Democrat says stupid things

[Pheonixops]

A second question is why do democrats create majority black districts i the first place? We know they can win in republican districts without a large black vote. Why do they promote segregation, like black districts to win. Im just stunned when you think of it from that perspective.

I mean if republicans are so racist how in the hell does tim scott become a senator from south carolina as a republican. All the republicans in the state voted for him.

Curious minds want to knwo.

LOL, wow! You have ONE Black guy in BOTH Houses, you all are really "progressing". I think that your party should go back to it's roots, instead of the direction of the Democrats of ante-bellum, Reconstruction, Post Reconstruction and the Jim Crow South.

This man is one of the roots of the Republican party, he is NOTHING like you guy; in fact you guys probably reject his message, even though Black Republican Frederick Douglass, held him in high esteem.

Volume 11 | The Ingersoll Times

Learn more here; look at the way some of your fellow travelers "embraced" his message.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/345634-wow.html

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The repubs have the only black senator in the chamber among other minorities in the congress, governors and congress members not representing a district that has their race as the primary reason they get the votes.

The dems live for minority votes and their reps only come from those districts. Defend away if you have the fortitude to do so.

The Dems have a black man in the white house. Last I checked America is not a 'majority black district.'

But of course. It's your "I have a black friend" moment most of you live for. Never considering qualifications or the ability to do the job you just voted for him because of race.

In local elections though you don't seem to be so pragmatic. It's like a cover for you people.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The repubs have the only black senator in the chamber among other minorities in the congress, governors and congress members not representing a district that has their race as the primary reason they get the votes.

The dems live for minority votes and their reps only come from those districts. Defend away if you have the fortitude to do so.

The Dems have a black man in the white house. Last I checked America is not a 'majority black district.'

But of course. It's your "I have a black friend" moment most of you live for. Never considering qualifications or the ability to do the job you just voted for him because of race.

In local elections though you don't seem to be so pragmatic. It's like a cover for you people.

You're ridiculous. Do you like to pretend that it's common for republicans to elect minorities to their districts?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What the **** are you talking about? He's already changed the ObomaCare law UNCONSTITUTIONALLY!!

"The president’s recent decision to delay the employer mandate – again – is another of the Obama administration’s actions that have significantly changed the health overhaul law since it was enacted nearly four years ago.

By our count at the Galen Institute, this is the 18th major change to the law that the administration has made unilaterally and often in direct contradiction to legislative language."


Thirty-five Changes To Obamacare...So Far - Forbes

"You can find at our website our full list of the 35 changes to ObamaCare…so far, which includes the 18 made by the administration, 15 changes passed by Congress and signed into law by the president (including 10 passed by the Republican House), and two in which the law was rewritten by the U.S. Supreme Court."

So, 15 of these changes have been passed by Congress, a Congress that has a majority Republican setup in the House, right?

And 2 have been changed by the Supreme Court which is majority Conservative.

What is the point you're making?

I'm not saying that Obamacare is any good. I don't actually like it. But then I know that a good healthcare program would be impossible because of the divisions within US politics.

Changes are what? A change that tries to make a law better could actually be a good thing. Going in and banging your head against the wall and saying "it will work" without learning is what? Rubbish.

However there are other issues at hand, the Supreme Court is going to get involved because some things might go against the Constitution and previous case law that the writers did not consider. This is part of the US system.

However, Obama also knows he has 8 years max to get this through. To make a decent healthcare system that really works would take longer than this. Congress seems to need a president behind it to do anything that is slightly different because it's so caught up in it's own little power games and things like this.

The question here is, the people voted for change, Obama put change in place, it's a very, very difficult thing to actually put in place, then when he find it very difficult to do, because of the opposition, then the opposition then complains.

Well if the opposition had helped him, it might be better. Oh, wait, it's not in their interests to have the other party do something that makes anything better.

Welcome to the fundamentals of US politics. It's all futile. The way people vote needs to change so that actual democracy can take place.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

OK, not just any Democrat. But Charlie "Tax Cheat" Rangel, sounding off about his displeasure with Obama. Why? Seems Obama thought he could work with Republicans and the Tea Party. The Tea Party has the Confederate flag. So they're racists. And of course "mean". No, I'm not making that up.
Democrat Says Republicans Oppose Obama Because They’re Part of the Confederacy …Or Something

That democrat should study his party's history. His party was the Confederacy and all the way through Jim Crow.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That democrat should study his party's history. His party was the Confederacy and all the way through Jim Crow.

