All Forums | General Discussion

What if Obama were white

...

Participants:

Search

Posts: 84

callmetim

Veteran

Joined: Feb, 2010

Posts: 1843

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 4:01 PM ET #26

Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

This is one of those debates that I wish I could stay away from, but I can't...most political debates are like that...

Well here goes nothing.

1. Callmetim quote "check his resume. He has never accomplished anything noteworthy to hold this office."

-Please tell me you are joking...this is one of those statements people make just for the hell of it.

In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year ....After graduating with a J.D. magna juice laude^[36] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.

He then went on to become a published author and a Lecturer for Chicago Law School for the 12 YEARS. (U of Chicago Law School frequently ranks in the top 5 law schools in the World.)

He also spent 11 years in the Illinois and U.S. senate before becoming President.

Please Tim, if you're going to make a stupid argument on the internet, choose one that isn't so easily triumphed by data.

I was going to go into other stuff, but I'm not spending half a day on this crap...

Please do go into other things....I see nothing there that is noteworthy of a USA President. What piece of key legislation did Obama write when he was in Illinois? Show me where has demonstrated leadership to the things that have been critical to turn our economy around - and do not site the Health Care Bill. That is a joke and a huge drain on the government's P&L.

Authoring and lecturing DO NOT represent action. It represents theory & observation.

I can assure you, you will not A-change my opinion of this weak tit, and B-be able to show me where he has been an effective manager and leader.

THE MAN IS SHIT. QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR HIM.

PS- I AM A DEM, BUT I CANNOT DENY THE FACTS.

0

Vectorfsm

Prospect

Joined: Aug, 2011

Posts: 413

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 4:47 PM ET #27

Tim,

First off, you mean "cite" health care bill...but that's a useless nitpick.

One thing that you have to understand is that being president does not simply mean "turn the economy around." There are a tremendous amount of duties that the role entails outside of economic responsibility, even though the economic portion is very, very important.

To start, HE FUCKING GOT BIN LADEN. I don't know if you have actually read about the story or not, but Obama made the final call on ALL important aspects of the mission and was WAYY more involved in that than I had previously suspected. His decision-making during the ordeal was heavily contested by his most trusted military advisors, who thought it would be better to LEVEL the entire city that Bin Laden was believed to reside in, rather than doing things the humane way by flying helicopters directly into the compound. There is a great compelling article on this here: https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all

Further, Obama's handling of the debt crisis was about as reasonable as anything I've ever seen. Granted, I believe that Obama is a little too nice sometimes and there are people in congress that actually have been trying to take advantage of this, but the US government makes 180 billion/month. Guess how much they spend?

300 billion/month.

When you walk into any household that has maintained a spending binge of 40% above it's means, you are walking into financial hell. This wasn't ALL initiated by Bush, the real problems started when people got greedy once Ronald Reagan decided to release the US dollar from the Gold standard in 1971. We made money exploiting all kinds of newfound loopholes but have been hurtling towards sure demise.

The fact is, ANYONE who walked into this situation was going to be viewed as someone that did a shitty job. You can't change this situation in a 4 year term, you can only lay the groundwork.

I graduated UW Business school in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and I can assure you that the Obama administration has not been perfect, but has begun to significantly turn things around.

That is all.

0

Tim,

First off, you mean "cite" health care bill...but that's a useless nitpick.

One thing that you have to understand is that being president does not simply mean "turn the economy around." There are a tremendous amount of duties that the role entails outside of economic responsibility, even though the economic portion is very, very important.

To start, HE FUCKING GOT BIN LADEN. I don't know if you have actually read about the story or not, but Obama made the final call on ALL important aspects of the mission and was WAYY more involved in that than I had previously suspected. His decision-making during the ordeal was heavily contested by his most trusted military advisors, who thought it would be better to LEVEL the entire city that Bin Laden was believed to reside in, rather than doing things the humane way by flying helicopters directly into the compound. There is a great compelling article on this here: https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all

Further, Obama's handling of the debt crisis was about as reasonable as anything I've ever seen. Granted, I believe that Obama is a little too nice sometimes and there are people in congress that actually have been trying to take advantage of this, but the US government makes 180 billion/month. Guess how much they spend?

