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.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#13032 Jul 19, 2014
mjjcpa wrote:
<quoted text>
The US stock market is going up in spite of barock, the Great Depressioner.
The Great Global Depression that bar0ck caused is currently putting immense pressure on food prices. America has lots, although food inflation is now at double digits.
American oil production is also offsetting lost capacity in Venezuela from incompetence and the middle east from bar0ck's arab winter.
The US employment situation hasn't been this bad since the last liberal depression in the 30s. This is why bar0ck needs to talk about minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits all the time.
Boy is you nonsense getting more outrageous!

Now who was president in 1929 when the Great Depression occurred you fake adjunct professor?

Hoover you dunce - who also was Secretary of Commerce under Harding's administration./ ALSO A REPUBLICAN!

A recession in the early 1020's, under the Harding administration, with over 5 million people unemployed - so what did they do?

Let the banks do EXACTLY what they did to start the Great Depression of 2008.

Real bright you guys are - at repeating history, expecting a different outcome.

And for the record you dope, Obama did not start this depression - he INHERITED IT!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#13033 Jul 19, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
An obvious lie, Au Dumbo.
Putting aside the WORST the employment situation has been since the depression was when Reagan was president, gosh, those facts don't move.
PS: Reagan promised to balance the federal budget... he never got close, and he tripled the federal debt.
10.8% unemployment in 1982 - two years into Reagans presidency.

Reagan also maintained a 7% minimum unemployment rate until 1987 also;

"Unemployment rates[edit]

The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, with unemployment averaging 7.5%. The unemployment averaged 6.4 percent under President Carter and 7.8 percent under President Ford.[35] Towards the end of his second term however the unemployment rate dropped to 5.4%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Unem...

http://cdn.calisphere.org/data/28722/28/bk000...

I love when this imbecile touts Reagan - so easy to simply provide facts to shut this moron up!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13034 Jul 19, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy is you nonsense getting more outrageous!
Now who was president in 1929 when the Great Depression occurred you fake adjunct professor?!
Gee... next you'll be telling us you suspect mjjjizzzzzemmmm didn't actually millions in taxes.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#13035 Jul 20, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
10.8% unemployment in 1982 - two years into Reagans presidency.
Reagan also maintained a 7% minimum unemployment rate until 1987 also;
"Unemployment rates[edit]
The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, with unemployment averaging 7.5%. The unemployment averaged 6.4 percent under President Carter and 7.8 percent under President Ford.[35] Towards the end of his second term however the unemployment rate dropped to 5.4%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Unem...
http://cdn.calisphere.org/data/28722/28/bk000...
I love when this imbecile touts Reagan - so easy to simply provide facts to shut this moron up!
Here's the real facts...

By the time Reagan was running for re-election in 1984, in October of that year, the unemployment rate was back down to 7.4%, basically the same level that prevailed when he had taken office, and well off the 10.8% peak of two years before. And the participation rate was up to 64.4%.

Thus as Reagan made his bid for a second term, in the month before the election, unemployment was decreasing as more and more people were looking for jobs. This meant that there had to be quite a few more jobs in the economy in October 1984 compared to January 1981. Indeed there were: 5.7 million more.

It is uncanny what a comparison can be made with respect to this experience and that of the nation under President Obama.

When Obama took office in January 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8%, just as it is this month of October 2012 as he runs for re-election, having got as bad as 10%(in 2010). This is essentially identical to the Reagan record: unemployment in the mid- or high-7% range at the beginning and end, with a peak at 10% or just above.

Here’s the big difference. When it comes to the labor force participation rate, under Obama it too fell to a trough of 63.5%, as it did for Reagan, but now it stands at…63.6%.

Therefore, there must be a rather massive difference in job creation—in total employment in the nation. Sure enough, this is true. The number of jobs in the United States is a mere 800,000 more now than when Obama took office. Again, the net gain under Reagan was about 5 million more than that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13036 Jul 20, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the real facts...
They wouldn't come from you slurpicco.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13037 Jul 20, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the real facts...
By the time Reagan was running for re-election in 1984, in October of that year, the unemployment rate was back down to 7.4%
You mean after Reagan took us to the HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT and the DEEPEST RECESSION since WWII?

You left that out...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13038 Jul 20, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the real facts...
By the time Reagan was running for re-election in 1984
It isn't 1984.

It is 2014.

The baby boomers in 1984 were 35 years old.

They are now 65.