Why is it that modern republicans are the ones who celebrate the confederacy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, not just any Democrat. But Charlie "Tax Cheat" Rangel, sounding off about his displeasure with Obama. Why? Seems Obama thought he could work with Republicans and the Tea Party. The Tea Party has the Confederate flag. So they're racists. And of course "mean". No, I'm not making that up.
Democrat Says Republicans Oppose Obama Because They’re Part of the Confederacy …Or Something

i have a question for charlie and all liberals because im curious. Why is it every black republican wins a majority white district and every black democrat only wins in majority black districts?

Where is your evidence? Before you open your mouth, think about Obama from Illinois.

 

[Vigilante]

What the **** are you talking about? He's already changed the ObomaCare law UNCONSTITUTIONALLY!!

"The president’s recent decision to delay the employer mandate – again – is another of the Obama administration’s actions that have significantly changed the health overhaul law since it was enacted nearly four years ago.

By our count at the Galen Institute, this is the 18th major change to the law that the administration has made unilaterally and often in direct contradiction to legislative language."


Thirty-five Changes To Obamacare...So Far - Forbes

"You can find at our website our full list of the 35 changes to ObamaCare…so far, which includes the 18 made by the administration, 15 changes passed by Congress and signed into law by the president (including 10 passed by the Republican House), and two in which the law was rewritten by the U.S. Supreme Court."

So, 15 of these changes have been passed by Congress, a Congress that has a majority Republican setup in the House, right?

And 2 have been changed by the Supreme Court which is majority Conservative.

What is the point you're making?

I'm not saying that Obamacare is any good. I don't actually like it. But then I know that a good healthcare program would be impossible because of the divisions within US politics.

Changes are what? A change that tries to make a law better could actually be a good thing. Going in and banging your head against the wall and saying "it will work" without learning is what? Rubbish.

However there are other issues at hand, the Supreme Court is going to get involved because some things might go against the Constitution and previous case law that the writers did not consider. This is part of the US system.

However, Obama also knows he has 8 years max to get this through. To make a decent healthcare system that really works would take longer than this. Congress seems to need a president behind it to do anything that is slightly different because it's so caught up in it's own little power games and things like this.

The question here is, the people voted for change, Obama put change in place, it's a very, very difficult thing to actually put in place, then when he find it very difficult to do, because of the opposition, then the opposition then complains.

Well if the opposition had helped him, it might be better. Oh, wait, it's not in their interests to have the other party do something that makes anything better.

Welcome to the fundamentals of US politics. It's all futile. The way people vote needs to change so that actual democracy can take place.

There simply is no way you can put this on Republicans. None of them voted for it, they were not even allowed in the room while it was being drawn up.

They tried to repeal it....all blocked by the Dems.

Attempts to amend it were rejected, but the Dems still say we have not put out any ideas on how to fix the health system....That's a lie, The Patient CARE Act is about to be proposed.

Ideas we have put out are ignored, including tort reform, buying over state lines, medical reforms.....

And to rub salt into the wounds...the GOP and Tea Party have been SCREAMING for 4 years about what was going to happen if Obamacare got passed. Now all of those predictions are coming true..and they act surprised!

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The Dems have a black man in the white house. Last I checked America is not a 'majority black district.'

But of course. It's your "I have a black friend" moment most of you live for. Never considering qualifications or the ability to do the job you just voted for him because of race.

In local elections though you don't seem to be so pragmatic. It's like a cover for you people.

You're ridiculous. Do you like to pretend that it's common for republicans to elect minorities to their districts?

It's more common in districts that aren't based vote wise on race. Conservatives like ideas. Dems like race over functional thought or ability. Look no further than the president you tout as your greatest accomplishment. That hasn't worked out well.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It's more common in districts that aren't based vote wise on race. Conservatives like ideas. Dems like race over functional thought or ability. Look no further than the president you tout as your greatest accomplishment. That hasn't worked out well.

