At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[Dubya]

You see you want to blame President Bush and the Republicans for the crippled economy, yet the legislative branch was in control by the Democrats (does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed ring a bell?). Now you want to blame Congress and the Republicans (notice the flip flopping of blame?) for the recovery, when I JUST listed all of what the Democrats were able to pass without the help of Republicans (none of which you were able to refute). So all this "blame Bush" for the economic mess, and now blame Congress because of the Republicans, tells me you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. You can try passing that crap to your liberal cheering sectiaon, but I doubt anyone else is gullible enough to buy that - hook, line, and sinker.

The Republicans passed legislation when Clinton was President, the GBLA and the CFMA. Bush had the agenda of not using regulation, like the SEC. Legislation didn't crash the economy during Bush, it was prior legislation that allowed this shit to happen, while Bush didn't allow government to do it's job. There is no good reason why those toxic asset bonds were allowed to be traded as triple A securities. Thanks to Republicans, we don't have a triple A bond rate anymore.

People who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.

I find it hilarious how you simply call those who you can't refute with facts "liars". Gotta love it, especially when you can't even provide in your post, where it is exactly that I have "supposedly" lied and back that up with some actual facts.

Now I will say the economy began to show signs of trouble through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You see President Clinton passed what us to be known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA for short). This regulation onto banks, was meant to get people that wouldn't ordinarily be able to "afford" [key word] a home to have the ability to purchase one. Banks were no longer allowed to ask those credit questions, they normally would, to see if they the customer inquiring is a risk to be given the loan. Sure enough, you would have those who had no business OWNING a home in the first place (never mind being given such a substantial "risk" loan), beginning to get behind with the threat of even losing the home through bankruptcy.

Now President Obama didn't help the situation by giving Freddie Mac a huge bailout. Nor did it help for Obama to look at those about to lose their home and provide them with government "taxpayer" assistance, without FIRST inquiring if they could afford the mortgage to start with.

The Government Did It
Yaron Brook

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.

The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government.

The Government Did It - Forbes.com

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

"Our job," says Marks, "is to push the envelope." Accordingly, he gladly lends to people with less than $3,000 in savings, or with checkered credit histories or significant debt. Many of his borrowers are single-parent heads of household. Such borrowers are, Marks believes, fundamentally oppressed and at permanent disadvantage, and therefore society must adjust its rules for them. Hence, NACA's most crucial policy decision: it requires no down payments whatsoever from its borrowers. A down-payment requirement, based on concern as to whether a borrower can make payments, is—when applied to low-income minority buyers—"patronizing and almost racist," Marks says.

. . . A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities by Howard Husock, City Journal Winter 2000

True Cost of Fannie, Freddie Bailouts: $317 Billion, CBO Says | CNS News Mobile

Fannie & Freddie: The most expensive bailout - Jul. 22, 2009



You see how easy that was? I even included some actual FACTS to support my argument

Dumbass, I didn't make the claim, so let the fool who made the claim prove it and what I know for a fact isn't true! I've spent the time to look up the BLS reports and that's how I know it's a lie. I've also looked up the contribution of government to GDP during those periods. I'm not going to waste my time on lazy fools making claims they can't back up with facts. If you make the claim, you prove it. You idiots are always making claims and it doesn't take much time to type a lie.

The CRA program is very small compared to the amount of money in those ABS bonds. CRA doesn't get loans for $400,000 homes.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95–128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The GSE bailout is ongoing and hasn't costed anything.

 

[Oldstyle]

Talking about teleprompters makes you a hack. That's just mindless, right-wing, think tank created, talking points that has no basis in fact. The choice is to read from a speech off of paper or use a teleprompter, while watching the camera. You could also spend many hours memorizing a much shorter speech. The problem with that analysis is it only involves prepared speeches and Obama doesn't always give prepared speeches.

Try doing your own research, Hack!

Young Barack Obama: Protest Speech at Harvard Law School in 1991 - YouTube

Obama on Katrina and racism - YouTube

Obama on the Law Review election - YouTube



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Why did Obama teach at the Univeristy of Chicago Law School for twelve years as a Lecturer and you believe that wasn't exception work as a Lecturer?

You don't have anything to support your bullshit hackjob.