300 billion/month.

When you walk into any household that has maintained a spending binge of 40% above it's means, you are walking into financial hell. This wasn't ALL initiated by Bush, the real problems started when people got greedy once Ronald Reagan decided to release the US dollar from the Gold standard in 1971. We made money exploiting all kinds of newfound loopholes but have been hurtling towards sure demise.

The fact is, ANYONE who walked into this situation was going to be viewed as someone that did a shitty job. You can't change this situation in a 4 year term, you can only lay the groundwork.

I graduated UW Business school in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and I can assure you that the Obama administration has not been perfect, but has begun to significantly turn things around.

That is all.

skimordie

Prospect

Joined: Dec, 2009

Posts: 121

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 4:49 PM ET #28

I hate the fact that I agree with scal on this post. Obama took over an impossible situation bc he followed the worst pres we've ever had. I don't think he's doing a great job by any means, but there are a lot of people, many of whom racists, who are blaming him for shit that aint his fault.

0

Vectorfsm

Prospect

Joined: Aug, 2011

Posts: 413

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 5:08 PM ET #29

And I want to say this as well...if people in congress LIKED Obama, then it would most ASSUREDLY mean that he is doing a BAD JOB.

A good leader isn't about winning fucking popularity contests.

Abraham Lincoln is, to this day, arguably the most hated president of his time (when he was serving.) Look at him now.

One of my roommates in college, his name was Ashok...he was the youngest elected official in the entire history of the city of Madison when I was living with him.

He proceeded, in his 2 year term, to burn EVERY political bridge that could possibly exist in my city. He would verbally attack the governor about his wrongdoings at a charity ball, he would get in screaming arguments with respected political radio aficionados and tear them apart when everyone else was afraid to disagree with their opinions...but he worked from 5am to 10pm almost every single night, finishing school, he was brilliant and had sensible arguments, and ended up getting a Fulbright Scholar Grant to travel to Sri Lanka, now he is working on his PHD in London where he serves as the school president at 26 years old...long story short...

Everyone in politics and those that were conservative called him a radical idiot, but he passed more pieces of legislation in his TWO YEARS than had been passed in the PREVIOUS THIRTY YEARS.

He literally changed our city for the better, and now people are starting to appreciate his passion rather than his 'arrogance.'

Get there, piss people off, and do things right, instead of bending over and taking things like a champ to achieve nothing and be liked by everyone

0

scalabrine

Banned

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 28221

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 5:18 PM ET #30

Quote Originally Posted by callmetim:

Douchebag..... don't you think if the Dem's can dig up dirt on their opponent, they would? Keep defending awful leadership.

As my bumper sticker on my car says:

Barack Obama: Living Proof Of The Peter Principle

Digging up 'dirt' is one thing, but accusing the president of having an Islam-based agenda tied to radical Muslims is quite another. That is THE POINT of the birther argument. They not only want to disassociate him with this country, they want all their lemmings to infer that he has ties to organizations that want to bring down, or transform America for the worst.

And this is in the face of hard-core evidence two of the presidents in the previous three administrations actually HAD ties to the family of the world's most infamous terrorist!

0

Vectorfsm

Prospect

Joined: Aug, 2011

Posts: 413

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 5:37 PM ET #31

Scala,

Unlike the other thread, I agree with you on this one

0

callmetim

Veteran

Joined: Feb, 2010

Posts: 1843

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:13 PM ET #32

Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

Tim,

First off, you mean "cite" health care bill...but that's a useless nitpick.

One thing that you have to understand is that being president does not simply mean "turn the economy around." There are a tremendous amount of duties that the role entails outside of economic responsibility, even though the economic portion is very, very important.

