Obama is a failure, but it has nothing to do with being black. It has to do with being on the wrong side of too many issues and not improving the economy.

Obama is a failure, but it has nothing to do with being black. It has to do with being on the wrong side of too many issues and not improving the economy.

You're obviously not black if you think this has nothing to do with Obama being black. If Obama loses, it will seen as a HUGE psychological setback to American blacks.

Obama is a failure, but it has nothing to do with being black. It has to do with being on the wrong side of too many issues and not improving the economy.

You're obviously not black if you think this has nothing to do with Obama being black. If Obama loses, it will seen as a HUGE psychological setback to American blacks.

His failure had nothing to do with being black. His failure is because he is imminently unqualified for the position he holds. He surrounded himself with sycophants that only know academia and government regulations and expected them to run the largest economy the world has ever known. What else could people expect?

The only reason he got elected in the first place is because of his color. There may not be so many conscience-clearing votes available this time around.

As I said four years ago he is, very simply, a sleazy politician from the sewers of Chicago politics.

Just voiced is the sad tripe that black people are afraid of if Obama loses. No, he wasn't just elected because he is black. That is outrageous and offensive! But if he is a one termer, right wingers will have an excuse to discount any future black candidates for president. For Obama's presidency to be meaningful in the long term for its civil rights impact, it must be TWO terms.

No problem. Elect a black gentleman who is qualified.

Are you serious? That guy is a lunatic! He's the bozo who accused many people in congress of being communists. Please tell me you're joking.

You're obviously not black if you think this has nothing to do with Obama being black. If Obama loses, it will seen as a HUGE psychological setback to American blacks.

Hardly.

What does Obama getting elected or re-elected really do for African Americans? Is it a GREAT story of how the great grandson son of slaves rose to the highest office in the country? That would have been a seriously bad-ass story but it doesn't describe Obama. Before 2008, he wouldn't even have been accepted by African Americans. He has nothing much in common with probably 99.5% of African Americans. He's half white and was raised by the white side of his family, his father is a real African, no slavery in Obama's past unless one of his white grandfathers owned some, he grew up in Hawaii (and Indonesia) and went to university at Columbia and Harvard Law School. On top of that, Africans in America don't normally get along with the average African Americans. They blame them for a lot of the trouble and racism they are faced with. Like Obama's father, many of the recent immigrants have a higher education and are eager to work hard and raise their families. Not many Americans of any color that have been in country several generations work as hard as the recent African immigrants.

What a small minded way of looking at this. Obama as president has been totally embraced as the first African-American president and they want him to succeed -- for TWO terms. These are facts.

The Bill Maher item:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/912642/bill_maher%3A_%22for_the_sake_of_black_america,_%5Bobama%5D_needs_a_second_term%22/

What a small minded way of looking at this. Obama as president has been totally embraced as the first African-American president and they want him to succeed -- for TWO terms. These are facts.

The Bill Maher item:

http://www.alternet....a_second_term"/

Bill Maher is a self professed comedian. Let's get some real heavyweights like Jon Stewart and Janeane Garafalo to add some meat to the stew.

You claim my statement that Obama was only elected because he is black was tripe. Yet you seem to be pushing his reelection for the very same reason.

Let's take a quick look at his qualifications that got him elected.

1. Graduate of Columbia University but nobody has seen a degree or transcript.

2. Graduate of Harvard Law School but nobody has seen a degree or transcript.

3. Worked as a Community Organizer in Chicago until he obtained his law degree.

4. Worked as a civil rights lawyer for a couple of Chicago law firms training community organizers.

5. Worked as a lecturer on Constitutional law at University of Chicago and various law firms in Chicago until entering politics in 1997.

6. Served as an Illinois State Senator from 1997 to 2004 when he was elected as a US Senator from the State of Illinois.

7. Assumed the office of US Senator in January 2005 and resigned in November 2008 to run for President.

Somebody please tell me where in this quick recap of the man's career, there is anything that even remotely qualifies him for the office of President of the United States.

I don't care if his skin color is pea green and purple...the man is not qualified to hold the office he is in.

I'd vote for the worst possible candidate available. Anyone who would hasten the complete and utter collapse of a political system gone irreparably corrupt. Fascism cannot be reformed but must be replaced. And when that time comes hopefully America reverts back to it's Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even that may not be enough as the 200+ year experiment has shown itself to ultimately fail. It's been oft repeated . . . morals cannot be legislated.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

Samuel Addams

Essay in the Public Advertiser, 1749

When the world by large revolves around money what else can be expected or hoped for?

Fascism cannot be reformed but must be replaced.

+1

How many of the 12 warning signs of fascism have been achieved?

I would say at least 7 or 8 & the case could easily be argued on a few more

I'd vote for the worst possible candidate available.

...

Romney it is!

