Its hard to talk when you're teabaggin- Anderson Cooper

[maxiep]

Exactly my point. You think you can tell whether a surgeon knows what he's doing. But being an expert in one field doesn't make you an expert in everything.

barfo

Then why does President Obama feel that his background in community organizing makes him an economic expert? Also, using your surgeon analogy, it doesn't take an expert to know that a medieval bloodletting isn't the proper course of action for a broken bone.

Edit: I should have read Denny's post before I responded. He and I arrived at the same conclusion.

 

[maxiep]

In your world, "facts" are subjective statements like "Obama disincentivizes the achievers in this society" and "rewards the freeriders of society" while "logic" is using those two arguments to debate something entirely unrelated (barfo's thoughts on the meaning of "to fail" while used in the context teabaggers.)

Blah blah blah Messiah socialism tax party road to serfdom blahhhhhh

Fact: If you raise capital gains taxes the volume of transactions will decrease. The data verifies it.

Fact: If you raise the marginal tax rates along the upper bounds of the income spectrum, you provide a disincentive for those who may attempt to make more money.

Fact: If you increase the amount of benefits those already caught in the social safety net receive, you disincentivize them to exit the system. Even Bill Clinton realized this dynamic.

And you don't think President Obama is treated as a Messiah among his followers? The folks in Jonestown were less taken with Jim Jones than many of his weeping minions. Even on this board, the personal animus for President Bush has largely been displaced with a faith in President Obama that surpasses the level of faith the College of Cardinals has for Jesus. I haven't seen one post of someone who was strongly for Obama that criticizes him on ANY issue. He can do no wrong.

 

[barfo]

Then why does President Obama feel that his background in community organizing makes him an economic expert?

I don't guess he does. He has a bunch of economists working for him to provide the expertise.

Also, using your surgeon analogy, it doesn't take an expert to know that a medieval bloodletting isn't the proper course of action for a broken bone.

Maybe you think it is only a broken bone. Maybe the patient is also suffering from Blahblah-Goombah Syndrome, which will kill him if the leeches aren't applied right away. The broken arm can wait.

Back to the non-analogy - I recognize that you actually do have some training in economics, and I certainly respect your education. However, that isn't sufficient to convince me that you are correct on this, because I've noticed that there are a great number of also-well-trained economists who disagree with you completely.

There are, of course, also a great number that agree with you. I don't know the exact breakdown, and I realize there are many more positions than "maxiep is right" and "maxiep is wrong", but it appears to me that the distribution along the maxiep axis is much closer to 50/50 than, say, climate change, where folks on this board regularly trumpet the dissenters as relevant even though the split is probably more like 99/1.

So, which economists should we believe in a case where there is wide disagreement on a fundamental question? I say none of them - it means either they don't know the right answer, or there are multiple right answers, or that many economists are corrupt or stupid. Probably it's not the latter.

I have no significant training in economics and this is just my opinion posted on a message board. Which was kind of my point - there are a lot of posters here who like to pretend that the problem is real simple and they know the answer. They really don't.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Barfo,

Straight-up, knowing what you know right now, do you feel that it is good for the country to quadruple the deficit and run our debt to 85% of GDP, with the largest lender being communist China? Regardless of what we spend it on?

 

[maxiep]

I don't guess he does. He has a bunch of economists working for him to provide the expertise.



Maybe you think it is only a broken bone. Maybe the patient is also suffering from Blahblah-Goombah Syndrome, which will kill him if the leeches aren't applied right away. The broken arm can wait.

Back to the non-analogy - I recognize that you actually do have some training in economics, and I certainly respect your education. However, that isn't sufficient to convince me that you are correct on this, because I've noticed that there are a great number of also-well-trained economists who disagree with you completely.

There are, of course, also a great number that agree with you. I don't know the exact breakdown, and I realize there are many more positions than "maxiep is right" and "maxiep is wrong", but it appears to me that the distribution along the maxiep axis is much closer to 50/50 than, say, climate change, where folks on this board regularly trumpet the dissenters as relevant even though the split is probably more likely 99/1.

So, which economists should we believe in a case where there is wide disagreement on a fundamental question? I say none of them - it means either they don't know the right answer, or there are multiple right answers, or that many economists are corrupt or stupid. Probably it's not the latter.

