So if Obama loses - its all because or racism....

[Ducimus]

If Obama loses, it won't all be because of race, but i think race is a large part of it. With all the bullcrap that has surrounded Obama's presidency like "Birthers" and a congressman yelling out to the President during an address, "You lie!" and all the other myriad things that are unique to Obama's term, i fail to see how race is NOT an issue. These negative things are all unique to Obama's term, and the only thing unique about obama is the color of his skin.

However I also think Race is also a part of why he got elected to begin with. Of course to prove or disprove that, all you need to do is look up percentage of white vs non white voter turn out during that election year. I'm pretty sure alot of blacks (if not most blacks?) voted for Obama because he was black and for no other reason.

Since this topic is not that important to me, ill let someone else do that research if its such a burning issue. Personally im convinced race is part of the issue. Racism exists, no matter how hard people try and pretend it doesn't.

EDIT:
It's also worth mentioning that the voter demographic is changing. Insert my standard rant about illegal immigration here.

[JU_88]

It's irrelevant isn't it? Off course some will make judgments on superficial bs, it doesn't have to be about race either, i remember seeing some retarded NewYorker telling an RT reporter she wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he looks too old and weak.
Thats the same thing isn't it? Democracy means that even morons get to vote, so weather a presidential canditate is black, white, young old etc, some people will obviously vote based on some silly crap, rather than the actual policies. Such is life.
Pretty pointless artical IMO.

[Ducimus]

In the end, its mostly irrelevant who's president to begin with. The only thing we can do, is keep t out of the white house.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In the end, its mostly irrelevant who's president to begin with. The only thing we can do, is keep t out of the white house.

Oh sure, I think eveyone knows that the likes of Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, the M.I.C and all the rest - get to pull plenty of strings, when it comes to the important stuff. Quite a number of congressmen are former employees of these guys anyway (surprise, surprise)
You are correct in that they cannot be ousted via the current democratic process, it would probably take an armed revolution to kick them out of office.
A military Coup is much better way to have a revolution, if a people can get the military on their side, governments are suddenly quite willing to hand over the keys, so to speak.
Not sure what will happen here in the UK, we in the process of systematically sacking our entire military, probably so we can save a few quid for the next round of bailouts
Maybe Dave will scare off any foreign threats with his pinched 'bacon like' complexion.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Oh sure, I think eveyone knows that the likes of Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, the M.I.C and all the rest - get to pull plenty of strings, when it comes to the important stuff. Quite a number of congressmen are former employees of these guys anyway (surprise, surprise)
You are correct in that they cannot be ousted via the current democratic process, it would probably take an armed revolution to kick them out of office.
A military Coup is much better way to have a revolution, if a people can get the military on their side, governments are suddenly quite willing to hand over the keys, so to speak.
.

You know that is one of the arguments for our 2nd amendment pro NRA supporters like to use. To enpower the people to be able to take back or overthrow the government should the need ever arise. It probably was the ultimate intention behind the 2nd amendment when you consider how our country became its own sovereign nation to begin with. (1776 and all that) However, in this day and age which is a far cry from musketry, i suspect any such armed revolt would be crushed quickly by the military. So your right, getting the miltary on your side is a much better way. Actually, it would be the only way.

But in case some government agent somewhere is monitoring this, this is all just hypothetical and academic. I'm much too worried about paying my bills, then lofty ideological and political stuff. In fact i am so uninvolved politically, that I also don't vote. I don't think there is much point in it anymore, no matter who's in office, it always ends up the same way anyway.

[AVGWarhawk]

Win or lose, the country will still be in a rut.

[CaptainMattJ.]

i wanted, 100%, for Hillary to win. Obama was, and still mostly is, a talker, and he cant get all that much done either. I think race was a factor in Obama's presidency. Hillary was the best candidate and then they took her out. I only voted for Obama so that Mccain didnt get in. Unfortunately i will still be voting for Obama this time too. he hasnt been a bad president, no. hes shown us some growth and progress. But he isnt someone id vote for given any other solid options.

So im left with choosing romney or Obama, and ill stick with Obama.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

But in case some government agent somewhere is monitoring this, this is all just hypothetical and academic.
I'm much too worried about paying my bills, then lofty ideological and political stuff. In fact i am so uninvolved politically, that I also don't vote. I don't think there is much point in it anymore, no matter who's in office, it always ends up the same way anyway.

Yes, but it is the social contract that has been broken, and it has been broken numerous times in history. Debts are intended to rise in a way you will not be able to pay them - indeed no one can, not even banks or nations.
Normally the banks would have broken down, but by some divine inspiration our glorious governments decided to bail them all out - because otherwise it would have meant the end of the political class as well.

Short:


Long:

debts: ~ from 0:38 minutes

You are right, as long as the government does not really change, the common man will get less and less influence, being held in an artificial state of slavery money-wise, trying to pay his bills and having no time to think about anything else.
Also if nothing changes, society will go down like all those isolated empires did - only that nowadays it is no isolated nation breaking apart, but the whole world uses this system, and is interconnected.

