NAACP president: Black people worse off under Obama

[blackascoal]

How is Obama responsible for the economic crash?

Who said that Obama was responsible for the economic crash?

He's the president .. he's responsible for the economy.

People are hurting more than ever .. and you want to give him a pass and continue to blame Bush for everything FOUR YEARS after he has left office.

What happen to his supposed "laser-focus" on jobs???? His own Jobs Council hasn't had an official meeting in over a year ,, and in fact ..

Obama's jobs council shutting down Thursday
http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-jobs-council-shutting-down-thursday-145943394--politics.html

Had then been Bush, you would have a far different commentary .. evidenced by the fact that you're still blaming Bush for the economy and jobs 4 years later.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Who said that Obama was responsible for the economic crash?

He's the president .. he's responsible for the economy.

People are hurting more than ever ..

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.

 

[blackascoal]

Jill Stein? How about someone who had a viable shot at winning that would have been better?

Also, too, I don't know that anyone on this thread has claimed that black people are not worse off under Obama. Nevertheless, I'm sure an arguable case could be made that black people are better off under Obama than they would have been had John McCain or Mitt Romeny won.

He asked me who would be better, not who would win in the two-party mindfuck.

If no one is saying that blacks aren't worse off under Obama .. one sure couldn't tell from the comments.

NO COMMENTS from Obama supporters on wat could be done better or on the plight of African-Americans in all this.

Just denials and bullshit .. calling this truth "bashing."

Additionally, the lesser evil card is also bullshit.

Even if one voted for Obama .. where is the honest critique? Where is the criticisms of his betrayals and failures?

Like 2010, this will come back to bite the democrats in the ass again.

Anyone who thinks the Republican Party is dead is stupid. Democrts will always ruch in to save them.

 

[Bonestorm]

He asked me who would be better, not who would win in the two-party mindfuck.

If no one is saying that blacks aren't worse off under Obama .. one sure couldn't tell from the comments.

NO COMMENTS from Obama supporters on wat could be done better or on the plight of African-Americans in all this.

Just denials and bullshit .. calling this truth "bashing."

Additionally, the lesser evil card is also bullshit.

Even if one voted for Obama .. where is the honest critique? Where is the criticisms of his betrayals and failures?

Like 2010, this will come back to bite the democrats in the ass again.

Anyone who thinks the Republican Party is dead is stupid. Democrts will always ruch in to save them.

I don't see how a person who could never win would be better.

And there are many legitimate criticisms of Obama, it just so happens that lots of the criticisms that are actually made are really stupid (like the Jobs Council thing).

You may think the lesser evil card is bullshit, but it's reality. I mean, it's nice to sit back with your absolutist positions on things and throw out criticisms while never having to worry that your preferred policies will be implemented, but that's all you're doing. Don't get me wrong, there's a place for legitiamte criticism from the left and I think is serves an important role in shifting actual policies left of where they would otherwise end up. But in the absence of compromise you aren't going to improve the well-being of anyone by inflexibly rejecting everything that isn't exactly what you want because what you want will never be actual policy.

 

[blackascoal]

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.

Better for who?

Most certainly not for African-Americans .. which is the point of this thread.

But it isn't just black people hurting ..

Obama hid report showing surge in Food Stamp use until after election
excerpt

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released their most recent data on U.S. participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly referred to as 'food stamps.'

While the report is ordinarily released at either the end of the month, or no later than the first or second day of the following month, the Obama administration waited until November 9, a full three days after the election to announce the number of Americans currently receiving food stamps.

After seeing the data, it is not surprising why the administration delayed the report...

By the end of August 2012 (the most recent data), there were 47.1 million Americans on food stamps, a new all-time record high.

Another 420,947 Americans were added to the food stamp rolls from the previous month of July, representing the largest monthly increase in a year.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-hid-report-showing-surge-food-stamp-use-until-after-election

Most people on food stamps are white. Today, one in seven Americans are on food stamps.

Surely you understand that Americans are hurting .. and surely you understand that the unemplyment report is misleading. There are millions of Americans who have simply given up.

How do democrats claim this problem isn't real?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Better for who?

Most certainly not for African-Americans .. which is the point of this thread.

But it isn't just black people hurting ..

Obama hid report showing surge in Food Stamp use until after election
excerpt

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released their most recent data on U.S. participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly referred to as 'food stamps.'

While the report is ordinarily released at either the end of the month, or no later than the first or second day of the following month, the Obama administration waited until November 9, a full three days after the election to announce the number of Americans currently receiving food stamps.

After seeing the data, it is not surprising why the administration delayed the report...

By the end of August 2012 (the most recent data), there were 47.1 million Americans on food stamps, a new all-time record high.

Another 420,947 Americans were added to the food stamp rolls from the previous month of July, representing the largest monthly increase in a year.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-hid-report-showing-surge-food-stamp-use-until-after-election

Most people on food stamps are white. Today, one in seven Americans are on food stamps.

Surely you understand that Americans are hurting .. and surely you understand that the unemplyment report is misleading. There are millions of Americans who have simply given up.

How do democrats claim this problem isn't real?

You said hurting "more than ever." That is a mischaracterization, as is your implication above that I don't think Americans are hurting. Americans are hurting, but they are not hurting "more than ever." They were hurting "more than ever" in 2009.

 

[blackascoal]

I don't see how a person who could never win would be better.

And there are many legitimate criticisms of Obama, it just so happens that lots of the criticisms that are actually made are really stupid (like the Jobs Council thing).

You may think the lesser evil card is bullshit, but it's reality. I mean, it's nice to sit back with your absolutist positions on things and throw out criticisms while never having to worry that your preferred policies will be implemented, but that's all you're doing. Don't get me wrong, there's a place for legitiamte criticism from the left and I think is serves an important role in shifting actual policies left of where they would otherwise end up. But in the absence of compromise you aren't going to improve the well-being of anyone by inflexibly rejecting everything that isn't exactly what you want because what you want will never be actual policy.

Your version of compromise has the countryb teetering on the edge of disaster. I'm not interested in that compromise.

Your version of compromise has this country now involved in perpetual war .. and your version says to say nothing about it .. pretend it doesn't exist. Not interested in that bullshit.

Your version of compromise is completely unprincipled and unintelligent. Again, not interested.

You are free to engage in all the "compromise" you choose brother .. but it is failed and failing.

I choose a different course, and one that is principled and consistent.

Independents are the fastest growing political demographic in America.

Respectfully good brother, your version of "winning" is not my version of it.

 

[Bonestorm]

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.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

I think about that all of the time. Nader said they were both the same, but he was wrong.

If all you do over the past decade is take away the Iraq War - which wouldn't have existed if not for Nader votes in Florida - that's an almost incomprehensible change. We're a far different country today.

 

[blackascoal]

You said hurting "more than ever." That is a mischaracterization, as is your implication above that I don't think Americans are hurting. Americans are hurting, but they are not hurting "more than ever." They were hurting "more than ever" in 2009.

I disagree.

African-Americans are DEFINATELY worse off.

The country is now involved in more wars than at anytime during the Bush years .. and military suicides are at an all-time high.

169,000 Americans Drop Out of Labor Force in January As Unemployment Ticks Up
Feb 1, 2013
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/169000-americans-drop-out-labor-force-january-unemployment-ticks

The Plight of the Long-Term Unemployed
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-11/the-plight-of-the-long-term-unemployed

I Can't Stop Looking at These Terrifying Long-Term Unemployment Charts
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...rifying-long-term-unemployment-charts/266118/

I could post all kinds of credible and factual evidence .. but all Obama supporters will do is stick their heads in the sand and pretend.

Additionally, Obama WILL cut Social Security and Medicare. Americans are facing even more hurt.

Of course when Obama does cut these programs while protecting Wall Street and bankers .. the response of democrats will be ..

They won't see the problem.

 

[blackascoal]

I think about that all of the time. Nader said they were both the same, but he was wrong.

If all you do over the past decade is take away the Iraq War - which wouldn't have existed if not for Nader votes in Florida - that's an almost incomprehensible change. We're a far different country today.

Sure, today we are involved in FAR more wars than just Iraq.

Today Obama bombs the fuck out of black and brown people all over the planet .. and today all the pseudo-fake-antiwar democrats are silent as a mouse on wars.

We are indeed different.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Sure, today we are involved in FAR more wars than just Iraq.

Today Obama bombs the fuck out of black and brown people all over the planet .. and today all the pseudo-fake-antiwar democrats are silent as a mouse on wars.

We are indeed different.

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.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

They may still be anti war, but they are also quiet. You don't see the mass protests, you don't see people camping out by Obama's house in Chicago or Hawaii, you don't have the media hammering at Obama for it. To pretend that it is anywhere close to the same is what is truly irrational.

