Obama's racism!

[Wow]

"Racism" and Obama by Columnists

"Racism" and Obama
June 21, 2008 04:00 AM EST

This is truly pathetic. From now till the election any tough question leveled at Barack Obama will be responded to with screams of 'racism'? Well it's par for the course.

Oh but don't take my word for it. Go look at about 10k liberal blogs backing Obama against Clinton. Why vote for Hillary? Because not voting for her makes you a sexist. Why vote for Obama? Because not voting for him makes you a racist. I guess libs care more about the plight of blacks than the plight of women. So ladies – to the back of the equality bus please.

Ninety five percent of the lefties I've argued with call me a racist for not supporting Barack. Conversely ninety five percent of the lefties I've argued with can't tell me what Obama stands for. All they see is his dark skin tone and they get all gushy. I thought a 'racist' was someone who judged people solely based on their color. So who's the racist here? I know why I'm opposed to Obama and it has nothing to do with how he looks.

Obama loves to portray himself as the son of a poor single mother'a single mother who lived in Hawaii a place most Americans only visit in their dreams. Okay Hawaii has one of the highest costs of living in the US, I'm with you. I would believe that most people in the aloha state are working their butts off to make ends meet. But a few years later she moved back. Okay – I guess I'm still (somewhat) willing to believe the 'Oh woah is me' act'except that Obama went to a PRIVATE SCHOOL there.

Again most Americans can only dream of sending their kids to private school. Even if they have the Congressional connections to get the paperwork to send their kids to a place for a better education, most Americans can't afford it. I can only guess how outrageous the cost of private school in Hawaii is.

He went to college at Harvard and Columbia. How many poor kids can claim attendance at these places? I've known people who were really sharp on the uptake and wanted to go to such places. But they couldn't afford it even stacked to the gills with student loans and scholarships. Likewise his wife went to Princeton and Harvard.

What's next – Steven Spielburg's niece going to come out and lecture us about how tough it was growing up on the mean streets of Beverly Hills?

Now if you listen to the Obamas, black people can't do what they've done in America today. And they're going to be joined by the usual band of suspects: Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee and before it's over many, many others who'll join the chorus of lecturing us about what a rotten place America is because people like them are getting screwed and have been screwed.

We've all felt ostracized at some point in our lives because we were the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong religion, the wrong political party and so on. To sit here and argue that it's exclusive to only one race, religion or sex is so far off it is offensive. To argue that one single group got it worse than all the others is likewise offensive. During the early 1900's laws all across America attempted to destroy German culture. You couldn't even speak German publicly in a lot of places. Likewise the Indian tribes were forced off their lands. Likewise the Irish suffered from horrible discrimination during the 1800's.

Yet people like the Obamas only want to talk about how they were shafted. It's amazing to me. 'God Damn America', screaming about 'white privilege' and other prejudiced stereotypes aren't racist? But asking Barack a question he's not ready to answer *is* racist? And the people who claim to be the smartest amongst us can't follow that simple chain of logic? How stupid is that?

He claims that he didn't hear any of this while sitting in his church for TWENTY years. This is the guy who wants to go talk to our enemies. Is he going to listen to their answers? Or is he just going assume that they don't mean it when they tell him they want us all dead? His wife was paying attention to all of those sermons. What's he going to say to our enemies anyway? 'Please don't kill us.'? 'Please don't build nuclear bombs.'? We've been saying these things to people who don't like us for 50+ years now. It hasn't worked. They're still working on nukes. They're still drawing up plans to murder us. The idea that this is a change of any kind is naive.

One last thing: Barack comes from a long line of slave owning plantation overseers on his father's side. Will Spike Lee demand forty acres and a mule from Obama? Will people like Spike Lee even point out Obama's slave owning background? I didn't think so.

 

[Gunny]

There is a grain of truth to the article; although, nothing new. I spent the entire primary season voicing the same complaint.

When you dust off the veneer of "racism" and "right wingnut" accusations, there's nothing new about Obama ... there's no change. He's just another liberal Democrat with the usual smokescreen of "tax the rich to prop up the poor" that will once again become the middle class's burden.

Same old shit ... different package.

 

[jillian]

There is a grain of truth to the article; although, nothing new. I spent the entire primary season voicing the same complaint.

When you dust off the veneer of "racism" and "right wingnut" accusations, there's nothing new about Obama ... there's no change. He's just another liberal Democrat with the usual smokescreen of "tax the rich to prop up the poor" that will once again become the middle class's burden.

Same old shit ... different package.

No...it's the same COMPLAINTS by the right.

Still doesn't excuse the troll's misstatment of everything he posts, IMO.

 

[Gunny]

No...it's the same COMPLAINTS by the right.

Still doesn't excuse the troll's misstatment of everything he posts, IMO.