The fact that the University of Chicago hired the first black President of the Harvard Law Review in no way proves that the work that Barack Obama "did" while lecturing at the University of Chicago was in any way exceptional. I've always been struck by the dearth of examples of student that sang his praises as a teacher...just as I've always been struck by the lack of examples of his exceptional work as a lawyer. I know that he was an awful legislator when he joined the Illinois House as a Senator. He didn't get a single piece of legislation that he drafted passed for the first two years he was in office. He didn't "succeed" as a legislator until he went to Emile Jones and begged for help. Then he was given the legislative work of others to sign his name to...a practice that he continued when he joined the US Senate. The "truth" is that Barry isn't a gifted legislator. He's actually rather ungifted. ObamaCare may bear his name but little in it is from him. He left mundane tasks like actually drafting legislation to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Are you saying you have never been to college? They don't keep people who aren't exceptional.

Do you have any interests other than Obama? I find the subject of always talking about a person rather boring. It should be obvious that the President has lead an exceptional life, but you will argue against reality to try and make a stupid hack point. You talk about Obama on every thread.

I attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. If you are claiming that there are no "unexceptional" people teaching in colleges then quite frankly, I wonder if you were in college. I have many interests besides our present President but I'm curious as to whether your taking exception to my talking about Barack Obama has more to do with "always talking about a person" or the fact that I don't buy into the Obama "narrative" that has been created by both Mr. Obama and a fawning main stream media?

 

[Dubya]

The fact that the University of Chicago hired the first black President of the Harvard Law Review in no way proves that the work that Barack Obama "did" while lecturing at the University of Chicago was in any way exceptional. I've always been struck by the dearth of examples of student that sang his praises as a teacher...just as I've always been struck by the lack of examples of his exceptional work as a lawyer. I know that he was an awful legislator when he joined the Illinois House as a Senator. He didn't get a single piece of legislation that he drafted passed for the first two years he was in office. He didn't "succeed" as a legislator until he went to Emile Jones and begged for help. Then he was given the legislative work of others to sign his name to...a practice that he continued when he joined the US Senate. The "truth" is that Barry isn't a gifted legislator. He's actually rather ungifted. ObamaCare may bear his name but little in it is from him. He left mundane tasks like actually drafting legislation to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Are you saying you have never been to college? They don't keep people who aren't exceptional.

Do you have any interests other than Obama? I find the subject of always talking about a person rather boring. It should be obvious that the President has lead an exceptional life, but you will argue against reality to try and make a stupid hack point. You talk about Obama on every thread.

I attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. If you are claiming that there are no "unexceptional" people teaching in colleges then quite frankly, I wonder if you were in college. I have many interests besides our present President but I'm curious as to whether your taking exception to my talking about Barack Obama has more to do with "always talking about a person" or the fact that I don't buy into the Obama "narrative" that has been created by both Mr. Obama and a fawning main stream media?

Consider the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor and questions about who is your neighbor!

First off, it's boring to be around somebody who is compulsive about one interest. It's also stupid to constantly nitpick a politician over things easily seen as being nonsense, because if that politician ever did something really wrong, who would give you the time of day? You cried wolf constantly, so what happens if a wolf comes? You've already lost credibility.

The subject of any person isn't that important or large enough to generate much interest to people are interested in complex subjects.

In this particular case, you want to argue that such an exceptional life of a person isn't exceptional in your opinion or the position you choose to debate. That's a nothing is what it is argument. What you are suggesting is somehow Obama was given some sort of favoritism to accomplish what he accomplished, but Obama's life wasn't a priviledged life and the details of his life proves that to be the case. Again, that's a nothing is what it is argument.

What we are left with is dealing with your OCD ways. Who cares why you are obsessed with Obama, it's your problem! It's a lot easier to post a bunch of nonsense than to refute every word of it. When there is someone like you who can't understand how ridiculous your argument is, the best thing to do is just ignore the idiot. I don't care if the reasons you do what you do involve racism, political ideology or just taking a position to debate. I'm not your shrink and I don't care what you choose to believe is my reality. All I do is point out the obvious inconsistencies of another internet person making statements that are obviously false.

