So when will it be okay to criticize Obama without being called racist?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="shoeman12"] sort of like how nancy pelosi and the democrats wanted us to fail in iraq and called the troop surge a failure when it was obvious to even the media that we had won?shoeman12

being that its done nothing but cost the US 800 billion for trying to get oil and that they should have avoided it in the first place, and that its different from a presidential term because if the war fails right away, you just pull out, if a president fails right away, well now you gotta wait 4 years to get someone else in there.

The point is even if you won, you still lost.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"][QUOTE="xaos"] We did? Neat, I'll get that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner back outlinks136

being that its done nothing but cost the US 800 billion for trying to get oil and that they should have avoided it in the first place, and that its different from a presidential term because if the war fails right away, you just pull out, if a president fails right away, well now you gotta wait 4 years to get someone else in there.

The point is even if you won, you still lost.

Stop the clock! Was anyone keeping track? It's been maybe a day or two since the last topic like this. Has to be a record right? On-Topic: The stimulus bill was necessary because the previous president ran our economy straight into the ground. The non-stimulative parts of the bill are roughly 1% of the overall bill. This ground has been covered before. I am not going to call you a racist. However, I AM going to say that you're jumping the gun a bit on your judgment of the effects of the bill. It is way too early to determine whether or not the bill was a good one or not. The fact of the matter though is that the consensus of pretty much every single mainstream economist in the country was that some sort of stimulus package was absolutely necessary, and that it had to be a huge one to have any real impact on staving off a depression. It'll probably take AT LEAST a year or two to figure out if this was the right combination package or not.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"] violence is way down, the elections happened without any major violence, bush wouldn't have started negotiating a troop withdrawl if we hadn't succeeded. but regardless of whether or not you think we won, my point is the liberals wanted us to fail to advance their political agenda.shoeman12

being that its done nothing but cost the US 800 billion for trying to get oil and that they should have avoided it in the first place, and that its different from a presidential term because if the war fails right away, you just pull out, if a president fails right away, well now you gotta wait 4 years to get someone else in there.

The point is even if you won, you still lost.

Because people are really dumb and if you insult anyone who's not white its automatically racism.Helbrec

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"] violence is way down, the elections happened without any major violence, bush wouldn't have started negotiating a troop withdrawl if we hadn't succeeded. but regardless of whether or not you think we won, my point is the liberals wanted us to fail to advance their political agenda.shoeman12

being that its done nothing but cost the US 800 billion for trying to get oil and that they should have avoided it in the first place, and that its different from a presidential term because if the war fails right away, you just pull out, if a president fails right away, well now you gotta wait 4 years to get someone else in there.

The point is even if you won, you still lost.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848021.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

to sum it if Bush decided in april 2001 BEFORE 911 to invade Iraq so the western world would have better access to Iraq's oil, which would help the oil executives that funded bush's election campaign and his own stocks as well as his cabinit members ties in the oil market.

in fact the CIA before hand said Iraq wasn't a threat

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4225

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/10/iraq.usa

Just a question here, but why criticize him at all? Why not support him in every possible way that you can?

EDIT: Okay, actually that was TWO questions... :P

[QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Bush isn't in office anymore. Anyhow, the bill of the entire Iraq campaign doesn't even come close to matching the damage obama has already in just his first month in office.UT_Wrestler

Never heard of this.

I'm sure it was always.

never even made it past the primaries, but people got WAAAY to wrapped up in the fact that he's the first black candidate ever, which he really isn't, he's biracial and is half white, and was raised by the white side of his family.UT_Wrestler

Do your criticisms usually contain racist comments like this one in it?

Any white candidate running for president with his track record would have never even made it past the primaries,

UT_Wrestler

The so called $787 billion spending bill is in actuality an exorbitant $3.27 TRILLION, this due to an estimated $744 billion in new debt that this legislation will create, and $2.527 trillion in new spending on programs the bill will spawn over the next decade. Outrageous.peicher

LOL most biased source of media I've seen used as an actual valid reference.

-The plan has more than $3 billion in "neighborhood stabilization" and Community Development Block Grant funding, much of which may go to benefit ACORN, a low-income housing and voter registration "community" organization that is under federal investigation for its suspicious voter registration practices. nice way to spin this tad. lol

-$1.3 billion to bailout AMTRAK, the perennial money-loser railroad. AMTRAK...ok I thought this was bailed out long ago.

-$1 billion for educational programs, including courses on sexually transmitted diseases. Do conservatives really not support the education of the youth on the subject of sex? religion plays too much of a role there I suppose:roll:

-$30 million for restoration of wetlands to be spent in the San Francisco Bay Area – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district. The money will go in part to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. ... What else is this money going to? nice spin.

-$200 million for a low-pollution, coal-fired power plant in President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois. Where should we put these energy plants instead? low pollution is good and $200 million isn't much compared to the bill.

-$45 million for ATV four-wheeler trails, and government office renovations, according to RNC Chairman Michael Steele. REBULICAN NATIONAL CHAIRMAN...how useful. I seem to forgot which group like hunting and using ATV roads...oh yea the NRA/republican party.

