions, you've been wrong on the sequestration, you've been wrong on government spending translating into government jobs.
QuoteNo, it's not. You're irrelevant to this discussion, because I could have a more intelligent conversation with my floor.
Yep, you can be definitely good with floors as they can't argue against your warped logic.
QuoteQuoteAs to bring up the race issue, you didn't have to, everything you've been saying is what racists have been saying about Obama: the black guy in the oval office can't do nothing right.
QuoteSo if a racist likes the Celtics, everyone who likes the Celtics is a racist? Got it.
You're mixing apples with oranges. The fact that you can't even deny and therefore tacitly agree that "the black guy in the oval office can't do nothing right" is another proof of your racism. You had your chance, and you blew it.
Nobody's buying the racist schtick anymore. There are too many people from all over the political map who have an issue with something Obama has done. They can't all be racists or everybody is and it doesn't mean anything either way. Try making your arguments without accusing people of nefarious motives. And back to the topic of the thread, the Syrian deal was an unforced error and will help Assad and Putin in the long run.
Quote from: "billhilly"Nobody's buying the racist schtick anymore. There are too many people from all over the political map who have an issue with something Obama has done. They can't all be racists or everybody is and it doesn't mean anything either way. Try making your arguments without accusing people of nefarious motives
.
There's a difference between critizing Obama's policies with valid arguments, and demeaning every decision that Obama has taken.
QuoteAnd back to the topic of the thread, the Syrian deal was an unforced error and will help Assad and Putin in the long run.
I disagree. It was a brilliant move on the part of this administration in regard to the chemical weapons. We get Russia to do all of the dirty work. Putin has to deliver or else his already low credibility on the international scene will fall even further down. OTOH, the US has only to announce once in a while its option of miliary attack to make sure that both Russia and Syria are serious and don't dally with stalling tactics. If Putin delivers, which will be a very tough job to do, then Obama can claim he gave diplomacy a chance and it worked because of his option of pressuring with military attack. If Putin doesn't, then Obama can still make the argument that he let diplomacy run its fullest course and it didn't work, and only a military attack will deter Syria from using chemical weapons.
As to the civil war, the US has few options to affect the outcome. There is no one credible on the side of the rebels for the US to participate. Until then, the US should stay on the sides, perhaps quietly help those factions that best serve US interests. If the rebel factions do get their act together, and have a serious candidate to replace Assad, then the US will have the option to make its move in more substantive help.
Time will tell but the military attack option was effectively taken off the table. There are few people about the world who share your view that it was a brilliant strategy by Obama. Brilliant or not though, I'm happy with the outcome. We had no business threatening to bomb yet another country and now that won't happen. A win is a win no?
Quote from: "billhilly"Time will tell but the military attack option was effectively taken off the table.
The military attack has been taken off the table for the moment, but the option is still there as confirmed by John Kerry. There is a timetable to be met: (1) Syria has to give a list of its chemical weapons - which gas, how much and its whereabout; (2) inspectors have to be in Syria by November, destroying or removing the weapons from Syria. So it's important for the US to keep the military option on.
QuoteThere are few people about the world who share your view that it was a brilliant strategy by Obama.
Obama is in a win-win situation: win, if Putin fails; win, if Putin succeeds. If that is not a measure of a brilliant move, then what is?
QuoteBrilliant or not though, I'm happy with the outcome. We had no business threatening to bomb yet another country and now that won't happen. A win is a win no?
It's not a win for the US (and the world) if Syria uses chemical weapons and goes unpunished. Right now, it's been agreed that the punishment is the destruction of Syria's chemical arsenal. If Syria complies, then that's it in regard to that issue. If it doesn't, then the US would be compelled to take military action.
Although I don't disagree with everything Obama has done (mostly LGBT topics like DADT), I don't agree that this situation was a geniusly planned win-win for Obama.
If Putin didn't act and offer to take Assad's weapons and Obama went through with his strike it would have sparked major protest here in the States and his approval rating would have tanked. Multiple polls show very little public support for such action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world ... .html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-military-strike.html?_r=0)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... oll-finds/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/03/most-in-u-s-oppose-syria-strike-post-abc-poll-finds/)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/ ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html)
What Putin did makes him look like the one that averted potential war. IMO, all this has done is reinforce the international image of the US as the worlds belligerent bully.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"It's not a win for the US (and the world) if Syria uses chemical weapons and goes unpunished. Right now, it's been agreed that the punishment is the destruction of Syria's chemical arsenal. If Syria complies, then that's it in regard to that issue. If it doesn't, then the US would be compelled to take military action.
Yep, they're quakin in their boots fer sure.
QuoteU.S. backs off deadline for Syria to submit chemical weapons list
QuoteThe U.S.-Russian plan for the removal or destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough just days ago, appeared to run into trouble Wednesday as the Obama administration backed off a deadline for the Syrian government to submit a full inventory of its toxic stockpiles...
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/l ... 5199.story (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-20130918,0,1445199.story)
Quote from: "The Whit"Although I don't disagree with everything Obama has done (mostly LGBT topics like DADT), I don't agree that this situation was a geniusly planned win-win for Obama.
If Putin didn't act and offer to take Assad's weapons and Obama went through with his strike it would have sparked major protest here in the States and his approval rating would have tanked. Multiple polls show very little public support for such action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world ... .html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-military-strike.html?_r=0)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... oll-finds/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/03/most-in-u-s-oppose-syria-strike-post-abc-poll-finds/)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/ ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html)
Wars are rarely popular. The US went to war reluctantly in WW1 and WW2. In this case, it is not a matter of going to war but to deter Syria from further using chemical weapons. Regardless that it is unpopular, Obama doesn't need to worry about approval rating as he won't be running for any elections.
QuoteWhat Putin did makes him look like the one that averted potential war.
Russia has a lot to lose in that region - gas, a military base on the Mediterranean, not to mention that Syria buys millions worth of Russian weapons. Secondly, Putin knew that Obama wasn't bluffing. Had there been a confrontation between the US and Russia, Russia would have looked bad, and Putin would have lost his stronghold on power in his own native land. So his actions are understandable.
QuoteIMO, all this has done is reinforce the international image of the US as the worlds belligerent bully.
The US will always be the bully as long as it plays the role of international policeman. It goes with the territory.
QuoteThe US will always be the bully as long as it plays the role of international policeman. It goes with the territory.
You say that like it's a good thing..........
Quote from: "billhilly"Yep, they're quakin in their boots fer sure.
QuoteU.S. backs off deadline for Syria to submit chemical weapons list
QuoteThe U.S.-Russian plan for the removal or destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough just days ago, appeared to run into trouble Wednesday as the Obama administration backed off a deadline for the Syrian government to submit a full inventory of its toxic stockpiles...
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/l ... 5199.story (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-20130918,0,1445199.story)
It's to be expected that games will be played on both sides. No one believes realistically that the path to a resolution will be a straight line. OTOH, UN report is clear that Sarin gas was used. Furthermore, it was launched by rockets, which points in the direction of Assad. And Kerry is demanding that the UN passes a strong resolution to condemn Syria, and if Syria doesn't comply, there will be consequences.
QuoteThe secretary did not specify what the "consequences" will be. But he also said the possibility of U.S. military action is "still on the table."
http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry-se ... 50647.html (http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry-sees-consequences-if-syria-violates-chemical-weapons-accord/1750647.html)
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteThe US will always be the bully as long as it plays the role of international policeman. It goes with the territory.
You say that like it's a good thing..........
It's the lesser of two evils. If the US withdraws from this role, then China will fill that role. And Chinese are not known to favor US interests, not to mention their abysmal record on human rights. If they can oppress their people with impunity, you can imagine how they would treat the rest of the world.
This is why Obama looks like an idiot about Syria:
http://www.laughterburst.com/?p=3787 (http://www.laughterburst.com/?p=3787)
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Wars are rarely popular. The US went to war reluctantly in WW1 and WW2. In this case, it is not a matter of going to war but to deter Syria from further using chemical weapons. Regardless that it is unpopular, Obama doesn't need to worry about approval rating as he won't be running for any elections.
Actually, we entered WW2 with great enthusiasm after Pearl Harbor. Even before that volunteers flew in China and Great Britain. The reason the general population of America was unwilling to jump into another "European War" was the horrors of trench warfare in WW1.
Likewise, the general population is weary of an administration using military force against a nation based on secret intel because it sounds like the same argument Bush used to go to war with Iraq.
QuoteRussia has a lot to lose in that region - gas, a military base on the Mediterranean, not to mention that Syria buys millions worth of Russian weapons. Secondly, Putin knew that Obama wasn't bluffing. Had there been a confrontation between the US and Russia, Russia would have looked bad, and Putin would have lost his stronghold on power in his own native land. So his actions are understandable.
Gas isn't that big of a deal to the Russians. If we hit their military base and killed Russian personnel the backlash would be unpredictable. Russia still sells to India, China, Iran, and most Eastern European countries. It wouldn't be a favorable outcome for the Russians to lose Assad in Syria, but it wouldn't break their backs either.
QuoteThe US will always be the bully as long as it plays the role of international policeman. It goes with the territory.
That's how you see the US? Who the fuck elected us Sheriff?
Quote from: "The Whit"This is why Obama looks like an idiot about Syria:
http://www.laughterburst.com/?p=3787 (http://www.laughterburst.com/?p=3787)
That cartoon misses the point: The US reaction is not about the civil war in Syria, but the use of poison gas, which not only goes against the chemical weapons convention, it also puts all US troops in danger across the globe, including our allies in that region. No US president, be it Republican or Democrat, will allow it, regardless what the polls are saying.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The US will always be the bully as long as it plays the role of international policeman. It goes with the territory.
That's how you see the US? Who the fuck elected us Sheriff?
Last time I checked, the world is not a democracy.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"That cartoon misses the point: The US reaction is not about the civil war in Syria, but the use of poison gas, which not only goes against the chemical weapons convention, it also puts all US troops in danger across the globe, including our allies in that region. No US president, be it Republican or Democrat, will allow it, regardless what the polls are saying.
How does Assad gassing his own people endanger our troops? No US President would allow it? I do remember a republican sitting on his hands while Saddam gassed THOUSANDS of Kurds.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Last time I checked, the world is not a democracy.
So that gives us the authority to make it an autocracy?
For being "for the worker" you do sound a lot like an elitist scumbag.
QuoteLast time I checked, the world is not a democracy.
