Why They Hate Obama

There are 12492 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.

benson

Richmond, VA

#6119 Jan 19, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Reminds me of Fred Sandford calling his junk yard his empire. LOL!
Guess what kkkracka....he owned his junk yard....and no white man ever gave him a loan to start it. HIs empire was HIS empire. What the hell do you own?
benson

Richmond, VA

#6120 Jan 19, 2014
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> One freebie...crapping out tens of millions of babies and letting the sucker taxpayer citizen foot the bill from birth to adulthood and longer. Just a general statement on this issue.
O well.....mighty nice that you ppl. got money to fund your demise. More babies on the way to help with eliminating your azzes from this earth. Pay up even more....dumb azz.
benson

Richmond, VA

#6121 Jan 19, 2014
EasyEed wrote:
<quoted text>
"bensongalturd"
As usual you prove you are an idiot. If you read the post I offered I never said blacks as a group do not have skills or only that whites have skills. You are a simple racist, a loser and a piece of manure. You wouldn't make a wart on a real man's asz weather that man was Asian, black, white or purple. Your color transparent you are a simple minded hater. Get a life, quit being a leech.
Peace
KMA
Happy MLK Day
Don't go away mad m'fcker...just go the hell away!!!!!!!
You said what you said and it can't be taken back. You are the racist kkkracka.
Go somewhere and inhale a medicated fart....might just open your stuffed up head.
Quirky

Denver, CO

#6122 Jan 19, 2014
benson wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess what kkkracka....he owned his junk yard....and no white man ever gave him a loan to start it. HIs empire was HIS empire. What the hell do you own?
Some Puerto Rican Jagoff`s just don`t appreciate the status they have EH ? Jaggoff!
benson

Richmond, VA

#6123 Jan 19, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The collapse of the tech bubble, a future Iraq war, and the 911 attacks had more to do with those figures than anything. Unemployment went down to 4.4%. It began to climb in 2008 when home values began to fall. People were over extended in equity loans and began to stop spending as home equity values declined. Bush's worst unemployment rate was better than Obama's best rate.
The Bush tax cuts did, however, create the beginning of our national debt and deficit. You can't cut taxes and get involved in wars, creating an entire department, and bail out Wall St. and car companies.
You ppl. love talking about o so yesterdays news. Talk about the now or the now to come.
benson

Richmond, VA

#6124 Jan 19, 2014
serfs up wrote:
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "there's money if you know where to look for it" are the great talent based equalizers put on the back of any taxpayer that we have received from the neighborhoods. This diminishes the talent that has shown itself while keeping others down including people who work hard and have their earnings stolen from them to pay for it.
Hell yeah.....the squeaky wheel gets the grease. One must be talented in making you stooges give up money. Funny how you ppl. keep losing out.
benson

Richmond, VA

#6125 Jan 19, 2014
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>The unemployment numbers under Obama are not only much worst that Bush ,but much worse than any administration going all the way back to Carter.
So glad those non-working ppl. are mostly white. Typical how you whites will throw your own under the bus.
benson

Richmond, VA

#6126 Jan 19, 2014
Quirky wrote:
<quoted text>
Some Puerto Rican Jagoff`s just don`t appreciate the status they have EH ? Jaggoff!
Did you purchase a fifty bag today.....
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#6127 Jan 19, 2014
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>The unemployment numbers under Obama are not only much worst that Bush ,but much worse than any administration going all the way back to Carter.
Reagan's was worse, and the current unemployment rate is better than the unemployment rate Obama inherited from Bush in Jan 2009.

It's not been that long ago that any one discussing unemployment of Presidents could forget the Bush unemployment numbers.

