Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/21/Limbaughs-Snerdly-For-Most-of-Black-People-Good-Ol-Days-Were-Under-Segregation

Boom

If you didn't watch this you are wrong.

The really good ol' days were actually under slavery.

Exactly, glad you watched it. What did you think?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Exactly, glad you watched it. What did you think?

What did you think about Golden's points?

That he was dead on.

So you think Black people (and the US) were better off back in the Jim Crow days and the "Liberalism" ruined the good times. "White Only" toilets, drinking fountains, restaurants, sitting in the back of the bus, no interracial marriages, separate schools, rampant and sanctioned job discrimination and an all around general 2nd Class citizen status for black people.

Very odd and a rather shitty outlook, imo.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
That he was dead on.

Racist

Originally posted by Robtard
So you think Black people (and the US) were better off back in the Jim Crow days and the "Liberalism" ruined the good times. "White Only" toilets, drinking fountains, sitting in the back of the bus, no interracial marriages, separate schools, rampant and sanctioned job discrimination and an all around general 2nd Class citizen status for black people.

Very odd and a rather shitty outlook, imo.

Thats not what he said, pull the liberal out of you ass. Its not doing you justice Rob.

You didn't even watch the video. So try again.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Thats not what he said, pull the liberal out of you ass. Its not doing you justice Rob.

You didn't even watch the video. So try again.

As much as he tried, you really can't pick-and-choose which parts of segregation you want, it comes as a whole package.

Originally posted by Robtard
As much as he tried, you really can't pick-and-choose which parts of segregation you want, it comes as a whole package.

No he said the people that so called try to help black american's really don't do shit. Like that abortion doctor in the black community, no one paid him any mind and its over looked. They more rather focus on their bias agenda.

So you are suggesting this black man is a slave to a white man and has brainwashed him and dictates his personal interviews.

Read back what I said.

"Again, segregation comes as a whole package, you can't just ignore the historical/factual ugliness associated with it because you're trying to push the "liberals ruin everything" Limbaugh agenda."

So you are suggesting this black man with his own opinion is a slave to a white man and dictates his viewpoints.

You are a good liberal, I give you props for being committed Rob.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
"Again, segregation comes as a whole package, you can't just ignore the historical/factual ugliness associated with it because you're trying to push the "liberals ruin everything" Limbaugh agenda."

So you are suggesting this black man with his own opinion is a slave to a white man and dictates his viewpoints.

You are a good liberal, I give you props for being committed Rob.

You're doing silly a strawman trying to avoid my actual point again. I couldn't care less what skin-color Golden has, I am focusing on what he said and what he said is ridiculous regardless of the skin-color of the person saying it.

You seem to be the only one here concerned/focused over that Golden is black. Really, who cares?

Falsely calling me a "liberal" doesn't change the facts, Supra. This interview ignores the horrors of 2nd class status that Jim Crow brought blacks in America and is little more than standard Limbaugh 'liberal bashing'. Both Limbaugh and Golden should be ashamed.

Typical liberal, when someone sticks up for themselves and their race, even if they are black, they throw them under the bus. He clearly said the republicans as well as the democrats have have left them.

Typical Supra, ignoring the point and strawman bashing.

But really, Jim Crow wasn't a "good time" in America. Read a book or something.

Originally posted by Robtard
Typical Supra, ignoring the point and strawman bashing.

But really, Jim Crow wasn't a "good time" in America. Read a book or something.

Ohh you caught me, Im Supra.

Genius.

You're acting like you're back in your Supra days. Stop it and I'll stop pointing it out.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're acting like you're back in your Supra days. Stop it and I'll stop pointing it out.

You're back to acting like you always act.

If I "always act" whichever way you're thinking, how could I go back to it?

But really, Jim Crow was not a positive thing in America. At least understand that.

Originally posted by Robtard
If I "always act" whichever way you're thinking, how could I go back to it?

But really, Jim Crow was not a positive thing in America. At least understand that.

It was for certain people I guess....

Originally posted by Robtard
If I "always act" whichever way you're thinking, how could I go back to it?

But really, Jim Crow was not a positive thing in America. At least understand that.

Don't be mad because a black man took a stand for himself and his people, quit suppressing the truth.

Originally posted by juggerman
It was for certain people I guess....

You don't even know what we are talking about and just trolling, mind shutting the fck up?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Don't be mad because a black man took a stand for himself and his people, quit suppressing the truth.

And back to being Supra, oh well. You're the only one focused on Golden's skin color, like it matters. What he said was clownish regardless of skin tone.

"Hey everyone, he's black so he can't be disparaging to other black people!!!"

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You don't even know what we are talking about and just trolling, mind shutting the fck up?

Wow way to get butt hurt over nothing... Mind making me?

Originally posted by juggerman
Wow way to get butt hurt over nothing... Mind making me?

Did you even watch the video ? No. So what are you trying to accomplish?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Did you even watch the video ? No. So what are you trying to accomplish?

Actually i did. Anymore baseless claims you'd like to make or are you done making a fool out of yourself?

So I disagree with him.

What does that mean about me then? Since skin color is all that seems to matter with you regarding this.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
So I disagree with him.

What does that mean about me then? Since skin color is all that seems to matter with you regarding this.

Why do you disagree with him?

While the family groups being more norm is true it wasn't a it suddenly vanished situation and the people who were very family orientated then still stayed that way it was a slow shift in generations over some switch. And even it's a problem that can be fixed within the community where as Jim crow was forced on them and the society that was enforced it was much worst towards them.

Sure some people were big successes despite jim crow but overcoming obstacles doesn't mean it was better. Even if affirmative action gives people the edge when they don't deserve it it is a fact that throughout US history many black men and women have deserved more then they got due to the society at the time and the Jim Crow laws. More blacks who are qualified are able to succeed to day then they could have ever dreamed of back then.

The current problems are problems that had existed back then and before that we allowed to fester grow to their current state, but even with all our problems now is a damn golden age compared to the Jim crow era especially in the south. Focusing on only the good that happened despite Jim crow doesn't change that it was a horrible time for people who didn't deserve it and ignores how even with all of the current problems in black american society we are much better off. And more importantly we can make the needed changes without a boot on our throat forcing us to stay.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
While the family groups being more norm is true it wasn't a it suddenly vanished situation and the people who were very family orientated then still stayed that way it was a slow shift in generations over some switch. And even it's a problem that can be fixed within the community where as Jim crow was forced on them and the society that was enforced it was much worst towards them.

Sure some people were big successes despite jim crow but overcoming obstacles doesn't mean it was better. Even if affirmative action gives people the edge when they don't deserve it it is a fact that throughout US history many black men and women have deserved more then they got due to the society at the time and the Jim Crow laws. More blacks who are qualified are able to succeed to day then they could have ever dreamed of back then.

The current problems are problems that had existed back then and before that we allowed to fester grow to their current state, but even with all our problems now is a damn golden age compared to the Jim crow era especially in the south. Focusing on only the good that happened despite Jim crow doesn't change that it was a horrible time for people who didn't deserve it and ignores how even with all of the current problems in black american society we are much better off. And more importantly we can make the needed changes without a boot on our throat forcing us to stay.

