Jump to content

The "Thrill Is Gone"-The Collapse Of Obama-mania


Recommended Posts

screen_shot_2013-09-09_at_11.15.05_am.pn

 

How Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later

 

White Southerners are one of the great outliers in American politics. President Obama polled significantly worse with white voters in the South than he did with whites in swing states. One survey of working class white voters found Obama only 4-8 points behind Romney in the majority of the country, while he polled 40 points behind Romney among Southern white working class voters. And a new study by political scientists Avidit Acharya, Matthew Blackwell and Maya Sen suggests that there may be a simple explanation for this divide — slavery.

 

How Slavery Changed the US South

 

Drawing on a sample of more than 39,000 southern whites, we show that whites who currently live in counties that had high concentrations of slaves in 1860 are on average more conservative and express colder feelings towards African Americans than whites who live elsewhere in the South. That is, the larger the number of slaves in his or her county of residence in 1860, the greater the probability that a white Southerner today will identify as a Republican, express opposition to race-coded policies such as affirmative action, and express greater racial resentment towards African Americans.

One reader commented:

“It is a war of defense against wicked and cruel aggression; a war of civilization against a ruthless barbarism, which would dishonor the dark ages; a war of religion against blind and bloody fanaticism. It is war for your homes and your firesides – for your wives and children – for the land which the Lord has given us for a heritage. It is a war for the maintenance of the broadest principle for which a free people can contend – for the right of self-government.”

That was Rev. Dr. Benjamin Moore Palmer speaking at City Hall in New Orleans in May, 1861.

And this quote is nearly as cool. John Dooley, whose father fought in the Revolution, wrote about anyone fighting for the Federals would “consistently turn his back on his principles and for the hire of a few pitiful dollars do all in his power to crush a brave people asserting their right to self-government.” He wondered how someone could “engage in the cause of tyranny, fighting against honesty, Justice, and right.”

That to me sounds like the words used to attack ObamaCare. In other words, it isn’t just the attitudes but the rhetoric of slave owners that carry through to today.

 

Considering the mental melt-downs by the Goppers and Baggers, like, duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

screen_shot_2013-09-09_at_11.15.05_am.pn

 

How Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later

 

White Southerners are one of the great outliers in American politics. President Obama polled significantly worse with white voters in the South than he did with whites in swing states. One survey of working class white voters found Obama only 4-8 points behind Romney in the majority of the country, while he polled 40 points behind Romney among Southern white working class voters. And a new study by political scientists Avidit Acharya, Matthew Blackwell and Maya Sen suggests that there may be a simple explanation for this divide — slavery.

 

How Slavery Changed the US South

 

Drawing on a sample of more than 39,000 southern whites, we show that whites who currently live in counties that had high concentrations of slaves in 1860 are on average more conservative and express colder feelings towards African Americans than whites who live elsewhere in the South. That is, the larger the number of slaves in his or her county of residence in 1860, the greater the probability that a white Southerner today will identify as a Republican, express opposition to race-coded policies such as affirmative action, and express greater racial resentment towards African Americans.

One reader commented:

“It is a war of defense against wicked and cruel aggression; a war of civilization against a ruthless barbarism, which would dishonor the dark ages; a war of religion against blind and bloody fanaticism. It is war for your homes and your firesides – for your wives and children – for the land which the Lord has given us for a heritage. It is a war for the maintenance of the broadest principle for which a free people can contend – for the right of self-government.”

 

That was Rev. Dr. Benjamin Moore Palmer speaking at City Hall in New Orleans in May, 1861.

 

And this quote is nearly as cool. John Dooley, whose father fought in the Revolution, wrote about anyone fighting for the Federals would “consistently turn his back on his principles and for the hire of a few pitiful dollars do all in his power to crush a brave people asserting their right to self-government.” He wondered how someone could “engage in the cause of tyranny, fighting against honesty, Justice, and right.”

 

That to me sounds like the words used to attack ObamaCare. In other words, it isn’t just the attitudes but the rhetoric of slave owners that carry through to today.

 

Considering the mental melt-downs by the Goppers and Baggers, like, duh.

 

 

Ah the irony a white republican freed the slaves, if only you could rewrite history or spin it a different way.....

Geographical location and statistics are fun to play with but slavery is long gone so trying to inject it in the context you chose is simple race baiting today.

 

Are some "southern" people bigot's ? I am sure as there are racists white AND black scattered all over the country.

Trying to tie a persons actions today to the wrongs of many years ago is weak but that is the liberal game card.

 

Contrary to what you might think Obama did not win either election by a land slide and many people ( about 1/2) the country does not care for him. It could be his race (1/2 of it), his liberal politics or demonstrating he does not have a clue what he is doing. Just because you disagree with the guy does not mean everyone that disagrees is a racist but I am sure that some are mixed in.