I lived since the days of Truman being President and have studied all of them and more. They all had to be exceptional in some way to become President, but Dubya was the least of that group and was a fortunate son in the way he was exceptional. Nixon isn't liked very much, but Nixon was a very intelligent man and someone's opinion of him doesn't change that fact. Clinton, Carter and Obama were also very intelligent Presidents. Truman, Ike, Ford, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and Johnson weren't as intelligent, but they were all exceptional in other ways. I understand Clinton had a way of engaging someone when he met them that was remarkable.

When I spend time studying a figure in history, I use historians who will tell the good, bad and ugly of that person and aren't using bias to form an opinion. Sometimes the events have to make the person, so would Lincoln stand out as a President, if the Civil War was avoided? It doesn't take much time to study a person or a moment in history and unless you are an expert specializing in that one aspect of history, a normal person is only going to give it so much of their time.

Without some great event happening during Obama's or any President's watch, they aren't going to be a great President. Dubya did have a chance to go down in history as one of the better Presidents because he had significant events happen, but he blew it. Historians are going to record this present history with the details a partisan avoids. My interest is the truth of these and other times and it isn't your interest.

You don't lecture a law school without being exceptional, because who wants to hear a lecture from someone below your level? The professors that taught me the intro courses for Chemistry and Physics went on to head the departments at the university and my Chemistry professor had the most brilliant teaching skills, I've seen in a professor. The man was truly a genius at teaching, as if he could instantly recognize what a student was lacking in their understanding and guide them to what they needed to know. The intro course that he taught was a high level course for students majoring in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. They called it baby P Chem after the Junior year Physical Chemistry course, which required Calculus for Mathematics majors to pass.

 

[Claudette]

LOL If Barry unsealed his transcripts then we would have all the proof we need of just how smart or how not smart the man is.

Then Dubya and the rest of his supporters can throw, or not throw, his intelligence in we the doubters faces.

I'm sure Barry could give a rats ass at this point. He got his second term and he doesn't need anyone to vote for him again. He doesn't need to pander to anyone.

He just needs our tax dollars to change the face of America.

 

[Dubya]

LOL If Barry unsealed his transcripts then we would have all the proof we need of just how smart or how not smart the man is.

Then Dubya and the rest of his supporters can throw, or not throw, his intelligence in we the doubters faces.

I'm sure Barry could give a rats ass at this point. He got his second term and he doesn't need anyone to vote for him again. He doesn't need to pander to anyone.

He just needs our tax dollars to change the face of America.

Who would care what you think? You keep going on about a college transcript knowing you can't post one from any other President. The President doesn't have to give you anything and you aren't to get anything. You sound like one of those Birther nuts.

 

[Claudette]

LOL If Barry unsealed his transcripts then we would have all the proof we need of just how smart or how not smart the man is.

Then Dubya and the rest of his supporters can throw, or not throw, his intelligence in we the doubters faces.

I'm sure Barry could give a rats ass at this point. He got his second term and he doesn't need anyone to vote for him again. He doesn't need to pander to anyone.

He just needs our tax dollars to change the face of America.

Who would care what you think? You keep going on about a college transcript knowing you can't post one from any other President. The President doesn't have to give you anything and you aren't to get anything. You sound like one of those Birther nuts.

LMAO. Birther? Nope. Even a dummy wouldn't try to run for POTUS if not born in the USA.

You are right. No President has released their college transcripts except for that little leak about Bush. Turns out he was smarter than both Gore and Kerry. Not bad for Dubya.

Guess Barry just wants to follow the rest of the herd as far as his transcripts go.

To bad. I would really like to know just how smart, or not smart, that dude is.

 

[Dubya]

LOL If Barry unsealed his transcripts then we would have all the proof we need of just how smart or how not smart the man is.

Then Dubya and the rest of his supporters can throw, or not throw, his intelligence in we the doubters faces.

I'm sure Barry could give a rats ass at this point. He got his second term and he doesn't need anyone to vote for him again. He doesn't need to pander to anyone.

He just needs our tax dollars to change the face of America.

Who would care what you think? You keep going on about a college transcript knowing you can't post one from any other President. The President doesn't have to give you anything and you aren't to get anything. You sound like one of those Birther nuts.

LMAO. Birther? Nope. Even a dummy wouldn't try to run for POTUS if not born in the USA.

You are right. No President has released their college transcripts except for that little leak about Bush. Turns out he was smarter than both Gore and Kerry. Not bad for Dubya.