I have no significant training in economics and this is just my opinion posted on a message board. Which was kind of my point - there are a lot of posters here who like to pretend that the problem is real simple and they know the answer. They really don't.

barfo

Richard Nixon used to joke about hiring only one handed economists. He was tired of hearing from them, "On the other hand..."

The Dismal Science is also an imperfect one because there's no perfect solution for the biggest variable in the field--human behavior. For ease of analysis, the rational actor has to be assumed, but the field of behavioral finance has shown that people don't always act in their best interests.

My problem is that I believe in certain rock solid principles with no regard for politics. One of them is that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions. The woman asking President Obama for a house a few months back? If it were me, I would have likely asked her how she got into that position and then said, "too bad" if she would have made some bad choices. The Presidency is a political position, where truth is too often sacrificed to enhance popularity.

As for the advice he's getting, I know a few of those people, and they run rings around me in terms of the knowledge and application of economics. My problem is that I've seen the one of the people to whom I'm closest sell out what I know he knows to be economic truth, to further a party line. I also happen to know hundreds of other economists--equally as credentialed and qualified--who are horrified at the economic implications of President Obama's policies, especially in the long run.

So much of the application of economics comes down to emphasis and heirarchy of importance. Here is a nice blog entry from a pretty decent economist who breaks down the differences between the two major schools of political econ: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

Clearly, I'm far to the right in my beliefs. I can respect those that are on the left, as long as their disagreements are principled and they acknowledge the tradeoffs required to hold their position (as I do mine). For example, Paul Krugman makes me question everything I've ever learned by the time I reach the end of one of his articles until I remember that he and I disagree completely on First Principles. What I can't respect is the selective use of economics to falsely buttress a political point.

 

[barfo]

Barfo,

Straight-up, knowing what you know right now, do you feel that it is good for the country to quadruple the deficit and run our debt to 85% of GDP, with the largest lender being communist China? Regardless of what we spend it on?

Regardless of what we spend it on? That sort of makes the question meaningless. If we spend it on hookers and cocaine, probably not. If we spend it defending ourselves against an armed invasion by the Canadian/Russian alliance, probably yes.

Global financial meltdown is probably somewhere in the middle.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Richard Nixon used to joke about hiring only one handed economists. He was tired of hearing from them, "On the other hand..."

The Dismal Science is also an imperfect one because there's no perfect solution for the biggest variable in the field--human behavior. For ease of analysis, the rational actor has to be assumed, but the field of behavioral finance has shown that people don't always act in their best interests.

My problem is that I believe in certain rock solid principles with no regard for politics. One of them is that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions. The woman asking President Obama for a house a few months back? If it were me, I would have likely asked her how she got into that position and then said, "too bad" if she would have made some bad choices. The Presidency is a political position, where truth is too often sacrificed to enhance popularity.

As for the advice he's getting, I know a few of those people, and they run rings around me in terms of the knowledge and application of economics. My problem is that I've seen the one of the people to whom I'm closest sell out what I know he knows to be economic truth, to further a party line. I also happen to know hundreds of other economists--equally as credentialed and qualified--who are horrified at the economic implications of President Obama's policies, especially in the long run.

So much of the application of economics comes down to emphasis and heirarchy of importance. Here is a nice blog entry from a pretty decent economist who breaks down the differences between the two major schools of political econ: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

Clearly, I'm far to the right in my beliefs. I can respect those that are on the left, as long as their disagreements are principled and they acknowledge the tradeoffs required to hold their position (as I do mine). For example, Paul Krugman makes me question everything I've ever learned by the time I reach the end of one of his articles until I remember that he and I disagree completely on First Principles. What I can't respect is the selective use of economics to falsely buttress a political point.

Thanks for that link - I've run across Mankiw's blog a couple times in the past and found him a pretty good read.

Your points on the effects of political necessity on Obama and his advisors are well-taken; I'll just point out that Krugman makes the same point, but from the opposite direction (saying that Obama hasn't gone far enough because of political concerns).

barfo

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Fact: If you raise capital gains taxes the volume of transactions will decrease. The data verifies it.

Fact: If you raise the marginal tax rates along the upper bounds of the income spectrum, you provide a disincentive for those who may attempt to make more money.

Fact: If you increase the amount of benefits those already caught in the social safety net receive, you disincentivize them to exit the system. Even Bill Clinton realized this dynamic.

Sure, okay. Calling those "disincentivizing the achievers" and "rewarding the freeriders" are not facts, those are judgments. Facts tend to be viewed as universally accepted. Your snide labels are not.

And you don't think President Obama is treated as a Messiah among his followers?

No, I don't.

The folks in Jonestown were less taken with Jim Jones than many of his weeping minions.

I don't get it. Are we just supposed to hate the president in this day and age? When the majority of people like the president, does it make you feel uncomfortable, or just jealous?

Even on this board, the personal animus for President Bush has largely been displaced with a faith in President Obama that surpasses the level of faith the College of Cardinals has for Jesus.

You keep affixing Obama with labels pertaining to faith: Messiah, Jim Jones, Jesus. I would suspect that it's much easier to accept that the ones who voted for Obama (the majority of people in the country) are just zealots and are blinded by their unprecedented faith rather than accept that the majority of people disagree with your opinions. You can't be wrong! They must be crazy!

I haven't seen one post of someone who was strongly for Obama that criticizes him on ANY issue. He can do no wrong.

Then you either haven't been paying attention or your definition of "criticize" is much different than mine.

 

[blazerboy30]

Sure, okay. Calling those "disincentivizing the achievers" and "rewarding the freeriders" are not facts, those are judgments. Facts tend to be viewed as universally accepted. Your snide labels are not.

A tax IS universally accepted as a form of a disincentive. In fact, there have been attempts to use a tax as a disincentive for things like smoking, and driving gas-guzzlers.

Obviously those that achieve more, are taxed more, and thus, disincentivized more. Raising taxes on those that achieve the most, is disincentivizing those that achieve the most. You will be hard pressed to find many people that don't accept this as a fact.

Then you either haven't been paying attention or your definition of "criticize" is much different than mine.

Really? Can you point out some posts made here by strong Obama supporters that criticize him?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

A tax IS universally accepted as a form of a disincentive. In fact, there have been attempts to use a tax as a disincentive for things like smoking, and driving gas-guzzlers.

Obviously those that achieve more, are taxed more, and thus, disincentivized more. Raising taxes on those that achieve the most, is disincentivizing those that achieve the most. You will be hard pressed to find many people that don't accept this as a fact.

There's a difference. Taxing smoking and gas-guzzlers brings in tax money and is meant to curb those behaviors at the same time. Taxing people that make a ton of money is meant only to bring in tax money. Anyone who thinks liberals are trying to curb economic success through taxation needs to seriously reexamine the pills they take in the morning.

Really? Can you point out some posts made here by strong Obama supporters that criticize him?

You know, if I wasn't extremely busy, I might go scouring. I will acknowledge there are some posters who make excuses for things Obama has done wrong because they are so tied to the cause. However, "strong" support for Obama is pretty subjective, so I don't feel comfortable making that judgment call. I would count myself, barfo and Minstrel at least in the category of Obama supporters that have criticized him a couple of times. Beyond that, I cannot say for certain. Another thing that you need to consider is that what is criticizing? Is it disagreeing with his policies or how he has conducted his presidency? Is criticizing his bow to the Saudi King enough or do I have to join a tea party?

 

[blazerboy30]

There's a difference. Taxing smoking and gas-guzzlers brings in tax money and is meant to curb those behaviors at the same time. Taxing people that make a ton of money is meant only to bring in tax money.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There is no difference.

What the tax is meant to achieve is irrelevant. You don't get something for free. A tax decreases incentive and "curbs those behaviors"; there is no way around that.

Anyone who thinks liberals are trying to curb economic success through taxation needs to seriously reexamine the pills they take in the morning.

I think you're missing the point.

Once again, you don't get things for free. Obama and supporters of his decisions are going to curb economic success by their spending, because we eventually have to pay for it. How do we pay for it? Thinking optimistically, we pay for it with higher taxes. See above about taxes decreasing incentive.

Thinking pessimistically, we will pay for this spending with more than just money, considering communist China will be the largest owner of our enormous debt.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

What the tax is meant to achieve is irrelevant. You don't get something for free. A tax decreases incentive and "curbs those behaviors"; there is no way around that.

Taxing the rich is basically making them work harder for their money. So you're saying that people that make a ton of money don't want to work that hard? A disincentive isn't a ban. They can still make as much as they did before, they just have to work harder for it.

 

[blazerboy30]

Taxing the rich is basically making them work harder for their money. So you're saying that people that make a ton of money don't want to work that hard? A disincentive isn't a ban. They can still make as much as they did before, they just have to work harder for it.

You are saying that the richest in this country are not optimal utilizers, and that by reducing their resources, they will become MORE efficient and move them more towards an optimal utilization.

Wow. Just wow. Epic fail.

 

[barfo]

You are saying that the richest in this country are not optimal utilizers

It's clear they are not. At some point, you just can't spend all that money. Look at Bill Gates. His fortune, instead of being spent on building more factories or buying lavish toys that others make, is going to fund education in Africa, etc. A worthy cause, to be sure, but it doesn't increase the GDP much, does it?

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

It's clear they are not. At some point, you just can't spend all that money. Look at Bill Gates. His fortune, instead of being spent on building more factories or buying lavish toys that others make, is going to fund education in Africa, etc. A worthy cause, to be sure, but it doesn't increase the GDP much, does it?

barfo

Oh come on Barfo. You just quoted half of my sentence. Obviously they aren't absolutely optimal. The point is that taxing them more definitely won't make them closer to optimal.

Bill Gates doesn't really apply here, since he doesn't really have income anymore. He will see smaller tax increases than people that actually have incomes, and not just capital gains.

 

[barfo]

Oh come on Barfo. You just quoted half of my sentence. Obviously they aren't absolutely optimal.

You certainly seemed to be implying that the wealthiest were in fact optimal utilizers.

The point is that taxing them more definitely won't make them closer to optimal.

In Bill's case, it clearly would make him closer to optimal, because he has excess capital that he is unable/unwilling to spend.

Bill Gates doesn't really apply here, since he doesn't really have income anymore.

Really? He just has it all under the mattress? I find that very difficult to believe.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

You certainly seemed to be implying that the wealthiest were in fact optimal utilizers.

Nope, I wasn't implying that. I was implying that the richest are most likely the most optimal utilizers. Never did I say that they are absolutely optimal. Sorry you missed that.

In Bill's case, it clearly would make him closer to optimal, because he has excess capital that he is unable/unwilling to spend.


Really? He just has it all under the mattress? I find that very difficult to believe.

barfo

I assume you know the difference between income tax, payroll tax, and capital gains tax.

Also, you might want to try reading the rest of the thought, where I said he would be affected less than most people, due to his lack of fixed income.

 

[barfo]

Nope, I wasn't implying that. I was implying that the richest are most likely the most optimal utilizers. Never did I say that they are absolutely optimal. Sorry you missed that.

I missed it because it wasn't what you said. But I'm still not convinced, even with the clarification added. What makes the rich more likely to be optimal utilizers?

I assume you know the difference between income tax, payroll tax, and capital gains tax.

Yes, what's your point? I'm not convinced that Bill doesn't have a substantial amount of ordinary income - although I'd agree he doesn't have W-2 wages.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I missed it because it wasn't what you said. But I'm still not convinced, even with the clarification added. What makes the rich more likely to be optimal utilizers?

You have the order flipped. Try again.

Yes, what's your point?

barfo

If you don't see the point, you don't understand the differences, and I should not have assumed that you do.

Oh, and I didn't mention this before, and I should: perhaps you should completely read what I write, where the thought gets completed.

 

[barfo]

You have the order flipped. Try again.

I don't see a significant difference between the way I phrased it and the way you phrased it, but I will try again. What makes the richest most likely to be the most optimal utilizers?

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I don't see a significant difference between the way I phrased it and the way you phrased it, but I will try again. What makes the richest most likely to be the most optimal utilizers?

barfo

I don't understand what you are asking.

Are you disputing my claim that the richest people are most likely the most optimal utilizers? (Or worded more correctly: the most optimal utilizers are more likely to be the richest people.)

 

[barfo]

I don't understand what you are asking.

Are you disputing my claim that the richest people are most likely the most optimal utilizers? (Or worded more correctly: the most optimal utilizers are more likely to be the richest people.)

I'm asking why you claim that, yes. That's what I'm asking. I'm asking that. It is what I'm asking.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm asking why you claim that, yes. That's what I'm asking. I'm asking that. It is what I'm asking.

barfo

Because I defined it that way.

 

[barfo]

Because I defined it that way.

That seems less than convincing.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

There's a difference. Taxing smoking and gas-guzzlers brings in tax money and is meant to curb those behaviors at the same time. Taxing people that make a ton of money is meant only to bring in tax money. Anyone who thinks liberals are trying to curb economic success through taxation needs to seriously reexamine the pills they take in the morning.

Just because that's not the intention, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Jimmy Carter refused to support the Shah of Iran because he was a dictator. In his place came a theocracy even more brutal than the Savak. It was unintentional, but he was responsible. On the flip side, President Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein and a civil war erupted. That wasn't intentional, but we had a responsibility to quell it.

Unintended consequences matter.

You know, if I wasn't extremely busy, I might go scouring. I will acknowledge there are some posters who make excuses for things Obama has done wrong because they are so tied to the cause. However, "strong" support for Obama is pretty subjective, so I don't feel comfortable making that judgment call. I would count myself, barfo and Minstrel at least in the category of Obama supporters that have criticized him a couple of times. Beyond that, I cannot say for certain. Another thing that you need to consider is that what is criticizing? Is it disagreeing with his policies or how he has conducted his presidency? Is criticizing his bow to the Saudi King enough or do I have to join a tea party?

You know, since you're so critical of President Obama, with which of his policies have you disagreed the most vehemently? Why? As for barfo and Minstrel, barfo is giving him a long, long leash taking a "wait and see" attitude and Minstrel thinks we should mirror Western Europe. Neither have uttered a critical word of President Obama.

 

[maxiep]

Taxing the rich is basically making them work harder for their money. So you're saying that people that make a ton of money don't want to work that hard? A disincentive isn't a ban. They can still make as much as they did before, they just have to work harder for it.

By your logic, giving money to the poor is allowing them to not work as hard for their money. So it's a double disincentive where everyone works less hard. Great stuff.

 

[maxiep]

There's a difference. Taxing smoking and gas-guzzlers brings in tax money and is meant to curb those behaviors at the same time. Taxing people that make a ton of money is meant only to bring in tax money. Anyone who thinks liberals are trying to curb economic success through taxation needs to seriously reexamine the pills they take in the morning.

Would you call then-Senator Obama or his wife liberal?

[video=youtube;hZQ03kgB6Bg]

(Yes, it's a crackpot website, but their words are their own).

 

[maxiep]

Sure, okay. Calling those "disincentivizing the achievers" and "rewarding the freeriders" are not facts, those are judgments. Facts tend to be viewed as universally accepted. Your snide labels are not.

They're not "snide labels". Economic research has proven as close as you can come to economic law that increasing the marginal tax burden on individuals lowers their willingness to work for what they perceive to be diminishing returns. Furthermore, giving free services and benefits to those that haven't earned them robs them of a work ethic over the long term. The old rule of the Soviet Union was "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." Incentives matter.

No, I don't.

Look more closely.

I don't get it. Are we just supposed to hate the president in this day and age? When the majority of people like the president, does it make you feel uncomfortable, or just jealous?

Well, it's safe to say there are plenty that hated President Bush. I don't hate President Obama, but I'm a natural skeptic. It amazes me that because of his skin color or because he suceeded a president who was so reviled by the Left that intelligent people would check their intellect at the door and just take as gospel anything he says. I actually find the fawning over him a bit disturbing.

You keep affixing Obama with labels pertaining to faith: Messiah, Jim Jones, Jesus. I would suspect that it's much easier to accept that the ones who voted for Obama (the majority of people in the country) are just zealots and are blinded by their unprecedented faith rather than accept that the majority of people disagree with your opinions. You can't be wrong! They must be crazy!

My words are intentional. The Left in this country constantly mocks people of faith as naive rubes, yet Obama is their God. I find the irony rich. Their faith in Obama is no different than the faith in God of the people they mock.

Then you either haven't been paying attention or your definition of "criticize" is much different than mine.

It's probably different. I actually look at my president with skepticism. When he's wrong, I criticize him. And those same people that were so quick to jump all over our previous president for his every misstep now looks the other way when our current president makes errors even more grave.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

You know, since you're so critical of President Obama, with which of his policies have you disagreed the most vehemently? Why? As for barfo and Minstrel, barfo is giving him a long, long leash taking a "wait and see" attitude and Minstrel thinks we should mirror Western Europe. Neither have uttered a critical word of President Obama.

LOL yes, I am "so critical" of president Obama and I disagree "vehemently" with his policies. Christ, I said "a few times." I guess if we're not criticizing the way you want us to, then we're not criticizing at all.

