NAACP president: Black people worse off under Obama

Dungheap said:
Look, I don't mind that you have your principals and are completely uncompromising. That's great. Seriously. But to pretend that there are no real world consequences to that decision is insane. And that's all you're doing.
Click to expand...

To pretend that Greens lost Al Gore an election that he couldn't even win his home state in is insane .. as is to suggest that he wouldn't have done the same about face that Obama has.

I do admit that possiblity less likely because Gore is not a corporatist.

But it was people like me and many other Greens who fought against faith-based paperless, audit-less electronic voting .. which I suspect is the real culprit of Gore's loss..
 
blackascoal said:
To pretend that Greens lost Al Gore an election that he couldn't even win his home state in is insane .. as is to suggest that he wouldn't have done the same about face that Obama has.

I do admit that possiblity less likely because Gore is not a corporatist.

But it was people like me and many other Greens who fought against faith-based paperless, audit-less electronic voting .. which I suspect is the real culprit of Gore's loss..
Click to expand...

There were a lot of factors in Gore's loss. But one is surely the Nader voters who believed the fabrication that Gore & Bush were the same.

The Iraq War resulted. I don't know how those voters rationalize that.
 
blackascoal said:
To pretend that Greens lost Al Gore an election that he couldn't even win his home state in is insane .. as is to suggest that he wouldn't have done the same about face that Obama has.

I do admit that possiblity less likely because Gore is not a corporatist.

But it was people like me and many other Greens who fought against faith-based paperless, audit-less electronic voting .. which I suspect is the real culprit of Gore's loss..
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about just the 2000 election (though I did offer up that example, to be fair). I'm talking about your entire approach to politics. You chastize others for selling out and accepting least-bad policy outcomes while failing to recognnize the very real downside to rigid principal-based inflexibility.

Least-bad policy outcomes improve people's lives in very real and concrete ways, and have done a hell of a lot more good in the world than never-adopted principals.
 
Thing1 said:
That's sort of a generalization. In what way do you mean?

I agree that people who are classified as long-term unemployed definitely fit your characterization above. But the jobs situation today is MUCH better than it was last year at this time, which in turn was better than it was the year prior, which in turn was MUCH better than it was in 2009, when Obama took office.
Click to expand...


Just like every president before him, he IS responsible for what takes place under his watch....

Its only until he became the Messiah, that he is suddenly responsible for nothing during his reign...
Its always,

Bush's fault,
Republicans are the fault,
the Right is at fault,
Conservatives are at fault,
Congress is at fault,
the House is at fault,
Wall Street is at fault,
Corporations are at fault,
the rich is at fault,
the NRA is at fault,
gun owners are at fault,
even Fox News is at fault
etc. etc. etc.

We still even hear some pinheads blame Reagan, Gingrich, and others long gone that have had no control over
anything for decades....
 
NOVA said:
Just like every president before him, he IS responsible for what takes place under his watch....

Its only until he became the Messiah, that he is suddenly responsible for nothing during his reign...
Its always,

Bush's fault,
Republicans are the fault,
the Right is at fault,
Conservatives are at fault,
Congress is at fault,
the House is at fault,
Wall Street is at fault,
Corporations are at fault,
the rich is at fault,
the NRA is at fault,
gun owners are at fault,
even Fox News is at fault
etc. etc. etc.

We still even hear some pinheads blame Reagan, Gingrich, and others long gone that have had no control over
anything for decades....
Click to expand...

History affects us all, that is just the way it is, and kicking and screaming doesn't change that fact.
 
NOVA said:
Just like every president before him, he IS responsible for what takes place under his watch....

Its only until he became the Messiah, that he is suddenly responsible for nothing during his reign...
Its always,

Bush's fault,
Republicans are the fault,
the Right is at fault,
Conservatives are at fault,
Congress is at fault,
the House is at fault,
Wall Street is at fault,
Corporations are at fault,
the rich is at fault,
the NRA is at fault,
gun owners are at fault,
even Fox News is at fault
etc. etc. etc.

We still even hear some pinheads blame Reagan, Gingrich, and others long gone that have had no control over
anything for decades....
Click to expand...

Guess you didn't read my post. I said that the job situation has improved under Obama.

I didn't say anything about Bush. Yikes.
 
Thing1 said:
There were a lot of factors in Gore's loss. But one is surely the Nader voters who believed the fabrication that Gore & Bush were the same.