America hasn't seen a Republican President in the White House with better unemployment numbers than Bill Clinton.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6128 Jan 19, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's rather sad you think that this means something.
to a bigot like you it does have meaning which is meaning you have no use for especially Liberalism of the founding fathers which even you reject especially ones right of their 2nd amendment.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6129 Jan 19, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you conveniently omitted what President signed NAFTA.
The housing market didn't collapse because people lost their jobs, it collapsed because of 0% down and no credit check. Trust me, I've seen my suburb fall apart over that. Lowlifes got mortgages with not a pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of. They came from the inner-city and brought the crime with them.
I lost two good tenants because of 0% down. Both were way over extended on their credit and would have never gotten a loan prior to Clinton's wing-man heading HUD that created 0% down. That same guy is now the Governor of New York.
For people with no money, 0% down was a gift from above. They got out of the projects and crime ridden cities and moved to suburbs. They didn't pay on their loans--they had no intention of. But they realized that by the time the banks caught up with them, it would be free rent for at least a year if not longer. As it turns out, it was much longer. And when the banks finally kicked them out, no big deal. They ended up right back where they started. Nothing gained--nothing lost.
Liberals including Ed Shultz on MSNBC has mysteriously forgot who signed NAFTA into Law and are attacking NAFTA and at the same time deny that Liberal Democrat Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into Law and they wonder why people think the Liberals are bigots.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6130 Jan 19, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
This isn't study material, this is a hatchet opinion job on CRA to propagandize the twisted narratives deflecting the blame from the Republicans policies that cause an economic melt down of the United States financial system.
Your entire assumption on credit worthiness prior to credit scores is ethnicity and gender which were the legal basis for CRA and all discriminatory lending laws and the establishment of enforcement mechanisms.
Those are fascist policies practiced and accepted by Fascist.
Part of the conspiracy in perpetrating economic genocide with in America's capitalist system. Republicans used this inept theory to demonstrate against banking regulations as they use and exaggerate most any and every kind of regulation in America's markets.
<quoted text>
it is a hatchet opinion job to you which I would expect and you have confirmed you no nothing about private enterprise which you have confirmed and you cant lend money to people that cant pay it back and go try running a business with your liberal thinking and you wont be in business too long because you will be broke and that is what the liberals where trying to do with the banks by forcing banks to lend money to people who could not afford these houses and is the reason why so many people are now underwater on their houses because of the explosion of REO Houses that are now on the market to buy because of failed CRA politicies forced onto the banks by the liberals.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6131 Jan 19, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Prior to CRA in 1977, Minorities were illegally frozen out of purchasing property where they desired by blatant discriminatory practices,
What matrix was used to determine credit worthiness before 1987? Based on your below reply the assumption was based solely on ethnicity.
There is no credibility in believing a man working beside you couldn't also make the same housing payments you could, or purchase a property in the same neighborhood other than racism, while earning the same salary.
How does a man earning the same salary on the same job with you not qualify for the same price home you may have been qualified to purchase? All things being equal, how is it possible to paint everybody with such a broad brush without being bias?
What analysis have you to prove the majority of Blacks have Bad Credit, how about Women and Native Americans or Hispanics before CRA they were equally shut out of consumer loans. That's a long perpetuated stereotype with no basic in fact that minorities are any more above average in not being credit worthiness. That's the reason for the adoption of credit rating and CRA among other enforcement measure against discrimination in lending and economic genocide.
This is part of the thinking that makes Conservatives obsolete in American Politics and why those theories and ideas the Republicans have are thoroughly rejected by an overwhelming majority of he Electorate
.
<quoted text>
Liberal spin I see that isnt true and the real reason why Minorities were frozen out of purchasing property where they desired and not illegally is because they could not afford them and I would bet you feel Minorites should be able to buy a 2 million dollar home they cant afford too which is your thinking and then have foreclosed own and retrurned back to the bank after it has been destroyed and that is exactly what Liberal Demcorats did with the CRA to the Banks.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6132 Jan 19, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't name the freebies you were touting? You just say anything without any credible evidence to support your allegations and false claims? I'm surprised.
The trillion dollar deficits came by way of Bush and Cheney looting the treasury and providing unfunded historic tax cuts, spending on two wars, and the gift pharmacy program to the pharmacy industry, the expansion of the federal government workforce by 1.5 million, nationalizing the airport baggage checkers, and security also the creation of the department of Homeland Security all those decision came with reoccurring cost strapped around the throats of America. Those deficits were amassed and established in the discretionary spending portion of the budget under the Republican Majority after the historic tax cuts reduced revenue into the US Treasury.
It would help if you could name one freebie.
I can Section 8 Housing which you benefit from and why you advocate for it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6133 Jan 19, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Reagan's was worse, and the current unemployment rate is better than the unemployment rate Obama inherited from Bush in Jan 2009.
It's not been that long ago that any one discussing unemployment of Presidents could forget the Bush unemployment numbers.
America hasn't seen a Republican President in the White House with better unemployment numbers than Bill Clinton.
your crazy if we went back to the way unemployment was calculated under Reagan, Unemployment is worse yet and even under Clinton which it was Bill Clition that changed the Formula that is used to calculate unemployment and the big kicker is people that are unemployed and are no longer receiving uneployment benefits are no longer counted as unemployed and there is alot of people out there no longer eligible or receiving unemployment and still looking for jobs and it is worse than the Great Depression especially for the Federal Government now because during the Great Depression the Federal Government wasnt paying for a entitlement society like today which is a big problem for the US today.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6134 Jan 19, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Reagan's was worse, and the current unemployment rate is better than the unemployment rate Obama inherited from Bush in Jan 2009.
It's not been that long ago that any one discussing unemployment of Presidents could forget the Bush unemployment numbers.
America hasn't seen a Republican President in the White House with better unemployment numbers than Bill Clinton.
Ratio of Job Seekers to Job Openings Slips Below 3-to-1 for First Time in Nearly Five Years, but Is Still as High as in Worst Month of Early 2000s Downturn