^That post and all of your previous ones are evidence of a very closed minded attitude. I won't waste any more time on you.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

That democrat should study his party's history. His party was the Confederacy and all the way through Jim Crow.

Why is it that modern republicans are the ones who celebrate the confederacy?

Where you get that foolish notion?

 

[TheOldSchool]

That democrat should study his party's history. His party was the Confederacy and all the way through Jim Crow.

Why is it that modern republicans are the ones who celebrate the confederacy?

Where you get that foolish notion?

Are you kidding?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's more common in districts that aren't based vote wise on race. Conservatives like ideas. Dems like race over functional thought or ability. Look no further than the president you tout as your greatest accomplishment. That hasn't worked out well.

Which president has worked well exactly?

Bush W. helped make the worst recession since the 1930s, invaded 2 countries that haven't worked out well yet.
Clinton ended up on the end of impeachment proceedings, and didn't do much else, he just liked being liked.
Bush senior got kicked out after one term.
Reagan had the highest post war unemployment level and most of his presidency was above 7%, oh, and he helped get rid of the enemy, which left the republicans in a spot as they had not one to use to scare people with, so they made Islam the new enemy later on.
Carter, well, isn't he like the most unpopular president since some guy no one actually remembers any more?

been doing well really. All the presidents have been seen as quite bad presidents for a long time. Need I mention Nixon, Ford, Johnson, etc?

 

[Vigilante]

It's more common in districts that aren't based vote wise on race. Conservatives like ideas. Dems like race over functional thought or ability. Look no further than the president you tout as your greatest accomplishment. That hasn't worked out well.

Which president has worked well exactly?

Bush W. helped make the worst recession since the 1930s, invaded 2 countries that haven't worked out well yet.
Clinton ended up on the end of impeachment proceedings, and didn't do much else, he just liked being liked.
Bush senior got kicked out after one term.
Reagan had the highest post war unemployment level and most of his presidency was above 7%, oh, and he helped get rid of the enemy, which left the republicans in a spot as they had not one to use to scare people with, so they made Islam the new enemy later on.
Carter, well, isn't he like the most unpopular president since some guy no one actually remembers any more?

been doing well really. All the presidents have been seen as quite bad presidents for a long time. Need I mention Nixon, Ford, Johnson, etc?

Reagan inherited almost 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration, through an aggressive deregulation campaign Reagan stimulated the economy producing job growth, and brought unemployment down to about 4%. Economic experts were amazed! They said it couldn't be done and that America would need to undergo another Great Depression befor we would pull out.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It's more common in districts that aren't based vote wise on race. Conservatives like ideas. Dems like race over functional thought or ability. Look no further than the president you tout as your greatest accomplishment. That hasn't worked out well.

^That post and all of your previous ones are evidence of a very closed minded attitude. I won't waste any more time on you.

Closed minded? I have been fervently paying attention to reality for the last 5 years. I'm sure you can't waste much more time on me convincing us all this failure is simply because of our closed mind's and racism. If obie was a white man somehow all of his policies would have worked. Is this a fantasy you are trying to make a screen play?

If only the man taking over the entire insurance industry was white, it would somehow work. If only the guy that spent 9 trillion dollars in debt was white, we would be on our way to prosperity. If only we had a white obie the worlds problems wouldn't be ours. A white obie could have gotten away with all the scandals, and had the media behind him.

Let's take a serious look at reality versus racism and by racism I certainly mean your position of simply voting for one race to make you feel good about yourself.

Obie being white would never have changed...

"If you like your insurance you can keep it, period."
"If you like your doctor you can keep them, period."
"We will reduce your insurance costs by $2'500 per year."

Somehow I just don't see him being white being the major point of why this isn't working. Lies and bullshit from any race are still lies and bullshit. Lighter or darker skin tone doesn't change the lie and the bullshit into fairy dust and unicorns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Reagan inherited almost 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration, through an aggressive deregulation campaign Reagan stimulated the economy producing job growth, and brought unemployment down to about 4%. Economic experts were amazed! They said it couldn't be done and that America would need to undergo another Great Depression befor we would pull out.

Seeing as the post war high unemployment level is 10.8%, I don't think you're right. And he left with a low rate of 5.3%, not 4%. So someone's been telling you porkies, and you've been believing them.

