Why all the Obama hatred?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

It seems to me the deep, visceral hatred of Obama by some people is out of all proportion to what he's done and tried to do. I'm pretty sure I know why, but do any of you have any further theories?

[krashkart]

Heh. I've plenty of popcorn. :)

I have a theory that the economy being as it is has people stressed out enough that we have no other recourse but to blame the administration. Add to that a deep-seated resentment and mistrust for the government that has built up over the last eight or nine years. I think people are just plain fed up, regardless of who they vote for. Who better to blame than the guy in charge? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

1. Many Republicans take it as a natural rule that Republicans should win elections for the presidency. If they don't, it is a very deep offence, hitting them at their very basic self-understanding.

2. No matter whether he realised his plans or not, many of his very plans themselves are so unfamiliar and distant from what Americans are used to define as "American political goals" that this is perceived as Obama setting himself outside an "American" context.

3. The high heap of bills and debts Obama has collected on his desktop, does not make him many friends. The Fed is powerless by now. just printing always new more money, is no solution. The debts of the Us already were a disaster before Obama - but he additionally contributed substantially to their total ammount.

4. But all that does not create the stimuli he promised and hoped for when he introduced his spending frenzy. No economic spring. No job miracle. Instead new dark clouds at the horizon, coming closer.

5. His foreign policy changes back and forth between lacking orientation and lacking realism, and heavily biased islamophilia.

And 6.), maybe the most general but still most important point: he has risen so high and so many expectations that he now necessarily falls even deeper. If you raise so stellar expecations, you must fail to meet them necessarily, and then the disappointment necessarily is the bigger.

Obama's misery is pretty much self-made, I think. And I think it is FUBAR. Upcoming elections for congress most likely will show it. I think the Dems will suffer dearly.

[GoldenRivet]

Hate is a strong word.

Dislike may be more appropriate. Personally I dislike what Obama represents.

1. Overwhelmingly condescending stature toward his opposition.

2. He is a socialist who insists that the government can run my life better than I can.

3. He is a welfare president who would sell out 260 million Americans to address the needs of 40 million Americans.

4. His ram it down our throat, hurry up and get it passed before anyone notices the BS approach to the legislative process.

5. General disagreement with his stance on virtually all the issues facing our nation. (not all... Virtually all)

6. His foriegn policy as skybird pointed out is too far a radical departure from the last several years for a lot of Americans to swallow.


I could go on and on.

[GoldenRivet]

@TVM

you say you have a feeling why.

Since your finger is apparently so tightly placed upon the pulse of America, perhaps you could share your opinion?

[JU_88]

I could go on and on.

So could I, but about George W Bush Im afraid.

Heh. I've plenty of popcorn. :)

I have a theory that the economy being as it is has people stressed out enough that we have no other recourse but to blame the administration. Add to that a deep-seated resentment and mistrust for the government that has built up over the last eight or nine years. I think people are just plain fed up, regardless of who they vote for. Who better to blame than the guy in charge? :hmmm:

Ditto, most of the subsimmers here in General topics appear to be Right wing / Conservatives / Republican in there political views.
So its pretty much a given that they dislike Obama -who is more of a leftist than say Clinton was.
Just depends on how you are wired. I personally cant stand the likes of Bush and Cheney... and Sarah Palin scares the hell out of me too.
So its not hard for me to understand their point of view - its simply the reverse of my own, thats all.

[GoldenRivet]

Yet, I never really disapproved of Clinton myself.

I think Obama has his fair share of supporters here at subsim.

[JU_88]

Yet, I never really disapproved of Clinton myself.

I think Obama has his fair share of supporters here at subsim.

Yeah - I think you hit the nail on the head in your first post GR, I too reckon it has alot to do with Obama and Bush being at rather extreme opposite ends of the spectrum
(on so many levels)

[Oberon]

Ditto, most of the subsimmers here in General topics appear to be Right wing / Conservatives / Republican in there political views.
So its pretty much a given that they dislike Obama -who is more of a leftist than say Clinton was.


Bingo. :yeah:
I'd just rather all the hate was confined to one topic instead of spreading out like a weed across the entire damn General Topics forum. Then again, I guess things would get too quiet except for the odd anti-Muslim thread although they've dried up a fair bit since the Avon Lady left.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah - I think you hit the nail on the head in your first post GR, I too reckon it has alot to do with Obama and Bush being at rather extreme opposite ends of the spectrum
(on so many levels)

I think you are correct with this conclusion. Although America wants change the radical change to the other side of the spectrum was a bit more than America could handle. This change came fast and furious. These new ideas are, for lack of a better word, scary to a lot of folks.

