[Sidney]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

It wasn't meant to imply that his comment was racist, it was just a sarcastic way of saying "thank you for explaining simple things for me because you think I'm an idiot". That's why I used a phrase that seems complimentary on the surface, but really isn't; just as his comment seemed helpful, but was really condescending.

By the way, the only people who have ever said that "if you disagree with Obama you're racist" are conservatives trying to speak for liberals. That's not to say that there's not a lot of racism out there, as well as claims of all sorts of reasons that we voted for the guy other than the real reason. But most liberals can distinguish racism from partisanship or ideology differences. The "take our country back" crap, and the "real America", and the claim that he's "leftist and radical" (he's moderate), that's racist.

When people say "take our country back" and "leftist and radical", I believe they are paraphrasing ideas such as stop the out of control spending, and enough with the government giveaways. Hardly racist. Not everyone who isn't liberal is a redneck cracker.

[EvosM3]

Yes, Obama is a socialist. Just look at his tax stances. He wants to tax the tax paying classes even more and give their money to the lower class and non-working. His healthcare reform law does the same thing. It increases the insurance premiums of those with insurance to pay for the insurance of those who don't even want or need it. I'm not mad at him, I just don't believe socialism is the right thing for a capitalist country that has done more good for its inhabitants than any other country in the world can do for its people.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Wow. Huge chip on your shoulder much ?

Gotta say, that is quite literally the most disingenuous excuse I have heard in my entire life. You must really think everyone else on this forum is very naive to take your statement at face value.

IF you really wanted to sarcastically thank someone for explaining something to you, with the implication that you are thought to be an idiot, there are many other phrases that would have conveyed that idea without the associated baggage that race brings with it.
You could have said "How very helpful of you", or "How very supportive" or any other number of things.

To say "How very white" pretty blatantly suggests that only caucasians are capable of being condescending or insulting when purporting to assist someone they feel is intellectually beneath them. My experience on this planet so far proves to me that such an undesirable trait is hardly limited to people of any one race.

You think that calling Obama "leftist and radical" is a racist statement? Seriously? Have you ever seen any photos of Karl Marx?
I suppose if that is true, then white Parisians who make derogatory remarks about their new socialist leader (who happens to share the same skin color as them) are all racist as well then.

Wow.... I give up, man. You can't reason someone out of a position they didnt reason themselves into.

Dude, mellow the f out. My "very white of you" reply was for a comment directed at me, about not understanding finance. It had nothing to do with Obama or any racially sensitive topic. Get off your high horse.

The fact that Karl Marx is white has nothing to do with anything. Dennis Kucinich and Ed Shultz are radical liberals, they're white, and I'm OK with that. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are black, and I'm fine calling them radical liberals too. But as a president, Obama is extremely moderate; he's pro NRA, pro nuke, pro drilling, and has not pushed very hard on many of the liberal agendas. He also attends the prayer breakfast. So for someone to call him a radical leftist involves an emotion beyond policy.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by Sidney

When people say "take our country back" and "leftist and radical", I believe they are paraphrasing ideas such as stop the out of control spending, and enough with the government giveaways. Hardly racist. Not everyone who isn't liberal is a redneck cracker.

Bill Clinton was a liberal president, yet I don't recall those phrases being used about his time in office. GW Bush created the out of control spending, yet those phrases were never used. He nearly doubled our debt, and those wars, tax cuts and recession are still racking up the debt. So why is it only Obama who we need to take our country back from?

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by EvosM3

Yes, Obama is a socialist. Just look at his tax stances. He wants to tax the tax paying classes even more and give their money to the lower class and non-working. His healthcare reform law does the same thing. It increases the insurance premiums of those with insurance to pay for the insurance of those who don't even want or need it. I'm not mad at him, I just don't believe socialism is the right thing for a capitalist country that has done more good for its inhabitants than any other country in the world can do for its people.

Number one, you have no clue what socialism is. Secondly, nobody's giving more tax money to the lower class. A recession puts more people on govt assistance, simple as that. It's not coming from any increased taxes, because there have not been any tax increases. As employment goes up, and the economy continues to improve, then welfare roles decrease. It's not tied to how much we're taxed.

