Why They Hate Obama

There are 12489 comments on the The Daily Beast story from Aug 8, 2013, titled Why They Hate Obama. In it, The Daily Beast reports that:

As the Virginia Flaggers loft their Confederate flag in opposition to the 'tyranny' of 2013, Jamelle Bouie argues that racial bias plays at least some part in Obama's collapse in the South.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Beast.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2525 Nov 30, 2013
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep up with the dumb Ayn Rand ideology...bet'cha you won't turn down that SS check.....simple azz!!!!!!!!!
Keep up with that Welfare mentality and you will be one of the many desperate individuals out there which I was told years ago to plan without Social Security and they were right which the Liberals on the SCOTUS confirmed in 1960 that Individuals have no Rights to Social Security which is why Social Security needs to be eliminated so people can keep their money and the ones that need Social Security & the Welfare System need to go out and get a job then instead of depending on Welfare System which sounds like you depend on.

Social Security’s Sham Guarantee

By Michael D. Tanner

May 29, 2005

How many times during the recent debate over Social Security reform have you heard someone refer to Social Security’s “guaranteed benefit”? The AARP says “Social Security is the guaranteed part of your retirement plan.” Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, touts the system’s “guaranteed retirement benefit.” The liberal activist group ProtectYourCheck.org , headed by former Clinton chief of staff Harold Ickes, is running ads calling Social Security “a guarantee you earned.”

But Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor(1960) and Helvering v. Davis(1937), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

As a result, retirees must depend on the good will of 535 politicians to determine how much they will receive in retirement. And what could be less guaranteed than a politician’s promise? In fact, Congress has voted to reduce Social Security benefits in the past. For example, in 1983, Congress raised the retirement age.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

Warren Court(Liberal Majority 1953-1969)

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.

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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2526 Nov 30, 2013
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one of the dead!!!!!!!!!!
You are one the of many Dead because you are dependent on the Welfare System to provide for you and I am not dependent on it which is why I want to see Social Security eliminated since there is no Rights to Social Security according to you Liberals which was determined in 1960 by the Liberals on the SCOTUS.

Since: Jan 11

Hackettstown, NJ

#2527 Dec 1, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Never did the democrats have a Super Majority under Obama;
"This stood out to me in "The Lies of Mitt Romney III":
"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"
I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 – 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks."
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/06/07/the...
Here is the transcript from The Des Moines Register,
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/24/obama-...
Do you want to continue down this path, or would you just prefer to say you made an error?
Romney said to years, I didn't.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2528 Dec 1, 2013
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
Whites always come up with the schemes since you ppl. think Obama is a dumbo. Go ahead and take the credit...makes Obama look like an innocent man.
The only white people involved there is the ones in DumBama's party. They supported his measures and got the stupid law passed.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2529 Dec 1, 2013
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats absolutely wonderful....whites will crash along with the stock market. Better cash in before its too late!!!!!!!!!!
Why is that? Are white people the only people in the stock market?

Let me explain something to you: when the market crashes, it will have an impact on jobs and the economy in this country. Given the fact that there is almost twice as many blacks unemployed percentage wise as whites, it will hurt blacks the most.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2530 Dec 1, 2013
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a meth. head..... suffice it to be said that you know nothing of which you speak. Reagan's war on the middle class is widely documented. He only cared about the 1% that financed his crazy azz ideas. Yeah....the bums started tanking our economy way back then!!!!!!!!!!
If that was the case, how is it we had such a wonderful economy under Clinton and the Republican led Congress in the 90's?

I know what Reagan did. I was there. I didn't get any kind of decent job until the end of his first term. The economy was doing great and middle-class people were working. Once again, there were no special tax breaks for companies leaving the country.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2531 Dec 1, 2013
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
White banksters and ship-shaky leanding institutions....mostly the greedy azz white man!!!!!!!!!!
That would be true if there were no black people in this country. Unfortunately however, the politicians pander to the blacks every time they cry racism. If we didn't have black people in this country, we wouldn't have had a housing bubble or collapse.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2532 Dec 1, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Romney said to years, I didn't.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/...
You said over 4 months, remember?

Allow me to refresh your memory;

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TO9H0I...

You lie once again. Sucks to get caught doing that, don't it?

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2533 Dec 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was the case, how is it we had such a wonderful economy under Clinton and the Republican led Congress in the 90's?
I know what Reagan did. I was there. I didn't get any kind of decent job until the end of his first term. The economy was doing great and middle-class people were working. Once again, there were no special tax breaks for companies leaving the country.
You forgot the recession under Reagan in 1987? I lived and worked during that period also.

There were in fact special tax breaks enacted by Reagan - need a refresher course?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/...

"However, the number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[9] The number of children, ages 18 years and younger, below the poverty level increased from 11.543 million in 1980, 18.3% of children, to 12.455, 19.5%, in 1988.[10] In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income received by the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth of income increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth of households fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%"

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

"Fall 1982
The nation sinks into its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan fears budget deficits as high as $200 billion. On Nov. 1, more than 9 million Americans are officially unemployed.