[TLAM Strike]

:O: I think we all know why people hate him...
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9825/obamap.jpg

[Bilge_Rat]

I seem to recall that during the 2003 debates over the Iraq war, there were many unkind words said about President Bush as well, goes with the job I would guess.

Americans love to exercise their First Amendment rights...:D

[krashkart]

Americans love to exercise their First Amendment rights...:D

Aye... we can also Plead the Fifth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rissm5YHJQg&feature=more_related) and end the day with a nice cold beer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtdFRHQwF2I&feature=related). :D

[SteamWake]

Simply put its not the man its his agenda.

I dont 'hate' him any more than I do say Pelosi or Reed.

Please quit trying to paint conservatives as racisist bigots.

Thats it in a nutshell.

[August]

It seems to me the deep, visceral hatred of Obama by some people is out of all proportion to what he's done and tried to do. I'm pretty sure I know why, but do any of you have any further theories?

It's for the same reason that Democrats were comparing the Bush administration to the nazis.

[CCIP]

Well, for one thing, looking from outside the US it is painfully apparent that American politics is very partisan in nature. That tends to make politics very divisive, and disturbing from the point of view of most of the rest of the Western world - I can't think of many other places where politics is this polarizing. Obama is a perfect example aligned with the far side of one of the two parties, and that makes him a perfect target for the other side, so that's about it.

Frankly, I think the anti-Obama sentiment was a lot worse around election times.

Otherwise, eh, as much as I'm well over on the left side, I don't really approve of Obama and never was particularly optimistic for him. A lot of my American friends were excited for him winning, and I told them to wait a couple of years and see. Now a couple of years later, I'm content to have proven that Obama is both relatively weak in terms of his actual position and capacity to make positive change, while also pushing through a lot of his politics through means that don't exactly make him look good. Honestly, he's proven himself to be what I saw in him all along - a Chicago politician.

I certainly prefer him quite a bit to the Bush administration, but that's about the best I can say for him.

I do hope that the heat stops being aimed so much at his persona - a lot of things leveled against him by conservatives is just populist gobbledygook that only further serves to deepen partisan divisions and distract from real social and economic issues that neither side, so far, has shown any good potential to solve.

[Méo]

and Sarah Palin scares the hell out of me too.

Rest assured!!

Take a look at the Beehive beauty shop :sunny:

(from 03:15 to 06:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Do0-fWVY9I

[Rilder]

Well he's better then having McCain as president thats for sure, and he is definitely better then the very prospect of having that idiot Palin as president.

However... Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, moderates, radicals... they all suck.

[bradclark1]

It's for the same reason that Democrats were comparing the Bush administration to the nazis.
Why is it that if one disagrees you are a Democrat or if you aren't a Republican you must be a Democrat. Rather narrow minded.

[AVGWarhawk]

However... Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, moderates, radicals... they all suck.


:yep:

[tater]

Why is it that if one disagrees you are a Democrat or if you aren't a Republican you must be a Democrat. Rather narrow minded.

In US presidential elections voters do only 2 things. They vote for the R or the D. Third party votes help one or the other if the state is in play---or do nothing at all otherwise.

[tater]

I should add that I don't think that the right "hates" Obama nearly as much as the left hates Bush. In many cases the left seems to have been against hints solely to be contrarian. "we were for regime change before we were against it!"

I dislike Obama because I dislike most all his policy goals.

[Sailor Steve]

I disagree with Obama's policies. No hate or even dislike involved. I disagreed with Bush on Iraq and some other things. Same lack of animosity.

I notice that a large majority of the people who actively hated Bush were doing so long before he gave them a reason. Same with Obama. It's all politics and one-sided bigotry (and I'm talking political bigotry, no other).

Why is it that if one disagrees you are a Democrat or if you aren't a Republican you must be a Democrat. Rather narrow minded.
It wasn't Republicans who put up the posters of Bush as Hitler. And that was all that August was referencing. It looked to me like he was speaking to the jackass politics of both sides.

[bradclark1]

In US presidential elections voters do only 2 things. They vote for the R or the D. Third party votes help one or the other if the state is in play---or do nothing at all otherwise.
So I'm a Democan or a Repocrat depending on which way I lean at the time?:)

[bradclark1]

It wasn't Republicans who put up the posters of Bush as Hitler. And that was all that August was referencing. It looked to me like he was speaking to the jackass politics of both sides.
That's what I'm talking about. So it must have been Democrats?

[Sailor Steve]

I posted this a long time ago, but I can't come up with anything better, so here it is again:

I was one of those hippies...then I joined the navy and went to fight a war...then I protested against that same war...then I laughed at the environmentalists of my day...then I fought for the environment...now I consider myself a Demican Republicrat God-Fearing Atheist Communist Fascist Socialist Libertarian. My views on abortion and gay rights get me labelled a Flaming Liberal, but my opinions on guns and the economy make me a Knee-jerk Conservative. Rush would call me a fence-sitter, but I'm much nearer the right-left-middle than I am to the middle-left-right.