I respect what you say, thank you for adding in your thoughts.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
While the family groups being more norm is true it wasn't a it suddenly vanished situation and the people who were very family orientated then still stayed that way it was a slow shift in generations over some switch. And even it's a problem that can be fixed within the community where as Jim crow was forced on them and the society that was enforced it was much worst towards them.

Sure some people were big successes despite jim crow but overcoming obstacles doesn't mean it was better. Even if affirmative action gives people the edge when they don't deserve it it is a fact that throughout US history many black men and women have deserved more then they got due to the society at the time and the Jim Crow laws. More blacks who are qualified are able to succeed to day then they could have ever dreamed of back then.

The current problems are problems that had existed back then and before that we allowed to fester grow to their current state, but even with all our problems now is a damn golden age compared to the Jim crow era especially in the south. Focusing on only the good that happened despite Jim crow doesn't change that it was a horrible time for people who didn't deserve it and ignores how even with all of the current problems in black american society we are much better off. And more importantly we can make the needed changes without a boot on our throat forcing us to stay.
The real problem with the state of fate of Black America, if I can be allowed to use that awful, misleading term, is that because black people achieved maybe 75% of their goals they were satisfied enough that they lost momentum after the CRA and to the rest of America it seemed like they'd gotten all their goals and so anyone who agitates now must just be a rabble rouser or "militant."

Of course it doesn't help that many of the campaigners today really are rabble-rousing militants.

I had a professor at FSU who specialized in black women studies. She played the class a tape recorded interview she did with writer Gloria Naylor where their main point was that blacks will never regain the momentum they had in the 60s because of two-way complacence.

I don't feel anyone really listened to what the guy had to say. Soon as they heard the words "rush" ears turned off.

Originally posted by Robtard
And back to being Supra, oh well. You're the only one focused on Golden's skin color, like it matters. What he said was clownish regardless of skin tone.

"Hey everyone, he's black so he can't be disparaging to other black people!!!"

You don't even know what to say other then talk about his skin color.

Didn't you know Obama was black bro?

You did not even understand nor comprehend what he said cause you were too focused on his skin color.

Did you grow up liberal or just get brainwashed into that backwards thinking?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The real problem with the state of fate of Black America, if I can be allowed to use that awful, misleading term, is that because black people achieved maybe 75% of their goals they were satisfied enough that they lost momentum after the CRA and to the rest of America it seemed like they'd gotten all their goals and so anyone who agitates now must just be a rabble rouser or "militant."

Of course it doesn't help that many of the campaigners today really are rabble-rousing militants.

I had a professor at FSU who specialized in black women studies. She played the class a tape recorded interview she did with writer Gloria Naylor where their main point was that blacks will never regain the momentum they had in the 60s because of two-way complacence.

I think the issue that the civil rights movement has, just like women's liberation, is that in many ways the most obvious forms of oppression have been eliminated. People nowadays, living in their bubbles, can easily just dismiss the struggles that oppressed minorities face. When the laws were discriminatory it was possible to point at them and to say, "look, this is different for blacks and whites, this is different for men and women", and it was hard to deny that, now, it's the rest of society, our culture, that is still messed up, and it's extremely hard to even convince people that there's anything wrong.

Just listened to this.

Golden is a dumbass and clearly doesn't truly comprehend the entire race issue of America and why hip hop culture is bad. Black people were only united in segregation out of fear. Now that segregation has ended, we are free to live our lives as an equal people to whites and any other race, as our human rights dictate. Hip hop culture just distracts a lot of blacks from realizing their full range of opportunities now that they have equal rights.

That's not to even mention that hip hop culture is just the latest generation gap in a long national history of generation gaps. And that's not including the extremely important factor that this is the information age where the theme of free spiritness is flowing greater than ever now that access to everybody is far easier.

Saying that segregation was better and the Jim Crow laws where white men could kill a black man for pure sadistic pleasure and opportunities for blacks were zilch besides being white people's entertainment was a more beneficial time of black history is one of the most retarded and misinformed things I have ever heard.

TI, why in the phuck did you post this trash and do you seriously phucking agree? Because as a black man I can tell you Golden is very VERY phucking wrong (although I do agree that Sharpton and such could cover the negative affects of hip-hop culture and such a bit more frequently, although watching his show on MSNBC he often does, which shows again how misinformed Golden is).

Originally posted by Lestov16
Although I do agree that Sharpton and such could cover the negative affects of hip-hop culture and such a bit more frequently, although watching his show on MSNBC he often does, which shows again how misinformed Golden is).

Least we agree on this

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You don't even know what to say other then talk about his skin color.

Didn't you know Obama was black bro?

You did not even understand nor comprehend what he said cause you were too focused on his skin color.

Did you grow up liberal or just get brainwashed into that backwards thinking?

You're the one who brought up his skin color as being an all important factor. I specifically said his skin color doesn't matter after you did.

Stop playing nonsense games like a trolling fool, Supra.

Proof:

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So you are suggesting this black man with his own opinion is a slave to a white man and dictates his viewpoints.


Originally posted by Robtard
You're doing silly a strawman trying to avoid my actual point again. I couldn't care less what skin-color Golden has, I am focusing on what he said and what he said is ridiculous regardless of the skin-color of the person saying it.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you think Black people (and the US) were better off back in the Jim Crow days and the "Liberalism" ruined the good times. "White Only" toilets, drinking fountains, restaurants, sitting in the back of the bus, no interracial marriages, separate schools, rampant and sanctioned job discrimination and an all around general 2nd Class citizen status for black people.

Very odd and a rather shitty outlook, imo. You forgot to point out that in the military black units (They were segregated after all) were often poorly trained and equipped. In WWI they were sent out on suicide missions.

Anyway, I watched/listened to the entire video.

His whining about how liberals sling their hate at conservatives for all problems is a bit undercut by his blaming the state of black people (And hip hop, apparently, lol?) on liberals.

He did make quite a few valid points though. Among the inner city ghettos, sure. Blacks are more likely to be shot and killed now than they were in general during segregation. But he doesn't seem to realize that is also due to segregation, lol. According to wikipedia at least, "research has proven that the more segregated the surrounding European American suburban ring is, the rate of violent crime in the inner-city will rise, but, likewise, crime in the outer area will drop." I'd provide the cited source but it's some ****ing book that I haven't read and doesn't link to the page it is said on. So fuk u.

I grew pretty bored with his shameless fellating of Rush Limbaugh near the end.

4/10, some valid points, but his propensity for unsupported shit-flinging and creepy, stalkerish love for Rush Limbaugh held it back.

I somewhat agree with Golden's point.. We can laud the old days because people were forced to stay married and that was better for the black community. But that may be just about it. It should be obvious that what Robtard says is true: racism was disgusting back then and just because one aspect of it was better than it is now, that does not mean that we should favor or even praise the old system.

