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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JGyMlGQKTS...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.

Are 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?

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...

Really? thats a surprise

:har::har::har::har::har:

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?