Oh, I don't take drugs anymore (except for the prescription ones, and those only because my doctor makes me), but I am still a hippie - or at least I look like one this week.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158727&highlight=republicrat

[Sailor Steve]

That's what I'm talking about. So it must have been Democrats?
Who else hated Bush that much? Libertarians?

[Weiss Pinguin]

Who else hated Bush that much? Libertarians?
Maybe the Librarians? :D

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe the Librarians? :D
SHHHH!!!

[bradclark1]

Who else hated Bush that much? Libertarians?
How about Joe Blow off the street. What is it, less than 1/3 actually vote. The rest still have opinions.

[Bubblehead1980]

Why the Obama hatred?

I will admit I hate the man, I despise him.I have real reasons, not emotions because these are not even bad times for me etc.Honestly, the only way the recession has affected me is it has affected other people like some of my friends and a few family members, then I get angry because I see good people hurting while the President and his hooligans have wasted two years concentrated on his far left agenda instead of focusing on getting us back on the right track.

I despise Obama because of his post American views, because he actually has the power to push these post/anti American views into law and "fundamentally change" this nation.Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism which he should, because America has been an exceptional place, thus why we have been the "big dick" in the world for a long time now.Unlike great Presidents such as Ronald Reagan, who believed we are and should strive to be that shining city on the hill, Obama sees us as just another country.So instead of going our own way we should go the way of European style Socialism in his view.Sure Obama could never come out and say this, but actions and some well disguised words show what he really thinks.Is Obama full blown Socialist? No, but he does find socialism acceptable even though it is not to the vast majority of Americans.

This apathy towards America perhaps comes from Obama growing up outside the mainland and not understanding how great America really is.Perhaps he has some bitterness about his backround and upbringing.Add in his indoctrination into left wing ideology by his mother from the time he was small boy, it all has made the jerk that is sadly the current elected leader of the USA.

The hatred is overall not about his color(a small minority hates him because he is black, just how some black people hate all white people) , it is really aggravating and HIGHLY offensive when people pull the race card.This long worn out left wing tactic of distracting from an argument they can't win by using race is just crap:damn:

[Takeda Shingen]

As I alluded to in an earlier post today, the hatred is conditioned. Ask someone why he hates or loves the President and you'll get a long and muddled stew of ideological rhetoric and quasi-philosophy. He'll lay on a lexicon of poli-speak derived from talk radio and cable television all designed to mask the fact that although they hate him, they don't really know why.

And how could they? Rhetoric aside, each side's job performance is identical. I suppose that this is why you always see the party affilitation listed after their names. After all, how could we tell which team they are on, and thus who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? And so we see that the guy belongs to Team R or Team D and we either love him and get all weepy or hate him with a frothing, blinding rage. The R and the D tell us everything we need to know. How very simple.

We have, by the industry that now surrounds politics, becomed conditioned to the point of recognition by brand only. It is as though some powerful person is running a gigantic sociological experiment.

[gimpy117]

I couldn't hate the man if he tried. He has come after one of the most inept and corrupt administrations in history. It took 8 years to screw up this country in so many ways, and it's going to take longer to fix it.

All the Obama bashing is a tactic, nothing less. If they stuff the news with all these negative Obama stories they feel they have a chance of winning the election, so the old republican noise machine is in full swing. Like Takeda said, the american people are being conditioned by the GOP friendly media, using their emotions not their heads. First there were little "cheeky" racist jokes, Then using the fear of Muslims by making up stories that "Obama practices Islam". Next, they used the fear of poor people and greed to say that instead of helping out the disadvantaged, you're money is being "taken from you" and given to "all these lazy poor rabble who don't deserve it". Then they used the fear of immigrants and mexicans in the latest arizona crisis.

[Takeda Shingen]

Like Takeda said, the american people are being conditioned by the GOP friendly media, using their emotions not their heads.

I didn't say that. I leveled my complaint at all of the political media; not just right-wing media. Team D utilizes the very same tactics when they think it in their best interest.

[CCIP]

We have, by the industry that now surrounds politics, becomed conditioned to the point of recognition by brand only. It is as though some powerful person is running a gigantic sociological experiment.

Yeah, this is my concern as well. This is what's really undermining democracy, and sadly in the US more so than many other places. The fact is that politics is an industry almost everywhere in the west these days, but the difference for the US is that there's exponentially more money involved. This is where the consumer-style branding tactics and media polarizations come out of, to a large extent anyway.

