Why Black People And Republicans Just Can't Get Along

[Prep-for-Dep]

DerekJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple. People who think like you conservatives love to throw up those same talking points like a broken record. You love to focus on the negative issues the enrage your "silent majority". Your characterization of leaching[sp] and mooching says all I need to know about your mindset. You're yet another dude who comes to cry and whine about blacks yet I'd be willing to bet you've done precious little of substantial merit with your own life. Self-righteous finger pointing is a staple with you conservatives.

So you just made my point for me after you denied it.

And, you would be wrong about me doing precious little of substantial merit with my own life. assumption is a bitch huh?

Typical Leftist Liberal mindset. Your mind is made up and there's nothing anyone can do or say to change it. You are a lost cause fueled by propaganda. The funny thing is you think you are so educated, intelligent, progressive, compassionate, and enlightened. It's all based on smoke and mirrors you've been taught to ingest and regurgitate under the guise of being informed.

What a Joke!

[Prep-for-Dep]

DerekJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple. People who think like you conservatives love to throw up those same talking points like a broken record. You love to focus on the negative issues the enrage your "silent majority". Your characterization of leaching[sp] and mooching says all I need to know about your mindset. You're yet another dude who comes to cry and whine about blacks yet I'd be willing to bet you've done precious little of substantial merit with your own life. Self-righteous finger pointing is a staple with you conservatives.

BTW, I didn't present talking points. I presented statistical facts. It is you that wants to reduce them to talking points and characterization. More deflection, redirection, and smoke & mirrors from a Leftist Liberal self back patter.

[Razors Edge]

Has Mr. Clinton ever heard of Mr. Van Jones -- avowed Communist and Obama "green jobs" czar (albeit former czar, but Mr. Jones is, then again, still "walking around")?
Many readers will have heard that Mr. Jones is a self-declared communist. Has he lately declared himself a communist?
No. But wait: let us now parse Mr. Clinton with utmost care, and note once again that he said in the New York speech that "nobody's seen a communist in over a decade...no criticism is too vicious."
Indeed, no criticism is too vicious. Did the word "decade" materialize out of thin air? In all likelihood not, especially when you consider that it is very reasonable to believe that Mr. Van Jones' communism formally ended in...you guessed it...2002, about a decade ago:

Usually accusations of communism bring to mind memories of Joe McCarthy and hapless leftists being ruined (at least for a while) by being asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party." Of course with the death of the Soviet Union and with even China practicing a capitalism of a sort, being a member of the Communist Party is rather quaint and certainly not very threatening.
According to Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand blogger, back in the 1990s, Van Jones was a leading member of an organization called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) in the San Francisco Bay Area. Loudon quotes a leftwing blog, Machete 48, is [sic] describing STORM.
"STORM had its roots in a grouping of people of color organizing against the Gulf War in the early 1990's and was formally founded in 1994. The group's politics had a number of influences, but evolved towards what could be best characterized as third worldist Marxism (and an often vulgar Maoism). The group grew in influence until its disbanding in 2002 amid problems of internal dynamics and especially controversy around the leadership roles that members played in the youth movement (such as the fight against Proposition 21). Nearly the entire membership of the organization was staff members for various social movement non-profits in the Bay Area, many linked to the Ella Baker Center, which Van Jones steered" [emphasis added].
What is a rational person to make of this, other than that Mr. Clinton is pointing a pink finger at Mr. Van Jones, and therefore at Mr. Barack Hussein Obama?
It now seems anticlimactic to ask if Mr. Clinton is aware that Mr. Obama, again just last week, awarded the Medal of Freedom to the honorary chair (Ms. Dolores Huerta) of the largest socialist organization in America (can you believe it?). Has he ever heard of Senator Bernie Sanders, self-declared socialist, or Mr. William Ayers, a communist?

Moreover, a 2009 letter by the Democratic Socialist (sic) of America outfit indicated that 70 members of Congress were DSA members. Do you suppose Mr. Clinton may have gotten wind of this?

The answer to each of these questions is almost certainly: of course he has. So why does Mr. Clinton, in a major fundraising speech on behalf of Mr. Obama in New York, even mention Communism (and therefore, implicitly, socialism), in a way that obliquely impugns Mr. Obama ?

Why would someone of Mr. Clinton's stature, intelligence, and political expertise subtly, psychologically, and politically link Mr. Obama with communism/socialism, and, what's more, do so (1) just after Mr. Obama's "Medal of Freedom" link to socialism was all over the news and (2) when the link comes out of nowhere in terms of the flow of Mr. Clinton's speech preceding it, so that it is even more difficult to discern an affirmative reason, helpful to Mr. Obama, in support of the link?

