Post: #51

So maybe they have a Clinton type of marriage.

Post: #52

(08-06-2014 09:40 PM)Sombro Wrote:  Anyone who's read Michelle Obama's college thesis knows she's a complete imbecile.

http://obamaprincetonthesis.wordpress.com

Read it.

Post: #53

(08-07-2014 08:01 PM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 07:08 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 05:50 PM)R Smoov Wrote:  Dude she's so smart.

Holy shit if a ugly bitch like her can become the first lady of the US, then wtf.

Obama and his wife have both aged very hard since being in office. The stress of being in office takes its toll on everyone involved. Even his daughters seem to have wrinkles on their foreheads, especially the oldest one.

I noticed that too.

One reason is because Obama isn't sleeping well. He stays up late and rises early. Add to that, he's got a shrewish wife. He also seems to be a fairly low energy guy.

It's been suggested in the media that Obama is actually really tired and just waiting for his presidency to end so he can leave DC. He's just not enjoying the job anymore.

Yeah, I really get that feeling too. He just want to be done with it. I get the sense that he's just burned out and tired. When is the last time that he gave one of his soaring speeches that he was once famous for? I'm sure years from now he'll write a memoir and we'll find out how he felt about everything. People placed expectations on him that were so high that hopes were bound to implode. I think he underestimated how difficult the job was going to be. He underestimated the level of fierce opposition he would get from congressional Republicans. He came in during one of the worst times anyone could. It's pretty much a thankless job. If the economy tanks, everyone hates you and it's your fault. If the economy recovers, you probably won't even get the credit(as is the case with Obama).

Quote:In contrast, Bill Clinton loved the job. He loved the job so much that he wishes to run for a third term.

True, Clinton was very extroverted and charismatic. He loved working a room and charming people. Joe Biden is similar from what I hear. By all accounts, Obama is an introvert and gets drained by all the social functions.

One other thing though is that times were pretty good during the Clinton years. No major wars, economy was doing well. There were still the usual suspects like Rush Limbaugh as a thorn in his side, but overall, most people were satisfied with the country during the 90s. That's an important factor to remember. Clinton was president during a time that it was much easier to be president.

As for Obama's legacy, unless the economy skyrockets and they can't hire people quick enough, I think Obama will leave with undeservedly low ratings. Not that I'm saying he's been an incredible president, but I think people tend to over-rate presidents too high or too low while they are in office. We won't really know his true legacy until years later. Bush's ratings are actually better now than they were when he was in office.

Post: #54

(08-07-2014 08:54 AM)Menace Wrote:  Guys, this is all a big distraction. The more salient point is this: how does it become okay for people to say things like this. For example, you cannot say white people are smarter than black people. What are the methods by which ideas previously not supported by many become commonly accepted? I suspect this knowledge exists, and the work of Edward Bernays is central I bet. PR companies and advertising companies are masters at this. You can get people to want things they didn't want before. How much would it cost to start a long term campaign to inculcate so-called red-pill ideas back into the mainstream? I suspect $100M deployed strategically could do a lot of good. A shame no billionaires read RVF.

I don't even know why this quote is being made into a big deal. It seems like it was made in jest to me. Are you guys really getting bent out of shape over this?

Post: #55

(08-07-2014 11:14 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 08:01 PM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 07:08 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 05:50 PM)R Smoov Wrote:  Dude she's so smart.

Holy shit if a ugly bitch like her can become the first lady of the US, then wtf.

Obama and his wife have both aged very hard since being in office. The stress of being in office takes its toll on everyone involved. Even his daughters seem to have wrinkles on their foreheads, especially the oldest one.

I noticed that too.

One reason is because Obama isn't sleeping well. He stays up late and rises early. Add to that, he's got a shrewish wife. He also seems to be a fairly low energy guy.

It's been suggested in the media that Obama is actually really tired and just waiting for his presidency to end so he can leave DC. He's just not enjoying the job anymore.

Yeah, I really get that feeling too. He just want to be done with it. I get the sense that he's just burned out and tired. When is the last time that he gave one of his soaring speeches that he was once famous for? I'm sure years from now he'll write a memoir and we'll find out how he felt about everything. People placed expectations on him that were so high that hopes were bound to implode. I think he underestimated how difficult the job was going to be. He underestimated the level of fierce opposition he would get from congressional Republicans. He came in during one of the worst times anyone could. It's pretty much a thankless job. If the economy tanks, everyone hates you and it's your fault. If the economy recovers, you probably won't even get the credit(as is the case with Obama).

Quote:In contrast, Bill Clinton loved the job. He loved the job so much that he wishes to run for a third term.

True, Clinton was very extroverted and charismatic. He loved working a room and charming people. Joe Biden is similar from what I hear. By all accounts, Obama is an introvert and gets drained by all the social functions.

I was present for one of Obama's 2008 speeches. It was delivered well, with practiced conviction, but he in no way connected with his audience.

Joe Biden gets himself into trouble a lot by shooting his mouth off, but I'd rather have a beer with him than Obama if I wasn't just looking for a quick photo op. Joe Biden would definitely be the guy to go fishing with for a weekend. Obama would bore literally all of us to death.

Post: #56

This brings to mind the Snoop Dogg song, "Can You Control Your Hoe?"





The answer for Obama is apparently not.

Post: #57

Nuff said.

Post: #58

^

Ugh, besides the shitty clothes, look at that terrible posture. She looks like she belongs under a bridge harassing billy goats.

Post: #59

(08-08-2014 02:04 AM)weambulance Wrote:  ^

Ugh, besides the shitty clothes, look at that terrible posture. She looks like she belongs under a bridge harassing billy goats.

I know, it's the entire package: The hunched shoulders, the oddly different sized calves, the flat-footed gait (even aside from the different shoes).

The other thing that really stands out for me is the fabric of that skirt she's wearing. I don't know anything about fabrics, but that's obviously one that creases. That adds to the bag lady persona. Also, not that I'd want to see anymore of her leg, but that below the knee look really doesn't work.

Likewise, what's going on with that blouse? The bow is comical at best. Sleeveless definitely doesn't work on her. Also, the fit is all wrong. It's all bunched up in several places, saggy in others (what's with the shoulder and neckline or her right side?).

The big issue with all of this is not even that she's not in the same shape as the two to her left. The issue is that you'd think that she'd have access to the best designers/tailors in the world who would do the best they could with what they were given (admittedly, not a great specimen). No wonder Europeans think that we in the Anglosphere have neither class nor taste. If you didn't know who she was, you'd assume she was either the help or some sort of random vagrant. The two on the left look like they're going to the opera with James Bond. Michelle looks like she's going to work the lunch shift at a diner in rural Alabama.

Post: #60

I think Barack is a beaten man at this point.

If you read his books "Dreams From My Father" you understand where he is coming from, and that is not someone you want running the USA if you want a better future here. His views on life/the USA were so negative and extremely biased against our great prosperity. He may have had a few good points, but the over all view was just negative and incorrect.

So he got in there, had 100% Democratic Party control, and made a real big mess of things. How he thought the world worked was shattered. His party got run out on a rail in 2010. And since then it has been a nonstop battle to just hold his position. Every day in a fight to defend a position that continues to not work. Add to this stress, you have scandal after scandal coming out that are really pissing the American people off.

Then he has to come home to some nasty hag that seems to hate herself and thus will lash out at everyone else. When I hear a woman say "women are smarter than men", I know she is insecure, hates herself an is just lashing out in insecurity. She is NOT the type of woman you want to spend time around. And at this point she is just spreading negativity to other women. What does "women are smarter than men" do to help anyone? It pisses most men off. It sets many women up for failure. The first time she feels stupid around a man, which will happen often as women just don't grasp the real world and don't seem to want to do so, she feels like complete shit. She will feel like she is not only dumber than men but also all her competition (women) who she thinks they are smarter than this man.

He really is living in a personal hell and has 2 and 1/2 more years of it left and will probably spend most of that time avoiding the job and responsibilities. Which may actually be the best move he has made as president.

Post: #61

^^^ I think you're referring to the myth of Obama's Democrat supermajority.

http://www.winningprogressive.org/democr...first-term

That's actually an informative and sourced article. The Republicans were dead set on destroying his presidency starting with inauguration day. I have nothing but contempt for congressional Republicans.

Post: #62

(08-08-2014 04:24 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^^^ I think you're referring to the myth of Obama's Democrat supermajority.

http://www.winningprogressive.org/democr...first-term

That's actually an informative and sourced article. The Republicans were dead set on destroying his presidency starting with inauguration day. I have nothing but contempt for congressional Republicans.