Honestly, I think both socialists and libertarians can agree on the fact that big money really needs to go out of politics. I'm sceptical it ever will. However until it does, I don't think politics will ever truly go back to actual representation, because representation is something that cannot and should not be sold to voters.

[gimpy117]

I didn't say that. I leveled my complaint at all of the political media; not just right-wing media. Team D utilizes the very same tactics when they think it in their best interest.

I expanded on your idea. Yes, it's true democrats use similar tactics but in this case were speaking about vs. obama.

[GoldenRivet]

I have said before that politics in America is a display of Negative Dynamic Stability.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JGyMlGQKTSM/TJJ37Tub_PI/AAAAAAAAAa8/uEPRDFahFko/s1600/negdynstab.jpg

Fact remains that we have had two back to back - highly divisive, highly polarizing presidents.

Fact remains that no matter who you put into congress there is a high degree of anger and resentment over the ever-increasing elitist / exempt from normal life status of congressional officials. (set for life retirement and health care... many of the laws they pass on to us dont apply to them etc)

fact remains that we need to have a candidate who is NOT divisive but who is capable of uniting this nation.

fact remains that we need a candidate who is more aligned with the center than the extreme.

I think that average American's would find that they agree on more than the political parties which claim to represent them let on.

i think there is a much larger middle ground we can meet on that is not even being played here... politically speaking we cant see the forest for the trees.

[Aramike]

:O: I think we all know why people hate him...
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9825/obamap.jpgAre you suggesting that his agenda is NOT radical?

And, if not, what makes you believe that it is the color of his skin and not his agenda that causes people to dislike him?

From what I recall, he had early approval rating success. Has his skin color since changed or has he signed radical, expensive legislation that people are opposed to?

[CCIP]

I have said before that politics in America is a display of Negative Dynamic Stability.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JGyMlGQKTSM/TJJ37Tub_PI/AAAAAAAAAa8/uEPRDFahFko/s1600/negdynstab.jpg

Fact remains that we have had two back to back - highly divisive, highly polarizing presidents.

Fact remains that no matter who you put into congress there is a high degree of anger and resentment over the ever-increasing elitist / exempt from normal life status of congressional officials. (set for life retirement and health care... many of the laws they pass on to us dont apply to them etc)

fact remains that we need to have a candidate who is NOT divisive but who is capable of uniting this nation.

fact remains that we need a candidate who is more aligned with the center than the extreme.

I think that average American's would find that they agree on more than the political parties which claim to represent them let on.

i think there is a much larger middle ground we can meet on that is not even being played here... politically speaking we cant see the forest for the trees.

Great post! :yep:

I agree entirely. I think the majority, silent or otherwise, would probably much rather see different picks than they got, someone less extreme and divisive. Sadly however, it's a telling sign that not only the the last two presidents, but in fact most candidates with any sort of realistic chances of getting elected, were very divisive figures. Sadly the likely ones for 2012 so far aren't very encouraging, either...

[Tribesman]

I will admit I hate the man
Really? thats a surprise

Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism which he should, because America has been an exceptional place, thus why we have been the "big dick" in the world for a long time now.
:har::har::har::har::har:

For many years now a long succesion of administrations have certainly been acting like big dicks.

Obama sees us as just another country
You really do live in an alternate reality don't you.
America is just another country, it always has been since its foundation and always will be until it disappears into history.

[Tchocky]

It's hardly radical.

Either that or every other President who attempted healthcare reform had a radical agenda. Pretty much every late 20th-century President has tried to reduce America's dependence on oil as well, and Obama isn't even actively pursuing that right now.
I don't get how the current agenda is radical, except when it's compared with what the other side is proposing, and therefore "radical" by definition.

EDIT - I mean, think what you like about the merits of the agenda, but calling it radical is ever so slightly dog-whistle.

[Aramike]

It's hardly radical.

Either that or every other President who attempted healthcare reform had a radical agenda. Pretty much every late 20th-century President has tried to reduce America's dependence on oil as well, and Obama isn't even actively pursuing that right now.
I don't get how the current agenda is radical, except when it's compared with what the other side is proposing, and therefore "radical" by definition.

EDIT - I mean, think what you like about the merits of the agenda, but calling it radical is ever so slightly dog-whistle.I was referring to the agenda as a whole, but even regarding healthcare by itself, the plan is radical. I suggest you look up the term in the dictionary.

Any president who spends more than his predecessors - combined - is, to me, a radical. Any president who for the first time in American history passes a federal mandate that private citizens purchase a specific product, under legal threat, from a private company, is radical.

And any president which oversees the government acquisition of businesses in order to save a financial, for-profit enterprise is a radical.