Our taxes are used to pay down the debt. Tax rates have always been graduated, however due to GW Bush, they mysteriously stop graduating at higher incomes, which contributes to the debt. Much of this country agrees that the upper tax rates need to be restored, there's nothing socialist about it. The more you make, the higher the rate. Why should someone making $150k pay a higher rate than one making $50k, but at $300k it's the same rate as $150k? You make it sound like Obama's doing something different than what we've had for 100 years, and he's not.

The health care reform is a remedy to skyrocketing premiums. Presently, we are all paying for the millions of uninsured who get emergency room care, in the form of higher premiums. The reform requires that those uninsured people now pay into the system, so they can stop freeloading off us. How the hell is that socialist? Is Mitt Romney a socialist? He passed the same thing in Massachusetts. Try reading up on the issues before posting.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Dude, mellow the f out. My "very white of you" reply was for a comment directed at me, about not understanding finance. It had nothing to do with Obama or any racially sensitive topic. Get off your high horse.

The fact that Karl Marx is white has nothing to do with anything. Dennis Kucinich and Ed Shultz are radical liberals, they're white, and I'm OK with that. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are black, and I'm fine calling them radical liberals too. But as a president, Obama is extremely moderate; he's pro NRA, pro nuke, pro drilling, and has not pushed very hard on many of the liberal agendas. He also attends the prayer breakfast. So for someone to call him a radical leftist involves an emotion beyond policy.

Im with scotch on this, i dont think it was a "your a racist" jab. Maybe, but i doubt it.

However Obama is most certainly not a moderate. The first president to support gay marriage in office publicly, tends to disagree with you. Though im closer to his thinking on the subject than conservatives, its hardly a moderate position. His policy on oil IS NOT what it may seem to you. What about him saying something along the lines of "hey, i said wait until the election and we can talk about disarmament", hardly pro nuke, at least personally.

For the record, i have been called and had it insinuated that i was racist for being against the Obama agenda by two black acquaintances until i basically shook one of them and told the guy to snap out of it, "i grew up with you". Im hardly a person that could be called a racist for many personal reasons, but lately it seems like those who levy name calling like racist over politics tend not to care too much abut the reality of the situation.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Number one, you have no clue what socialism is. Secondly, nobody's giving more tax money to the lower class. A recession puts more people on govt assistance, simple as that. It's not coming from any increased taxes, because there have not been any tax increases. As employment goes up, and the economy continues to improve, then welfare roles decrease. It's not tied to how much we're taxed.

Our taxes are used to pay down the debt. Tax rates have always been graduated, however due to GW Bush, they mysteriously stop graduating at higher incomes, which contributes to the debt. Much of this country agrees that the upper tax rates need to be restored, there's nothing socialist about it. The more you make, the higher the rate. Why should someone making $150k pay a higher rate than one making $50k, but at $300k it's the same rate as $150k? You make it sound like Obama's doing something different than what we've had for 100 years, and he's not.

The health care reform is a remedy to skyrocketing premiums. Presently, we are all paying for the millions of uninsured who get emergency room care, in the form of higher premiums. The reform requires that those uninsured people now pay into the system, so they can stop freeloading off us. How the hell is that socialist? Is Mitt Romney a socialist? He passed the same thing in Massachusetts. Try reading up on the issues before posting.

The thing you have to take into account is the mandate. Ive said it like a broken record on the forum and no one seems to care. It will put many out of business. Simple as that. this will hurt the economy and lower tax revenue. Instead of arguing arbitrary ideas of fairness, I tend to be more of a pragmatist. Again, not anecdotal evidence. Its real. Its going to happen. Those who are good at business and finance tend to account for policies that will happen in the future to see the result personally, its not pretty.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Dude, mellow the f out. My "very white of you" reply was for a comment directed at me, about not understanding finance. It had nothing to do with Obama or any racially sensitive topic. Get off your high horse..

I know that your reply was about a comment directed at you, about you not understanding finance. I know it had nothing to do with Obama. To allege it had no racial overtones is absurd. I can think of no context in which "how white of you" can be applied to knowledge of finance, or any other topic, without it having racial overtones.


OK; let's try this:

Asian colleague of Middleagedal: "My son just got an A in math".
Middleagedal: "How very yellow of him"
Colleague: "What did you say ?"
Middleagedal: "Oh, get off your high horse. My comment had nothing to do with a racially sensitive topic".

Yup, you're right, when I say it, that argument sounds perfectly reasonable.