Guess Barry just wants to follow the rest of the herd as far as his transcripts go.

To bad. I would really like to know just how smart, or not smart, that dude is.

Just do a search on the President's IQs. I've done it before and the estimates are good. Dubya didn't have a very high one, but he wasn't as dumb as some said or as dumb as he acted. Maybe Dubya stuttered as a child and sometimes people who did will have a moment of lapse in their adulthood. He could have scrambled his eggs, too.

A college transcript isn't going to show how intelligent someone is.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who would care what you think? You keep going on about a college transcript knowing you can't post one from any other President. The President doesn't have to give you anything and you aren't to get anything. You sound like one of those Birther nuts.

LMAO. Birther? Nope. Even a dummy wouldn't try to run for POTUS if not born in the USA.

You are right. No President has released their college transcripts except for that little leak about Bush. Turns out he was smarter than both Gore and Kerry. Not bad for Dubya.

Guess Barry just wants to follow the rest of the herd as far as his transcripts go.

To bad. I would really like to know just how smart, or not smart, that dude is.

Just do a search on the President's IQs. I've done it before and the estimates are good. Dubya didn't have a very high one, but he wasn't as dumb as some said or as dumb as he acted. Maybe Dubya stuttered as a child and sometimes people who did will have a moment of lapse in their adulthood. He could have scrambled his eggs, too.

A college transcript isn't going to show how intelligent someone is.

Neither is an IQ.
Obama is Exhibit A of a man educated far beyond his intelligence.
Most folks have no clue what the definition of intelligence is.

 

[Dot Com]

why are the resident, eXtreme rw'ers so obsessed?!!!

 

[Seawytch]

LOL If Barry unsealed his transcripts then we would have all the proof we need of just how smart or how not smart the man is.

Then Dubya and the rest of his supporters can throw, or not throw, his intelligence in we the doubters faces.

I'm sure Barry could give a rats ass at this point. He got his second term and he doesn't need anyone to vote for him again. He doesn't need to pander to anyone.

He just needs our tax dollars to change the face of America.

Who would care what you think? You keep going on about a college transcript knowing you can't post one from any other President. The President doesn't have to give you anything and you aren't to get anything. You sound like one of those Birther nuts.

LMAO. Birther? Nope. Even a dummy wouldn't try to run for POTUS if not born in the USA.

You are right. No President has released their college transcripts except for that little leak about Bush. Turns out he was smarter than both Gore and Kerry. Not bad for Dubya.

Guess Barry just wants to follow the rest of the herd as far as his transcripts go.

To bad. I would really like to know just how smart, or not smart, that dude is.

Why do you want THIS President to provide what no other President has been asked or required to provide? You really can't tell he is a smart man? The don't let dummies graduate from Harvard cum laude.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you actually hear his speech or just the recontextualized version that the Republicans fed the masses?

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you fucking libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

con·tex·tu·al·ize (kn-tksch--lz)
tr.v. con·tex·tu·al·ized, con·tex·tu·al·iz·ing, con·tex·tu·al·iz·es
To place (a word or idea, for example) in a particular context.

con·textu·al·i·zation (--l-zshn) n.

Source: contextualized - definition of contextualized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. Again; anew: rebuild.

Source: re- - definition of re- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dictionaries can be your friends.

Consider: taken out of context to purposely change the original meaning.

So you couldn't find the word "recontextualized" in any dictionary, huh fraud?

Fucking leftists, making up words then trying to blow smoke to cover for their Malapropisms.

Oh, we know contextualized is a word, coined in 1978, but a past tense with "re" sure isn't.

 

[Claudette]

Who would care what you think? You keep going on about a college transcript knowing you can't post one from any other President. The President doesn't have to give you anything and you aren't to get anything. You sound like one of those Birther nuts.

LMAO. Birther? Nope. Even a dummy wouldn't try to run for POTUS if not born in the USA.

You are right. No President has released their college transcripts except for that little leak about Bush. Turns out he was smarter than both Gore and Kerry. Not bad for Dubya.

Guess Barry just wants to follow the rest of the herd as far as his transcripts go.

To bad. I would really like to know just how smart, or not smart, that dude is.

Why do you want THIS President to provide what no other President has been asked or required to provide? You really can't tell he is a smart man? The don't let dummies graduate from Harvard cum laude.