To start, HE FUCKING GOT BIN LADEN. I don't know if you have actually read about the story or not, but Obama made the final call on ALL important aspects of the mission and was WAYY more involved in that than I had previously suspected. His decision-making during the ordeal was heavily contested by his most trusted military advisors, who thought it would be better to LEVEL the entire city that Bin Laden was believed to reside in, rather than doing things the humane way by flying helicopters directly into the compound. There is a great compelling article on this here: https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all

Further, Obama's handling of the debt crisis was about as reasonable as anything I've ever seen. Granted, I believe that Obama is a little too nice sometimes and there are people in congress that actually have been trying to take advantage of this, but the US government makes 180 billion/month. Guess how much they spend?

300 billion/month.

When you walk into any household that has maintained a spending binge of 40% above it's means, you are walking into financial hell. This wasn't ALL initiated by Bush, the real problems started when people got greedy once Ronald Reagan decided to release the US dollar from the Gold standard in 1971. We made money exploiting all kinds of newfound loopholes but have been hurtling towards sure demise.

The fact is, ANYONE who walked into this situation was going to be viewed as someone that did a shitty job. You can't change this situation in a 4 year term, you can only lay the groundwork.

I graduated UW Business school in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and I can assure you that the Obama administration has not been perfect, but has begun to significantly turn things around.

That is all.

It's really hard to argue with a dumbass. Richard Nixon was president in 1971 and he took us off of the gold standard.

That said, your selective topics have no meat. Yes, the president is responsible for getting the economy headed in the right direction. Do you know what Reagan did in the 80's to make things happen? Reagan engendered confidence. He said, and I paraphrase, "the problem is government, we're going to fix it, and everything will be alright." People believed him. They had confidence in him. That is what this current administration is lacking - leadership. Obama has been doing zero with the exception of appointing czars and blaming. That is not leadership. That is the sign of a weak person.

Furthermore, ask the millions of unemployed Americans if they really give a shit about Bin Laden vs. getting work. Another lame argument.

In the words of Mary Matalin...."why do you Democrats trump facts with opinion?"

0

Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

Tim,

First off, you mean "cite" health care bill...but that's a useless nitpick.

One thing that you have to understand is that being president does not simply mean "turn the economy around." There are a tremendous amount of duties that the role entails outside of economic responsibility, even though the economic portion is very, very important.

To start, HE FUCKING GOT BIN LADEN. I don't know if you have actually read about the story or not, but Obama made the final call on ALL important aspects of the mission and was WAYY more involved in that than I had previously suspected. His decision-making during the ordeal was heavily contested by his most trusted military advisors, who thought it would be better to LEVEL the entire city that Bin Laden was believed to reside in, rather than doing things the humane way by flying helicopters directly into the compound. There is a great compelling article on this here: https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all

Further, Obama's handling of the debt crisis was about as reasonable as anything I've ever seen. Granted, I believe that Obama is a little too nice sometimes and there are people in congress that actually have been trying to take advantage of this, but the US government makes 180 billion/month. Guess how much they spend?

300 billion/month.

When you walk into any household that has maintained a spending binge of 40% above it's means, you are walking into financial hell. This wasn't ALL initiated by Bush, the real problems started when people got greedy once Ronald Reagan decided to release the US dollar from the Gold standard in 1971. We made money exploiting all kinds of newfound loopholes but have been hurtling towards sure demise.

The fact is, ANYONE who walked into this situation was going to be viewed as someone that did a shitty job. You can't change this situation in a 4 year term, you can only lay the groundwork.

I graduated UW Business school in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and I can assure you that the Obama administration has not been perfect, but has begun to significantly turn things around.

That is all.

It's really hard to argue with a dumbass. Richard Nixon was president in 1971 and he took us off of the gold standard.