Unless, of course, the word doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means in the case of one agreeing with the policies in question...

[gimpy117]

they did try a public option, but that was shot down in congress. The whole "you need health insurance" was a great new "bipartisan compromise". But they wanted something passed. and so now it's law because the republican half of congress just complained and said no long enough to make the democrats take anything good out of the bill.

[Bubblehead1980]

Do you realize how condescending it is to say that people are angry because they have been "conditioned" ?? That implies that anyone who is angry at Obama and the Dems for being just as corrupt and wrong as the Bush Admin are simple minded fools, racist etc etc

Sure, on both sides there are the less educated and/or intelligent who repeat what they hear etc etc.The vast majority are not like that though.I graduated college with 4.0 GPA, I did very well on the LSAT and I am currently in my first year Law School.My arguments and views are my own, I may agree and share some of them with other Conservatives but they are my own views, not a party line, not something I heard on tv etc.

Gimpy, I noticed your lines about them trying to make people afraid of muslims , etc.Well we have every reason to be afraid of islam in this nation.We do not want to let our tolerance of this vile belief system to the point where Europe, esp say the UK is.

Poor people, well I do not fear them but here is one way to look at it.My father was middle or even lower middle class as a young man, he worked hard, made his way through college, held off on starting a family until he was ready financially and never expected a thing from the government or other citizens who were better off.I worked hard in college and am working hard now so I can have the life I want.My parents have paid for my education with exception of two student loans, not government handouts etc. I do not expect anything from the government or my fellow citizens but an equal and fair shot and lets face it, due to things like affirmative action I do not get one.There are a couple law schools where I was wait listed and I know a friend of mine who is black and has a less fortunate backround, was accepted to one of them with a lower LSAT score and GPA.Anyway, point is I have worked hard and my parents have as well so owe nothing to anyone in this country.So when I am finished with law school and my career advances, my taxes will no doubt go up and if we have leaders like Obama and the Dems in power, it'll go way up to pay for his endless programs.But I am a bad guy because I may make more money than someone right? If someone is poor and in need, fine there should be limited government programs to HELP people get on their feet but not lifelong entitlements that will be paid on the backs of productive citizens and taking away economic liberty.

We should fear illegal immigrants, they are criminals, they have no right to be here and undermine the job market.They have their anchor babies here who just cost us money.They will no doubt spend their life on entitelment programs and cause further damage to this nation.

[Aramike]

they did try a public option, but that was shot down in congress. The whole "you need health insurance" was a great new "bipartisan compromise". But they wanted something passed. and so now it's law because the republican half of congress just complained and said no long enough to make the democrats take anything good out of the bill.No doubt. But then why did they pass anything at all? Do Democrats truly believe that taxpayer dollars are out there to help Obama make a name for himself? It isn't what they wanted, it isn't what conservatives wanted, why pass it?

[tater]

So I'm a Democan or a Repocrat depending on which way I lean at the time?:)

I'm registered independent, and I vote that way. I tend to usually only vote dem for a few things—like school boards (so that the schools actually teach, you know, science).

[mookiemookie]

but they are my own views, not a party line, not something I heard on tv etc.


...

They have their anchor babies here who just cost us money.They will no doubt spend their life on entitelment programs and cause further damage to this nation.

You say one thing and prove yourself wrong just a few short sentences later. You have no clue what an "anchor baby" is aside from what the idiot talking heads on Fox News tells you it is.

I bet you didn't know that:

Today, a citizen must be 21 in order to sponsor the green card application of a parent or an immediate relative. The applicant must then show documentation proving that he or she has not been in the United States unlawfully for more than one year. Barring such proof—the primary obstacle most immigrants face—the parent must return to the country of origin for ten years before being allowed to lawfully re-enter the United States and resume the application process.

http://www.thenation.com/article/38035/baby-baiting

You spew garbage with no basis in fact. Smarten up or keep looking uninformed. Your call.

Funny. On a whim, I read a post from someone on my ignore list, and they prove to me again why they're on my ignore list.

[Platapus]

First of all, as other posters have posted, there is a difference between disagreeing/disapproving of a president and hating/ridiculing him.

Personally, I disapproved of President Bush, but I never hated him, nor did I approve of the ridicule.

While ridiculing of presidents have been around since Washington, it has gotten more apparent since the advent of the Internet Tubes, in my opinion. It has become more socially acceptable to be disrespectful of our president.

I remember being present during political discussions with my parent's adult friends in the 70's. While there was disagreement on what the president was doing, when the conversation started to drift toward ridiculing the President, the group socially self-policed itself.

It is this self-policing that is absent these days. It started a little with George H. W. Bush but really took flight with Clinton. Clinton was the first president in my memory who was vilified before taking office. The press violated their tradition of "100 days".

