• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The left's despicable rule: Criticisms of Obama are racist

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
Why doesn't the highly principled OP include a poll in this thread asking self-identified liberals if they agree with the statements, "All criticisms of Obama are racist," "Most criticisms of Obama are racist," "Some criticisms of Obama are racist," and "No criticisms of Obama are racist?"

I predict you'll get 0% on the first choice, 1% on the second choice, 99% on the third choice, and 0% on the last choice (assuming no right-wing assholes jump in and try to corrupt the results).

Once you have those poll results, you can write a final post apologizing to ATPN for being a moron, and then ask the mods to lock the thread.
As if any self identified liberal can be trusted to tell the truth? Funny guy.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
As if any self identified liberal can be trusted to tell the truth? Funny guy.
Well, then, you're immune to evidence. By definition (the definition of a right-wing journalist), any criticism of Obama is refuted by the left with calls of "Racism, racism." That MUST be the truth because if a liberal says he believes that most criticisms of Obama aren't racist, the liberal is clearly lying.

Why bother allowing liberals to post at all? Everything we say is a lie.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
Well, then, you're immune to evidence. By definition (the definition of a right-wing journalist), any criticism of Obama is refuted by the left with calls of "Racism, racism." That MUST be the truth because if a liberal says he believes that most criticisms of Obama aren't racist, the liberal is clearly lying.

Why bother allowing liberals to post at all? Everything we say is a lie.
Thank you for being honest.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
What would he be doing differently if he wasn't anti business? Fact of the matter is his policies are anti business in so many ways that you'd have to believe that he was either incompetent or he is getting exactly what he wants. Neither of those options make him look good.
for one thing, Obamacare keeps private insurance companies as opposed to "government run" healthcare.

Obamacare also makes it easier for individuals to buy health insurance. This removes the pressure on small business to provide health insurance. And healthy workers increase productivity.

much of the stimulus money went to private contractors for construction projects, like road improvements, infrastructure greatly benefits private business.

several hundred thousand jobs, including many small businesses, were saved by preserving the auto industry.

Obama supports lowering the corporate tax rate, and eliminating some loopholes and subsidies, making the tax system for corporations more fair.

The fact is Obama is every bit as business friendly as Romney, the significant difference has to do with regulation. And its Romney, Bush, Reagan policies on not regulating markets and business which have led to the worst private sector disasters over the past 30 years.

These lassez faire policies aren't actually good for business, they are good for crooks and schemers.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
65
91
I'm thinking it's time we treat monovillage like Incorruptible, because they are both nothing but ultra-conservative caricatures with no interest in real discussion.

Mono, if you're serious and not an invented character, I feel sorry for you and your family, because you have the mentality of a born loser.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
15,433
2,989
126
^^this

Sadly, he used to seem somewhat capable of discerning facts from fubar.

The cheese done slid off his cracker.......
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Obamacare is pretty anti-business.

His engergy policies aren't exactly pro-business.

His desire for increased taxes isn't pro-business.

I've listed three, could you list three pro-business policies?
Auto Bailout

TARP

Stimulus
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
I'm thinking it's time we treat monovillage like Incorruptible, because they are both nothing but ultra-conservative caricatures with no interest in real discussion.

Mono, if you're serious and not an invented character, I feel sorry for you and your family, because you have the mentality of a born loser.
They are both cut from the same cloth er sock... I think the trolling helps them deal with the fact that everything they do and think is wrong. There are a few more starting to act just like them. A pathetic group of sock puppets.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I'm thinking it's time we treat monovillage like Incorruptible, because they are both nothing but ultra-conservative caricatures with no interest in real discussion.

Mono, if you're serious and not an invented character, I feel sorry for you and your family, because you have the mentality of a born loser.
QFT
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
I'm thinking it's time we treat monovillage like Incorruptible, because they are both nothing but ultra-conservative caricatures with no interest in real discussion.

Mono, if you're serious and not an invented character, I feel sorry for you and your family, because you have the mentality of a born loser.
I am not a troll, you really are pathetic
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
for one thing, Obamacare keeps private insurance companies as opposed to "government run" healthcare.
I didn't call it government run but that wasn't why I think Obamacare is anti business.
Obamacare also makes it easier for individuals to buy health insurance. This removes the pressure on small business to provide health insurance. And healthy workers increase productivity.
So you are saying Obamacare is actually pro-business? You actually believe that Obamacare is going to make people more healthy?

