On 7/3/2011 10:31 AM, Pepe Le Jew wrote:
> In articlegiganews.com>,
> Bluesfan2U wrote:
>> On 7/2/2011 4:00 PM, Pepe Le Jew wrote:
>>>> On Jul 2, 12:20 pm, Pepe Le Jewzionet.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<201107020441.UTC.ium7h3$mu...@tioat.net
>, Renfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/01/2011 10:22 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>>>> Yer Pal Al wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 9:11 pm, Curtgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38 am, Spread Eaglevirtualhosts.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It's axiomatic that whatever bigotry exists in America today resides
>>>>>>>>>> on the political left
>>>>>>>>> Want some friendly advice? Don't use words like "axiomatic" if you
>>>>>>>>> don't know what they mean. It detracts from your credibility.
>>>>>>>>> That said, I'd vote for a Mormon...
>>>>>>>> Are you going to vote for Romney or are you a bigot?
>>>>>>> Are you going to vote for Obama or are you a racist?
>>>>>>> peace and justice,
>>>>>> Are you really stupid enough to believe that anyone who chooses not to
>>>>>> vote for him does so for race?
>>>>> I'd wager more people voted FOR him on racial grounds than voted against
>>>>> him on that basis.
>>>>> All else being equal, there's not a chance in hell a white half-term
>>>>> senator with his background would even be considered for nomination.
>>>> Yet one was --
>>> And who was that?
>> Herbert Hoover. He had held no elected office, state or federal, prior
>> to being elected president.
> Well, that's an ironical coincidence.
Actually no. Hoover would compare to Bush. Both were too late with too
little to starve off a major economic collapse that their own and their
party's political philosophies induced.
>>>> and America agreed he was the better candidate. Perhaps
>>>> it's time for some honest self-evaluation on the part of the right
>>> I reiterate, he would never have been remotely considered were he white,
>>> not with such a obvious dearth of experience, or any notable achievements
>>> qualifying him for the top management job in the US.
>> Hoover got elected because he was an insider. Obama because he was about
>> as distant from Bush and the GOP insiders you could get and still be
> And he had no real political footprint, no pesky records of his career in
> Chicago. Like a beautiful hologram.
> And he was clean, and well-spoken, and the media just adored him. No crazy
> e-mail hunts with this guy, no digging around in his past, that would be
> undignified, a virtual lynching, upsetting even the Europeans.
He was and is what the majority of Americans wanted. A fresh start with
a progressive trend.
Is see you are still smarting from the failure of th Bush years and the
Neo-Con philosphy. Get ready to be disappointed again when O'Bama wins a
>> BTW, Obama won by a LANDSLIDE. It is called democracy. No
>> packed federal court was necessary to anoint Obama, unlike Bush's first
>> go round.
> Of course he did, there was a wonderful magic in the air, it was like
> America's Spring and everyone was falling in love.
When democracy is allowed to work, it is like that.
> And then, kerplunk, he morphs into Richard Milhouse Carter and the flower
> are wilted - turns out even fake flowers wilt.
Well, ... not exactly. Not even remotely. O'Bama is still loved by the
majority (the vast majority of the time). You think otherwise because of
FOXNEWS, and the attention the malingerers get in the MSM, as well as
the anarchist anonymous blogger on the "Internets". It is Congress that
has turned into a steaming pile after the 2010 elections.
>>>>> It's a damn shame that such an important American milestone was handed to
>>>>> such an inept guy, some people see him as a representation of all
>>>>> Hawaiians, when he's just a reflection on leftist Hawaiians suckled on
>>>> Nothing was "handed" to anyone. For the first time in ten years, a
>>>> Presidential election was clearly decided by the American voting
>>>> public. Breath of fresh air, and all that.
>>> Which sidesteps my point.
>> Your point is that you think Obama is inept.
> Not at everything, he's apparently a good campaigner. I don't know how his
> golf game is, but it can't be getting any worse.
In light of his historic accomplishments, and the pile of crap he had to
clean up (and is still cleaning up) left over from the Bush years, it is
clear that he is quite competent.
>> Quite the opposite. Obama
>> has achieved more of his platform than any president I know of, and
>> despite the fact that the Republicans have all but stopped all
>> government, he continues to achieve the progressive agenda. You just
>> don't like progress and miss the torturing.
