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

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
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.

Mono, you have never kicked anyone's ass in a debate that I have seen.

I have seen you go full drama queen and twist facts to suit your faux outrage. In f ct that seems to be the norm for you.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Ah, but "liar" (with no justification whatsoever) is not one. Got it.

As I said, I think it's time you got the Incorruptible treatment, because a troll is a troll is a troll.
You got tired of the accurate criticisms of the Democrats/liberals that I occasionally make so you're trying to incite the rest of the forum to attack me.

Do you even recall the first time we argued here in this forum? It was when you were calling a woman a C**T and acting scornful of women. So screw you HH. You're just tired of my scoring points off some of the stupid things liberal/Democrats say in this forum.

Shut up opposition, silence critics, it's the lefty way.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
65
91
You got tired of the accurate criticisms of the Democrats/liberals that I occasionally make so you're trying to incite the rest of the forum to attack me.

Do you even recall the first time we argued here in this forum? It was when you were calling a woman a C**T and acting scornful of women. So screw you HH. You're just tired of my scoring points off some of the stupid things liberal/Democrats say in this forum.

Shut up opposition, silence critics, it's the lefty way.
I never called anyone a "wise and beautiful woman," to the best of my recollection, though I don't think that word is necessarily off limits for those who deserve it. I thought that was an argument with the then-new cybrsage, not you, and he was (incorrectly in my opinion) arguing that that word deserved the same treatment as a racial slur. Are you sure you and he are not one and the same?

I also don't recall ever seeing you "score points," just look foolish and stubborn.

Aren't you, like me, one of the people choosing to deliberately ignore Incorruptible because he's a space-wasting troll? How is this any different (other than that you lack the insight to see that you and he are fundamentally causing the same problem for this forum)?

Oh, and why are you calling me "HH"?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Mono, you have never kicked anyone's ass in a debate that I have seen.

I have seen you go full drama queen and twist facts to suit your faux outrage. In f ct that seems to be the norm for you.
You have a very short and selective memory.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
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.
Recessions happen regularly and they always reverse eventually. We didn't need the government to stop it.
It probably should have been bigger, but Obama worked with Congress and got something done.

That's the mark of success.
The economy sucks, period. What Obama has done hasn't helped. Stimulus is like a payday loan, you can't go forward on that sort of policy you need real income coming in. How do you do that? By incentivising private financial transactions.
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 ??
Bankruptcy is not a death sentence, its an opportunity to restructure to become more profitable. GM is making the same mistakes that they were before and people just aren't buying their cars like they used to. We are subsidizing failure.

There still would have been an auto industry if the government didn't bailout GM, it just would have been different. Different is good since the two companies needed to be bailed out in the first place.
Your proposals are extremely radical. That IS NOT what sensible business people want. They want sensible, moderate government.
I'm not sure which proposals you are talking about.
That's why Obama is the real pro-business choice.
You didn't establish that at all.
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.
I'm saying that businesses have to provide an "acceptable" level of coverage determined by the government or be fined. That is anti business. Any policy that forces cost on a business is anti business.
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.
Obamacare doesn't make it easier to get health care it makes it a requirement for breathing. If you don't care about your liberty that is your problem but I care about mine.

My proposal for health care is for there to be real health insurance and not what we have now. Right now it isn't insurance. When you buy car insurance does it cover oil changes? Engine flushes? Engine repair? New tires? Car insurance covers a narrow range of expenses.

I was in the doctors office and when it came time for him to right up the prescription he asked if I had insurance. So if I had insurance he would give me this more expensive medicine but he would give me a cheaper alternative if I didn't. Do you think this practice drives up cost? Of course it does. If I am spending somebody else's money I'll pick the more expensive more times than not. If I am spending my own money I'll pick the medicine that gives me the best value for my money.

Health insurance should cover catastrophic care and that's about it. The more the consumer has a choice the lower the costs will be, assuming they are spending their own money.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Banks were forced to make those loans?
Don't put words in my mouth. I said they made loans that they otherwise wouldn't have. I didn't say they were forced.
And then forced to turn them into derivatives?
No, but the bad paper was an incentive move them from their books.
Those behaviors were incentivised for the greedy, the smarter banks avoided them.
But if the bad paper was never made they wouldn't have had to move them in the first place. The government wanted home ownership to increase and they needed banks to bend their lending rules to make that happen.
Wait, how do you leap to the notion that coverage will be more expensive?
How can it not!? How can an insurance company be forced to cover a pre-existing condition and not have to charge more to the rest of us? Where does that money come from?
You just throw that out there with no lead-in...
I think I've covered it now.
And single-payer is what I want. I'm hopeful that the door has been opened enough to lead to it in my lifetime.
Ok.
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?
I have no idea. The only reason I bring it up is that under Obamacare we will be subsidizing