Obamacare is anti-business because it requires an "acceptable" level of coverage be provided by an employer or face stiff fines. My view is that if health "insurance" became health insurance this would solve a lot of problems.

Furthermore, health "insurance" is not going to be cheaper nor easier to acquire, well I guess if you have a pre-existing condition it may but thats one reason why "insurance" is going to be more expensive. The insurance companies aren't going to just give away money, everybody else will pay more.
much of the stimulus money went to private contractors for construction projects, like road improvements, infrastructure greatly benefits private business.
Those private contractors that may have gotten stimulus jobs are now looking for more work. Unemployment has been over 8% for more than 40 months. The stimulus was a failure, more of the same won't help either. We need more private investment to create real growth. GDP growth is absolutely abysmal under this president. No amount of spin is going to change that fact. The proof is in the pudding.

several hundred thousand jobs, including many small businesses, were saved by preserving the auto industry.
LOL Companies go through bankruptcy all the time. The auto industry itself wasn't in danger it was a company that were making horrible decisions that was in danger. Guess what? They are in danger again. Propping up a loser is anti business. Good companies have to not only compete against the failing businesses but against the government itself. Obama also illegally gave the unions preference over GM's investors.
Obama supports lowering the corporate tax rate, and eliminating some loopholes and subsidies, making the tax system for corporations more fair.
He supports raising the capitol gains taxes as well even knowing that when you raise it the government gets less money from it. So not only does an entrepreneur have more regulation costs he has more cost in taxes to consider when deciding whether to go forward on an investment. This lowers activity in the private sector which is actually anti business.
The fact is Obama is every bit as business friendly as Romney
The proof is in the pudding. If Obama was actually business friendly there would be more business going on. We've had recessions before and Obama is the reason that this recovery is the weakest since the depression.

, the significant difference has to do with regulation. And its Romney, Bush, Reagan policies on not regulating markets and business which have led to the worst private sector disasters over the past 30 years.
Reagan, Bush, Romney, wouldn't tell banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. It was government meddling that ultimately led to the meltdown.
These lassez faire policies aren't actually good for business, they are good for crooks and schemers.
I'd like to give it a try because we have never operated under these policies.

I'd argue that more government control creates more opportunity for government officials to become corrupt. You need a permit to build something? There is going to be a person that is going to approve/disapprove that permit. The more often you have these decisions being made by officials the more likely you will have corruption.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Auto Bailout
Covered in my last post.
Failure should not be subsidized but in this case the government really helped cause the problem in the first place. All the bad paper wouldn't have been pushed around like it was if it wasn't created in the first place.
GDP growth is like 1.5 percent. Didn't work, can't work.

The question is, does Obama's policies cause more private investment or less? It causes less. Government stimulus is like charging yourself a fee to make money.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
I'm thinking it's time we treat monovillage like Incorruptible, because they are both nothing but ultra-conservative caricatures with no interest in real discussion.

Mono, if you're serious and not an invented character, I feel sorry for you and your family, because you have the mentality of a born loser.
At least I've never dropped to the level of talking about your family. I won't strike back in the insult game.
 
Last edited:

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Covered in my last post.

Failure should not be subsidized but in this case the government really helped cause the problem in the first place. All the bad paper wouldn't have been pushed around like it was if it wasn't created in the first place.

GDP growth is like 1.5 percent. Didn't work, can't work.

The question is, does Obama's policies cause more private investment or less? It causes less. Government stimulus is like charging yourself a fee to make money.
Private investment isn't what I want to see. I want to see financial liquidity. So I'd rather see a lot more infrastructure investment. I'd like to see the government take on the task of a massive public broadband network as well as alternative energy infrastructure and roads and bridges and libraries.

The government does one thing with money and that's spend it. Private entities are doing primarily one thing right now: hoarding it. If the private side doesn't feel coddled enough to move money and let capital flow, then it's up to the government to keep money moving to the workers who will undertake all these projects and then buy shit with their wages.

Obama's policies haven't done anything to hinder private liquidity except not be even looser with regulations to run us right back into the nosedive we were in.



