Obama, savior of the common man?

**Ranger10** · 05-01-13, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

No. Not this time, anyway.

I edited-out the text of my post before anyone had responded to it, but some people were already responding and so the text lives. I'm ok with that, I agree with what I said and I wasn't trying to hide it. I just didn't think it would be productive. I was trying to avoid the subsequent posts.

But they're out there now. Someone has posted that it's an undisputed fact that he won because he's black. The factualness of it has already come into subsequent posts.

Apparently, disagreeing with that also reveals the entirety of my political agenda.

Disagreeing that he's obviously the worst president ever also - somehow - means that I think he's a great president.

But I guess some leaders in the black community (you know, the Black Community. They meet every Saturday and alternate Wednesdays) have already said it's a fact. Which leaders? I don't know. But someone heard that they said it, or heard it said.

You know - the Black leaders. The ones who speak for everyone who is black. And also speak for anyone who votes for someone who is black.

Separating the role of his racial background in the election from his actions as President after the election also seems to be a bit of a Gordian knot. I don't know why, but it is. Someone else will have to wield the sword this time.

Nice pic though.

The value of swimming upstream with an idea is that - if you make it - the idea gets to spawn. In this case, no such opportunity awaits.

Good call on faith, too. I have faith. I just don't have time for this thread today. For those who would fight the good fight:

Keep the Faith, Brothers and Sisters.

Cheers,

AetheLove

Well, first let me apologize for perhaps giving the impression that he won specifically because he was black, and not for some of the merits Obama has earned, or the weakness of his opponents. That was not my intention. However, I have no trouble believing that some people did vote for him based purely on that merit.

Now, your point about the black community putting their heads together whenever a decision has to be made was well taken. Nor did I mean that black Americans vote a specific way all the time. I'm simply pointing out that a prominent black American, who is the CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce publicly said he voted for Obama the first time purely based on the his skin color. Take what you want from that comment. I tend to think that if one man in a position of leadership can come out and say that, then without question, there are those who agree, yet stay silent.

If that conclusion offends you, then there isn't really anything I can do about that. Racism is an unfortunate reality in our election process. Its no different than someone voting for a Mormon purely because of his religious affiliation, of which I'm sure a lot did in this last election. It's part of the fabric of our country. To run from it, and pretend it isn't real is not conducive to actually dealing with it head on. It's part of the same
"Politically Correct" crap that handcuffs us already.

But once again, this is a social issue, not a purely political one. As I've said many times, I'm glad we live in a country where we can vote a black American into office. That demonstrates a shift in thinking that I am extremely proud of. If I felt that people voted for Obama because he was a excellent leader, then the issue of color wouldn't even be a consideration. That does not admonish him from being a poor leader, or absolves him of answering for the decisions he's made.

But I don't see that from the media, those who elected him, or even people in this very forum, who will, for several pages, praise Obama in everything he does and occasionally throw a short blurb about his shortcoming in passing. That tells me one of two things... either A) people are so uneducated about what's going on they have no clue of the situation, or B) they know about it, and are sticking with their guy no matter what. While "B" is an admirable quality, sticking with one's guy doesn't mean you sit silently while his poor leadership and mismanagement tears apart our country. Believe the same thing on Wednesday that you did on Monday, no matter what happens on Tuesday is exactly the kind of moronic thinking that leads to the demise of a country.

In an ideal world, those of you who voted for Obama would see the waterfall coming and make your voice heard as opposed to waiting to over the falls while I shout, "I told you so", on the way down. But like I said, that's in an ideal world. And in an ideal world, people don't vote based on color.

**Warprosper** · 05-01-13, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Yes, yes, it's everyone's fault! It's not the fault of those who lead our nation and decide our fiscal policy! So let's give them a break! NOT. I'm not looking for a scapegoat. I'm looking for accountability. Not a lot to ask from the leader of the free world, though I've learned by now that we won't see it from this President or his administration. The thing that blows me away though is people like you who have so drunk the kool-aid that you will seemingly say ANYTHING to protect these people, including referencing a war that happened over 70 years ago and an economy from the same era. I think for me, this is the most disappointing thing about the people of this country and their view of politics. Why don't you want to hold him and the rest of the liberals who did their part to create this mess accountable? This is a mystery to me.

No offense meant by this, but it's clear to me that you don't understand free market capitalism at all. You view the market as something that must be controlled by the government but fail to see that the more control that is exerted, the less the market is free. Business decision makers will choose to move their business away from places where any success is punished by excessive taxation or regulation. But you chalk that up to greed. There is a balance that is needed here and frankly Democrats have fucked it up by pushing for too much taxation and regulation and Republicans have fucked it up at times by pushing for too little regulation in some cases, but they are always consistent on the tax issue. Considering that currently we have the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized nation, I'm going to lay the current situation at the feet of Democrats:

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate To Be Highest In The Developed World

So what the fuck did you think would happen? Did you think these companies would just bend over and take it? The global effect is being pushed forward by these policies. Now please, name some Republican or conservative policies that are encouraging globalization to the detriment of the U.S. job market? And let's not forget that Obama is no friend to free trade in the first place. You know he's a socialist/marxist and so do I. Shit he wrote in his own words about those views. Anyone who claims he isn't is just lying.