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

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
As if any self identified liberal can be trusted to tell the truth? Funny guy.
I think you're full of it here Mono, way over-generalizing and not being even remotely objective. If you just look at the discussions on ATP&N, the frequency of the allegation of racism being used as a response to criticisms of Obama is quite low. I doubt it's more than 5% of the cases. Probably closer to 2-3%. You can go look at any random sampling of 10 or 20 to verify that.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
I think you're full of it here Mono, way over-generalizing and not being even remotely objective. If you just look at the discussions on ATP&N, the frequency of the allegation of racism being used as a response to criticisms of Obama is quite low. I doubt it's more than 5% of the cases. Probably closer to 2-3%. You can go look at any random sampling of 10 or 20 to verify that.
Pretty true Woolfe, but part of the purpose of this thread (an article from realclearpolitics) was to show the type of reactions conservatives get when they bring up subjects that are uncomfortable to Democrats/liberals. It's not just me (troll that I am at times), but any conservative. You'll also find links to Malkin and other Republican pundits that have posted articles that find the smear of racism occurs frequently when they criticize Obama.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Pretty true Woolfe, but part of the purpose of this thread (an article from realclearpolitics) was to show the type of reactions conservatives get when they bring up subjects that are uncomfortable to Democrats/liberals. It's not just me (troll that I am at times), but any conservative. You'll also find links to Malkin and other Republican pundits that have posted articles that find the smear of racism occurs frequently when they criticize Obama.
I think you're going to find that it very much depends on the type of criticism. Your thread got me thinking about it, and I examined the last 5 or 6 threads where the premise of the thread was a criticism of Obama. Take the recent Boomerang thread "Four more years of...this?" It's a typical point and counter-point about economics. These are the kinds of discussions we have here.

The right: high deficits. The left: caused by recession and now starting to shrink.

The right: Obama promised 8% unemployment. The left: it was a projection with a stated error margin, not a promise.

The right: "you didn't build that." The left: taken out of context.

The right: the healthcare law is _______. The left: the healthcare law is ________.

Racism seems to come up in relation to birthirism and the "Obama is a Muslim" thing. Since not many conservatives on this board seem to believe those things, it doesn't come up so often here. When it does come up here it's usually as a general criticism of conservatives because polling will show 30-50% of self-described conservatives saying they believe such things. That is a very different than using it in response to a substantive criticism.

From what I've seen, substantive criticisms are generally met with substantive responses. There are always exceptions, but I'm not seeing much of a trend here. One exception is sometimes seen in the immigration debate, but at least there is a possible tie-in there, even if the allegation is not always well founded. It's not like you're being called a racist for saying Obama is fiscally irresponsible.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Pretty true Woolfe, but part of the purpose of this thread (an article from realclearpolitics) was to show the type of reactions conservatives get when they bring up subjects that are uncomfortable to Democrats/liberals. It's not just me (troll that I am at times), but any conservative. You'll also find links to Malkin and other Republican pundits that have posted articles that find the smear of racism occurs frequently when they criticize Obama.
The idea that criticism is racist because it is criticism is still stupid, and wasn't proven by the article in your OP.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Don't put words in my mouth. I said they made loans that they otherwise wouldn't have. I didn't say they were forced.

No, but the bad paper was an incentive move them from their books.

But if the bad paper was never made they wouldn't have had to move them in the first place. The government wanted home ownership to increase and they needed banks to bend their lending rules to make that happen.

How can it not!? How can an insurance company be forced to cover a pre-existing condition and not have to charge more to the rest of us? Where does that money come from?

I think I've covered it now.

Ok.

I have no idea. The only reason I bring it up is that under Obamacare we will be subsidizing.

Where are you getting these rosy predictions for the future? And why subscribe to them so completely?
So they weren't forced... but they did something they wouldn't have otherwise done if they weren't... what? Their lack of scruples and foresight doesn't cleanse them of responsibility, particularly when some did not participate in the bullshit.

As for Obamacare... it's insurance. You're ALWAYS subsidizing others. That's the whole point of the pool. The additional money to cover those with pre-existing conditions comes from the larger total pool of subscribers to the shared cost of keeping people alive.

What predictions have I made about the future?
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,152
161
106
I think you're going to find that it very much depends on the type of criticism. Your thread got me thinking about it, and I examined the last 5 or 6 threads where the premise of the thread was a criticism of Obama. Take the recent Boomerang thread "Four more years of...this?" It's a typical point and counter-point about economics. These are the kinds of discussions we have here.