Then when G W Bush came in office, entire industries dedicated to the ridicule of the president came in to existence. Bumper stickers, books (bushisms), calenders, count-down counters. This was a multi-million dollar industry and the public loved it. It became "trendy" to openly ridicule the president outside of any specific issue. It became a social habit in this country.

When Obama came in, This industry did not want to go away and the public liked this social habit. If you remember, immediately after the election, there were already on the market Obama countdown timers (all they did was put an Obama sticker and reprogram the Bush timer) and all sorts of merchandise all two months before he even took the oath.

To stop this, two things have to happen

1. The industry of presidential ridicule must become unprofitable.
2. It must become socially unacceptable to ridicule the president.

Only the citizens of this country have the power to implement these changes. The problem is that some people are simply making too much money in the industry and other people are having too much fun ridiculing the president.

It would be nice if the media would take some responsibility, but relying on the media for social responsibility is a fantasy.

It is my sad prediction that any future president regardless of their political party or their platform will be subject to this ridicule industry. It has become a most profitable habit

[Aramike]

Funny. On a whim, I read a post from someone on my ignore list, and they prove to me again why they're on my ignore list. Heh, had that experience myself a few days back actually. :damn:

[Takeda Shingen]

Do you realize how condescending it is to say that people are angry because they have been "conditioned" ?? That implies that anyone who is angry at Obama and the Dems for being just as corrupt and wrong as the Bush Admin are simple minded fools, racist etc etc

Sure, on both sides there are the less educated and/or intelligent who repeat what they hear etc etc.The vast majority are not like that though.I graduated college with 4.0 GPA, I did very well on the LSAT and I am currently in my first year Law School.My arguments and views are my own, I may agree and share some of them with other Conservatives but they are my own views, not a party line, not something I heard on tv etc.

If only the stupid were able to be manipulated, mankind would have had a much smoother history.

You have implored me and others not to be turned away by Republican nominees who we find distasteful so that 'the bad guys' don't win. As I said in another post today, voting for a candidate that I do not believe in to insure a loss for Team D is entirely antithetical to the very foundations of modern liberal democracy. In other words, this is not how the system is supposed to work; it is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they laid the framework for said liberal democracy.

It is very clear that you identify with Team R. It is also very clear that your goal is to stick it to Team D. This is evidenced by the fact that you admit that you not only disaprove of the policy, you hate the politician. He is un-American. He is dehumanized. He is the embodiment of all that is wrong with society. Only his defeat can restore America. This is the very brand of political theatre sold by the industry. Many, many people subscribe to that theatre, and it is more destructive than any budget or bill.

You see exactly the same zeal every time the Steelers play the Browns. The difference is that the football fan calms down once the game is over. For the politico, it is a game that never ends.

[Castout]

Because most people are irrational and incapable of proper critical thinking?! :DL

I feel pity for Obama. He's trying to give his best for the Americans and the country and many not only dislike him but hate him?

When you see the president addressing the nation tonight or tomorrow you look into his eyes....don't tell me you can't see he believes in what he is saying.....a rarity these days among your politicians and even presidents. Though I still very much prefer Marthin Luther King Jr than him the previous is DEAD so live with the fact :O:

Give the man some slack. Give him time. He closed Guantanamo, trying to put an end to Iraq's adventure while trying to put some order in Afghanistan both wars he didn't started and both wars that put the American economy on strain. He inherited a ruined economy that forces him to stimulate them to prevent spiraling down into severe depression yet the very act of saving it causes consternation?!

What do the Americans want from their president. Wave a stick and hope miracles will take care things? He's no Moses for God sake!:haha:

Give him 3 years or a little more then judge him by his policies. If you still don't like him that's what election is for!

Honestly speaking do you think the other candidate then could do better?
Think for yourself and just don't jump into the bandwagon of faulting the president.

[Takeda Shingen]

It is my sad prediction that any future president regardless of their political party or their platform will be subject to this ridicule industry. It has become a most profitable habit

And that's what it really boils down to. Political vitriol is now big business.

[Ducimus]

And that's what it really boils down to. Political vitriol is now big business.

The size of Rush Limbaugh's house (http://theweek.com/article/index/203337/rush-limbaughs-estate-an-insiders-guide) gives ample evidence of that. :haha:

[Onkel Neal]

Hate is a strong word.

Dislike may be more appropriate. Personally I dislike what Obama represents.

1. Overwhelmingly condescending stature toward his opposition.

2. He is a socialist who insists that the government can run my life better than I can.

3. He is a welfare president who would sell out 260 million Americans to address the needs of 40 million Americans.

4. His ram it down our throat, hurry up and get it passed before anyone notices the BS approach to the legislative process.

