dudejcb wrote: High Sierras wrote: ScaupHunter wrote: blackduckdog2 wrote: dudejcb wrote:
High Sierras wrote:Dude,
I read your 4 page article. Page 4 is pretty excoriating on the resident "D" in the White House where your article states:
"There’s no questioning the symbolic value of electing a black president. Yet the fact remains that African-Americans are no better off materially as a result, even if they may have been worse off had he lost, and that the economic gap between blacks and whites has grown under his presidency. The ascent of America’s first black president has coincided with the descent of black Americans’ standard of living. Reasonable people may disagree on the extent to which Obama is responsible for that. But the fact is undeniable."
So we can take that to be factual evidence that the policies of the democrats, while rammed through a democratic controlled congress and signed into law by a democrat president (I'm sure with the best of 'intentions'), have in reality forwarded their racist agenda of controlling minorities for their own political ends. The Dems were the political party of racists in the 60's, they're still the political party of racists today, they just got a little slicker in convincing the blacks they're there to 'help' them.
I said it was an interesting article. It made several other valid points as well. While the article is thought provoking, your rush to judgement is sophomoric.
Sophomoric's generous. I give it about fifth grade
By all means lets dismiss the truth as sophomoric. Your usual clap trap doesn't fly here. Show how he is wrong. Blacks are definably worse off since Obama was elected. So is the nation as a whole. The economy is still in the crapper. He wasted what could have been an epic economic come back through stimulus by paying off his cronies, and paying the banks that caused the problem.
You are being sophomoric with you continual efforts to dismiss that which is clear truth. It is a regular habit of yours.
What I don't get is the whole 'rush to judgement' crap dude halfheartedly tried to sling. I didn't rush to judge...the article did. I merely highlighted the fact that the author of the article
stated that it's undeniable that under obama's policies that blacks as a group are measurably worse off. Don't trust me? Go back and see the part I highlighted in red. As far as sophmoric or fifth grade... I guess that's dude's and BDD2's reading comprehension level if they really think I, and not the author, 'rushed to judge' obama for his racist policies.
Okay Sierra, you are assigning blame to specific individual and party which is sophomoric whether you recognize it or not. Go back, SEE WHAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. Are you suggesting Obama and Dems had a free hand to implement changes and the R's were supportive? There were no filibusters, no refusals to particpate in governance, to fund the government in general. Were that the case perhaps we might have some cause and effect, and your claims might have a scintilla of legitimacy, but reality (read that: the truth) doesn't jive with your (sophomoric) agenda to lay all blame at Dems or Obama's feet. You are hoping to gain from self fulfilling prophesies cultivated by the right. Too bad none of us are stupid enough to buy into your simplistic nonsense. Grow up, view things in actual context, and say something worthwhile. to set the record stratight, Obama and the Democratic party are not blameless. Neither are the R's and certainly the TB's share a large portion of the blame for the state we are in.
As for whether we are in worse shape now that before Obama was elected: all I can say is you have very a selective, self-serving, and disingenuous memory.
Again, the 'resigned sigh' emoticon would be helpful here...I'll try and point it out for both you and BDD2's benefit, again
, since READING COMPREHENSION
is clearly not either of your strong suits. The author of the article
(not me) stated that:
dude's article wrote:There’s no questioning the symbolic value of electing a black president. Yet the fact remains that African-Americans are no better off materially as a result, even if they may have been worse off had he lost, and that the economic gap between blacks and whites has grown under his presidency. The ascent of America’s first black president has coincided with the descent of black Americans’ standard of living. Reasonable people may disagree on the extent to which Obama is responsible for that. But the fact is undeniable."
Yet you both
seem to think I'm the one making that statement. See your first sentence, where you used the word 'sophmoric'??? Whoops. Reading comprehension error #1, forgetting who was the author of the article you
linked to, and assuming his statement was mine.
And Dude, as far as that statement you carefully highlighted in blue crayon above... I didn't say that either, Scauphunter did. He's even quoted ...yet you think I said it. Reading comprehension #1 comes back again. Whoops. You also seem to think I'm the one with "...a very selective, self-serving, and disingenuous memory." Whoops. Reading error #2, misunderstanding the author who cited the fact that blacks are worse off under Obama than they were before, and assuming I said it. Whoops x2.
Reading comprehension error #3 was assuming that the article somehow had GWB in it. I can sort of see where BDD2 got that... I mean the initials 'GWB' and 'BHO' look almost totally identical if you squint enough, and your brain lays against the left side of your skull a little too long, and there's a whole lot of water for it to slosh around in... but hey, what's a little hypothetical example totally not related to the article at hand among friends anyways, as long as it casts the lime light off your little organizer buddy and back on your whipping boy, right BDD2???
blackduckdog2 wrote: "...try and step it up a bit and stop being Spinner Lite, for chrissakes. At least he can back it up with some heavy hitting. Argue the issue at hand, not one you made up
Wow... do you get the tinglies for Spinner or something? Almost a one sided bromance peaking out there.
OK, now that was sophmoric, I'll admit. Still funny, but sophmoric.