• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Obama THAT bad?

no, and he's not extreme. it's hyperpartisanism. Bush was not Adolph Hitler, and Obama is not chairman Mao. those who argue based on emotion rather than logic need fiery slogans and rhetoric, however.

Obama's reversal on the patriot act was something i found disappointing. starting the health care debate with a public option as the initial proposal rather than UHC also ensured failure of meaningful reform, but there was little that he could do about that one.

there is a lot of time for the global situation to change between now and the election, and his response could make it pretty hard for me to vote for him. however, as it stands now, he will be the first president that i ever have voted for twice. i thoroughly consider every candidate running in each election, and i vote for the one who is closest to my own views. i don't find any of the Republican candidates appealing.
 
"Bush did it first" and "Obama is black, therefore you're a racist" are apparently the only talking points Obama needs to repel attacks from the right. Pathetic.

No that he is black is why some on the right hate him irrationally.
 
Yes.

  • Obama has the completely wrong way to go about improving healthcare;
  • Obama fuels the fires of racism and class warfare instead of bringing an end to these social conflicts;
  • Obama has embarrassed the country abroad with his apology ture and accepting the Nobel Peace Prize knowing he didn't earn it;
  • Obama does not support private ownership of arms;
  • Obama holds that born children are a punishment, not people.
  • Obama is pro-choice.
  • It's not that Obama is pro-ssm, it's that he doesn't care that half of those SSMs will end in divorce. He's just using people.

The only way to fix health care is to make the free riders pay either through taxes or mandated insurance. Pro choice is places liberty above life. SSM is equal protection under the law. So some will end in divorce. Straight marriage ends in divorce too.
 
The conservative base portrays Obama as an "Anti-Christ" figure practically. Why is this? I personally don't find Obama to be half as bad as he is portrayed to be.

The conservative base is base(sewer). I hope that it is not more than 10% of our people and that this percentage is decreasing.
 
Very interesting post, I am alway curious about what the world thinks of us and why. Could you elaborate on exactly what obama did to restore your faith in America and exactly what Bush did to lose it in the first place and it would be informative to know what you thought of America when Clinton was pres, thanks.

For me, there are two aspects to it, which are connected. The first is more objective, it's policy. The other is more subjective, it's tone and style.

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but Bush came across as extremely arrogant. His martialic speeches, his "cowboy rhetorics". On the policy side, I felt he had a sledgehammer approach to diplomacy. He treated even America's closest allies like vassals. Think of the famous "who is not with us, is against us" quote. In my ears, and that of many Germans, it sounds like "shut up and do what I say". Or when he kept referring to fighting a "crusade". First of all, since when were crusades a good thing? And second, have you any idea how that sounds in the ears of Muslims? Bush more or less confirmed all the ugly prejudices about America that exist here: Insensitive, self-centered, arrogant and a bit primitive.

The last straw was how Germans and the German government were treated by Bush, just because we opposed the Iraq war. It's not that opposing the war is an illegitimate position to take, many Americans did that too. But Bush fueled many ugly anti-European sentiments among Americans, think of the "Old Europe" label or the constant accusation of "anti-Americanism" -- as if hating Bush's policies equals hating America. Of course, former German Chancellor Schröder played his part too, he was hardly more diplomatic. But I think that was justified, he just showed Bush the mirror and replied in the same language Bush spoke.

Now Obama was a radical change in tone. Even before he was elected, he went to Berlin and held a moving speech that showed he understands Germans and Europeans and knows how they tick. (For Bush fans, even showing the slightest respect and interest in Europe is probably "kowtowing" already, a weakness, despite Germany being a close ally. Indeed Obama was attacked for it.) Obama did continue many of Bush's policies, but unlike Bush, he always coordinated his efforts with the European allies. He did not give up the UN and did not try to actively obstruct it as Bush did, but used it when it was helpful (despite all its flaws, the UN is important and stands for a different, more cooperative approach to international politics). For example, the mission in Libya found broad agreement in the UN.

Now Obama does and did many things I do not agree with. For example, he has even expanded many anti-terror laws which arguably violate civil rights. Obama is a politician I disagree with, but whom I respect. Bush, on the other side, does not live in the same world I live in. Probably not even on the same planet.

Bush's style was entirely America-centered, addressing those ignorant Americans who think Americans are better than non-Americans, who don't find Europe on a map. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? We do what we want, and the ******s who disagree can go **** themselves. Obama acknowledges that there are more countries on this planet than just America.
 