5. General disagreement with his stance on virtually all the issues facing our nation. (not all... Virtually all)

6. His foriegn policy as skybird pointed out is too far a radical departure from the last several years for a lot of Americans to swallow.


I could go on and on.

You forgot, he's neutering NASA and the US space program.

[tater]

How did he get "anchor baby" wrong?

A baby born in the US is a citizen. They can therefore get government services. That's an anchor baby. Here in the SW, there are border school districts where the large majority of cost is educating kids born to illegals. Those kids qualifty for Salud (NM Medicaid), too. I hate that, since it reimburses below cost, but my wife is required to treat them (meaning literally that every such patient costs us money out of pocket (plus much larger opportunity costs).

Maybe they are not such a big deal in the NE. It's crushing in the SW.

Did I miss something else he implied other than that one sentence at the end of that post?

[GoldenRivet]

You forgot, he's neutering NASA and the US space program.

7. De-balling NASA and the US Space Program. :stare::stare::stare::stare:

[bradclark1]

The size of Rush Limbaugh's house (http://theweek.com/article/index/203337/rush-limbaughs-estate-an-insiders-guide) gives ample evidence of that. :haha:
:yep: Thats not a mere house.

[GoldenRivet]

Speaking of Anchor Babies

My dad worked in the Southwest as a CRNA for childbirth cases.

he worked there for about 18 months, and he says, on average... they delivered 300 of these anchor babies per month.

300

one town

on average

PER MONTH

[tater]

I have to admit, for a guy who promised transparency, and that the entire healthcare debate would be bipartisan, and televised, the move to do virtually all of it behind closed doors, with payoffs to buy votes, and every effort to ram it through with as little discussion (and no time for any lawmaker to possibly have read the bill) pissed me off beyond any possible reconciliation.

If he does something I agree with I will happily give him props on it. But in general, the current congress/executive combo is despicable, IMO, for no other reason than ramming stuff through.

If they had decent rules like "one idea, one bill" combined with a requirement of X days debate (on the record) per page of bill, we'd all be better off.

[bradclark1]

I'm registered independent, and I vote that way. I tend to usually only vote dem for a few things—like school boards (so that the schools actually teach, you know, science).
The problem with Indies is that they will never be voted into an office of importance. Maybe things will change in November but I doubt it.

[SteamWake]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html

[Ducimus]

Speaking of Anchor Babies

My dad worked in the Southwest as a CRNA for childbirth cases.

he worked there for about 18 months, and he says, on average... they delivered 300 of these anchor babies per month.

300

one town

on average

PER MONTH

The longer illegal immigration goes unchecked, the more we'll be voted out of our own country. I'm reminded of a movie quote from braveheart...

"If we can't get them out, we breed them out. That should fetch just the kind of lords we want to Scotland, taxes or no taxes."


Eventually, they'll have the majority vote in all of the south west, if not close to it already. Anchor babies, have a serious long term consequence.

Meanwhile.... the politicians (R or D ) do nothing because they're afraid they wont get re elected.

[Aramike]

The longer illegal immigration goes unchecked, the more we'll be voted out of our own country. I'm reminded of a movie quote from braveheart...

"If we can't get them out, we breed them out. That should fetch just the kind of lords we want to Scotland, taxes or no taxes."


Eventually, they'll have the majority vote in all of the south west, if not close to it already. Anchor babies, have a serious long term consequence.

Meanwhile.... the politicians (R or D ) do nothing because they're afraid they wont get re elected.Oh man, how right you are.

As I've said before, before any serious discussion on illegal immigrants can occur, the border must be shut down. What really pisses me off is, what constituency is actually opposed to this?

None. There's just the fear that some people may not like it. Wow.

[Tribesman]

Heh, had that experience myself a few days back actually
In what context?
oh no its that word you don't understand again, run and hide:rotfl2:


We do not want to let our tolerance of this vile belief system to the point where Europe, esp say the UK is.

Interesting, so what point is the UK especially at then bubble?

[mookiemookie]

How did he get "anchor baby" wrong?

A baby born in the US is a citizen. They can therefore get government services. That's an anchor baby. Here in the SW, there are border school districts where the large majority of cost is educating kids born to illegals. Those kids qualifty for Salud (NM Medicaid), too. I hate that, since it reimburses below cost, but my wife is required to treat them (meaning literally that every such patient costs us money out of pocket (plus much larger opportunity costs).

Maybe they are not such a big deal in the NE. It's crushing in the SW.

Did I miss something else he implied other than that one sentence at the end of that post?