October 24, 2013


The August Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the total number of job openings increased by 75,000 in August. That, along with the upward revision of 119,000 job openings to earlier data, brought the August level of job openings to 3.9 million. However, there were 11.3 million job seekers in August (unemployment data are from the Current Population Survey), for a “job-seekers ratio”—the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings— of 2.9-to-1. Though August was the first time the ratio of job seekers to job openings fell below 3.0-to-1 in nearly 5 years, today’s ratio of 2.9-to-1 matches the highest the ratio ever got in the early 2000s downturn.

In her analysis, EPI Economist Heidi Shierholz looks at the number of unemployed workers and the number of job openings by industry to examine the common claim that the labor market’s main problem is that available workers lack the skills needed for the sectors with job openings. If this were the case, she explains, some sectors would have more job openings than unemployed workers. However, there are between 1.3 and 9.8 times as many unemployed workers as job openings in every industry.“In other words, even in the industry with the most favorable ratio of unemployed workers to job openings—finance and insurance—there are still 30 percent more unemployed workers than job openings,” said Shierholz.“In no industry does the number of job openings even come close to the number of people looking for work, which demonstrates that the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers.”

http://www.epi.org/press/ratio-job-seekers-jo...

Since: Oct 08

Decatur, GA

#6135 Jan 20, 2014
benson is the Stokley Carmichael of Topix
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#6136 Jan 20, 2014
This is just another in a long list of radicalized rhetoric you promote.

CRA only applies to Chartered Depository Institution, which are Banks in America.......

The loans in question that caused the world financial meltdown 75 to 80% were made by private Mortgage Firms, firms like Countrywide Home Loans.

Had you any elementary understanding of finances in America you wouldn't have to be told this information. Banks who suffered loses from bad mortgages purchased those mortgages in packaged securities from Wall Street investment brokers in the secondary mortgage market.

Instead of distributing asinine information it would do you some purpose to research any of the unfamiliar terms in this post to help you gather some understanding of the mortgage security industry and the direct cause of the Bush Financial meltdown.

Had there been adequate financial oversight of the industry trading those worthless securities the American Financial System and Economy under the republicans may not have been sucked down the drain.

Banks who hired idiots to manage their affairs where swindled by more sophisticated architects of financial instruments who pushed off on them worthless securities.

