That is not somebody from the right saying that, it is Tavis Smiley. At least there is one honest person on the left who will admit what Obama has done.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...z2hQqlEq3z

You just can't make this stuff up. Blacks being whipped and punished by Zero and yelling "Can I have Another?" Back to the plantation. Just can't make this stuff up. LOL

That's because Obama took office in the beginning phases of an international recession, I don't think there are many nations whose living conditions we'd like to emulate that can say their citizens are better off now than then. It's like blaming Roosevelt for the deaths of more Americans than any other President on that fact alone, without taking into account that it was more a matter of the situation he was put in than anything else.

Can't wait to see the peanut gallery completely misconstrue this one though, should be fun.

(10-12-2013 04:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's because Obama took office in the beginning phases of an international recession

I thought it was Bush's recession.

(10-12-2013 04:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's because Obama took office in the beginning phases of an international recession, I don't think there are many nations whose living conditions we'd like to emulate that can say their citizens are better off now than then. It's like blaming Roosevelt for the deaths of more Americans than any other President on that fact alone, without taking into account that it was more a matter of the situation he was put in than anything else.

Can't wait to see the peanut gallery completely misconstrue this one though, should be fun.

Typical liberal nonsense.

"He's my guy so its not his fault. Even after 6 full years of being POTUS with a sh**economy and almost 10 million more in new debt."

"Its just not his fault, its everyone elses."

(10-12-2013 04:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's because Obama took office in the beginning phases of an international recession, I don't think there are many nations whose living conditions we'd like to emulate that can say their citizens are better off now than then. It's like blaming Roosevelt for the deaths of more Americans than any other President on that fact alone, without taking into account that it was more a matter of the situation he was put in than anything else.

Can't wait to see the peanut gallery completely misconstrue this one though, should be fun.

But it isn't Americans blaming Roosevelt, it's a black guy blaming Obama.

Are you all really trying to argue that he wasn't elected in the beginning one of the largest international recessions in history? It's not an opinion or defense regarding Obamas performance in anyway, it's a statement of fact shown by every economic indicator that must be taken into account if you're going to look at his objective performance.

Why does everything have to be such a pedantic, partisan finger pointing contest with the posters on this board? It makes actual discussion impossible.

(10-12-2013 10:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Are you all really trying to argue that he wasn't elected in the beginning one of the largest international recessions in history? It's not an opinion or defense regarding Obamas performance in anyway, it's a statement of fact shown by every economic indicator that must be taken into account if you're going to look at his objective performance.

Why does everything have to be such a pedantic, partisan finger pointing contest with the posters on this board? It makes actual discussion impossible.

Because we a laughing at you.

I can't wait until the majority of blacks figure what the Democrats are truly about.

Blacks like Smiley are just being honest about the complete failure the Chosen One has been to the black community and the nation overall. Blacks just need to readjust their thinking on Obama and be color blind or if they can't do that, then blame the white half of him for what he has done to them.

(10-12-2013 04:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's because Obama took office in the beginning phases of an international recession, I don't think there are many nations whose living conditions we'd like to emulate that can say their citizens are better off now than then. It's like blaming Roosevelt for the deaths of more Americans than any other President on that fact alone, without taking into account that it was more a matter of the situation he was put in than anything else.

Can't wait to see the peanut gallery completely misconstrue this one though, should be fun.

Seriously, is that the best you have.

The question is if black people are "losing ground" at a higher rate than the general population, or compared to other meaningless groups that liberals enjoy lumping people into.

(10-12-2013 10:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Are you all really trying to argue that he wasn't elected in the beginning one of the largest international recessions in history? It's not an opinion or defense regarding Obamas performance in anyway, it's a statement of fact shown by every economic indicator that must be taken into account if you're going to look at his objective performance.

Why does everything have to be such a pedantic, partisan finger pointing contest with the posters on this board? It makes actual discussion impossible.

Are you really trying to excuse and explain away that in half a decade of Barack Obama's great leadership that black americans shouldn't have seen improvement in at least one metric/criteria?

I'll agree that the economy tanked in 2007, but shouldn't a great leader heck even a mediocre leader have been able to show improvement in just one criteria?

And don't bother with the excuse of having to fight the Republicans...for the first two years of his presidency the Ds owned both the house and senate so BO essentially has a blank check.

If BO were CEO and one division of the corporation he ran showed no improvement after 5 years he'd have been given his pink slip.