An "anchor baby" is not an anchor. If ICE decided to get off its ass and start deporting more illegal immigrant parents of babies born here in the U.S., there's nothing legally stopping them. (http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/139/case.html) An "anchor baby" is not insurance against deportation. (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/01/local/la-me-deport1-2010apr01) It's a completely made up term.

Not sure why the hatred on this issue. The Obama admin is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html) Oh, wait, yes I'm sure why - he's Obama. That's enough to cancel out reality and substitute it with someone's own.

[MH]

So American peaple are jumping from extreme to extreme in their president choises.
Maybe they need a third party a middle ground not just D vs R because its not much of a choise.

[GoldenRivet]

So American peaple are jumping from extreme to extreme in their president choises.
Maybe they need a third party a middle ground not just D vs R because its not much of a choise.


you think?

[August]

So American peaple are jumping from extreme to extreme in their president choises.
Maybe they need a third party a middle ground not just D vs R because its not much of a choise.

The problem is that most of us tend to not like one of the letters more than the other and voting for a third party candidate with little chance of winning is almost the same as giving ones vote to the one we don't like.

[GoldenRivet]

The problem is that most of us tend to not like one of the letters more than the other and voting for a third party candidate with little chance of winning is almost the same as giving ones vote to the one we don't like.

couldnt have said it better myself

[MH]

you think?

No not really.
My guess is that next presdent after Obama will be more in overoll user friendly.
Thats how democracy usally work jump left then right then middle .Then somethig happens and all over again.

[tater]

An "anchor baby" is not an anchor. If ICE decided to get off its ass and start deporting more illegal immigrant parents of babies born here in the U.S., there's nothing legally stopping them. (http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/139/case.html) An "anchor baby" is not insurance against deportation. (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/01/local/la-me-deport1-2010apr01) It's a completely made up term.


So he's wrong because the common term—which tells you exactly what kids he's talking about with 2 words instead of "child of an illegal alien" at 5 words—is not literally true?

I know the term, and I know that they are not a free pass to citizenship for the parents, I know all that. I still used "anchor baby." That's the term. The left calls illegal aliens (the technical term for them) "immigrants" or "migrants" or "undocumented workers." We all know they are really talking about illegal aliens.

[mookiemookie]

No not really.
My guess is that next presdent after Obama will be more in overoll user friendly.
Thats how democracy usally work jump left then right then middle .Then somethig happens and all over again.

Eh, we might be in the new reality. The media has done very well selling hate and vitriol towards the last three presidents. I'm not sure they'll give up the cash cow.

[GoldenRivet]

Eh, we might be in the new reality. The media has done very well selling hate and vitriol towards the last three presidents. I'm not sure they'll give up the cash cow.

which media specifically.

The media seems to be equally as divided in praise and hate of the presidents as the populace.

[krashkart]

which media specifically.

The media seems to be equally as divided in praise and hate of the presidents as the populace.


Who is being driven by who? :hmmm::dead:

[mookiemookie]

which media specifically.

The media seems to be equally as divided in praise and hate of the presidents as the populace.

All of it, pick an outlet and you'll find made up controversies that you wouldn't have seen 25, 30 years ago.


Who is being driven by who? :hmmm::dead:

Exactly.

[The Third Man]

All the hatred? Because everyone, and I mean everyone, who disagrees with Mr. Obama is a racist. It is just so obvious. Makes perfect sense.:salute:

[Aramike]

In what context?
oh no its that word you don't understand again, run and hide:rotfl2:

Oh gee, I hit that button again...

What's brilliantly ironic about this is that only a moron would confuse misunderstanding of the word "context" with the difference of opinion as to what the context actually was.

...it is even exceedingly funny to consider that the person presenting the argument in question agrees with the context of the individual in question, and has since apologized for the statement in question.

Tribesman, you're universally entertaining. People from all sides of the opinion spectrum find you redundantly boring, ill-informed, "wiki-educated", and intellectually stunted. The fact that you're still attempting to hold onto some argument about "context" which you were so clearly wrong in the first place about only shows that your points rest solely upon smilies rather than any substantive thought-out opinion.

Indeed, you are what we call a "troll".

That's okay, though - continue on. Just know that for every :haha: you post there are 20 people mentally responding with a :har: right back at you, as anyone who puts as much effort into being ignorant as yourself clearly qualifies as a comedian.

[Castout]

Wait wait gimme time to pop some corn . . . .:D

Take it easy guys no insulting and personal attack please. :yep:

[Tribesman]

...it is even exceedingly funny to consider that the person presenting the argument in question agrees with the context of the individual in question, and has since apologized for the statement in question.

so not only are you wrong but you are clearly a liar.
Well done.
The "apology" was that she regretted those few particular words from her answer because they could be taken out of context and misrepresented.