That said, your selective topics have no meat. Yes, the president is responsible for getting the economy headed in the right direction. Do you know what Reagan did in the 80's to make things happen? Reagan engendered confidence. He said, and I paraphrase, "the problem is government, we're going to fix it, and everything will be alright." People believed him. They had confidence in him. That is what this current administration is lacking - leadership. Obama has been doing zero with the exception of appointing czars and blaming. That is not leadership. That is the sign of a weak person.

Furthermore, ask the millions of unemployed Americans if they really give a shit about Bin Laden vs. getting work. Another lame argument.

In the words of Mary Matalin...."why do you Democrats trump facts with opinion?"

scalabrine

Banned

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 28221

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:35 PM ET #33

Quote Originally Posted by skimordie:

I hate the fact that I agree with scal on this post. Obama took over an impossible situation bc he followed the worst pres we've ever had. I don't think he's doing a great job by any means, but there are a lot of people, many of whom racists, who are blaming him for shit that aint his fault.

0

I_Need_A_Detox

Banned

Joined: Feb, 2011

Posts: 27139

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:35 PM ET #34

Quote Originally Posted by callmetim:

It's really hard to argue with a dumbass. Richard Nixon was president in 1971 and he took us off of the gold standard.

That said, your selective topics have no meat. Yes, the president is responsible for getting the economy headed in the right direction. Do you know what Reagan did in the 80's to make things happen? Reagan engendered confidence. He said, and I paraphrase, "the problem is government, we're going to fix it, and everything will be alright." People believed him. They had confidence in him. That is what this current administration is lacking - leadership. Obama has been doing zero with the exception of appointing czars and blaming. That is not leadership. That is the sign of a weak person.

Furthermore, ask the millions of unemployed Americans if they really give a shit about Bin Laden vs. getting work. Another lame argument.

In the words of Mary Matalin...."why do you Democrats trump facts with opinion?"

name the republican that is going to beat him? michelle bachman? good ol mitt??

let me see the name of the person that is going to beat him.

0

scalabrine

Banned

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 28221

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:35 PM ET #35

Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

Scala,

Unlike the other thread, I agree with you on this one

0

callmetim

Veteran

Joined: Feb, 2010

Posts: 1843

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:51 PM ET #36

Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:

You're right. It is bullshit. A year is too conservative. Birther rumors actually circulated since he was running to be the Democratic nominee which would put it closer to THREE years.

FACT: Obama’s birth certificate initially became an issue during the Democratic Primary in early 2008 when Hillary Clinton supporters, from a blog called The Blue State, began questioning Obama’s eligibility to be President.

From there, the seed was planted and once it got to Fox, it turned into a Redwood.

Let's go after some facts related to his birth certificate - no signature, no official stamp and the font wasn't around in 1961.

https://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html

Yes, Detox, you are right. Unfortunately. The Republicans are just as lame. This Perry guy from Texas is making some serious noise.

Our problem in this country is the job doesn't pay enough cash. If you were to graduate today and say, "if I go into the public sector, the most I'll make is $400K and only 1 person can do that and look at the bullshit he/she has to do to get there..."on the other hand, the Walton family has amassed over a $100BB fortune and can be very private. Hmmmm...which should I choose?"

If the presidency would pay $25MM per year plus bonuses based on economic and job growth, the quality of candidates would rise exponentially.

0

Vectorfsm

Prospect

Joined: Aug, 2011

Posts: 413

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:54 PM ET #37

Tim,

I do apologize for my blunder about which president took us off the Gold standard. I was thinking about Reagan even though I knew it was Nixon, and made a mistake...

With that said, Reagan made a lot of things happen, but not a lot of them were good. He served as President until 1989.

Something very curious happened during his tenure. (Black Monday, anyone?)

Bush served as president until 2008.

I think we very clearly remember what happened in 2008.

A bunch of Americans, including those unemployed, lost a lot of faith in our government during Bush's tenure, and I think the lack of confidence has simply 'parlayed' into Obama's administration.