It is completely arbitrary of me to claim it is better on the black community than it is now, from a nihilist's perspective. But I personally value freedom and the ability to choose. So I would view being a poor black man, today, as being superior to being a poor black man in 1952...because the modern black man has more freedom.

That much should be obvious.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're the one who brought up his skin color as being an all important factor. I specifically said his skin color doesn't matter after you did.

Stop playing nonsense games like a trolling fool, Supra.

Proof:

Proof you can't have a actual conversation about anything related to politics without puffing your chest and "trolling fool's"

We know you are a hardcore liberal Rob, but you do yourself no justice acting like a hardened "the government is always right" troll online, Robtard.

Everyone else had a better opinion and statement then yours, You actually didn't say anything worth a damn about anything other then "No You!"

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
*More attacking/trolling nonsense*

My points which you flipped out over were later reiterated (at least in part) by several other posters (Lek, Lestov, Neme, DDM) which you seemingly had no problem with.

Now do you have something that pertains to the thread to say or will you continue to derail your own thread like a fool, Supra?

Originally posted by Robtard
My points which you flipped out over were later reiterated (at least in part) by several other posters (Lek, Lestov, Neme, DDM) which you seemingly had no problem with.

Now do you have something that pertains to the thread to say or will you continue to derail your own thread like a fool, Supra?

Like I said the others had real honest opinions, you only attacked based on "rush follower" and political affiliations.

Do we end every sentence with Supra, Robtard?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Like I said the others had real honest opinions, you only attacked based on "rush follower" and political affiliations.

Do we end every sentence with Supra, Robtard?

Incorrect. As pointed out: What I said was later expressed by others in kind in full or some degree. For some reason you didn't flip when they shared the same opinion.

When you act like the old Supra, I will, TE.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You forgot to point out that in the military black units (They were segregated after all) were often poorly trained and equipped. In WWI they were sent out on suicide missions.

Anyway, I watched/listened to the entire video.

His whining about how liberals sling their hate at conservatives for all problems is a bit undercut by his blaming the state of black people (And hip hop, apparently, lol?) on liberals.

He did make quite a few valid points though. Among the inner city ghettos, sure. Blacks are more likely to be shot and killed now than they were in general during segregation. But he doesn't seem to realize that is also due to segregation, lol. According to wikipedia at least, "research has proven that the more segregated the surrounding European American suburban ring is, the rate of violent crime in the inner-city will rise, but, likewise, crime in the outer area will drop." I'd provide the cited source but it's some ****ing book that I haven't read and doesn't link to the page it is said on. So fuk u.

I grew pretty bored with his shameless fellating of Rush Limbaugh near the end.

4/10, some valid points, but his propensity for unsupported shit-flinging and creepy, stalkerish love for Rush Limbaugh held it back.

I don't listen to Rush, a lot of people like him and a lot of people don't. But that's like a lot of people like Obama and a lot of people do not. Opinions vary but I think he said some very true things, and not a lot of people see things for what they are such as how republicans forgot about them and democrats and Black Leaders like Sharpton and Jackson use them for votes and fan base but not addressing the real issues in the troubled areas.

The main things that was interesting to me is his view Ferguson/Brown, Travon Martin/Zimmerman and the other issues that have been used just for temporary hinderance of public sight. I find a lot of this comes up when media wants to take our attentions away from other things. Black on Black violence is huge, but when its white on black, it becomes and issue? Why does it become an issue, well people kill each other no matter what race or color, we been doing it for thousands of years. All the sudden race matters in violence as a way to divide us, instead of unite us. There will always be murder or killings black, white, whatever skin color. White people kill white people, but media makes a frenzy on racial disassociation cause they keep us feeding on it to divide us.

Rush Limbaugh is a professional troll and if you listen to him you become more dumb. It's like listening to your crazy uncle at thanksgiving. His entire gimmick is to say outrageous things for attention, and he's good at that, that's all he is, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
Rush Limbaugh is a professional troll and if you listen to him you become more dumb. It's like listening to your crazy uncle at thanksgiving. His entire gimmick is to say outrageous things for attention, and he's good at that, that's all he is, though.

As I said, I dont listen to him.

Originally posted by BackFire
Rush Limbaugh is a professional troll and if you listen to him you become more dumb. It's like listening to your crazy uncle at thanksgiving. His entire gimmick is to say outrageous things for attention, and he's good at that, that's all he is, though.

I tried listening to him, once, about 10 years ago. I was driving on I-44 in Tulsa between the Garnett and Mingo. This is important...because I'll never forgot how irritating he was to listen to. The fact that people love him and agree with everything he says scares me: they can vote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I tried listening to him, once, about 10 years ago. I was driving on I-44 in Tulsa between the Garnett and Mingo. This is important...because I'll never forgot how irritating he was to listen to. The fact that people love him and agree with everything he says scares me: they can vote.

When I worked for my father-in-law on side (weekends), I'd listen to that blabber mouth whenever he was on as my father-in-law enjoyed his rants.

Limbaugh's whole gimmick is as BF said, "say outrageous crap for attention" and every "point" he made ended up with a blame-the-liberals angle.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I tried listening to him, once, about 10 years ago. I was driving on I-44 in Tulsa between the Garnett and Mingo. This is important...because I'll never forgot how irritating he was to listen to. The fact that people love him and agree with everything he says scares me: they can vote.

While I don't listen to Rush, he has a following just like anyone in that realm. I still think what James (read my opinion above) is very insightful on what is going on in the country.

Any jackass like Golden can point out the problems plaguing the black community. Doesn't mean shit without a good solution, and reintroducing segregation and Jim Crow laws is not it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Any jackass like Golden can point out the problems plaguing the black community. Doesn't mean shit without a good solution, and reintroducing segregation and Jim Crow laws is not it.

If it happened, I'd let you drink out of the "no blacks allowed" drinking fountain when no one else was looking

I wouldn't.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Any jackass like Golden can point out the problems plaguing the black community. Doesn't mean shit without a good solution, and reintroducing segregation and Jim Crow laws is not it.

I think is overall point was don't be used by either party and don't follow what the old "black community organizers" to be cannon fodder for their bigger power play/grab of blame the parties. Thats just a scheme of disinformation.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Any jackass like Golden can point out the problems plaguing the black community. Doesn't mean shit without a good solution, and reintroducing segregation and Jim Crow laws is not it.

Here's the solution to the black community's education, violence, and money problems:

Get good educations, don't be violent, and don't name your kids black sounding names.


Whew, I'm such a genius. I solved 12% of America's problems in 1 sentence!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I think is overall point was don't be used by either party and don't follow what the old "black community organizers" to be cannon fodder for their bigger power play/grab of blame the parties. Thats just a scheme of disinformation.

That wasn't Golden's overall point, or else he wouldn't have been fellating a piece of human filth like Rush Limbaugh.

Originally posted by Robtard
If it happened, I'd let you drink out of the "no blacks allowed" drinking fountain when no one else was looking

So if people were looking, you'd lynch me?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So if people were looking, you'd lynch me?

