Is Obama an "Affirmative Action President?"

MayDay Malone

Go Beavers wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Whatever man. I disagree w/ your assessment of W's presidency, I think that history will prove me right. We'll see.

Hey man, I'm really not putting you down personally, but you have posted that you are a college professor, and even the name of your school. Then rant conspiracy theories and lib talking points about Bush in an Obama thread. A lot of companies would fire someone for that- people have been fired for what they post on Facebook, etc. But in the academic world, it's encouraged- in fact, its almost a prerequisite for tenure.

And it's just so exhaustingly typical of college. I've been. I payed. I've had to navigate the minefields of ultra-liberal indoctrinators posed as professors, and regurgitate talking points and bullshit, just to get the grade- just to get the diploma- just to get the job.

But to sit here and pretend we are carrying on an academic discussion about the 43rd Prez, well..... what kind of grade would I get in your class if I presented a paper claiming that Bush did something right? A bad grade, that's what. And you fuckin know it.

Thanks, but I don't have to pretend to be enlightened by ultra-liberal professors anymore.

Pearl Jam rocks. Im sure we agree on that. I kinda hit hard at the teachers in this one, so speak your mind, but after that, lets just agree to disagree on some things, and let it be?

No hard feelings.

Mayday, maybe your inability to formulate an effective argument and back up your position with valid points and facts had to do with your struggles in college? You do it in amt, so I imagine it happened there, too. I suppose it's easier to avoid taking individual responsibility, and instead blame the "ultra-liberal indoctrinators" (did that one come from Sean Hannity?). Conveniently, responsibility becomes optional for the conservative when their deficiencies are exposed.

This is classic conservative hypocrisy. I may have to use your example in other forums I post in.

All good Beavers. Its an honor to have my posts cited by you.

keeponrockin

mikepegg44 wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

so, again, you pull something out of context...I just said socialism doesn't fail everywhere (didn't say we had to do it). You're earning an F so far. Not for your opinion (Mike44 and I disagree all the time but he'd get an A I'd say), but because you have nothing to offer.

I rarely agree with mike44, but he's one of my favourite posters on here. I always feel like I learn something when reading his posts! Same goes for unsung, we disagree, but lots of great info.

thanks.

Not sure how I feel about rarely being agreed with though
am I that far out there :shock:

but now that I have my A for the day I guess it is time for a schell's

We look at issues from a different perspective, but I always learn something, so, keep posting!

cincybearcat

keeponrockin wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

I rarely agree with mike44, but he's one of my favourite posters on here. I always feel like I learn something when reading his posts! Same goes for unsung, we disagree, but lots of great info.

thanks.

Not sure how I feel about rarely being agreed with though
am I that far out there :shock:

but now that I have my A for the day I guess it is time for a schell's

We look at issues from a different perspective, but I always learn something, so, keep posting!

Is this circle jerk just about over?

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

thanks.

Not sure how I feel about rarely being agreed with though
am I that far out there :shock:

but now that I have my A for the day I guess it is time for a schell's

We look at issues from a different perspective, but I always learn something, so, keep posting!

Is this circle jerk just about over?

:( ... ... :shock:

vinegar strokes

I love you all.
there I am finished
fuckers.

RW81233

mikepegg44 wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

so, again, you pull something out of context...I just said socialism doesn't fail everywhere (didn't say we had to do it). You're earning an F so far. Not for your opinion (Mike44 and I disagree all the time but he'd get an A I'd say), but because you have nothing to offer.

I rarely agree with mike44, but he's one of my favourite posters on here. I always feel like I learn something when reading his posts! Same goes for unsung, we disagree, but lots of great info.

thanks.

Not sure how I feel about rarely being agreed with though
am I that far out there :shock:

but now that I have my A for the day I guess it is time for a schell's

how about this I agree with your social politics, and even foreign policy beliefs (from what I remember reading), but we are on opposite sides of the fence economically. generally this is what happens when you mix a liberal and a libertarian.

RW81233

Byrnzie wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to do to add to the discussion on this thread. You've demeaned my profession, and even me, then consistently pull one line quotes out of a larger post that addresses your stance for what?

I'd like to know the answer to this question too.

I think it's more to pick fights to be honest, and it really isn't the purpose of this forum. It's more fun to offer up why you think the way you do and discuss the points IMO. Apparently that's not this person's intention.

usamamasan1

please, discuss the topic and not the person.


someone said "taint"

RW81233

I would be glad to discuss the topic and ancillary posts that come of it.

polaris_x

don't feed the troll ..

RW81233

I'm not a quitter I think people can learn if they want to give it a shot...maybe it's a fools bet though

Byrnzie

polaris_x wrote:

don't feed the troll ..

It would be good if we all adhered to this and ignored certain characters here. Seriously. Just ignore the trolls. Let them stew in their own juices.

Godfather.

Go Beavers wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I am looking forward to the day when people don't give a shit whether he's black and look back on his presidency and see that he helped avoid a second great depression, provided millions of Americans with healthcare they previously didn't have access to, ended the war in Iraq, ended the war in Afghan while concentrating military efforts on the terrorists while killing Osama and other high ranking terrorist leaders, and ended the bigot policy that is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. All while having to deal with a party that is more concerned with kicking him out of office than actually helping the American people.

color is not a issue (for me) but I also don't think he killed usama b. or even directed the assult on him in fact Bush had as much to do with that more so than Obama in my opinion.
I also think that a huge part of his election was a direct result of the color of his skin and nothing to do with his ability to do the job.