Do you realize how remarkably easy it is to be a member of congress, have something not go your way, be in the middle of a financial disaster, and make Obama the scapegoat? Anyone with half a mouthpiece can do a good job at it.

Like I was trying to say, but I guess I didn't say it clearly. If Obama were NOT in a serious argument with a lot of members of congress, than he would certainly NOT be doing a good job.

When you protest the status quo you will get a strong amount of opposition. However, I think from a historical perspective, we will look at this in 20 years and have to admit that Obama did a good job.

Why? To go over specifics in this forum would take a LOT of time, all I'm saying, is that I have been involved and looked over these things in an unbiased way, and I have found that Obama is doing his goddamn job,

If you listen to the presidential address Obama gave right before Boehner completely detracted from him, you can tell that one of the two of them simply lied. After going over the facts, I found the liar to be John Boehner.

And let me set the record straight on something else.

I don't care if someone is a Democrat or not. I am not stupid enough to blindly vote in that direction. I care if I agree with their opinions. As a poker player, I would have liked Ron Paul to be elected but that wasn't going to happen.

0

I_Need_A_Detox

Banned

Joined: Feb, 2011

Posts: 27139

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:56 PM ET #38

Quote Originally Posted by callmetim:

Let's go after some facts related to his birth certificate - no signature, no official stamp and the font wasn't around in 1961.

https://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html

Yes, Detox, you are right. Unfortunately. The Republicans are just as lame. This Perry guy from Texas is making some serious noise.

Our problem in this country is the job doesn't pay enough cash. If you were to graduate today and say, "if I go into the public sector, the most I'll make is $400K and only 1 person can do that and look at the bullshit he/she has to do to get there..."on the other hand, the Walton family has amassed over a $100BB fortune and can be very private. Hmmmm...which should I choose?"

If the presidency would pay $25MM per year plus bonuses based on economic and job growth, the quality of candidates would rise exponentially.

you write a book ... there's 20 million.

and then you consult for big dough after your 4/8 years are up.

i agree though ... that 400k should be 20 million.

the real scalabrine in the nba makes more than obama

0

callmetim

Veteran

Joined: Feb, 2010

Posts: 1843

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 6:58 PM ET #39

Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

Tim,

I do apologize for my blunder about which president took us off the Gold standard. I was thinking about Reagan even though I knew it was Nixon, and made a mistake...

With that said, Reagan made a lot of things happen, but not a lot of them were good. He served as President until 1989.

Something very curious happened during his tenure. (Black Monday, anyone?)

Bush served as president until 2008.

I think we very clearly remember what happened in 2008.

A bunch of Americans, including those unemployed, lost a lot of faith in our government during Bush's tenure, and I think the lack of confidence has simply 'parlayed' into Obama's administration.

Do you realize how remarkably easy it is to be a member of congress, have something not go your way, be in the middle of a financial disaster, and make Obama the scapegoat? Anyone with half a mouthpiece can do a good job at it.

Like I was trying to say, but I guess I didn't say it clearly. If Obama were NOT in a serious argument with a lot of members of congress, than he would certainly NOT be doing a good job.

When you protest the status quo you will get a strong amount of opposition. However, I think from a historical perspective, we will look at this in 20 years and have to admit that Obama did a good job.

Why? To go over specifics in this forum would take a LOT of time, all I'm saying, is that I have been involved and looked over these things in an unbiased way, and I have found that Obama is doing his goddamn job,

If you listen to the presidential address Obama gave right before Boehner completely detracted from him, you can tell that one of the two of them simply lied. After going over the facts, I found the liar to be John Boehner.

And let me set the record straight on something else.

I don't care if someone is a Democrat or not. I am not stupid enough to blindly vote in that direction. I care if I agree with their opinions. As a poker player, I would have liked Ron Paul to be elected but that wasn't going to happen.

CITE facts....

0

Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

Tim,

I do apologize for my blunder about which president took us off the Gold standard. I was thinking about Reagan even though I knew it was Nixon, and made a mistake...

With that said, Reagan made a lot of things happen, but not a lot of them were good. He served as President until 1989.

Something very curious happened during his tenure. (Black Monday, anyone?)

Bush served as president until 2008.

I think we very clearly remember what happened in 2008.

A bunch of Americans, including those unemployed, lost a lot of faith in our government during Bush's tenure, and I think the lack of confidence has simply 'parlayed' into Obama's administration.

Do you realize how remarkably easy it is to be a member of congress, have something not go your way, be in the middle of a financial disaster, and make Obama the scapegoat? Anyone with half a mouthpiece can do a good job at it.

Like I was trying to say, but I guess I didn't say it clearly. If Obama were NOT in a serious argument with a lot of members of congress, than he would certainly NOT be doing a good job.

When you protest the status quo you will get a strong amount of opposition. However, I think from a historical perspective, we will look at this in 20 years and have to admit that Obama did a good job.

Why? To go over specifics in this forum would take a LOT of time, all I'm saying, is that I have been involved and looked over these things in an unbiased way, and I have found that Obama is doing his goddamn job,

If you listen to the presidential address Obama gave right before Boehner completely detracted from him, you can tell that one of the two of them simply lied. After going over the facts, I found the liar to be John Boehner.

And let me set the record straight on something else.

I don't care if someone is a Democrat or not. I am not stupid enough to blindly vote in that direction. I care if I agree with their opinions. As a poker player, I would have liked Ron Paul to be elected but that wasn't going to happen.

CITE facts....

Vectorfsm

Prospect

Joined: Aug, 2011

Posts: 413

Posted: Aug. 28, 2011 - 7:38 PM ET #40

I'm not citing anything right now....a 200 page book could be written about why Obama is doing a good job...or not for that matter---all I can do is summarize.

*Fact: Bush got us into multiple wars. Yes, we got slammed by a couple of planes, but Bush made the decision to go into war.

Fact: We have spent trillions of dollars and a lot of lives over the last ten years with more intentions than simply fighting terrorists. We want (need) oil, and we need it bad.

Fact: Bush almost quintupled the number of free-trade agreements during his tenure, stating that global expansion had been "one of the highest priorities of his administration."

Fact: HIs dad introduced Nafta in 1991, which Clinton heavily pursued during his presidency as well, originally, to remove some of the trade barriers between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Fact: The US, since the early 1980s, has pushed and has been at the forefront of the regularization of financial markets (liberalizing them), which created tremendous opportunities for short termgains for a small handful of people and long-term disasters for a larger majority of people. This was deliberate.

Fact: As a good consequence of the US 'opening up the waters' so to speak, there is not only room for exploitation, but for creating actual, long-lasting relationships with other countries that aren't built on taking advantage of loopholes and leveraging, but are built on sustainability and accountability.

Fact: Obama's moves have followed the philosophy of my last statement, as opposed to the philosophy of what others in congress seem to have intended.

The thing is this. The government is like a typical American family that makes 5 million a year but spends 7 million a year, goes completely broke, and decides to call upon the employees of the family business to pay for their excessive spending. They do this by executing a swift round of layoffs, stifling pay increases, and lying to shareholders about their budgets when they ask for another round of angel investment.

There is a new CEO of the business, but he isn't a member of the family (Obama) so he and his colleagues (Dems) don't have a controlling interest in the company (Republican majority.) Therefore, rather than doing things completely rash and getting forced out of the company like Steve Jobs a couple decades ago, Obama uses a push/pull scenario that isn't very popular with the board, and sure is hell isn't popular with the employees of the company, but is quietly getting things done.

Some of the more avid employees are starting to realize this but the regional execs and Vps (for the most part) write frequent company memos crying foul about the new direction of the company.

Eventually, the company will reinvent itself, the employees will wise up, and the board will be dismantled.

If none of this makes sense, read it again.