Opposition To Obama Speech Possibly Based On Skin Color

reply to post by illuminatislave


A few off the top of my head

- support of confiscatory tax policy
- refusal to enforce immigration policy due to open borders ideology
- opposition of Boeing's desire to move jobs to South Carolina via his NLRB
- appointment of leftist wack-jobs like Van Jones to posts in the Administration
- having a Justice Department who has a policy of refusing to pursue voting rights claims brought by whites
- publically saying he wants to "spread the wealth around"
- publically castigating the coal industry - pushing the leftist green agenda
- in business policy, engaging in the classic policy of statist intervention, picking winners and losers. Oil and Coal, non labor organizations - losers. Pro union, "green jobs" = winners. He is fundamentally against free market principals
- seeking to guarantee student loans - this bs about everyone going to college
- some 400+ regulations put into effect this past July alone
- Obama care, forcing people to purchase health insurance
- forcing insurance companies to provide all manner of health care, including mamograms and birth control to women, whether they choose to or not.

I'm getting carpal tunnel

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Annee

 

At some level, executive jobs are about two things, one qualitative and one quantitative.

That is not the subject of this thread.

I do not discuss my politics on ATS.

I do comment on social issues and isolated issues.

Originally posted by dolphinfan

He was the most liberal Senator in the US Senate. Could it not be his policies or ideology? He has not achieved much if anything while in office. Could it be that?

It is interesting the difference in "stories" you get when you search "Obama most liberal senator" vs "Obama not most liberal senator".

As the TNR story points out, Obama was ranked the 16th most liberal Senator in 2005 and was 10th in 2006.
voices.washingtonpost.com...

When I feel the need to present an argument - - I make sure I research both sides.

reply to post by Annee


Of course it is the topic of the thread. The basis of the thread is whether or not the man is an effective leader and thus opposition towards him is racist in nature vs. his not being an effective leader and thus the opposition to him is predicated upon legitimate views of his performance.

His childish and boorish attempt to political grandstand and being denied his date and time of choosing to speak in the house chamber is evidence of his poor leadership on both the quantitative and qualitative basis.

The entire controversy is based on his executive abilities, which many find lacking. Finding them lacking does not make one a racist.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
When they start playing the race card, you know they're holding a bad hand.

very true....

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Annee

 

Of course it is the topic of the thread.

No its not.

Because you choose to incorporate it into your perspective - - does not make it so.

Originally posted by OldCorp
Why does a person have to be a "white" failure, or a "black" failure? Why can't he just be a FAILURE? Like Obama.

I think the real racists are the "progressives," who want to take away from one group that is doing better than others, and give what was taken to those who haven't worked for it. That's racism.

Maybe if they just HAVE to have a black President, they should nominate Colin Powell. At least we would have an achiever with integrity and a resume in office instead of a complainer with no record (other than being a failure) at all.

edit on 9/1/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

Yah but Coloin Powell showed himself up when he endorsed Obama.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Show me where I ever said that. There are racists everywhere. I'm just not buying into the current campaign by democrats to try and paint ANYONE who doesn't agree with obama's polices as a racist.

I disagree with several of his policies. I've never been called a racist for it. In fact, I'll bet if you took a moment to learn what his policies are, and debated the actual merits and flaws of them, you too would escape that label. The problem is, you do not do so, nor do a large number of others in the opposition. You couldn't tell me anything about obama's policies without taking a google break, and you damn well know it.

It's not his policies you oppose. You opposed him before there were policies. You simply fly to the conclusion that A) he's black and B) he's a democrat, therefor he's always wrong, and you need to violently oppose him at all costs. Thus the "birther" movement. Thus theattempts to portray him as a Muslim. And all these other schemes that revolve not around his policy, but rather trying to paint him as being "alien."

Remember that girl that scratched a B into her own cheek on election eve, and tried to claim it was the work of a black obama supporter "punishing" her? yeah, that's about where your credibility stands when you whine about being "persecuted" for not agreeing with obama's "policies."

Of course, coming from an obama sycophant, it's nothing more than throwing personal insults when you have nothing intellectual to add.

First, learn what "sychophant" means.

Second, read your own damn posts. I'm not calling you a racist because it's a funny word and i like using it (that would be "eggplant"). I call you that because in the years that I've been here, I've seen almost nothing from you that doesn't involve you spewing some ignorant, bigoted thing or another.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by illuminatislave

 

A few off the top of my head

- support of confiscatory tax policy

Yeah, a nation needs taxes to function. it's not magical happy land where everything is free.

- refusal to enforce immigration policy due to open borders ideology

Actually it's because there are far bigger problems that need to be addressed. id you know illegal immigration is only a misdemeanor? Legally, it's an exotic version of jaywalking.

- opposition of Boeing's desire to move jobs to South Carolina via his NLRB

Boeing broke the law to do so. So much for all that "rule of law." I guess that only applies to Mexicans who cross the street at the wrong place.

- appointment of leftist wack-jobs like Van Jones to posts in the Administration

It's cute that someone can become a "leftist whack-job" solely on the word of Glen Beck. Who, I suppose is an expert on whack-jobs. You realize the main angle of attack was that he's apparently a 9/11 truther, right? You know, just like a majority of ATSers?

- having a Justice Department who has a policy of refusing to pursue voting rights claims brought by whites

Oh, really? Got a source for this? And for the record, Neither WND not pamela Geller's blog count as "sources."

- publically saying he wants to "spread the wealth around"

Showing he has a better understanding of functional economics than you.

- publically castigating the coal industry - pushing the leftist green agenda

This is, mind, the same industry that floods towns with coal dust slurry, then refuses claims for damages because their own "experts" claim that coal dust is harmless. Ever considered that maybe the "green agenda" is the correct one?

