60 replies to this topic

[DarthMarley]

Cheile, on 27 February 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

DarthMarley, on 27 February 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

How does it prove that the majority of Obama haters are racist?

because they would never ask it of a WHITE man.  but God forbid a non-white man run this country.  

i presented the math in a prior post.  do it and the answer is clear.

No, that just doesn't make any sense.

And frankly, the condescending tone of your post is beyond insulting.

How does any math you do prove that any percentage of Obama haters hate him because of race rather than ideology or party affiliation or some other reason?

Try to answer by giving reasons rather than spewing insults please, as I am quite eager to learn.

[DarthMarley]

Cheile, on 27 February 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

psycaz, on 27 February 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

There was a TON of hatred towards Bush in the latter years of his Presidency.

That type of mentality was already in the air so to speak.

uh, Bush was largely hated for f*ck*ng things up in so many areas (like taking Clinton's surplus and blowing it on whatever and putting us in the deficit we are now in), it wasn't even funny.  Obama is largely hated for being a black man.  apples and oranges.

Actually, before 9/11 Bush had such a surplus that he refunded money to taxpayers.
So what are you talking about?

[Cheile]

DarthMarley, on 27 February 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Cheile, on 27 February 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

DarthMarley, on 27 February 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

How does it prove that the majority of Obama haters are racist?

because they would never ask it of a WHITE man.  but God forbid a non-white man run this country.  

i presented the math in a prior post.  do it and the answer is clear.

No, that just doesn't make any sense.

And frankly, the condescending tone of your post is beyond insulting.

i'm stating fact.  sorry you don't like an unpopular truth, but it is what it is.

i already gave you reasons.  you choose to ignore them and complain.

as for the other....

http://www.nytimes.c...day/24sun4.html

Quote

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit.

In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.

The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.

has Obama contributed to it?  yea, seeing as his hands are tied and it's going to take years to deal with Bush's mess.  so as they say, it's temporary.  Bush is the one who took Clinton's surplus and blew it.  can't be any clearer than that.

[Captain Jack]

Cheile, on 28 February 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

DarthMarley, on 27 February 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Cheile, on 27 February 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

DarthMarley, on 27 February 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

How does it prove that the majority of Obama haters are racist?

because they would never ask it of a WHITE man.  but God forbid a non-white man run this country.  

i presented the math in a prior post.  do it and the answer is clear.

No, that just doesn't make any sense.

And frankly, the condescending tone of your post is beyond insulting.

i'm stating fact.  sorry you don't like an unpopular truth, but it is what it is.

i already gave you reasons.  you choose to ignore them and complain.

as for the other....

http://www.nytimes.c...day/24sun4.html

Quote

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit.

In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.

The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.

has Obama contributed to it?  yea, seeing as his hands are tied and it's going to take years to deal with Bush's mess.  so as they say, it's temporary.  Bush is the one who took Clinton's surplus and blew it.  can't be any clearer than that.

He said BEFORE 9/11, so it IS the TRUTH.

Also, Obama did not just contribute to the national debt, be set an all-time record in raising the debt. Increasing the debt in record time and high is no way of "cleaning up Bush's mess." Bush may have burned a few acres, but Obama burned the entire countryside.

Proof? Here it is, and it isn't an evil conservative site either so it MUST be true

http://www.cbsnews.c...704-503544.html

Quote

August 22, 2011 6:34 PM

National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama
By Mark Knoller Topics Economy

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.
The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

Of course, even in that story Obama blames EVERYONE but himself for it.  

Another FACT site:
http://thenationalde...t-by-president/

Quote

> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase

> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase

> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase

> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase

> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase

> Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase

And here:

http://www.washingto...40Y6K_blog.html

Quote

But the fact remains that under basic economic measures, not phony ones, his record on the growth of the national debt is the worst of recent presidents.

This is all from OBAMA's speding spree, not Bush's.

[Cheile]

and the point is, Bush took Clinton's surplus and blew it.  we wouldn't be in a deficit at all if it weren't for Bush.

and look at the info i posted again--the deficits started in 2002.  POST 9/11.  so him having the surplus before 9/11 is really moot since he spent the rest of his two terms putting us in debt.

therefore, FACT:  Bush putting us in debt is why a lot of people hated him.

Darth claimed he wanted info on that, so i gave it to him.  so you can quit yelling at me because you don't like the facts i posted.

[Captain Jack]

Whatever...

[QueenTiye]

Yeah, President Obama increased the deficit. On purpose. Because the economy needed saving.

Read a great article about the stimulus package and how it tested a lot of tax cut theory ... but in any event, since then, the President has been trying to establish policies that would raise revenues and cut spending. But you know, we have a president, not a dictator. He has to work with Congress, and they don't seem inclined to do so.

QT

[psycaz]

So 9/11 had nothing to do with the then surplus being spent?

It's like your just glossing over that terrible event. If Obama is getting a pass for his stimulus spending because he had to save the economy, shouldn't there be some type of codicil for the spending that occurred after 9/11?

I'm NOT defending Bush's invasion of Iraq, I don't agree with it. But I have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan to destroy Bin Laden's network. they attacked the US.

Bush is hated for his policies and actions. How many of those actions has Obama undone so far? Is Guantanamo closed yet? Weren't the troops supposed to be home by now? How about his "transparent" administration?

Bush is policies, Obama is race - sure. Give no nevermind to it just being idealogical differences. Differences which are CLEARLY evident when discussing any other political issue or topic. But as soon as you add the name Barack Obama, it becomes race.

[QueenTiye]

I know I felt reasonably comfortable with the tax rebates to every American after 9/11, intended to keep the economy going after such a jolt.  Some people felt that Bush went too small with his exhortation to the nation with the shopping spree push, but I didn't have a problem with it.  

Having said that - the biggest driver of deficits after 9/11 are two wars and an unfunded tax cut.  Only one of the wars was reasonable - the other wasn't (and I say that as someone who bought into the Iraq war rationale at the time), and the tax cut was supposed to be temporary, but now with the crappy "Norquist pledge" - Republicans can't be induced to even let the cut to the top-earning Americans lapse.

Regarding that article:
http://www.theatlant...-stupid/253642/

Quote

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich like to call the White House  "the most anti-business, anti-investment, anti-job creator administration" in modern history, because they can. The economy is weak, and their audiences are likely to agree with the vague sentiment of these ominous accusations. But these statements aren't merely untestable declarations. They are falsifiable claims. And they're probably false.

When you compare Obama's term to our last eight recoveries, the record looks almost normal. Almost. Even with the awful summer of 2011, the economy added nearly 2 million jobs in the last 12 months, the best in five years. The recovery in business investment tracks very closely to the average of the last eight recoveries. Our recovery in exports has been an expected highlight. And it hasn't been dependent on sustained growth in government. The stimulus kicked in before the end of the recession, but since that time, it's tapered off so that today, the increase in real federal government spending is also totally average

(The article's main point is to reflect on the housing market's role in the economy, not the stimulus - but I thought this part was relevant to the discussion).

QT

[QueenTiye]

psycaz, on 28 February 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Bush is policies, Obama is race - sure. Give no nevermind to it just being idealogical differences. Differences which are CLEARLY evident when discussing any other political issue or topic. But as soon as you add the name Barack Obama, it becomes race.

When we can determine what about President Obama's policies are so different from any other democratic candidate or president, that justifies us questioning his birth, we can start blaming President Obama's policies for birtherism.  As of now, however, I'm inclined to assume that when one is questioned about one's BIRTH, one is being questioned about facts that pre-exist any policy formulations one might make. One is being questioned about one's classification as determined by birth.  And birth determines only a couple of factors definitively: citizenship, race, and sex.  The birthers have been trying really hard to make this all about citizenship, but once the question was answered, and it still wasn't good enough, I felt fairly confident that citizenship was just the polite case - not the actual one.  And, I feel quite justified, now that one of the birthers has finally come right out and said "Being born black/mulatto means you're not a natural born citizen!"

Are there birthers who really are taken in by the nutty birth certificate fake issue? Sure.  Are they racist? Maybe not - maybe they are just confused by an issue that's actually pretty straightforward.  But, I stand by my opinion that at root, and all up through the branches and leaves - the majority impetus of birtherism is racism.

QT

[Godeskian]

QueenTiye, on 27 February 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Or, we can look at the rabid hatred that sprung up out of practically no where, and consider the history of the country, and some of the stuff that's been said, shown, circulated, etc, by the "haters" and apply occam's razor.

Before I get started on a lengthy rant on the ways people use occam's razor wrong in casual conversation I should point out that I actually agree with you. However it is unwise to get so wedded to a single explanation, to the point where you won't even consider alternatives anymore.

[QueenTiye]

^^   I'm ok with you correcting my use of the term.  I wasn't sure I'd used it correctly.  And, I'm sorry to be a bit biased on this issue, but... I live close enough to racism - in the great northeast where people talk about the "n*gger" in the White House when they think no black people can hear them, and when black people ARE in earshot, try to engage us in conversations about what's wrong with the President and his policies that don't involve use of racist language - enough to where I find it very very difficult to hold any view different from the one I already hold.

QT

[Balderdash]

QueenTiye, on 28 February 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

^^   I'm ok with you correcting my use of the term.  I wasn't sure I'd used it correctly.  And, I'm sorry to be a bit biased on this issue, but... I live close enough to racism - in the great northeast where people talk about the "n*gger" in the White House when they think no black people can hear them, and when black people ARE in earshot, try to engage us in conversations about what's wrong with the President and his policies that don't involve use of racist language - enough to where I find it very very difficult to hold any view different from the one I already hold.

QT

I'm ashamed to tell you that not all by any means, please know that but there are enough white people
who do just what you described and that's here in the North East.  Down South, you don't wanna know...  
But I can tell you that the President is softening people up.  If he can continue the upward trend on
jobs and the stock market his color profile will cease to be an issue well except for the diehard crazies,
like the ones who believe/d that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.     But by then it will be because
of his politics and not his skin color.  Hang in there, the times they are a changin'.