Was the idea that Mr. Obama is a socialist/communist far enough from Mr. Clinton's mind that Mr. Clinton was simply attempting to assuage the concerns of the marginal independent voter as to the prospect Mr. Obama may be a socialist/communist? This seems very doubtful. Independents who think Obama is a Communist are
plentiful...

[Ms Mack]

Abdurratln wrote:

<quoted text>
We sure do not need this crap that israel is pushing. They do not want a war with Iran. They prefer picking on tiny little Gaza. What they want is to bait the USA into a situation where we end up doing their dirty work for them such as in Libya and in Irag. The problem is the USA is war weary. I do not think this economy will support another war so soon. The current economic mess is a direct result of what Obama is doing in Afghanistan. Let's face it: China will bleed us dry in Afghanistan. And if we open a new front in Iran, it will be just that much worse for the USA. In the meantime, israel is still creating un-necessary problems and provoking un-necessary enemies.
People in this country need to wake up and wake up fast.

I'm sure the war profiteers want another war, but of course the people in general are tired of war.

Israel will continue controlling whoever is the president. I doubt Romney or Ryan will stop this catering to Israel that has gone on non-stop.

American soldiers are being killed regularly by their counterparts in Afghanistan, who they mistakenly believe are on the side of the Americans.

Trillion dollar deficits and most everything in the store is made in China. It is really sad how the citizenry has been sold out.

[Ms Mack]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Terrible link!
By that definition, insurance is an "entitlement program". Just not a government one. The same with any pension plan.
That is not the definition used by the Government. It's worthless.

Medicare and Medicaid insurance program would be deemed to be entitlements. I am not sure what insurance program you are referring to, other than those two. You can do some research and post another link if you disagree with a basic definition of government entitlements.

Merriam-Webster?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ent...

[Ms Mack]

Who receives the most government assistance and handouts?

Poor families or corporations?

[Time and Space]

ProudNativist wrote:

Let's face it most blacks have been ruined by government socialism. Why work when the gubmint gone to pay you'ens welfare for doing nothing.

No doubt your a 'Repbublian'...and your condescending post...is why intellegent 'blcks' can't 'get along' with your likes...

Cause 'your type' stereotypes way way to much...

[snyper]

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>
For me,This is all that is wrong with the Liberal
Left/Marxists Attitude,Beliefs??????????
Damn!!!!!!!!!!
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking on behalf of the Obama White House, to Rep. Paul Ryan: "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."
Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the "do nothing," intransigent, "party of no."

Your post is short on support for your assertions, or even any attempt at tracing a connection between the (linkless) quotes you offer for consideration and your opinionations that follow.

Bloviation!

[Time and Space]

Conservative 'blcks' would be better off forming their own independent party, than joining the ranks of condescending colonial racist GOP party members...

The GOP doesn't have a lock hold on Conservatism...or values...

One can be high on principles...(which come from God, not the GOP)...and not lie in bed with the likes of Hannity...and Rush...

[Razors Edge]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Your post is short on support for your assertions, or even any attempt at tracing a connection between the (linkless) quotes you offer for consideration and your opinionations that follow.
Bloviation!

August 17, 2012

On June 8th Barack Obama told the American people that he believes “the private sector is doing fine”. He followed that up on July 26th by telling a crowd that,“we tried our plan, and it worked.”

Well has it worked? The AP has released a finding that, along with dozens of other reports, show that Obama’s plan has not been as successful as the administration would like you to think . In fact, the AP reports that Obama’s economy is the worst recovery since the Great Depression.

Paul Wiseman of the Associated Press states,“Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest… Economic growth has never been weaker in a postwar recovery. Consumer spending has never been so slack. Only once has job growth been slower.”

The main components of the slowed recovery are feeble growth, exhausted consumers, the jobs hole and shrinking paychecks. Via TheBlaze.com :

Feeble Growth:

America’s gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic output — grew 6.8 percent from the April-June quarter of 2009 through the same quarter this year, the slowest in the first three years of a postwar recovery. GDP grew an average of 15.5 percent in the first three years of the eight other comebacks analyzed. The engines that usually drive recoveries aren’t firing this time.

Exhausted Consumers:

Consumer spending has grown just 6.5 percent since the recession ended, feeblest in a postwar recovery. In the first three years of previous recoveries, spending rose an average of nearly 14 percent.