 

Keep using the term "Goppers" and "Baggers" it fits your mentality or lack of perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis

Nobody alive today was a slave, and nobody alive today owned one.

 

For a Party that made an election slogan about going "Forward", you seem to have a problem being stuck in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis
What about Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice's invite? Yeah, nevermind

 

Crickets

 

 

So in other words, he was told he could sit with the rest of the Republicans in the back row while such notable dignitaries like Jay Z and Kanye West took the stage. Yeah, like we all said, this wasn’t a celebration of the MLK, it was a Democratic convention, where Obama does the only thing he knows how to; campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flailing Obama slumps to lowest ratings of his presidency, as US voters see him as ‘a weak and indecisive leader’

 

Strikingly, a large percentage of American voters believe that Obama’s foreign policy has weakened America’s standing in the world. 48 percent agree that the United States is less respected now than it was five years ago when George W. Bush left office. A mere 14 percent say that America is more respected today. 54 percent of US voters disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy, with just 39 percent expressing their support. Most significantly, Obama scores badly on the leadership front: 48 percent of those polled by Fox think Obama is “a weak and indecisive leader,” six percentage points more than those who believe he is “a strong and decisive leader.” In addition, 50 percent feel the president “spends too much time blaming others.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this should be a surprise to anyone....just go back to the 2008 election when we were warned that this guy had no credentials .....no foreign policy experience... very little domestic policy experience.... he's an embarrassment to this country.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this should be a surprise to anyone....just go back to the site and see the guys credentials...he's a partisan hack.

And so what? If he makes truthful assertions and highlights relevant issues, who cares if he doesn't cares for the president.

 

Does this mean that anything you say is garbage, just because you said it? You undermine your own validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so what? If he makes truthful assertions and highlights relevant issues, who cares if he doesn't cares for the president.

 

Does this mean that anything you say is garbage, just because you said it? You undermine your own validity.

 

Flailing? Weak and indecisive? Faux news poll? LOL.

 

 

It's obvious that your willing to buy into Faux news propaganda concerning Obama just like I mentioned in the other thread. If they say it then it must be true, right?

 

Personally, I know that the Obama approval rating is equal to his disapproval rating at 46% because CBS/NYTimes tells me so. And according to McLatchey/Marist his approval rating is going up. The same for NBC news.

 

I could go on and on about the polls but your going to cherry pick the one that fits your narrative, as the partisan hack did in writing the story.

 

 

By the way, do you think he'll ever get to 29% like Bush did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis
By the way, do you think he'll ever get to 29% like Bush did?

 

 

Yes. If the media actually reported the facts, and his followers weren't complete morons who defend him no matter what happens.

 

Look at yourself. When called out for Obama not fulfilling a campaign promise, you refused to hold him accountable, and blamed those evil Republicans. You could have easily said you were disappointed that he never closed Gitmo, or you could have said that after further review, Bush was right in opening the prison, and you are happy Obama backed away from closing it. Either would have been an acceptable and reasonable response. But one gives credit to Bush (something you will never do) and the other criticizes Obama (something you will never do).

 

When people have the mentality you have, why would you expect his approval rating to go down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flailing? Weak and indecisive? Faux news poll? LOL.

 

 

It's obvious that your willing to buy into Faux news propaganda concerning Obama just like I mentioned in the other thread. If they say it then it must be true, right?

 

Personally, I know that the Obama approval rating is equal to his disapproval rating at 46% because CBS/NYTimes tells me so. And according to McLatchey/Marist his approval rating is going up. The same for NBC news.

 

I could go on and on about the polls but your going to cherry pick the one that fits your narrative, as the partisan hack did in writing the story.

 

 

By the way, do you think he'll ever get to 29% like Bush did?

Dont like the poll results? Just disregard it.

 

So how many others can you find that demonstrate equivalent approvals??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. If the media actually reported the facts, and his followers weren't complete morons who defend him no matter what happens.

 

Look at yourself. When called out for Obama not fulfilling a campaign promise, you refused to hold him accountable, and blamed those evil Republicans. You could have easily said you were disappointed that he never closed Gitmo, or you could have said that after further review, Bush was right in opening the prison, and you are happy Obama backed away from closing it. Either would have been an acceptable and reasonable response. But one gives credit to Bush (something you will never do) and the other criticizes Obama (something you will never do).

 

When people have the mentality you have, why would you expect his approval rating to go down?

 

I have said that i was disappointed that gitmo wasn't closed. And we know why it wasn't closed. Well, i do, your still in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis
I have said that i was disappointed that gitmo wasn't closed. And we know why it wasn't closed. Well, i do, your still in the dark.

