Monday, July 11, 2011

American Blacks Sadly Losing All Their Wealth Under Obama Presidency

http://www.suntimes.com/6397110-417/the-disappearing-black-middle-class.html


Of course somehow it's Bush's fault.


The blacks are going to vote for Obama again even though Obama has done NOTHING for them and the liberal jews are going to vote for Obama again even though Obama has wet dreams over jihad against Israel.


Libtards think that Obama increased America's standing in the world even though Obama sadly won in his jihad against NASA now we have no more space program just the illusion of one. Also with all the spending Obama has been doing, Obama has created an environment for the USA to suck on China's nuts in order to buy America's debt. China uses this leverage in order to try to tell the USA what to do in economic matters and in diplomatic matters in Asia.


Obama has not created an environment for economic growth, he either created or done nothing about an environment for economic collapse AAAND Obama has created an environment for the USA to kiss China's feet.

In 2012 throw the bum out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11 comments:

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

There are 2 elements here to consider:
1) Yes, the Obama administration has been a bad thing for the US. Between his foreign and his financial policies America has definitely suffered a downgrade in its international status. He does not deserve re-election.
2) But what's the alternative? The Republicans, until now, have been running on a "Vote for us if you hate Obama" platform which has worked fine in midterm elections but won't in 2012. People generally want to vote for someone they like rather than against someone they don't. If the Republicans don't come up with a good candidate with a positive platform a la "Contract with America" they won't beat BHO next yeaer.

JRKmommy said...

Republicans need to come up with their own version of "It's the economy, stupid".

Forget the obsession with social conservative issues. [I know we're a different country with different demographics, but the Canadian Conservatives won the recent election by shelving the social conservative stuff, reaching out to immigrants and trying hard not to scare anyone, while pointing out that they can competently run the economy.] They need someone who can appeal to disillusioned Dems and independents outside of the Bible Belt. Giuliani would have been great, but he couldn't get the support of the pro-life lobby. IMO, the best thing anyone could do right now to strengthen families in the US is fix the economy.

SJ said...

>> Republicans need to come up with their own version of "It's the economy, stupid".

Agreed.


>> Forget the obsession with social conservative issues.

Liberal stances on social issues are not as popular as libs think.

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

The Liberals ruled Canada for 11 years uninterrupted because they recognized that the majority of people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They balanced the budget and allowed gay marriage.
The Conservatives are doing well because they are being financially conservative (except for that stimulus thing) and ignoring social issues like the plague.
The Republicans need to realize that a majority of Americans won't vote for their entire platform but might if only part of it was offered. That's the trick for them.

JRKmommy said...

Garnel: One tiny quibble - the Liberals initially spent taxpayer money opposing same-sex marriage, and only switched gears when the courts made it clear that their position was unconstitutional.

Your correct though that neither Liberals nor Conservatives in Canada have any intention of reopening either the same-sex marriage or abortion debates.

With both Liberals and Conservatives here, playing to the middle and focusing on the economy has been key. With Paul Martin as Finance Minister in the 1990s, the Liberals were acting like Conservatives. Meanwhile, the Conservatives won't touch hot-button social issues and pulled out all the stops in appealing to big city ethnic voters who had always voted Liberal, and it got them a major win this year.

SJ: The problem is that the obsession with religious right issues in the Republican party is making it impossible for a candidate who could actually do something for the economy and win a general election to get past the primaries. You need someone like Giuliani who can get support outside of the traditional base.

SJ said...

Gay marriage failed in every state that it was put to a popular vote and abortion isn't all that hot either.

SJ said...

oh and only in lib-land is opposing gay marriage unconstitutional.

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

SJ, in his fortunately unique style, has a good point: if democracy is how we push forward social change then it should also be how we hold it back. In other words, if we would accept a plebiscite where the majority approved abortion, we should also accept if they rejected it.
Here it's also relevant - if prop 8 and all those other plebiscites had returned positive votes favouring gay marriage the gay lobby would be shouting that any politician opposing them is opposing the will of the people. When they lost that vote they went to the courts instead because in this case the majority was "wrong". This is hypocritical of them.

JRKmommy said...

SJ - you are missing my point.

Since the American economy is in shambles right now, that is where the attention needs to be.

I'm not proposing that the US do anything new right now on abortion or same-sex marriage. I'm saying that Republicans need to focus their energies, and priority #1 should be finding a candidate with solid leadership and economic credentials.

Garnel - No, I'm not a fan of referendums (referenda?). They didn't help Quebec, and voter initiatives are ruining California (it's not just Prop 8 - the state is a financial basket case where government offices arbitrarily close down and class sizes literally doubled overnight because of a budget crisis that is almost impossible to solve, because voter initiatives have required a 2/3 supermajority to pass a budget, severely limited property taxes, and dictated how funds need to be spent. San Francisco also has it's overwhelming list of voter-initiated bans.) I also don't believe that democracy without other institutions to protect freedom will necessarily be a positive instrument of social change as opposed to mob rule. Has Hamas been an agent of "social change" in Gaza?

Friar Yid said...

Gay marriage failed in every state that it was put to a popular vote and abortion isn't all that hot either.

The question of whether people are philosophically pro or anti a certain issue only matters to the degree that they are willing to get out and vote for it. Despite the many decades of pro-life campaigns against Roe v. Wade, enough of the country seems to consider it a fait accompli and a necessary evil that it doesn't look like there will be any successful challenge to it anytime soon.

Regarding gay marriage-- the issue here is largely one of degree. While gay marriage has not been successful at the polls, in more liberal states SSM supporters have come pretty darn close, which if nothing else demonstrates the fact that people are split on this issue.

In California the difference came down to a relatively scant 600,000 people (5%), in other words, Bakersfield plus Berkley. Not exactly a mandate. And that was after a huge activism and organizing push driven, in large part, by out of state interests like the Mormon Church. In Maine it also came down to 5% (about 33,000). In South Dakota it was 4% (12,000). So yeah, it's lost, but not by all that much.

At the end of the day, the conservatives have the real challenge because the liberal argument is, "Marriage is a right and denying SSM is discrimination." I still have yet to hear a conservative counter-argument that doesn't rely on religion or some form of fear or anti-gay hostility, such as accusing gay people of having a radical agenda to "destroy families" (which is pretty ironic given that lots of gay people seem to be fighting to get married and have kids). This means that most secular-to-moderate young people, who know real life gay people and know that their partnerships in no way threaten straight ones, are going to need more compelling reasons to continue to vote "no" every time SSM comes on the ballot. To go back to California, every year that there's a poll about SSM, the pro-side makes incremental gains. People under 30 have been polled supporting gay marriage 3 to 1. As the old folks die off and more young people get the vote, it really becomes just a waiting game. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if California has SSM within 10 years, and most if not all the country within 30.

SJ said...

>> SSM

you mean ASM&LSM. XD

>> rely on religion or some form of fear or anti-gay hostility, such as accusing gay people of having a radical agenda to "destroy families"

Friar you gotta cut this out

- none of the arguments on here relies on religion.

- this blog isn't in favor of being hostile to gays as people just to dislike the lifestyle for specific reasons.

- I don't argue that gays are going destory families. I argue that gays are going to adopt kids who deserve a real mother + father experience.

Friar, in future posts, remember you are discussing issues with ME, not with random caricatures of conservative arguments that exist in your head. CUT IT OUT.