Why not?? Is there any reason he wouldn't unseal his transcripts?

Just because other presidents don't doesn't mean Barry shouldn't.

After all isn't his administration the most transparant in history??

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why not?? Is there any reason he wouldn't unseal his transcripts?

Just because other presidents don't doesn't mean Barry shouldn't.

After all isn't his administration the most transparant in history??

Except that other presidents have. Clinton, Bush, Gore, they all have transcripts online.

Clinton made A's.

Bush B's and C's - mostly C's

Gore C's and D's - mostly D's

I suspect that Obama matches Gore's academic performance.

 

[JoeNormal]

Actually after his infamous "You didn't build that,someone else made that happen" that did it for me...I will NEVER be able to support this man.Not until he cleans this up which he will never do.

Did you actually hear his speech or just the recontextualized version that the Republicans fed the masses?

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you fucking libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

Really? This is beyond your verbal comprehension? You guys actually are retarded aren't you. Oh well, nobody on the right thinks that intelligence or education are important anyway. Revel in your ignorance!

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you saying you have never been to college? They don't keep people who aren't exceptional.

Do you have any interests other than Obama? I find the subject of always talking about a person rather boring. It should be obvious that the President has lead an exceptional life, but you will argue against reality to try and make a stupid hack point. You talk about Obama on every thread.

I attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. If you are claiming that there are no "unexceptional" people teaching in colleges then quite frankly, I wonder if you were in college. I have many interests besides our present President but I'm curious as to whether your taking exception to my talking about Barack Obama has more to do with "always talking about a person" or the fact that I don't buy into the Obama "narrative" that has been created by both Mr. Obama and a fawning main stream media?

Consider the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor and questions about who is your neighbor!

First off, it's boring to be around somebody who is compulsive about one interest. It's also stupid to constantly nitpick a politician over things easily seen as being nonsense, because if that politician ever did something really wrong, who would give you the time of day? You cried wolf constantly, so what happens if a wolf comes? You've already lost credibility.

The subject of any person isn't that important or large enough to generate much interest to people are interested in complex subjects.

In this particular case, you want to argue that such an exceptional life of a person isn't exceptional in your opinion or the position you choose to debate. That's a nothing is what it is argument. What you are suggesting is somehow Obama was given some sort of favoritism to accomplish what he accomplished, but Obama's life wasn't a priviledged life and the details of his life proves that to be the case. Again, that's a nothing is what it is argument.

What we are left with is dealing with your OCD ways. Who cares why you are obsessed with Obama, it's your problem! It's a lot easier to post a bunch of nonsense than to refute every word of it. When there is someone like you who can't understand how ridiculous your argument is, the best thing to do is just ignore the idiot. I don't care if the reasons you do what you do involve racism, political ideology or just taking a position to debate. I'm not your shrink and I don't care what you choose to believe is my reality. All I do is point out the obvious inconsistencies of another internet person making statements that are obviously false.

I lived since the days of Truman being President and have studied all of them and more. They all had to be exceptional in some way to become President, but Dubya was the least of that group and was a fortunate son in the way he was exceptional. Nixon isn't liked very much, but Nixon was a very intelligent man and someone's opinion of him doesn't change that fact. Clinton, Carter and Obama were also very intelligent Presidents. Truman, Ike, Ford, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and Johnson weren't as intelligent, but they were all exceptional in other ways. I understand Clinton had a way of engaging someone when he met them that was remarkable.

When I spend time studying a figure in history, I use historians who will tell the good, bad and ugly of that person and aren't using bias to form an opinion. Sometimes the events have to make the person, so would Lincoln stand out as a President, if the Civil War was avoided? It doesn't take much time to study a person or a moment in history and unless you are an expert specializing in that one aspect of history, a normal person is only going to give it so much of their time.

Without some great event happening during Obama's or any President's watch, they aren't going to be a great President. Dubya did have a chance to go down in history as one of the better Presidents because he had significant events happen, but he blew it. Historians are going to record this present history with the details a partisan avoids. My interest is the truth of these and other times and it isn't your interest.