It's the same old complaints because it's the same old TRUTH. As I stated from the very beginning amid all the cries of "racist" and deflections to McCain or Bush, there's no "change," and Obama is just another jacked-up politician who will be every-bit "more of the same" as McCain will, depending on who wins.

I get kind of tired of the misuse of the label "troll" by some around here. A few people hereabouts tend to label anyone they disagree with a troll.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of upsetting users that take the subject seriously.[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I'd say THAT definition fits the bill for anyone who responds to questions about Obama with "MCCain this or that ...." or "Bush this or that ...."

The mere fact that he created this thread removes him from that definition in this case.

 

[Charles_Main]

No...it's the same COMPLAINTS by the right.

So I guess you just ignore his past associations eh.

Still doesn't excuse the troll's misstatment of everything he posts, IMO.

I do agree WOW misstates a lot when he posts, but in this case there is at least some truth to what the article says.

 

[Wow]

There is a grain of truth to the article; although, nothing new. I spent the entire primary season voicing the same complaint.

When you dust off the veneer of "racism" and "right wingnut" accusations, there's nothing new about Obama ... there's no change. He's just another liberal Democrat with the usual smokescreen of "tax the rich to prop up the poor" that will once again become the middle class's burden.

Same old shit ... different package.

Ninety five percent of the lefties I've argued with call me a racist for not supporting Barack. Conversely ninety five percent of the lefties I've argued with can't tell me what Obama stands for.
This is a daily evolving situation.

 

[Wow]

So I guess you just ignore his past associations eh.

I do agree WOW misstates a lot when he posts, but in this case there is at least some truth to what the article says.

I do not misstate anything. I do not always read through the BS correctly, but then I'm human.

Reporters write misleading, vague reports and the reader is placed in a position to sift through their personal politics to get to the truth.

To say any reporter does NOT have a personal bias, is to say a reporter is not human!

Feel free to point out my misstatements and I will address them!

 

[Charles_Main]

I do not misstate anything. I do not always read through the BS correctly, but then I'm human.

ah you mean like the "Obama's genocide" post you just made, where you Imply it is Obama's fault in the title, when the article you posted puts the blame in the mayors, and city councils lap.

I suggest you start reading things before you post.

 

[Wow]

ah you mean like the "Obama's genocide" post you just made, where you Imply it is Obama's fault in the title, when the article you posted puts the blame in the mayors, and city councils lap.

I suggest you start reading things before you post.

Hahahaha you are misstating my post.

Obama was a community organizer and Constitutional lawyer.

I would say Obama was directly involved with the genocide on the streets of Chicago! If someone wants to refute this, then explain exactly what Obama was doing as a community organizer and Constitutional lawyer?

 

[Charles_Main]

Hahahaha you are misstating my post.

Obama was a community organizer and Constitutional lawyer.

I would say Obama was directly involved with the genocide on the streets of Chicago! If someone wants to refute this, then explain exactly what Obama was doing as a community organizer and Constitutional lawyer?

No why don't you explain how any thing Obama did equates to Genocide big guy, after all you are the one making wild claims, not me.

 

[Gunny]

Ninety five percent of the lefties I've argued with call me a racist for not supporting Barack. Conversely ninety five percent of the lefties I've argued with can't tell me what Obama stands for.
This is a daily evolving situation.

Which means what, exactly?

Of the two candidates, what does each stand for and/or what are the differences in their stances?

Both appear about equally useless to me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which means what, exactly?

Of the two candidates, what does each stand for and/or what are the differences in their stances?

Both appear about equally useless to me.

Obama has positions? Other then run from Iraq, tax us till we bleed, create a trillion dollar new Government spending programs, what positions does Obama have? And of those I listed only one has he sort of admitted too.

Perhaps Jillian could provide us with a detailed list of Obama's positions, she supports him and keeps claiming he is better then McCain. Yet she has never stated a single thing he stands for. Just that he won't be Bush.

 

[Charles_Main]

Obama has positions? Other then run from Iraq, tax us till we bleed, create a trillion dollar new Government spending programs, what positions does Obama have? And of those I listed only one has he sort of admitted too.

Perhaps Jillian could provide us with a detailed list of Obama's positions, she supports him and keeps claiming he is better then McCain. Yet she has never stated a single thing he stands for. Just that he won't be Bush.

Don't forget how she keeps repeating the Democrat talking point that McCain is running for Bushes third term.

 

[jillian]

Don't forget how she keeps repeating the Democrat talking point that McCain is running for Bushes third term.

Well, I wouldn't say that if he'd stop doing it....

 

[Charles_Main]

Well, I wouldn't say that if he'd stop doing it....

Care to educate use all with a point by point comparison of Bush and McCains positions on more than just the war in Iraq?

 

[CharlestonChad]

There is a grain of truth to the article; although, nothing new. I spent the entire primary season voicing the same complaint.