Unemployment when he entered was 7.5%, which ironically was the same level as when Carter got into office.

Unemployment went down in the first 2 years of Carter's presidency, and then rose again. Reagan's rate rose and rose to 10.8% in November 1982, and went down to 5.4% when he left office. However he spent a long time above 7%, like 5 1/2 years.

Obama came in at 7.8% and spent 4 years 11 months above 7%, about 7 months less than Reagan had, with an economy he inherited.

But yet the right will criticise him for the economy, right? But big up Reagan. Hmmm.

But, I don't believe the president can have that many positive effects on the economy. Recession is normal, it has to happen, with Dubya, he pumped the economy when he should have let it fall, and then ended up with a pretty bad recession that could have been lighter and shorter.

 

[Vigilante]

Reagan inherited almost 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration, through an aggressive deregulation campaign Reagan stimulated the economy producing job growth, and brought unemployment down to about 4%. Economic experts were amazed! They said it couldn't be done and that America would need to undergo another Great Depression befor we would pull out.

Seeing as the post war high unemployment level is 10.8%, I don't think you're right. And he left with a low rate of 5.3%, not 4%. So someone's been telling you porkies, and you've been believing them.

Unemployment when he entered was 7.5%, which ironically was the same level as when Carter got into office.

Unemployment went down in the first 2 years of Carter's presidency, and then rose again. Reagan's rate rose and rose to 10.8% in November 1982, and went down to 5.4% when he left office. However he spent a long time above 7%, like 5 1/2 years.

Obama came in at 7.8% and spent 4 years 11 months above 7%, about 7 months less than Reagan had, with an economy he inherited.

But yet the right will criticise him for the economy, right? But big up Reagan. Hmmm.

But, I don't believe the president can have that many positive effects on the economy. Recession is normal, it has to happen, with Dubya, he pumped the economy when he should have let it fall, and then ended up with a pretty bad recession that could have been lighter and shorter.

Not to rehash old news but this thread should help you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-worse-today-than-when-obama-took-office.html

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not to rehash old news but this thread should help you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-worse-today-than-when-obama-took-office.html

Er...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

He came in January 2009 with the unemployment rate at 7.8%, and now has it at 6.7%.

Clearly he has it at a higher level than when he came in, especially if you're smashed out on absinthe and can't look at stats without your eyes going all funny.

You can have this or that person interpreting the stats about how many people are actually in the labor force and for what reason.
The reality is the unemployment rate is what it is. It isn't great.

Also, I'm not a great believer in what the president can actually do for the economy.

Whoever was president, the economy would probably be picking itself up by now, it's slow going, but considering the size of the economic mess from 2008, you're looking at a few more years before you get back to low 5% or 4% unemployment rates.

 

[Vigilante]

Not to rehash old news but this thread should help you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-worse-today-than-when-obama-took-office.html

Er...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

He came in January 2009 with the unemployment rate at 7.8%, and now has it at 6.7%.

Clearly he has it at a higher level than when he came in, especially if you're smashed out on absinthe and can't look at stats without your eyes going all funny.

You can have this or that person interpreting the stats about how many people are actually in the labor force and for what reason.
The reality is the unemployment rate is what it is. It isn't great.

Also, I'm not a great believer in what the president can actually do for the economy.

Whoever was president, the economy would probably be picking itself up by now, it's slow going, but considering the size of the economic mess from 2008, you're looking at a few more years before you get back to low 5% or 4% unemployment rates.

Perhaps you can now find us the stat that shows how many MILLIONS of workers are now out of work as compared to Jan. 2009 when he took office?

Oh, and perhaps how many are now working PART TIME instead of FULL employment!

 

[driveby]

Chuck Schumer claimed the three branches of government are the house, senate and president.

Harry Reid saying that an imaginary friend, voices in his head, or both are whispering in his ear that there is proof, real evidence, that Mitt Romney did not pay income taxes for ten years.

Obama said insurance premiums would drop 3000%

Joe Biden said jobs is a three letter word.

Joe Biden "If the purpose of terror is to instill fear, you saw none of that in Boston."

Maxine Waters "We don’t need to be having something like sequestration that’s going to cause these jobs losses, over 170 million jobs that could be lost."