You don't lecture a law school without being exceptional, because who wants to hear a lecture from someone below your level? The professors that taught me the intro courses for Chemistry and Physics went on to head the departments at the university and my Chemistry professor had the most brilliant teaching skills, I've seen in a professor. The man was truly a genius at teaching, as if he could instantly recognize what a student was lacking in their understanding and guide them to what they needed to know. The intro course that he taught was a high level course for students majoring in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. They called it baby P Chem after the Junior year Physical Chemistry course, which required Calculus for Mathematics majors to pass.

First of all...I never said there were no exceptional people teaching at the college level...there are tens of thousands of them! My point was that simply being a professor or lecturer at the college level does not mean that everyone is exceptional...a fact that anyone who attended college can attest to. There are good and there are mediocre in the college ranks, just as in most professions. You said that you did research on Barack Obama? Would you like to point out to me the evidence that HE was one of the good teachers and not simply mediocre? Some scholarly work of his that he published during the 12 years that he was lecturing on constitutional law? Read the following article by The New York Times written back in 2008 before Obama was elected. Only THIS time read it with the eye of a REAL historian and note how the author's preexisting viewpoint of the man she is writing about flavors the entire piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all

The fact that Barack Obama is more image than substance keeps rearing it's ugly head despite the obvious desire of the author to paint him in a positive manner. Why? Because he didn't write any scholarly works...ZERO! Why? Because he never engaged in the traditional head to head discussions with other faculty members...especially those whose views were not the same as his. Reading that article only reinforces what I know about Barack Obama. He was chosen to teach because of his status as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review...not because of his outstanding scholarly work. Why do I say that? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCHOLARLY WORK! There was zero work published and there was zero participation in an exchange of viewpoints with his colleagues. Barack Obama showed up...taught his classes on how blacks had been discriminated against in voting rights...recruited his students to work for him on his political career and diligently left as little of a paper trail behind him as possible so it wouldn't effect his political ambitions.

 

[JoeNormal]

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you fucking libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

Source: contextualized - definition of contextualized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. Again; anew: rebuild.

Source: re- - definition of re- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dictionaries can be your friends.

Consider: taken out of context to purposely change the original meaning.

So you couldn't find the word "recontextualized" in any dictionary, huh fraud?

Fucking leftists, making up words then trying to blow smoke to cover for their Malapropisms.

Oh, we know contextualized is a word, coined in 1978, but a past tense with "re" sure isn't.

I find these linguistic arguments to be tedious but I'll bite this time.

Recontextualize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

recontextualized - Wiktionary

See, this is why I hate having discussions with conservatards. Every minute point has to be explained in excruciating detail. The tiniest baby steps must seem like gigantic hurdles to you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? This is beyond your verbal comprehension? You guys actually are retarded aren't you. Oh well, nobody on the right thinks that intelligence or education are important anyway. Revel in your ignorance!

BWAHAHAHAHA

Those on the right in this forum average 50 more IQ points and 8+ more years of education than those on the left.

I take it you didn't quite master 6th grade, correct?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I find these linguistic arguments to be tedious but I'll bite this time.

Recontextualize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

recontextualized - Wiktionary

See, this is why I hate having discussions with conservatards. Every minute point has to be explained in excruciating detail. The tiniest baby steps must seem like gigantic hurdles to you.

Had to go scrounging to "wiktionary," did you?

ROFL

You fascists would be funny, if not for the death camps and stuff..

 

[JoeNormal]

I find these linguistic arguments to be tedious but I'll bite this time.

Recontextualize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

recontextualized - Wiktionary

See, this is why I hate having discussions with conservatards. Every minute point has to be explained in excruciating detail. The tiniest baby steps must seem like gigantic hurdles to you.

Had to go scrounging to "wiktionary," did you?

ROFL

You fascists would be funny, if not for the death camps and stuff..

Keep on focusing on the minutiae dude. There's a place for it in this world. You'd probably make a fine tax accountant or legal document proofreader. Meanwhile, those of us with the proper education and enough brainpower to pull it off will design the future.

Oh and BTW, maybe you should look up malapropism before you try using it in a sentence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Keep on focusing on the minutiae dude.

ROFL

Says the drone searching "Wiktionary" in hopes of salvaging his fellow leftist...

There's a place for it in this world. You'd probably make a fine tax accountant or legal document proofreader. Meanwhile, those of us with the proper education and enough brainpower to pull it off will design the future.

Think I could teach at a University?