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

So for someone to call him a radical leftist involves an emotion beyond policy.

And that emotion would be what, flaming racism ? Didn't you just argue that the ONLY people who say "Disagreeing with Obama makes you racist" are crazy republicans trying to put words in the mouths of left wingers? And yet, here you are, basically saying that very sentiment a few posts later? Does that make you a crazy right-winger?

Perhaps, just perhaps, someone calling Obama a leftist involves a different opinion than yours, one that is equally legitimate; whereby one looks at his position on healthcare for example, and concludes that such a stance is more significant and indicative of his ideals than his NRA position, and thus still places him firmly in the left, and not moderate at all. If you honestly believe that the only other possible explanation for someone disagreeing with your assessment is that the other person has a confederate flag tattoo and white sheets with eye holes cut in them, then I truly feel sorry for you.

[EvosM3]

I think that we should drop Obama's healthcare reform out of these debates as the supreme court will almost certainly declare it unconstitutional. I was pleasantly surprised that even the Obama appointed Justice Sotomayor seemed skeptical of the law. I'm sure she'll vote to uphold it but it's pretty clear the law is an unconstitutional joke, probably even more so than Obama's esteemed lawyer. That guy's probably getting imprisoned after the court rules it unconstitutional.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I know that your reply was about a comment directed at you, about you not understanding finance. I know it had nothing to do with Obama. To allege it had no racial overtones is absurd. I can think of no context in which "how white of you" can be applied to knowledge of finance, or any other topic, without it having racial overtones.


OK; let's try this:

Asian colleague of Middleagedal: "My son just got an A in math".
Middleagedal: "How very yellow of him"
Colleague: "What did you say ?"
Middleagedal: "Oh, get off your high horse. My comment had nothing to do with a racially sensitive topic".

Yup, you're right, when I say it, that argument sounds perfectly reasonable.




And that emotion would be what, flaming racism ? Didn't you just argue that the ONLY people who say "Disagreeing with Obama makes you racist" are crazy republicans trying to put words in the mouths of left wingers? And yet, here you are, basically saying that very sentiment a few posts later? Does that make you a crazy right-winger?

Perhaps, just perhaps, someone calling Obama a leftist involves a different opinion than yours, one that is equally legitimate; whereby one looks at his position on healthcare for example, and concludes that such a stance is more significant and indicative of his ideals than his NRA position, and thus still places him firmly in the left, and not moderate at all. If you honestly believe that the only other possible explanation for someone disagreeing with your assessment is that the other person has a confederate flag tattoo and white sheets with eye holes cut in them, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Is this the Spanish Inquisition??? You are unbelievable and unrelenting. Your asian example is idiotic, because 1) "how yellow of him" is not a familiar phrase, and 2) I have no idea whether the person I posted it to is white, black, asian, hispanic, or whatever. I used the phrase to be humorous, as it connotes the idea of patronizing that I was going for.

Next, where do you not understand the difference between disagreeing with someone and lableing them as a type of radical nut without cause? You can disagree with Obama all you want, I don't care. Lying about what he's done and said is another story. Calling him a radical or leftist (leftist is not a word, and is used only as an insult) when undeserved is troubling to me.

[128vertinnoho]

Originally Posted by txz4

The thing you have to take into account is the mandate. Ive said it like a broken record on the forum and no one seems to care. It will put many out of business. Simple as that. this will hurt the economy and lower tax revenue. Instead of arguing arbitrary ideas of fairness, I tend to be more of a pragmatist. Again, not anecdotal evidence. Its real. Its going to happen. Those who are good at business and finance tend to account for policies that will happen in the future to see the result personally, its not pretty.

How will the mandate put people out of business? Is that proven to have happened in MA where they have had the mandate for years?

[txz4]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

How will the mandate put people out of business? Is that proven to have happened in MA where they have had the mandate for years?

In businesses that have a high number of employees and a low wage, with profit based on being a cost leader (i.e. offering inexpensive product or service to customers), you make your money based on spreading out a small profit margin over many customers and employees. Similar to fast food. They dont make much profit per unit sold, but they sell alot for a fair price.

To put it simple, our profit will be so substantially cut that it will no longer make economic sense to be in my type of business. Id like not to get personal enough to tell you what type of business it is, but i will tell you its not something you would like to get rid of....Again, this isnt just hearsay, this is actually what would happen.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Is this the Spanish Inquisition??? You are unbelievable and unrelenting.