I wouldn't. I'd tell everyone to piss off and let you drink from my three personal fountains:

One that produced only koolaid or Dr. Pepper (I'm undecided...both would be magnificent but I can only choose one sugar drink).

I would have a second one that had chocolate milk.

Probably a third that dispensed a whey protein drink.

All would be kept fresh and chilled.



****...let's make these fountains happen. Only people I liked would be allowed to use them. Rush would not be invited: trust me.

I want some grape drink. Sugar, water, purple.

Originally posted by Lestov16
That wasn't Golden's overall point, or else he wouldn't have been fellating a piece of human filth like Rush Limbaugh.

Ur pretty intense about this, whats with the bashing of what he said? His opinion is just as valid as yours is not?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's the solution to the black community's education, violence, and money problems:

Get good educations, don't be violent, and don't name your kids black sounding names.


Whew, I'm such a genius. I solved 12% of America's problems in 1 sentence!

No, it's not. Not when he's spouting BS solutions and supporting one of America's most poisonous political commentators. And it's my race he's talking about so of course I'm invested. It would be like a Jew hearing another Jew say it was better in the Third Reich.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I want some grape drink. Sugar, water, purple.

I'm partial to Fruit Punch. We'll have to rotate out the flavors every other week.

Originally posted by Lestov16
No, it's not. Not when he's spouting BS solutions and supporting one of America's most poisonous political commentators. And it's my race he's talking about so of course I'm invested. It would be like a Jew hearing another Jew say it was better in the Third Reich.

And what solutions have been presented by any of the community organizers, media or president?

I can't tell you what the solution is, but I can definitely tell you what it isn't. It isn't regressing civil rights to take away black opportunities. The main problem right now is that blacks aren't utilizing their wide range of opportunities now that they have them. How in the phuck is taking those opportunities and rights back away benefit anybody in the black community at all?

Originally posted by Lestov16
I can't tell you what the solution is, but I can definitely tell you what it isn't. It isn't regressing civil rights to take away black opportunities. The main problem right now is that blacks aren't utilizing their wide range of opportunities now that they have them. How in the phuck is taking those opportunities and rights back away benefit anybody in the black community at all?

In a fascist world, every aspect of their lives would be controlled and they wouldn't have time to do anything but work state approved jobs and do state approved things while not working (under complete surveillance). They would be forced to work for credits and they would use those credits to purchase state-approved goods.

I believe this is the world that Rush and co. had in mind for the black community.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I can't tell you what the solution is, but I can definitely tell you what it isn't. It isn't regressing civil rights to take away black opportunities. The main problem right now is that blacks aren't utilizing their wide range of opportunities now that they have them. How in the phuck is taking those opportunities and rights back away benefit anybody in the black community at all?

Well the problem may be in your statement and thats where the problem is, there are plenty of opportunities however they are not utilizing them so the end result because it is not being used, is that its a waste, so its taken away because its unused.

......are you phucking serious? Do you know how racially insensitive that sounds?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well the problem may be in your statement and thats where the problem is, there are plenty of opportunities however they are not utilizing them so the end result because it is not being used, is that its a waste, so its taken away because its unused.

The fact is they have the choice, if they utilize it doesn't matter. Everyone deserves the freedom to use the opportunities if they want to. Like I said that is why now is so much better even if we don't fix the problem the fact is that we have the ability and maybe one day we will. But the boot of Jim Crow not allowing was horrible and those days don't deserve any praise at all regarding how society was towards blacks.

Originally posted by Lestov16
......are you phucking serious? Do you know how racially insensitive that sounds?

Grow up

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
The fact is they have the choice, if they utilize it doesn't matter. Everyone deserves the freedom to use the opportunities if they want to. Like I said that is why now is so much better even if we don't fix the problem the fact is that we have the ability and maybe one day we will. But the boot of Jim Crow not allowing was horrible and those days don't deserve any praise at all regarding how society was towards blacks.

So why are they not using them is what I am getting at. It seems the old trick of, don't work well pay you not to work, just vote for us. Sure the opportunity is there, but if you can get checks and a fridge full of food for free, why work?

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qwxmr

....again, are you phucking serious?

You are saying that if a certain percentage of a racial population do not choose to embrace successful lives, that entire population deserves to have their human rights taken away. Do you realize how retarded that sounds?

Originally posted by Lestov16
....again, are you phucking serious?

You are saying that if a certain percentage of a racial population do not choose to embrace successful lives, that entire population deserves to have their human rights taken away. Do you realize how retarded that sounds?

Nah. Done talking to you about this anyways, you have nothing serious to add but trolling and acting tough on a keyboard.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well the problem may be in your statement and thats where the problem is, there are plenty of opportunities however they are not utilizing them so the end result because it is not being used, is that its a waste, so its taken away because its unused.

The libertarian side of me agrees with this because those programs should never have existed to begin with. They should only exist in the form of privately owned and run charities.

The bleeding hear liberal side of me says these programs are not far reaching enough and we need a massive campaign to even up the SES problems we are experiencing across the races.

The conservative side of me thinks that all programs not being used by a majority of the population (within reason) should automatically be scrapped without a second thought.

So which side of me is the correct side?


Obviously, the libertarian perspective is the best perspective, by far, if humans weren't such selfish pricks and were capable of creating pragmatic charity programs that are large enough in scope and funding to even up the SES race gaps.


But that's clearly not an option.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Nah. Done talking to you about this anyways, you have nothing serious to add but trolling and acting tough on a keyboard.

Uh, no. You don't get to act like you refuted my entire argument with a simple "nah" and some trolling and then run away like a coward.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Uh, no. You don't get to act like you refuted my entire argument with a simple "nah" and some trolling and then run away like a coward.

?

Originally posted by dadudemon
The libertarian side of me agrees with this because those programs should never have existed to begin with. They should only exist in the form of privately owned and run charities.

The bleeding hear liberal side of me says these programs are not far reaching enough and we need a massive campaign to even up the SES problems we are experiencing across the races.

The conservative side of me thinks that all programs not being used by a majority of the population (within reason) should automatically be scrapped without a second thought.

So which side of me is the correct side?


Obviously, the libertarian perspective is the best perspective, by far, if humans weren't such selfish pricks and were capable of creating pragmatic charity programs that are large enough in scope and funding to even up the SES race gaps.


But that's clearly not an option.

Problem I have seen is that I have a few black friends back from school and that I have met from work, gym, church other places. I could give a breif description of them and you might see where I am going.

4 Close Black friends I know.

Friend 1: Married with kids, lives in Vegas, nice home, marriage is screwed up and pretty much "doing it for the kids. Pays taxes, very conservative on his view points. Never went to college, but is a professional trainer at a nice fitness club in vegas

Friend 2: Former Aspiring Rapper/Singer/Musician. Problems with the law, few arrests, nothing to serious with Girls other then dates. Very opinionated on view points that follow the general attitude of Sharpton and the rest. Now is unemployed living off welfare.

