|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 29, 2011 8:48:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 29, 2011 11:25:22 GMT -6
Obama has never caved, he's just a affirmative action sock puppet.
As Senator he was a mentored by Robert Rubin(who was instrumental in Clinton's adoption of globalization and deregulation - basically he's a evil SOB), he thought Paul Wellstone was some liberal loser and during the campaign he surrounded himself with free trade economic advisers.
He never was one the side of the people.
That was just a fiction Dimmicrats allowed themselves to believe.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jun 29, 2011 18:22:15 GMT -6
Obama never campaigned as a populist economist, or pro-Tariff. And I don't think Affirmative Action is a very honest appraisal, it's racism. Many lefties thought Obama would be different cause he's black, their own racism.
The truly colorblind people, like me, knew him being black would make no difference. See how ass-backwards it is; I'm a bigot who doesn't like blacks, because blacks hate whites, but I'm the colorblind one.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 29, 2011 21:50:35 GMT -6
Obama sort of campaigned like populist like Clinton did and just like a lot of Democrats did in 2004 mid-terms where they swept GOPers out of power. However the moment they were sworn in they turned into Free trading tools and Obama into Bush III.
You're right Race did play a major factor in the campaign, the press and Leftists went around labeling anyone who criticized Obama as a "racist". If you were white and not having orgasms like Chris Matthews you were a racist.
Lefties bragged about how advanced the U.S. was - 'we elected a black man as president'.
It was all about skin color to them.
As for the affirmative action and sock puppet label, it fits Obama. The guy was guided since a kid by his grandmother and others. Doors opened for him that would never open for ordinary Americans. No one knows who paid for his Harvard Schooling. He was promoted way above his competency level and allowed to run for president when he had just two years in the senate.
The guy has very powerful friends who wanted him in and so far he hasn't disappointed the rich and powerful at all.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jun 29, 2011 22:41:43 GMT -6
Obama sort of campaigned like populist like Clinton did and just like a lot of Democrats did in 2004 mid-terms where they swept GOPers out of power. Only those in Illinois knows of his campaign in 2004, and his 2008 "populist" campaign goes only so far as, "i'm renegotiating NAFTA" and that's it; not "I'm abolishing NAFTA." Renegotiate could mean anything from making it worse to changing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 1, 2011 20:55:15 GMT -6
Obama sort of campaigned like populist like Clinton did and just like a lot of Democrats did in 2004 mid-terms where they swept GOPers out of power. Only those in Illinois knows of his campaign in 2004, and his 2008 "populist" campaign goes only so far as, "i'm renegotiating NAFTA" and that's it; not "I'm abolishing NAFTA." Renegotiate could mean anything from making it worse to changing nothing. Or option #3: making it WORSE.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 3, 2011 4:25:46 GMT -6
Nobody takes me cerial, let me elaborate and be more rigorous.
The perception of the left on whites is that whites are CEO's, yes-men, privileged, big monied tyrants; the left thought Obama would be different because he is black.
This naturally leads to...
"I got it! Obama is half-black, he is poisoned by some white blood, so the solution next time is to elect a full-black, that will be real change we can believe in." I know the lefties are thinking this, but won't admit it.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jul 3, 2011 5:36:41 GMT -6
Obama really is different from Michelle and most with African blood. His ancestors were not brought to America as slaves. His father was of a privileged class in Kenya. If the name, African-American fits anyone, it's him.
Obama grew up with the unique perspective of being an outsider to all whites and blacks in the US. He made his mark at Harvard Law School by being the bridge between the black and white students.
He grew up in the US Middle Class, unlike the privileged Bushes whose parents/grandparents traded with the Nazis until stopped in 1942. He could have done well on Wall Street, but instead chose to be a community organizer in Chicago.
At what point did he forsake his Middle Class upbringing and values for money? Maybe when he entered politics?
He was naturally jubilant right after the election, until he had his first meeting in the Whitehouse with Bush & Co. He appeared to me remarkably sober immediately after that meeting. Too bad, we may never know what he was told. We know only that he has continued and reinforced all the prior anti-democratic, unconstitutional actions initiated by Bush and predecessors.
Hope and Change is what we needed. Hopelessness is what we got.
GB
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 3, 2011 12:24:07 GMT -6
Obama has been a elitist since his days in a very exclusive private HS to his time in the Ivy League. He reeks of it.