Godfather.

A huge part of the election had to do with the economy. Prior to October, 2008, McCain and Obama were pretty much neck and neck, much like G.W. and the previous two elections. Obama's numbers jumped when the economy went down the serious pooper about 4 weeks before the election. This wasn't about race, but about Obama coming across as more effective and confident with how to deal with the economy and McCain's poor brain functioning being exposed.

I can go with that for sure but color bought a lot of his votes.

Godfather.

Godfather.

MayDay Malone wrote:

maj4e wrote:

Very classy hating on teachers... Great youtube response by the way.

"Hey! Teachers!! Leave those kids alone!"

"how can you have pudding if you don't eat your meat"

Godfather.

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

thanks.

Not sure how I feel about rarely being agreed with though
am I that far out there :shock:

but now that I have my A for the day I guess it is time for a schell's

how about this I agree with your social politics, and even foreign policy beliefs (from what I remember reading), but we are on opposite sides of the fence economically. generally this is what happens when you mix a liberal and a libertarian.

economics is another story...but I think the motivation is the same. That is why it is so easy to disagree without getting personal for me...I realize that everyone simply wants a better life for everyone..just a different way of getting there...that is why I am such a big proponent of strengthening states rights...I would love it if the united states had conservative states, libertarian states, liberal states, and even socialist states...all of those things could work if the Feds would just let the states handle their own business...if the states want to grant gay marriage, give out free healthcare to their residents, have no state income tax, have a high tax rate for business, legalize marijuana, all of it should be at the state level....that simple...I think you would find much less division and childish behavior in the national politics if people were having their voices heard locally...

but that is just a pipe dream...we still have people who think race makes a difference(which is a self fulfilling prophecy sometimes IMO)

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

economics is another story...but I think the motivation is the same. That is why it is so easy to disagree without getting personal for me...I realize that everyone simply wants a better life for everyone..just a different way of getting there...that is why I am such a big proponent of strengthening states rights...I would love it if the united states had conservative states, libertarian states, liberal states, and even socialist states...all of those things could work if the Feds would just let the states handle their own business...if the states want to grant gay marriage, give out free healthcare to their residents, have no state income tax, have a high tax rate for business, legalize marijuana, all of it should be at the state level....that simple...I think you would find much less division and childish behavior in the national politics if people were having their voices heard locally...

but that is just a pipe dream...we still have people who think race makes a difference(which is a self fulfilling prophecy sometimes IMO)

then what is the federal gov't for?

bgivens33

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

economics is another story...but I think the motivation is the same. That is why it is so easy to disagree without getting personal for me...I realize that everyone simply wants a better life for everyone..just a different way of getting there...that is why I am such a big proponent of strengthening states rights...I would love it if the united states had conservative states, libertarian states, liberal states, and even socialist states...all of those things could work if the Feds would just let the states handle their own business...if the states want to grant gay marriage, give out free healthcare to their residents, have no state income tax, have a high tax rate for business, legalize marijuana, all of it should be at the state level....that simple...I think you would find much less division and childish behavior in the national politics if people were having their voices heard locally...

but that is just a pipe dream...we still have people who think race makes a difference(which is a self fulfilling prophecy sometimes IMO)

then what is the federal gov't for?

The constitution authorizes the federal government ~17 tasks(mint money, foreign relations, military, secure borders etc.)

polaris_x

bgivens33 wrote:

The constitution authorizes the federal government ~17 tasks(mint money, foreign relations, military, secure borders etc.)

i get that ... but what if the individual state does not want to participate? ... take international treaties ... say a certain state does not want the feds to be part of a cluster mine treaty!? ... what then!?

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

The constitution authorizes the federal government ~17 tasks(mint money, foreign relations, military, secure borders etc.)

i get that ... but what if the individual state does not want to participate? ... take international treaties ... say a certain state does not want the feds to be part of a cluster mine treaty!? ... what then!?

article 2 section 2 clause 2

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

article 2 section 2 clause 2

but that is the point of my question ... why is it some things are ok for the feds to handle and why is some things not?

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

economics is another story...but I think the motivation is the same. That is why it is so easy to disagree without getting personal for me...I realize that everyone simply wants a better life for everyone..just a different way of getting there...that is why I am such a big proponent of strengthening states rights...I would love it if the united states had conservative states, libertarian states, liberal states, and even socialist states...all of those things could work if the Feds would just let the states handle their own business...if the states want to grant gay marriage, give out free healthcare to their residents, have no state income tax, have a high tax rate for business, legalize marijuana, all of it should be at the state level....that simple...I think you would find much less division and childish behavior in the national politics if people were having their voices heard locally...

but that is just a pipe dream...we still have people who think race makes a difference(which is a self fulfilling prophecy sometimes IMO)

then what is the federal gov't for?

read the constitution. It tells you specifically what it is for...I know people think that is a lame response but I don't have a better one.
now it seems as though we should simply change our name to the united state of america.
the states are meant to be different...if we allow them to be while respecting the Constitution and the guaranteed rights of all Americans I really don't think we would see the conflict we do.