Yeah, paint a picture of white people being the victim of racism. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Don't fool yourself into believing it doesn't happen both ways.

Thought this might add some more to the discussion:

 

White, Anti-Gay Republican Wins Local Election After Pretending To Be Black

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/white-candidate-pretends-be-black-wins

 

Of course, I don't think this would happen in a presidential race, but does go to show how much thought some people put into voting (and their campaigns... if I was running against the guy, I think I'd have tried to find a way to call him on it).

.....and on the flip side of that some blacks and whites give me a pass because I am black.

 

 

-President Obama

 

 

President Obama Says Some Critics Don't Like Him Because He's Black

 

Yeah that's it.....

Are you saying white people are never the victim of racism?

 

Nope.

Don't fool yourself into believing it doesn't happen both ways.

 

I didn't say it doesn't happen both ways. It does, and it's equally stupid both ways. That doesn't change the fact that white people crying about racism is a joke and a half.

Don't fool yourself into believing it doesn't happen both ways.

 

That cartoon does a disservice to sensible white and black people.

I didn't say it doesn't happen both ways. It does, and it's equally stupid both ways. That doesn't change the fact that white people crying about racism is a joke and a half.

 

Times a million.

There are people who don't like President Obama because he is black. As well there are people that throw support towards him because he is black. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Whether or not he handled the collapse he was handed better or poorer than his opponents would have, we'll never know, never! Until we as a government and society, can figure out how to give people a supportive hand up, with required goals and time limits of such support. We will never end the life style of, playing the hand out system, as a means of sole income. When a single mother of 3 children gets a job making say, $12.00 an hour. Don't take the health care and food supplements from her and her children. Adjust it and give her more incentives to continue doing better. Please don't beat me up if the $12.00 an hour and 3 children are not the correct equation. I just grabbed those numbers out of the air to try and make my point. It has taken a long time to get to this place as a society, and it will take quite some time to get it straightened out. Jerking the rug out is not the answer, but continuing to turn a blind eye to the problem hasn't worked either. There will always be a need for assistance for some, there will always be those who make it their goal to beat the system. Limiting those numbers is the only way to begin to get those things back in check. JMO

Anecdotal information too often is misleading. Obama got 69.5 million votes in '08 and 65.9 million votes in '12 -- after the honeymoon long had ended. (His win in '12 was actually more impressive than '08.) Why? Was it because of the support the president received from people on assistance? That's ridiculous. Or was this a result of the GOP shrinking its tent more and more every year? I think the answer lies with the latter.

The #'s don't lie. Obama supporters are overwhelmingly those that are on assistance. And lets not forget the suppressing of the requirement to present a Voter Registration card. The # of people who feel the Government owes them something for nothing has surpassed the # of people who feel they are responsible for supporting themselves. The end result is a Obama win.

The #'s don't lie. Obama supporters are overwhelmingly those that are on assistance. And lets not forget the suppressing of the requirement to present a Voter Registration card. The # of people who feel the Government owes them something for nothing has surpassed the # of people who feel they are responsible for supporting themselves. The end result is a Obama win.

 

Can you link to those overwhelming stats please?

The poor vote for liberals because they feel the gov will take care of them and give them free money, food, housing, and be able to live off others so they won't have to work. The reason unemployment benefits are continued every time is the gov wants to keep those people on a leash. Our gov doesn't want to add jobs, they want people to rely on the gov so they can get votes.

Exactly. 100% agreed. But, people who believe this way have now become the minority. Thus making it very difficult to win an election to stop it.

This thread just continues to amaze me in so many ways. I voted for Obama in '08 and wasn't as supportive in '12, but could not support the Republican elitist platform IMO. As has been stated ad nauseum, the Republicans beat themselves because they cannot even compromise within their own party. And two years later it is still the same. The Immigration debate and vote (if there is one) is going to be the telling sign if they have moved in their willingness to compromise within their party, much less reaching across the aisle.

 

Economy used to be the number one factor in elections for me, it is not now. To me it is how will that person's policies and beliefs help those who truly need assistance, understanding that there will be abuse with the volumes of people that will qualify. But assistance does help millions of people who truly need it. The abuse problem is probaly too big to fix, sadly. Thus the frustrations of those of us who have worked in the urban core or rural areas of this country. I worked in both over 30 years in the puclic school systems. The truly disabled, elderly, and children suffer the most in this country through no fault of their own. I cannot ethically and morally allow that to occur in my voting, no matter the cost. It does weigh and factor most prominently in my voting.