The Iraq War resulted. I don't know how those voters rationalize that.
Click to expand...

Look around you today.

How is it even possible that you can't rationalize what they were thinking?

Obama is a corporatist, Rockefeller republican, and conducts the Bush foreign policy on steroids.

We exist in a state of perpetual war UNDER OBAMA.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm not talking about just the 2000 election (though I did offer up that example, to be fair). I'm talking about your entire approach to politics. You chastize others for selling out and accepting least-bad policy outcomes while failing to recognnize the very real downside to rigid principal-based inflexibility.

Least-bad policy outcomes improve people's lives in very real and concrete ways, and have done a hell of a lot more good in the world than never-adopted principals.
Click to expand...

Sure .. your version of unprincipled politics led directly to the republican takeover of the House .. which they still control .. AND, your version of unprincipled politics will lead to yet another 2010 like midterm.

Your version of unprincipled politics led to health care reform that isn't reform at all and is bound to implode.

Your version of unprincipled politcs will lead to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Obviously you don't think there are things worth fighting for.

I do.
 
Thing1 said:
You're irrational.

A) The anti-war people are STILL anti-war. I feel bad for you that you have to repeat the conservative talk-radio fabrication that people are silent just because a Dem is in office.
B) You're just wrong. Gore never would have invaded Iraq, and we wouldn't be in MORE wars today. What is your basis for that? That Gore would have invaded even more countries? And Obama is Prez - if he wanted to start even MORE wars, he would have.

You're nonsensical. Your emotion is clouding your reason, in a big way.
Click to expand...

They're STILL anti-war and its a "conservative talk-radio fabrication that people are silent just because a Dem is in office"?

Then why are they silent ?

And your Ouiji-board tells you what Gore would have done, I presume ? and you accuse bac of being nonsensical ?
Maybe Gore wouldn't have gotten Congressional approval to use military force in Iraq....we'll never know for sure.
Maybe Gore wouldn't have gotten involved in Libya or Egypt or Kuwait either....we'll never know that either.


Anyone that disagrees with pinheads on any subject is irrational ?
Anyone that dares hold Obama responsible for anything is irrational ?

And certainly anyone that posts irrefutable facts is irrational...thanks Thingy, I believe we've got the picture now.
 
Dungheap said:
My version has Al Gore winning in 2000 and maybe an entirely different American than we have today. Your version got us Bush. You'd be wise to remember that every so often.
Click to expand...

The worse outcome produced by the election of GW Bush was the election of Obama. lol
 
Thing1 said:
Guess you didn't read my post. I said that the job situation has improved under Obama.

I didn't say anything about Bush. Yikes.
Click to expand...

job situation has improved under Obama ? A distinction that is meaninless as practical matter....the job situation sux and after "improvement" it still sux....
Its like the gas price going from $5.00 a gal to $4.99.....big deal.


My post contains a lot more than 'Bush'....

and of course any improvement in anything will be Obama leadership.....

I noticed even BAC been using the word "rationalize" when responding to you.....guess its just coincidence...
 
blackascoal said:
Look around you today.

How is it even possible that you can't rationalize what they were thinking?

Obama is a corporatist, Rockefeller republican, and conducts the Bush foreign policy on steroids.

We exist in a state of perpetual war UNDER OBAMA.
Click to expand...

I can honestly say that things wouldn't have been that different if McCain was elected. You can't say that about Gore getting elected in 2000.

And I didn't vote for Obama this time around.
 
blackascoal said:
Sure .. your version of unprincipled politics led directly to the republican takeover of the House .. which they still control .. AND, your version of unprincipled politics will lead to yet another 2010 like midterm.

Your version of unprincipled politics led to health care reform that isn't reform at all and is bound to implode.

Your version of unprincipled politcs will lead to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Obviously you don't think there are things worth fighting for.

I do.
Click to expand...


Obviously, you're still unwilling to acknowledge the short-comings of your approach. I concede that there are short-comings to mine, but on balance I think it's worth it to do the good that you can instead of not doing any good at all.
 
Thing1 said:
I can honestly say that things wouldn't have been that different if McCain was elected. You can't say that about Gore getting elected in 2000.

And I didn't vote for Obama this time around.
Click to expand...

I have admitted that Gore was not a corporatist, thus the possibility of his attacking Iraq was far less .. that is unless Israel demanded it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top