One of the problems is that politicians are not too bright mostly (indeed some (!) have been and are politicians, because they have been proven useless anywhere else), and while they are intelligent enough to keep themselves at power and keep up their network, they are lacking in having a greater view, and reall thinking ahead without party blinders.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

IfHowever I also think Race is also a part of why he got elected to begin with. Of course to prove or disprove that, all you need to do is look up percentage of white vs non white voter turn out during that election year. I'm pretty sure alot of blacks (if not most blacks?) voted for Obama because he was black and for no other reason.

Since this topic is not that important to me, ill let someone else do that research if its such a burning issue. EDIT:
It's also worth mentioning that the voter demographic is changing. Insert my standard rant about illegal immigration here.

After the election it was announced that three million whites voted for President Obama in the general election and that the total tally for winning was three million votes also, a bit odd not to mention how they came to that conclusion.

My emails come from a varied sorces of military to seniors to the working class and most have been negative Obama comments and jokes with one or two for Romney.

As for the illegal people crossing our borders ... it ain't going to stop and you can't send them all back only leaves an option for wise men in charge.

as one poor Mexican on the show Border Patrol said, "Hey man were humans just iike you" trying to get a break for the border patrol.

I had to agree they're humans too and need a wise man to decide this border conflict ...

[CaptainHaplo]

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

[Sailor Steve]

That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.

[Rockin Robbins]

I would argue that the states lost any real power when Woodrow Wilson, not understanding that the appointed Senators were appointed by the state legislatures as representatives of their state government decided to play the democracy card and go for popular election of senators.

Simply not understanding or not caring about their true function, Woodrow Wilson's initiative became a constitutional amendment that rendered state government impotent. Can you imagine the crippling burden of unfunded mandates if the states had any power within the federal legislature. Wouldn't have happened! But now, since the senators have no connection with their state governments at all, and in fact feel superior in every way, they have no hesitation to passing a requirement to that state without funding it, leaving that state to carry somebody else's burden.

We are not and should not be a democracy. A democracy is two cats and a mouse voting over what's for dinner. Democracy is the mob rule and murder of the French Revolution. That is why our founding fathers hated democracy. They wanted the best qualified people among the populace to be elected to govern for a definite length of time between new elections. The way the people would participate in government is to select those who operate that government.

So we want to paint the Oval Office. Now we need a national referendum at the cost of billions of dollars so everyone can vote on it? Don't make me laugh. Democracy is a cheap joke, not worthy of anything but contempt. What we have and need to fight to preserve is representative government with representatives subject to the people, enforced by the power of the vote. We are not, have never been and better not ever be a democracy. If we do become one our life expectancy is about ten years before tyranny.

So, since the institution of popular election of Senators totally removed any voice of the states in the legislature, how does anyone propose we can turn the clock back and give any power at all back to the states? I think the door opened, the cow left and we can close the door but the cow's gone.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.

I don't believe I ever claimed I was "unbiased" or an observer of the system. I could never claim to be an uninterested or objective observer - because I participate in the system as a voter. The mere act of casting a vote negates any objectivity, for it requires a choice of one over another.

My political views are well historied here - I am not a fan of Obama or his extremely (for US politics) left wing policies and agenda. I prefer less government intervention and more personal responsibility. Call that what you will.

If I - or anyone else looks at government with a skeptical eye, that is a good thing. Given the history of this current administration and the constant attempts to demonize anyone who dares to differ with its policies or goals, such skepticism regarding a report on such a sensative and divisive issue as racism is hardly uncalled for.

So you look at the study, find its flawed on a number of levels - and the question becomes "Why is this even getting the front page attention it is?". Quoted by many left leaning pundits - one must wonder why now? The most apparent answer is the President crumbling poll numbers. Even so, that doesn't make the study itself political -unless you consider the flawed assumptions it makes. Why make such over-reaching generalizations when they are obviously problematic? Again, a very logical answer suddenly appears when the connection between the researcher and the administration appears.

To quote the "Professor" of C.S. Lewis - "Logic! I say, what do they teach in schools these days?"

If somehow following a logical, reasonable line of skepticism somehow makes me a "right shoe poltical hack" in your view, then ok. I can live with that.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I don't believe I ever claimed I was "unbiased" or an observer of the system...If somehow following a logical, reasonable line of skepticism somehow makes me a "right shoe poltical hack" in your view, then ok. I can live with that.

My main objection is that you, along with some others, seem ever to only take on one side of the spectrum. You may not think it's always the left's fault, but sometimes it seems that way.

Sometimes I'm afraid to even express an opinion on a subject, for fear that one side or the other will agree with me. It's not even the side, it's the individuals who blame everything on "them".

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

In short, that's not at all how these type of degree programs work. If you do not like the conclusions, then that is fine but it does not mean that there is a political slant. I would go as far to say that it is individuals such as yourself that put the political slant on things. Frankly, you are going through a lot of mental gymnastics in a number of posts here to do so.