 

The one's who seem to become the most critical are those that came from low socioeconomics and righted their economic status. That has been my experiences and that confuses me at times. They may believe since they took advantage of their opportunities empathy decreases for thos ethat didn't. However, no two situations are ever the same or we would have the solution and right it.

This thread just continues to amaze me in so many ways. I voted for Obama in '08 and wasn't as supportive in '12, but could not support the Republican elitist platform IMO. As has been stated ad nauseum, the Republicans beat themselves because they cannot even compromise within their own party. And two years later it is still the same. The Immigration debate and vote (if there is one) is going to be the telling sign if they have moved in their willingness to compromise within their party, much less reaching across the aisle.

 

Economy used to be the number one factor in elections for me, it is not now. To me it is how will that person's policies and beliefs help those who truly need assistance, understanding that there will be abuse with the volumes of people that will qualify. But assistance does help millions of people who truly need it. The abuse problem is probaly too big to fix, sadly. Thus the frustrations of those of us who have worked in the urban core or rural areas of this country. I worked in both over 30 years in the puclic school systems. The truly disabled, elderly, and children suffer the most in this country through no fault of their own. I cannot ethically and morally allow that to occur in my voting, no matter the cost. It does weigh and factor most prominently in my voting.

 

The one's who seem to become the most critical are those that came from low socioeconomics and righted their economic status. That has been my experiences and that confuses me at times. They may believe since they took advantage of their opportunities empathy decreases for thos ethat didn't. However, no two situations are ever the same or we would have the solution and right it.

 

I just wonder who you think is supposed to pay for this support? I don't disagree that there are people who need support, but to think those who have worked hard to give themselves a better life and live check to check (AND THESE ARE THE ONES NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY SOCIALIST POLICIES) can afford to dig deeper run a high risk of taking the incentives away from these people to show up to work everyday. I would love to see the Hollywood liberals put the same proportion of their disposable income (almost 100%) into the tax burden before they start preaching to the rest of us.

I just wonder who you think is supposed to pay for this support? I don't disagree that there are people who need support, but to think those who have worked hard to give themselves a better life and live check to check (AND THESE ARE THE ONES NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY SOCIALIST POLICIES) can afford to dig deeper run a high risk of taking the incentives away from these people to show up to work everyday. I would love to see the Hollywood liberals put the same proportion of their disposable income (almost 100%) into the tax burden before they start preaching to the rest of us.

 

There is no way I am smart enough to figure this out. As I have stated before, the funding is there, but budgeting is a value judgment, nothing much more than that. I am not saying we need more $$ just spend differently. We, as a country, will never agree totally on what to cut totally, partially or not at all.

This thread just continues to amaze me in so many ways. I voted for Obama in '08 and wasn't as supportive in '12, but could not support the Republican elitist platform IMO. As has been stated ad nauseum, the Republicans beat themselves because they cannot even compromise within their own party. And two years later it is still the same. The Immigration debate and vote (if there is one) is going to be the telling sign if they have moved in their willingness to compromise within their party, much less reaching across the aisle.

 

Economy used to be the number one factor in elections for me, it is not now. To me it is how will that person's policies and beliefs help those who truly need assistance, understanding that there will be abuse with the volumes of people that will qualify. But assistance does help millions of people who truly need it. The abuse problem is probaly too big to fix, sadly. Thus the frustrations of those of us who have worked in the urban core or rural areas of this country. I worked in both over 30 years in the puclic school systems. The truly disabled, elderly, and children suffer the most in this country through no fault of their own. I cannot ethically and morally allow that to occur in my voting, no matter the cost. It does weigh and factor most prominently in my voting.

 

The one's who seem to become the most critical are those that came from low socioeconomics and righted their economic status. That has been my experiences and that confuses me at times. They may believe since they took advantage of their opportunities empathy decreases for thos ethat didn't. However, no two situations are ever the same or we would have the solution and right it.

 

I disagree totatlly with the statement. People who have come from tougher places and made it out have every right to be critical. All we hear in the media is how tough it is to do things on your own in this country. It is frustrating when you know you were able to over come some things and work hard. It is frustrating when you know people who grew up down the street or a block over who still want to make excuses for their struggles but you know most of the blame is on them.

 

That is fine if you base your vote on the government spending more money, I'll continue to base my vote on what's best for the future of this country.