Obama Race-Baited. ALL American Citizens Will Now Pay The Price.

Grant · Nov 10, 2012

haymarket said:
I would simply say that many of us agree on what the problems are - what we greatly disagree about is the solutions.

Yes, i suppose so but how is reelecting Obama part of any solution to the problems?

Diogenes · Nov 10, 2012

iguanaman said:
Your the one who has forgotten. I will never forget.

I haven't forgotten. The data points on your graph each represent a 5-year average, not the annualized quarterly values where Obamabots try to pass 2% growth off as a great success instead of the miserable failure it really is.

Diogenes · Nov 10, 2012

Grant said:
Yes, i suppose so but how is reelecting Obama part of any solution to the problems?

Perhaps it is the triumph of wishful thinking, where we do the same thing over again and hope for a different result this time? :roll:

Carleen · Nov 10, 2012

Ontologuy said:
First of all, his presentation that all illegals are Hispanic was not factual. And, he most certainly did use his appeal to the Hispanic race, to incite them racially, to take action. By every definition of race-baiting, that is what Obama most certainly did, and egreiously so.

But saying that something is "just a fact", to emphasize an irrelevant aspect of the meaningful substance and intent of "the fact", is to minimize and excuse the egregious nature of the statements made.

Denial is futile.

Sounds like you are in denial of why Romney lost!

Objective Voice · Nov 10, 2012

Grant said:
It doesn't matter whether they "believed" him or not, or liked him. The evidence is clear that he has been a very successful businessman, administrator and leader while Obama has been a failure. Even Obama himself said if he didn't fix the economy in three years he would deserve to lose, yet he was voted in again anyway. What does this say for the American people?

It was the country that lost.

The American Spectator : The Election

On the contrary; it DOES matter and it DID matter as evidenced by Pres. Obama winning both the popular vote AND the electoral vote. And let's finally be honest about the prospect of business people making good politicians. Such people may have keen entreprenureal acumen, but unless they are able to relate to the people whom they wish to represent their business-savy doesn't typically translate into social politics very well at least not on a national scale.

As to the claim that Pres. Obama has been a failure, such a claim only comes from those who continue to acknowledge the evidence:

- 31 consecutive months of private sector job growth
- stock market back to pre-2008 levels
- historic health care reform (which even I agree could still use some tweaking)
- historic financial reform (mostly geared towards consumer protections; "creative financing" [derivatives] remains largely in tact)
- finalizing 3 foreign trade agreements (yeah, I know - negotiations began under GWB, but as most folks who pay attention to foreign affairs would tell you such negotiations take time)

And those are just some of the highlights off the cuff. I'm sure yourself and others who oppose of this President can and will present contrary arguments, but those things have already been discussed to death over the course of the last four years. Isn't it time we put much of partisan non-sense aside and "start moving forward for the sake of the country"?

Grant · Nov 10, 2012

Objective Voice said:
On the contrary; it DOES matter and it DID matter as evidenced by Pres. Obama winning both the popular vote AND the electoral vote. And let's finally be honest about the prospect of business people making good politicians. Such people may have keen entreprenureal acumen, but unless they are able to relate to the people whom they wish to represent their business-savy doesn't typically translate into social politics very well at least not on a national scale.

I don't think it's as important that the candidate is a 'good politician" as much as the electorate being able to decide what is and what isn't important. Certainly Barrack Obama and his handlers are better politicians but are they what is best for the country? The evidence to this date, in my opinion, says no.

As long as the electorate chooses their politicians on issues not germane to the future of the country, or selects them the way they decide on who will be the next celebrity, the country will continue its downward spiral.

As to the claim that Pres. Obama has been a failure, such a claim only comes from those who continue to acknowledge the evidence:

The evidence is that the US is the brokest nation in the history of the world with nothing to show for the trillions spent. They could have had the best infrastructure in the world for that money but can't even prepare for a storm known that was known to be coming. That's third world stuff.

- 31 consecutive months of private sector job growth
- stock market back to pre-2008 levels
- historic health care reform (which even I agree could still use some tweaking)
- historic financial reform (mostly geared towards consumer protections; "creative financing" [derivatives] remains largely in tact)
- finalizing 3 foreign trade agreements (yeah, I know - negotiations began under GWB, but as most folks who pay attention to foreign affairs would tell you such negotiations take time)

And those are just some of the highlights off the cuff. I'm sure yourself and others who oppose of this President can and will present contrary arguments, but those things have already been discussed to death over the course of the last four years. Isn't it time we put much of partisan non-sense aside and "start moving forward for the sake of the country"?

Actually the genuine issues have not been "discussed to death". Instead the issues were contraceptives, abortions, the war on women, legitimate rape, and so on, and billions of dollars were spent getting these messages out there.

If you feel that Obama is good for the economic health of the country and has a handle on foreign affairs then I hope you are right. But I see a future for the US similar to that of the Wiemar Republic.

Objective Voice · Nov 10, 2012

Grant said:
It doesn't matter whether they "believed" him or not, or liked him. The evidence is clear that he has been a very successful businessman, administrator and leader while Obama has been a failure. Even Obama himself said if he didn't fix the economy in three years he would deserve to lose, yet he was voted in again anyway. What does this say for the American people?

It was the country that lost.

The American Spectator : The Election

Here are the underlying problems I see that many Republicans have with the immigration issue:

1. Their message of "self-deportation," hijacked to a degree by Mitt Romney, was in itself defeating. No one will kick themselves out of a country. The only way illegal aliens leave is if you make it difficult for them to stay. Of course, that was the plan in many Republican-held states, but even then you have to do it in a way where you don't leave a work-force vacuum in the wake. Clearly, the Republican leadership hadn't thought that through as evidenced by the number of low wage, low skilled jobs that went unfilled in states like Alabama when the state's immigration law took affect. The agriculture, pultry and landscaping industries all took tremenduous hits when illegals initially started packing up and running in fear of being tormented. As a result, these industries weren't anywhere near prepared to fill the jobless void.

2. To many Hispanics, the Republican Party didn't appeared to appreciate family-values as they claimed. Here it is you have a race of people who culturally stick to their family ties. And yet, Republicans were very willing to see family split up just to curry votes. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

3. While espousing hard work leads to success, many Republicans seem unwilling to acknowledge that Hispancis as a whole do work hard. Moreover, many won't even acknowledge that there are successful Hispanics in this country. You got a clear glimps of that while watching the DNC -vs- the RNC. Some are even successful business owners. But when a faction of the national politic calls them "lazy" and only sees the darker side, never even trying to see anything positive except the effectiveness of how their bottom line can improve if you can remove them from the teet of the public dole, you have to admit to yourselves that the Republican Party misjudged, disrespected and completely ignored the significan contributions Hispanics have made to the progress of this country...until it was too late.

4. Republicans treated Hispanics as the new "indentured servant. As such, Hispancis were treated as 2nd-class citizens. It's no wonder many people, including Blacks, clearly saw the immigration issue in a similar light as share croppers which took roote immediately following emancipation.

In other words, you can't give these people amnesty which occurred under Reagan and then degrade them and treat them as cast-aways afterwards. They are here! The Republican Party, if not all of Congress, had a chance to fix the immigration issue immediately after 9/11, but you/it didn't. And so, here we are now trying to fix our national economy taking small, dispasionate steps such as imposing immigration laws at the state level in the hopes that such laws will scare illegals away instead of fixing the real problem at the federal level. And before anyone says it, the DREAM Act was a good attempt at bridging the gap between amnesty and providing a path to U.S. citizenship for those illegal aliens (mostly Hispanics which I will say again are NOT the demographic who wishes to do this nation harm) who were brought here as children and know no other country as their home.

I'll close by saying a vast number of Republicans have this issue dead wrong and until you start looking at the issue from a completely different perspective - inclusion rather than economics - your party will continue to have such failures as we saw on election night, November 6, 2012.

Objective Voice · Nov 10, 2012

Grant said:
I don't think it's as important that the candidate is a 'good politician" as much as the electorate being able to decide what is and what isn't important. Certainly Barrack Obama and his handlers are better politicians but are they what is best for the country? The evidence to this date, in my opinion, says no.

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, but the nation has voted and apparently sees things far differently. Thus, your opinion has no merit at this point. The election is over; your side lose. Buck up, accept it and move on. Not saying you have to knuckle under and accept everything that comes out of the White House at face value; not even the President would accept such blind acceptance. But Republicans do need to be more consiliatory going forward. For as has been stated throughout this election cycle, the PEOPLE get to choose what direction in which they want the country to go. As far as I'm concerned, the PEOPLE have spoken. So, take your lumps and urge your Republican leadership to work with this President, not against him as they clearly have done for four years.

As long as the electorate chooses their politicians on issues not germane to the future of the country, or selects them the way they decide on who will be the next celebrity, the country will continue its downward spiral.

Not sure what to say to this point. Seems to me you've bought into the mindset that those who vote Democrat are gullable and don't study the issues. This mentality is what cost your guy the election. People aren't as stupid as you appear to be making them out to be. But more to the point, people didn't vote for a candidate they believed was trying to buy an election which is a good segway to your next point...

[qupte]The evidence is that the US is the brokest nation in the history of the world with nothing to show for the trillions spent. They could have had the best infrastructure in the world for that money but can't even prepare for a storm known that was known to be coming. That's third world stuff.[/quote]

Which is exactly my point! Here you have wealthy individuals - so-called captains of industry - clamouring to have their taxes lowered even more while also complaining about the prosperity of the nation being threatened, yet these same people who could be paying folks a living wage or expanding their businesses pured TRILLIONS into a presidential election. I see two things wrong with this:

1) The money spent on this election could have gone toward giving working people raises, but instead you have GOP supporters threatening to layoff people in retaliation of the President's re-election. Sorry, but that seems self-defeating to me not to mention very immature.

2) If the problem in our economy is "a lack of consumer confidence," I really don't see how wasting all that money on a political campaigns helped to spur the economy. Said political contributions could have gone to increase salaries OR hiring more people to do exactly what Conservatism says would occurred if more people are hired and paid taxes to the Treasury - increase revenue and pay down the deficit. Seems to me, the actions of the Republican Party went contrary to their own ideology.

Actually the genuine issues have not been "discussed to death". Instead the issues were contraceptives, abortions, the war on women, legitimate rape, and so on, and billions of dollars were spent getting these messages out there.

We agree that on the campaing trail those such issues were on the fringes, but from my observations of media coverage throughout the campaign season most of this issues were brought up by Republicans initially and made into hot button topics as part of campaign strategy. I mean, it wasn't Democrat Congressmen or Senators who first spoke of abortions, gay marriage, women's health or questioned the validity of "legitimate rape" while on the stump. These issues were manufactured; but while important the people decided that this issues were important to a majority of them. So, again, our politicians will have no choice going forward but to deal with them and not continue to ignore them because they won't just go away much as the Republican election machine apparently thought the minority vote of 2004 and 2008 were just flukes.

If you feel that Obama is good for the economic health of the country and has a handle on foreign affairs then I hope you are right. But I see a future for the US similar to that of the Wiemar Republic.

Well, all I can say is Romney really didn't put forward an economic plan; he promoted and idea only the math truly didn't add up because he never outlined the variables, i.e., what deductions he would eliminate and how he'd get to the economic numbers his plan projected. On foreign policy, he virtually agreed with the President's handling on most issues, Libya notwithstanding. But overall, Romney really didn't voice a different tact. However, I do believe most people thought the way he would handle foreign affairs, particularly w/China, Russia and Iran, would only lead to another war. That isn't something this country needs right now.

My hope and prayer for this nation is that all sides come together to solve the nation's problems and that all this partisan rancor dies down so that the nation can heal.

haymarket · Nov 10, 2012

Grant said:
Yes, i suppose so but how is reelecting Obama part of any solution to the problems?

If you are rejecting the reality that President Obama has his own ideas for solutions then that indeed is indicative of the political problem I have just mentioned.

Sheik Yerbuti · Nov 10, 2012

Grant said:
What did you find too "extreme" in Romney's message?

Are voters not scared of the debt? Unemployment? A weak foreign policy?

The answer to question one is that he [Romney] claimed he could fix any of your subsequent questions.

Grant · Nov 10, 2012

Objective Voice said:
Not sure what to say to this point. Seems to me you've bought into the mindset that those who vote Democrat are gullable and don't study the issues. This mentality is what cost your guy the election. People aren't as stupid as you appear to be making them out to be. But more to the point, people didn't vote for a candidate they believed was trying to buy an election which is a good segway to your next point...

I do believe the voters were gullible but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. And we know both sides spent many millions of dollars, much of it on negative advertising, which only served to separate people, not bring them together.

[qupte]The evidence is that the US is the brokest nation in the history of the world with nothing to show for the trillions spent. They could have had the best infrastructure in the world for that money but can't even prepare for a storm known that was known to be coming. That's third world stuff.[/quote]

Which is exactly my point! Here you have wealthy individuals - so-called captains of industry - clamouring to have their taxes lowered even more while also complaining about the prosperity of the nation being threatened, yet these same people who could be paying folks a living wage or expanding their businesses pured TRILLIONS into a presidential election.

No one spent trillions in the election campaign we know who [ays all the federal taxes already.

I see two things wrong with this:1) The money spent on this election could have gone toward giving working people raises, but instead you have GOP supporters threatening to layoff people in retaliation of the President's re-election. Sorry, but that seems self-defeating to me not to mention very immature.

They are not just threatening to lay off people, that is exactly what they are doing. In fact Americans have been complaining for some time about companies moving overseas and then they do more to assure that's just what happens. America is no longer business friendly to these "captains of industry", so of course the middle class is paying the price.

Well, all I can say is Romney really didn't put forward an economic plan; he promoted and idea only the math truly didn't add up because he never outlined the variables, i.e., what deductions he would eliminate and how he'd get to the economic numbers his plan projected. On foreign policy, he virtually agreed with the President's handling on most issues, Libya notwithstanding. But overall, Romney really didn't voice a different tact. However, I do believe most people thought the way he would handle foreign affairs, particularly w/China, Russia and Iran, would only lead to another war. That isn't something this country needs right now.

What is Barrack Obama's plan? Why didn't he begin it during his first term? What is his foreign policy?

In fact had you heard Romney speak or gone to his web site you would have seen his position on many issues,

My hope and prayer for this nation is that all sides come together to solve the nation's problems and that all this partisan rancor dies down so that the nation can heal.

An honorable goal, and I certainly wish it happens but i see too much rancor and negativity for that to ever take place. I'm not optimistic about America's future, unless there are more State's rights.

Grant · Nov 10, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
The answer to question one is that he [Romney] claimed he could fix any of your subsequent questions.

Yes, the electorate voted for the status quo.

Good luk with that.

Grant · Nov 10, 2012

haymarket said:
If you are rejecting the reality that President Obama has his own ideas for solutions then that indeed is indicative of the political problem I have just mentioned.

I'm surprised he didn't institute his own solutions during his first term rather than being ultra unpatriotic.

Objective Voice · Nov 10, 2012

Grant said:
The evidence is that the US is the brokest nation in the history of the world with nothing to show for the trillions spent. They could have had the best infrastructure in the world for that money but can't even prepare for a storm known that was known to be coming. That's third world stuff.

Click to expand...

No one spent trillions in the election campaign we know who [ays all the federal taxes already.

The trillion dollar figure was yours, not mine. (See your post #256, page 26). I merely piggy-backed on your words. But you are correct, yet my point still stands. Had those multi-millionairs put that money back into their businesses to expand OR paid their employees a living wage OR used that money to hire new employees, perhaps this country would've begun to get it's economic act together by now. So much for the effectiveness of Citizen's United, huh? :roll:

They are not just threatening to lay off people, that is exactly what they are doing. In fact Americans have been complaining for some time about companies moving overseas and then they do more to assure that's just what happens. America is no longer business friendly to these "captains of industry", so of course the middle class is paying the price.

Again, exactly my point. Weathly donors who supported Mitt Romney did so for the exact same reason Republicans complained about Solyndra - donors were expecting big government pay outs if Romney won the presidency not only in having their taxes reduced but also in loan guarantees. So much for expanding corporate welfare and using same to prop up those corporate balance sheets.

What is Barrack Obama's plan? Why didn't he begin it during his first term? What is his foreign policy?

Clearly, somebody hasn't been keeping up with foreign affairs. More specifically, you apparently didn't watch the last presidential debate. Otherwise, you'd know the answer to that question. As for the President's foreign policy for his 2nd-term...I'd say it's very similar to his first:

1) Usher in more international cooperation.

2) Keep international pressure on Iran to disband their nuclear weapons program.

3) Continue the peace keeping and humanitarian efforts centered on Syria.

4) Continue to hit China on their currency and trade manipulations.

5) Closely monitor economic conditions in the EU to ensure their failures don't trickle into the US. economy too deep.

6) Keep looking for free trade routes especially in Africa, Central America and the Pacific Rim.

7) Try hard as hell to close out the War in Afghanistan on time (2014).

8) Monitor conditions in Lybia and form closer ties w/the Lybian gov't to ensure things don't get more out of control.

I'd say that's about it.

In fact had you heard Romney speak or gone to his web site you would have seen his position on many issues.

I did; that's why I didn't consider Romney's foreign policy any different than Pres. Obama's. I thought his hardline approach would have pulled this country either into a trade war w/China OR an actual war over Syria - neither of which this country needs right now.

An honorable goal, and I certainly wish it happens but i see too much rancor and negativity for that to ever take place. I'm not optimistic about America's future, unless there are more State's rights.

States already have tons of freedom to do ALOT on their own. Republican Governors are merely trying to find ways to garner more power unto themselves/their respective states. And it's too bad you have such little regard for this country's future. Oh, yea of little faith.

Grant · Nov 11, 2012

Objective Voice said:
The trillion dollar figure was yours, not mine. (See your post #256, page 26). I merely piggy-backed on your words. But you are correct, yet my point still stands.

I think it was clear from the context that I was not referring to the elections.Here it is.

The evidence is that the US is the brokest nation in the history of the world with nothing to show for the trillions spent. They could have had the best infrastructure in the world for that money but can't even prepare for a storm that was known to be coming. That's third world stuff.

Had those multi-millionairs put that money back into their businesses to expand OR paid their employees a living wage OR used that money to hire new employees, perhaps this country would've begun to get it's economic act together by now. So much for the effectiveness of Citizen's United, huh? :roll:

Businesses are not expanding in the uncertainties of today because they are businesses. They are not charities who give the workers as much money as they think they might need. When they do that they go broke, as has happened to many businesses.

Again, exactly my point. Weathly donors who supported Mitt Romney did so for the exact same reason Republicans complained about Solyndra - donors were expecting big government pay outs if Romney won the presidency not only in having their taxes reduced but also in loan guarantees. So much for expanding corporate welfare and using same to prop up those corporate balance sheets.

Crony capitalism was rife during the Obama presidency, which is why Wall Street backed him in the first place, and crony capitalism, the fusion of government and big business, will expand greatly during the next four years. Read this for an insight into the huge game being played. Dodd-Frank’s crony capitalism | FP Comment | Financial Post

Clearly, somebody hasn't been keeping up with foreign affairs. More specifically, you apparently didn't watch the last presidential debate. Otherwise, you'd know the answer to that question. As for the President's foreign policy for his 2nd-term...I'd say it's very similar to his first:

1) Usher in more international cooperation.

Yes, I recall Barrack Obama sent a message to Vladimir Putin that he would be "more flexible" once he was re-elected. Do you know what that means?

2) Keep international pressure on Iran to disband their nuclear weapons program.

And how's that been working out?

3) Continue the peace keeping and humanitarian efforts centered on Syria.

Tens of thousands of Syrians have been murdered during the Obama administration. This idea is ludicrous.

4) Continue to hit China on their currency and trade manipulations.

Continue to hit? Again, these are words and again no results.

5) Closely monitor economic conditions in the EU to ensure their failures don't trickle into the US. economy too deep.

Failures don't trickle into the US economy??? Businesses are closing down or leaving, unemployment is consistently high, food stamps have broken all records and the Obama administration is spending $1,000,000,000,000.00 it doesn't have every ten months or so. They are now $16,000,000,000,000 in debt and in a few months it will be 17,000,000,000,000.00 and 21trillion or so when he finally leaves? Because the American people gave him a "mandate".

6) Keep looking for free trade routes especially in Africa, Central America and the Pacific Rim.

Those should have been completed years ago. Canada already had them in place while America slept.

7) Try hard as hell to close out the War in Afghanistan on time (2014).

Yes, he has announced the date of retreat already. Why doesn't he just do it now instead of having more good American soldiers dying for nothing?

8) Monitor conditions in Lybia and form closer ties w/the Lybian gov't to ensure things don't get more out of control.

Monitor conditions in Libya? They are laughing at Obama! Two months after Americans were killed there he claims he still doesn't know what happened! Do you really think this guy has his eye on the ball??

A good list but I think you are wrong on every point.

I did; that's why I didn't consider Romney's foreign policy any different than Pres. Obama's. I thought his hardline approach would have pulled this country either into a trade war w/China OR an actual war over Syria - neither of which this country needs right now.

Why would America be afraid of a trade war with China or an actual war with Syria? They should be afraid of America! Can't Obama stand up to either of these countries? To be honest I share your concern with BHO as President. The America of today fears everyone it seems, and it shows.

States already have tons of freedom to do ALOT on their own.

Less and less and we know it. It is a power grab going on and without strong local governments the country will fail, and I don't say that lightly.

Republican Governors are merely trying to find ways to garner more power unto themselves/their respective states. And it's too bad you have such little regard for this country's future. Oh, yea of little faith.

What is wrong with the states having more power?? It is you who has shown little faith in America by being fearful of a trade war with China, who desperately needs the American economy to succeed (if only to get their money back) and are fearful of a war with Syria, a nothing country already consumed by inner strife. And the reason you are fearful for the latter is because you know you cannot win any more wars. the country is afraid and will only defend their right for food stamps and drugs.

Yes, i do have little faith because the left is referring to their opponents as old white men (and much worse of course) but it is these old white men who worked to make America great, who fought the wars against Nazism, Fascism , Communism, who built, invented created, paid the bills and worked hard to make America great.

Now these same people are being ridiculed by the leftists.

So tell me this. Do you really believe the leftists can pay off $16,000,000,000,000 in debts, or ever balance a budget? Do you really believe that the leftists can do it by threatening, gouging, and insulting businesses, the creators of wealth, a big link in the chain that made America great? Of course not. There is nowhere to go but down.