They're not "snide labels". Economic research has proven as close as you can come to economic law that increasing the marginal tax burden on individuals lowers their willingness to work for what they perceive to be diminishing returns. Furthermore, giving free services and benefits to those that haven't earned them robs them of a work ethic over the long term. The old rule of the Soviet Union was "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." Incentives matter.

I have stated before that I am far from an economist. Still, I fail to see how economic research can claim quantify notions like willingness and work ethic.

Look more closely.

I'm a young liberal, living in Portland, surrounded by Obama supporters. I'm about as close as you can get.

Well, it's safe to say there are plenty that hated President Bush. I don't hate President Obama, but I'm a natural skeptic. It amazes me that because of his skin color or because he suceeded a president who was so reviled by the Left that intelligent people would check their intellect at the door and just take as gospel anything he says. I actually find the fawning over him a bit disturbing.

Stupid people are on both sides. There were PLENTY of lockstep Bush apologists, even towards the end of his disastrous presidency, that took his words as "gospel."

It amazes me that you assume people follow what Obama says because of his skin color.

My words are intentional. The Left in this country constantly mocks people of faith as naive rubes, yet Obama is their God. I find the irony rich. Their faith in Obama is no different than the faith in God of the people they mock.

I know your words are intentional. You're basically saying what I said, but leaving out the part about you making it all up so you can have an excuse to dismiss their opinions as invalid.

You can't see the difference between Obama's popularity and faith in a religious deity? You're making less and less sense as the year progresses.

It's probably different. I actually look at my president with skepticism. When he's wrong, I criticize him. And those same people that were so quick to jump all over our previous president for his every misstep now looks the other way when our current president makes errors even more grave.

So do I. "Wrong," however, is subjective. You don't think we criticize Obama because we don't agree with your criticisms. We may have different criticisms, some you may not even agree with. Just because we haven't selected a Fox News approved talking point to get angry about on the Internet doesn't mean we're not critical of the president.

I'll tell you what: when Obama botches an invasion of a sovereign nation, I'll make sure to criticize him.

 

[maxiep]

LOL yes, I am "so critical" of president Obama and I disagree "vehemently" with his policies. Christ, I said "a few times." I guess if we're not criticizing the way you want us to, then we're not criticizing at all.

You have yet to point to one item where you've criticized him.

I have stated before that I am far from an economist. Still, I fail to see how economic research can claim quantify notions like willingness and work ethic.

Arthur Laffer did some work in this area. You take a look at tax rates and then you compare it to productivity, GDP and tax income received. From there, the only variables are the ones you described. You quantify those fuzzy principles by outlining their borders rather than coloring from the middle.

I'm a young liberal, living in Portland, surrounded by Obama supporters. I'm about as close as you can get.

Baaa. Baaaa.

Stupid people are on both sides. There were PLENTY of lockstep Bush apologists, even towards the end of his disastrous presidency, that took his words as "gospel."

What does President Bush have to do with it? It seems every time someone that supports Obama finds themselves in an untenable position, they pull out the Bush card. It's a weak argument getting weaker every day.

It amazes me that you assume people follow what Obama says because of his skin color.

You don't believe white guilt or black pride played a role in his ascension? Do you believe if President Obama were a howlie who went to Punahao, Occidental, Columbia and Harvard he would be President now? Like it or not, but there were people who voted for him simply because of his skin color. You tell me how Hillary Clinton loses 94% of the black vote to then-Senator Obama if it's not because he's black. And the evidence is anecdotal, but all you do is have to listen to NPR and hear how many white people felt that a black president helped to remove the stain of this country's Original Sin.

I know your words are intentional. You're basically saying what I said, but leaving out the part about you making it all up so you can have an excuse to dismiss their opinions as invalid.

You can't see the difference between Obama's popularity and faith in a religious deity? You're making less and less sense as the year progresses.

Again, I'm saying that people have replaced one God with another.

So do I. "Wrong," however, is subjective. You don't think we criticize Obama because we don't agree with your criticisms. We may have different criticisms, some you may not even agree with. Just because we haven't selected a Fox News approved talking point to get angry about on the Internet doesn't mean we're not critical of the president.

Ah, the old "talking point" canard. Go back and find new bumper stickers to shape your ideas. As for being critical of President Obama, I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, you're nothing but an unquestioning shill.

I'll tell you what: when Obama botches an invasion of a sovereign nation, I'll make sure to criticize him.[/QUOTE]