-$200 million to provide computers to community colleges. education important. just because you were born rich and your parents can send to you a fancy college doesn't mean everyone else was.

-$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts. idk.

-Over $650 million in coupons to help consumers buy digital TV converter-box coupons. I see no problem with this since the conversion will happen leaving millions without signals...

-A reported $300 million for hybrid vehicles and electric-powered cars. According to the Washington Times, this item will include buying golf carts for federal workers. Hybrid Vehicles=GOOD. Golf-carts...wtf? big republican trucks that this doesn't help...lol they're soo manly.

Newsmax

my commentary is included :)

Oh and I live in Idaho so if you want a more Red (communist?) state I suggest you go to Alaska:P

on topic: wait after his honeymoon (1st 100 days). Every president is sort of given this time as a "critic free time." because later you can tear him a new **** when ever you want.

Any time I say something critical about Obama, people call me racist and say I don't like him just because he's black, which is absolutely ridiculous. I would have never voted for the most liberal and inexperienced candidate in US history regardless of his skin pigment. Any white candidate running for president with his track record would have never even made it past the primaries, but people got WAAAY to wrapped up in the fact that he's the first black candidate ever, which he really isn't, he's biracial and is half white, and was raised by the white side of his family.

Anyhow, he's just signed into law the single most expensive, irresponsible, pork-filled bill in American history which has almost nothing to do with actually stimulating the economy, and yet the media still acts like he's the second coming of Jesus Christ. Now I could have actually respected Obama if he had vetoed the bill and told them to go back and make serious revisions before he would sign it, but no, that would be way too much to expect the most liberal president in US history to oppose his own party.

So are you still going to call me racist or will you actually look at what I'm criticizing about him?

UT_Wrestler

This part is racist. Obama is a very qualified idividual regaurdless of race, people wanted change.

Prolly give it a few months. Elraptor

Theres a dude in Oklahoma(?) who got arrested and put in jail for having a bumber sticker that said, "Abort Obama, not babies." Then when he got out after they couldnt charge him, he had the SS at his house courtesy of the police. ATT-Fighter

Wow, that guy's messed up:|

I get that occasionally too. I just let it roll off my back, I blame it on not having a real counter argument.fidosim

Don't judge all Obama supporters on the idiots who have no better argument than to call people who disagree with him racist. That's just about as ignorant as the people who are calling you racist in the first place.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]I get that occasionally too. I just let it roll off my back, I blame it on not having a real counter argument.chessmaster1989

Don't judge all Obama supporters on the idiots who have no better argument than to call people who disagree with him racist. That's just about as ignorant as the people who are calling you racist in the first place.

Any time I say something critical about Obama, people call me racist and say I don't like him just because he's black, which is absolutely ridiculous. I would have never voted for the most liberal and inexperienced candidate in US history regardless of his skin pigment. Any white candidate running for president with his track record would have never even made it past the primaries, but people got WAAAY to wrapped up in the fact that he's the first black candidate ever, which he really isn't, he's biracial and is half white, and was raised by the white side of his family.

Anyhow, he's just signed into law the single most expensive, irresponsible, pork-filled bill in American history which has almost nothing to do with actually stimulating the economy, and yet the media still acts like he's the second coming of Jesus Christ. Now I could have actually respected Obama if he had vetoed the bill and told them to go back and make serious revisions before he would sign it, but no, that would be way too much to expect the most liberal president in US history to oppose his own party.

So are you still going to call me racist or will you actually look at what I'm criticizing about him?

UT_Wrestler

He's half white. So, you're only half racist, lol

:D

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"]I get that occasionally too. I just let it roll off my back, I blame it on not having a real counter argument.ATT-Fighter

Don't judge all Obama supporters on the idiots who have no better argument than to call people who disagree with him racist. That's just about as ignorant as the people who are calling you racist in the first place.

As opposed to the idiots who were shouting "Terrorist terrorist terrorist, socialist socialist socialist, not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizens"? I'm sick of hearing that crap, and at least the "black" and "not Bush" claims are undeniably valid.

As opposed to the idiots who were shouting "Terrorist terrorist terrorist, socialist socialist socialist, not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizens"? I'm sick of hearing that crap, and at least the "black" and "not Bush" claims are undeniably valid.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="ATT-Fighter"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Don't judge all Obama supporters on the idiots who have no better argument than to call people who disagree with him racist. That's just about as ignorant as the people who are calling you racist in the first place.

chessmaster1989

As opposed to the idiots who were shouting "Terrorist terrorist terrorist, socialist socialist socialist, not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizens"? I'm sick of hearing that crap, and at least the "black" and "not Bush" claims are undeniably valid.

And this was due to his ties with terrorist, saying he wants to "spread the wealth around," and the news media never really digging into his past and setting the record straight. Sure, alot of it was petty and ignorant, but it wasnt really taken seriously. Not many people didnt vote for him becuase he was black but many people did vote for him becuase he was black.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

As opposed to the idiots who were shouting "Terrorist terrorist terrorist, socialist socialist socialist, not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizens"? I'm sick of hearing that crap, and at least the "black" and "not Bush" claims are undeniably valid.

fidosim

Yeah...