The right: high deficits. The left: caused by recession and now starting to shrink.

The right: Obama promised 8% unemployment. The left: it was a projection with a stated error margin, not a promise.

The right: "you didn't build that." The left: taken out of context.

The right: the healthcare law is _______. The left: the healthcare law is ________.

Racism seems to come up in relation to birthirism and the "Obama is a Muslim" thing. Since not many conservatives on this board seem to believe those things, it doesn't come up so often here. When it does come up here it's usually as a general criticism of conservatives because polling will show 30-50% of self-described conservatives saying they believe such things. That is a very different than using it in response to a substantive criticism.

From what I've seen, substantive criticisms are generally met with substantive responses. There are always exceptions, but I'm not seeing much of a trend here. One exception is sometimes seen in the immigration debate, but at least there is a possible tie-in there, even if the allegation is not always well founded. It's not like you're being called a racist for saying Obama is fiscally irresponsible.
I wouldn't expect a response to your post, since your post is well thought out and has actual facts and figures that are hard to dispute it will likely go ignored by the right-wingers ;)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,792
20,637
136
Here's a thread, it just isn't my own confirmation bias.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2273261

a Garfield post and an Uber post, on the first page. It's possible you agree that using Obama's middle name is racist although it wasn't with "W"

"Hussein" isn't specifically a racist innuendo--it is an attempt to tie him to a notorious dictator, and a preposterously misunderstood international population. It exposes rampant paranoia and xenophobia that we already know as being well-established within your little base of geriatric clowns.


...so, please explain how "dubya" is, in any way, racist? Are you purposefully stupid? It is nothing more than linking dubya to the population of ignorant, unread rednecks of this country.

last I checked, redneck isn't a race. I know you have never left your wee, insignificant monovillage, but you will find rednecks all over this world, and of all colors and within all cultures.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
I wouldn't expect a response to your post, since your post is well thought out and has actual facts and figures that are hard to dispute it will likely go ignored by the right-wingers ;)
You'd be wrong and it's part of the reason I usually give woolfe a reasoned response. He's a class poster, makes great arguments and doesn't play "screw you" games. We don't usually agree, but I have a great deal of respect for him.
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,152
161
106
You'd be wrong and it's part of the reason I usually give woolfe a reasoned response. He's a class poster, makes great arguments and doesn't play "screw you" games. We don't usually agree, but I have a great deal of respect for him.
Well you technically didn't reply directly to his post, you didn't address the majority of what he says and the one thing he already covered in his post "Racism seems to come up in relation to birthirism and the "Obama is a Muslim" thing. Since not many conservatives on this board seem to believe those things, it doesn't come up so often here" is the basis of your response. So I haven't actually seen anyone address his post, unless you are still working on that...
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Here's a thread, it just isn't my own confirmation bias.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2273261

a Garfield post and an Uber post, on the first page. It's possible you agree that using Obama's middle name is racist although it wasn't with "W"
Not sure why you are trying to drag me into your trolling, but I was quite clearly pointing out that posters that use Obama's middle name are using it as a clear dog whistle to insult him.

That is a simple fact. No where have I said that everyone (or even most people) that criticize Obama are racist. But people using him middle name almost certainly are (especially when they never use anyone else's middle name). Hell, Lithium totally proved my point with his full-on birther rant.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
So they weren't forced... but they did something they wouldn't have otherwise done if they weren't... what?
Yes, forcing somebody to do something is different than convincing them to do it. The government should not be suggesting to banks who should get a loan.
Their lack of scruples and foresight doesn't cleanse them of responsibility, particularly when some did not participate in the bullshit.
Nobody is trying to absolve anybody but we should deal with facts about what actually happened. You think that it was the lack of regulations that allowed the banks to do what they did. My point is that they wouldn't have had to do what they did if they weren't convinced by the government to make loans it normally wouldn't.
As for Obamacare... it's insurance. You're ALWAYS subsidizing others.
So what is the big deal with subsidizing delinquent ER bills? What is the difference?
That's the whole point of the pool. The additional money to cover those with pre-existing conditions comes from the larger total pool of subscribers to the shared cost of keeping people alive.
You just made a prediction about the future. My prediction is that not nearly the amount of people are going to get coverage that makes obamacare "work". Alot of people won't be able to afford the coverage nor will they be able to pay the fine AND they won't be eligible for medicaid.
What predictions have I made about the future?
:whiste:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY