Obama: What do you really believe?

He hates all white people
Nah...he LOVED his white gay crack dealer...:lol:
Seriously...Obama was more white than black until he needed black people to get elected. Sorta like OJ...

He is a muslim
I dont think he is muslim OR Christian. Frankly...I dont think he knows WHAT he is...nor do I think he cares. He is political. That is all that has ever driven him

He isnt a citizen
The birth certificate question? Dunno...his mom was American...his dad was Kenyan. He hasnt and wont produce a simple document...the same one we all had to produce when we applied for a federal job, college, etc...Not tryhing to be conspiratorial cause frankly...as long as no one cares, it is a non issue except to fringe groups. I will say that if the parties were reversed I have NO DOUBT the left would be clamoring for the birth certificate. No doubt in my mind.

He wants the terrorist to win
I dont think he wants the terrorists to win. I think this guy cant think beyond what do I have to say or do to get me reelected.

He wants to take away your guns
I actually believe this one. Not that he thinks it would make people easier to control but I think he is an old school liberal at heart.

He wants America to fail
He wants the idea of a capitalist America to be seen as undesirable without destroying it. He knows that it is easy top manipulate crippled and dependent pets...but he still needs about 49% of the country to actually produce to pay for his agenda. He wants a 'successsful' blend of socialism and capitalism.

He is the Anti-Christ
Silliness

He is a socialist
Define socialist. He definitely wants power...and he wants to be seen as a great leader that brought about this great ideological change. I think he truly believes someday history will see him as the great messiah that led liberals to everlasting power and allowed them to take care of all the little people.

Zyphlin said:

He wants the terrorist to win
No, but again too nuanced. I believe he views terrorism far differently than how many on the opposite side see it. I think in large part he believes the terrorism is America's fault, much like rape would be a womans fault, because we "created" them and "angered" them through our actions. I think he believes diplomacy and changes in how he handles Israel and such will have more success and do more in regards to it than other things, which puts his stance at odds with what many Republicans view and makes it appear he's working counter to what needs to be done. I do not think he wants the terorrists to win, I just think he views the issue and the problem far differently than most Republicans and thus is going about it in a completely different manner.

Click to expand...

I think his belief is actually more nuanced than this. I think his belief is that terrorists attacked America because of certain actions we took(supporting Israel for example). This does not make it our fault, but does see the reason the terrorist uses. It also does not stop it from being appropriate to stop the terrorists, which Obama seems to be making a real effort to do.

Redress said:

I think his belief is actually more nuanced than this. I think his belief is that terrorists attacked America because of certain actions we took(supporting Israel for example). This does not make it our fault, but does see the reason the terrorist uses. It also does not stop it from being appropriate to stop the terrorists, which Obama seems to be making a real effort to do.

Click to expand...

I guess my view of it is that in many of the cases that are cited as to why the terrorists hate us, I think he actually agrees with them in regards to their dislike. Such as the Israel situation. I do not think he agrees with how they express their anger, but I believe he thinks its vaguely justified because he also believes it to have been bad policy. Which is why I think it is more of a feeling in his mind that its "our fault" they hate us, though not that its justified for them to use terror attacks because of it.

It does not stop him from taking what he thinks is the appropriate action to stop terrorists, but again this goes back to the notion of what the hyperbole of "he wants the terorrists to win" is rooted in. That statement is rooted in the notion that the way in which he's trying to fight terrorism is believed by some to be ineffective and futile, actually making us more succeptable, which leads to the hyperbole that he "must want the terrorists to win".

To put it another way, it is like watching a basketball team that plays almost no defense (Think the Sun's of a few years back). Someone could say sarcastically "It looks like that coach wants the other team to win" based on the amount he's having his guys play defense. In reality, that someone probably knows the coach doesn't REALLY want the other team to win, and that coach just hasn't a different philosophy on what to do to win, but that person is expressing their distaste for the style in a hyperbolic way.

Zyphlin said:

I guess my view of it is that in many of the cases that are cited as to why the terrorists hate us, I think he actually agrees with them in regards to their dislike. Such as the Israel situation. I do not think he agrees with how they express their anger, but I believe he thinks its vaguely justified because he also believes it to have been bad policy. Which is why I think it is more of a feeling in his mind that its "our fault" they hate us, though not that its justified for them to use terror attacks because of it.

It does not stop him from taking what he thinks is the appropriate action to stop terrorists, but again this goes back to the notion of what the hyperbole of "he wants the terorrists to win" is rooted in. That statement is rooted in the notion that the way in which he's trying to fight terrorism is believed by some to be ineffective and futile, actually making us more succeptable, which leads to the hyperbole that he "must want the terrorists to win".

To put it another way, it is like watching a basketball team that plays almost no defense (Think the Sun's of a few years back). Someone could say sarcastically "It looks like that coach wants the other team to win" based on the amount he's having his guys play defense. In reality, that someone probably knows the coach doesn't REALLY want the other team to win, and that coach just hasn't a different philosophy on what to do to win, but that person is expressing their distaste for the style in a hyperbolic way.

Click to expand...

It is possible, even probable, that you can think a policy is wrong, the same policy that terrorists think is wrong, and still not see the terrorist attacks as being "our fault".

I am not an expert on our policy with Israel, or the middle east situation, and yet I don't blame us for the terrorist attacks. Or to make it a more clear example: People opposed to abortion have bombed abortion clinics(clearly terrorist actions). I think most people who oppose abortion do not think it is the fault of the abortion clinics they where bombed, but the fault of those with extreme views.

Terrorism involves acts of violence. While some may agree with their point of view, they do not agree with the terrorists, or want them to win. They want the terrorists squashed, and totally separately, the policy changed.

There is a difference I think between wanting someone to win, or wanting bad things to happen and believing that the person that had bad things happen is partially at fault.

To use an oft repeated phrase from the election, I don't think the notion that he may believe that the United States "chickens, have came home to roost" as his reverend so eloquently put it.

Does my belief that his belief is that the United States government and policy created these terrorists and thus is partially at fault, if not at an equal then a near equal level as say their radical following of their religion, mean that I believe he wants the terrorist to win? Nope. Does it mean that I think he believes terrorists aren't ultimately responsable for their own actions? Nope. Does it mean I think he believes the U.S. "deserved" it or "had it coming"? Not really.

What I do think it means is he puts a fair amount of the responsability for the situation occuring, even if you don't want to say "fault", on the shoulders of the U.S.'s foreign policy and due to that belief he's focusing more on that than others would possibly want or think is necessary. The latter is true especially when you consider that it is also causing him to focus less on other areas they feel requires more.

For instance, I think both sides blame U.S. policy for the terror attacks (talking stereotypically here). The difference is, in general, the left is more likely to blame foreign policy that helped "create" terorrists while the right is more likely to blame domestic policy that kept us from "fighting" the terrorists. Israel Vs Gorelick Wall. Afghanistan in the 80's vs terror attacks treated as criminal action. Etc.

And in regards to your abortion clinic question...when was the last time after an Abortion Clinic Bombing did you have people going "We must think what policies our government had that caused such anger in this person to do such a thing. What things is our government doing that helps create this kind of terrorist and this kind of anger? We must realize its not just about religion but about them feeling our government is meddling in things they don't belong in"? Cause I heard that kind of statement routinely in the years following 9/11 and every seeming islamic terrorist attack since.

Zyphlin said:

And in regards to your abortion clinic question...when was the last time after an Abortion Clinic Bombing did you have people going "We must think what policies our government had that caused such anger in this person to do such a thing. What things is our government doing that helps create this kind of terrorist and this kind of anger? We must realize its not just about religion but about them feeling our government is meddling in things they don't belong in"? Cause I heard that kind of statement routinely in the years following 9/11 and every seeming islamic terrorist attack since.

Click to expand...

Just going to talk to this bit, since we are going to go around in circles on the rest.

We understand the forces at action in an abortion clinic bombing. We don't need to work on understanding it. Understanding the why's is a lot different from accepting those reasons. Understanding the mindset is also an important part of the policework process, and that is what I see the "war on terror"(I do so hate that phrase, but that is another topic), policework.

Zyphlin said:

He hates all white people
I do not believe he hates all white people. I do believe that he has extremely strong beliefs that as a whole the white race has gained more prosperity then is "fair" by being discriminatory to minorities and as such it is his job, and the governments, to bring "fairness" back and to return proper balance and order back to those in the minority. Do I believe he "hates all" white people? Absolutely not. That's insanity. I do however he does hold some racial grudges and chips on his shoulder that influence the ways in which he thinks.

