Obama with another idiotic statement

[Tony Stark]

So Obama's policies favor blacks. That's discriminatory.

Obamacare has benefited blacks and latinos the most .Thats why I scratch my head when I hear republicans say Obama hasn't done anything for black people.

 

[futurecurrents]

So Obama's policies favor blacks. That's discriminatory.

That might be true if there were not similar numbers for whites. Which there are. But we understand, you are just being a moron again.

 

[futurecurrents]

Unlike the majority of Republicans,Blacks are smart enough not fall for conman Trump's bull$hit.

To be fair, the smart Republicans, the movers and shakers, know Trump is a clown and disavow him.

 

[oldnemesis]

Someone I once read said that he wished for the end of racial discrimination so that he could be free to despise someone purely on the basis of character without being accused of being a bigot.

When Obama got elected I said to myself

"Free at last, free at last, thank the lord almighty I am free at last"

Obama's presidency proved to me that the post-slavery period of racial discrimination was officially ended. I was free to NOT hire a black man if I just didn't like him, or thought he was a putz. I didn't have to ignore my preferences.

Regardless of anything else Obama did, he broke us out of that constraint.

The other day I was at a restaurant and in the booth behind me was a large black and very loud woman whose piercing laughter really got on my nerves. I felt no compunction about asking the waitress to move us, preferably to the other side of the dining room.

Thank you Obama.

 

[Ditch]

That might be true if there were not similar numbers for whites. Which there are. But we understand, you are just being a moron again.

"The African American unemployment rate has fallen by more than the overall unemployment rate in the past few years"

Learn to read, POS. Fact is that Obama's policies are discriminatory in favor of blacks. That's what you want, isn't it?

 

[Ditch]

Someone I once read said that he wished for the end of racial discrimination so that he could be free to despise someone purely on the basis of character without being accused of being a bigot.

When Obama got elected I said to myself

"Free at last, free at last, thank the lord almighty I am free at last"

Obama's presidency proved to me that the post-slavery period of racial discrimination was officially ended. I was free to NOT hire a black man if I just didn't like him, or thought he was a putz. I didn't have to ignore my preferences.

Regardless of anything else Obama did, he broke us out of that constraint.

The other day I was at a restaurant and in the booth behind me was a large black and very loud woman whose piercing laughter really got on my nerves. I felt no compunction about asking the waitress to move us, preferably to the other side of the dining room.

Thank you Obama.

What? Off the medication again?

 

[jem]

You are getting closer to the facts.
But you are still pretty far.

With 45% of Americans not paying income taxes and 40 to 60 million more americans and about 60% of them not paying income tax... none of the problems you say were created by tax cuts are real. The govt created the new underclass with massive immigration... not Reagans tax cuts.

Reagans expenditures on Star Wars in particular allowed Gorbachev to force the Soviet Generals to concede they could not match... helped allowed gorbachevs glasnost to move forward.

Reagan broker their militarys back... and the Pope spending billions of the Catholic Churches money in Poland broker the political will of the hardline commies.

The thing about Reagan is that he seemed to make sense at the time, although the business of increasing revenues by cutting taxes was always a bit counter intuitive. Present day problems attributable to Reagan initiatives have, however, cropped up years later. It now seems apparent that complex issues were vastly oversimplified during Reagan's presidency. Thus if privatization seemed, at the time, the right thing to do, then why not privatize everything, right down to passport issuance and prisons? There was insufficient respect for nuance; no recognition that privatizing some things made sense, while privatizing other things did not. The requirements for fruitful privatization, e.g., competition, low barrier to market entry, and lack of a compelling public interest, weren't present in every case, but this was largely ignored.

Reagan Era, Supply-Side economic stimulus turned out to have very asymmetric results. All boats in the harbor weren't lifted, as was thought would happen. The anticipated trickle down turned out to be a drip instead.

But there were noteworthy accomplishments too. Social Security was put on a sound footing, and monstrous expenditures on military hardware combined with huge tax cuts in the upper brackets and drastic bracket compression helped pull the nation out of recession. In keeping with the Supply Side mentality of the time, those in the upper brackets benefited most; the tax rate in the lowest bracket was actually raised to satisfy Congress's insistence that the cuts be revenue neutral. Although the cuts and military expenditures did boost the economy out of recession, they also combined to produce the largest peacetime deficit in the nations history. Worse yet, the long-term effect of the tax cuts, from compounding over many years, has contributed to income distribution skew and left too little capital with the working classes.

There is divided opinion on whether the Reagan military build-up significantly accelerated the economic ruin of the Soviet Union. Some, like Moynihan, had maintained that the Soviet union would fail on its own, and in fairly short order, whereas others believed the Reagan expenditures had been effective in compelling greater Soviet military expenditure; thus pushing them over the brink toward economic collapse. Patrick Moynihan, in fact, quit the Ford Cabinet over this very issue.

 

[oldnemesis]

 

[Ditch]

Bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/ex-presidents-warn-against-trump/

"An image reporting that all living ex-presidents have warned Americans to not vote for Donald Trump is not quite accurate.

Although former Republican presidents George W. Bush and George W.H. Bush have not endorsed Donald Trump, neither have they have criticized him or warned Americans not to vote for him."

Besides that, the Democrats could just have endorsed their candidate but instead they chose to show contempt for the people and soil the dignity of the presidency.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Although former Republican presidents George W. Bush and George W.H. Bush have not endorsed Donald Trump, neither have they have criticized him or warned Americans not to vote for him.

And what do you think it means when former Republican presidents don't endorse their party's nominee? That they're too busy washing their hair?