No but the US is fairly close and we're collectively sick of our leaders playing sheriff especially in the middle east. Check the polls.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"That cartoon misses the point: The US reaction is not about the civil war in Syria, but the use of poison gas, which not only goes against the chemical weapons convention, it also puts all US troops in danger across the globe, including our allies in that region. No US president, be it Republican or Democrat, will allow it, regardless what the polls are saying.
How does Assad gassing his own people endanger our troops? No US President would allow it? I do remember a republican sitting on his hands while Saddam gassed THOUSANDS of Kurds.
I've already explained this. In case you've forgotten or didn't bother to read: if Syria goes unpunished, every dictator across the globe will arm his country with chemical weapons and use them whenever, thus putting our future troops in danger. With the Chemical Weapons Convention, more than 80% of chemical weapons have been destroyed. Leaving Syria unpunished would reverse that.
We do know what happened to Saddam, right?!?
QuoteQuote from: "josephpalazzo"Last time I checked, the world is not a democracy.
QuoteSo that gives us the authority to make it an autocracy?
For being "for the worker" you do sound a lot like an elitist scumbag.
I have already said that. It's simple logic: if the US withdraws, then that vacuum will be filled by China. I will surmise that you are totally clueless as to how China would behave as the "sheriff". In case you're doubting, check what happens to political dissidents in China. Also, check how China is developping its arm forces since it has become the Number 2 in economic status. Economic power always translates into military power. What is happening in China is no exception. Talk to the Japanese and find out how worrisome that is to them.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteLast time I checked, the world is not a democracy.
No but the US is fairly close and we're collectively sick of our leaders playing sheriff especially in the middle east. Check the polls.
Once elected, the president doesn't have to run his adminstration according to polls. Besides, you can never satisfy everyone.
In other news: Syria submits inventory list.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/2 ... 61849.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/syria-declares-chemical-weapons_n_3961849.html)
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I've already explained this. In case you've forgotten or didn't bother to read: if Syria goes unpunished, every dictator across the globe will arm his country with chemical weapons and use them whenever, thus putting our future troops in danger. With the Chemical Weapons Convention, more than 80% of chemical weapons have been destroyed. Leaving Syria unpunished would reverse that.
So, we're cool with them having chemical weapons until they use them on the citizens they've been fire-bombing and airstriking for the last two years? Why didn't Obama push for Assad to hand over his chemical weapons when this started, or before they were used? This can't be about the CWC, that took place 16 years ago.
QuoteWe do know what happened to Saddam, right?!?
It only took us over 20 years to punish him! HA! He gassed the Kurds in 1988 and we went to war with him in 91 for reasons COMPLETELY unrelated. Even if we did eventually take him out, we put him there in the first place and it cost us nearly 5,000 troops killed plus thousands more seriously wounded. Could have saved a lot of trouble if we'd have taken his ass out in '91. Keep making excuses for you almighty leader.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I have already said that. It's simple logic: if the US withdraws, then that vacuum will be filled by China. I will surmise that you are totally clueless as to how China would behave as the "sheriff". In case you're doubting, check what happens to political dissidents in China. Also, check how China is developping its arm forces since it has become the Number 2 in economic status. Economic power always translates into military power. What is happening in China is no exception. Talk to the Japanese and find out how worrisome that is to them.
I know exactly how China would behave as "Sheriff" because we've given them a pretty good template on how to use your military to stick your nose places it doesn't belong. And just because I don't want us involved with shit that doesn't concern us doesn't mean I'm suggesting we roll over and die, dumbass. If Japan is worried about anyone it's North Korea. Funny how we took Saddam out because we "knew" he had WMDs but N.K. has actually tested nuclear weapons and we just gave them a stern warning.
You know as little about international politics as the man you're trying so desperately to defend. Keep trying to bail out the Titanic with that bucket. It'll work eventually, right?
QuoteOnce elected, the president doesn't have to run his adminstration according to polls. Besides, you can never satisfy everyone.
No, but when you only have 30% positive backing for your actions and 50%+ against it makes you look like you're out of touch with your own country on top of the hypocrisy.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I've already explained this. In case you've forgotten or didn't bother to read: if Syria goes unpunished, every dictator across the globe will arm his country with chemical weapons and use them whenever, thus putting our future troops in danger. With the Chemical Weapons Convention, more than 80% of chemical weapons have been destroyed. Leaving Syria unpunished would reverse that.
So, we're cool with them having chemical weapons until they use them on the citizens they've been fire-bombing and airstriking for the last two years? Why didn't Obama push for Assad to hand over his chemical weapons when this started, or before they were used?
Maybe you were cool with CW's, but Obama gave a warning to Syria from the beginning of the conflict. Of course a racist like you will skip over that detail.
QuoteQuoteWe do know what happened to Saddam, right?!?
It only took us over 20 years to punish him! HA! He gassed the Kurds in 1988 and we went to war with him in 91 for reasons COMPLETELY unrelated. Even if we did eventually take him out, we put him there in the first place and it cost us nearly 5,000 troops killed plus thousands more seriously wounded. Could have saved a lot of trouble if we'd have taken his ass out in '91. Keep making excuses for you almighty leader.
Keep on contradicting yourself. First you're against any military involvement. Now you're saying we should have kicked ass right off from the get-go. I will agree that Bush 1 should have finished the job in 91' and his failure to do so cost the US a lot in lives and money , but can you keep your story straight? Are you FOR military action or AGAINST?
QuoteQuote from: "josephpalazzo"I have already said that. It's simple logic: if the US withdraws, then that vacuum will be filled by China. I will surmise that you are totally clueless as to how China would behave as the "sheriff". In case you're doubting, check what happens to political dissidents in China. Also, check how China is developping its arm forces since it has become the Number 2 in economic status. Economic power always translates into military power. What is happening in China is no exception. Talk to the Japanese and find out how worrisome that is to them.
I know exactly how China would behave as "Sheriff" because we've given them a pretty good template on how to use your military to stick your nose places it doesn't belong. And just because I don't want us involved with shit that doesn't concern us doesn't mean I'm suggesting we roll over and die, dumbass. If Japan is worried about anyone it's North Korea. Funny how we took Saddam out because we "knew" he had WMDs but N.K. has actually tested nuclear weapons and we just gave them a stern warning.
Yes, N. Korea is a problem, OTOH a China arming itself is exponentially bigger. You're comparing a housefly to a tiger. Get some perspective.
QuoteYou know as little about international politics as the man you're trying so desperately to defend. Keep trying to bail out the Titanic with that bucket. It'll work eventually, right?
Again, your comprehension skills must be at the level of a 5-year old. I'm not defending Obama, I'm exposing your racism.
QuoteQuoteOnce elected, the president doesn't have to run his adminstration according to polls. Besides, you can never satisfy everyone.
No, but when you only have 30% positive backing for your actions and 50%+ against it makes you look like you're out of touch with your own country on top of the hypocrisy.
Why don't you point out the hypocrisy of your favorite party - the GOP is planning to shut down the government even though less than 24% agree with that?!??! So according to you, the GOP can ignore the polls, but the black guy in the oval office is a no-good incompetent who by ignoring the polls doesn't care for the American people. Your racism has been duely noted.
QuoteIt only took us over 20 years to punish him! HA! He gassed the Kurds in 1988 and we went to war with him in 91 for reasons COMPLETELY unrelated.
And the Iranians... who we provided Saddam with information on their troop movement and locations and turned a blind eye on.
QuoteOf course a racist like you will skip over that detail.
Oh, get the fuck over yourself.
Oh, fuck this thread.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Maybe you were cool with CW's, but Obama gave a warning to Syria from the beginning of the conflict. Of course a racist like you will skip over that detail.
The conflict started around June of 2011 and B.O. didn't say shit about CWs until August 20th of
2012. Yeah, he waited a full year after the conflict began to say anything about chemical weapons and didn't try to get them out of Assad's hands before he used them.
QuoteKeep on contradicting yourself. First you're against any military involvement. Now you're saying we should have kicked ass right off from the get-go. I will agree that Bush 1 should have finished the job in 91' and his failure to do so cost the US a lot in lives and money , but can you keep your story straight? Are you FOR military action or AGAINST?
I'm not totally against military action except when it is unwarranted. I'm also against half assed military action that only creates more problems to fix down the road. You can't just drop bombs on people without repercussion.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Yes, N. Korea is a problem, OTOH a China arming itself is exponentially bigger. You're comparing a housefly to a tiger. Get some perspective.
The way the US is borrowing money from them China will be the world superpower soon anyhow. If they can lend us hundreds of billions and still close the military gap between us, who is the real economic powerhouse?
QuoteAgain, your comprehension skills must be at the level of a 5-year old. I'm not defending Obama, I'm exposing your racism.
Literally the only person in this ENTIRE THREAD that ever brought up anything about race is you. So, shut the fuck up about racism.
QuoteWhy don't you point out the hypocrisy of your favorite party - the GOP...
I knew you were a two party nit-wit. Just because I'm not a Derpacrat doesn't mean I'm a Republitard. Just another example of an asinine baseless assumption from you.
Quoteis planning to shut down the government even though less than 24% agree with that?!??! So according to you, the GOP can ignore the polls
No, according to republicans...
Quote, but the black guy in the oval office is a no-good incompetent who by ignoring the polls doesn't care for the American people. Your racism has been duely noted.
Let me know when you want to debate me and not the GOP strawman you got from MSNBC. I'll be waiting. I won't hold my breath though.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Maybe you were cool with CW's, but Obama gave a warning to Syria from the beginning of the conflict. Of course a racist like you will skip over that detail.
The conflict started around June of 2011 and B.O. didn't say shit about CWs until August 20th of 2012. Yeah, he waited a full year after the conflict began to say anything about chemical weapons
There was no need to do anything or say anything until there were rumours that Assad might use CW's, and that's when he sent a warning. So now because Obama doesn't have a crystal ball to see in the future, he is to be blamed. Sure, another instance of showing your racism.
Quoteand didn't try to get them out of Assad's hands before he used them.
So according to you, on day 1 of the conflict, when Syrians went out into the street to protest and demanding changes, before Assad even started firing on those protesters, you are saying Obama should have bombed Assad right from the get-go? Again, only a racist like you would propose such an insane scenario to blame the black guy in the oval office. How low can you go with your racism in order to blame the black guy in the oval office?
QuoteQuoteKeep on contradicting yourself. First you're against any military involvement. Now you're saying we should have kicked ass right off from the get-go. I will agree that Bush 1 should have finished the job in 91' and his failure to do so cost the US a lot in lives and money , but can you keep your story straight? Are you FOR military action or AGAINST?
I'm not totally against military action except when it is unwarranted. I'm also against half assed military action that only creates more problems to fix down the road. You can't just drop bombs on people without repercussion.