Friend 3: More of a role model to everyone really, MD practices in Neurologist, successful, family 4 kids, big house, nice cars. Conservative affiliation.

My cousin: Half White/Half Black: Grew up in a good family home, money, parents together still. Good looking, played basketball in school, Went to college, got degree, now teaches and coaches HS basketball. Conservative.

Where am I going with this? To me its seems like the one friend thats follow what the supposed leaders of the black community preach, well he has not gotten anywhere and is now living off welfare. The ones that went out, did what they are supposed to, get jobs, wanna be good productive members in society. The one that followed what his supposed leader said and followed that ideology got lost. So we have 4 people, 3 successful free thinking individuals and one that was brainwashed and now sadly unemployed with no motivation to do anything anymore.

But what is your solution to that?

Originally posted by Lestov16
But what is your solution to that?

Don't follow people or listen to people that wanna use you for a power grab or be a political pawn that you can be used one second and thrown out the next.

But that is exactly what Golden is. GOP shitbag Limbaugh is using Golden's dumbassery as a black poster boy to make it appear that his far-right-wing views are actually beneficial to blacks, although anybody black person with a brain (or well....anybody) can tell what misinformed BS propaganda it is.

There seems to be a rule, perhaps a rule applicable generally, but definitely a rule that's applicable to Republicans and Fox News. When they accuse someone of doing something wrong, you can be certain, that they are actually doing the very same thing they accused people of. Prominent examples are "making everything about race", "receiving government subsidies" and "playing the victim".

Yep, that's their MO. Obstruct progress and blame Obama when the public asks for answers. At this point though, with all the info we can access instantly via electronics, there should be a massive decrease in uninformed citizens but sadly, out of infamous US lethargy I guess, there are still large portions of middle-class/lower-class populations who support the GOP, not realizing they are digging their own graves.

Bardock you don't even live in America, don't act like you have the slightest clue whats going on here, you don't.

I don't need to live in America to have an understanding of what is happening there.

Yes absolutely you do. Your view points are invalid because you have no clue how it is. You don't work here, you don't live here, you know a few people online from here, thats it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Yep, that's their MO. Obstruct progress and blame Obama when the public asks for answers. At this point though, with all the info we can access instantly via electronics, there should be a massive decrease in uninformed citizens but sadly, out of infamous US lethargy I guess, there are still large portions of middle-class/lower-class populations who support the GOP, not realizing they are digging their own graves.

Sadly this isn't one issue to blame Obama out, it actually has nothing to do with Obama, thinking this only shows you ignorance, and you are still blinded but democratic>republican war. You ignorance to the real issue is fuel by a political feud and game you actually don't understand. When you move out of the house, get a degree, go to work, pay taxes. You will have a clue about whats going on instead of internet chest beating.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Sadly this isn't one issue to blame Obama out, it actually has nothing to do with Obama, thinking this only shows you ignorance, and you are still blinded but democratic>republican war. You ignorance to the real issue is fuel by a political feud and game you actually don't understand. When you move out of the house, get a degree, go to work, pay taxes. You will have a clue about whats going on instead of internet chest beating.


This isn't even your race. No way in hell do you have more authority on the subject of African-American affairs than me. Also I notice you haven't replied to the my post about the hypocrisy of Golden stating he has an agenda that has nothing to do with partisan politics when Rush Limbaugh is using him as a mouthpiece to bash liberals (ie democrats). Do you agree Golden is a hypocrite?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yes absolutely you do. Your view points are invalid because you have no clue how it is. You don't work here, you don't live here, you know a few people online from here, thats it.

That is a ridiculous POV. And you would reject it if it came to any other place (can you not know anything valid about Canada, the Phillipines, Iraq?).

I do know many people that live in the United States and I follow US news and culture closely. That you have a small, additional, anecdotal data point due to living in the US really carries very little weight.

At any rate, I have lived in the United States in the past as well.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Your view points are invalid because you have no clue how it is. You don't work here, you don't live here, you know a few people online from here, thats it.


The same could be said about your opinion of blacks. Having 4 black friends does not make you an expert on the issues of every member of the ethnicity.

Originally posted by Lestov16
The same could be said about your opinion of blacks. Having 4 black friends does not make you an expert on the issues of every member of the ethnicity.


I have 2 cousin's that are mixed race, but I guess their opinion doesn't count either right? When did I say I was an expert, we talking about the issues and all you can talk about is republican and democrats because you have been blinded to think that's the only problem.

Originally posted by Lestov16
The same could be said about your opinion of blacks. Having 4 black friends does not make you an expert on the issues of every member of the ethnicity.

I think his point that he lives here, was born here, he works here (and with black people), and knows many of them that live here, his viewpoint is much more valid than Marius' but perhaps he does not believe it is greater than yours (ask him).

Dave Chapell did a funny little gameshow on his program based on Jeopardy. The person who won it was a writer for his show who was the crackerest honkey I have ever seen. He was more of an "expert" on the arbitrary 'black culture' questions than any of the black contestants. That's an example of how someone can know more about "black stuff" or "Italian stuff", if you will. It is silly, obviously, so you can disregard it.

The point is, you do not have to be a member of a particular race to be an expert or even highly knowledgeable of the issues that race faces. Granted, that does not mean they have "walked in your shoes" so they cannot directly relate to the feelings of racism that the black community legitimately STILL endures.

Basically, what I'm getting at is it possible for Bardock42 to be more familiar with black culture, their challenges, and the racism that they face than a member of the black community. You don't have to be black to be intimately familiar with black issues, is what I'm getting at.

TE may very well be acutely aware of the same things you are, perhaps more, perhaps less, by mere association and education of the issues his friends endure (and by paying attention in college if his degree focuses on these things).


Edit - I see what you mean, now. You said, "...of every member of the ethnicity." Yes, that's true. But the same is true for almost every person of that same ethnicity, though. I would be willing to bet that no person exists , inside or outside of a particular ethnicity, that is aware of every issue faced by that particular ethnicity. We are approaching a level of omniscience with talk like that.

Originally posted by Lestov16
This isn't even your race. No way in hell do you have more authority on the subject of African-American affairs than me. Also I notice you haven't replied to the my post about the hypocrisy of Golden stating he has an agenda that has nothing to do with partisan politics when Rush Limbaugh is using him as a mouthpiece to bash liberals (ie democrats). Do you agree Golden is a hypocrite?

I don't care to discuss Rush because I don't listen to rush. I'm more interested in what he had to say because I saw truth and no he is not a hypocrite.


Edit: I'll have you know I actually favor most democratic issues, however the current "Democratic Party" has been taking over by radicals, I used to support Obama even.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think his point that he lives here, was born here, he works here (and with black people), and knows many of them that live here, his viewpoint is much more valid than Marius' but perhaps he does not believe it is greater than yours (ask him).

Dave Chapell did a funny little gameshow on his program based on Jeopardy. The person who won it was a writer for his show who was the crackerest honkey I have ever seen. He was more of an "expert" on the arbitrary 'black culture' questions than any of the black contestants. That's an example of how someone can know more about "black stuff" or "Italian stuff", if you will. It is silly, obviously, so you can disregard it.