...

Next, where do you not understand the difference between disagreeing with someone and lableing them as a type of radical nut without cause?

If you consider the sheer volume of your posts in this thread alone compared to mine (not to mention our respective totals in all the political threads for that matter), to call me unrelenting is hypocrisy personified. When you tear the posts of others apart, point by point, I guess that is not the Spanish Inquisition ?

Obama, to some, is a radical leftist. To them, that is not without cause. You may disagree with the causes that others see, but they may place more weight on things like his take on gay marriage than you do. That alone may cause many deeply religious black people to see him as not moderate. Surely at this point you wont assert that those people's position on that is rooted in racism?

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If you consider the sheer volume of your posts in this thread alone compared to mine (not to mention our respective totals in all the political threads for that matter), to call me unrelenting is hypocrisy personified. When you tear the posts of others apart, point by point, I guess that is not the Spanish Inquisition ?

Obama, to some, is a radical leftist. To them, that is not without cause. You may disagree with the causes that others see, but they may place more weight on things like his take on gay marriage than you do. That alone may cause many deeply religious black people to see him as not moderate. Surely at this point you wont assert that those people's position on that is rooted in racism?

You are absolutely correct. The fact that you've made a half-dozen posts regarding one phrase I used unrelated to the topic, is completely remediated by your general lack of participation in this forum. And there are no widespread misconceptions regarding Obama's birthplace, citizenship, religion, political ideology, stance on issues, policies enacted, or supporter base. Thanks for correcting me.

[charlizejackson]

'These polling numbers spell a very, very bleak outlook for re-election'

Nearly half of independent registered voters rate Barack Obama's performance in the White House as "poor," and they are abandoning him in droves in the run-up to the 2012 election, according to a new poll.

The results are from the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. The poll was conducted Dec. 5-7 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.26 percentage points.

It shows 80 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of independents and 13.4 percent of Democrats "definitely" will vote for someone other than Obama. Another 21 percent of independents, 12.2 percent of Republicans and 8.8 percent of Democrats are "considering someone new."

The bottom line leaves only 38.5 percent of the respondents who will "definitely" vote for Obama again.

The results show that of all registered voters, 44.4 percent rate Obama's job performance as "poor" and another 13.2 percent give him an "only fair" mark. But for independents, those figures are 49.8 percent for a "poor" grade and 15.1 percent for "only fair."

That makes a huge difference in the poll where Democrats, as expected, rated Obama "excellent" (37.8 percent) and "good" (34.8 percent) while Republicans largely put him in the "poor" category (74.9 percent).

The results are clear: 47.8 percent of all voters will "definitely vote for someone else and 13.7 percent are considering that.

Fritz Wenzel, president of Wenzel Strategies, noted that the poll doesn't even identify an opponent.

"Another way to look at this is that almost half the electorate plan to vote against Obama, regardless of who is running against him. Presidential re-election campaigns are almost always a referendum on their performance, so this is nothing new, but these numbers are really bad," he said.

"Another wrinkle in the equation is Obama's bad job approval numbers, as just 40 percent give him positive marks for his job as president. We have already seen the outline of his re-election campaign themes, and they are decidedly negative.

"Like Truman, he apparently will try to run against Congress. But running a campaign with such a negative theme normally requires that the candidate have at least a fairly positive rating himself – something Obama currently lacks. Taken together, these polling numbers spell a very, very bleak outlook for re-election," Wenzel said.

Obama's highest remaining support levels come from women, although women who definitely support him barely outnumber those definitely supporting someone else, 44.6 percent to 43.7 percent. Then there are the 11.7 percent who are considering someone new.

Women also gave Obama better marks for his tenure in the Oval Office, with 46 percent ranking him good or excellent. For men, those categories totaled just 33 percent.

That he's divided the country racially also was apparent. Seventy-five percent of blacks rate Obama good or excellent, while only 32 percent of whites do.

The poll also captured the public's view of Congress, whose members ranked even lower than Obama. More than 64 percent of voters – including 56 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Republicans and an overwhelming 71 percent of independents – said Congress is doing "poor."

"Only fair" captured another 16.4 percent of the voters, and excluding those who remained unsure, not even 1 in 10 ranked Congress' work "good" or "excellent."