It’s no mystery why consumers are being frugal. Many have lost access to credit, which fueled their spending in the 2000s. Home equity has evaporated and credit cards have been canceled. Falling home prices have slashed home equity 49 percent, from $13.2 trillion in 2005 to $6.7 trillion early this year

Jobs Hole:

The economy shed a staggering 8.8 million jobs during and shortly after the recession. Since employment hit bottom, the economy has created just over 4 million jobs. So the new hiring has replaced 46 percent of the lost jobs, by far the worst performance since World War II. In the previous eight recoveries, the economy had regained more than 350 percent of the jobs lost, on average.

During the 1981-82 Recession, the U.S. lost 2.8 million jobs. In the three years and one month after that recession ended, the economy added 9.8 million – replacing the 2.8 million and adding 7 million more.

Never before have so many Americans been unemployed for so long - three years into a recovery. Nearly 5.2 million have been out of work for six months or more. The long-term unemployed account for 41 percent of the jobless; the highest mark in the other recoveries was 22 percent.

Shrinking Paychecks:

Earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers — a category that covers about 80 percent of the private, nonfarm workforce — have risen just over 6.2 percent since June 2009. Consumer prices have risen nearly 7.2 percent. Adjusted for inflation, wages have fallen 0.8 percent. In the previous five recoveries -the records go back only to 1964 – real wages had gone up an average 1.5 percent at this point

There is a very clear choice for this November: Barack Obama who considers this report as “doing fine” and the Democratic plan as “working, or Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who have real fiscal sense and proven track records when it comes to jobs and budgets. One thing is clear, America can’t afford four more years of Barack Obama.

AP News.

[snyper]

Link to the sources?

You gave a very sparse quote there. What was the context? What was the President discussing when he said that it worked? What worked? Worked on what?

[Razors Edge]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Your post is short on support for your assertions, or even any attempt at tracing a connection between the (linkless) quotes you offer for consideration and your opinionations that follow.
Bloviation!

The Treasury inspector general for tax administration recently released a report that shows IRS managers discouraged their employees from detecting a tax fraud that has allowed illegal aliens to collect tax refunds, even if they did not pay any taxes. The report reveals that IRS management has not established adequate internal controls to detect and prevent fraud in the issuance of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) to illegal aliens so they can file tax returns. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), shares what the inspector general has disclosed. "The inspector general of the Department of the Treasury pointed out that the IRS is giving out 4.2 billion a year, as of 2010, to illegal aliens who are claiming children not just here in this country, but even back in their home countries. And the American public is taking it on the chin," he tells OneNewsNow. "We have huge deficits with the government cutting programs for all sorts of people in this country, and yet this tax credit for illegal aliens remains because Harry Reid refuses to close it." Even though illegal aliens are not authorized to work in the United States in the first place, Mehlman says the IRS issues them ITINs, which has resulted in massive fraud.

Typical "Back Door Obama Style" Sleazy,Low Class
all seem very Apt!! Notice,Oblamer does not even
Kiss the American people, before Intercourse????

[snyper]

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>
The Treasury inspector general for tax administration recently released a report that shows IRS managers discouraged their employees from detecting a tax fraud that has allowed illegal aliens to collect tax refunds, even if they did not pay any taxes. The report reveals that IRS management has not established adequate internal controls to detect and prevent fraud in the issuance of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) to illegal aliens so they can file tax returns. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), shares what the inspector general has disclosed. "The inspector general of the Department of the Treasury pointed out that the IRS is giving out 4.2 billion a year, as of 2010, to illegal aliens who are claiming children not just here in this country, but even back in their home countries. And the American public is taking it on the chin," he tells OneNewsNow. "We have huge deficits with the government cutting programs for all sorts of people in this country, and yet this tax credit for illegal aliens remains because Harry Reid refuses to close it." Even though illegal aliens are not authorized to work in the United States in the first place, Mehlman says the IRS issues them ITINs, which has resulted in massive fraud.
Typical "Back Door Obama Style" Sleazy,Low Class
all seem very Apt!! Notice,Oblamer does not even
Kiss the American people, before Intercourse????

Link to sources?

[Brian_G]

snyper wrote:

Define "entitlements", please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E xpenditures_in_the_United_Stat es_federal_budget#Mandatory_sp ending_and_entitlements

Social Security and Medicare expenditures are funded by permanent appropriations and so are considered mandatory spending according to the 1997 Budget Enforcement Act (BEA). Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called "entitlements," because people meeting relevant eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits, although most pay taxes into these programs throughout their working lives. Some programs, such as Food Stamps, are appropriated entitlements. Some mandatory spending, such as Congressional salaries, is not part of any entitlement program. Funds to make federal interest payments have been automatically appropriated since 1847. Mandatory spending accounted for 53% of total federal outlays in FY2008, with net interest payments accounting for an additional 8.5%.