Reagan meets with Congress
Reagan during a 1983 meeting with members of Congress.
Photo: Reagan Presidential Library

Jan. 31, 1983
Reagan submits his fiscal 1984 budget to Congress. The recession, tax cuts and increased defense outlays are blamed for a projected $189 billion budget gap. Reagan vows to "stay the course," rejecting advice to raise taxes or cut defense."

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/obits/reagan...

"But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world)."

https://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/...

Need another lesson? Trickle down economics paired with deregulation destroyed this country my friend.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2534 Dec 1, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot the recession under Reagan in 1987? I lived and worked during that period also.
There were in fact special tax breaks enacted by Reagan - need a refresher course?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/...
"However, the number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[9] The number of children, ages 18 years and younger, below the poverty level increased from 11.543 million in 1980, 18.3% of children, to 12.455, 19.5%, in 1988.[10] In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income received by the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth of income increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth of households fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_...
"Fall 1982
The nation sinks into its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan fears budget deficits as high as $200 billion. On Nov. 1, more than 9 million Americans are officially unemployed.
Reagan meets with Congress
Reagan during a 1983 meeting with members of Congress.
Photo: Reagan Presidential Library
Jan. 31, 1983
Reagan submits his fiscal 1984 budget to Congress. The recession, tax cuts and increased defense outlays are blamed for a projected $189 billion budget gap. Reagan vows to "stay the course," rejecting advice to raise taxes or cut defense."
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/obits/reagan...
"But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world)."
https://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/...
Need another lesson? Trickle down economics paired with deregulation destroyed this country my friend.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011...

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2535 Dec 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
An opinion piece from a conservative journalist for the Wall St. Journal (owned by Ruport Murdoch) are not even close to being factual.

Try again - facts belie your opinion writers.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#2536 Dec 1, 2013
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
White banksters and ship-shaky leanding institutions....mostly the greedy azz white man!!!!!!!!!!
People hate tyranny. Tyranny isn't a color,it's more to do with Obama arrogance and his lack of character. If Obama had morals,values and principles he wouldn't be trying to destroy our country.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2537 Dec 1, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
He did, but it only lasted a little over 4 months.
Nope.

A Romney myth.

You stomping your feet doesn't change facts, Tea Bagged.

Otherwise you would have already refuted.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2538 Dec 1, 2013
Frank wrote:
If Obama had morals,values and principles he wouldn't be trying to destroy our country.
If Republicans had had more, they would have been elected.

Twice.

They lost.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#2539 Dec 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
If Republicans had had more, they would have been elected.
Twice.
They lost.
Our country lost,twice. Obama has never had the best interest of our country any where near the top of his agenda.
Cat74

Oswego, IL

#2540 Dec 1, 2013
The dead voters, and illegal aliens elected, and reelected President Obama. It won't happen again. Even the dead are angry at the Democrats this time.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#2541 Dec 1, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Never did the democrats have a Super Majority under Obama;
"This stood out to me in "The Lies of Mitt Romney III":
"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"
I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 – 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks."
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/06/07/the...
Here is the transcript from The Des Moines Register,
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/24/obama-...
Do you want to continue down this path, or would you just prefer to say you made an error?
How many liberals voted for ObamaCare? That should answer your lie.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#2542 Dec 1, 2013
Don't forget the two independents that caucus with liberals also. They just call them selves independents to get votes.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#2543 Dec 1, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot the recession under Reagan in 1987? I lived and worked during that period also.
There were in fact special tax breaks enacted by Reagan - need a refresher course?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/...
"However, the number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[9] The number of children, ages 18 years and younger, below the poverty level increased from 11.543 million in 1980, 18.3% of children, to 12.455, 19.5%, in 1988.[10] In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income received by the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth of income increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth of households fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_...
"Fall 1982
The nation sinks into its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan fears budget deficits as high as $200 billion. On Nov. 1, more than 9 million Americans are officially unemployed.
Reagan meets with Congress
Reagan during a 1983 meeting with members of Congress.
Photo: Reagan Presidential Library
Jan. 31, 1983
Reagan submits his fiscal 1984 budget to Congress. The recession, tax cuts and increased defense outlays are blamed for a projected $189 billion budget gap. Reagan vows to "stay the course," rejecting advice to raise taxes or cut defense."
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/obits/reagan...
"But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world)."
https://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/...
Need another lesson? Trickle down economics paired with deregulation destroyed this country my friend.
BS.......keep trying pookie. Fertilizer will be great in the spring. Save your post. You'll become a onepercenter

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2544 Dec 1, 2013
Frank wrote:
Our country lost,twice.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh h!

~stomp stomp stomp~

Darling: we've just about recovered from the Bush administrations.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chesterfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Abortion is Wrong Apr 18 Cry for help 1
Replace DOC Leadership (Aug '17) Aug '17 Replace DOC Leade... 1
Christie Brinkley Wrinkle Remover (May '17) May '17 bulk 1
News How Did Fla. Therapist Accused of S&M with Pati... (May '14) Mar '17 Tim 4
Like and following social pages (Nov '16) Nov '16 Sesational Seduction 1
Chesterfield County VA Child predators (Jul '07) Jan '16 Stay in school 55
Relocating to Chesterfield (Mar '15) Jan '16 Mike Brunswick 2

Chesterfield Jobs

Personal Finance

Chesterfield Mortgages