An open letter to Oprah

[LDB]

Is it racist if it's another black person saying it?

The Black SphereAn Open Letter to Oprah (Of Barack and Barry)

 

[Ragman]

Is it racist if it's another black person saying it?

The Black SphereAn Open Letter to Oprah (Of Barack and Barry)

Oh my, another agreement!

 

[WanderngFool]

I always enjoy an article that's fair and balanced. Is it just me or did the author leave something out when he said:

On the other hand, “Barry” is responsible for one of the largest economic declines for minorities in US history. How could you possibly allow his Caucasian side to get away with leading African-Americans into such a horrible state of affairs?
Read more at The Black SphereAn Open Letter to Oprah (Of Barack and Barry)
​

Mr Obama hadn't even taken office when the meltdown happened and Republicans have been doing everything possible to sabotage the economy (including government shutdowns and the "Tea Party Downgrade"). Stimulus in a time of economic catastrophe? Only what little they couldn't prevent.

What a terrible, one-sided article.

​

 

[xiggi]

I always enjoy an article that's fair and balanced. Is it just me or did the author leave something out when he said:



Mr Obama hadn't even taken office when the meltdown happened and Republicans have been doing everything possible to sabotage the economy (including government shutdowns and the "Tea Party Downgrade"). Stimulus in a time of economic catastrophe? Only what little they couldn't prevent.

What a terrible, one-sided article.

​

Incorrect not supporting something because you disagree with that path is in no way sabotage. O had near complete control of government his first two years and could pass anything he wished he chose to focus on healthcare not the econemy. Lets not attempt to rewrite what really happened.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

 

[WanderngFool]

Incorrect not supporting something because you disagree with that path is in no way sabotage. O had near complete control of government his first two years and could pass anything he wished he chose to focus on healthcare not the econemy. Lets not attempt to rewrite what really happened.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

I agree with some of what you said and I'd even put it in cynical terms. Obama imho focused on Obamacare because he wanted to secure a place in history for himself.

But having said that, they got < $1T in stimulus approved when Krugman et al said $2T was what was needed.

But again, a time of such economic catastrophe is no time to juggle. Mr O should have had the hammer down on the economy and let the devil take the hindquarters.

Edit: I'm trying too hard to be agreeable. (write down this date lol). Nope, W announced TARP in Sept, 2008 and Obama didn't even take office until Jan, 2009 and the author conveniently fails to mention that fact. He makes no effort at all to be fair. It's a slam piece, pure and simple and aren't we all getting just a little sick of this nonsense?

 

[Turtle]

When the economy is good, the president gets the credit. When the economy is bad, the president gets the blame. Truth is, the president has very little control over it either way. A bad president, like the one we've got now, isn't anywhere close to being as responsible for how bad things are as people want him to be, or blame him for.

Below is an excerpt from Alan Greenblatt’s article "Can A President Really Fix A Bad Economy?"
(you can find the entire post here). It’s worth the read as he also offers up samples of what some past presidents promised but could not deliver, no matter how hard they tried.

“President Obama's problem is not unusual. Every president gets the blame when times are bad. "If there's one issue over which a president can lose an election, it's the economy," says Stephen Weatherford, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Presidents can influence fiscal policy, if they have the support of Congress — which Obama lacks at this point. But even when presidents can persuade Congress to go along, there are limits to how much they can influence the economy as a whole, Weatherford says. They can't force firms to hire workers or banks to lend money, for instance. Nevertheless, presidents always receive either more credit or blame than they deserve for the way things are going. "Expectations are high for the president — too high and unrealistically high," says George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. That's a political reality every modern president has understood. "There's such an exaggerated view of what they can do," says presidential historian Robert Dallek. President Taft said that "people think the presidents can make the grass grow and the skies turn to blue. It's simply out of their reach."

So, what’s the solution? The solution is who we vote in. We need some newbies with radical ideas because even if a president wants to do something, he most likely won’t be able to force Congress to agree, especially not now. These days Democrats and Republicans won’t even talk to each other let alone agreeing on policies that could help this great country. "Stop touching me!" "He said I looked fat!" "Billy is making faces at me!"

 

[davekc]

Mr Obama hadn't even taken office when the meltdown happened and Republicans have been doing everything possible to sabotage the economy (including government shutdowns and the "Tea Party Downgrade"). Stimulus in a time of economic catastrophe? Only what little they couldn't prevent.

What a terrible, one-sided article.

Not really. Obama promised "hope and change" and he has done nothing but put the screws to the African American community.
As for the "meltdown", that can be put squarely on the Clinton administration because of all the bad housing loans that were written. That isn't really a debatable item at this point. Bush tried to stop it and was shot down by Congress.
It then hit Wall street and he didn't react fast enough. That is where your bank bailouts came from.
The good news is, many in the African American community are coming to grips with what a luzer he really is. Sadly, it has been tough for them, maybe even some initial denial because he is the first black president.

 

[WanderngFool]

Mr Obama hadn't even taken office when the meltdown happened and Republicans have been doing everything possible to sabotage the economy (including government shutdowns and the "Tea Party Downgrade"). Stimulus in a time of economic catastrophe? Only what little they couldn't prevent.