That's kind of hypocritical on your part as nothing the black guy in the oval office can ever do will satify you. It's either he's too late, or he hasn't done enough, or it's too much and he's a warmonger. IOW, according to you, Obama is a loser no matter what he does. And then you are puzzled when someone like me calls out our blatant racism. Duh!
QuoteQuoteAgain, your comprehension skills must be at the level of a 5-year old. I'm not defending Obama, I'm exposing your racism.
Literally the only person in this ENTIRE THREAD that ever brought up anything about race is you. So, shut the fuck up about racism.
No, I'm not going to shut up. Your racism has to be pointed out and be denounced. Is that clear?
QuoteQuoteWhy don't you point out the hypocrisy of your favorite party - the GOP...
I knew you were a two party nit-wit. Just because I'm not a Derpacrat doesn't mean I'm a Republitard. Just another example of an asinine baseless assumption from you.
It's not an assumption: you talk like a racist GOP, you think like a racist GOP, and you voted for that racist party.
QuoteQuote, but the black guy in the oval office is a no-good incompetent who by ignoring the polls doesn't care for the American people. Your racism has been duely noted.
Let me know when you want to debate me and not the GOP strawman you got from MSNBC. I'll be waiting. I won't hold my breath though.
:Hangman:
You're not pointing out people a racist, you're pointing out you are an idiot.
I think you sir are the racist; that because a man is black, everyone must disagree with him only and only for his skin colour. That's pretty damn racist, bro. Added ontop of the fact you are the only person in here talking about his skin colour, and infact seem to be fixating on it... sorry, pretty sure you are the racist here.
According to josephpalazzo, anyone who criticizes Obama does so because the person making the criticism does so out of racism. So I offer up this choice quote by josephpalazzo from this thread. It is criticism. Therefore the reason for making that criticism must be racism.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Anyone who sees Obama as a liberal must be a fucking moron. Reagan was more to the left than Obama. Get real.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Sure, another instance of showing your racism.
QuoteAgain, only a racist like you would propose such an insane scenario to blame the black guy in the oval office. How low can you go with your racism in order to blame the black guy in the oval office?
QuoteThat's kind of hypocritical on your part as nothing the black guy in the oval office can ever do will satify you...And then you are puzzled when someone like me calls out our blatant racism. Duh!
QuoteYour racism has to be pointed out and be denounced.
QuoteIt's not an assumption: you talk like a racist GOP, you think like a racist GOP, and you voted for that racist party.
"It's not an assumption" followed by three erroneous assumptions.
Quotebut the black guy in the oval office is a no-good incompetent who by ignoring the polls doesn't care for the American people. Your racism has been duely noted.
Keep destroying what little credibility you
may have ever had. =D> :popcorn: :rollin:
There does come a point where overuse of the racist card portrays the one using it instead of the intended target as the real racist.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"There does come a point where overuse of the racist card portrays the one using it instead of the intended target as the real racist.
At the very least it is an attempt by the accuser to distract his opponent from the fact that the accuser doesn't have a rational rebuttal. I which case I think it is fair to say that carrying on this discussion would be fruitless.
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Sure, another instance of showing your racism.
QuoteAgain, only a racist like you would propose such an insane scenario to blame the black guy in the oval office. How low can you go with your racism in order to blame the black guy in the oval office?
QuoteThat's kind of hypocritical on your part as nothing the black guy in the oval office can ever do will satify you...And then you are puzzled when someone like me calls out our blatant racism. Duh!
QuoteYour racism has to be pointed out and be denounced.
QuoteIt's not an assumption: you talk like a racist GOP, you think like a racist GOP, and you voted for that racist party.
"It's not an assumption" followed by three erroneous assumptions.
Quotebut the black guy in the oval office is a no-good incompetent who by ignoring the polls doesn't care for the American people. Your racism has been duely noted.
Keep destroying what little credibility you may have ever had. =D> :popcorn: :rollin:
The fact that can't refute
any of my accusations speak loudly of your racism.
I'm sorry, but you are making up baseless accusations that, because you disagree with him, it MUST be because he is black.
It's like if someone said they didn't like NPH as an actor because they don't like the characters he has played... so obviously they are homophobic, and if you disagree or give reasons as to why you don't like the characters then you are CLEARLY homophobic.
There is nothing clear, and there is nothing to refute; you are making accusations, sure, but they are baseless and therefor have zero reason to be refuted. The fact that you are the only one talking about race, and indeed are obsessively fretting over his race and completely derailing this thread into, "I disagree with you, ergo you are a racist!", makes me believe that you are the one who is projecting his racism on everyone else.
So I have to ask; why so racist?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The fact that can't refute any of my accusations speak loudly of your racism.
QuoteKeep destroying what little credibility you may have ever had. =D> :popcorn: :rollin:
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The fact that can't refute any of my accusations speak loudly of your racism.
[youtube:389agc0k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZN1HowUV5Q[/youtube:389agc0k]
Quote from: "Shiranu"I'm sorry, but you are making up baseless accusations that, because you disagree with him, it MUST be because he is black.
It's like if someone said they didn't like NPH as an actor because they don't like the characters he has played... so obviously they are homophobic, and if you disagree or give reasons as to why you don't like the characters then you are CLEARLY homophobic.
There is nothing clear, and there is nothing to refute; you are making accusations, sure, but they are baseless and therefor have zero reason to be refuted. The fact that you are the only one talking about race, and indeed are obsessively fretting over his race and completely derailing this thread into, "I disagree with you, ergo you are a racist!", makes me believe that you are the one who is projecting his racism on everyone else.
So I have to ask; why so racist?
Let's look at a few facts:
(1) Obama came from a working single mother. READ: he's from the poor working class.
(2) When he entered politics, he didn't have the connections like George W. Bush had, and most previous policians. His family wasn't into politics, neither the people he grew up with.
(3) From nowhere to become POTUS is a great story in itself, that he is the first black president makes it even a more extraordinary one.
(4) He became president when the country was undergoing two wars and the worst economic turndown since the 1930's.
(5) Not only that, but the amount of opposition to his proposals is unprecedented. Most historians have said over and over: no other president in the history of the USA has faced so much opposition. Most of his proposals have been taken form previous GOP initiatives, but the moment Obama proposes them, the GOP automatically opposes them. Obamacare is one flagrant example. It was a proposal from Newt Gingrich, a GOP, was instituted in Massachussets by Romney, a GOP, but has been repealed by a GOP-controlled house of Representatives 47 times so far.
(6) In the past, when presidents, Democrats or Republicans, threw a party or had some social events, congressional members of both parties would show up. Not with this president. When Obama has a social events, NO REPUBLICANS show up. Again this is unprecedent in the history of the USA.
(7) Even after 4 years in power, the GOP was still questioning his birth certficate during the election in 2012. Again, this is unprecedent.
(8) Even after the economy had recovered, the GOP painted the economy as getting worse even though the numbers were indicating the opposite. And every proposal Obama presented to stimulate the economy was shot down by the GOP after 2010 when they gained control of the House of Representatives, the same type of stimulus that Bush had presented which the GOP had voted for then.
We're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"We're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.
Not necessarily, though it is sadly true in some circumstances. As the holder of high office, the sitting president always gets a ton of flak, deserved and undeserved. And particularly those with a differing political agenda to sell are keen to demonize the guy (literally, in the case of the religious right) and paint every single one of his policies as dismal failures or malicious successes. Politics as usual.
But it's reached such a fever pitch nowadays. With Syria, I've read through articles that portray Obama as a vicious imperialist warmonger to a spineless, ineffective leader. All in the course of a few weeks. It seems that whatever happens or doesn't happen, Obama is a terrible leader.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"We're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.
Not necessarily, though it is sadly true in some circumstances. As the holder of high office, the sitting president always gets a ton of flak, deserved and undeserved. And particularly those with a differing political agenda to sell are keen to demonize the guy (literally, in the case of the religious right) and paint every single one of his policies as dismal failures or malicious successes. Politics as usual.
True when the opposing parties have different visions for the country, this happens. But what do you say when the guy from the opposite party adopts your policies? Why the visceral opposition??
QuoteBut it's reached such a fever pitch nowadays. With Syria, I've read through articles that portray Obama as a vicious imperialist warmonger to a spineless, ineffective leader. All in the course of a few weeks. It seems that whatever happens or doesn't happen, Obama is a terrible leader.
This is exactly why I find so much racist attitude in the opposition to Obama. It is not based on rational arguments.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Let's look at a few facts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic:
(1) Obama came from a working single mother. READ: he's from the poor working class.
(2) When he entered politics, he didn't have the connections like George W. Bush had, and most previous policians. His family wasn't into politics, neither the people he grew up with.
(3) From nowhere to become POTUS is a great story in itself, that he is the first black president makes it even a more extraordinary one.
(4) He became president when the country was undergoing two wars and the worst economic turndown since the 1930's.
(5) Not only that, but the amount of opposition to his proposals is unprecedented. Most historians have said over and over: no other president in the history of the USA has faced so much opposition. Most of his proposals have been taken form previous GOP initiatives, but the moment Obama proposes them, the GOP automatically opposes them. Obamacare is one flagrant example. It was a proposal from Newt Gingrich, a GOP, was instituted in Massachussets by Romney, a GOP, but has been repealed by a GOP-controlled house of Representatives 47 times so far.
(6) In the past, when presidents, Democrats or Republicans, threw a party or had some social events, congressional members of both parties would show up. Not with this president. When Obama has a social events, NO REPUBLICANS show up. Again this is unprecedent in the history of the USA.
(7) Even after 4 years in power, the GOP was still questioning his birth certficate during the election in 2012. Again, this is unprecedent.
(8) Even after the economy had recovered, the GOP painted the economy as getting worse even though the numbers were indicating the opposite. And every proposal Obama presented to stimulate the economy was shot down by the GOP after 2010 when they gained control of the House of Representatives, the same type of stimulus that Bush had presented which the GOP had voted for then.
Explain how those points have anything to do with Syria.
QuoteWe're not talking about constructive criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy, but a visceral opposition that is not based on rational thinking, and you have to ask where does it come from if not at the bottom, hate and racism.
Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years. Not to mention all of the drone strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border that have killed numerous innocent children. Maybe the criticism is rooted in an understanding that big government is detrimental to freedom and the bailouts only made the economic situation worse (this includes the bailout Bush signed). Maybe it's because what has come out of his mouth has repeatedly been contradicted by facts.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01 ... umber-one/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/26/obama-fact-check-bush-responsible-for-bailouts-and-gm-is-number-one/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/0 ... 27404.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/obama-tonight-show-domestic-spying_n_3727404.html)
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/what_if ... ied_to_us/ (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/what_if_the_president_lied_to_us/)
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/23/t ... bama-lies/ (http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/23/top-10-obama-lies/)
And then there's this one:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/tim-brown/ ... orruption/ (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/tim-brown/252-examples-of-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption/)
I haven't read the last one all the way through yet so I cannot say it's 100% accurate, but there are many legitimate examples.