Several posters seem to think that Obama is the worst President ever, yet they still want him to be elected for a second term, because the alternative is so dreadful. What kind of a comment is that on the American constitution? Because it's your Constitution which has got you into the current mess... not because what it says is wrong, but because it clearly lacks the necessary safeguards to ensure that its leadership is credible.

My vote is for Tippaporn.

I'd vote for the worst possible candidate available.

Sorry, but Ron Paul hasn't a chance.

I'd vote for the worst possible candidate available.

Sorry, but Ron Paul hasn't a chance.

Why am I not surprised that that comment would come from you, UG?

Enough with the hyperbole!

About half of Americans APPROVE of Obama's performance!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Considering the unemployment situation, that's doing pretty good.

There is no way he will be judged the worse president in history.

He will get his two terms and by the end of that he will be poised to be in the top pier of presidents.

Enough with the hyperbole!

About half of Americans APPROVE of Obama's performance!

http://www.realclear...roval-1044.html

Considering the unemployment situation, that's doing pretty good.

There is no way he will be judged the worse president in history.

He will get his two terms and by the end of that he will be poised to be in the top pier of presidents.

That means the other half DISAPPROVES his performance.

Several posters seem to think that Obama is the worst President ever, yet they still want him to be elected for a second term, because the alternative is so dreadful. What kind of a comment is that on the American constitution? Because it's your Constitution which has got you into the current mess... not because what it says is wrong, but because it clearly lacks the necessary safeguards to ensure that its leadership is credible.

My vote is for Tippaporn.

I would be interested to hear how you came to the conclusion that the Constitution got us into the mess.

I tend to think the sidestepping of the Constitution through various tools created for that purpose is what got us into this mess.

Enough with the hyperbole!

About half of Americans APPROVE of Obama's performance!

http://www.realclear...roval-1044.html

Considering the unemployment situation, that's doing pretty good.

There is no way he will be judged the worse president in history.

He will get his two terms and by the end of that he will be poised to be in the top pier of presidents.

That means the other half DISAPPROVES his performance.

No surprise as for decades now the USA has been divided, about half and half.

Several posters seem to think that Obama is the worst President ever, yet they still want him to be elected for a second term, because the alternative is so dreadful. What kind of a comment is that on the American constitution? Because it's your Constitution which has got you into the current mess... not because what it says is wrong, but because it clearly lacks the necessary safeguards to ensure that its leadership is credible.

My vote is for Tippaporn.

I would be interested to hear how you came to the conclusion that the Constitution got us into the mess.

I tend to think the sidestepping of the Constitution through various tools created for that purpose is what got us into this mess.

Right wingers mean right wing interpretation of the constitution.

Right wingers mean right wing interpretation of the constitution.

In some ways I envy your simple little left/right world.

It is a simple existence that does not require any real thought.

PS: I think anyone who has ever read/comprehended any of my posts knows

my stance is neither left nor right as I consider both of those wings to be part

of the same corrupt bird

Voters in France reject idiotic, misguided, failed radical austerity.

Let's hope American voters send the same message!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/austerity-as-a-bridge-to-nowhere/2012/05/07/gIQAVBAw8T_story.html

Mitt Romney and the GOP subscribe to the pro-austerity view. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, even if it happens to be wrong. I sincerely wish them all the electoral success their ideological allies are having across the Atlantic.

Several posters seem to think that Obama is the worst President ever, yet they still want him to be elected for a second term, because the alternative is so dreadful. What kind of a comment is that on the American constitution? Because it's your Constitution which has got you into the current mess... not because what it says is wrong, but because it clearly lacks the necessary safeguards to ensure that its leadership is credible.

My vote is for Tippaporn.

I would be interested to hear how you came to the conclusion that the Constitution got us into the mess.

I tend to think the sidestepping of the Constitution through various tools created for that purpose is what got us into this mess.

The American Constitution is a wonderful document, especially considering it was written in the eighteenth century. But it needs constant amendment, far more than has actually happened, to stymie the 'tools created for that purpose'..

I agree with you that talk of right and left wings is too simplistic. Each issue needs to be judged on its merits. The old labels are outdated.

France is strong enough politically and financially to cope with the change of Government from a pro-austerity Sarkozy to a pro-growth Hollande, but what about Greece? I don't know what kind of Government she is going to finish up with, but the Greeks have definitely voted against austerity.... and may well find themselves exiting messily from the Eurozone. How much this will affect the other EZ members, and the US indirectly, remains to be seen.

France is strong enough politically and financially to cope with the change of Government from a pro-austerity Sarkozy to a pro-growth Hollande, but what about Greece? I don't know what kind of Government she is going to finish up with, but the Greeks have definitely voted against austerity.... and may well find themselves exiting messily from the Eurozone. How much this will affect the other EZ members, and the US indirectly, remains to be seen.