You haven't a clue about CRA or the direct cause of the Bush Melt Down, you are just repeating and accepted as truth Stooge Talking points..........
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it is a hatchet opinion job to you which I would expect and you have confirmed you no nothing about private enterprise which you have confirmed and you cant lend money to people that cant pay it back and go try running a business with your liberal thinking and you wont be in business too long because you will be broke and that is what the liberals where trying to do with the banks by forcing banks to lend money to people who could not afford these houses and is the reason why so many people are now underwater on their houses because of the explosion of REO Houses that are now on the market to buy because of failed CRA politicies forced onto the banks by the liberals.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#6137 Jan 20, 2014
Well that answers the question of the impact of the 10 Million Jobs Bush sent off to Mexico, Vietnam and China.

The other would be the consequence for the drastic Republican funding cuts to Education under the Bush Administration.

Still considering the economic and financial apocalypse as a result of the Bush and Republican Congress oversight from 2001 to 2007, Obama helping to lay a climate for 8 million jobs since the catastrophe in the face of Republican commitments to ensure he fail is remarkable and astounding. Especially when you consider the 8 year failure of creating jobs and economic opportunity of the last administration.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Ratio of Job Seekers to Job Openings Slips Below 3-to-1 for First Time in Nearly Five Years, but Is Still as High as in Worst Month of Early 2000s Downturn
October 24, 2013
The August Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the total number of job openings increased by 75,000 in August. That, along with the upward revision of 119,000 job openings to earlier data, brought the August level of job openings to 3.9 million. However, there were 11.3 million job seekers in August (unemployment data are from the Current Population Survey), for a “job-seekers ratio”—the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings— of 2.9-to-1. Though August was the first time the ratio of job seekers to job openings fell below 3.0-to-1 in nearly 5 years, today’s ratio of 2.9-to-1 matches the highest the ratio ever got in the early 2000s downturn.
In her analysis, EPI Economist Heidi Shierholz looks at the number of unemployed workers and the number of job openings by industry to examine the common claim that the labor market’s main problem is that available workers lack the skills needed for the sectors with job openings. If this were the case, she explains, some sectors would have more job openings than unemployed workers. However, there are between 1.3 and 9.8 times as many unemployed workers as job openings in every industry.“In other words, even in the industry with the most favorable ratio of unemployed workers to job openings—finance and insurance—there are still 30 percent more unemployed workers than job openings,” said Shierholz.“In no industry does the number of job openings even come close to the number of people looking for work, which demonstrates that the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers.”
http://www.epi.org/press/ratio-job-seekers-jo...
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#6138 Jan 20, 2014
There has never been job loss in America like that which occurred under Reagan in the 1980s, and George Bush in the first decade of 2000 since the great depression. The job and financial loss from the Bush economic catastrophe was worse than the Great Depression.

Rebounding from the worse economic destruction since the invention of the word capitalism, especially with stiff Republicans opposition definitely is going to take some time.

Republicans have always destroyed broad growth in America with their policies when they have had a chance to be elevated to decision making in Washington. Democrats have always had to steer America away from a deadly collision that Republicans put the nation on course to ram.

History tells an accurate story of this pattern.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>your crazy if we went back to the way unemployment was calculated under Reagan, Unemployment is worse yet and even under Clinton which it was Bill Clition that changed the Formula that is used to calculate unemployment and the big kicker is people that are unemployed and are no longer receiving uneployment benefits are no longer counted as unemployed and there is alot of people out there no longer eligible or receiving unemployment and still looking for jobs and it is worse than the Great Depression especially for the Federal Government now because during the Great Depression the Federal Government wasnt paying for a entitlement society like today which is a big problem for the US today.

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
The cost of Illegal Immigration Feb 22 MAGA2016 1
white castle hamburger resturant chain (Feb '08) Feb 22 let it die 28
News Data shows large disparity between illegal immi... Feb 20 spytheweb 7
Scar Tissue can be a Major problem after surgery Feb 19 Concerned Citizen 1
Review: iLoveKickboxing - Midlothian, VA Feb 16 John Longcock 4
State Employees Pay Feb 16 John Longcock 6
Like and following social pages Nov '16 Sesational Seduction 1

Chesterfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chesterfield Mortgages