Maybe the criticism comes from the fact that I hold all presidents to the same level of scrutiny.
MAYBE (hint: it is).
Quote from: "The Whit"Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years.
I've answered that, and I'll repeat: the US position has nothing to do with the civil war, and it has nothing to do with supposedly high moral ground but everything to do with the use of chemical weapons and the threat that poses to national security. Which part of my answer don't you understand?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "The Whit"Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years.
I've answered that, and I'll repeat: the US position has nothing to do with the civil war, and it has nothing to do with supposedly high moral ground but everything to do with the use of chemical weapons and the threat that poses to national security. Which part of my answer don't you understand?
Why has the use of chemical weapons on his own people increased the risk to national security of Americans? Was it not more of a risk when he was actually able to wage war on other countries? He cant even wage a winning war on his own people anymore, much less attack Europe, and its absurd to think he could reach the Americas.
Also, if the disarming process doesn't work and the rebels win, who many factions are sponsored by groups like Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, doesn't that further increase the risk of both attacks on our allies in the region and on us ourselves (if you don't recall, Al-Qaeda once committed a terrorist action in our homeland)? Why is this an acceptable proposition to you?
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "The Whit"Maybe it's because I don't think you can take the moral high ground as a guardian of the people everywhere because you told Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons after sitting on your hands while he fire-bombed and shelled his people for 2 years.
I've answered that, and I'll repeat: the US position has nothing to do with the civil war, and it has nothing to do with supposedly high moral ground but everything to do with the use of chemical weapons and the threat that poses to national security. Which part of my answer don't you understand?
Why has the use of chemical weapons on his own people increased the risk to national security of Americans? Was it not more of a risk when he was actually able to wage war on other countries? He cant even wage a winning war on his own people anymore, much less attack Europe, and its absurd to think he could reach theAmericas.
It's not a question of Assad using the CW's on US troops, it's a question that if Assad goes unpunished, then every dictator on the globe will use them. There would no reasons not to use them. Now, you might not agree that the US should police the world -- which is another issue -- but the US IS POLICING THE WORLD, that is a fact, and having a dozen or so of dictators with their hands on CW's will put our troops in danger.
QuoteAlso, if the disarming process doesn't work and the rebels win, who many factions are sponsored by groups like Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, doesn't that further increase the risk of both attacks on our allies in the region and on us ourselves (if you don't recall, Al-Qaeda once committed a terrorist action in our homeland)? Why is this an acceptable proposition to you?
Of course, the US has to consider the possibility that the CW's might fall into the hands of the radicals in the rebel factions. It's a scenario no one in the US would want. But we're not there yet. And Assad is still in charge. The deterrence has to be towards Assad, to make sure he doesn't use them again, and the deterrence has to come from either a military action, or as it is right now, Obama has decided to exploit the diplomacy channel for now, and see where this will go. If that puts an end to the use of CW's, then that's fine. If not, then the use of military will become the only option. That's why the US has to say publicly, that the military option is NOT off the table, just in case diplomacy fails, and at the same time, keep the pressure on so that both Syria and Russia do not dilly-dally.
If you insist on believing that the whole scenario was due to some master strategy developed by Obama, knock yourself out. Most people realize that the 'red line' bravado ran smack into the congress and public's opposition to any further intervention in the Middle East. Putin saw an opportunity to keep his client state along with the Mediterranean port and took it. There is no credible threat of violence from the US to keep Assad or Putin from "dilly dallying". Putin will insist that Assad kill his people with bombs instead of gas, they'll pretend to do a "thorough" inspection while delaying the process at every turn, and the whole think will slip off the news radar and out of the public mind.
All in all, a decent outcome given the circumstances and players in the game but an unforced error for the political hit taken by the US.
josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteOf course, the US has to consider the possibility that the CW's might fall into the hands of the radicals in the rebel factions. It's a scenario no one in the US would want. But we're not there yet.
Actually we are there. The rebels are known to have sarin gas and are known to have used it.
//http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592880/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/
//http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
//http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
//http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/30/syrian-rebels-use-sarin-obama-silent/
And I still don't see how my pointing this out, makes me a racist. Even it some or even most of the opposition to Obama's policies are basically racist, it doesn't mean all of it is. Some of it is "just politics as usual." You are not doing race relations any favors by making false accusations, which some of these accusations are.
Quote from: "billhilly"If you insist on believing that the whole scenario was due to some master strategy developed by Obama, knock yourself out.Most people realize that the 'red line' bravado ran smack into the congress and public's opposition to any further intervention in the Middle East. Putin saw an opportunity to keep his client state along with the Mediterranean port and took it.
"Master strategy" is the language of Conspiracy Theorists, which I don't belong to. Do you? Geopolitics is more like playing cards, in which you try to play the best you can with the cards you're given. I believe that Obama must have stressed to Putin that it was not only in the US interest to see the non-proliferation of CW's. Afterall, Russia has to deal with the Chechnyan rebels, and Russia has seen its share of terrorists bombings. Was Kerry's suggestions an accident or by design? It doesn't really matter. The end result is that Russia offered to destroy Syra's chemical arsenal. Now it's up to Putin to step up the plate.
QuoteThere is no credible threat of violence from the US to keep Assad or Putin from "dilly dallying".
I don't believe that Putin see Obama as a bluffing buffoon, and neither does Assad. Obama wasn't bluffing in Lybia, wasn't bluffing in pulling troops in Iraq, wasn't bluffing in using drones in Pakistan, and neither in pursuing bin Laden.
QuotePutin will insist that Assad kill his people with bombs instead of gas, they'll pretend to do a "thorough" inspection while delaying the process at every turn, and the whole think will slip off the news radar and out of the public mind.
Why the military option is not off the table. The generals at the Pentagone will make sure that Obama won't put this whole issue on the backburner.
QuoteAll in all, a decent outcome given the circumstances and players in the game but an unforced error for the political hit taken by the US.
I don't see that as an error. Quite the contrary. Putin has a lot more to lose. Obama has all its options open. Who says that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Who says that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?
Everyone who knows what the term "blowback" means.
QuoteThe end result is that Russia offered to destroy Syra's chemical arsenal. Now it's up to Putin to step up the plate.
You've got to be one of the few people who actually thinks Putin needs to "step up to the plate". He already did. Now the issue will be slowly debated to death by the international community. Obama knows this as he is an intelligent guy.
QuoteI don't believe that Putin see Obama as a bluffing buffoon, and neither does Assad. Obama wasn't bluffing in Lybia, wasn't bluffing in pulling troops in Iraq, wasn't bluffing in using drones in Pakistan, and neither in pursuing bin Laden.
Assad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama. They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.
QuoteWhy the military option is not off the table. The generals at the Pentagone will make sure that Obama won't put this whole issue on the backburner.
Do you really thing senior military officers are going to barge in to the oval office to set the president straight on his agenda? Besides, why would they petition to get involved in yet another middle eastern conflict?
QuoteI don't see that as an error. Quite the contrary. Putin has a lot more to lose. Obama has all its options open. Who says that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?
Just about anybody who has been paying attention to US foreign policy in the last 50 years.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteThe end result is that Russia offered to destroy Syra's chemical arsenal. Now it's up to Putin to step up the plate.
You've got to be one of the few people who actually thinks Putin needs to "step up to the plate". He already did. Now the issue will be slowly debated to death by the international community. Obama knows this as he is an intelligent guy.
If everyone in the Obama administration would be reacting as you do, maybe that will come out as you suggest. I don't think this is the case. A lot depends on how this will unfold: does Assad use CW's again? Does he obstruct the work of the UN inspectors? Do the Russians succeed in getting CW's destroyed or removed from Syria? So yeah, Putin has to make sure this harduous process gets going and keeps up the pace.
QuoteQuoteI don't believe that Putin see Obama as a bluffing buffoon, and neither does Assad. Obama wasn't bluffing in Lybia, wasn't bluffing in pulling troops in Iraq, wasn't bluffing in using drones in Pakistan, and neither in pursuing bin Laden.
Assad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama. They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.
As I said, polls don't matter. If you go back to 2003, when Bush got approval from Congress to attack Iraq, there were protests across the country, and the polls were decidedly against that war, but that didn't stop Bush, and he still got re-elected in 2004.
QuoteQuoteWhy the military option is not off the table. The generals at the Pentagone will make sure that Obama won't put this whole issue on the backburner.
Do you really thing senior military officers are going to barge in to the oval office to set the president straight on his agenda? Besides, why would they petition to get involved in yet another middle eastern conflict?
They don't barge into his office, but Obama like any other president is in continuous contact with his generals, and I'm sure he listens to their concerns. I'm quite sure that the use of CW's as a national threat comes directly from the Pentagon concerns.
QuoteQuoteI don't see that as an error. Quite the contrary. Putin has a lot more to lose. Obama has all its options open. Who says that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?
Just about anybody who has been paying attention to US foreign policy in the last 50 years.
Good, then they know that when we mean business, we really mean business.
QuoteAssad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama. They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.
QuoteAs I said, polls don't matter. If you go back to 2003, when Bush got approval from Congress to attack Iraq, there were protests across the country, and the polls were decidedly against that war, but that didn't stop Bush, and he still got re-elected in 2004.
The whip count was in. Obama wasn't going to get approval from congress. That's when the deal with Putin came up.
You're like Obama's version of Baghdad Bob or something.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteAssad and Putin can read polls just as well as Obama. They know as well as he does that the US congress won't authorize strikes and any unilateral strike by the administration will result wall to wall adds of Senator Obama's admonitions about the president not having that authority being played during the mid term elections.
QuoteAs I said, polls don't matter. If you go back to 2003, when Bush got approval from Congress to attack Iraq, there were protests across the country, and the polls were decidedly against that war, but that didn't stop Bush, and he still got re-elected in 2004.
The whip count was in. Obama wasn't going to get approval from congress. That's when the deal with Putin came up.
You're like Obama's version of Baghdad Bob or something.
The difference with Bush and the Iraqi War is that Obama is not declaring war, and does not intend to put boots on the ground. As such, he can order a military attack even if Congress votes against it. If that takes place, which is a real possibility in lieu of the GOP obstructionism, then the only recourse for Congress would be to defund the military budget -- a highly unsavory situation for the GOP. But it would be a very interesting situation. Somehow, I do hope that it unfolds that way. :twisted:
QuoteThe difference with Bush and the Iraqi War is that Obama is not declaring war, and does not intend to put boots on the ground. As such, he can order a military attack even if Congress votes against it. If that takes place, which is a real possibility in lieu of the GOP obstructionism, then the only recourse for Congress would be to defund the military budget -- a highly unsavory situation for the GOP. But it would be a very interesting situation. Somehow, I do hope that it unfolds that way.
Senator Obama and candidate Obama certainly had a different opinion about military strikes without congressional approval and President Obama didn't do it when congress balked. There was no declaration of war in the case of Iraq by the way. Either time.
By republican obstructionists I guess you mean all those old neo-cons like Graham and McCain who were all for authorizing the strike? There were quite a few Democrats who were against such strikes when Bush was doing them and still are now that their guy is rattling the saber.
Good on the democrats (and a few libertarians) who are consistent in their opposition to military intervention. According to the whip counts, there were a whole lot more than anyone had anticipated and it wouldn't have got 50 votes even with the neo-cons voting for it. Not exactly party line or partisan obstructionism.
Your little fantasy about this deal making the republicans look bad along with your "racist" tirade just outs you as a partisan hack.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteThe difference with Bush and the Iraqi War is that Obama is not declaring war, and does not intend to put boots on the ground. As such, he can order a military attack even if Congress votes against it. If that takes place, which is a real possibility in lieu of the GOP obstructionism, then the only recourse for Congress would be to defund the military budget -- a highly unsavory situation for the GOP. But it would be a very interesting situation. Somehow, I do hope that it unfolds that way.
Senator Obama and candidate Obama certainly had a different opinion about military strikes without congressional approval and President Obama didn't do it when congress balked.
If you would sift through the records, most presidents, who were at one time a senator or a member of the House of Representative, were often doing the opposite once in the oval office. Why are you singling Obama?
QuoteThere was no declaration of war in the case of Iraq by the way.
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution)
QuoteBy republican obstructionists I guess you mean all those old neo-cons like Graham and McCain who were all for authorizing the strike? There were quite a few Democrats who were against such strikes when Bush was doing them and still are now that their guy is rattling the saber.
Nevertheless the Graham and McCain crowd could not overcome the GOP obstructionism, not even in this case. Which proves my point, as going to war or military strikes have been the favorites of the GOP in the past, but should Obama be in favor that the GOP turns around and is against it. That has been, still is, the GOP doctrine of Obstructionism.
QuoteGood on the democrats (and a few libertarians) who are consistent in their opposition to military intervention. According to the whip counts, there were a whole lot more than anyone had anticipated and it wouldn't have got 50 votes even with the neo-cons voting for it. Not exactly party line or partisan obstructionism.
The democrats being against is consistent with tradition, the GOP being against isn't, proving my point again about their doctrine of Obstructionism.
QuoteYour little fantasy about this deal making the republicans look bad along with your "racist" tirade just outs you as a partisan hack.
Wrong word: The Republicans with their doctrine of Obstructionism are not bad but
evil.
As to your racist attitude, it flows in every of your post.
QuoteIf you would sift through the records, most presidents, who were at one time a senator or a member of the House of Representative, were often doing the opposite once in the oval office. Why are you singling Obama?
Um, maybe because it is germane to this particular issue? "The president doesn't have the power to do that without congressional approval > I'm the president now and I do have the power." He didn't though because unlike you, he understands the political ramifications of such blatant contradictions
QuoteNevertheless the Graham and McCain crowd could not overcome the GOP obstructionism, not even in this case. Which proves my point, as going to war or military strikes have been the favorites of the GOP in the past, but should Obama be in favor that the GOP turns around and is against it. That has been, still is, the GOP doctrine of Obstructionism.
Some republicans switched to being against military strikes and Some democrats switched to being for them. Thankfully though, enough democrats remained against it to slow the train. Tell me again how it's the republicans fault the majority party couldn't get to 50 in the senate even with several republicans supporting it.
QuoteThe democrats being against is consistent with tradition, the GOP being against isn't, proving my point again about their doctrine of Obstructionism.
No, the republicans have traditionally trended isolationist. It is only recently that the neo-con, warmongers have gained prominence and that can't end quick enough. We had a large discussion on this on another thread or you could maybe read a fuckin book.
QuoteAs to your racist attitude, it flows in every of your post.
You don't seem to understand that being called a racist by some idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a congressional authorization of force (what Obama was asking for too) and a declaration of war, or doesn't know that the republicans were traditionally isolationist till the neo-con era, is not insulting. It's sad, like when a little retarded kid pisses his pants. So go ahead and scream racist all ya want there chief. Just try not to get drool on yer shirt.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteIf you would sift through the records, most presidents, who were at one time a senator or a member of the House of Representative, were often doing the opposite once in the oval office. Why are you singling Obama?
Um, maybe because it is germane to this particular issue? "The president doesn't have the power to do that without congressional approval > I'm the president now and I do have the power."
It has more to do that as a congressman you can critize the government and have the luxury of being an ideologue. You're not running the country. As a president, you are, and you have to more flexible and more pragmatic.
QuoteHe didn't though because unlike you, he understands the political ramifications of such blatant contradictions
The seeking of approval from Congress was to put the GOP in a quandary. The situation changed with Putin's offer opening up another brilliant move on his part: let Putin have is own Iraq war.
QuoteNevertheless the Graham and McCain crowd could not overcome the GOP obstructionism, not even in this case. Which proves my point, as going to war or military strikes have been the favorites of the GOP in the past, but should Obama be in favor that the GOP turns around and is against it. That has been, still is, the GOP doctrine of Obstructionism.
QuoteSome republicans switched to being against military strikes and Some democrats switched to being for them. Thankfully though, enough democrats remained against it to slow the train. Tell me again how it's the republicans fault the majority party couldn't get to 50 in the senate even with several republicans supporting it.
Wrong. The vote was never taken. We have only the
intended votes, and more were undecided than the yes' or the no's.
Yes - 25
No- 32
Undecided -43
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/ ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/index.html)
QuoteQuoteThe democrats being against is consistent with tradition, the GOP being against isn't, proving my point again about their doctrine of Obstructionism.
QuoteNo, the republicans have traditionally trended isolationist. It is only recently that the neo-con, warmongers have gained prominence and that can't end quick enough. We had a large discussion on this on another thread or you could maybe read a fuckin book.
The isolationist wing of the GOP was always a small minority since WW2. So bringing that up is really disingenuous.
QuoteQuoteAs to your racist attitude, it flows in every of your post.
QuoteYou don't seem to understand that being called a racist by some idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a congressional authorization of force (what Obama was asking for too) and a declaration of war, or doesn't know that the republicans were traditionally isolationist till the neo-con era, is not insulting. It's sad, like when a little retarded kid pisses his pants. So go ahead and scream racist all ya want there chief. Just try not to get drool on yer shirt.
The difference is I see Obama as a brilliant man. You see him as the black guy who can't do anything right. Perhaps you're not a racist, you just have a generally bad judgement in regards to people.
billhilly may see Obama as someone who can't do anything right, but that doesn't mean he sees that as a result of Obama being black. You're the one focusing on race, again. I see Obama as an extension of Bush, making all the same mistakes Bush made. I wonder what that means with regards to race.
Now, as to whether or not the US should have gone to Syria like neocon hawks like josephpalazzo want, there's a point that needs to be made.
Foreign intervention is generally for some purpose. The US has something it needs for the interest of the US, and the only way to do it is by military activity, so therefore there is military activity. But unfortunately there comes a time with interventionist countries where intervention becomes its own reason. Instead of saying "what you are doing is harming our country" the reason becomes "we don't want to appear weak."
When you reach that point you know absolutely that there actually isn't any reason for the intervention. And "we don't want to appear weak" is the reason josephpalazzo has given for action in Syria.
Sure, he says it will be "air strike without boots on the ground" which to him means it isn't some sort of act of aggression. Just like Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Sure, he says it will be "air strike without boots on the ground" which to him means it isn't some sort of act of aggression. Just like Pearl Harbor.
Which, I'd like to point out, resulted in a declaration of war.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Are you that much of a racist?
Another racist comment:
So according to your racist logic....
Your racism is beyond salvation.
There might be some truth into that, but you wrote that just to demean the black guy in the oval office.
Bullshit. Go find a statement from me anywhere in this forum where I ever demeaned a person because he was black.
I don't have to. I know a racist when I see one. And you are.
Well, I'm done taking anything you have to say seriously.
We disagree on a lot of stuff, sure, but you seemed like a pretty intelligent guy and I tend read what you write and take it into account. And now here you are just calling people racist because they don't like Obama's policies and/or question political propaganda.
You need to chill the fuck out.
I stopped taking him seriously two and a half pages ago.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"We disagree on a lot of stuff, sure, but you seemed like a pretty intelligent guy and I tend read what you write and take it into account. And now here you are just calling people racist because they don't like Obama's policies and/or question political propaganda.
Not really. When posters can't even point
one good thing about Obama, you need to question their motivation. You can criticize any politician, that's fine, but when it's all negative from a poster, and that poster can't even give Obama one credit, come one, wake up. If you think that the election of Obama has wiped out racism in the US, think again. It's worse than ever. 50 years ago people were blatantly racist. They didn't hide it, in fact, often they were proud of it. Today, the same racists hide their racism, which in my opinion, makes it worse, not better. They use code-words so that when they speak to the choir, they understand each other, without publicly showing their racism. And their subtle attacks are more vicious and more devious.
QuoteYou need to chill the fuck out.
Sorry, but racism needs to be pointed out, and be categorically denounced.
BTW, I'm still waiting for any of these posters to say: Hey, I might not agree with everything Obama does but I'm with you. Racism has to be denounced. Funny, none of them so far came out to say that.
Guys, he is right; the reason Obama is Bush 2.0 is because he is black. It's the only thing the two have in common.
Thank you for making me realize how much I hate black people. Fuck
that wannabe gangster Bush and his pot dealing hommie Obama. They both deserved to be criticized because they are black.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Sorry, but racism needs to be pointed out, and be categorically denounced.
BTW, I'm still waiting for any of these posters to say: Hey, I might not agree with everything Obama does but I'm with you. Racism has to be denounced. Funny, none of them so far came out to say that.
Yes, racism needs to be denounced. I don't think any person on this forum is arguing that we need to reinstate the Jim Crow laws. Literally NO ONE brought up the race of ANY individual until you hit the bottom of your shallow buckets of logical fallacies and had to resort to ad hominem attacks. So now that race has been set aside, can we get back to pointing out how you have no argument?
QuoteNot really. When posters can't even point one good thing about Obama, you need to question their motivation. You can criticize any politician, that's fine, but when it's all negative from a poster, and that poster can't even give Obama one credit, come one, wake up.
This topic of this thread is whether or not the way the Syrian deal played out was planned by Obama. Pretty much everybody but you has been sticking to and arguing about the Syrian issue.
But hey, just to try and ease your hyper accusatory mind – I think Obama fucked up the Syrian deal from the start with his red lines and threats of violence even though it worked out in the end thanks to Putin but I really like the way he refused to defend the 'defense of marriage' act in court and got rid of 'don't ask, don't tell' in the military. Feel better?
Maybe you could start a thread titled 'Things I like about Obama' or 'Why Racism is Bad'
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"We disagree on a lot of stuff, sure, but you seemed like a pretty intelligent guy and I tend read what you write and take it into account. And now here you are just calling people racist because they don't like Obama's policies and/or question political propaganda.
Not really. When posters can't even point one good thing about Obama, you need to question their motivation. You can criticize any politician, that's fine, but when it's all negative from a poster, and that poster can't even give Obama one credit, come one, wake up. If you think that the election of Obama has wiped out racism in the US, think again. It's worse than ever. 50 years ago people were blatantly racist. They didn't hide it, in fact, often they were proud of it. Today, the same racists hide their racism, which in my opinion, makes it worse, not better. They use code-words so that when they speak to the choir, they understand each other, without publicly showing their racism. And their subtle attacks are more vicious and more devious.
Hey, you're preaching to the choir, here. I get that racism is bad...before the site went down, I had a whole thread about my shitty job that showed me the ugly face of America's prevalent racism. But you just can't start calling people racist because they don't want to point out the good things Obama may have done. It only means that they aren't open to seeing that side of Obama, not that they're racist. That's stepping over the line, IMO. When Bush was president, there were plenty of people who did the same thing....Bush could do
nothing right to them. Doesn't make them racist against old, white guys.
QuoteQuoteYou need to chill the fuck out.
Sorry, but racism needs to be pointed out, and be categorically denounced.
Sure,
actual racism does.
QuoteBTW, I'm still waiting for any of these posters to say: Hey, I might not agree with everything Obama does but I'm with you. Racism has to be denounced. Funny, none of them so far came out to say that.
Oh come on, they shouldn't HAVE to do that. They shouldn't have been labeled "racist" in the first place just because they don't like Obama's policies. You see this with
every president. There will always be people who don't like a damn thing about the Commander in Chief and will criticize everything they do. We don't need to drag race into this, especially when it's clearly not a factor.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteNot really. When posters can't even point one good thing about Obama, you need to question their motivation. You can criticize any politician, that's fine, but when it's all negative from a poster, and that poster can't even give Obama one credit, come one, wake up.
This topic of this thread is whether or not the way the Syrian deal played out was planned by Obama. Pretty much everybody but you has been sticking to and arguing about the Syrian issue.
But hey, just to try and ease your hyper accusatory mind – I think Obama fucked up the Syrian deal from the start with his red lines and threats of violence even though it worked out in the end thanks to Putin but I really like the way he refused to defend the 'defense of marriage' act in court and got rid of 'don't ask, don't tell' in the military. Feel better?
Maybe you could start a thread titled 'Things I like about Obama' or 'Why Racism is Bad'
May I remind you that initially I was answering
SGOS's post that claimed Obama was a weak leader, and I counter-posted with Obama's top 50 accomplishments. And how did you answer me?
Here is your assinine answer from page 1 on this thread:
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "SGOS"I'm surprised he misread America's lack of interest in another war, and then equally surprised that he should disregard polls that reflect it.
I don't think this issue redefines him as especially weak. He has been a weak president from the start. His skills are in oratory, not in policy. His legacy will not be that of a strong president, and he won't leave much behind that will be of great value.
Obama's top 50 accomplishments (//http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all)
Are you fuckin kidding me? Just a few examples-
Passed Health Care Reform – and then promptly started delaying implementation and issuing exemptions.
Passed the Stimulus – Horray! More money for the 1%. Gotta keep the corporations that fucked us alive so they can keep fucking us
Passed Wall Street Reform – see above. Nothing like more barriers to entry for the smaller financial institutions. Let's keep it concentrated in the 'too big o fail' group.
Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan – still there and still bombing wedding parties with drones.
Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry – remains to be seen but is giving taxpayer money to big assed corporations really a good thing?
Recapitalized Banks – more taxpayer money for the 1 percenters
Toppled Moammar Gaddafi – fucking with yet more middle eastern countries.
Told Mubarak to Go – still fucking with yet more middle eastern countries
Reversed Bush Torture Policies – reversed as in he doesn't brag about it. Gitmo's sill open for business along with the black sites in 'cooperating countries'
Improved America's Image Abroad – Hahahahahaha. That there's funny.
The list goes on and on with bullshit spin. How comforting it must be to be able to make the "good" choice of the two options presented. The "Democrats=good, Republicans=evil" (or vice versa) shit is about on par with theism as far as willfully deluding yourself in order to feel better about the world.
You threw the first insults, don't you forget it.
Well golly, I'm sorry I insulted you by disagreeing with your propaganda.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You threw the first insults, don't you forget it.
Disagreement isn't insulting. Running around accusing anyone who disagrees with you a blatant racist, on the other hand, is.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"QuoteBTW, I'm still waiting for any of these posters to say: Hey, I might not agree with everything Obama does but I'm with you. Racism has to be denounced. Funny, none of them so far came out to say that.
Oh come on, they shouldn't HAVE to do that. They shouldn't have been labeled "racist" in the first place just because they don't like Obama's policies. You see this with every president. There will always be people who don't like a damn thing about the Commander in Chief and will criticize everything they do. We don't need to drag race into this, especially when it's clearly not a factor.
I disagree with that. The opposition to Obama has been way over the run-of-the-mill opposition to a president. And some posters in this thread have shown every bit of racism, especially when they have no arguments, or when they make assertions that turned to be
factually wrong, and all you get is another baseless tirade. It's one thing to present your opposing views with sound arguments, it's another thing to present opinions that reek of hatred.
Quote from: "billhilly"Well golly, I'm sorry I insulted you by disagreeing with your propaganda.
It wasn't the disagreements that gave you away, but the tone of your post.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"QuoteBTW, I'm still waiting for any of these posters to say: Hey, I might not agree with everything Obama does but I'm with you. Racism has to be denounced. Funny, none of them so far came out to say that.
Oh come on, they shouldn't HAVE to do that. They shouldn't have been labeled "racist" in the first place just because they don't like Obama's policies. You see this with every president. There will always be people who don't like a damn thing about the Commander in Chief and will criticize everything they do. We don't need to drag race into this, especially when it's clearly not a factor.
I disagree with that. The opposition to Obama has been way over the run-of-the-mill opposition to a president. And some posters in this thread have shown every bit of racism, especially when they have no arguments, or when they make assertions that turned to be factually wrong, and all you get is another baseless tirade. It's one thing to present your opposing views with sound arguments, it's another thing to present opinions that reek of hatred.
My problem with your argument is that you say their hatred against Obama, misplaced or not, stems from racism when we haven't seen that that is the case. It's possible to irrationally knock on someone without their race being a factor in it.
And I disagree about people going nuts on Obama way more than any other president (as far as the members of this forum are concerned). I remember when Bush was president and the general consensus here was that he should have been boiled in oil. If you don't like that people are making bad arguments against Obama, fine. But you can't just assume it's racially motivated. That's crap.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"My problem with your argument is that you say their hatred against Obama, misplaced or not, stems from racism when we haven't seen that that is the case. It's possible to irrationally knock on someone without their race being a factor in it.
And I disagree about people going nuts on Obama way more than any other president (as far as the members of this forum are concerned). I remember when Bush was president and the general consensus here was that he should have been boiled in oil. If you don't like that people are making bad arguments against Obama, fine. But you can't just assume it's racially motivated. That's crap.
In the interest of fairness, I should point out that in Sociology we learn about the concept of "covert, unaware" prejudice. This form of prejudice (often, but not always racism) is not actively on your mind, and you aren't necessarily aware of it. What it amounts to is that you internalize prejudices about a certain group that you've absorbed through media outlets, and express it in the form of passing harsher judgement when a member of that group does something you consider objectionable.
I don't personally believe that's what is going on here, but given the nature of that form of prejudice it was bound to get mentioned by someone eventually.
To be fair, I could see how one could possibly think that if it was only aimed at Obama. However I don't think you could call it "blatantly" racist and if it is a matter of race then we are also extremely racist against white people... because (on this forum anyways, I won't speak for Fox or your redneck cousin from the boonies) we are giving him equal criticism as Bush got. Therefor we must either be extremely racist against both blacks and whites or race is not the issue.
Hijiri Byakuren wrote in part:
QuoteIn the interest of fairness, I should point out that in Sociology we learn about the concept of "covert, unaware" prejudice.
While this is somewhat true, I also see people of being accused of talking in code. Which to me means, "Whatever you say I really know what you mean is..." In other words, "I know what you are really thinking. And you are a no good scumbag for thinking what I know you are really thinking." Just as if they could really know.
In fact, we don't really know what the hell Obama is/was thinking. But, I do believe he is as capable of putting his foot in his mouth just as well as any of the rest of us. But, as he seems to want to involve US forces in what I see as another quagmire, which doesn't seem to help the US any, I tend to believe he got lucky on this. And I am glad for him having done so.
I don't think allowing him to have the same foibles as the rest of us makes me a racist. There are good reasons for labeling me a racist maybe, but I don't think this is one of them.
Quote from: "Shiranu"To be fair, I could see how one could possibly think that if it was only aimed at Obama. However I don't think you could call it "blatantly" racist and if it is a matter of race then we are also extremely racist against white people... because (on this forum anyways, I won't speak for Fox or your redneck cousin from the boonies) we are giving him equal criticism as Bush got. Therefor we must either be extremely racist against both blacks and whites or race is not the issue.
That means we only like Spics, Chinks, Injuns, and Gooks.
Or perhaps I shouldn't post after that 4th glass of wine.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "Shiranu"To be fair, I could see how one could possibly think that if it was only aimed at Obama. However I don't think you could call it "blatantly" racist and if it is a matter of race then we are also extremely racist against white people... because (on this forum anyways, I won't speak for Fox or your redneck cousin from the boonies) we are giving him equal criticism as Bush got. Therefor we must either be extremely racist against both blacks and whites or race is not the issue.