[Brian_G]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_...

The left doesn't want to decrease spending, they want to increase revenue by increasing taxes

[Razors Edge]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Link to sources?

I included the source in the post??
Do not rush thru them?? Read it and
see the source..Lot of posters do it
and its so obvious the post has not
been comprehended??

[Prep-for-Dep]

Time and Space wrote:

Conservative 'blcks' would be better off forming their own independent party, than joining the ranks of condescending colonial racist GOP party members...

The GOP doesn't have a lock hold on Conservatism...or values...

One can be high on principles...(which come from God, not the GOP)...and not lie in bed with the likes of Hannity...and Rush...

That's all fine and good, but there are too few conservative Blacks to form another party, and manage to influence electoral votes.

[Razors Edge]

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
That's all fine and good, but there are too few conservative Blacks to form another party, and manage to influence electoral votes.

WorldNetDaily said that Pelosi spent more than $100,000 for "food [and] booze." That’s false. The total includes expenses other than "food and booze," though it’s certainly true that international CODELs routinely show receipts for hundreds of dollars worth of top-shelf alcohol — brands like Maker’s Mark, Courvoisier, Grey Goose and Bombay Sapphire. Pelosi herself does not drink alcohol, her staff told us, but she’s not the only member of Congress on these trips. The ones who do drink are well-supplied.

The documents also show receipts for hundreds of dollars in food purchases, often from the bulk store Sam’s Club or from the Andrews Air Force Base commissary.(It’s worth noting that, according to Pelosi’s staff, food and beverages left over after a trip are stored for future travel.) Snack items usually include cereals, fruit, chips and candy. Most of the CODELs in Judicial Watch’s sheaf of documents do not provide itemized receipts for the food used to make in-flight meals, but the one that does (a Pelosi CODEL from February 2009) lists provisions including tilapia, lasagna and fancy cakes.

Judicial Watch calculated that Pelosi’s CODELs spent precisely $101,429.14 over two years for what it calls “in-flight expenses." We asked Judicial Watch for an explanation of its accounting, and the group sent us a spreadsheet that covered three of the nine Pelosi CODELs represented in its documents, plus 47 speaker shuttles to and from Pelosi’s home district. From the three CODELs it covers, it’s clear that Judicial Watch is counting as “in-flight expenses” any non-reimbursable Air Force expenditure besides transportation costs. That category actually includes all non-plane costs of the trip, including baggage fees, meeting room rentals and refreshments, and, frequently, good-will lapel pins — as well as meals, ground transportation and lodging in U.S. territory.

Its so refreshing to see the Representatives of
the People enjoying the very same peoples Taxes?

Yep,They are the Party of the poor,downtrodden
burdened voters for the Left/Communists,you
Know all equal,That Bull Sh&t they feed them?
Bet they were laughing,And saying we beat the
Sh*T out of the GSA,On this trip!! PARTAY!!!

[Abdurratln]

Time and Space wrote:

Conservative 'blcks' would be better off forming their own independent party, than joining the ranks of condescending colonial racist GOP party members...
The GOP doesn't have a lock hold on Conservatism...or values...
One can be high on principles...(which come from God, not the GOP)...and not lie in bed with the likes of Hannity...and Rush...

You are right about an Independent African Party. But, I would not label it "conservative" although balcks are a conservative community. The i[portant is a better deal in terms of more and better job availablity. That measn conservative investors and more modern and liberal blacks and other minorities. If you can talk the economy up and not down by not talking sbout "tax cuts for the rich", that would help the black commuity by creating more jobs. If you can avoid talking about "gay" rights for at least one year, you can get black votes. If you can avoid talking about war against China and Iran and Syria, you can get more black support. Plus, gas prices would go down. This would transalte into more votes from blacks while more blacks vote for the Dummycrats.

[snyper]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_...
Social Security and Medicare expenditures are funded by permanent appropriations and so are considered mandatory spending according to the 1997 Budget Enforcement Act (BEA). Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called "entitlements," because people meeting relevant eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits, although most pay taxes into these programs throughout their working lives. Some programs, such as Food Stamps, are appropriated entitlements. Some mandatory spending, such as Congressional salaries, is not part of any entitlement program. Funds to make federal interest payments have been automatically appropriated since 1847. Mandatory spending accounted for 53% of total federal outlays in FY2008, with net interest payments accounting for an additional 8.5%.

Social Security and Medicare are not funded in the same way. They don't fit into the same classification.

Anyway, this is off topic.