Last edited:
The conservative base portrays Obama as an "Anti-Christ" figure practically. Why is this? I personally don't find Obama to be half as bad as he is portrayed to be.

First of all, I wonder what basis you have for saying that "the conservative base portrays Obama as an "Anti-Christ" figure practically". Do you have any links? Something that gives you this impression? Perhaps quotes from conservative politicians?

I think the conservative base thinks he's a bad President, an incompetent leader, and a liberal. Some people think he's a liar. I suspect most people think he's broken promises he made to get himself elected.

Myself...I think he is a liberal, he's a liar, he'll do and say anything to get elected and that he's bad for the country on the domestic front and I think he's got no clue in regard to foreign relations.


Other than that...he's not so bad.
 
The only way to fix health care is to make the free riders pay either through taxes or mandated insurance. Pro choice is places liberty above life. SSM is equal protection under the law. So some will end in divorce. Straight marriage ends in divorce too.
There are more problems than free riders. Costs are running out of control, because there are no mechanisms to control costs. When the US went away from catastrophic health care insurance, mandated what insurance companies have to do, costs went out of control.

The solution is to get government to provide basic health care, and then encourage rich people to use private health care who will be unregulated.
 
The only way to fix health care is to make the free riders pay either through taxes or mandated insurance.

Folks just have to pay for their own policies.

Pro choice places liberty above life.

Exactly.

SSM is equal protection under the law. So some will end in divorce. Straight marriage ends in divorce too.

That's precicly the problem being ignored.
 
For me, there are two aspects to it, which are connected. The first is more objective, it's policy. The other is more objective, it's tone and style.

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but Bush came across as extremely arrogant. His martialic speeches, his "cowboy rhetorics". On the policy side, I felt he had a sledgehammer approach to diplomacy. He treated even America's closest allies like vassals. Think of the famous "who is not with us, is against us" quote. In my ears, and that of many Germans, it sounds like "shut up and do what I say". Or when he kept referring to fighting a "crusade". First of all, since when were crusades a good thing? And second, have you any idea how that sounds in the ears of Muslims? Bush more or less confirmed all the ugly prejudices about America that exist here: Insensitive, self-centered, arrogant and a bit primitive.

The last straw was how Germans and the German government were treated by Bush, just because we opposed the Iraq war. It's not that opposing the war is an illegitimate position to take, many Americans did that too. But Bush fueled many ugly anti-European sentiments among Americans, think of the "Old Europe" label or the constant accusation of "anti-Americanism" -- as if hating Bush's policies equals hating America. Of course, former German Chancellor Schröder played his part too, he was hardly more diplomatic. But I think that was justified, he just showed Bush the mirror and replied in the same language Bush spoke.

Now Obama was a radical change in tone. Even before he was elected, he went to Berlin and held a moving speech that showed he understands Germans and Europeans and knows how they tick. (For Bush fans, even showing the slightest respect and interest in Europe is probably "kowtowing" already, a weakness, despite Germany being a close ally. Indeed Obama was attacked for it.) Obama did continue many of Bush's policies, but unlike Bush, he always coordinated his efforts with the European allies. He did not give up the UN and did not try to actively obstruct it as Bush did, but used it when it was helpful (despite all its flaws, the UN is important and stands for a different, more cooperative approach to international politics). For example, the mission in Libya found broad agreement in the UN.

Now Obama does and did many things I do not agree with. For example, he has even expanded many anti-terror laws which arguably violate civil rights. Obama is a politician I disagree with, but whom I respect. Bush, on the other side, does not live in the same world I live in. Probably not even on the same planet.

Bush's style was entirely America-centered, addressing those ignorant Americans who think Americans are better than non-Americans, who don't find Europe on a map. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? We do what we want, and the ******s who disagree can go **** themselves. Obama acknowledges that there are more countries on this planet than just America.