The point is, you do not have to be a member of a particular race to be an expert or even highly knowledgeable of the issues that race faces. Granted, that does not mean they have "walked in your shoes" so they cannot directly relate to the feelings of racism that the black community legitimately STILL endures.

Basically, what I'm getting at is it possible for Bardock42 to be more familiar with black culture, their challenges, and the racism that they face than a member of the black community. You don't have to be black to be intimately familiar with black issues, is what I'm getting at.

TE may very well be acutely aware of the same things you are, perhaps more, perhaps less, by mere association and education of the issues his friends endure (and by paying attention in college if his degree focuses on these things).


Edit - I see what you mean, now. You said, "...of every member of the ethnicity." Yes, that's true. But the same is true for almost every person of that same ethnicity, though. I would be willing to bet that no person exists , inside or outside of a particular ethnicity, that is aware of every issue faced by that particular ethnicity. We are approaching a level of omniscience with talk like that.

You always impress me with you viewpoints and able to see through the bullshit people try and make seem is there but actaully isn't.

+1

Look TI, if you want to make critiques of the black community, that's fine, but don't use the words of a Limbaugh pawn to support your argument because Limbaugh and his cronies persistently produce BS GOP propaganda, which obviously makes Golden's non-partisan talk hypocritical BS and thus makes his entire stance untrustworthy and scrutinizible.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I don't care to discuss Rush because I don't listen to rush. I'm more interested in what he had to say because I saw truth and no he is not a hypocrite.


Edit: I'll have you know I actually favor most democratic issues, however the current "Democratic Party" has been taking over by radicals, I used to support Obama even.

Which radicals?

Originally posted by BackFire
Which radicals?

Ya! There are so many to choose from. Which ones?!!!

I was alerted to problems in this thread. Is there something I need to address?

There also seems to be a lot of Kool Aid drinking from people with the posts I've read. It's a shame really. Too many people get caught up with the hype from either side. Many politicians get into politics to make a difference. Very few are not corrupted in some way later.

Both sides have made use of fear and divisiveness over the past 10-15 years to take away our liberties, freedoms and rights. Both sides say they're for *insert important ideal*, but at the end of the day it's just a power grab.

The last 50 years has shown that most every major piece of large legislation has either failed utterly, stripped us of freedom, increased the deficit, or cost lives.

It's a rinse and repeat cycle. There are debates from as far back as the '60s where the same arguments are occurring. And with every repeat of the cycle, we the people end up losing more freedom, money and liberty.

I really hope some of you wake up and see what is actually going on.

Anyway, let's get back on topic and respect each other a little more. That way I don't have to come back in this thread.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Look TI, if you want to make critiques of the black community, that's fine, but don't use the words of a Limbaugh pawn to support your argument because Limbaugh and his cronies persistently produce BS GOP propaganda, which obviously makes Golden's non-partisan talk hypocritical BS and thus makes his entire stance untrustworthy and scrutinizible.

All you can hear is Limbaugh, Limbaugh, Limbaugh. Did I post a snippet of Limbaugh? No I didn't, that is all you can hear because you are so bleeding raging about something someone told you. And to add, since all you can talk about is Limbaugh, show me anything Rush has done against the black community. Then prove to me that James Golden is a hypocrite, as well as prove he is brainwashed by Limbaugh as well.

Might as well say you are then brainwashed by the liberal agenda. But I would dare not say that because then you would be calling the kettle black. It goes both ways you can't sit here and claim not to be brainwashed by the liberal agenda, and then say "Look he's brainwashed by Rush, but no no, not I."

Originally posted by Badabing
I was alerted to problems in this thread. Is there something I need to address?

There also seems to be a lot of Kool Aid drinking from people with the posts I've read. It's a shame really. Too many people get caught up with the hype from either side. Many politicians get into politics to make a difference. Very few are not corrupted in some way later.

Both sides have made use of fear and divisiveness over the past 10-15 years to take away our liberties, freedoms and rights. Both sides say they're for *insert important ideal*, but at the end of the day it's just a power grab.

The last 50 years has shown that most every major piece of large legislation has either failed utterly, stripped us of freedom, increased the deficit, or cost lives.

It's a rinse and repeat cycle. There are debates from as far back as the '60s where the same arguments are occurring. And with every repeat of the cycle, we the people end up losing more freedom, money and liberty.

I really hope some of you wake up and see what is actually going on.

Anyway, let's get back on topic and respect each other a little more. That way I don't have to come back in this thread.

This is a legitimate respectable unbiased opinion.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
show me anything Rush has done against the black community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_FAJUFutyw

He's a racist pile of trash listened to by other piles of trash.

Originally posted by BackFire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_FAJUFutyw

He's a racist pile of trash listened to by other piles of trash.

Thanks,

Did rush sing the song or produce it, seems aired something that caught his attention, I'm not defending rush or his show, nor do I really care about him.

What is your opinion of this video of Congressman Allen West?


d8XKp__d9jI

Edit:updated video to right one.

woN85Qw8wLw

Originally posted by BackFire
...He's a racist pile of trash listened to by other piles of trash.

Didn't know you were a Rush fan.

These black guys that often support the Fox News POV (Allen West, Jason Riley, etc.) seem to parrot the myopic and convenient "truths" that white conservatives in the US believe. It is nice for people like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity to have a black person to point to that will say their horrible and incorrect opinions for them. Their talking points, however, never really address the issues that black people face in the US, and more importantly, they never ever address what white people can do to work against the injustices faced by minorities. It just takes all responsibility, all the advantages that white people have out of the equation, and pretend the world in which we live did not have years of systematic and legal oppression, and continues to have cultural and societal oppression to this very day.

It's cute how the titles of the two Allen West video contradict themselves. One says that institutional racism is dead, and then that the institution of the liberals are the real racists.

Allen West is a joke. Republicans parade him out in a feeble attempt to deflect accusations that they are racist, like someone pathetically citing the fact that they have black acquaintances to prove that they aren't racist. "Look, I tolerate having black people around me, I'm not racist!"

It's all extremely naive and ignores too much to be meaningful. Racism will be "dead" when a man named Jose doesn't start getting more job offers once he changes his name to "Joe" on his resume. Or when the incarceration rate among black people isn't so far above that of white people. Or when middle eastern people don't get far more "random searches" in airports than white people.

Why do I get the sense this a anti republican forum?

I'll have you know that the traditional democratic party is more conservative then the current republican part and democratic party together in most all cases.

Look at Clinton, he was a true democratic president and an amazing president.

He did amazing things for the black communities and actually was labeled the first black president.

Q3GEu9KA0nA

JIMMY KIMMEL: Do you miss being the first African-American president? I feel like that was -- I feel like you were cheated out of that, that was taken from you.