The rest of his image was carefully crafted by Axelrod to remold him in the image of the man upon the white horse who has come to save the day.
In reality Obama has more in common with Robert Rubin and Blankfein socially and with economic policy than he has with a black factory worker in Detroit.
Still none of this changes the fact that both parties are in agreement on major economic and foreign policy agendas and have been for almost 2 decades. And have waged relentless war against the middle-class of this country.
We won't get real change until we vote both parties out of power.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 3, 2011 15:43:02 GMT -6
Okay, it's back to the shark tank again because I feel some things need to be said to explain what fredorbob is seeing (and I think he's seeing quite clearly). Nobody takes me cerial, let me elaborate and be more rigorous. The perception of the left on whites is that whites are CEO's, yes-men, privileged, big monied tyrants; the left thought Obama would be different because he is black. This naturally leads to... "I got it! Obama is half-black, he is poisoned by some white blood, so the solution next time is to elect a full-black, that will be real change we can believe in." I know the lefties are thinking this, but won't admit it. The left feels this way for a reason. Problem is, if you took the white vote OUT of the 2010 election, Republicans lost very badly. This ain't racism, it's simple statistics. 9% of blacks voted Republican. 33 or so percent of Hispanics voted Republican. These are fairly consistent numbers from one election to the next. You don't win blacks or Hispanics by pushing international imperialism, free trade, de-regulation or cutting social programs to help the working class. You alienate them as voters. Collectively speaking, the values of the demographic groups are not the same. This is easily demonstrated every time there is an election with clear candidate choices: blacks and Hispanics stampede AWAY from the aforementioned Conservative themes, even if they gravitate towards other Conservative themes. This is what makes the left think that whites are the problem. Take the white vote out of the exit poll results and the post-Reagan Republicans ALWAYS lose, badly, to the point where they would not even exist as a party. This is, however, not fair to the white voters who vote for workers' interests. You don't want to alienate them, either. Take the white leftists and the black and Hispanic voters, combine them, and the Corporate state withers right off the vine. Problem is, there are a lot of white voters who want to vote for a workers' party, but they are EASILY turned Republican by pitching to them the fear of the gay man, the Mexicans*, the black welfare thug, Murphy Brown, and so on. It works every.damned.TIME. This weakness is also potentially exploitable among black and Hispanic voters; the power elite just needs more time to find the pressure point to make blacks vote Republican. They're trying with Herman Cain. This is why I would say Herman Cain needs to win the GOP nomination, be faced down, and be defeated in a straight up match. He must be discredited in a fair fight so blacks don't wake up one day with their veins glowing purple with the Free Market radioactive kool-aid. The other problem is dissident racial groups vote Democrat, and as practically everyone knows, that's not working as a solution. Democrats are owned. We need a viable Worker's Party, and most of all, we need to stop letting people get divided! * Why not just unionize the immigrants and take away the businesses' ability to pay them rock bottom wages? It's the rock bottom wages that are screwing us up. The reason illegals get jobs here is they are cheap labor and businesses love that. Take away the cheap labor and... what immigration problem?
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 3, 2011 17:38:21 GMT -6
Jacquelope
The problem is there is no populist among the Democrats and the GOP is well the same.
But the Democrats have another problem. They are really are anti-white. They don't give a flying fuck about workers in the private sector. Sure if you're a fat cat state teacher; a crack dealer getting into a Section 8 home; a a gay atheist vegan being offended by a Christian prayer group, a drug addict on SS or a illegal alien trying to get on the dole, the Democrats are there for you. They're the first to support PC and MC rules on college campuses and in the work place. First to fight for open borders and making a mockery of citizenship.
You work in a steel mill, a high tech factory or quarry and pay your taxes, why all you're good for according to the Dems is taxes to pay off the parasite class.
Are you a small or even a large company business man worrying about China ripping off your IP? Again the Democrats offer nothing.
And they are the first lay on regressive taxes that hurt the middle and working class the most.
BTW all this shit began under Clinton who turned the party away from it's middle-class and populist roots and remade it into 3rd world patronage party that basically caters to the elite.
Thomas Franks wrote a book about it called "Whats the matter with Kansas". Being PC he couldn't really scold his party too much for alienating the country but it's a good and only entry into this topic.