[Orpheus]

While I think the magnitude of our deficit is far more directly traceable to our decade of overseas conflicts than the more recent economic recovery measures, and I don't necessarily feel that Obama's policies are as responsible as many Republican policies (which they themselves might not have pushed as stridently had they been in power/responsible), I hold Obama completely responsible for playing softball -- nay, downright pre-conceding issues before they were very contentious. Some argue that those policies weren't "his", but that's a difference that makes no difference. I don't care if he was almost criminally negligent/weak, or if his administration eagerly sold out to corporate interests. I won't argue whether "he" sold out, knowingly or unwittingly; he's a President with a record so shameful (even outside of economics, where his control may be limited because we don;t understand the subject enough, and there's a substantial component of public psychology) that I'd only re-elect him if forced -- as it seems we may be.

Perhaps more germane to the original topic, I think we need to acknowledge and explore the varying degrees and kinds of racism (which I'm not prepared to do here) to appreciate how pervasive it may be *without* driving political views in any given direction, or affecting political evaluation of any regime. Actual racism aside: there are many personal reasons why Birthers, Vince-Fosterites, grassy-knollists, and Roswellians cling to a favored conspiracy theory.

I'm not excusing any racism, but I know a lot of people who feel somehow superior (esp. when in a prevailing clade) down inside, but are quite capable of keeping that out of their decisions/evaluations. I see it all the time: quite a few US docs feel somehow superior to immigrants, but I don't see it affecting their evaluations; I hear a lot of pride and resistance to change because "the US has the best medical system in the world" from physicians who should know better and, when confronted, can't justify it by any broad metric (our overall outcomes aren't necessarily the best)

[QueenTiye]

That's fair enough, Orpheus, and I agree with you (I even made a similar point somewhere else in OT) that racism doesn't always preclude judgment favorable or otherwise, held entirely separate from other views.  I just don't feel inclined to give certain factions the benefit of doubt.

QT

[Nonny]

Orpheus, on 27 February 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

(A lot of states had shaky legal bases: Hawaii, West Virginia, Ohio--but that was rectified legally in 1953, ...)

Wait, whut?!!  Ohio?!!!    

Retroactive rectification of whatever it was, I hope!!!!    

[ArdenCabbel]

Cheile, on 27 February 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

DarthMarley, on 27 February 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

How does it prove that the majority of Obama haters are racist?

because they would never ask it of a WHITE man.  but God forbid a non-white man run this country.  

i presented the math in a prior post.  do it and the answer is clear.

The assumption of 'they would never ask it of a white man' cannot be proved.  Bring up a candidate whose eligibility to be President is questioned, and there will be all sorts of requests and demands for proof otherwise.  When I first heard that they were requesting his birth certificate and it wasn't being provided, I was suspicious.  But on the matter of being born here, I don't think we need that as a country anymore.  I am pretty sure there aren't very many rich British lords that will buy the election and return us to British rule.  (Kind of the point of the requirement in the first place.)

Oh Alexander Hamilton, why couldn't we have had you as our president?  (Aside from that nasty duel thing)

[QueenTiye]

^^ I would have been happy with a President Hamilton!

QT

[Captain Jack]

Yeah, all that borrowed money to "save" our economy sure did wonders, didn't it. 4 Trillion dollars later unemployment got worse and so did the economy. Great job!

ArdenCabbel, on 28 February 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

The assumption of 'they would never ask it of a white man' cannot be proved.  Bring up a candidate whose eligibility to be President is questioned, and there will be all sorts of requests and demands for proof otherwise.  When I first heard that they were requesting his birth certificate and it wasn't being provided, I was suspicious.  But on the matter of being born here, I don't think we need that as a country anymore.  I am pretty sure there aren't very many rich British lords that will buy the election and return us to British rule.  (Kind of the point of the requirement in the first place.)

Oh Alexander Hamilton, why couldn't we have had you as our president?  (Aside from that nasty duel thing)

There is a reason why that rule is there and it is still very much valid. Without it would open the doors for leaders of other nations to run for office here in the US. That's just what we need, people like Putin, Kim Jong Un, or Xi Jinping vying for power over the US.

[NeuralClone]

ArdenCabbel, on 28 February 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

But on the matter of being born here, I don't think we need that as a country anymore.  I am pretty sure there aren't very many rich British lords that will buy the election and return us to British rule.  (Kind of the point of the requirement in the first place.)

That was originally the point of that requirement but I still think it's relevant and highly important. Although personally I think there's a bigger threat from a handful of people donating to super PACs (e.g., Sheldon Adelson donating millions to the "Winning Our Future" super PAC) than foreign countries attempting to buy elections. Of course, even with such a requirement, it doesn't mean that US born citizens will somehow be better qualified for the job. It just prevents a foreign power from directly gaining power over here. That's a good thing.

Edited by NeuralClone, 28 February 2012 - 11:10 PM.