And yes, Obamacare can make people more healthy. People who have insurance who don't have to debate whether they should get something checked out preventatively vs. waiting for it to go catastrophic will be a better way towards health. Also, since it didn't destroy the insurance industry and switch to single-payer, we still have a massive industry getting a huge influx of new customers, and now it can be even more stringently regulated since they're getting money from everyone.
 
Last edited:
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
65
91
At least I've never dropped to the level of talking about your family.
I referenced them only to say that, if your online persona is your real one, I felt sorry for them. I stand by that. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are, instead, just a troll. I always find that phenomenon a little sad too, but it's better than sincerely believing the claptrap you post here.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
I referenced them only to say that, if your online persona is your real one, I felt sorry for them. I stand by that. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are, instead, just a troll. I always find that phenomenon a little sad too, but it's better than sincerely believing the claptrap you post here.
Of course you stand by your insult to my family, it's the type of person you are.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
You do it yourself every time you post... don't blame others for following the leader.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
65
91
Of course you stand by your insult to my family, it's the type of person you are.
There was no insult to your family - just to you. I wish them, and you, well, and that you are just pulling our leg with this absurd online persona. Otherwise your family is burdened with a true fool as a father/sibling/child/etc.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
There was no insult to your family - just to you. I wish them, and you, well, and that you are just pulling our leg with this absurd online persona. Otherwise your family is burdened with a true fool as a father/sibling/child/etc.
Personal insults, i'm devastated by a liars opinion of me.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Private investment isn't what I want to see. I want to see financial liquidity. So I'd rather see a lot more infrastructure investment. I'd like to see the government take on the task of a massive public broadband network as well as alternative energy infrastructure and roads and bridges and libraries.
Slow internet and bumpy roads aren't our problem.
The government does one thing with money and that's spend it. Private entities are doing primarily one thing right now: hoarding it.
My suggestion is that Obama's policies acerbates this problem. Government spends money that it has confiscated from the people who aren't spending money. If I have $1 million in the bank the government can't get at it unless I invest/spend it. They get a tax from the interest but that's it. If I am deciding if I want to go forward with an investment raising capital gains taxes raises my chance for failure. I am less inclined to invest.
If the private side doesn't feel coddled enough to move money and let capital flow, then it's up to the government to keep money moving to the workers who will undertake all these projects and then buy shit with their wages.
But you can't grow an economy that way. You can't charge a fee to yourself to make money. You need private money going from hand to hand and Obama's policies hinder these transactions. Which make them anti business.
Obama's policies haven't done anything to hinder private liquidity except not be even looser with regulations to run us right back into the nosedive we were in.
We were in the mess we were in because banks made loans that they otherwise wouldn't have made not because of lack of regulation.

And yes, Obamacare can make people more healthy. People who have insurance who don't have to debate whether they should get something checked out preventatively vs. waiting for it to go catastrophic will be a better way towards health.
The problem is that Obamacare doesn't guarantee coverage. In some cases people will opt to pay the fees instead of buy coverage. Coverage will be more expensive making the fees look more and more attractive over health care premiums.
Also, since it didn't destroy the insurance industry and switch to single-payer, we still have a massive industry getting a huge influx of new customers, and now it can be even more stringently regulated since they're getting money from everyone.
Single payer is the next step! You should disabuse yourself of the notion that Obamacare is going to get everybody covered, it won't.

Also instead of the paying customers covering the costs of the ER visits that go unpaid we will be paying for people who decided not to get insurance and need coverage when they have stage 4 cancer.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
I didn't call it government run but that wasn't why I think Obamacare is anti business.

So you are saying Obamacare is actually pro-business? You actually believe that Obamacare is going to make people more healthy?

Obamacare is anti-business because it requires an "acceptable" level of coverage be provided by an employer or face stiff fines. My view is that if health "insurance" became health insurance this would solve a lot of problems.

Furthermore, health "insurance" is not going to be cheaper nor easier to acquire, well I guess if you have a pre-existing condition it may but thats one reason why "insurance" is going to be more expensive. The insurance companies aren't going to just give away money, everybody else will pay more.