What I am getting from this is your opinions on Bush vs Obama is more style than substance. I can actually see your point though, Bush had a way of speaking that was short and to the point, his diplomatic skills were somewhat lacking I admit. Obama on the other hand is a slick talker and everyone he speaks too comes away thinking they heard what they wanted to hear. Alot of us in America liked Bushes "cowboy rhetoric" as you put it, we call it straight talk. We also liked the way Bush acted like president of the USA not the world and put our interest above all other countries, in our opinion that was his primary responsibility but I can honestly see how you would prefer Obams approach. He seems to think America is more of a problem than a solution and it sometimes seems he is just as concerned with seeing Brazil do well as seeing his own country prosper. Old school Americans such as myself can sometimes feel "were the best, screw the rest" and I can see why you would find that annoying. I just call it patriotism. Again, I appreciate hearing your point of view though, thanks for responding.
 
Folks just have to pay for their own policies.



Exactly.



That's precicly the problem being ignored.

Yes people could just pay for own policies but many don't then they get sick or hurt go to the ER and don't pay. That raises costs in those that pay. A mandate for insurance, like in auto insurance, works.

Liberty above life us an American virtue. Live free or die and give me liberty or give me death are American phrases. That some percent if marriage will end in divorce is no reason to ban marriage.
 
Last edited:
Yes people could just pay for own policies but many don't then they get sick or hurt go to the ER and don't pay. That raises costs in those that pay. A mandate for insurance, like in auto insurance, works.

Absolutly.

Liberty above life us an American virtue. Live free or die and give me liberty or give me death are American phrases. That some percent if marriage will end in divorce is no reason to ban marriage.

Killing people who are a mere inconvenience is not an American virtue. Liberty above life regards self-sacrifice.
 
Absolutly.



Killing people who are a mere inconvenience is not an American virtue. Liberty above life regards self-sacrifice.

Liberty above life is in one respect about self sacrifice. It is also about simply liberty. Not having it is more than a mere inconvenience.
 
What I am getting from this is your opinions on Bush vs Obama is more style than substance. I can actually see your point though, Bush had a way of speaking that was short and to the point, his diplomatic skills were somewhat lacking I admit. Obama on the other hand is a slick talker and everyone he speaks too comes away thinking they heard what they wanted to hear. Alot of us in America liked Bushes "cowboy rhetoric" as you put it, we call it straight talk. We also liked the way Bush acted like president of the USA not the world and put our interest above all other countries, in our opinion that was his primary responsibility but I can honestly see how you would prefer Obams approach. He seems to think America is more of a problem than a solution and it sometimes seems he is just as concerned with seeing Brazil do well as seeing his own country prosper. Old school Americans such as myself can sometimes feel "were the best, screw the rest" and I can see why you would find that annoying. I just call it patriotism. Again, I appreciate hearing your point of view though, thanks for responding.
I might be the smartest guy in class or the best athlete on the team but that doesn't mean I don't respect the other class geeks or athletes on the field. Bush showed little respect for anyone who opposed him. "My way or the highway" was his motto and it didn't apply just to other countries - many of his blind followers brought that attitude right into the workplace and the bars.

BTW - I'm old school, too, and I didn't buy that line in the 60's and 70's, either. I'm unpatriotic because I oppose something our leaders are doing??? Funny, I always thought the opposite - that I could speak my mind without fear of recrimination - was what made America great.
 
Last edited:
Is Obama THAT bad? No. He's actually been a good president. Unfortunately he inheritted a horrific economy and has had to deal with the most obstructive minority in modern memory.
 
Bush showed little respect for anyone who opposed him. "My way or the highway" was his motto

So when BHO said 'you guys gotta sit in the back' was different?
 
  • Obama fuels the fires of racism and class warfare instead of bringing an end to these social conflicts;

And again the race card, and it's all obama's fault you have to play it...
 
Anti-Christ or disaster probably aren't terms I would use to describe Obama. He's POTUS in an era of extreme hyper partiasanship which seems to have kicked into high gear in the last 20 years. And its not just media, or internet posters. It's infected our politicians as well.

Here's the deal folks. People are going to bitch and whine about anything our leaders do or don't do these days, and the claim that we aren't being "represented" by our politicians will always be there. Considering the general public's individual debt issues, drug abuse, infidelity, selectivity of which laws we think apply to us, and pursuit of self interests; I think we are perfectly represented.
 
For me, there are two aspects to it, which are connected. The first is more objective, it's policy. The other is more subjective, it's tone and style.

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but Bush came across as extremely arrogant. His martialic speeches, his "cowboy rhetorics". On the policy side, I felt he had a sledgehammer approach to diplomacy. He treated even America's closest allies like vassals. Think of the famous "who is not with us, is against us" quote. In my ears, and that of many Germans, it sounds like "shut up and do what I say". Or when he kept referring to fighting a "crusade". First of all, since when were crusades a good thing? And second, have you any idea how that sounds in the ears of Muslims? Bush more or less confirmed all the ugly prejudices about America that exist here: Insensitive, self-centered, arrogant and a bit primitive.