True, he didn't have a super majority, but his ideas were so radical that he couldn't win over anyone from the other side. And that is what a leader does, wins over at least a portion of the other side.

Thank God they stopped him at least a little. Obamacare is a big enough disaster. Just imagine if he got his $4 trillion stimulus he wanted or Cap and Trade. This country would already be bankrupt and we would be in serious rationing. Hope to goodness he remains a lame duck who calls real terrorists "folks" and our military members and Republicans "terrorists" to dwindling audiences.

Post: #63

So when the opposition party makes it their mission to see the president fails, you blame the president for not winning these obstructionists over? Really??

Did you know that the foundations of Obamacare actually originate with Republicans? The heritage foundation supported it going back to the 80s.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...l-mandate/

Post: #64

(08-08-2014 05:09 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  So when the opposition party makes it their mission to see the president fails, you blame the president for not winning these obstructionists over? Really??

Did you know that the foundations of Obamacare actually originate with Republicans? The heritage foundation supported it going back to the 80s.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...l-mandate/

Yes, I know Obamacare origins started under the Republicans party. If we were not drowning in debt, having full time jobs replaced with part time jobs (500,000 full time jobs lost, 800,000 part time jobs gained in June, and Democrats call this "progress"), and we didn't make a bajillion exceptions for Democratic party friends, the idea might work.

Not a 2,700 page bill, full of exceptions, and future tax hikes that will cripple an already on the verge of a collapse economy. But the original idea might work. Force people to pay for health insurance so they are personally responsible for it, then change the structure of health insurance so it isn't for every office visit.

Instead the rich got a bailout with it. The insurance companies are getting a bailout to help Democrats win elections for the time being. And the middle class gets to pay the bill, all the while the poor continue to get crappy govt. healthcare that will continue to get worse as costs go up.

If Obama had some good ideas in his first few years, it would have cost the Republicans badly to go against him.

Instead Obama spent his first two years ramming Obamacare down our throats with no Republican support because it is a disaster that most the country does not want. He tried to greatly increase taxes with brain dead ideas like Cap and Trade, steal from the US middle class give to poorer countries. He wanted a $4 trillion bailout, instead of $1 trillion, and we watched that $1 trillion go to feminist backed teacher unions, nearly defunct labor unions, Obama friends, and Wall Street. And even with the main stream media in Obama's back pocket and trying to cover for him, the American people went out in 2010 and said the Republicans were right in their objectivism.

The scary part is that as bad as things are now, we haven't even started to come close to the pain we will feel when we have to effectively pay off this massive wasteful accumulated debt.

Post: #65

(08-07-2014 03:20 PM)catoblepa Wrote:  women make about 80% of tv viewers and magazines readers, they've been the new frontier to conquer in marketing since the '60.

This is why TV is so feminised and shitty these days – it panders to women. There’s almost nothing to watch on mainstream network TV if you’re a heterosexual male.

Post: #66

What's the odds on a divorce within a few years of the Presidency ending?

Post: #67

(08-07-2014 11:14 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 08:01 PM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 07:08 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 05:50 PM)R Smoov Wrote:  Dude she's so smart.

Holy shit if a ugly bitch like her can become the first lady of the US, then wtf.

Obama and his wife have both aged very hard since being in office. The stress of being in office takes its toll on everyone involved. Even his daughters seem to have wrinkles on their foreheads, especially the oldest one.

I noticed that too.

One reason is because Obama isn't sleeping well. He stays up late and rises early. Add to that, he's got a shrewish wife. He also seems to be a fairly low energy guy.

It's been suggested in the media that Obama is actually really tired and just waiting for his presidency to end so he can leave DC. He's just not enjoying the job anymore.

Yeah, I really get that feeling too. He just want to be done with it. I get the sense that he's just burned out and tired. When is the last time that he gave one of his soaring speeches that he was once famous for? I'm sure years from now he'll write a memoir and we'll find out how he felt about everything. People placed expectations on him that were so high that hopes were bound to implode. I think he underestimated how difficult the job was going to be. He underestimated the level of fierce opposition he would get from congressional Republicans. He came in during one of the worst times anyone could. It's pretty much a thankless job. If the economy tanks, everyone hates you and it's your fault. If the economy recovers, you probably won't even get the credit(as is the case with Obama).

Quote:In contrast, Bill Clinton loved the job. He loved the job so much that he wishes to run for a third term.

True, Clinton was very extroverted and charismatic. He loved working a room and charming people. Joe Biden is similar from what I hear. By all accounts, Obama is an introvert and gets drained by all the social functions.

One other thing though is that times were pretty good during the Clinton years. No major wars, economy was doing well. There were still the usual suspects like Rush Limbaugh as a thorn in his side, but overall, most people were satisfied with the country during the 90s. That's an important factor to remember. Clinton was president during a time that it was much easier to be president.

As for Obama's legacy, unless the economy skyrockets and they can't hire people quick enough, I think Obama will leave with undeservedly low ratings. Not that I'm saying he's been an incredible president, but I think people tend to over-rate presidents too high or too low while they are in office. We won't really know his true legacy until years later. Bush's ratings are actually better now than they were when he was in office.

Well said. It typically takes at least 10-20 years, from a historian's perspective, to start seeing the after effects of any presidency. Bush's ratings are kind of irrelevant. It is 8 years removed, but one can see the semi-after effects of his blitzkrieg on Iraq, along with the dissolving of Saddam's generals and officers. They could have used some from the old regime to maintain order and stability because almost none of them loved their boss to begin with and were quite moderate. By associating all of them loosely to terrorism and WMD, they created a situation where death, the Hague, or Guantanamo Bay were the only options. They limited their options and created an environment where a group like Sadr and ISIS could come out of.

By the way Obama is actually an ENTP according to most typewatchers. A natural Visionary type. I tend to agree but I think his E (extroversion) is low or even borderline. Like 15-30 out of a maximum score of 100. Which makes him barely extroverted, but still an extrovert nevertheless.

Post: #68

(08-07-2014 11:23 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 08:54 AM)Menace Wrote:  Guys, this is all a big distraction. The more salient point is this: how does it become okay for people to say things like this. For example, you cannot say white people are smarter than black people. What are the methods by which ideas previously not supported by many become commonly accepted? I suspect this knowledge exists, and the work of Edward Bernays is central I bet. PR companies and advertising companies are masters at this. You can get people to want things they didn't want before. How much would it cost to start a long term campaign to inculcate so-called red-pill ideas back into the mainstream? I suspect $100M deployed strategically could do a lot of good. A shame no billionaires read RVF.

I don't even know why this quote is being made into a big deal. It seems like it was made in jest to me. Are you guys really getting bent out of shape over this?

It was said in jest, but for a group that is so PC, it feels like deep seeded hatred, because we all know that card carrying feminists and liberals love to offend others when it is okay for them in terms of groupthink. These groups can dump on white men because they are in power right now. Saying the opposite of that quote will cause calls for firing and hate crime charges today. I guess most here cannot stand the hypocrisy and lack of tolerance for alternative viewpoints.

Post: #69

^^^ This just doesn't phase me. It's like when Beyonce is singing about "girls rule the world". It's so untrue that it's laughable. The most power wonen have collectively is denying men sex. (a global pussy strike would probably be quite a weapon). That's why it doesn't offend me. I sit back and smirk and let them have a few minutes of delusional entertainment. Because I know it isn't true and deep down THEY know it isn't true. I would simply say to Michelle Obama and Beyonce "Thou doth protest too much."

Post: #70

It_is_my_time: Obama has been an unmitigated disaster, there is no doubt about that, but I don't think it would have been that much better under Romney, and wouldn't be much better under a Republican next time (due to demographics, I suspect that 2016 might be the last year the Republicans really have a shot at the presidency).

It's structural. The decline in the middle class has been on the cards for decades now and the only thing that papered over it for a time was easy credit, but that was, and will, always come to an end.

A large part of the problem is cultural, but reversing a cultural decline is much easier said than done. It's far easier to destroy something than build something, and even the most minor conflicts in the culture wars are so hotly contested that real change is impossible.

In the meantime, there are only a few means of dealing with the debt, none of them good, and few of them possible. Off the top of my head, they are:

1) Growth
2) Cut spending
3) Increase taxes
4) Borrow more money
5) Inflation
6) Default

In turn:

1) I see people on other fora trumpeting this, and usually stimulus as part of it. It's simply not going to happen for a number of reasons. GDP growth can happen in one of two ways. Either productivity is increased or the population is increased. The latter obviously doesn't change the average standard of living. The former simply isn't going to happen because Americans are already some of the most productive workers on the planet. Besides that, the growth rates required would need to approach those of developing nations. The trouble there is that all of the low hanging fruit has already been picked. There isn't any magic bullet.

Things such as greater automation/robotics, etc. are likely to have just as many negative effects as positive. We're getting to the point now where automation is replacing certain types of jobs and the workers displaced by such things are simply unemployable in anything but low level service jobs (which are a step down) simply because they're not intelligent enough to participate in the modern economy. Forty years ago, a guy with an IQ of 90 could comfortably do a middle class job. Nowadays, even an IQ of 100 is probably not enough. That effectively means that at least 50% of the population is simply unable to participate. So what happens to them? They are going to become a burden on society in one way or another (through welfare, crime, etc.), and I actually don't see a solution to this problem because it becomes an existential problem. Whether we like it or not, people derive some sort of meaning and dignity from work, and if they don't work, that has a horrible effect upon them and those around them. It's pure fantasy that everyone is going to become a self-actualised artist. So anyway, I just don't see growth as the way out of this problem.

2) This will eventually be forced upon people as is always the case with an empire in decline. However, people will fight it tooth and nail the whole way. A huge percentage of people are now dependent upon government. They're not going to give that up simply because they see themselves as entitled to it. The rot is too deep. At the other end of society, corporations and uber-wealthy people also have their snouts in the trough. Why would they give that up either? Everyone wants someone else's pork cut, but regards his own as sacred. This will only change with collapse/crisis, though at the time, the government and special interest groups will double down in trying to keep the party going.

3) Increase taxes. Again, this is naively trumpeted as a solution. It's not going to happen for several reasons. Firstly, the poor pay no taxes. Secondly, the middle class are struggling. There's not much more to wring out of them. The unintended consequence of bleeding the middle class more is going to be one of several things. Either they're going to start looking abroad more and more (and many people on this forum and others like it are the vanguard of that), or they're simply going to figure that it's not really worth paying so much tax. They're either going to drop out into the black economy or they're simply going to drop out. There's a point where it's simply not worth trading their free time anymore. They'll scale down and live simpler lives. That will ripple through the economy. So there's no way out there.

Okay, so what about taxing the rich. Firstly, as Kyle Bass so aptly pointed out, it's just not a solution. However, it wouldn't even get to that. The rich have Congress in their pocket. Taxes aren't going up on the rich, and in the unlikely event that they do, watch the capital flight begin in earnest. It is already the case that 6-8% of capital investments are held offshore, and it you look at those with >$30MM, it's 50% of their wealth. That would rapidly go a lot closer to 100% if soaking the rich were seriously on the cards.

So where's the revenue going to come from then?

4) Obviously borrowing more money is simply unsustainable in anything beyond the short term. Anyone who proposes this as a solution is a fucking idiot.

5) This is likely to be a large part of the approach, though it would more likely be stagflation, but it will have absolutely devastating results on most people as it is really just a hidden tax. It doesn't even have to be Weimar levels of hyperinflation. Just ask anyone who is old enough what the 1970s stagflation was like. In the early 80s my parents were paying 17% on their mortgage. Could anyone even imagine how that would work these days? The short answer is that it wouldn't. There'd be blood in the streets.

6) No one wants to mention the dreaded D word, and they especially think such talk is silly. When (not if) the USD loses its status as the reserve currency, then just like every other nation, the US will be staring down the barrel of default. Historian Niall Ferguson has pointed out that historically, there is only one example of a nation racking up huge amounts of debt and then not defaulting on it or inflating it away (and subsequently losing its geopolitical power too): Britain after 1815. The conditions then were completely different. Britain was at the forefront of the industrial revolution, and it had an empire that sold it cheap raw goods and in turn bought its finished products. That is simply not the case now.

Republicans talking like that have a credible solution to this are belching hot air. Frankly, at this point, it doesn't matter who is in charge except in how fast they drive the car towards the cliff. No one is stopping it and no one is turning it around.

Post: #71

^^^ I mostly agree with this post, but can you explain to me why you think Obama is an "unmitigated disaster". I've already said I don't think he's a great president, but I think the words you used are hyperbole to say the least. Can you please elaborate on why you feel those words accurately summarize his presidency.

