President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama

This thread is dedicated soley to discussing the new President. This includes his inauguration, policies, etc. If it involves President Obama, discuss it here.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Racism is not political dissent.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

When JonnySoupSpoon arcs up I feel an inner strength that could slay a thousand dragons---no guns...with my bare hands.

Why not try a sword to slay those dragons? After all, the pen doesn't seem to work for you as well as it does for the rest of us.

Who's Coony?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Why not try a sword to slay those dragons? After all, the pen doesn't seem to work for you as well as it does for the rest of us.

Come now, Johnny. That requires a level of literacy that alludes nearly all Republicans.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

a level of literacy that alludes nearly all Republicans

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Come now, Johnny. That requires a level of literacy that alludes nearly all Republicans.

I have no idea what you're excluding to.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Why not try a sword to slay those dragons? After all, the pen doesn't seem to work for you as well as it does for the rest of us.

Come now, Johnny. That requires a level of literacy that alludes nearly all Republicans.

It also eludes more than a handful of Democrats, if the above quote is any indication.

Perhaps both Tweedledee and Tweedledum are both deluded.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Limbaugh out on a limb, again? Who woulda thunk it… Of course, the provocation was no fluke: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/stunner-georgetown-coed-sandra-fluke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/

Lordy, what a shocker! The BITCH!

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Come now, Johnny. That requires a level of literacy that alludes nearly all Republicans.

I have no idea what you're excluding to.

Me edder.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Come now, Johnny. That requires a level of literacy that alludes nearly all Republicans.

Oops! I didn't think you were a Republican, Sir.

Originally posted by string:

Perhaps both Tweedledee and Tweedledum are both deluded.

And in some cases diluted enough that you can't tell them apart

Originally posted by string:

Perhaps both Tweedledee and Tweedledum are both deluded.

And cute!

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

It also eludes more than a handful of Democrats, if the above quote is any indication.

So a homonym at almost 7 am when I haven't been to bed yet Oh and how many times do I have to tell you guys I'm not a Democrat.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Oops! I didn't think you were a Republican, Sir.

Oh shut up

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

a level of literacy that alludes nearly all Republicans

I've seen far worse mistakes in your posts. Further, you've demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension so great that you can't read a several hundred word rant by a lawyer about the superiority of whites over blacks and figure out that the author might well be a racist.

Sang, have you ever heard the phrase "can't win for losing"?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

"can't win for losing"?

Correction:

"can't win for losing?"

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Further, you've demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension so great that you can't read a several hundred word rant by a lawyer about the superiority of whites over blacks and figure out that the author might well be a racist.

He doesn't consider himself a racist, therefore nobody he agrees with can be a racist. Elementary, dear Coon!

The reason that article I mentioned is excused away not being racist is because it says that the average IQ of Asians is higher than whites. However, it managed to fall into this fallacy:

http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/iq-by-country/

According to these studies it is very clear that human races differ not only in physical aspect but in intelligence also. It is also clear that IQ is something attributed to people by their genes and it can not be altered through culture or education. Asians and white Caucasians are the smartest human races on earth. From the following chart it is also very clear that IQ has decreased in Europe from 2002 to 2006 together with non-white immigrants into Europe, particularly Arabs and Africans.

The article also provides a map of IQ by country showing very low intelligence in Africa, so low that it implies that your average African is borderline retarded. Common sense tells you that's not the case. Further, it's a little self-contradictory. If the IQ cannot be altered by education and culture, why did the "intelligence" of certain countries increase or decrease in such a short period of time? Evolution toward higher or lower cognitive functioning obviously does not work in four year time periods. I know the article "credits" the drop in IQ of some European countries with the drop in IQ to immigrants. That doesn't hold water, either. Germany, for example, as a population of just under 82 million. Without doing the math, it would about 2.4 million migrants to the country with literally an IQ of zero to lower the IQ by 3 points. I haven't seen a news article about infestation of African and Arab zombies, so it does seem unlikely that country has had immigrants with zero IQ. Therefore, the most likely explanation would that something happened in the education systems to cause individuals in those societies to score higher or lower on the IQ tests.