That means we only like Spics, Chinks, Injuns, and Gooks.
Or perhaps I shouldn't post after that 4th glass of wine.
Actually, out of all the ethnicities, "whites" were my least favorite... I didn't have very good experiences with them growing up and I probably was somewhat racist towards them until my late high school years.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"My problem with your argument is that you say their hatred against Obama, misplaced or not, stems from racism when we haven't seen that that is the case. It's possible to irrationally knock on someone without their race being a factor in it.
And I disagree about people going nuts on Obama way more than any other president (as far as the members of this forum are concerned). I remember when Bush was president and the general consensus here was that he should have been boiled in oil. If you don't like that people are making bad arguments against Obama, fine. But you can't just assume it's racially motivated. That's crap.
In the interest of fairness, I should point out that in Sociology we learn about the concept of "covert, unaware" prejudice. This form of prejudice (often, but not always racism) is not actively on your mind, and you aren't necessarily aware of it. What it amounts to is that you internalize prejudices about a certain group that you've absorbed through media outlets, and express it in the form of passing harsher judgement when a member of that group does something you consider objectionable.
^^^^^^
This
Also, like porn, racism is difficult to prove but you know it when you see it.
And you see it everywhere eh McCarthy?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"My problem with your argument is that you say their hatred against Obama, misplaced or not, stems from racism when we haven't seen that that is the case. It's possible to irrationally knock on someone without their race being a factor in it.
And I disagree about people going nuts on Obama way more than any other president (as far as the members of this forum are concerned). I remember when Bush was president and the general consensus here was that he should have been boiled in oil. If you don't like that people are making bad arguments against Obama, fine. But you can't just assume it's racially motivated. That's crap.
In the interest of fairness, I should point out that in Sociology we learn about the concept of "covert, unaware" prejudice. This form of prejudice (often, but not always racism) is not actively on your mind, and you aren't necessarily aware of it. What it amounts to is that you internalize prejudices about a certain group that you've absorbed through media outlets, and express it in the form of passing harsher judgement when a member of that group does something you consider objectionable.
^^^^^^
This
Also, like porn, racism is difficult to prove but you know it when you see it.
Some people see porn when a woman isn't wearing a veil. Some people see racism when people disagree on policy issues.
Yes and both are types of religeous whackos.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"My problem with your argument is that you say their hatred against Obama, misplaced or not, stems from racism when we haven't seen that that is the case. It's possible to irrationally knock on someone without their race being a factor in it.
And I disagree about people going nuts on Obama way more than any other president (as far as the members of this forum are concerned). I remember when Bush was president and the general consensus here was that he should have been boiled in oil. If you don't like that people are making bad arguments against Obama, fine. But you can't just assume it's racially motivated. That's crap.
In the interest of fairness, I should point out that in Sociology we learn about the concept of "covert, unaware" prejudice. This form of prejudice (often, but not always racism) is not actively on your mind, and you aren't necessarily aware of it. What it amounts to is that you internalize prejudices about a certain group that you've absorbed through media outlets, and express it in the form of passing harsher judgement when a member of that group does something you consider objectionable.
^^^^^^
This
Also, like porn, racism is difficult to prove but you know it when you see it.
Well, I think you should take into consideration the fact that you're really the only one seeing this "racism". From that we can gather, everyone is subconsciously racist except you. Does that seem likely?
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"In the interest of fairness, I should point out that in Sociology we learn about the concept of "covert, unaware" prejudice. This form of prejudice (often, but not always racism) is not actively on your mind, and you aren't necessarily aware of it. What it amounts to is that you internalize prejudices about a certain group that you've absorbed through media outlets, and express it in the form of passing harsher judgement when a member of that group does something you consider objectionable.
^^^^^^
This
Also, like porn, racism is difficult to prove but you know it when you see it.
Well, I think you should take into consideration the fact that you're really the only one seeing this "racism". From that we can gather, everyone is subconsciously racist except you. Does that seem likely?
I'd also like to point out his conveniently erasing the part of that quote where I said, "I personally believe this is not what's going on," to make it seem as though I agree with his assessment. Classic case of quote-mining there. :roll:
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Well, I think you should take into consideration the fact that you're really the only one seeing this "racism". From that we can gather, everyone is subconsciously racist except you. Does that seem likely?
^^^^^^
THIS
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"In the interest of fairness, I should point out that in Sociology we learn about the concept of "covert, unaware" prejudice. This form of prejudice (often, but not always racism) is not actively on your mind, and you aren't necessarily aware of it. What it amounts to is that you internalize prejudices about a certain group that you've absorbed through media outlets, and express it in the form of passing harsher judgement when a member of that group does something you consider objectionable.
^^^^^^
This
Also, like porn, racism is difficult to prove but you know it when you see it.
Well, I think you should take into consideration the fact that you're really the only one seeing this "racism". From that we can gather, everyone is subconsciously racist except you. Does that seem likely?
And maybe you are. It's never too late for you to examine your own thoughts. Are you criticizing Obama because he's black or do you really have constructive criticism based on sound arguments? You migh ask why with Obama and not with the other presidents? Answer: because he is black,
because he is the first black president ever, because the GOP is full of racists and they have poisoned the well, disguising their racism into polite coded-words in their baseless criticisms of this president. So no, I do not take a criticism in regard to Obama at faced value. I look for the underlying motive. And maybe you should.
Yes, Obama is the first non-white president and that is one hell of an accomplishment. But, he doesn't have God-like abilities. He still craps just like the rest of us. And if we can't criticize him, just like we would criticize a white president, then having a non-white in the presidency would be a bad. He was not elected to stop political discussion. He was elected, because more people thought he wouldn't be as bad as the other yahoos running.
josephpalazzo is actually making race relations worse, when he arbitrarily accuses people of being racist for disagreeing with the president. He is confirming what many racists said would happen if we had a non-white in the presidency. That a non-white president can't be criticized without the race card being played. I'm beginning to wonder if josephpalazzo isn't just a shill for some white supremacist group, trying to raise racial hatred by playing the race card. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his continued stirring of the race pot, really is getting me concerned that he is just trying to cause trouble.
He asks, "You might ask why with Obama and not with the other presidents?" I would ask, "What other president ever was not criticized?" Even Thomas Paine criticized some of the things which George Washington did. If Washington didn't get a "bye" on criticism, then why should Obama? Just because he is non-white? Dictators don't allow criticism, but all other leaders are criticized. Has Obama become a dictator? If so, I hadn't noticed.
I recognize I have racial prejudices. Just like everyone else. But, in recognizing my prejudices, I have taken a big step in not allowing them to unduly influence me. I wonder if josephpalazzo has or can take that step. Anybody who doesn't think they have racial prejudices have not taken that big step. And should really examine their own paradigms.
For the record, I would criticize a white president for doing something which I thought might lead to WWIII. Killing Russians in Syria could lead to WWIII, so I am criticizing the president. If that makes me a racist, so be it. Better a live racist, then a dead non-racist.
Back to the original topic before we got sidetracked by the inquisition, it looks like a deal was agreed on. Just as I thought, military action is indeed off the table.
QuoteA major sticking point had been Russia's opposition to writing the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which covers the council's authority to enforce its decisions with measures such as sanctions or military force.
The compromise draft resolution, obtained by Reuters, makes the measure legally binding, but provides for no means of automatic enforcement as the United States, Britain and France originally wanted.
QuoteIn a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Obama sought to persuade world leaders to apply pressure on Damascus with a resolution that included tough consequences should Assad not surrender his chemical weapons stockpiles in a verifiable way.
But by putting the Syria crisis back in the hands of the U.N. Security Council where Russia has the ability to block punitive action, the chances of U.S. military action appeared to recede even further. Obama faces tough opposition from a skeptical Congress and a war-wary public on the wisdom of intervening military in Syria.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... AJ20130927 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-un-assembly-syria-resolution-idUSBRE98P1AJ20130927)
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Yes, Obama is the first non-white president and that is one hell of an accomplishment.
No, he's our first half-white president.
ARE YOU RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE OR SOMETHING!?I kid, of course.
JP's resort to racism is an attempt to distract everyone from the fact that he doesn't have an argument. FFS he dropped the race card on page fucking 2 after the first criticism of Obama's "accomplishments". It's no different than x-tians saying that atheists just hate god and there's no evidence for evolution. JP accuses people of making baseless accusations yet has provided very little evidence to support his positions.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Besides that, I hope this Syria situation gets hammered out by the U.N. in a way that doesn't make the US look like tools. The last thing we need is to embolden Putin or Iran.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Yes, Obama is the first non-white president and that is one hell of an accomplishment.
No, he's our first half-white president. ARE YOU RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE OR SOMETHING!?
I kid, of course.
Kidding asideThis brings up some historical facts:
Three-Fifths Compromise (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise)
From which the old saying: Being a slave (black), makes you 3/5 of a person.
Obama's score:
White: 1/2 x 1 = 1/2
Black: 1/2 x 3/5 = 3/10
Total: 1/2 + 3/10 = 8/10 = .8
He's still not a full person. :oops:
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Yes, Obama is the first non-white president and that is one hell of an accomplishment.
No, he's our first half-white president. ARE YOU RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE OR SOMETHING!?
I kid, of course.
Kidding aside
This brings up some historical facts:
Three-Fifths Compromise (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise)
From which the old saying: Being a slave (black), makes you 3/5 of a person.
Obama's score:
White: 1/2 x 1 = 1/2
Black: 1/2 x 3/5 = 3/10
Total: 1/2 + 3/10 = 8/10 = .8
He's still not a full person. :oops:
All of which was rendered moot by the 13th and 14th amendments in 1865 and 1868 respectively. By the republicans too strangely enough.
You're really reaching now aren't you?
QuoteAnd maybe you are.
And maybe UFO's really do come and anally probe people. And maybe the world really is flat. And maybe...
billhilly wrote in part:
QuoteBack to the original topic before we got sidetracked by the inquisition, it looks like a deal was agreed on. Just as I thought, military action is indeed off the table.
Thank You! =D>
The Whit wrote in part:
QuoteBesides that, I hope this Syria situation gets hammered out by the U.N. in a way that doesn't make the US look like tools. The last thing we need is to embolden Putin or Iran.
I think it is too late as far as the US not looking like tools. Still, I consider it a bit of a victory. Maybe it is good for the US in the long term to get taken down a notch once in a while. I say, let Putin have credit for this. Russia isn't all bad after all, and them having a small win once in a while may help improve our relations with them and other countries as well.