On your point 3. I don't think it's even contestable that Bush's tax cuts and decision to go to war were in your words, an unmitigated disaster that we are stuck paying for and what is driving most of the deficit. Bush basically starved the country of revenue while ramping up spending. Now THAT is unmitigated disaster.



And when the Bush tax cuts were about to expire, what did the Republicans do? They held the country hostage. If the tax cuts expired, everybody's taxes would go up. Obama was going to extend them by making the middle class exempt and only allow them to revert back for the wealthy. The Republicans pouted and said that unless the rich get to extend their tax cuts, they will allow the bill to expire and everyone's taxes would go up, meaning the poor and middle class, which would anger the public toward Obama. Another example of how Republicans care more about destroying the president than helping the country.

We were not in a recession when Bush slashed taxes on the wealthy. There was absolutely no reason to do that. It was ideologically driven. The wars, I don't even have to go into. We know how that turned out. Obama could only win in 2008 if he promised not to cut and run because Americans didn't trust him on security. He said he'd only pull out responsibly. This Iraq quagmire is going to bog us down for many years to come and it is what it is now.

The rate of discretionary spending under Obama is actually falling:



The deficit is mostly being fueled by items outside the president's control. The deficit isn't due to Obama spending like a drunken sailor as Republicans would like us to believe. Growth in medicare and SS spending being the main one which is simply a demographic issue. The other is a slash of revenue from Bush tax cuts and the recession.



What is he supposed to do? Someone tell me. I'm serious. Immediately withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan would be disastrous. He's trying to slowly transition us out of there. He tried to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and the Republicans blackmailed him and forced him to extend them. SS and Medicare are going up because boomers are a huge demographic that has been retiring. The recession, there's not a lot a president can do to create jobs other than increase federal hiring and spending, but if he does that, then the right-wingers scream, "Tax and spend liberal! He's creating government jobs! Wasteful spending!!" Cutting taxes may help create jobs in some circumstances, but not this one. Companies have money to spend, corporate profits are actually good, but the demand has to be there to hire more workers. Cutting taxes further is not going to stimulate more demand for workers.

So tell me guys, what is he supposed to do at this point? He's in a shitty situation. To be president right now is not a job I would want. I think if McCain or Romney were in there, not much if anything would be different. And all Republicans promise to cut this and cut that, historically they are the biggest spenders.

Post: #72

(08-08-2014 01:39 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Nuff said.

That's a doctored picture. Michelle Obama was not at the event with Carla Bruni and the Spanish princess. I understand people not liking her but resorting to false evidence is beneath us.

And in her particular instance, I do think she is smarter than her husband; I can't find the link but one of hers and Obama's Harvard professors remarked on that fact. Due to being the first African-American First Lady, she probably has to put on a lid on it, unlike Hilary, and focus on soft/non-political issues like exercising and gardening.

Post: #73

Nice catch. I cropped out "Michelle" and bumped up the midtones. That's not even Michelle Obama. As you can see this woman in the photo has a short afro. And now that I look closely, her arms are thicker too. I fell for it too at first and wouldn't have examined closer if you didn't post this. It's bullshit that people have to doctor photos to try and make a point.

Edit --

Another thing, what is everyone's gripe about Michelle Obama? It's not just this "women are smarter than men' comment because this thing has been going on for far longer.

Everyone tries to make her out like she's this woman:





Maybe because she's black and dark skin everyone by default thinks she has a bad attitude or something. I've not seen any evidence of her having an attitude problem or being emasculating. Someone tell me what I'm missing here...

Post: #74

Oh, well that's interesting. Good catch.

Fortunately there's precedent for this sort of situation. Michelle Obama still has terrible style and the posture of a troll. The picture is fake, but accurate.

Post: #75

(08-08-2014 11:33 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Maybe because she's black and dark skin everyone by default thinks she has a bad attitude or something. I've not seen any evidence of her having an attitude problem or being emasculating. Someone tell me what I'm missing here...

You're like a broken record.

Everything with you is about race.

How about everyone doesn't like her for exactly the reasons stated?

Her being an ugly bitch just adds to why most here think she's repugnant.

You haven't seen evidence of her having an attitude problem?

How can anyone take this guy seriously?

Describes Obama as "not a great" president?

That's your critical assessment? He's not "great"?

And it's not his fault, it's because everyone expected too much?

By his own standards he's a failure. By his very own words he used to describe what he was going to do he is a disaster.

I bet you would vote for him a 3rd time wouldn't you?