 

Yeah, because Obama didn't close it.

 

Your supposed disappointment is not directed at who is responsible for it, but your imaginary boogie man who is blamed for everything Obama screws up

 

Just a question;

 

If the Republicans are to blame for not letting Obama do something, then shouldn't they get credit when he actually does?

 

Face it Langston, there are better leaders in McDonald's junior management program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, because Obama didn't close it.

 

Your supposed disappointment is not directed at who is responsible for it, but your imaginary boogie man who is blamed for everything Obama screws up

 

Just a question;

 

If the Republicans are to blame for not letting Obama do something, then shouldn't they get credit when he actually does?

 

Face it Langston, there are better leaders in McDonald's junior management program.

 

No, I was disappointed with Obama.

 

Just 2 questions to your question;

 

Why are all your questions one or the other? Can't you ask real questions that allow for someone to give their opinion on a subject?

 

Face it GM, you don't want real debate, you want to argue things based on these stupid premises that 3rd graders use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis
No, I was disappointed with Obama.

 

No you weren’t. You blamed the Republicans for not letting him. You’re disappointed he didn’t shove it down their throats. You refuse to hold him accountable.

 

Just 2 questions to your question;

 

Why are all your questions one or the other? Can't you ask real questions that allow for someone to give their opinion on a subject?

 

Because you’ve proven that you aren’t very smart and that you won’t answer a question that either supports Bush and blames Obama. I dumb it down for you and you still can’t figure it out.

 

Face it GM, you don't want real debate, you want to argue things based on these stupid premises that 3rd graders use.

 

Langston, you’re not smart enough to play this game. Everyone can see who you really are, and you would rather avoid the topic and questions by posting crap like this than by actually engaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone believe the audacity of this president to try to convince us that Brazil and he "agreed" they would postpone their visit due to the NSA spying revelations?

 

No, Obama got his hat handed to him. Brazil told the US president to go "f" himself, but that also means those of us who have rejected the spying as well.

 

Brazil's president, angry about spying, cancels state visit to U.S.

 

WASHINGTON — In the latest fallout from the Edward Snowden affair, the president of Brazil canceled a state visit to Washington out of anger that the National Security Agency had spied on her and other Brazilian officials, deepening a rift with the Obama administration.

 

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff on Tuesday called off the high-profile visit that both governments had planned for Oct. 23. A White House spokesman sought to downplay the diplomatic snub by a key ally and trading partner, and described the decision to indefinitely postpone the visit as mutual.

 

The White House said in a statement that Rousseff and President Obama had agreed that the state visit — an elaborate affair with meetings and a formal dinner with toasts — would be better staged when relations between the two nations were less tense.

 

Obama "understands and regrets" the concern that disclosures about U.S. spying has generated in Brazil, the statement said. "He is committed to working together with President Rousseff and her government in diplomatic channels to move beyond this issue as a source of tension in our bilateral relationship."

 

A statement from the Brazilian president's office was harsher, citing a "lack of ... explanations and commitment to cease interceptive activities" for the cancellation.

 

"The illegal interception of communications data belonging to citizens, companies and members of the Brazilian government are a grave matter, an assault on national sovereignty and individual rights, and are incompatible with relations between friendly nations," the statement said.

Edited by FiredMotorCompany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you weren’t. You blamed the Republicans for not letting him. You’re disappointed he didn’t shove it down their throats. You refuse to hold him accountable.

 

I did blame Obama for not ramming it down their throat. He should have closed it no matter what bullshit the republicans pulled. He backed off and I wasn't happy with that.

 

Because you’ve proven that you aren’t very smart and that you won’t answer a question that either supports Bush and blames Obama. I dumb it down for you and you still can’t figure it out.

 

No, you dumbed it down for you. It's the only way you win, by making it a simple this or that discussion. I'm capable of having a nuanced discussion, but your only willing to present these either/or questions. This isn't do i want pizza for dinner, this is a political discussion where there are large shades of grey. I see this and I'm supposedly the not bright one. You don't and yet you tell me I'm not very smart.

 

And by the way, I've figured out that your just doing these stupid third grade questions as a way to win brownie points with the little conservative cyber-club that resides here. You don't want a serious discussion otherwise you wouldn't try to limit it.

 

Langston, you’re not smart enough to play this game. Everyone can see who you really are, and you would rather avoid the topic and questions by posting crap like this than by actually engaging.

 

Thank you for your estimate of my intelligence. It means little as your not much more than the typical conservative who thinks everyone is beneath them, yet you care so much that you come here and just have to respond to my posts. I'm not smart according to you and yet your obsessed with challenging my comments. That says something about who is not smart enough to play this game.