The Greek voters have not understood what the current status really is.

They have a clutter of small political groups with varying agendae elected to represent the general voter, but the left and right wing parties that have now come to prominence have little concern for the EU. They are looking through long narrow tubes at a world that conforms to their beliefs. The real world does not.

If greece has to exit the Euro (not the EU), it will be messy and going to a 'new drachma' will be a problem for everyone, as it will have to be set at a certain exchange rate at the start, from which it will devalue by many percentage points within days. What will then happen to the mountain of debt held by others in Euros? Will it be changed to new drachmas, or will it still be in Euros? If the former, the creditors will take yet another loss, thus pushing the Greek credit rating down below junk status. If the latter, then each million Euro unit of debt will balloon from a million drachma to twice that, thus taking currency out of Greece, impoverishing the Greek people further.

The Greeks must follow the same path as other countries, encouraging inward investment, selling more exports. Working more, for less benefits. Accepting a lower standard of living, a lower quality of life. Understanding more about budget discipline and ensuring their elected representatives balance their budgets, not borrow against the deficit financing that politicians have happily employed for the past two or three decades (all parties in all countries).

Going back a year or two to the housing scam and the selling of derivatives - examples of modern financing - the object in the first place was to sell mortgages, never mind the risk. In my young days it was nescessary to provide proof that your annual income was xx, in which case you could obtain a mortgage of 2 1/2 xx. Lately this has risen to 5xx or more, which is a nonsense, as it is not possible to repay the loan. Therefore the mortgage lending companies sold their debt as a derivative to pension funds and other managed funds, who were more concerned with placing their funds than calculating the return on those funds. The whole house of cards collapsed and started the current mess.

With governments, the exchequer/treasury ministers used to have to balance their budgets year by year. This included the issuance of 'Treasury Bonds at offered rates of interest, valid for fixed periods. Nowadays it seems that the budget does not need to balance, as the government will borrow in excess of the TBs from banks and other financial sources, at rates of interest set by these sources. Such debts are allowed to continue beyond the life of the government, thus limiting the opportunities for future treasury ministers to implement their own policies.

Someone has to stand up and say 'STOP!' to all this.

I have to balance my own spending week-by-week, year-by-year, or I will either be thrown out of my house or put in jail (or both), and will be labelled 'bankrupt' and not allowed to be a director of a company again, until I have covered all my debts. The same should happen to politicians - out of office, no pension, no chance of re-election. No directorships.

OK, tha's my rant finished for now. It was not researched or even well thought out, just something I wanted to get off my chest.

Greece will not be allowed to quit the Euro, whatever their citizenry want, because this idol (the Euro) is worshipped in too many powerful places, where blind politicians following an imperfect economic creed have sacrificed their reputations.

It's quite true that the Greeks simply don't appear to have understood the situation. I don't think there is a hope in hell of any party forming a government, which means a new election in a few weeks' time... and probably a recurrence of the same situation. If Greece implodes, as it well might, what about the big French banks who hold much of Greece's external debt?

HB, you say Greece won't be allowed to quit the Euro. If that's so, someone else will have to pay the bill. Germany and France have already got their fingers burnt; who will be next? Or will it be Germany and France again? With a reluctant Hollande?

Sorry, guys, my post, and I think HBs, on the American presidential election really belonged in this thread. Perhaps some kind moderator could unravel the situation!

Bring back Pat Paulsen...

He'd give 'em a run for their money.

Bring back Pat Paulsen...

He'd give 'em a run for their money.

We don't need Pat. We have Keith Judd.

_____________________________________________________

Texas INMATE gets 40 per cent of votes against Obama in West Virginia primary

Prisoner Keith Judd got 40% of vote in West Virginia to Obama's 60%

Inmate 11593-051 got on ballot by paying $2,500 fee and filing forms

Attracting 15% of vote normally qualifies candidate for a delegate to the Democratic National Convention

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

PUBLISHED: 05:57 GMT, 9 May 2012 | UPDATED: 12:57 GMT, 9 May 2012

Just how unpopular is President Obama in some parts of the country? Enough that a man in prison in Texas received four out of 10 votes in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary.

Inmate Keith Judd is serving 17 years for extortion at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas.

With 93 per cent of precincts reporting, Obama was receiving just under 60 per cent of the vote to Judd's 40 per cent.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1uNT704sr

Sorry, guys, my post, and I think HBs, on the American presidential election really belonged in this thread. Perhaps some kind moderator could unravel the situation!

Agreed - get hold of SBK or aomeone.

My next post is in the Euro debate,

Voters in France reject idiotic, misguided, failed radical austerity.

Let's hope American voters send the same message!!!!!

Austerity? I thought they raised taxes and had practically no spending cuts, didn't they?