The last straw was how Germans and the German government were treated by Bush, just because we opposed the Iraq war. It's not that opposing the war is an illegitimate position to take, many Americans did that too. But Bush fueled many ugly anti-European sentiments among Americans, think of the "Old Europe" label or the constant accusation of "anti-Americanism" -- as if hating Bush's policies equals hating America. Of course, former German Chancellor Schröder played his part too, he was hardly more diplomatic. But I think that was justified, he just showed Bush the mirror and replied in the same language Bush spoke.

Now Obama was a radical change in tone. Even before he was elected, he went to Berlin and held a moving speech that showed he understands Germans and Europeans and knows how they tick. (For Bush fans, even showing the slightest respect and interest in Europe is probably "kowtowing" already, a weakness, despite Germany being a close ally. Indeed Obama was attacked for it.) Obama did continue many of Bush's policies, but unlike Bush, he always coordinated his efforts with the European allies. He did not give up the UN and did not try to actively obstruct it as Bush did, but used it when it was helpful (despite all its flaws, the UN is important and stands for a different, more cooperative approach to international politics). For example, the mission in Libya found broad agreement in the UN.

Now Obama does and did many things I do not agree with. For example, he has even expanded many anti-terror laws which arguably violate civil rights. Obama is a politician I disagree with, but whom I respect. Bush, on the other side, does not live in the same world I live in. Probably not even on the same planet.

Bush's style was entirely America-centered, addressing those ignorant Americans who think Americans are better than non-Americans, who don't find Europe on a map. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? We do what we want, and the ******s who disagree can go **** themselves. Obama acknowledges that there are more countries on this planet than just America.

Thanks for your input. I do agree that much of your post centered on style. I also agree that Bush's diplomatic skills was seriously lacking. Believe me, he pissed off a lot of American's too with his "my way or the highway" attitude.

But I should clarify my "kowtowing" comment. To me bowing/kowtowing is a sign of subservience. And no President of the US should ever be subservient to another country. And Obama did just that, bowed to a foriegn official (more than one actually). This is not to say that I don't think that other countries should be subservient to the President though, nor act like it. I believe that the ones that deserve it should be treated equally. The ones should not be imo are those countries that do not value freedom. Like Iran.

There are plenty of ways to treat other countries with respect without bowing to them.
 
Thanks for your input. I do agree that much of your post centered on style. I also agree that Bush's diplomatic skills was seriously lacking. Believe me, he pissed off a lot of American's too with his "my way or the highway" attitude.

But I should clarify my "kowtowing" comment. To me bowing/kowtowing is a sign of subservience. And no President of the US should ever be subservient to another country. And Obama did just that, bowed to a foriegn official (more than one actually). This is not to say that I don't think that other countries should be subservient to the President though, nor act like it. I believe that the ones that deserve it should be treated equally. The ones should not be imo are those countries that do not value freedom. Like Iran.

There are plenty of ways to treat other countries with respect without bowing to them.

I don't know which exact incident you are referring to. But as far as I know, bowing is a common gesture of respect in many cultures, just like the handshake is for us. I believe in Japan, you usually bow down when you meet someone. So if you're talking about the mere gesture of bowing, I don't see anything wrong with it, on the contrary.

If, for example, Obama bowed down when meeting a Japanese official, that's just a nice gesture that means: "See, I know your customs." Denying it is a bit petty, much like a Japanese denying a handshake when meeting a Westener, just because "physically touching someone means losing the face" or something like that.

But if Obama sold out American interests to some foreign leader who doesn't deserve it, that would be something different, IMO. No matter if he physically bowed or not.
 
Still playing the race card, I see.

The poster was merely reacting to YOUR OWN post in which you brought race into this

Obama fuels the fires of racism and class warfare instead of bringing an end to these social conflicts;
 
Still playing the race card, I see.

PeeWee Herman is probably not the best one to emulate in debate. You brought race into it, I did not.
 
The poster was merely reacting to YOUR OWN post in which you brought race into this
Just as I was merely reacting to Obama's own policies which brought race into his administration.
 
Back
Top Bottom