It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


And the scales fell from their eyes: Recognizing the failure of the "Affirmative Action President"

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by simone50m

Jonathan Alter. Obama sycophant recently asked for "proof" Obama is not up to the job.

Here's a list:

“Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president?” Jonathan Alter writes in his column.

Alter tells us he’s not talking here about Obama as a tactician and communicator, and he’s not interested in hearing ad hominem attacks or about people’s generalized “disappointment.” (Neither am I.) He wants to know on a substantive basis why Obama should be judged to have failed so far.

The "list" goes without saying. Obama is leading the US straight into a Euro-socialist regime:

* The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office.

* July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.

* Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.

* Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.

* The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.

* The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.

* The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)

* The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.

* Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

* During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.

That is to say, Obama has achieved in two-and-a-half years what it took George W. Bush two full terms in office to achieve — and Obama, when he was running for president, slammed Bush’s record as being “unpatriotic.”

* America saw its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history under the Obama presidency.

* Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.

* The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

* A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago.

There is more that can be said, but you get the point.

Figure for yourself. Where did this guy deliver on his campaign promises?


posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by jdub297

Where did this guy deliver on his campaign promises?

He offered the change that we can believe in.

But the problem is, we didn't know what kind of change, we just ass-umed that it would be good. But instead, it was a giant flushing sound. Down into the sewer of despair.

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:46 PM
Sadly, the Left continues to peel away from support into disillusionment:

Obama blew it. How, when, and on which bill or negotiation he blew it will vary from observer to observer. Democrats, progressives, and moderates all agree that Obama blew it on something or other (conservatives uniformly detested him from the beginning, and would argue he blew it on everything) -- whether it was caving to Republicans on the debt ceiling, failing to explain his health care bill to the public, or abandoning climate and clean energy legislation altogether. Yet there's one over-arching failure that has encompassed all of these smaller ones, and perhaps caused them: His failure to engage America with any sort of compelling narrative or explanation for his actions.

This is only going to get worse when Obama "unveils" his re-tread stimulus plans to an unimpressed America.


posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by jdub297

And so the disillusionment continues:


At this point, even his most ardent supporters are politely unleashing their frustrations on NPR and elsewhere, admitting that they have no idea who President Obama is or what he believes in anymore. It’s as if the events of the past month have thrown into sharp relief the inconsistencies he’s exhibited all along. The candidate who promised to close Guantanamo and the president who’s kept it open. The champion of the poor and middle class who took more campaign contributions from Wall Street than any of his fellow candidates. The leader who says he has ended the war in Iraq while preparing the public, through leaks and trial balloons, for the American military presence to last for years.

No matter how his acolytes try to spin it, the Obama adminstration is succumbing to its leader's own lies and betrayals.

edit on 31-8-2011 by jdub297 because: sp

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Grumpy20
It's the first driving principle of the multicultural religion: Blacks can do no wrong. White men can do nothing right.
White men = a manifestation of evil and moral depravity, Everyone else = morally superior beings linked by shared victimhood and unlimited entitlements designed to get even,

I noticed that even the Huffington Post has relaxed its posting rules and the moderators are allowing the disenchanted faithful to voice their own displeasure:

Moses the Raven Comments (3641)
NetworkerSuperuserModeratorCommented on:
U.S. Adds Zero New Jobs In August As Jobless Rate Stuck At 9.1 Percent


“Stimulus - Failed
Green Jobs - Failed
Tax Increases - Failed
Obama Care - Failed
Cap and Trade - Failed
Bailouts – Failed
Transparen­cy - Failed
World Likes us more - Failed
Wars - Failed
Deficit reduction - Failed
Lowering the National Debt – Failed”

Obama has failed on so many levels it is even embarassing his staunchest supporters at the NYT and HuffPo.


posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:20 AM
As if the foregoing wasn't enough, ATS members are running witrh the New York Times thinly-veiled assault on the regime for not being sufficiently "Left":

Brutal Takedown of Obama in NYT !

Labor groups are now reportedly distancing themselves and openlty critical:

Labor unions adjust to new reality under Obama

(This, from "chill up my leg" MSNBC and the AP!)

And the beat(-down) goes on.


posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:26 AM

Originally posted by The Sword
The "affirmative action" President?

And 6 flags?

Never has blatant racism been allowed to run amok on ATS than it is doing right at this moment.

For those who have no real objective response to Obama criticism but to scream "Racism" (see, e.g., Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) last week at the CBC event), here's a little reminder of what happens when you cry "wolf" a little too often:

... the suggestion, which we hear more and more of these days, that opposition to President Obama is based on racist views.
At the outset of his administration, some of us predicted this would happen once Obama encountered rough political waters. Still, this needs to be said: to hurl the charge of racism without any evidence is slanderous.