I do like the fact that once again you are able to read his emotional state via words on a computer. Project much?

 

[blackascoal]

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.

Sure, and I prevented Al Gore from winning his own state.

I told Al Gore to run away from Clinton.

I prevented Al Gore and the rest of the weak-kneed Democratic Party from standing up with disenfranchised blacks in Florida.

How stupid.

AND, as demonstrated with your latest wonder-child, Gore winning was no guarantee that he would not have invaded Iraq.

The difference is that then, you would have supported the invasion.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

They may still be anti war, but they are also quiet. You don't see the mass protests, you don't see people camping out by Obama's house in Chicago or Hawaii, you don't have the media hammering at Obama for it. To pretend that it is anywhere close to the same is what is truly irrational.

I do like the fact that once again you are able to read his emotional state via words on a computer. Project much?

The only "mass protests" regarding Iraq were in March of 2003, and Cindy Sheehan led the only major "camp out" that you're referring to (and she is still vehemently against the wars, btw).

I can only go by personal experience on the rest. There are 3 places in my area that protesters have gathered since 2003. When I drive out on the weekend, they are ALL still in those places.

As for the media, please stop with that. They still report on the wars, and the casualties. There aren't huge stories anymore unless there are major incidents, because guess what? We're over 10 years at war at this point. Stats show that statistically, coverage experienced a major decline during Bush's 2nd term, and has experienced a pretty steady decline since. It's called "war fatigue," and the media doesn't care who is in office - they want to sell ad space & make money.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Sure, and I prevented Al Gore from winning his own state.

I told Al Gore to run away from Clinton.

I prevented Al Gore and the rest of the weak-kneed Democratic Party from standing up with disenfranchised blacks in Florida.

How stupid.

AND, as demonstrated with your latest wonder-child, Gore winning was no guarantee that he would not have invaded Iraq.

The difference is that then, you would have supported the invasion.

Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Unless for some weird reason he decided to have PNAC advising him too.

 

[blackascoal]

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.

You're weak.

A. WHERE IS THE ANTIWAR CROWD? WE ARE BOMBING THE FUCK OUT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND CHILDREN.

I feel bad for YOU that your partisan blindness prevents principle from entering your brain. That "right-wing talk show" bullshit is for morons. You are not a moron.

B. Before he was elected you would have said that Obama would never kill an American citizen without trial.

You would have said that Obama would never attack a small country without provocation .. and certainl not without congressional approval and transparency.

Patriot Act .. not Obama. Something as offensive as NDAA .. not Obama.

Seriously, Obama supporters have become teabaggers. They run from even the most obvious truths.

 

[blackascoal]

Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Unless for some weird reason he decided to have PNAC advising him too.

PNAC or Israel.

My point exactly.

 

[blackascoal]

The only "mass protests" regarding Iraq were in March of 2003, and Cindy Sheehan led the only major "camp out" that you're referring to (and she is still vehemently against the wars, btw).

I can only go by personal experience on the rest. There are 3 places in my area that protesters have gathered since 2003. When I drive out on the weekend, they are ALL still in those places.

As for the media, please stop with that. They still report on the wars, and the casualties. There aren't huge stories anymore unless there are major incidents, because guess what? We're over 10 years at war at this point. Stats show that statistically, coverage experienced a major decline during Bush's 2nd term, and has experienced a pretty steady decline since. It's called "war fatigue," and the media doesn't care who is in office - they want to sell ad space & make money.

WRONG.

I was involved in many protests against the Iraq War .. including this one in Washington,DC ..

'End This War': Hundreds of Thousands Protest Iraq War

"In Los Angeles, about 15,000 people protested peacefully, while thousands more marched in San Francisco and in London urging an end to military action in Iraq nearly 30 months after an invasion ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0924-06.htm

There were LOTS of protests .. but perhaps you don't know because you weren't involved.

I was.

And NO, HELL NO .. the media is still owned by the same corporations that did not accurately report the Iraq War and the lead up to it. They are still doing the exact same thing today.

What in the world would make you think that would change?

 

[Bonestorm]

Sure, and I prevented Al Gore from winning his own state.

I told Al Gore to run away from Clinton.

I prevented Al Gore and the rest of the weak-kneed Democratic Party from standing up with disenfranchised blacks in Florida.

How stupid.

AND, as demonstrated with your latest wonder-child, Gore winning was no guarantee that he would not have invaded Iraq.

The difference is that then, you would have supported the invasion.

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.