BILL CLINTON: Yeah, well -- let me say this. I consider it -- I was incredibly fortunate that I was born in a little town in Arkansas and raised by my grandparents largely and my great-uncle and -aunt when my widowed mother went off to become a nurse. And my grandparents were poor white Southerners, who as a class were among the most racially prejudiced people in the South, and they weren't. My granddad ran a country store and the vast majority of his customers were African-American.



I really love this guy. Its good he's getting back in the white house in 2016.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Why do I get the sense this a anti republican forum?

I'll have you know that the traditional democratic party is more conservative then the current republican part and democratic party together in most all cases.


This is bullshit. The republican party is trying to become as conservative as possible. Trying to remove as many moderates as possible and embrace their party's lunacy about various ridiculous social issues. To say that the "old" democratic party was more conservative is laughable.

Both parties were far more moderate than their current incarnations in the 90's.

Originally posted by BackFire
This is bullshit. The republican party is trying to become as conservative as possible. Trying to remove as many moderates as possible and embrace their party's lunacy about various ridiculous social issues. To say that the "old" democratic party was more conservative is laughable.

Both parties were far more moderate than their current incarnations in the 90's.

Of course, the Demarcates have already removed all of their moderates. The Republicans are playing catch up.

I know for a fact that the Demarcates were more conservative in the past (not more then the Republicans) because I used to be a Demarcate until the radicals took over my party.

JFK would be a Republican today.

Yes, both parties were more moderate before, as I said.

Is this the part where someone mentions Saul Alinksy?

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, both parties were more moderate before, as I said.

Is this the part where someone mentions Saul Alinksy? Saul Alinksy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Of course, the Demarcates have already removed all of their moderates. The Republicans are playing catch up.

I know for a fact that the Demarcates were more conservative in the past (not more then the Republicans) because I used to be a Demarcate until the radicals took over my party.

JFK would be a Republican today.

JFK would be a republican and its starting to look like Bill Clinton would be one too the way he is going, I dont know if thats how radical the group has gone or he is just not running in the same direction, I keep up to date on him and he is very attuned to what is going on in the country.

I do notice though that this forum is very left and agree's with most radical viewpoints. So goes America, I guess goes for here as well. However all of this is a grain of salt considering Obama's approval rating is record low and getting lower by the month.

Just today he apologized for America, to America's saying about the ferguson situation and guess what, they are protesting in ferguson once again. Does he know what he is doing or is he just a complete idiot?

I think he is both.

5m_IUIJF9zQ

Who are these radicals and what are these radical ideas that they've implemented while governing?

Bill Clinton: my favorite modern President. He just had to f*ck up his legacy with the BJs.

Originally posted by BackFire
Who are these radicals and what are these radical ideas that they've implemented while governing? I'm the radical, and my radical idea is to rule!!!!11

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Of course, the Demarcates have already removed all of their moderates. The Republicans are playing catch up.

I know for a fact that the Demarcates were more conservative in the past (not more then the Republicans) because I used to be a Demarcate until the radicals took over my party.

JFK would be a Republican today.

The general consensus is that politically both parties as a whole have moved to the Right/conservative side of the spectrum

eg Reagan in today's political environment would be a Right-leaning moderate, or an outright "liberal" to some conservatives.

-Raised taxes multiple times
-Negotiated with the "evil" USSR
-Bailed out of Lebanon after US soldiers were attacked
-Amnesty to illegals
-Grew the Federal Gov
-Massively increased the deficit
-Traded weapons to Iran for hostages. (allegedly involved)

He did some things that the far-right talking heads accuse the Democrats of doing and claim as to what is ruining the country,

Originally posted by BackFire
Who are these radicals and what are these radical ideas that they've implemented while governing?

You want me to go over all the idea's, like the 100-200 laws passed a day in California pushed through by Nancy Pelosi and the radicals in state side Sacramento?

Or how California has ousted all manufacturing jobs, which happened to be the biggest state for manufacturing for the last 30-40 years up until the last 5?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do some googling, Obama ranks more conservative than Kennedy when it comes to positions and actions, Kennedy who you claimed would be a Conservative today.

hysterical What?! hysterical Obama? The most Liberal president to ever take the office is...hysterical

All this tells me is that you, and the people you Google are so far left its unbelievable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
hysterical What?! hysterical Obama? The most Liberal president to ever take the office is...hysterical

All this tells me is that you, and the people you Google are so far left its unbelievable.

Or don't research. No loss to me. But you really shouldn't get all your info from Fox News.

Mother****er

Mother****er

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You want me to go over all the idea's, like the 100-200 laws passed a day in California pushed through by Nancy Pelosi and the radicals in state side Sacramento?

Or you can just name one and explain why it's radical. Or even better would be something on the national stage that is the product of radical liberalism. Or just anything at all that isn't just regurgitated Fox News talking points about vague radicals doing vaguely radical things.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Or how California has ousted all manufacturing jobs, which happened to be the biggest state for manufacturing for the last 30-40 years up until the last 5?

Ousted how? By making companies pay taxes?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do some googling, Obama ranks more conservative than Kennedy when it comes to positions and actions, Kennedy who you claimed would be a Conservative today.

I did some googling. I also used my brain to make a different conclusion than you.


He's right on some issues and left on others. He cannot be cookie-cut as pure leftist or pure right.


He's right on military issues. Far right. More right than Bush. That's scary.


He's left on social issues. Very left.

He's left on Government spending and Government's role.

He's left on taxes.

He's left on environment.

He's super far right on "police-state" stuff. Worse than Bush.



So, overall, I do not see him as either left or right. He cannot be called a moderate because he's too left and too right on issues. Really, he's a politician with varied political beliefs. He is definitely not a moderate. A moderate would not be so far left and right on various issues. He could better be described as a political extremist that is trying too hard to appease the left and right.

he's left on taxes as in he wants to restore the clinton era rates, right? hardly a far left position, considering that tax rates are at the lowest they've been in a very long time. compared to pre-reagan rates his tax policies would be considered reasonably conservative. it is only in the current political context, where the country has shifted to the right somewhat considerably regarding taxes over the years, that his tax policies come across as leftist.

i'd agree he's a leftist in regard to social issues, though still not enough of a leftist for my liking.

i also agree that he's right wing in regard to the military and the police state... though i wouldn't necessarily say he is any 'worse' than bush in terms of his intent. i see it more as he has been building upon a lot of the precedents that bush first set.

edit: i disagree that he's not a 'moderate' because each of these issues you are listing have their own left/right spectrum as the country evolves. for instance... the country has generally been shifting to the left in regard to social issues for some time now. so what was a 'leftist' viewpoint decades ago might be conservative today. same deal as i explained with the taxes above. all in all, with each issue you listed, i'd say obama's stances are more or less aligned with the status quo. both the 'far left' and 'far right' stances you highlighted are well within the bounds of mainstream american political opinion imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did some googling. I also used my brain to make a different conclusion than you.


He's right on some issues and left on others. He cannot be cookie-cut as pure leftist or pure right.


He's right on military issues. Far right. More right than Bush. That's scary.


He's left on social issues. Very left.

