Printable View
[QUOTE=OJ SIMPSON 2.0]Does the word offend you or something? Neocon just face it, Obama is a great president compared to that raging alcoholic.[/QUOTE]
No, you've just not ever used it in describing someone who actually is a neo-conservative. I'm not a neo-con, neither is Nick Young. Obarmer however is a "born-again neo-con" in the words of king neo-con Bill Kristol.
You are an idiot.
[QUOTE=Electric Slide]If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president. Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.
Everybody (mostly blacks) talks about happy they are that they finally have a black president but they never talk about how he is going to be a good president and will fix things.[/QUOTE]
starting to belive this too..........if he attacks syria it
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]The truth.
Anyone else who thinks otherwise is just a blind idiot.[/QUOTE]
Joe Biden could have won in 2008, ANYONE except a Republican was getting in.
People underestimate how much the right puts their foot in their mouth, the whole wishy washy on rape and women's rights along with the anti-Mexican vibe they gave off is why they lost in 2012.
Barry was the right guy at the right time, people were lukewarm on Hillary and he provided an option, he basically got 8 years off an inspired speech from 2004.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]If Obama was white he would have won by a larger margin all other things being the same (also he has a white family).
He would certainly lose some black voters, but as a democrat he would have still won the black vote.
John Kerry (who other than being a democrat has no other obvious appeal to black voters) won 88% of the black vote in 2004
[url]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html[/url]
A charismatic white man would probably have done better than Kerry (who is kind of a socially awkward stiff).
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html[/url]
That might have hurt hypothetical white obama, but I think white obama makes up for it by getting more white votes. Also a lot of young voters such as myself voted for obama because we were inspired by him and it had nothing to do with his race.
Obama didnt win because he was black, He won because he was better at lying to us and more charismatic about it. The same reason 99% of presidents win. Also because bush had destroyed the republican brand. Generic Dem was crushing Generic GOP candidate in the polls.
Edit: also he had weak competition. McCain was destroyed by Bush, we just flat out werent going to elect a republican that soon after Bush, the primary between hillary and obama settled who would be president.
Romney's social skills are so bad he makes Kerry seem smooth.[/QUOTE]
However it is still true that if Obama was not black he would not be President. Hed have had no shot in the primaries. He SURGED in the primaries once people saw pictures of him. Voting for a black guy gave Dem voters EXACTLY what they always strive for, which is a badge of "being tolerant" they can show off to everyone. It is the thing they most associate their personal identity with. In fact its the only thing. Like the guy who takes sports too seriously and everythin he has is sports themed. Liberals triumphantly parade and advertise to everyone "HEY IM NOT RACIST!!! EVERYONE LOOK, I DONT CARE ABOUT RACE!" Its all they have. Most of them have no other distinguishing qualities, and so they hone their image as tolerant progressive intellectual. Even tho none of their opinions or thoughts are original. Its a huge crowd of posers hating the "successful conservatives" who used to pick on them in school.
[QUOTE=Nick Young]Is one really better then the other?:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
If your argument is so strong against Obama, why not state it honestly? Why use the dishonest nonsense you post?
More Americans died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush because Bush turned away from Afghanistan and turned to Iraq, while Obamam wound down Iraq and refocused on Afghanistan. So if they metric is US soldiers killed under a president, you need to include the Iraq deaths.
I think Afghanistan is a pretty rich area to criticize Obama. For one thing, had he not kicked the can to 2014 and also withdrew troops, he would be having a different conversation on Syria.
The Bush Tax Cuts are in no way whatsoever equivalent to the stimulus under Obama and only a moron would think so. The most obvious difference being one occurred after a financial collapse unseen since the 1930s.
If job creation/loss is your metric, Obama [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/"]comes out way ahead.[/URL][QUOTE]The economy has added more jobs since Obama took office than it did in his predecessor
Also plenty of Democrats supported war after 9/11. Bush had 90% approval ratings, it was only afterwards when it was shifted to Iraq that serious opposition began. Seeing how the decision to go war with Iraq was among the worst ever, I don't think your premise holds up.