 

The simple fact that you started in on me from the moment you first posted tells everyone that you are unable to get over me. Face it, if I were just dumb you would have wrote me off and never posted. But here you are, which like I said before is telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone believe the audacity of this president to try to convince us that Brazil and he "agreed" they would postpone their visit due to the NSA spying revelations?

 

No, Obama got his hat handed to him. Brazil told the US president to go "f" himself, but that also means those of us who have rejected the spying as well.

 

Brazil's president, angry about spying, cancels state visit to U.S.

 

Funny how you view everyone's but Obama's actions in a vacuum. You have read about all the protests against her government all summer right?

 

Rousseff, who had a 36 percent approval rating last month in the wake of nationwide protests against substandard public services, has been under pressure from leftists in her Workers’ Party movement to stay home. Canceling the trip is seen as politically expedient here, partly because she faces a tough reelection campaign next year.

 

So....I'm sure that she was mad that she found out that our country was doing some spying on here country, but when haven't we spied on them. If you are the president of any South American country you know that all the major players are spying on you. Russia, The US, the Brits and Israel are all doing shady shit in and about your country.

 

So like the article suggested it was politically expedient to be so angry, because if you haven't realized your being watched then you really shouldn't be president. The first rule of being the president of a country not called the US is that no matter what party, who the president is, or what color the sky is, every inch of your shit is being looked at by the US.

 

And I'm sorry that she told you to "go Fuck yourself!" I'm sure it wasn't personal and that your vajay won't hurt for long. Your being a bit overly teenage girl dramatic over her cancelling the dinner by suggesting that it includes you but i figure it's par for the course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone believe the audacity of this president to try to convince us that Brazil and he "agreed" they would postpone their visit due to the NSA spying revelations?

 

No, Obama got his hat handed to him. Brazil told the US president to go "f" himself, but that also means those of us who have rejected the spying as well.

 

Brazil's president, angry about spying, cancels state visit to U.S.

 

 

Putin has him on a leash, getting snubbed by Brazil is no surprise.

Obama is a running joke outside the US but he has managed to build a coalition of two (2) against Syria.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100233454/barack-obama-is-proving-an-embarrassing-amateur-on-the-world-stage-compared-to-george-w-bush/

 

 

President Obama’s proposed military coalition on Syria has a grand total of two members – the US and France. And the French, as we know from Iraq, simply can’t be relied on, and have very limited military capability. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs when Paris, at best a fair weather friend, is your only partner. John Kerry tried to put a brave face on it at his press conference today, by referring to France “as our oldest ally,” but the fact remains that his administration is looking painfully isolated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin has him on a leash, getting snubbed by Brazil is no surprise.

Obama is a running joke outside the US but he has managed to build a coalition of two (2) against Syria.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100233454/barack-obama-is-proving-an-embarrassing-amateur-on-the-world-stage-compared-to-george-w-bush/

 

President Obama’s proposed military coalition on Syria has a grand total of two members – the US and France. And the French, as we know from Iraq, simply can’t be relied on, and have very limited military capability. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs when Paris, at best a fair weather friend, is your only partner. John Kerry tried to put a brave face on it at his press conference today, by referring to France “as our oldest ally,” but the fact remains that his administration is looking painfully isolated.

 

I wonder how you look at what is happening and form these opinions? It is clear that Putin is desperate to keep the US out of Syria and that the UN report, which it labeled as "biased" shows that the Syrian regime is the one to blame for the attacks.

 

the most likely reason is that your partisan views overwhelm your ability to be logical and fair. You simply hate Obama too much to ever think that his threat of missile strikes brought them to the table. If Putin is such a hard-ass and has Obama on a short leash why is he playing this game so poorly and from a position of weakness?

 

Syria did not have to divulge that they had chemical weapons and Russia could have just kept blocking Security council resolutions. There was no need to back off and handle the situation this way, but they had a report that would offer up ballistic evidence that the Sarin gas was used by the regime coming in a week and there was the possibility that Obama would order strikes without Congress's approval. Those two had to do something to take the heat off and keep the US from striking. So the hard-ass gave in and Syria asked to be let off the hook in exchange for supposedly giving up it's WMD's.

 

Somehow you still think Obama didn't win. Strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Look out George. It looks like Carter isn't going to be the only one glad to have Obama in the White House.

 

Not only has Obama made Carter look like a Nuclear Sub Commander-In-Chief, he is also making George Bush's approval ratings look like the new norm instead of an anomaly.

40% approval is statistically equivalent to 37% for all practical purposes.

 

Maybe only having 37% approval ratings is a good thing for all incompetent presidents.

 

 

Almost forgot to reference the poll....

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

 

Date range: Oct. 30 - Nov. 2 53% Disapprove 40% Approve

Edited by FiredMotorCompany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...