Honestly, I was disappointed to see John McCain abandon his true ideology (think; McCain of 2000) and try to pander to the far right; and, Sarah Palin was simply a joke-she actually contributed to the crap about "palling around with terrorists," etc.

The McCain of 2000, running with a respectable running mate, would have been a good ticket, and might very well have won.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ATT-Fighter"] But its the idiots who got him elected. "Black black black, change change change, not bush not bush not bush." Thats all Ive heard for over a year.ATT-Fighter

As opposed to the idiots who were shouting "Terrorist terrorist terrorist, socialist socialist socialist, not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizens"? I'm sick of hearing that crap, and at least the "black" and "not Bush" claims are undeniably valid.

And this was due to his ties with terrorist, saying he wants to "spread the wealth around," and the news media never really digging into his past and setting the record straight. Sure, alot of it was petty and ignorant, but it wasnt really taken seriously. Not many people didnt vote for him becuase he was black but many people did vote for him becuase he was black.

Well, it's fairly obvious that most people didn't take that seriously (except, perhaps, for people who were already going to vote for McCain/Palin anyway), but I would like to see some stats on "many people...[voting] for him because he was black."

As opposed to the idiots who were shouting "Terrorist terrorist terrorist, socialist socialist socialist, not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizen not a naturalized citizens"? I'm sick of hearing that crap, and at least the "black" and "not Bush" claims are undeniably valid.

Yeah...

Honestly, I was disappointed to see John McCain abandon his true ideology (think; McCain of 2000) and try to pander to the far right; and, Sarah Palin was simply a joke-she actually contributed to the crap about "palling around with terrorists," etc.

The McCain of 2000, running with a respectable running mate, would have been a good ticket, and might very well have won.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="fidosim"] I'm not suggesting that every Obama supporter resorts to that kind of attack, and there were undeniably some outrageous comments made on the Republican side during the campaign. I knew all was lost when people were shouting "kill him" about Obama at McCain's rallies. It's just frustrating when people resort to such a baseless attack so quickly.fidosim

Yeah...

Honestly, I was disappointed to see John McCain abandon his true ideology (think; McCain of 2000) and try to pander to the far right; and, Sarah Palin was simply a joke-she actually contributed to the crap about "palling around with terrorists," etc.

The McCain of 2000, running with a respectable running mate, would have been a good ticket, and might very well have won.

I agree with your last point.

If I could have chosen one of the Republicans from the primaries to be our president in 2008, I would have chosen John McCain. If I could have chosen his vice president (one he might have picked, that is), I would have chosen Joe Lieberman.

That's a ticket (McCain of 2000/Lieberman) I wouldn't have minded seeing in the White House. I prefer Obama/Biden still, though.

Well, it's fairly obvious that most people didn't take that seriously (except, perhaps, for people who were already going to vote for McCain/Palin anyway), but I would like to see some stats on "many people...voting for him because he was black." chessmaster1989

I did actually see a poll on CNN that showed that the vast majority of people who said race was a factor in their decision supported Obama.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Well, it's fairly obvious that most people didn't take that seriously (except, perhaps, for people who were already going to vote for McCain/Palin anyway), but I would like to see some stats on "many people...voting for him because he was black." fidosim

I did actually see a poll on CNN that showed that the vast majority of people who said race was a factor in their decision supported Obama.

The polls I have seen (I have no links) showed about as many people voting for Obama because he's black as people voting for McCain because he's black.

That said, it's impossible to say exactly how people acted when they actually voted.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"][QUOTE="links136"]

being that its done nothing but cost the US 800 billion for trying to get oil and that they should have avoided it in the first place, and that its different from a presidential term because if the war fails right away, you just pull out, if a president fails right away, well now you gotta wait 4 years to get someone else in there.

The point is even if you won, you still lost.

links136

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848021.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

to sum it if Bush decided in april 2001 BEFORE 911 to invade Iraq so the western world would have better access to Iraq's oil, which would help the oil executives that funded bush's election campaign and his own stocks as well as his cabinit members ties in the oil market.

in fact the CIA before hand said Iraq wasn't a threat

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4225

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/10/iraq.usa

nothing?

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="shoeman12"] prove it was for oil.links136

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848021.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

to sum it if Bush decided in april 2001 BEFORE 911 to invade Iraq so the western world would have better access to Iraq's oil, which would help the oil executives that funded bush's election campaign and his own stocks as well as his cabinit members ties in the oil market.

in fact the CIA before hand said Iraq wasn't a threat

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4225

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/10/iraq.usa

nothing?

When someone asks you for proof and you actually provide some, they don't usually respond :lol:.

Or did you just want one of these:

Any time I say something critical about Obama, people call me racistUT_Wrestler

I actually don't believe you. In fact, I think you're making it up to make Liberals look bad and portray them as having nothing to counter your argument other than the racist claim.

If people are calling you racist, then you must be interjecting race into every criticism of Obama.