- in business policy, engaging in the classic policy of statist intervention, picking winners and losers. Oil and Coal, non labor organizations - losers. Pro union, "green jobs" = winners. He is fundamentally against free market principals

And "free market principles" are fundamentally anti-human.

- seeking to guarantee student loans - this bs about everyone going to college

How absolutely dreadful, trying to get people a solid education... the nerve!

- some 400+ regulations put into effect this past July alone

Regulatory practices are integral to functional business.I know it cuts into the profit margins of your personal gods, but I assure you, they'll still manage to make money hand over fist.

- Obama care, forcing people to purchase health insurance

Not exactly. Might I suggest reading the actual bill?

- forcing insurance companies to provide all manner of health care, including mamograms and birth control to women, whether they choose to or not.

Imagine, health insurance companies being under a mandate to cover medical procedures and supplies needed for health. Mammograms? Oh, what an apocalypse.

Reading these... I don't suppose it's ever crossed your mind that perhaps you're just a trollish little misanthrope who honestly hopes people die in order for corporate bank accounts to keep up the exponential growth? 'Cause based on your examples here... You seem to hold the principle that the poor must suffer and the wealthy must be worshipped. "OH NOES HEALTH INSURANCE COVERS MAMMOGRAMS!!!! POOR PEOPLE MIGHT GET AN EDUCATION!!! COAL COMPANIES HAVE TO CLEAN UP THEIR TOXIC MESSES!!!"

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Atzil321
As a non-American looking in from the outside, it does seem that Obama has more
opposition to anything he wants to do than any other president in history... and you have
to ask is race a factor in what we are seeing? Even the office of the president of the united
states does not seem to carry as much respect for a lot of Americans since a black man
was elected.

You are correct. No matter how much some try to deny it. And it comes from both whites and blacks.

To deny that racism plays a part in Obama hate is just stupid and intentional denial.

Some whites just can't accept it. And some blacks call him an Oreo - - and don't think he does enough for blacks.

Its really pathetic.

EDIT: many are truly focused on his politics. Not everyone is racist.

edit on 2-9-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

My my, how soon you forget all the hate directed at W by you all who are bitching about the hate directed toward Obama.

Don't like your own medicine? Grow up.

reply to post by Annee


Quoting a poll about liberal senators form the Washington Post. That's rich.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Fantastic job. You've memorized all of the talking points - good for you.

Jay Carney seems to be flailing about up there on the room podium. Maybe you should toss your hat in the ring.

Unfortunately AirAmerica went down the bowl, so thats not an option for you.

I have seen many bumper stickers around town that say "Don't blame me. I voted for the white guy."

The election of President Obama has just brought the racists out from under their rocks.

If he is not re-elected I'm moving to Canada. No joke. People there are much saner than we are.

Originally posted by Sestias
I have seen many bumper stickers around town that say "Don't blame me. I voted for the white guy."

The election of President Obama has just brought the racists out from under their rocks.

If he is not re-elected I'm moving to Canada. No joke. People there are much saner than we are.

I willl gladly pay for your ticket. Anyone that thinks Jimmy Carter II deserves a second term is a moron incapable of rational thought.

reply to post by beezzer


"What waits" for 2012 is Obama great new Hollywood movie about him being Americas saviour and all....perfectly timed to be released the month before elections...Why? Because, without some Hollywood generated emotions, Obama doesn't stand a chance....Plain and simple, they are pulling all the stops, because no one, not even the blacks are buying his crap anymore.....

And this race thing, is basically them grabbing at air...Bush got just as much if not more opposition, hes not black, or hispanic, or asian...Just a terrible person and an even worse president. They didn't get our respect BECAUSE THEY DIDNT DESERVE IT...

Originally posted by Sestias
I have seen many bumper stickers around town that say "Don't blame me. I voted for the white guy."

The election of President Obama has just brought the racists out from under their rocks.

If he is not re-elected I'm moving to Canada. No joke. People there are much saner than we are.

Personally, I think you'd be Happier In China, Yes, The Peoples Republic, And They Have Real Shovel Ready Jobs For You there or You Could be a Street sweeper if that shovel is to heavy for you.

]

Originally posted by gohua/i]

Personally, I think you'd be Happier In China, Yes, The Peoples Republic, And They Have Real Shovel Ready Jobs For You there or You Could be a Street sweeper if that shovel is to heavy for you.

Temper, temper, temper. Breathe deeply, relax and chill.

Where in my posts have I even mentioned China? I said "Canada."

And how do you deduce that I am unhappy?

I think you are assuming that in a liberal administration the government would decide what each person should do for a living. It has been tried by The Soviet Union and China and was pretty much a flop The Soviet Union broke up, of course, so it's no longer a communist country. The jury is still out on China, but they appear to be moving in the direction of capitalism as well.

As far as my being employed to sweep streets or repair the infrastructure, I rather doubt I would be hired to do that. I am a small individual with a bad back and pretty much of a wuss. I'd be practically useless to a construction crew, and maybe even a hindrance, because they would have to put down their shovels and rescue me every time I screwed up.

The beauty of a "shovel ready" project is that people can be hired and be working immediately. Many big jobs require at least a year of preparation before they are ready to begin construction. More jobs means more money circulating in our economy and greater prosperity for all.

As far as my "unhappiness" goes, I am basically an optimistic person but I'm not blind, deaf or dumb. I see this country moving in directions that I believe are greedy, destructive and sometimes hateful. I see our middle class disappearing and the ranks of the working class and the poor growing.

I'm doing my best to make the world a better place. If it's too late for that, I do have Canada, a country that seems to be so much more sane than most of the rest of the world.

edit on 6-9-2011 by Sestias because: (no reason given)