African Americans do have lower IQ's than whites, a fact that many conservatives feel lends credence to the idea that African Americans are less intelligent than whites and Asians. Such a conservative is the author of the article presented by Oakdale, which I mentioned. It's well known that predominately black schools tend to be in the inner cities with poor education systems. Hence, the lower scoring on the tests. Ignoring the education factor and automatically jumping to the conclusion that African Americans have sub-standard cognitive abilities is inherently racist, even if one says "Well, blacks can play basketball better and Asians have IQ's..."

Originally posted by some wacko website:

It is also clear that IQ is something attributed to people by their genes and it can not be altered through culture or education.

I'd call bullshit based on that alone. The reason will be obvious to anyone with a sufficiently high IQ

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Correction: "can't win for losing?"

A pissant pedant deficient in logic and vowels, eh? Despite the traditional strictures (proscriptive grammars for the dullest; style sheets for the timid), I prefer to use punctuation in such ways as most clearly connote my meaning. Them that don't are at the mercy of the soupçon sources available (excuse me: inevitable!) to the lazy and lallationists, often one and the same.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I've seen far worse mistakes in your posts. Further, you've demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension so great that you can't read a several hundred word rant by a lawyer about the superiority of whites over blacks and figure out that the author might well be a racist.

Well, I did once type coma instead of comma… But –pray, tell– to what do you refer? I mean, what lawyer penned a rant, and which, that was about the superiority of whites over blacks? I'd like to know.
Surely, you didn't mean something published by the EUTimes…
But note that since your own level of comprehension is suspect at the single-word level, you might be forgiven any misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now what provocation do you mean? Limbaugh was not provoked into his nasty, crude personal attacks. I thought the GOP was about personal responsibility.
(source, since it was so long ago)

Pelosi and crew attempted to hijack the committee by changing the topic to a straw-man (irony? ): contraception and women's rights; Issa refused. But, since they deliberately (or they're a bunch of incompetents!) didn't anticipate any means of accommodation, they had Fluke testify at a subcommittee "press conference," to get her remarks on-record.

Here's a thirty-year old law school "student" paying $40k a year for her education… But she can't budget for her own contraceptive needs. And she wants to insist that you and I pay for her coverage; well, someone should. The gob'ment should see to it.
Why?
The guy that orders a BLT at a kosher deli may be forgiven; but not if he subsequently sues for discrimination… Because, in that case, he's a bore, an ignoramus or some kind of metaphorical Nazi.

Pelosi put the worm on the hook and Limbaugh bit… Now, it's all angling.

But what it's about is simple: We want stuff! And you have to pay for it.

Of course, for the Democratic politicians, it may be about something else. (Specially with Santorum and Gingrich, both Catholic, waiting in the wings.)

What's it about, for you, Sang — as a non-aligned earth-vexing bladder? (Note: I dispense with your "craven". We'll save that for another time. )

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

It's well known that predominately black schools tend to be in the inner cities with poor education systems. Hence, the lower scoring on the tests. Ignoring the education factor and automatically jumping to the conclusion that African Americans have sub-standard cognitive abilities is inherently racist, even if one says "Well, blacks can play basketball better and Asians have IQ's..."

More than that, the author completely overlooks the known flaws of IQ tests, namely the cultural bias inherent in any form of questioning, and that it is entirely possible to train a population to be better at IQ tests, just by administering them.

It also appears that he's never heard of the Flynn effect...

And we need IQ testing in order to.....?

Past classroom performance will usually tell us whether a youngster can benefit from advanced calculus or will be better served by remedial math. I taught Advanced Placement literature classes for years, and IQ numbers never determined which students were invited into those classes.

And past classroom performance isn't confounded by other factors, so they're an ideal measure of ability…? Well, maybe from the teacher's point of view.

BTW: How did this subject come up, here? Just the EUTimes article?

I didn't say 'ideal', you did.

Whatever other factors exist, it's performance that counts. A student who arrives with a troubled academic background and performs poorly isn't a good candidate for advanced classes.

At any rate teachers are rarely involved in directing students into classes, as counselors are the usual suspects.

As someone without a teaching background, you might explain how and why 'other factors' should be considered...the layman's point of view.

There's an article in the WSJ that covers the Limbaugh kerfluffle nicely: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate

Limbaugh is his own worst enemy, and the Golden EIB Microphone is the deadliest weapon against himself in his arsenal. I had to quit listening to him some time back because it just got too strange. He's got a brand of conservatism that I can't abide by.

"Republicans good-- Democrats bad" said in your best Neanderthal imitation voice about sums up the broadcast.

Edit: Ms Fluke is also her own worst enemy. Did she not know that Catholic teachings don't support contraception? Demanding that the school pay for her birth-control pills, contrary to church teachings, runs counter to First Amendment rights. Or, maybe only people like Ms Fluke have rights and others don't? "Every animal is equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Special note: She's studying law. How many lawyers can't afford birth control pills?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Here's a thirty-year old law school "student" paying $40k a year for her education… But she can't budget for her own contraceptive needs.

No. It's far more complicated. The reason she was testifying wasn't her contraceptive needs at all. What it's really about is that she had a friend that lost an ovary do to lack of "contraceptive" care. Some types of "birth control" pills you can get at Walmart for five bucks a month; other types are a thousand dollars a year. This part of why you guys are screaming "First Amendment!" and we're saying "Women's health!" "Birth Control" pills are good for a lot more than birth control.

Unfortunately, that NY Post article is as imbecilic and dishonest as you would expect from a Murdoch paper.

The first section — the “free stuff” section — of the new Bill of Rights will guarantee that everyone gets all these essentials. After that can come the “freedom” section of less useful rights that don't actually give you anything, like freedom of speech (but let’s leave out the one about guns — they're dangerous; people will shoot their eyes out).

No, dumbass. It's called the women pay their premium and in return their medication is covered by insurance.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Edit: Ms Fluke is also her own worst enemy. Did she not know that Catholic teachings don't support contraception? Demanding that the school pay for her birth-control pills, contrary to church teachings, runs counter to First Amendment rights.

I'll see if I can find it, but the "Catholic" position is actually less extreme than the GOP's. She tweeted an article in Catholic Journal. (I was having browser issues so I cleared everything except site passwords, so I lost it. Maybe I can find it again if I look back through her tweets and she doesn't have so many that it would takes hours...) Evidently, the church was fine with covering for situations like Ms. Blunt's friend that lost a ovary for lack of expensive (not five bucks a month at Walmart) "birth control" pills. But here comes the GOP introducing the Blunt Amendment, a far more radical position than the RC has (as out of step with their own parishioners as they are.) GOP monkeys like the author of the NY Post article whine about "free stuff" and we talk about women losing body parts. What's ironic about this is that heavily Catholic states such as NY and California already required "birth control" pills be covered (a total of 28 states do), so the requirement doesn't really change all that much. I wonder if the author of that NY Post article knows that. He probably does, since I don't think it's possible to be a uninformed as he pretends to be and yet work as a journalist, but is just exhibiting the dishonesty inherent in News Corp publications. (Fox fans, don't the scandals begin to tell you something about the company you're getting your news from?)

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

There's an article in the WSJ that covers the Limbaugh kerfluffle nicely: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate

Again, not as simple and the author's partner is actually overpaying if she spends 9 bucks a month on the generics. But for real medical conditions, the cheap generics don't cover it. The Blunt amendment was bad because it allowed any "moral" excuse to not cover medical conditions. Your sect doesn't believe in blood transfusions? Your boss basically says you can't have one. Lung cancer? Your boss feels it was immoral for you to smoke; no treatment for you. HIV? Your boss passes moral judgement on that (even though it's very possible you contracted that of your fault of your won), no medication for you. It goes on and on. People's lives trump extreme religious positions.

And the article is still trying defend Limbaugh's indefensible comments. Fluke: My friend lost her ovary because she was unable to get expensive, non-generic "contraception." Limbaugh: "Slut!", "prostitute!" It's clear as glass who was the asshole. The advertisers agree, which is why they're leaving his show in droves.

Ah! I've finally read that off-color joke (...can we still say that?), the one that a Montana judge forwarded via e-mail to some friends. For which Sang thinks he should resign.
(I'd post it here, but I don't want to lose my chance at a judgeship.)

Is he a racist? I wouldn't say so, on that basis. But I would say he knows a funny joke when he hears one. Still, since he isn't a member of the Professional Comedians Guild, he shouldn't be hosting SNL or the Oscars anytime soon.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

BTW: How did this subject come up, here? Just the EUTimes article?

Because I made that typo and I felt umbrage because it seemed like you and others were questioning my literacy, so I questioned yours in return.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Ah! I've finally read that off-color joke (...can we still say that?), the one that a Montana judge forwarded via e-mail to some friends. For which Sang thinks he should resign.
(I'd post it here, but I don't want to lose my chance at a judgeship.)

Is he a racist? I wouldn't say so, on that basis. But I would say he knows a funny joke when he hears one. Still, since he isn't a member of the Professional Comedians Guild, he shouldn't be hosting SNL or the Oscars anytime soon.

And yet you guys complain that some people feel there's a strong racists element within the conservative movement. Here's a tip: don't want to be called a racist? Don't pass along racist emails simply because it's critical of a president that you don't like. I don't know if the judge himself is a racist, but it's embarrassing when we Federal judges passing along juvenile emails comparing black people to dogs and accusing any president's mother of that. It's not even about political correctness. If you don't understand that, I'm not sure I can help you.

Sang, you can't help yourself: You can't even tell the difference between racism and poor taste…

Are there no adults left, that aren't biddies?

But –just for the fun of it– ask Montana immigration attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath what he thinks about male homosexuals.

How is equating a race of people with animals not racist? Please do enlighten me.

The judge himself knows that it's racist.

"To say it's inappropriate and stupid is an extreme understatement," Cebull said Wednesday afternoon in his courthouse chambers in Billings.
"There is no doubt it's racist. It wasn't forwarded for that purpose," Cebull said. "If anything, it was political."


Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/richard-cebull-says-he-sent-racist-obama-email/article_63df0eef-dd3a-549c-ba11-4729413d044a.html#ixzz1oNqivqgc

Originally, he said:

The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. I didn't send it as racist, although that's what it is. I sent it out because it's anti-Obama.

He's being disingenuous, but you and your ilk require that.

PC-sensibilities are an abomination of free speech. Period.

"I sent it out because it's anti-Obama." How the hell is it anti-Obama? It's a crude joke about his conception…

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally, he said:

The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. I didn't send it as racist, although that's what it is. I sent it out because it's anti-Obama.

He's being disingenuous, but you and your ilk require that.

PC-sensibilities are an abomination of free speech. Period.

"I sent it out because it's anti-Obama." How the hell is it anti-Obama?

He got caught and you can't stand that he got caught. Live with it.

I don't like Obama much either. But I would have to hope I have enough brains not to send an obviously racist email to my friends because it's "anti-Obama". Stuff has a way of lasting forever on the Internet, and if you send stuff to your entire "Contacts List", there's bound to be somebody who sees the racism and won't tolerate that for a second--- and will expose you for it.

There's reason and to spare to not like Obama without bringing his race into it.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

He got caught and you can't stand that he got caught. Live with it.

I didn't know who he was when Sang brought him up… I still don't. Nor do I especially care. But some folks are desperate to find "racism" behind anything and everything anti-Obama.
Thankfully, we have our first post-racial president! He wouldn't take advantage of such craven tactics…

If you are meaning Obama is this some kind of joke? The vast majority of blacks voted for him so isn't quite racist too then?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

It's well known that predominately black schools tend to be in the inner cities with poor education systems. Hence, the lower scoring on the tests. Ignoring the education factor and automatically jumping to the conclusion that African Americans have sub-standard cognitive abilities is inherently racist, even if one says "Well, blacks can play basketball better and Asians have IQ's..."

More than that, the author completely overlooks the known flaws of IQ tests, namely the cultural bias inherent in any form of questioning, and that it is entirely possible to train a population to be better at IQ tests, just by administering them.

It also appears that he's never heard of the Flynn effect...

I'm sure Oakdale can google up some books you need to buy in order to understand why all these things are liberal lies, PC-gone-mad, whatever else it is this week - he just can't be arsed to take the time to explain it to the likes of us.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

And we need IQ testing in order to.....?

... slap some number on people in order to 'prove' that <insert convenient us-es> are better or worse than <insert convenient thems>. Sounds better than just pulling them out of your arse even if it's roughly equivalent.

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm sure Oakdale can google up some books you need to buy in order to understand why all these things are liberal lies, PC-gone-mad, whatever else it is this week - he just can't be arsed to take the time to explain it to the likes of us.

Macallan only believes in "settled" (consensus) science, because —as "we" all know— any research that doesn't align with "our" political leanings and policy preferences is "bad" science.
And "bad" science is, well, bad.

(Yes, he's that kind of moral philosopher…)

He's still waiting for me to explain principle component analysis to him?^* On a forum thread? Before he'll consider changing his mind or reading anything not pre-approved? Nah! He's welcome to his prejudices. And, regardless, he's going to continue his presumptions about mine.

Again, I ask: How the heck did this thread become infected with the IQ question? Mac, perhaps you know?
—————————————————
* Of course, Michael Mann, of Penn. State and IPCC fame, who has been accused of misusing the technique by eminent statiticians, gets it right! Because the result is PC. (There's your obligatory CAD comment, "conservatives are dumb" because they don't agree with "us".)
And Macallan doesn't need an explanation of the method in that case. Because he'd already agreed with Mann's conclusions…
Now that's Science!

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Macallan only believes in "settled" (consensus) science, because —as "we" all know— any research that doesn't align with "our" political leanings and policy preferences is "bad" science.And "bad" science is, well, bad.

Tired old meme, poor substitute for a point. Let it sleep.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm sure Oakdale can google up some books you need to buy in order to understand why all these things are liberal lies, PC-gone-mad, whatever else it is this week - he just can't be arsed to take the time to explain it to the likes of us.

Macallan only believes in "settled" (consensus) science, because —as "we" all know— any research that doesn't align with "our" political leanings and policy preferences is "bad" science.
And "bad" science is, well, bad.

Projecting again, huh?
Before you're spewing more nonsense, how exactly do you compensate for cultural bias, education and experience from previous tests when doing IQ tests again? Got anything resembling a halfway coherent answer this time or just more babble like the above? No, I'm not holding by breath.

I have no idea why I'm posting this, but somehow it seems to fit. (confused)

I have no idea why I'm posting this, but somehow it seems to fit. (confused)

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Tired old meme, poor substitute for a point. Let it sleep.

Just keeping to the tone and content Macallan introduced…

@ JayBro...........Well, I'm glad I stopped eating spam!

Will the Obama Administration feel the pain of all Americans when the price of energy continues to rise because of what it's doing, or conversely, neglecting to do?


Or will the Obama Administration---specifically Mr. Obama himself---feel the wrath of the American People for it's failed policies that were supposed to protect all Americans, & act in America's best interests?






Is the Obama Administration helping & protecting America?

Or is the President & his Administration actually exacerbating our energy problems?

Smiley, I don't know quite how to tell you this, but--- I remember during the GWB years when gas prices went up people asked the same questions about him that you're asking about Obama. Prices are higher on average now, but-- the highest prices I remember were during the Bush presidency, after inflation is considered.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Tired old meme, poor substitute for a point. Let it sleep.

Just keeping to the tone and content Macallan introduced…

Oh deary me, calling bullshit bullshit hurts your precious little feelings? It's political correctness gone mad!
Not that I expected you to even try to answer that question from a few posts back. You've been unable to do so for years, nobody seriously expects that to change any time soon.