The GOP’s opposition to Obama is rooted in profound political and philosophical disagreements; Republicans believe he is championing policies injurious to our nation. They may be wrong, but that does not make them malevolent.

And to accuse people of racism in such a casual, promiscuous and reckless manner ultimately has the effect of draining the charge of its potency. Genuine racism is a terrible thing, which is why it should be reserved for the real deal rather than used as a clumsy and transparently ideological club.

A Racism Charge Without Evidence

In other words, the Dem., MSM and ATS Obama groupies who can't address his true failure on its merits only diminsh the legitimacy of the "racist" label by using so often, so baselessly and so clumsily.


posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:30 AM
Attacking Obama's record and his policies are fine. Those are things that should be taken to task. He's a horrible President and a dishonest human being.

Where his detractors lose credibility in this thread is with the affirmative action nonsense. It's clearly racist and frankly, it shouldn't be tolerated.
edit on 4-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by illuminatislave

I couldn't agree more:

Where his detractors lose credibility in this thread is with the affirmative action nonsense. It's clearly racist and frankly, it shouldn't be tolerated.

Affirmative action is nonsense, undeniably racist, and should never be tolerated in a "post-racial" nation or "equal opportunity" administration.

Unfortunately, Obama is in office as a result of the aforesaid nonsense, et c.
No one else with his history (what little has been revealed) and his "credentials" would ever have been elected president.

If he is so smart and so deserving, where are his publications while "leading" the Harvard Law Review or as a "law professor" (all of my professors were published); where are his transcripts?

Without affirmative action, the JournoList and the MSM, he would never have made into, or out of, the primaries.


posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by jdub297

Where did this guy deliver on his campaign promises?

He offered the change that we can believe in.
But the problem is, we didn't know what kind of change, we just ass-umed that it would be good. But instead, it was a giant flushing sound. Down into the sewer of despair.

Even the WH saw dissension coming before the NY-9 polls had even closed.

This story pretty much sums up where this thread started weeks ago:

All the spinning in the world can’t spin away the trend of Scott Brown, the Tea Party victory of November 2010, and now the Turner earthquake.

Many Democrats are awakening to the reality that their party has been hijacked by a radicalism completely unfamiliar to their parents’ and grandparents’ Democratic Party.

Democrats' Civil War Against Obama Begins

Spinning will never replace sound policy; now it shows.


posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:20 AM
Hi there. I realize this is a late reply, but I took a break from the slobbering dumbassery that has been characterizing ATS for about a year now. I feel fresh as a spring daisy.

Originally posted by jdub297
There are only 2 parts of your reply that I need to quote: "The media [are] not liberal." "Obama is not leftist."

Thanks for your contributions to objective reason and evaluation.


Indeed. Now my retort is, do you have so much as a basic grasp of what those two words - "liberal" and "leftist" - mean?

If you are like the other 99% of the tripe-headed yahoos on this site, you don't have the first freaking clue.

First, this garbage about the "liberal media." Liberal in what regards? Their unswerving, fawning coverage of the republican debates, including damn near pornographic treatment for the Heir Apparent, Rick Perry? How about the adoring adulation back in 2008, when we got to hear Tim Russert gush about how fantastic Fred Thompson smelled (Apparently he smelled "very manly, like aquavelva")? How about the unswerving, unquestioning support of Jerome Corsi and the other "Swiftboat Veterans For Truth" to undermine Kerry's campaign? The fellating of the Bush Administration for his decisions to go to war with two other nations? How about the Media's coverage of the 2000 campaign, insisting that there was no difference between the candidates, yet still banging hte anti-Clinton drum it had been hammering since 1992? Are you even old enough to remember back that far? Are you old enough to remember the Media riding bareback on Saint Ronnies withered old pud? Are you old enough to remember how this is the same media who basically killed Carter's reelection campaign (apparently the Iranian revolution was Carter's fault and had nothing to do with Iranians. Weird, huh?)

Your standard for the "liberal media" consists solely of someone TELLING you that the media is liberal. That someone is almost certainly from some sector of the media that is even further to the right than the "mainstream" media. Which, again refer to my original post; "Not as crazy as WND" does not actually mean "liberal."

Hell, for starters, "liberal" would require advocacy. And the only advocacy I ever see coming out of the media is for bigger wars, bigger tax cuts, more god, and fewer mexicans... Not exactly "liberal" policies, those.