What a terrible, one-sided article.

Not really. Obama promised "hope and change" and he has done nothing but put the screws to the African American community.
As for the "meltdown", that can be put squarely on the Clinton administration because of all the bad housing loans that were written. That isn't really a debatable item at this point. Bush tried to stop it and was shot down by Congress.
It then hit Wall street and he didn't react fast enough. That is where your bank bailouts came from.
The good news is, many in the African American community are coming to grips with what a luzer he really is. Sadly, it has been tough for them, maybe even some initial denial because he is the first black president.

At least your post isn't one-sided. lol

I say this to you, because you have a brain. Don't you guys on the far-right realize that people notice that you almost never criticize people on the right? It's always the left. Day in and day out, attack mode. It's getting old man.

 

[letzrockexpress]

What a terrible, one-sided article.

This surprises you? Maybe you haven't been around long enough to consider the source...

 

[letzrockexpress]

Mr Obama hadn't even taken office when the meltdown happened and Republicans have been doing everything possible to sabotage the economy (including government shutdowns and the "Tea Party Downgrade"). Stimulus in a time of economic catastrophe? Only what little they couldn't prevent.

What a terrible, one-sided article.

Not really. Obama promised "hope and change" and he has done nothing but put the screws to the African American community.
As for the "meltdown", that can be put squarely on the Clinton administration because of all the bad housing loans that were written. That isn't really a debatable item at this point. Bush tried to stop it and was shot down by Congress.
It then hit Wall street and he didn't react fast enough. That is where your bank bailouts came from.
The good news is, many in the African American community are coming to grips with what a luzer he really is. Sadly, it has been tough for them, maybe even some initial denial because he is the first black president.

We should always denote the first "black" president, not the first "African American" president. Though his father was an African he is not the fire brand...

 

[Turtle]

Not saying this to anyone in particular, just saying it to point something out....

Don't you guys on the far-left realize that people notice that you almost never criticize people on the left? It's always the right. Day in and day out, attack mode. It's getting old man.

 

[Turtle]

We should always denote the first "black" president, not the first "African American" president. Though his father was an African he is not the fire brand...

Bill Clinton was the first "black" president, everybody knows that.

 

[WanderngFool]

Not saying this to anyone in particular, just saying it to point something out....

Don't you guys on the far-left realize that people notice that you almost never criticize people on the left? It's always the right. Day in and day out, attack mode. It's getting old man.

Well since you're paraphrasing me.

I agree with some of what you said and I'd even put it in cynical terms. Obama imho focused on Obamacare because he wanted to secure a place in history for himself.

But I did and do regret the "it's getting old" line. No offense intended Dave. I hit the edit button and was about to substitue something else for that line but nothing suitable came to mind. My bad.

 

[paullud]

At least your post isn't one-sided. lol

I say this to you, because you have a brain. Don't you guys on the far-right realize that people notice that you almost never criticize people on the right? It's always the left. Day in and day out, attack mode. It's getting old man.

What are you talking about? The right has gained a reputation for going after their own party.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

At least your post isn't one-sided. lol

I say this to you, because you have a brain. Don't you guys on the far-right realize that people notice that you almost never criticize people on the right? It's always the left. Day in and day out, attack mode. It's getting old man.

I think I did say Bush didn't react fast enough when those loans turned upside down on Wall street. The bad news is since they were already toxic, his options were pretty limited since he tried to address it once with no Congressional success.

 

[Turtle]

It's just the proverbial two sides of the same coin thing. You certainly aren't the first to utter a similar statement.

 

[xiggi]

At least your post isn't one-sided. lol

I say this to you, because you have a brain. Don't you guys on the far-right realize that people notice that you almost never criticize people on the right? It's always the left. Day in and day out, attack mode. It's getting old man.

The left is in charge that's who gets criticized. There are also many on here who campaign the vote them all out theory so your assumption falls a little short. What many do not agree with is the policies on the left but not liking policies is different from what you stated.



Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

 

[letzrockexpress]

Not saying this to anyone in particular, just saying it to point something out....

Don't you guys on the far-left realize that people notice that you almost never criticize people on the left? It's always the right. Day in and day out, attack mode. It's getting old man.

I think the Cuban guy is gone. That should help...

 

[WanderngFool]

What are you talking about? The right has gained a reputation for going after their own party.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

You have a point. The Republican party is divided that's for sure. My observation is about the people I see on public forums such as this. Old school Republicans aren't saying much if they're even around. The Tea Party still has a very strong presence (or at least a very loud voice).

People that put the truth first will slam both parties. Surely there's enough blame to go around. Isn't it a gigantic red flag when someone criticizes one party 24/7? Isn't that a signal that they've been drinking the koolaid?

 

[davekc]

The left is bound to get hammered right now because they are making all the decisions. Hard to blame republicans since they only control the house.
Some think they do nothing but stand in the way, but that isn't entirely true. Just look at the whole Obamacare mess. Obama is just going along rewriting laws as he goes. Can't hardly blame the oppisition when you see that going on.
But to be fair, it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.