(10-12-2013 04:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 10:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Are you all really trying to argue that he wasn't elected in the beginning one of the largest international recessions in history? It's not an opinion or defense regarding Obamas performance in anyway, it's a statement of fact shown by every economic indicator that must be taken into account if you're going to look at his objective performance.

Why does everything have to be such a pedantic, partisan finger pointing contest with the posters on this board? It makes actual discussion impossible.

Are you really trying to excuse and explain away that in half a decade of Barack Obama's great leadership that black americans shouldn't have seen improvement in at least one metric/criteria?

I'll agree that the economy tanked in 2007, but shouldn't a great leader heck even a mediocre leader have been able to show improvement in just one criteria?

And don't bother with the excuse of having to fight the Republicans...for the first two years of his presidency the Ds owned both the house and senate so BO essentially has a blank check.

If BO were CEO and one division of the corporation he ran showed no improvement after 5 years he'd have been given his pink slip.

It's his white side that is fuckedup.

(10-12-2013 04:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 10:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Are you all really trying to argue that he wasn't elected in the beginning one of the largest international recessions in history? It's not an opinion or defense regarding Obamas performance in anyway, it's a statement of fact shown by every economic indicator that must be taken into account if you're going to look at his objective performance.

Why does everything have to be such a pedantic, partisan finger pointing contest with the posters on this board? It makes actual discussion impossible.

Are you really trying to excuse and explain away that in half a decade of Barack Obama's great leadership that black americans shouldn't have seen improvement in at least one metric/criteria?

I'll agree that the economy tanked in 2007, but shouldn't a great leader heck even a mediocre leader have been able to show improvement in just one criteria?

And don't bother with the excuse of having to fight the Republicans...for the first two years of his presidency the Ds owned both the house and senate so BO essentially has a blank check.

If BO were CEO and one division of the corporation he ran showed no improvement after 5 years he'd have been given his pink slip.

Obama has never had less than a 2/3 majority.

He owned all 3 his first 2 years and the senate and WH ever since.

(10-12-2013 11:20 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  The question is if black people are "losing ground" at a higher rate than the general population, or compared to other meaningless groups that liberals enjoy lumping people into.

yup.

they very well might have, by the way, wouldn't necessarily surprise me all that much. Obama's far from the champion of liberals that a lot of conservatives seem to portray him as, that would be more along the lines of Mrs. Warren, the only senator with the balls to hold the rich people who helped cause this mess feet to the fire. The poor paid their debt for their actions, why shouldn't the banks/finance guys too?

(10-12-2013 10:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Obama's far from the champion of liberals that a lot of conservatives seem to portray him as, that would be more along the lines of Mrs. Warren, the only senator with the balls to hold the rich people who helped cause this mess feet to the fire.

Two questions:
1. Why would anyone invest in Elizabeth Warren's America? The risk assessment would look like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
2. Without investment, where are the jobs? And who gets hurt worst by that?

The "poor" never pay a price, because they are adequately subsidized by the nanny state. Food, housing, transportation, cell phones, utility bills, education, et al are all paid for by those that actually contribute to society. What do the poor contribute other than more poor and more recipient-class voters? Not a damned thing.

(10-12-2013 10:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 10:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Obama's far from the champion of liberals that a lot of conservatives seem to portray him as, that would be more along the lines of Mrs. Warren, the only senator with the balls to hold the rich people who helped cause this mess feet to the fire.

Two questions:
1. Why would anyone invest in Elizabeth Warren's America? The risk assessment would look like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
2. Without investment, where are the jobs? And who gets hurt worst by that?

That's a fabricated concern, sorry. We still have the best educated and most skilled workforce in the world, even if it is partially due to the brain drain we inflict on other nations.

(10-12-2013 10:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 10:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 10:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Obama's far from the champion of liberals that a lot of conservatives seem to portray him as, that would be more along the lines of Mrs. Warren, the only senator with the balls to hold the rich people who helped cause this mess feet to the fire.

Two questions:
1. Why would anyone invest in Elizabeth Warren's America? The risk assessment would look like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
2. Without investment, where are the jobs? And who gets hurt worst by that?

That's a fabricated concern, sorry. We still have the best educated and most skilled workforce in the world, even if it is partially due to the brain drain we inflict on other nations.

In other words, you don't have a good answer, so you dodge the question.