He's left on Government spending and Government's role.

He's left on taxes.

He's left on environment.

He's super far right on "police-state" stuff. Worse than Bush.



So, overall, I do not see him as either left or right. He cannot be called a moderate because he's too left and too right on issues. Really, he's a politician with varied political beliefs. He is definitely not a moderate. A moderate would not be so far left and right on various issues. He could better be described as a political extremist that is trying too hard to appease the left and right.

My conclusion?

But looking up positions and comparing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did some googling. I also used my brain to make a different conclusion than you.


He's right on some issues and left on others. He cannot be cookie-cut as pure leftist or pure right.


He's right on military issues. Far right. More right than Bush. That's scary.


He's left on social issues. Very left.

He's left on Government spending and Government's role.

He's left on taxes.

He's left on environment.

He's super far right on "police-state" stuff. Worse than Bush.



So, overall, I do not see him as either left or right. He cannot be called a moderate because he's too left and too right on issues. Really, he's a politician with varied political beliefs. He is definitely not a moderate. A moderate would not be so far left and right on various issues. He could better be described as a political extremist that is trying too hard to appease the left and right.

Worse is, he lets the country and polls lead him, he went back into Iraq kicking and screaming because of public opinion. He could have gone back in there month or years before or left a small contengency force, but no he just had to pull everyone out and look what happened.

Bush ordered the removal of troops in Iraq, that's not on Obama.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Worse is, he lets the country and polls lead him, he went back into Iraq kicking and screaming because of public opinion. He could have gone back in there month or years before or left a small contengency force, but no he just had to pull everyone out and look what happened.

IIRC, already covered this in another thread. Maybe the ISIS one?

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Originally posted by Robtard
Or don't research. No loss to me. But you really shouldn't get all your info from Fox News.

If I based what I know only on fox news, I would have a lot of very nasty things to say about Obama, but I have never said anything bad about the man. By the way, being the most liberal president is not a bad thing.

Originally posted by red g jacks
he's left on taxes as in he wants to restore the clinton era rates, right?

He wants to cut taxes on the poor and middle class and raise taxes on the rich: a leftist policy in America.

Information is a bit outdated, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidate
s,_2008#Tax_policy

But you can go to politicalfactcheck.com and go through all of his tax-related promises to see which ones fall on the political spectrum.


There should be no question that he holds leftist tax policies. Any politician that says he or she wants to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor is a leftist on their tax policies: the actual taxes collected compared to historical data is meaningless when talking about whether a tax policy is leftist or right: it is how those taxes are collected that determines where they sit on the political spectrum. I should not that I support a strong tax policy on the "rich." I prefer a flat tax or no income tax, however.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i also agree that he's right wing in regard to the military and the police state... though i wouldn't necessarily say he is any 'worse' than bush in terms of his intent. i see it more as he has been building upon a lot of the precedents that bush first set.

IMO, things like "intent" don't matter nearly as much as what actually happened. Obama has expanded Bush era military operations (while running on a platform that he would pull out of Iraq and close down Gitmo) and made the police state business much worse.

That's worse than Bush regardless of who intended to do what: what actually got done is what makes Obama worse.

Originally posted by red g jacks
edit: i disagree that he's not a 'moderate' because each of these issues you are listing have their own left/right spectrum as the country evolves. for instance... the country has generally been shifting to the left in regard to social issues for some time now. so what was a 'leftist' viewpoint decades ago might be conservative today. same deal as i explained with the taxes above. all in all, with each issue you listed, i'd say obama's stances are more or less aligned with the status quo. both the 'far left' and 'far right' stances you highlighted are well within the bounds of mainstream american political opinion imo.

He's not a moderate, overall, but he can be a moderate on some issues, for sure.

If he were averaged he would be left, for America, but I do not think comparisons like those are fair. If that same average was compared to other countries, he'd be considered right.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bush ordered the removal of troops in Iraq, that's not on Obama.

Really?

And this whole time, for years, I've been giving Obama credit for that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

And this whole time, for years, I've been giving Obama credit for that.




Yeah, he, in fact, tried to negotiate leaving troops until the very end, but the Iraqi government wouldn't allow it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I based what I know only on fox news, I would have a lot of very nasty things to say about Obama, but I have never said anything bad about the man. By the way, being the most liberal president is not a bad thing.

It wasn't a matter of being a "bad thing" concerning your "most liberal president ever" statement. It's a matter of it being incorrect.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, he, in fact, tried to negotiate leaving troops until the very end, but the Iraqi government wouldn't allow it.

I remember that stuff but I thought it was posturing on Bush's part. I didn't know he actually gave the orders to leave: I thought that was all Obama.

Looks like I need to educate myself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He wants to cut taxes on the poor and middle class and raise taxes on the rich: a leftist policy in America.

Information is a bit outdated, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidate
s,_2008#Tax_policy

But you can go to politicalfactcheck.com and go through all of his tax-related promises to see which ones fall on the political spectrum. link doesn't work for me.


we've always had a progressive tax rate so we've always been 'redistributing the wealth.' in fact we do a lot less redistributing of wealth today than we did historically in the post war era.
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0901/nyt_tax.gif





i see him as a moderate. he is left leaning yea but ultimately he is way more willing to compromise than most leftists want him to.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

And this whole time, for years, I've been giving Obama credit for that.






Don't be fooled bud.

Obama pulled the troops, out, he ran his whole campaign on it.

C-Ea92VcFqg

Of coarse people will say thats not Obama saying this and its an impostor.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bush ordered the removal of troops in Iraq, that's not on Obama.

C-Ea92VcFqg

Proof says you are wrong.

See above video.

Quit making things up, you don't even live here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bush ordered the removal of troops in Iraq, that's not on Obama.

Are you really this brainwashed, it wasn't even Bush. It was an agreement Obama pushed over on Iraq and the military to pull them out. I can't believe how bias and blind you are to the truth. It's really a shame. You don't watch the news as much as you say you do cause you missed this one.

uS__hLWBc-8

So we got one group of posters criticizing Obama because he dovishly pulled the troops out, and another group criticizing that he's some kind of jingoist warhawk. No wonder the guy can't get a break.

Originally posted by Lestov16
So we got one group of posters criticizing Obama because he dovishly pulled the troops out, and another group criticizing that he's some kind of jingoist warhawk. No wonder the guy can't get a break.

The point is people are lying about facts and trying to alter them to solidify their stance.

He clearly said here and takes credit for pulling troops out, and then he says he didn't. Videos don't lie.

C-Ea92VcFqg

He's immune to that link. I tried it on 9/05 and 9/25.

He did what Bush ordered. I don't care what political spin he put on it, he should not get credit for removing troops from Iraq, because it wasn't his order, he just bumbled into it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He did what Bush ordered. I don't care what political spin he put on it, he should not get credit for removing troops from Iraq, because it wasn't his order, he just bumbled into it.

Nah, what the video said he did is what he did.

He is the president.

I know you didn't watch it, when he came to germany did you shake his hand or something cause it force is strong with you.