They are practically the same thing. Republicans are fvcking retarded so I supported the Democrats and they ended up being the same thing
***Partisan Retard Alert***
KevinNYC presence detected in thread
***Paritsan Retard Alert***
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
More Americans died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush because Bush turned away from Afghanistan and turned to Iraq, while Obamam wound down Iraq and refocused on Afghanistan. So if they metric is US soldiers killed under a president, you need to include the Iraq deaths.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that Obama campaigned on un-doing what Bush did and doing everything that he didn't do. He got into office and fought the exact same 'war' just in a different country.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
The Bush Tax Cuts are in no way whatsoever equivalent to the stimulus under Obama and only a moron would think so. The most obvious difference being one occurred after a financial collapse unseen since the 1930s.[/QUOTE]
Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. He literally signed a bill extending the Bush tax cuts exactly as they had previously existed.
[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html"]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]There's plenty of honest and legitimate criticism you can make of Obama, why choose stupid, dishonest and easily disprovables ones?[/QUOTE]
I asked you around the time of the last election to name one single disagreement or criticism you personally had toward Obama and you couldn't/wouldn't. You are a complete hack, a pretend "wannabe-political talkshow host" a partisan sheep and an admitted welfare hording loser. Even now you won't actually name a SPECIFIC criticism of the president, the farther into those waters you'll dip your toe is to say "its possible in theory" to criticize him, which is something everyone else ALREADY KNOWS. You personally will not volunteer a single individual opinion as you never, ever have. You are completely tied by handcuffs to Obama and the Democratic Party rhetoric, you are scared to venture out of the safety net they provide you.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
If job creation/loss is your metric, Obama [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/"]comes out way ahead.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Any government can "create" phony government jobs. That's a metric of nothing. It means nothing. It is literally money the government WASTES to create an illusion that sounds good to idiot voters. It's a talking point losers like you cling to because you have no value. You pretend like you are Rachel Maddow or some other party hack who at least has made it and has a real audience, while you collect welfare and pretend all day long from your apartment to be the authority on Democratic Talking Points.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]However it is still true that if Obama was not black he would not be President. Hed have had no shot in the primaries. He SURGED in the primaries once people saw pictures of him. Voting for a black guy gave Dem voters EXACTLY what they always strive for, which is a badge of "being tolerant" they can show off to everyone. It is the thing they most associate their personal identity with. In fact its the only thing. Like the guy who takes sports too seriously and everythin he has is sports themed. Liberals triumphantly parade and advertise to everyone "HEY IM NOT RACIST!!! EVERYONE LOOK, I DONT CARE ABOUT RACE!" Its all they have. Most of them have no other distinguishing qualities, and so they hone their image as tolerant progressive intellectual. Even tho none of their opinions or thoughts are original. Its a huge crowd of posers hating the "successful conservatives" who used to pick on them in school.[/QUOTE]
Meh, nobody voted for Jesse Jackson that time he ran.
Obama is a charismatic guy (with appeal to white people). Honestly American presidential elections are kind of a farce. something like the candidate with more money will win 94% of the time. Basically 30 second TV ads inform the voters actually decide the election. We call them undecided voters or swing voters. If you are undecided about an American election a month before the vote, you are a dumbass. All of the intelligent voters who are voting on the issues cancel each other out.
Obama was more likeable than Hillary. The more likeable candidate usually wins. Personally I voted for Obama because I felt he was more likely to immediately end the wars, Close gitmo, pursue at least the public option, and prosecute wall street fraud. He was better at lying than Hillary. It had nothing to do with him being black. I honestly think him being black helped him with blacks (a lot) and latinos (somewhat) and that is it. The rest was charisma.
Also Because of the electoral college only a handful of states actually matter in the general presidential election
Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
States like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc are going to go GOP whether you vote or not.
States like NY, California, Massachusetts, etc are going democratic whether you vote or not.
