The angry white guy, in summary

... and pushing them into affirmative-action higher educational attainment so that they can prosper and graduate to number themselves amongst America's corporate welfare elite!

The direct correlation with qualifying for welfare benefits is with poverty, not race, and the total spent annually on welfare benefits, $131.9 billion, is a little more than half as much as the tax payer is forced to spend on the $250 billion subsidy to sustain group health insurance for those people.

 

OK, I won't argue that they will get paid after the government opens, because it never closed. Rather, they will get paid when they go back to work for the government. When my job laid me off, did the business shut down? No, they continued operating the entire time. Downsizing is not shutting down.

Absolutely.

 

Yes, I addressed this earlier. I didn't read in the article where it said that 1 meant 1000. I just looked at the chart. My bad. The truth though, is that I wasn't looking for magnitude, I was looking for a ratio. So my point still holds that this government under the "shutdown" is still employing more people than the fully funded government did under Reagan. So this downsizing hasn't even brought us down to 1980s levels. Hardly a shutdown.

 

"...there's no way in hell that they are going to vote for a black man."


Taxcutter says:
Carson or West could run as the anti-Obama and do quite well.

The field is wide open.

 

"...Democrats are racist because they're trying to help black people (by forcing them onto welfare, which she doesn't really explain). "

Taxcutter says:
Welfare has wrecked the black family by making real fathers redundant.

The KKK in its heyday could only dream of messing up blacks so thoroughly. Yup. Democrats are completely racist.

 

Democrats keeping Black Americans enslaved via welfare whilst pushing them into affirmative-action higher educational attainment so that they can prosper and graduate to number themselves amongst America's corporate welfare elite, is but one heinous conspiracy by

​

.

"LIBERALS!"​

"Mr President, you're not in the deep doo-doo the Repubs have gotten themselves in, but your approval level is down to 43%."

"Yeah, Joe, but that's not too shabby for a foreign-born, Muslim, socialist, communist, African witch doctor who stole two elections!"​

 

Are you an angry white man? If yes, that would make sense to you.

 

Did writing "sufficiently deluded" make you feel smarter? Your vocabulary is impressive. Your analysis, not-so-much. He is very prejudiced against me. He said so in his own hand. He was taught, first by his mother, and then by Frank Marshall Davis, and then the "Marxist professors" and "structural feminists" in college to despise everything this cracker represents. His world view hasn't changed since he was a senator.

I realize you people think he descended from Heaven, and he has no past. But he does have a past. It's a past very different from most of ours. Oooh, he said different! OMG! See, whitey is scared of something different! Not so fast.

Does it bother me that he spent the first seven years of his life being raised as a Muslim in Indonesia? Not really. I don't think he was old enough to have his world view formed. It's a little odd for a U.S. president, but whatever. It's a little different than most Americans, regardless of race.

His high school years weren't much different than most Americans. He was a pothead like a lot of kids I went to school with. But he wasn't an average pothead. He was an exceptional pothead. Those guys I knew in HS that were exceptional potheads, are still exceptional potheads. When did Barry quit? He was in an upscale school in Hawaii. That's still a little different than most Americans, regardless of race.

College is mostly a mystery. No girlfriends at all. Not one has ever said they dated Barry. No one at Columbia remembers him. He was also supposed to be in Pakistan at that time, with his college roommate. Again, not too disturbing, but a little odd. Certainly different than most Americans' experiences, regardless of race.

How he became an Illinois state senator and then a U.S. senator is fascinating. If you don't know the details, please read up. Truly fascinating. From here, we know a lot about him. First, as a state senator he voted against a bill that required lifesaving steps be taken to save babies that survived botched abortions. Again, pretty extreme, and different than most Americans' views, regardless of race.

Ok, so Iv'e already detailed a few things he's done as president in previous posts. Now I'm giving you the reason why he's suspect in the eyes of most Americans who've done any research at all into his past, namely the conservatives, because the rest of you are afraid someone will call you a racist for questioning his past. It's not because he's black. Most Americans understand black. What most Americans can't associate with is the son of a Kenyan British subject raised by an Indonesian and then mentored by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, in Hawaii of all places, and then starting a political career in the home of a domestic terrorists, and so on.

Now if you're so sure I got all this from talk radio (therefore it must be false) or whatever lunatic fringe right wing source; then challenge me point by point. It should be easy for you if it's all lies and distortions created by the vast right wing conspiracy. Have at it! Tear it apart.

 

No, he doesn't have an agenda, "doesn't have a clue about what to do" is the typical liberal agenda.

 

Paranoid delusion.

Your rant attests to your alienation from most Americans, but I feel that attempting to reason with you would be futile.

Whoever "you people " might be in your warped view, I have never ascribed divine origin to the President (although some do regard Hawaii as an earthly paradise.)

Quite the contrary, I have repeatedly expressed my estimation that he is "okay" - a mainstream perception reflected in most public polls over most of his tenure.

... and an extraordinary masturbator?

Why are you so predisposed to swallow this crap? Documented facts, although they do not comport with your agenda, are readily available"

If you take exception to votes State Senator Obama made in the Illinois legislature, fine, but familiarize yourself with the facts.

As for his having mentioned a 1981 trip during a campaign appearance in 2008, so what? Americans take trips to Pakistan.

Pretending that the majority of Americans (who prefer the President they twice elected to TP birther wacko birds by a wide margin) must be worshipful dupes is just more bilgetwaddle.

You hate the President.

Most folks don't.

 

Another little thing is those numbers lump together federal, state, and local workers. So they don't relate directly to a shutdown that just affects the federal level, and applying your 17% reduction to them gets you nothing that makes any sense.

 

Yes,I realize that I applied the 17% reduction to the entire government conglomorate. If I applied it to just the federal portion, then obviously that would mean even fewer workers were furloughed, and we would have even more government employees employed today, under the "shutdown".

 

"Are you an angry white man?'

Taxcutter says:
I'm an angry taxpayer, honked off at having to pay for counterproductive welfare. And that makes perfect sense.

 

Well, I believe that the Forbes article was enough to deduce that this slimdown is no big deal, and should have happened anyway. But here's another source, more specifically addressing my point:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...1/federal-workforce-decline-growth/55318944/1



Do we really need that much more federal government than we did in 2007?

 

Racist!

 

An increase in federal employment makes sense during a recession. For one thing, state and local governments have been laying off in large numbers.

The vertical scale of that graph depicts the increase as visually much larger and steeper than it would look if the whole scale down to 0.0 was included. It's good to watch for that sort of thing when people try to make a point to you with graphs.

As for your bigger point, it's an ideological assumption, that "this slimdown is no big deal, and should have happened anyway." Even if you dislike government, you can't honestly think that this sudden, unplanned shutdown (not rational 'slimdown') is not harmful. Closings on houses are in limbo. A local entrepreneur here is stuck because he can't get a needed BATF approval to start selling his product. A large number of federal workers are suffering real hardship now, even if they get paid someday. A large number of businesses have sales affected. Federal spending and services are heavily integrated into the economy, and this thing sabotages it.

And this is just the small dragon. Big dragon arrives tomorrow, unless, sanity breaks out.

 

Your "fact check" regarding his voting record as a senator is nothing less that spin. He's an extremist when it comes to abortion. Period.

I've seen every single piece of information on Columbia. If what you've seen is enough to convince you, that's your business. I don't begrudge you for it. So, why begrudge me? There are way to many questions yet answered.

The Pakistan trip was just college buddies on holiday? Ok.

 

You Lie, you said "No one at Columbia remembers him." We begrudge you trying to influence opinion with non-facts.

 

I believe Wayne Allen Root.

 

If you cannot accept the objective reality, I can't help you. In supporting Roe v Wade, the President is in the mainstream. What "extremist" positions regarding abortion has he promoted during his years as President?

If you have questions in your mind, I hope you can figure out what they are. If you have documented evidence to support some alternate and nefarious scenario, you should share it with Columbia, his classmates, and the American people.

Even when the nonsense over his Hawaiian birth had been thorughly dispelled (especially comical because his mother's citizenship was sufficient to qualify him for the presidency) , there were still weird folks who refused to accept it.

I'm glad you can accept that mundane and ordinary explanation. I have no doubt there are still some conspiracy nuts who entertain far more diabolical tales with no evidence whatsoever. It's apparently a shock to a few folks that college kids often travel.


I hope you can overcome your irrational hatred. It damages you far more than it does anyone else.

 

"I'm an angry taxpayer"

"Racist!"

Taxcutter says:
That's the left line, isn't it?

 

This is one of my favorite defenses of Obama. Well, has he done that as president?! No, infanticide hasn't come up yet. Does that mean we're supposed to ignore his personal convictions on the issue, or how he's voted in the past as a senator? Past performances are indicative of future results.

His birth certificate is a forgery. I realize you won't bother to read anything that says so, but try studying Sheriff Arpio's findings and see if you have doubt. Just try it.

As for being eligible because his mother was a citizen; I don't think so. Natural born means both parents are citizens. His father was a Kenyan British subject. Again, a lot of legal arguments over the definition of "natural born" and it's not really defined by the Constitution. But a very legitimate argument can and has been made against his eligibility based on the fact that his father was a Kenyan British subject. Whether natural born or not, personally I don't want the sons of Kenyan British subjects running my country. The Founders didn't want it either. That's why they specifically said "natural born."

None of the above is neither irrational nor delusional. It's all good reason to question both his past and his eligibility to be president. I don't care how many names you call me or how you try to marginalize me; it doesn't change my suspicions.

 

Anymore, it's their answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything...

 

Since Barak Obama never advocated infanticide, it is not about to "come up" as a topic for rational folks.

Of course. As were the contemporary birth announcements in Hawaii's two newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, that appeared on August 4, 1961. If I knew you were a diehard birther, I would not have bothered attempting to reason with you.

Interpretations vary, yet your aberrant notion does not comport with any legal opinion of which I am aware. I know the bizarre notion targets the President, but you better warn Rafael Cruz before he conceives any unrealistic ambitions. If yours is the standard TP definition, he can blame his parents for his failure.

 

As a pro-life voter, I know where he stands on the particulars of the abortion issue, for example parental notification or insurance coverage. For you to deny that virtually all of his positions on the issue; those that aren't above his pay grade, aren't extremely liberal is dishonest of you. Normally, we formulate our opinions on CANDIDATES for office based on what they've said and done before they become presidents. Once he's in office, he still has two other branches of government that have to agree with him before something becomes law. By referring me to what he's done since he's been in office, and then ridiculing me for what I think may or could happen knowing how the man thinks; it's not only unfair, it's just dishonest.

Speaking of what he may or may not do. He could either be a lame duck, or he could launch into another new gigantic liberal socialist utopian dreamscape of a domestic policy initiative upon us. If he has both Houses again, who knows what they're capable of. They gave us the ACA, so we really don't know what they'll do. Whatever it is, it'll be a progressive's wet dream and a conservatives nightmare, just like Obamacare.

But I'm just paranoid delusional thinking of the worst case scenario, right? Dogs and cats living together and such?