Now your second mindless blather cock-up. Calling the president a leftist. hoo boy. What "Leftist" policies has he pushed? Universal healthcare? hell no. Corporate reform? hasn't touched it. Forgiveness of foreign debts? Are you kidding? Union support? Not one bit of that. Environmentalism? In a wishy-washy kind-of-sort-of way with the whole "we need more trains!" thing... Reduction of "defense" spending? Good gracious no. Here's a big one; How many businesses have been nationalized since inauguration day? None? didn't think so. How many times has he attempted to push any of this sort of stuff through legislation? What, never? Hell, he can't even take a basic yes or no stance on something so obviously "yes" as gay marriage. In fact between the bailouts, education cuts, increased "defense" spending, unilateral support for Bahrain and Israel, and wishy-washy "jobs" packages that Ayn Rand could have written, he's probably more in whatever louse-and-rat infested camp you pitch tent in, than he is any sort of "leftist."

Like I said I doubt the guy could spell the damn word. Frankly I'm surprised you can.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:01 AM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I realize this is a late reply, but I took a break from the slobbering dumbassery that has been characterizing ATS for about a year now.

No, you didn't. You've been "slobbering" in the thick of the "dumbassery" for years. This post, alone, is pretty clear proof of that; but a glance at your 5,000 posts tells the bigger story.

As for "liberal media," why don't we take the media at their own words?
Mainstream Media Liberal Bias Admitted, Revealed by …the Mainstream Media!
CNN Admits Liberal Bias
NBC Admits Liberal Bias
TV Executives Admit That Hollywood Pushes a Liberal Agenda

As for Obama's leftist ideology, I guess you'd rather not recall that Obama entered politics as a candidate of the far-left Socialist New Party. Or studied at the feet of his political mentor, Weatherman William Ayers, and their guru Saul Alinsky.

Did you read his books? Or have a grown-up read them to you? You would know what "Dreams" he inherited from his father, and what he had the "audacity" to hope for as he moved up in politics: a leftist "transformation" of America and the substitution of socialism for capitalism.

I'm not going to "fact-check" all of your blatant falsehoods, but when it comes to "nationalized" industry, I suppose you do not count AIG, GM, Chrysler, Bank of America, and CITIBank, of which the US owns or owned a controlling interest, and for which the Obama administration dictated and dictates internal policies and management. Or the fact that the underlying impetus for Obamacare was not to reform insurance or broaden coverage, but to drive employers and insurace companies out of healthcare completely, leaving government de fact as the "single payer" that Obama and all his socialist acolytes always wanted, but were afraid to say (except for Maxine Waters, who said the goal of health care reform was to drive insurance companies from the market).

And for unions' support, are you kidding? He GAVE Chrysler to the UAW and Steelworkers (denying secured creditors their constitutionally-protected "priority" status), has "created or saved" thousand of public and private union jobs, and has invigorated and supported the NLRB's blatant attacks upon right-to-work employment. The biggest criticism of his failed "stimulus" was its delay in funding caused by ensuring any new jobs were at union "prevailing wages" or went directly for unionized positions in education, law enforcement and industry. Anyone listening to his silence, despite calls for civility, as union thugs threatened and cursed political opposition, knows where Obama's allegiance vis-a-vis unions lies.

deny ignorance


edit on 15-9-2011 by jdub297 because: quote

edit on 15-9-2011 by jdub297 because: elaboration

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:50 AM

Even Reuters is now posting blogspots critical of Obama's redistributive policies disguised as "green" imitiatives.

The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.

To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.

Oh, and Wall Street, too. Who was the exclusive financial adviser to Solyndra when it was trying to secure the $535 million loan from Washington? Goldman Sachs. And had the cap-and-trade scheme been enacted, big banks stood ready to reap billions from the trading of carbon emission credits.

No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party.

Solyndra, the logical endpoint of Obamanomics

If I, or any other ATS member had posted such thoughts (nevermind the facts and suppoting statements in the rest of the article), we would have been castigated for our "racist," biased perspectives.

To have a major MSM, erstwhile, Obama advocate take such an opposition position is almost unbeleivable! I couldn't believe the source when I followed the link to the article from RealClearPolitics.

Did anyone else notice that even the Obama-crazy ([url=]Has Chris Mathews Lost His mind?[/utl]) Chris Mathews has taken up and agreed with Perry's characterization of Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme?
Chris Matthews’ Social Security admission: ‘It is a Ponzi scheme’

My, how things change.

I hate to keep saying it, but I will: "See, I told you."

deny ignorance.


posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by jdub297

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in