When you dust off the veneer of "racism" and "right wingnut" accusations, there's nothing new about Obama ... there's no change. He's just another liberal Democrat with the usual smokescreen of "tax the rich to prop up the poor" that will once again become the middle class's burden.

Same old shit ... different package.

Rich people save more money on taxes than poor people could imagine.

 

[Gunny]

Obama has positions? Other then run from Iraq, tax us till we bleed, create a trillion dollar new Government spending programs, what positions does Obama have? And of those I listed only one has he sort of admitted too.

Perhaps Jillian could provide us with a detailed list of Obama's positions, she supports him and keeps claiming he is better then McCain. Yet she has never stated a single thing he stands for. Just that he won't be Bush.

I beleive he has already re-stated his position on Iraq and some sanity needs to start somewhere. It isn't :running from Iraq" if a Dem draws down our troops, nor is it "The Iraqi's kick us out" if a Republican does.

Our troops don't need to remain in Iraq for political posturing. If they aren't needed, get them out. If they are, deploy them. If the Iraqi's want to assume their own physical security, that's on them. Let them.

Republicans can spend every bit like Democrats nowadays, so that's a wash.

The "difference" I see is as you point out, Obama will try to increase taxes on the wealthy and when the cronyism by both sides in Congress is finished it will once again become the burden of the middle class.

I believe those positions are "you're a racist," and "Bush/McCain this or that ..."

 

[Gunny]

Don't forget how she keeps repeating the Democrat talking point that McCain is running for Bushes third term.

How could I? I've seen it often enough.

 

[Gunny]

Rich people save more money on taxes than poor people could imagine.

Yet they still pay most of the total amount in taxes. That savings is based on income. That income is being redistributed by socialist tax laws. I don't see trying to keep as much of what you earned as possible as "saving" -- but I guess saving it from redistribution works.

I'm not even close to wealthy and I resent the Hell out of my pocket being picked by the government and the amount being boosted DOES affect my lifestyle.

At the same time, I don't believe by virtue of wealth alone the wealthy should be allowed any more avenues in which to save money than anyone else.

 

[editec]

Yet they still pay most of the total amount in taxes. That savings is based on income.

Quite right

That income is being redistributed by socialist tax laws.

Which income? Did you mean revenues generated by taxing incomes are being redistrbuted by the government?

Well they are, but not in amounts that are much effecting poverty. Most of that redistribution is going back to the wealthy as governments build our roads, defend our nation, make our airline system works and so forth.

I don't see trying to keep as much of what you earned as possible as "saving" -- but I guess saving it from redistribution works.

Yes, the semantic choices that partisans of both sides make are meant to mislead or persuade us, aren't they?

For example, the word socialism is a hotbutton word.

If outright welfare (as opposed to social security) is socialism in this nation, then so too is everything the government spends money on.

So we should call everything that government does socialism, or we should call NOTHING the government does socialism.

I'm willing to go either way, but I'll be damned if I let anyone pick and choose which government program is socialism, and which is not.

I'm not even close to wealthy and I resent the Hell out of my pocket being picked by the government and the amount being boosted DOES affect my lifestyle.

I'm soon to be not even close to middle class, and I resent the hell out of my pocket being picked by the governmentS, (nobody ever seems to remember state and local taxation, why?) and the amount being boosted DOES effect my lifestyle, as well.

At the same time, I don't believe by virtue of wealth alone the wealthy should be allowed any more avenues in which to save money than anyone else.

Of course, by virtue of how much money most people earn, there is no way in hell that the better off can every be prevented (except by egregious taxation) from having more money to invest (or save) than the less fortunate.

When I made more money than I needed to support my lifestyle, I saved a lot of it.

The thing about success is that it makes it easier to succeed even more.

That's why the top fractions of one percent of income earners can invest and make even more money.

I don't know where the floor is where saving or investing for your future is, but the MAJORITY of Americans, if all their chips were cashed in today, would have negative net values.

The problem as I see it, is that those aggregate net worth numbers for most Americans are getting much worse, even as the aggegate net worth valuations for a small percentage of Americans are rising exponsentially .

That is why progressive taxation seems to be a fair system to me.

Now that is ALSO the argument that we punish people who work harder and therefore make money is not entirely without merit. I am fully aware of how hard working people who cannot save much money are paying too much taxes.

But we have gone much too far in insuring that the very VERY wealthy will continue to get stupidly wealthier, and ironically, at the same time insuring that the people who then end up footing the bills that the rich once paid.

Some of you want to blame welfare people for our tax problems, but none of you can actually provide hard numbers to support that argument.

That is exactly why most who whine about welfare and socialism include SOCIAL SECURITY as welfare.

Even a casual honest look at the reality show us that the amount of TRUE WELFARE we give to Americans is but a fragment of the money that the government actually spends.

Most of the taxes we pay, end up going back into the pockets of the superwealthy, as our goverment hires their companies to do the things governments need to do (or don't need to do but do anyway).