They are tired and they aren't going to look for another job if they can retire.

Your copy and paste kind of forgot to mention Reagan TRIPLING the federal deficit.

Funny how it didn't make it in your cut...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13039 Jul 20, 2014
25 years old...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13041 Jul 20, 2014
scirocco wrote:
When Obama took office in January 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8%, just as it is this month of October 2012
It's July 2014, the unemployment rate is 6.1

Today.

Obama was handed the Bush recession, and if you graduated from high school macroeconomics, you would now that employment is a trailing indicated: unemployment follows bad economic times.

The harsh economic times we ended up with are FROM GEORGE BUSH: he drove the car off the road across the ditch and into the tree.

Bush stuck Obama with the bill.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#13045 Jul 20, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's July 2014, the unemployment rate is 6.1
Today.
Obama was handed the Bush recession, and if you graduated from high school macroeconomics, you would now that employment is a trailing indicated: unemployment follows bad economic times.
The harsh economic times we ended up with are FROM GEORGE BUSH: he drove the car off the road across the ditch and into the tree.
Bush stuck Obama with the bill.
What is Obama's labor participation rate? The lowest in 40 years with 90 million out of work and 50 million on food stamps. You must be so proud

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Trump 2016 and beyond

#13047 Jul 20, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
What is Obama's labor participation rate? The lowest in 40 years with 90 million out of work and 50 million on food stamps. You must be so proud
Rump pumpers like him always have pride parades.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13048 Jul 20, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
What is Obama's labor participation rate? The lowest in 40 years with 90 million out of work and 50 million on food stamps. You must be so proud
Made up numbers mean nothing and food stamps use follows the Bush recession.

Not rocket science, slurpicco.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#13049 Jul 20, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Made up numbers mean nothing and food stamps use follows the Bush recession.
Not rocket science, slurpicco.
Thanks for admitting Obama is making up employment numbers

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13051 Jul 21, 2014
scirocco wrote:
The lowest in 40 years with 90 million out of work and 50 million on food stamps
Made up numbers mean nothing SpunkMonkey.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#13052 Jul 21, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Made up numbers mean nothing SpunkMonkey.
prove 'em wrong clown boy
rthendr

Clemson, SC

#13053 Jul 21, 2014
Show that you're a conservative republican and stand against obama all the time with our new awesome koozies! https://www.crowdtilt.com/campaigns/political...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13054 Jul 21, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
prove 'em wrong clown boy
Prove they are right, spunkmonkey.

That is how it works.

Wipe your chin, sonny.
VN Vet

Chesterfield, VA

#13055 Jul 21, 2014
bareazz6969 is typical of the left, by not having a proper answer to a question, only using vulgar language and name calling to side-step the real truth. People like him are just like their hero Odumbo, a stuffed shirt filled with hot air( bad gas -fart).
independent common sense

Coffeyville, KS

#13056 Jul 22, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove they are right, spunkmonkey.
That is how it works.
Wipe your chin, sonny.
The fact is there are more people on food stamps than ever before in our history and that can be proven because it is what it is....a fact! Not liking a fact because it doesn't fit your side of the argument or doesn't look good for the president doesn't change the facts. They remain the truth that they are!
As for it being because of the "Bush recession" that is something that is NOT a fact. That is opinion and that does change according to what your argument is and what looks good for the president. The FACT is that the increase in food stamps participation is completely the fault of the president because he loosened the regulations and lower the standards needed to qualify for them. Simply fact he wanted more people to be able to get government assistance, not surprising since he is very much a believer in big government and the more the government can control and the less the people can choose the better to him. He strongly believes that the government knows what is best for you and how to spend your money better than you can yourself. Now that is my opinion of the president but it is based on the facts of his policies which lead to that conclusion no matter how you may twist them to try to make them look good for the president.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#13057 Jul 22, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove they are right, spunkmonkey.
That is how it works.
Wipe your chin, sonny.
Sorry, if you can't prove 'em wrong you lose

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
Credo Mobile Supports Planned Parenthood Sat WatchmanOntheWall 1
Legal Action You Can Take to Deal with Sanctuar... Fri ConcernedCitizen 1
Reasons to Oppose Balanced Budget Amendment Jan 15 Dominique Millstone 2
Like and following social pages Nov '16 Sesational Seduction 1
Kelly Dinelle Payne (Mar '06) Jan '16 Steve 56
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

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chesterfield Mortgages