Ultimately a 3rd party with a populist economic agenda is what's needed. However it has to stay away from evil patronage political system that the Democrats have created. It can only focus on economic(and by extension foreign policy since they are driven by economic consideration in most cases) issues. Should such a party come into existence, it will destroy the GOP, the Democrats will wither and become the comical freak show their leaders want it to be.
But since it doesn't offer a patronage angle(free shit in local parlance), forget about it attracting LBGT"s, Hispanics and every other hypenated American groups out there.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 3, 2011 18:34:10 GMT -6
Many want the country to be awash with 3rd worlders so as to destroy white civilization and make the U.S. more like Mexico city or Zimbabwe. Eh, I think the situation is more complicated than that. The left is angry and frustrated because working class whites are easily divided and turned toward Conservatism on account of the boogeyman of the day. Imaginary welfare queens this, the evil Swarthy turban wearing guy that, that sort of thing. Plus, their ire is not just aimed at whites. Let's talk about the hate-by-the-bucketfull... remember Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas? I've seen the Left call them Uncle Toms[/b], and that other phrase that's related to it. Let's not even get into Bobby Jindal. They've all been targets of some really mean spirited comments from the Left, that I've seen. The error the Left makes is that they look blindly to bring in demographics that are not economically conservative. Emphasis on blindly. All groups that come into America bring unintended consequences due to their cultural diversity (Russians, Chinese, Guatemalans, Germans, Mexicans Haitians, Cubans, Italians, Somalis, Irish, you name it). The liberals concentrate their love on demographics that tend to vote for their party and causes. That's true of Republicans, too. If you're afraid of us becoming like Mexico city, look at the plutocrats here to do that to us. 3rd worlders are not wrecking us in America; the plutocrats are. I've met a lot of third world people and they come here looking for work. Lots of third worlders running carnecerias and video stores and all that. Some are on welfare, yeah, but a lot are here to work. They're picking our grapes, too. Third world laborers should unionize for better wages and working conditions. Liberals need to get behind one message: a job for everyone, work first and welfare if work is impossible, and unity among the workers. Hammer it in, day in and day out. If you're in, you're in; if you're against us, it doesn't matter what color you are, you're friggin out of America.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 3, 2011 20:26:58 GMT -6
The left feels this way for a reason. Problem is, if you took the white vote OUT of the 2010 election, Republicans lost very badly. I bet the left would like that, the ability to take the white vote out of elections. Herman Cain is just another neocon among a long list of neocons. Why would you pick Cain's name out of a hat full of neocons, why would you focus your attention on him? Cause he's black?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 3, 2011 20:32:09 GMT -6
Obama really is different from Michelle and most with African blood. His ancestors were not brought to America as slaves. His father was of a privileged class in Kenya. If the name, African-American fits anyone, it's him. Oh God, now were going to discriminate between West Africans and East Africans. Sub...........tropic.......tribalism. or Sub-tribalism, sub-divisions, lol. Well they all look the same to me.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 3, 2011 20:53:32 GMT -6
The left feels this way for a reason. Problem is, if you took the white vote OUT of the 2010 election, Republicans lost very badly. I bet the left would like that, the ability to take the white vote out of elections. Not the case. As a member of the left I can tell you we have much respect for all liberals, white, black or otherwise. I don't know of any leftists who hate the working class. A lot of us are dreaming of Bernie Sanders taking on and beating Obama in the 2012 Primary. Bernie Sanders NEVER bends to the corporate elite. We're also red face pissed at cowardly elected Democrats who keep betraying us on foreign outsourcing, "free trade" and all that. If a workers party comes roaring into the game a TON of liberal Democrats will flee. Polls (Wall Street Journal; Sept/October 2010 poll) show that over 80% of liberals hate offshoring; although even higher percentages (86% IIRC) of conservatives do, too. Ever heard of the saying that slaves will more easily follow a slavemaster of their own color? Cain is the latest attempt by the plutocrats to bring up a sock puppet that can speak to blacks and lure them into drinking the pro-plutocrat kool-aid. The plutocrats think that if they can get a Hispanic plutocrat that the Hispanics will vote for the plutocrats; same for black voters. Look at Mark Rubio, he's not doing so bad among Hispanics. The plutocrats want his success repeated among blacks. Discrediting these guys fair and square buries the plutocrats plans to bring two entire demographics into the cult of the corporations. You do realize, now, that white middle class workers routinely vote against their own interests, right? And that they're doing this because they're being sold some bullshit fear of everything "non-white". It's all a game by the plutocrats.
|
|