RangerM Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 If you say so. It's not just me who says so. YOU say so, because they are facts that you can't deny,even as you choose to ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 23, 2013 Author Share Posted August 23, 2013 Actually Romney is a former governor and an accomplished CEO. Those are two things Obama didn't have going for him, at all. And the "Law Professor" thing would carry more weight, if Obama actually followed the law, rather than ignoring it as he has done (especially lately). Obama could claim to have four years' experience as President. That is true. But, America's experience with him AS President wasn't something a white man would have been re-elected on. (Edit) I didn't forget that Osama Bin Ladin was taken out. But, ANY President would have done that; even a President Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. LOL. George Bush got re-elected despite the cluster fuck he created in Iraq so your point is invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 LOL. George Bush got re-elected despite the cluster fuck he created in Iraq so your point is invalid. Your logic has the convolution of an MC Escher drawing without the mathematical precision. Therefore you have no point. Fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 23, 2013 Author Share Posted August 23, 2013 Funny, you've really shown a side of you that again I had never seen till now. How carefully you've hidden it. Bush got elected after a seriously fucked up first term and he's white so that shows your argument is not only invalid but a bit racial motivated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Believe what you want to believe. Bush was re-elected on two things; national defense and a more favorable economic circumstance (people believed things were getting better, and would continue to do so under a 2nd Bush term) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Funny, you've really shown a side of you that again I had never seen till now. How carefully you've hidden it. Bush got elected after a seriously fucked up first term and he's white so that shows your argument is not only invalid but a bit racial motivated. Race wasn't an issue in that election, was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 23, 2013 Author Share Posted August 23, 2013 Believe what you want to believe. Bush was re-elected on two things; national defense and a more favorable economic circumstance (people believed things were getting better, and would continue to do so under a 2nd Bush term) Bush was elected based on the swift boat attacks against Kerry and small single platform things like guns snd abortion. His actions on national defense left us weaker and damaged us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 23, 2013 Author Share Posted August 23, 2013 Race wasn't an issue in that election, was it? Your not paying attention to context. Ranger said that obama couldn't get reelected if he were white and I'm pointing out that a much worse white president was reelected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Bush was elected based on the swift boat attacks against Kerry and small single platform things like guns snd abortion. His actions on national defense left us weaker and damaged us. That's certainly your opinion. And one I can understand from your perspective. Mine differs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) Actually Romney is a former governor and an accomplished CEO. Those are two things Obama didn't have going for him, at all. And the "Law Professor" thing would carry more weight, if Obama actually followed the law, rather than ignoring it as he has done (especially lately). Obama could claim to have four years' experience as President. That is true. But, America's experience with him AS President wasn't something a white man would have been re-elected on. (Edit) I didn't forget that Osama Bin Ladin was taken out. But, ANY President would have done that; even a President Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. LOL. George Bush got re-elected despite the cluster fuck he created in Iraq so your point is invalid. Funny, you've really shown a side of you that again I had never seen till now. How carefully you've hidden it. Bush got elected after a seriously fucked up first term and he's white so that shows your argument is not only invalid but a bit racial motivated. Believe what you want to believe. Bush was re-elected on two things; national defense and a more favorable economic circumstance (people believed things were getting better, and would continue to do so under a 2nd Bush term) Race wasn't an issue in that election, was it? Bush was elected based on the swift boat attacks against Kerry and small single platform things like guns snd abortion. His actions on national defense left us weaker and damaged us. Your not paying attention to context. Ranger said that obama couldn't get reelected if he were white and I'm pointing out that a much worse white president was reelected. And you don't see the comedy of your statement? Shame on me for again over estimating your reasoning. Obama is such a failure that even if he was white he wouldn't have been re-elected. That's what Ranger said and that's what I was talking about. And you run off into the weeds chasing a rabbit to take a dig at Bush. And you don't see that you are making the point? Even Bush wouldn't have been re-elected, but Obama was..........because he was black! Edited August 23, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1336 Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Its funny how Conservatives love reusing Ronald Regean`s famous quote, "Are you better off today then you were, 4 years ago". Too bad Obama did`nt make the same statement when running for his second term. For that matter, Mitt Romney should have raised that issue at his $50,000 a Plate Fund Raiser at the St Andrews Country Club in Boca Raton, FL where he was secretly video taped. Those in attendance and the rest of the Ultra-Wealthy in America would certainly have to agree that they were much better off financially. Both Wall Street and Banking would have to agree as well. Main St. however and the rest of Country, not so much. Its quite a Political achievement to convince middle to low income wage earner to Vote (against) their own self interests. The economic trickle down theory is as convincing as selling paradise in Heaven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 The economic trickle down theory is as convincing as selling paradise in Heaven. Trickle up poverty and increased dependence on government is not the answer either,both expanded greatly on Obama's watch. The irony is many of Obama's base supporters are doing worse off now than before Obama took charge. Poetic justice of sorts. Now back to the troll posting....