Obama won because of 3 things:
1. Money.
2. Change from Bush.
3. Youth vote.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Meh, nobody voted for Jesse Jackson that time he ran.
Obama is a charismatic guy (with appeal to white people). Honestly American presidential elections are kind of a farce. something like the candidate with more money will win 94% of the time. Basically 30 second TV ads inform the voters actually decide the election. We call them undecided voters or swing voters. If you are undecided about an American election a month before the vote, you are a dumbass. All of the intelligent voters who are voting on the issues cancel each other out.
Obama was more likeable than Hillary. The more likeable candidate usually wins. Personally I voted for Obama because I felt he was more likely to immediately end the wars, Close gitmo, pursue at least the public option, and prosecute wall street fraud. He was better at lying than Hillary. It had nothing to do with him being black. I honestly think him being black helped him with blacks (a lot) and latinos (somewhat) and that is it. The rest was charisma.
Also Because of the electoral college only a handful of states actually matter in the general presidential election
Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
States like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc are going to go GOP whether you vote or not.
States like NY, California, Massachusetts, etc are going democratic whether you vote or not.[/QUOTE]
This is all true.
90% of Americans vote based on party and politicians. Not policies. That's the problem.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]The issue is that Obama campaigned on un-doing what Bush did and doing everything that he didn't do. He got into office and fought the exact same 'war' just in a different country.
[/QUOTE]
Um. No he didn't. Anyone who paid attention noted that Barack Obama campaigned on refocusing on Afghanistan. Here [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"]he is in July 2008.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Senator McCain said – just months ago – that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.” I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.
I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. He literally signed a bill extending the Bush tax cuts exactly as they had previously existed. [/QUOTE]
Yes he did, during a severe recession. In fact, a good chunk of the stimulus was in tax cuts. It's still completely irrelevant to the comparison made above but you're not bright enough to see that. Later Obama signed another bill that brought those tax cuts back on the top 2% and the top brack is currently
39.6% on taxable income over $450,000.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]I asked you around the time of the last election to name one single disagreement or criticism you personally had toward Obama and you couldn't/wouldn't. You are a complete hack, a pretend "wannabe-political talkshow host" a partisan sheep and an admitted welfare hording loser. Even now you won't actually name a SPECIFIC criticism of the president, the farther into those waters you'll dip your toe is to say "its possible in theory" to criticize him, which is something everyone else ALREADY KNOWS. You personally will not volunteer a single individual opinion as you never, ever have. You are completely tied by handcuffs to Obama and the Democratic Party rhetoric, you are scared to venture out of the safety net they provide you. [/QUOTE]
Blah, blah, blah. I've never been on welfare in my life so please show me where I admitted that.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Any government can "create" phony government jobs. That's a metric of nothing. It means nothing. It is literally money the government WASTES to create an illusion that sounds good to idiot voters. It's a talking point losers like you cling to because you have no value.[/QUOTE]
A. Your point is bullshit. Money earned by cops, firemen, teachers, scientists, soldiers, contractors still flow through the economy.
B. Your point is blatantly false.
[URL="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/"]Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs[/URL]
[URL="http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=a4602806-9a56-4980-91fd-71334748a79b"]The number of public sector jobs has shrunk by more than 700,000 on [Obama's] watch.[/URL] It grew by 1.75 million during George W. Bush's terms.
Government Employment has not kept up with population during this recession. In fact, it's plunged. That spike in 2010 represents Census hiring.
[IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/09/opinion/090912krugman1/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
[URL="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/"]Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
This is why everyone hates you. Because you aren't interested in the truth, just in partisan face-saving.
YOUR OWN LINK explains that job loss in the public sector came at the local levels Obama has absolutely no jurisdiction over. At the federal level...
[quote]
That record, which will seem a dubious distinction to public-sector employees, is largely a result not of federal policy but of shrinking state governments. State employment fell 1.2 percent in 2011
Obama was supposed to get me free healthcare and pay my mortgage so color me disappointed.
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Obama was supposed to get me free healthcare and pay my mortgage so color me disappointed.[/QUOTE]
Those promises don't apply to people who work.