Oh yeah, Hijiri Byakuren well I guess so. I do identify myself as a misanthropist and what type of a misanthropist would I be if I didn't hate white people too?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Smartmazipan"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Also, like porn, racism is difficult to prove but you know it when you see it.
Well, I think you should take into consideration the fact that you're really the only one seeing this "racism". From that we can gather, everyone is subconsciously racist except you. Does that seem likely?
And maybe you are. It's never too late for you to examine your own thoughts.
An excellent thought. I try to question myself every day. Introspection is incredibly important to me. Throughout the years I've sussed out my flaws and recognized my strengths. I'm confident that I'm not a racist.
QuoteAre you criticizing Obama because he's black or do you really have constructive criticism based on sound arguments?
The latter. I quit a good-paying job because of racism.....I find the practice of judging people based on their physical appearances (race, gender, weight, disability, etc) to be abhorrent. For many years I've practiced "personality over appearance", a personal mantra of mine.
QuoteYou migh ask why with Obama and not with the other presidents? Answer: because he is black, because he is the first black president ever, because the GOP is full of racists and they have poisoned the well, disguising their racism into polite coded-words in their baseless criticisms of this president. So no, I do not take a criticism in regard to Obama at faced value. I look for the underlying motive. And maybe you should.
Oh, I know Obama has faced A LOT of racism. I've heard more than one person refer to him as a "nigger" in my presence. Do not assume that I turn a blind eye to racism. I've seen how ugly it can be up close and personal. I live in goddamn Appalachia. But I think you should take your own advice and "examine your own thoughts". Are you positive you're not jumping the gun and calling people racist because they have a problem with a powerful authority figure? I think you see fault where there is none.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Oh, I know Obama has faced A LOT of racism. I've heard more than one person refer to him as a "nigger" in my presence. Do not assume that I turn a blind eye to racism. I've seen how ugly it can be up close and personal. I live in goddamn Appalachia. But I think you should take your own advice and "examine your own thoughts". Are you positive you're not jumping the gun and calling people racist because they have a problem with a powerful authority figure? I think you see fault where there is none.
This seems to be special pleading for the members of this forum. I hope not. Racism exists everywhere, including among atheists, and this forum has its share of racists just by the vicious unfounded attacks on Obama that often pop up always from the same people. Anyway, I don't think this conversation will lead to anything more, and I appreciate your comments.
"Insanity: Accusing people of being racist over and over again without evidence and expecting people to believe you." - Albert Einstein (I might have paraphrased...)
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Oh, I know Obama has faced A LOT of racism. I've heard more than one person refer to him as a "nigger" in my presence. Do not assume that I turn a blind eye to racism. I've seen how ugly it can be up close and personal. I live in goddamn Appalachia. But I think you should take your own advice and "examine your own thoughts". Are you positive you're not jumping the gun and calling people racist because they have a problem with a powerful authority figure? I think you see fault where there is none.
Yes but. I also recall during the 2008 election, people were so disgusted by the Republicans that a pollster in Appalachia encountered the response "I'm voting for the n*gger."
I am just amazed hearing that Obama might support terrorists. Since he has a brother who is linked to "The muslim brotherhood".
There has also been claims that his administration has given the terrorists 8 Billion dollars. In that case, this make George W Bush looks like a genius.
//http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-secret-8-billion-bribe-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
I hope there will be no war, there doesn't need too. Otherwise, this will only help the terrorists.
Quote from: "RaymanZ"I am just amazed hearing that Obama might support terrorists. Since he has a brother who is linked to "The muslim brotherhood".
There has also been claims that his administration has given the terrorists 8 Billion dollars. In that case, this make George W Bush looks like a genius.
//http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-secret-8-billion-bribe-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
I hope there will be no war, there doesn't need too. Otherwise, this will only help the terrorists.
Hello, are you Michelle Bachman?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "RaymanZ"I am just amazed hearing that Obama might support terrorists. Since he has a brother who is linked to "The muslim brotherhood".
There has also been claims that his administration has given the terrorists 8 Billion dollars. In that case, this make George W Bush looks like a genius.
//http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-secret-8-billion-bribe-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
I hope there will be no war, there doesn't need too. Otherwise, this will only help the terrorists.
Hello, are you Michelle Bachman?
Who's "Michelle Bachman" :)
Quote from: "RaymanZ"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "RaymanZ"I am just amazed hearing that Obama might support terrorists. Since he has a brother who is linked to "The muslim brotherhood".
There has also been claims that his administration has given the terrorists 8 Billion dollars. In that case, this make George W Bush looks like a genius.
//http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-secret-8-billion-bribe-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
I hope there will be no war, there doesn't need too. Otherwise, this will only help the terrorists.
Hello, are you Michelle Bachman?
Who's "Michelle Bachman" :)
The woman in Congress, once in the run for the GOP presidential nomination, who firmly believes in that shit.
Well, are you or not?
Hello, are you Michelle Bachman?[/quote]
Who's "Michelle Bachman" :)[/quote]
The woman in Congress, once in the run for the GOP presidential nomination, who firmly believes in that shit.
Well, are you or not?[/quote]
Can't say i know anything about her. But i am against the war in Syria. Do you wish for Islamic Syria. Just curious?
QuoteWho's "Michelle Bachman" :)
The woman in Congress, once in the run for the GOP presidential nomination, who firmly believes in that shit.
Well, are you or not?
Can't say i know anything about her. But i am against the war in Syria. Do you wish for Islamic Syria. Just curious?
Quote from: "RaymanZ"QuoteWho's "Michelle Bachman" :)
The woman in Congress, once in the run for the GOP presidential nomination, who firmly believes in that shit.
Well, are you or not?
Can't say i know anything about her. But i am against the war in Syria. Do you wish for Islamic Syria. Just curious?
I'm not sure I can take you seriously when you've posted a link that is batshit crazy about Obama giving $8 Billions to Morsi from an article that is plagued with, IF THIS IS TRUE, meaning it's all made up, and you took the bait.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "RaymanZ"QuoteWho's "Michelle Bachman" :)
The woman in Congress, once in the run for the GOP presidential nomination, who firmly believes in that shit.
Well, are you or not?
Can't say i know anything about her. But i am against the war in Syria. Do you wish for Islamic Syria. Just curious?
I'm not sure I can take you seriously when you've posted a link that is batshit crazy about Obama giving $8 Billions to Morsi from an article that is plagued with, IF THIS IS TRUE, meaning it's all made up, and you took the bait.
But even so... the war is real. Or atleast they plan to attack Syria, which means...
I'm just going to send a video. Maybe you have seen it. But here. :)
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnk_wQ2A8j0
Quote from: "RaymanZ"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "RaymanZ"Can't say i know anything about her. But i am against the war in Syria. Do you wish for Islamic Syria. Just curious?
I'm not sure I can take you seriously when you've posted a link that is batshit crazy about Obama giving $8 Billions to Morsi from an article that is plagued with, IF THIS IS TRUE, meaning it's all made up, and you took the bait.
But even so... the war is real. Or atleast they plan to attack Syria, which means...
I'm just going to send a video. Maybe you have seen it. But here. :)
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnk_wQ2A8j0
Obama threathened to attack Syria after it used chemical weapons, and as a result, the UN is dismantling Syria's chemical weapons. What's your beef?
Quote from: "RaymanZ"Can't say i know anything about her. But i am against the war in Syria. Do you wish for Islamic Syria. Just curious?
Yes, he supports the neoconservative position on Syria.
QuoteObama threathened to attack Syria after it used chemical weapons, and as a result, the UN is dismantling Syria's chemical weapons. What's your beef?
Well, aslong as there are no war to help Islam to get more power. That's basically my concern.
But it is good news hearing that chemical weapons are being dismantled.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "RaymanZ"Can't say i know anything about her. But i am against the war in Syria. Do you wish for Islamic Syria. Just curious?
Yes, he supports the neoconservative position on Syria.
lol
Quote from: "RaymanZ"QuoteObama threathened to attack Syria after it used chemical weapons, and as a result, the UN is dismantling Syria's chemical weapons. What's your beef?
Well, aslong as there are no war to help Islam to get more power. That's basically my concern.
But it is good news hearing that chemical weapons are being dismantled.
Yet you seem to think, along with the Michelle Bachman of the world, that Obama is helping Islam to have more power when in reality, none of his actions are intended to do that.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "RaymanZ"QuoteObama threathened to attack Syria after it used chemical weapons, and as a result, the UN is dismantling Syria's chemical weapons. What's your beef?
Well, aslong as there are no war to help Islam to get more power. That's basically my concern.
But it is good news hearing that chemical weapons are being dismantled.
Yet you seem to think, along with the Michelle Bachman of the world, that Obama is helping Islam to have more power when in reality, none of his actions are intended to do that.
If he attacks Syria, then yes. Why do you think Egyptians are against it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s)
Quote from: "RaymanZ"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "RaymanZ"Well, aslong as there are no war to help Islam to get more power. That's basically my concern.
But it is good news hearing that chemical weapons are being dismantled.
Yet you seem to think, along with the Michelle Bachman of the world, that Obama is helping Islam to have more power when in reality, none of his actions are intended to do that.
If he attacks Syria, then yes. Why do you think Egyptians are against it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s)
Oh please how can you listen to that crap? Your post doesn't merit an answer.
QuoteYet you seem to think, along with the Michelle Bachman of the world, that Obama is helping Islam to have more power when in reality, none of his actions are intended to do that.
If he attacks Syria, then yes. Why do you think Egyptians are against it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s)
Oh please how can you listen to that crap? Your post doesn't merit an answer.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/do ... -in-egypt/ (http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/does-obama-support-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-egypt/)
Have a good night.
Edit:
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnJCvKA-oEU
I rest my case.
Quote from: "RaymanZ"QuoteYet you seem to think, along with the Michelle Bachman of the world, that Obama is helping Islam to have more power when in reality, none of his actions are intended to do that.
If he attacks Syria, then yes. Why do you think Egyptians are against it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RNZ9hTp4s)
Oh please how can you listen to that crap? Your post doesn't merit an answer.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/do ... -in-egypt/ (http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/does-obama-support-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-egypt/)
Have a good night.
Edit:
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnJCvKA-oEU
I rest my case.
Do you know how to read? Your article talks about Egyptian
perception and your video about some crazy parlementarian's
opinions, and not facts.You're entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.
josephpalazzo wrote in part:
QuoteDo you know how to read? Your articles talk about Egyptian perception and some crazy parlementarian's opinions, and not facts. I hope you're old enough to know the difference.
Are not the charges serious enough to warrant more investigation? Or is that true only if there is a Republican in the Whitehouse?
If there's evidence, yes. Is there any? (Accusations aren't evidence.)