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Why is voting for one's self-interests not considered selfish, but wanting to keep more of the money you earn is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 (edited) Why is voting for one's self-interests not considered selfish, but wanting to keep more of the money you earn is? Especially when, in this context, "Voting one's self interests," really means, "Helping yourself to more of other people's money." Edited August 26, 2013 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Especially when, in this context, "Voting one's self interests," really means, "Helping yoursuelf to more of other people's money."As long as "they" can take money from someone else it's fine. Just dare to threaten to pay for those thing with their own money. They are SO compassionate with your money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Liberals have all the answers to problems past. preset & future * *As long as someone else is footing the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 27, 2013 Author Share Posted August 27, 2013 And you don't see the comedy of your statement? Shame on me for again over estimating your reasoning. Obama is such a failure that even if he was white he wouldn't have been re-elected. That's what Ranger said and that's what I was talking about. And you run off into the weeds chasing a rabbit to take a dig at Bush. And you don't see that you are making the point? Even Bush wouldn't have been re-elected, but Obama was..........because he was black! I see the point i made. Bush was by far a worse president then Obama and he was re-elected, all while not being black, so therefore his point is invalid. Obama did not get re-elected because he was black, he got re-elected because whatever his faults, more people felt he was a better candidate than Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I see the point i made. Bush was by far a worse president then Obama and he was re-elected, all while not being black, so therefore his point is invalid. Obama did not get re-elected because he was black, he got re-elected because whatever his faults, more people felt he was a better candidate than Romney. The point is invalid based on your opinion. It is valid in his opinion. You are falling victim to the same faults you have accused others of. And if the black population hadn't voted 90% for Obama, he could be sitting on his sofa in Chicago today. Much higher black racial solidarity than white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1336 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 The point is invalid based on your opinion. It is valid in his opinion. You are falling victim to the same faults you have accused others of. And if the black population hadn't voted 90% for Obama, he could be sitting on his sofa in Chicago today. Much higher black racial solidarity than white. You failed to mention along with picking up the "majority" of the Black Vote, Obama picked up the majority of Female Voters, Latino/Hispanic Voters, LGBT Voters, Asian Voters, as well as a majority of (all) Voters under 30. Guess that "Brotherly" Love extended beyond those simply with a (darker) complexion, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1336 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Trickle up poverty and increased dependence on government is not the answer either,both expanded greatly on Obama's watch. The irony is many of Obama's base supporters are doing worse off now than before Obama took charge. Poetic justice of sorts. Now back to the troll posting....... This "Troll" would like you to explain why most "middle class and working poor" living in what (you) would consider Socialized Counties, that depend on their Governments to provide a host of Services, (including last but not least) "Healthcare", all pay much higher Taxes then Americans but seem to be generally happier, healthier, and less angry then Conservatives like yourself are? Our neighbours to the north living in Canada are a prime example. Could it be that both Rich and Poor alike get something back from their Federal Tax Dollars where here in the U.S. the Rich get their Tax depletion allowances and other loop holes, the Poor get their subsistence entitlements and the dwindling part-time Employed, in the so called middle, pay at a higher rate and get back virtually nothing then those who who simply pay Capital Gains Tax derived from Dividends and Investments rather then Wages from punching a Time Clock. That "poetic justice" of sorts seems agreeable with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 The point is invalid based on your opinion. It is valid in his opinion. You are falling victim to the same faults you have accused others of. And if the black population hadn't voted 90% for Obama, he could be sitting on his sofa in Chicago today. Much higher black racial solidarity than white. Yet the majority of blacks vote that same way for non-black candidates from the Democratic party. I am going to once again offer up some serious evidence and see if we can change that opinion of yours on how blacks only voted for him based on color. Gore in 2000 received 90% of the black vote. Kerry in 2004 received 88% of the black vote Obama in 2008 received 95% of the black vote Obama in 2012 received 93% of the black vote a +/- 5% point puts them all pretty close to each other. At best you can say that there is a chance of a 5% statistical increase, which is hardly a majority. And as far as make up of the total vote, Blacks at their highest only made up 13% of the vote in 2008 and 2012 as opposed to 10% in 2000 and 11% in 2004% so there is no evidence that that any majority of black voters suddenly voted for Obama because of race. Now since we here the constant refrain of how you want to test your beliefs, consider them "tried, tested and found wanting!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 (edited) Yet the majority of blacks vote that same way for non-black candidates from the Democratic party. I am going to once again offer up some serious evidence and see if we can change that opinion of yours on how blacks only voted for him based on color. Gore in 2000 received 90% of the black vote. Kerry in 2004 received 88% of the black vote Obama in 2008 received 95% of the black vote Obama in 2012 received 93% of the black vote a +/- 5% point puts them all pretty close to each other. At best you can say that there is a chance of a 5% statistical increase, which is hardly a majority. And as far as make up of the total vote, Blacks at their highest only made up 13% of the vote in 2008 and 2012 as opposed to 10% in 2000 and 11% in 2004% so there is no evidence that that any majority of black voters suddenly voted for Obama because of race. Now since we here the constant refrain of how you want to test your beliefs, consider them "tried, tested and found wanting!" You haven't stipulated the percentages of eligible black voter turnout in those elections relative to Obama in 2008 and 2012. He brought a lot of voters who otherwise were apathetic. Edited August 28, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Nothing will show what you and others here believe, that a majority of blacks voted solely on race. You should realize that by now but you'll grasp at straws to help hold on to that erroneous belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Nothing will show what you and others here believe, that a majority of blacks voted solely on race. You should realize that by now but you'll grasp at straws to help hold on to that erroneous belief. So we should ignore documented instances of the black community ripping other blacks who dared to step off "The Plantation" where their masters provide their needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.