Those private contractors that may have gotten stimulus jobs are now looking for more work. Unemployment has been over 8% for more than 40 months. The stimulus was a failure, more of the same won't help either. We need more private investment to create real growth. GDP growth is absolutely abysmal under this president. No amount of spin is going to change that fact. The proof is in the pudding.


LOL Companies go through bankruptcy all the time. The auto industry itself wasn't in danger it was a company that were making horrible decisions that was in danger. Guess what? They are in danger again. Propping up a loser is anti business. Good companies have to not only compete against the failing businesses but against the government itself. Obama also illegally gave the unions preference over GM's investors.

He supports raising the capitol gains taxes as well even knowing that when you raise it the government gets less money from it. So not only does an entrepreneur have more regulation costs he has more cost in taxes to consider when deciding whether to go forward on an investment. This lowers activity in the private sector which is actually anti business.

The proof is in the pudding. If Obama was actually business friendly there would be more business going on. We've had recessions before and Obama is the reason that this recovery is the weakest since the depression.


Reagan, Bush, Romney, wouldn't tell banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. It was government meddling that ultimately led to the meltdown.

I'd like to give it a try because we have never operated under these policies.

I'd argue that more government control creates more opportunity for government officials to become corrupt. You need a permit to build something? There is going to be a person that is going to approve/disapprove that permit. The more often you have these decisions being made by officials the more likely you will have corruption.
Slow growth is a lot better than negative growth. The stimulus did what it was supposed to, reverse a deep recession before it became a depression.

It probably should have been bigger, but Obama worked with Congress and got something done.

That's the mark of success.

Its easy to say it would have worked out if the auto companies went bankrupt. Luckily wiser people, like Obama and most sensible Republicans, know that its not just jobs that were saved, its a huge part of our industrial base, critical to our national defense. Do you want that controlled by Honda, Toyota, Kia, Fiat, Volkswagen ??

That's what would have happened in a bankruptcy, most likely.

Your proposals are extremely radical. That IS NOT what sensible business people want. They want sensible, moderate government.

That's why Obama is the real pro-business choice.

The healthcare fines for business is a red herring. The vast majority of health care plans provided by business are not going to be fined, just the Cadillac plans that drive health care costs up.

There's no difference between Republicans and Democrats on that issue, the Republican plan, if there is one, would do the same thing to lots more people.

Obamacare makes it easier for individuals to get healthcare. And it does some things to improve preventative care. It isn't perfect, but its better than the status quo, much better.
 
Last edited:

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Slow internet and bumpy roads aren't our problem.

My suggestion is that Obama's policies acerbates this problem. Government spends money that it has confiscated from the people who aren't spending money. If I have $1 million in the bank the government can't get at it unless I invest/spend it. They get a tax from the interest but that's it. If I am deciding if I want to go forward with an investment raising capital gains taxes raises my chance for failure. I am less inclined to invest.

But you can't grow an economy that way. You can't charge a fee to yourself to make money. You need private money going from hand to hand and Obama's policies hinder these transactions. Which make them anti business.

We were in the mess we were in because banks made loans that they otherwise wouldn't have made not because of lack of regulation.


The problem is that Obamacare doesn't guarantee coverage. In some cases people will opt to pay the fees instead of buy coverage. Coverage will be more expensive making the fees look more and more attractive over health care premiums.

Single payer is the next step! You should disabuse yourself of the notion that Obamacare is going to get everybody covered, it won't.

Also instead of the paying customers covering the costs of the ER visits that go unpaid we will be paying for people who decided not to get insurance and need coverage when they have stage 4 cancer.
Banks were forced to make those loans? And then forced to turn them into derivatives? Those behaviors were incentivised for the greedy, the smarter banks avoided them.

Wait, how do you leap to the notion that coverage will be more expensive? You just throw that out there with no lead-in...

And single-payer is what I want. I'm hopeful that the door has been opened enough to lead to it in my lifetime.

And how many people do you imagine in your nightmare scenario are only opting to start their coverage when their cancer is in stage four? And how long do you give them to survive at that point?


Where are you getting these dire predictions for the future? And why subscribe to them so completely?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
You do it yourself every time you post... don't blame others for following the leader.
Every time you get your ass kicked in a debate you start pulling these one line troll responses. You should be used to losing by now and stop acting so petulant.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY