Nice guy. Hope you have a good life.
Say, Diana, is there any possibility you could like, you know, come up with any kind of fucking source at all? Have you got any information to show he’s wrong?
Or is loutish sneering the only argument you’ve got?
Obama’s just another corrupt politician. Deal with it.
It’s not my argument, ergo it’s not my responsibility to prove anything. Your source is not credible. Deal with it.
While I agree with DianaG that the site to which you linked is a nutcase organzation, I do not need to quote any other sources to point out the lies and distortions on that page. It does a good job of destroying its own credibility (if one bothers to read the links).
We can start with your error in the quoted section. You misread the statement on the page to which you linked. Your claim was that
however, even your author March dos not make that claim, only noting
So, just to clarify things, the $290 billion was what was budgeted for the entire farm bill, of which only one provision addresses the issue of black farmers.
Then
So he is doing a good job of exposing waste in government. Good on him. Of course, after declaring that the GAO found massive fraud in the vlack farmeer program, he switces his statements to an unrelated investigation that the GAO reported, which had nothing to do with the African-American Farmer’s Settlement. The GAO report to which he links is in reference to an action that has been going on for forty years or more, (the GAO report refers to payouts dating back to 1971) and the 1999 through 2005 payments were simply one snapshot (including five years under an entirely Republican government, seven under an entirely Republican Congress) of payments made under a 1987 law.
OK, so now he has his audience worked up over the waste in government, good on him. His presentation is not very straightforward, but we can probably live with that.
Then he moves on to the terrible comparison to Obama’s “sins.”
(Note the comparison between the $1.1 billion attributed to the first program being compared to the $1 billion payout to non-farming blacks.)
Unfortunately, the links that he provides do not say anything like what he has claimed. Rather, the 15,000 recipients of the government largesse included a lot of white persons and corporations with only a handful of blacks mentioned (presumably due to the incongrous nature of a baskeball player receiving agricultural subsidies). In other words, reading March’s links, we discover that March was lying and that the 15,000 non-agricultural recipients were not even related to the section of the bill included by Senators Obama, Kennedy, Biden and Grassley. (Grassley, BTW, is Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the senator who requested the earlier mentioned GAO investigation.)
Poking around enough of the links on the page, I discovered that the only thing that the section introduced by the four maligned senators does is extend the opportunity for black farmers who believe that they have been denied subsidies in situations identical to white farmers who received those subsidies to contest their denied subsidies. March makes it a little clearer further down the page that Obama’s provision only extends the rights of some farmers to appeal rulings that they feel were unjust, but having already claimed that they had received a billion dollars without providing any support for the claim, he then speculates on how much more the appeals will cost, providing only guesses by like-minded individuals. If one wants to condemn all subsidies, that is fine, but claiming that blacks are being given handouts when the only thing the legislation does is allow them to make the case that they were discriminated against in previous handouts hardly rises to the level of shock (and lies) provided by Mr. March.
Just to be clear, IANAF (not that there is anything wrong with felonious behavior, mind you).
I think I’m a reasonably nice guy. I mean, I don’t kick puppies or anything. Well, not the ones who don’t deserve it, anyway. I just don’t like strangers coming to my door trying to sell me things, whether the item for sale is a Fuller brush, Jesus, or a political candidate.
Yes, racists in modern America have it just as bad as Jews in Nazi Germany, or political prisoners under Stalin. Pity the poor racists, oppressed as they are by the awesome power and might of the American left.
Are you serious?
He was saying that the Nazis used Jews as an excuse, as scapegoats. Losing WWI was not due to having a Kaiser who was incompetent but due to the International Zionist conspiracy. It wasn’t a good example, a better example might be Joseph McCarthy and communists in the State dept.
Gonzo:
Confirmation bias. Look it up.
Were it not for a black man running for president, I may not have discovered that two people in my office are, in fact, quite racist. I would have never have suspected one of them, the other doesn’t surprise me but that’s different from saying I thought he was racist–I didn’t. This is a quote from memory: “If we let them get in power, it’ll be just like South Africa.” 
It cuts both ways. There was some interview I heard on the radio where a woman said that, ultimately, she was voting for Obama because he was black.
But I think it will hurt Obama more than it will help him.
Pocketbook first, clan second.
Clarence Thomas runs for Prez on lower taxes right-winger platform (and takes the heat for being called names over it)…he’d get the same crowd as Ronald Reagan.
Two reasonably centrist guys…clan makes a difference.
Current election: Mr Obama is picking up as many votes as he’s losing. Pocketbooks are hurting, trumping clannishness. Not only does he have the entire black vote, they’ll probably show up in record numbers. And a lot of people are going to vote because they want the America-hates-blacks monkey off their backs.
It’s of interest that Mr Obama is even considered “black” (by pro- or anti-) since genetically he’s only half African at best and culturally there isn’t a whole lot of black underclass experience there. If he were running as a Right Winger he’d be getting mocked as a pretender trying to pass as black.
And the left uses American racists as scapegoats for things they don’t do? Not buyin’ it.
Race will be a net negative for Obama because of the math. The African American population in the United States is approximately 15 percent. That’s about 45 million. Let’s say 30 million are eligible to vote. At a 50 percent registration rate, that’s 15 million votes. Assuming 80 percent of African Americans vote for the Democrats anyway, that leaves about 3 million votes in play. Let’s throw in another million “white guilt making a statement” votes. That’s four million. Increase African American registration by 20 percent because of the excitement generated by Obama. So three million of the 15 million that never vote hit the ballot box. Obama gains seven million race based votes.
The white popluation is approximately 70 percent. 210 million. 140 million eligible to vote. 50 pecent registration…70 million voters. If 20 percent of them base their vote of race, that’a 14 million against Obama. A ten percent rate breaks even.
So the question is…will more than ten percent of the votes cast by whites this November be race based?
You left out Hairism against Biden.
It’s a factor, no doubt. Some people are just not going to vote for a black man. That’s why Obama can’t get angry and wave his finger at McCain, calling out his lies. The “angry black man” scares the bejeezus out of too many people. What Palin does is give people a permission slip not to vote for the groundbreaking Obama on the grounds that they can vote for the groundbreaking Palin.
erislover!
Hey hey hey, dude! Long time no see!
You are assuming that there is a significant number of folks who would vote for a white man with Obama’s platform, but not a black man. I have grave doubts.
Next you are assuming that only Black people would vote for a black candidate becuase of his race. I know a number of white dudes who are pleased that we finally have a minorit candidate for Prez= “it’s about time”.
The repubs are in danger of losing seats that were safe for many years. Stevens in Alaska is in a very tight race where he usually carried 77 percent or so. The dems could reach 60 senators a powerful majority.
Yet Obama is running against an old ,Bush backing, pro war, cancerous ,richman with a religious fanatic inexperienced runningmate and the race is close. The economy is a mess, , over 250,000 foreclosures a month,12 bank failures, huge financial institutions failing, an unpopular war and America is hated around the world. Should be a cinch to replace the thieves,yet here it is.
With all due respect, look at your location compared to Detroit. Detroit is one of the most racially segregated cities in America and Michigan, as a whole, has a rather dubious history when it comes to matters of race. Throw in Dearborn, Michigan, the largest Arab population outside of the Middle East, and you’ve got racism on a fairly regular basis in various degrees.
We’re getting to the territory of another thread, though.
This is ridiculous.
Your gedanken requires one in five white voters to vote against Obama purely on the basis of race. Net negative my left butt cheek, that’s a ridiculously large number. I call absolute disingenuous shenanigans on that one.
In my scenario, Obama starts losing ground at 11 percent.