---And I'm done with this. Nice try War, but no cigar. Can you please lead the way in holding this president accountable for his miserable failures and stop making excuses?

It is everyone's fault. It's everyone's fault for not pushing congress to act for the people. It's both mine and yours, and everyone else on these boards. We have a problem with how something is done and yet we sit here on the internet and parade around like we know more about economics than those who sit on the hill. We don't actively pursue boycotts in a way that would change public policy or opinion; instead we sit around and live our lives as if the government has no impact on what we/our children will do in the future. We pretend to know how the country should be run, mind you, from the seats of our comfortable chairs.

I certainly do understand free market capitalism, and more so than you do. I wouldn't say it needs to be controlled by the government, but it most certainly needs to be regulated, otherwise all businesses and countries would practice mercantilism and the social economic boundaries would be at an all time high. It's the same exact reason why the average Joe can't just go out and invent a new processor without having billions of dollars. The greed factor is there, more so than the regulatory controls such as taxes and quotas. If the greed problem wasn't there, our wealth distribution in this country would actually make sense. It's clear that you don't understand the social economic effects of a globalized economy. But then again... why do something about when you can sit behind your chair and blame the democrats. Right?

A globalized economy has absolutely nothing to do with government policies when looking at the grand scheme of things, which you are failing to do. You think that these jobs went overseas during Obama's presidency? You wan't to blame him for stubbing your toe this morning too? You need to understand the social effects of a globalized economy, the infrastructure, the technology, and most importantly, the geography. Do any of these things have anything to do with government regulations or policies? No they don't. We send jobs overseas because we can create a distributed system in a country that provides both a geographical advantage and infrastructure that supports entry into foreign markets. This is no different than opening up a subway 3 miles from the first one. You attempt to gain ground, or expansion as many call it. These companies who open in different markets not only increase profits due to a brand new market; they increase the social value of the region. This is actually a good thing when thinking of people as a whole. You can't stop globalization, government can't stop it, just as government can't change the cultural beliefs of China, India, or any other labor industry. It's 100% natural.

**Warprosper** · 05-01-13, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Meanwhile, he said this in 2007:

As for your actual question which was "Do you really think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't contribute the majority of debt of this country?"... Uh, NO. I DON'T. The numbers don't lie. The amount we spend on healthcare, pensions and welfare (medicare, medicaid, Social Security, etc) DWARFS defense spending. It has averaged about 57% of the budget during Obama's tenure, but it has always been a far bigger piece of the pie than defense. AND THAT IS BEFORE OBAMACARE!!! Now, you go read the Constitution and see which of the two outlays of money are actually provided for in there. You'll have to do some serious mental gymnastics to find anything other than defense, good luck.

First of all, you see, what you want to try to do here is assign the debt to a specific portion of the budget, namely defense. I'm sorry but that's just not a plausible explanation. The debt is from the aggregate of our spending, not just one part. And by that most basic measure, while our defense spending is too high thanks to continued spending by Obama, NO. The high debt ratio is not primarily due to defense, when defense is compared to all other spending.

The housing bubble was terrible and while as I said most of the blame does sit squarely on the shoulders of Democrats who pushed for the programs that led to the bubble's bursting, there is blame to go around for not stopping them too. But that is a recoverable thing. The Federal Government didn't have to BAIL OUT these companies. The private sector would have taken care of itself, as one company dies opportunities are always created for others. "Too big to fail" is a load of crap.

Finally, thanks for calling me a racist with your "black president" comment. Classy. But I should not be surprised - this is just what liberals do. It's almost not your own fault, it's like a kneejerk reaction nowadays.

In response to your video link... Didn't Bush lead us to war based on lies and or false intelligence?

About the wars contributing. Yes they did contribute the most. You know why? Because the other stuff; Medicare, SS, other programs are and have always been there, and unfunded. The largest percentage of the debt, no, but they contributed more to our overall debt ratio.

I'm not assigning anything to anything. I'm saying that we were at a FUCKING WAR for 10 years. IT"S NOT FREE.

Housing bubble was indeed terrible. Also the act that caused was labeled after the 3 REPUBLICANS that created it. How exactly is that the democrats fault?

Finally, the racist shit.. Yea it was meant to come off that way, because that's exactly how you sound.

P.S.: I'm not a liberal, I just look at things with a logical common sense approach. and in 2002 I voted for Bush.

**Ranger10** · 05-01-13, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

In response to your video link... Didn't Bush lead us to war based on lies and or false intelligence?

Um... not exactly.

If you remember, we had given Saddam months and months of warnings concerning the WMD's. When we finally sent UN inspectors in, they found nothing. And for good reason. The key components to the WMD's have been moved. I'm not saying this to rehash the past. But Bush is effectively taking a fall for the good of us all.

I know what you (and everyone reading this are thinking), "How do you know?" Well, my brother in law is a special forces sniper with several tours in the middle east in both Afghanistan and Iraq. His unit had been tasked at the time with gathering intel about potential caches of WMD in the desert between Iraq and Syria. According to him (and I've never known the man to lie), there are several stockpiles of yellow cake uranium in the desert.

Now here's the dilemma. They don't know where all of them are. If they come out and say, "Look what we found!" it was determined that that would create an even greater problem of terrorists heading out with their own detectors and using small amounts to make dirty bombs etc. They can't exactly move the stuff, because as any EOD tech will tell you, if you aren't directly responsible for it, you don't go near it. And of course, option C would be to blow it in place. Of course, that will have a significant impact on the region, as well as declaring to the world where the stuff is located.

So according to him, the decision to leave the stuff in place and keep constant surveillance in place was the best alternative.

I know some of you will think this is a conspiracy theory. You'll make me a tin foil helmet, but I'm just telling you what he's personally seen as an operator in the region. I trust him implicitly and up until he told me this, even I was skeptical of the reasons for the Iraq war. "Oil" just didn't seem like the best reason to go to war, and terrorism was even weaker. You guys can certainly infer what you want. But I hope most of you know me well enough to know that I don't buy into conspiracy theories on any level.

But knowing what I now know, I can honestly say I have a renewed respect for President Bush concerning this particular issue. I hope history will exonerate him on this matter and the government can publicly disclose this in an official capacity.

**triggerhappy2005** · 05-01-13, 04:13 PM

Why didn't they confiscate the ones which they knew were there?

I know you're a stand up guy Ranger but I'm not buying it. There's just no way the Bush administration would have passed upon the opportunity to prove they wre right. No way.

**Ranger10** · 05-01-13, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Why didn't they confiscate the ones which they knew were there?

To my knowledge, they don't move hazardous ordinance. This is the EOD thing. The way he made it sound was that if you aren't the guy who put it there, then you don't touch it. I don't know if that means its in an unstable form, or if they think its booby trapped. Hell, I have no clue. He did say that if it were something other than yellowcake they would just blow it in place.

I figured since it was the desert who would give a rats ass. But I guess that says to the world, "looky looky". I dunno.

**PvtPrivate** · 05-01-13, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Um... not exactly.

I know what you (and everyone reading this are thinking), "How do you know?" Well, my brother in law is a special forces sniper with several tours in the middle east in both Afghanistan and Iraq. His unit had been tasked at the time with gathering intel about potential caches of WMD in the desert between Iraq and Syria. According to him (and I've never known the man to lie), there are several stockpiles of yellow cake uranium in the desert.

Now here's the dilemma. They don't know where all of them are. If they come out and say, "Look what we found!" it was determined that that would create an even greater problem of terrorists heading out with their own detectors and using small amounts to make dirty bombs etc. They can't exactly move the stuff, because as any EOD tech will tell you, if you aren't directly responsible for it, you don't go near it. And of course, option C would be to blow it in place. Of course, that will have a significant impact on the region, as well as declaring to the world where the stuff is located.

So according to him, the decision to leave the stuff in place and keep constant surveillance in place was the best alternative.

If I had a nickel for everyone on the internet who was or knew a navy seal, sniper, delta force or space shuttle door gunner I met would be able to buy my own WMDs, no offense

**Ranger10** · 05-01-13, 04:27 PM

To answer your added point...

Who knows? Bush never really operated like he cared what anyone thought anyway. At least that's not how he came across much to the chagrin of others. He always seemed to have a cavalier attitude that wasn't dependent on how others thought of him. Bold sure, but infuriating at the same time.

I see your point. That would be a huge "screw you" to all those who claimed he was a liar. I guess that would have vindicated him somewhat.

But then again, does Yellowcake uranium qualify as a WMD? Don't you need a delivery system, and the capability to actually hit something? Yellowcake uranium can be used in nuclear reactors. I don't think it, in and of itself, qualifies as a WMD. Its just that once you have it, the rest is easy to get.

**triggerhappy2005** · 05-01-13, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

To my knowledge, they don't move hazardous ordinance. This is the EOD thing. The way he made it sound was that if you aren't the guy who put it there, then you don't touch it. I don't know if that means its in an unstable form, or if they think its booby trapped. Hell, I have no clue. He did say that if it were something other than yellowcake they would just blow it in place.

I figured since it was the desert who would give a rats ass. But I guess that says to the world, "looky looky". I dunno.

I love you man but c'mon. Just leaving it out there in the desert..no way.

**Ranger10** · 05-01-13, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by PvtPrivate

If I had a nickel for everyone on the internet who was or knew a navy seal, sniper, delta force or space shuttle door gunner I met would be able to buy my own WMDs, no offense

And no offense, but you don't know any yourself. Its one thing to sit and talk with an ex-_______, and quite another to be related to them. Its okay if you want to call me or him a liar. That's fine. But I tend to take his word over yours any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.