"It is true that Obama's approval numbers are much better than Congress, but in running against Congress, he risks giving his Republican opponent an opening to rise above that political food fight and inspire voters to make a change," Wenzel said.

"In other words, if the Republican presidential candidate can successfully triangulate between Obama and Congress, that candidate could benefit as the only positive alternative in a sea of negativity. Remember that the American electorate has not changed. They still hunger for a version of the hope and change that Obama offered four years ago, but this time they will demand substance behind the promises," he said.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for reposting a dated article written by someone else.

If you look at the polls this week (not last year), it's a statistical tie. That's not bad considering one guy's been campaining for the last 18 months, and the other has yet to speak in a debate. But that's how our wonderful election system works.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

However Obama is most certainly not a moderate. The first president to support gay marriage in office publicly, tends to disagree with you.

Well up until yesterday, this was not the case, and while I knew he personally supported it, he had refrained from making a statement as president, in keeping with a moderate stance. So yes, this moves him to the left, although it's in-line with a good portion of the electorate.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by EvosM3

I think that we should drop Obama's healthcare reform out of these debates as the supreme court will almost certainly declare it unconstitutional. I was pleasantly surprised that even the Obama appointed Justice Sotomayor seemed skeptical of the law. I'm sure she'll vote to uphold it but it's pretty clear the law is an unconstitutional joke, probably even more so than Obama's esteemed lawyer. That guy's probably getting imprisoned after the court rules it unconstitutional.

How is it "pretty clear the law is an unconstitutional joke", when it's been in effect in Massachusetts for years, with absolutely no legal opposition? And nobody's gonna get imprisoned, jeez if no one went to jail for the thousands of troops who died in Iraq for WMDs, then this certainly will get a pass.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

How is it "pretty clear the law is an unconstitutional joke", when it's been in effect in Massachusetts for years, with absolutely no legal opposition? And nobody's gonna get imprisoned, jeez if no one went to jail for the thousands of troops who died in Iraq for WMDs, then this certainly will get a pass.

simply put, its a state VS. federal right, it would and is unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a mandate like this. States can constitutionally pass things like this from the federal govs point of view, it would depend on the states constitution. I seriously disagree with any state doing such a thing, however it is within rights again assuming it has nothing in its personal constitution that says otherwise.

thats why i feel bad for that lawyer defending the bill. He knew he wasnt going to be able to win the case but it was his job to try...

[EvosM3]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Well up until yesterday, this was not the case, and while I knew he personally supported it, he had refrained from making a statement as president, in keeping with a moderate stance. So yes, this moves him to the left, although it's in-line with a good portion of the electorate.

Puts him Inline with the electorate?!?! Have you seen the polls which show by how wide of a margin Americans do NOT support gay marriage? It's funny because yesterday Virginia overwhelmingly struck down a gay marriage bill, even California has struck down gay marriage bills. I think that now since Obama supports gay marriage, he will lose 15% of the Hispanic vote and another 15% of the black votes. I know that these people are very religious and none of their churches support gay marriage. An overwhelming amount of Americans do not support gay marriage and that's a fact.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by EvosM3

Puts him Inline with the electorate?!?! Have you seen the polls which show by how wide of a margin Americans do NOT support gay marriage? It's funny because yesterday Virginia overwhelmingly struck down a gay marriage bill, even California has struck down gay marriage bills. I think that now since Obama supports gay marriage, he will lose 15% of the Hispanic vote and another 15% of the black votes. I know that these people are very religious and none of their churches support gay marriage. An overwhelming amount of Americans do not support gay marriage and that's a fact.

Congratulations! You've moved into the top spot in the foot-in-the-mouth competition.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Ha...-Marriage.aspx

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If you consider the sheer volume of your posts in this thread alone compared to mine (not to mention our respective totals in all the political threads for that matter), to call me unrelenting is hypocrisy personified. When you tear the posts of others apart, point by point, I guess that is not the Spanish Inquisition ?

Obama, to some, is a radical leftist. To them, that is not without cause. You may disagree with the causes that others see, but they may place more weight on things like his take on gay marriage than you do. That alone may cause many deeply religious black people to see him as not moderate. Surely at this point you wont assert that those people's position on that is rooted in racism?

There you go again,,, bringing common sense and intellect into the discussion.