> Republicans have this silly notion that we're running low on funds,
Since when? Bush busted the bank, and gave away a really big chunk of
our income. Since when have Republicans been interested in a balance
budget? Yes, yes, I know. Ronald RayGun campaign mighty for a balanced
budget in 1980, ... and then proceeded to break the bank once he got
elected. Republicans are not interested in a balanced budget. They just
say that to get elected.
> that's a lie exposed by Michael Moore, and beside the point.
Why do you continue to spread lies?
> But that's
> not the real reason the republicans haven't been able to produce a budget
> for about 800 days hoping to shut down the country and starve our kids in
> the military.
> The real reason Republicans are destroying the country and economy is
> because they're PISSED that the CIA isn't slicing ears off wayward
The truly real reason is that they know if the economy were to recover
to pre Bush levels that O'Bama would be impossible to beat. The result
is that they are doing everything that possibly can to delay the recovery.
>>> What is Obama's most salient feature? Is it his brilliant cerreer in the
>>> state senate?
>> He did well serving in state government. Hoover never did.
> The NY Times saw him as a uniter, one who can build consensus, and
> brilliant at winning elections by whatever means.
Lord knows that he has tried. It does take two to compromise. SO far,
the GOP is refusing. They have gone to the mat for their wealthy clients
time after time, even at the peril of the nation.
> Alsoa dept at being a gear in the Chicago political machine, a model for
>>> Was it his powerful presence in his brief tenure in the US senate?
>> He did well serving in the US Senate, more than Hoover ever did.
> He was present many times, and co-sponsored some very important bills.
> Hoover just screwed up at the economy, and was blamed for prolonging the
> depression - so of course there's no real comparison other than the senate
> career thing.
Hoover had no elected political experience at all prior to being
president. Your original point has been dis-proven.
>>> Funny, I don't recall these achievements in either career being a big
>>> selling point during his campaign.
>> There wasn't a lot of attention focused on him.
> There was in Germany, but he kinda ran under the radar here, eh?
I don't follow the German press. Tell me, what interests did the German
press have in a Jr. US Senator from Illinois? The attention that I
recall O'Bama stirred up resulted from a really good speech to a
>>> He campaigned on his vision, not his record.
>> Progressives do that. We are interested in the future not the past.
> That's always been a problem with the left.
We consider that an asset.
> Now we have a half-term senator who's economic policies just don't seem to
> be working, some say he has prolonged the recession, which for many is a
> recession (especially blacks, ironically).
> Look, daddy, another Obamaville!
Only the economically challenged, and libertarians make that assessment.
All other economist give credit to Obama's (and thought too late and too
little to Bush's) efforts in saving us from a Great Depression. If the
GOP had cooperated, we might be out of it by now. Indeed, the economist
tell us we are out the the recession. It is the recovery that is
dragging out. Firing government employees isn't helping. Cutting off
unemployment benefits isn't helping. Curtailing government re-training
programs isn't helping. Cutting Medicaid rolls and thus revenues to out
health care industry isn't helping. Shutting down the state and federal
governments isn't helping. Willfully defaulting the US government and
perhaps inducing a worldwide economic collapse will not help one bit.
The Republicans are of no constructive use what-so-ever.
>>> And people bought it because
>>> they were so vested on the importance of his race.
>> No. They liked what he had to say, and they did not like what the
>> Republican rule had wrought.
> Entirely correct, except for the "no" part which sems to brush off the
> importance of his race.
His race isn't important. He is half Caucasian. A mulatto. No race can
claim him. He self identifies as a Black man, but Whites have as much
claim on him as the Negroes.
You seem to be pretty hung up on O'Bama's race. He is much a Celt as he
is a Black African. He was raised in a Caucasian / Asian household.
Seems to me he has more in common with Tiger Woods than Washington
Carver. His racial background just doesn't matter, at least to real
>>> Were Obama white, do you think the exact same rhetoric would have rousted
>>> the historically low-turnout bloc which turned out for him in such high
> Then you're a fool, and I'm wasting my time.
These articles prove that your concern that race decided the '08
election is just wrong.
It seems that voters of all races increased in 2008. American's couldn't
wait to get rid the the GOP.
Black voters make up only a little over 12%% of our electorate. Race does
not determine who most folks vote for, not does it have a major
influence (anymore) on who wins. The Republicans have had more serious
Black candidates that the Democrats have of late. Face it Al. Race is
not a major factor anymore.