Click to expand...

This is basically what I am thinking is going through his head... I'm not a minority and I still believe that more needs to be done for the minorities in this country. Especially in the schools. I couldn't imagine going to some of those low income area schools.

Zyphlin said:

He wants the terrorist to win
No, but again too nuanced. I believe he views terrorism far differently than how many on the opposite side see it. I think in large part he believes the terrorism is America's fault, much like rape would be a womans fault, because we "created" them and "angered" them through our actions. I think he believes diplomacy and changes in how he handles Israel and such will have more success and do more in regards to it than other things, which puts his stance at odds with what many Republicans view and makes it appear he's working counter to what needs to be done. I do not think he wants the terorrists to win, I just think he views the issue and the problem far differently than most Republicans and thus is going about it in a completely different manner.

Click to expand...

I'm sure U.S. supporting Israel is part of the terrorists hating America, but I also believe that another big part of their hatred comes from our soldiers invading their land and killing their people, innocent or otherwise. When our soldiers kill someone over there, their family, friends or people of like minds are not going to take it well. Would you? If America was invaded, I bet you would want to kill the killers of your child or father too. And then should you be considered a terrorist? This is why I feel it was appropriate to cut back the use of the word "terrorist".

I have yet to disagree with Obama on anything concerning the Iraq and Afghan war.

I am pleased that Obama is pushing for far less civilian killings. I feel Bush didn't give a **** about the civilians, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. And 9 years and we are clearing out and holding major strongholds NOW? And Cheney claimed Obama was dithering... :spin:

Zyphlin said:

He wants to take away your guns
I do believe he would like to take away a vast majority of peoples guns; indeed, he's voted to do just that with handguns while in Chicago. Other disdainful comments, like his "clinging to guns and bibles" comments doesn't help it. That said, I don't think he really CAN do it, realizes it'd be a difficult fight to do a lot of restrictions, and as such its more beneficial politically to mostly ignore the gun issue at the time. So while I think ultimately, if he was to be completely honest, he absolutely would love to get rid of guns, but it's too big of a problem to do politically so he won't bother.

Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. He might WANT to do something about guns, but it is very doubtful that he WILL. And there's no way in hell he would take people's guns away. If anything he would just push for more restrictions. I guess we'll have to wait to find out, but unless he gets elected a second term I doubt he will do anything.

I dont give a flying **** if he is a Muslim or not. The only people who go ape **** of that are the people who wouldnt vote for the son of the bitch anyway. He is a fascist in regards to economic policy, a statist in his social policy and a neocon in his foreign policy.

chevydriver1123 said:

I dont give a flying **** if he is a Muslim or not. The only people who go ape **** of that are the people who wouldnt vote for the son of the bitch anyway. He is a fascist in regards to economic policy, a statist in his social policy and a neocon in his foreign policy.

Click to expand...

So he is kinda a political polyglot?

Redress said:

So he is kinda a political polyglot?

Click to expand...

In a sick sort of way, yes.

The US has been a mixture of capitalism and socialism for a long time and we always seem to be inching closer to socialism. That process is accelerating during this Administration but we're still more capitalist than socialist. Therefore, it's wrong to say that this Administration's policies are socialist. However, Obama, like any other politician is a pragmatist. I don't believe that the policies we're seeing are all that close to what he really wants. I think he would turn this country into a socialist country if he could.

I feel the same way about gun control. He would ban guns if he could, but that's just my opinion.

I don't believe that he's a Christian or a Muslim. I believe that he's an atheist like myself.

Redress said:

We understand the forces at action in an abortion clinic bombing. We don't need to work on understanding it. Understanding the why's is a lot different from accepting those reasons. Understanding the mindset is also an important part of the policework process, and that is what I see the "war on terror"(I do so hate that phrase, but that is another topic), policework.

Click to expand...

Do people in general REALLY have a significantly better understanding for why, lets generalize, souther people would go to such a length as to bomb an abortion clinic than they do for why middle eastern people would try to blow up the WTC or a hotel filled with Americans?

Zyphlin said:

Do people in general REALLY have a significantly better understanding for why, lets generalize, souther people would go to such a length as to bomb an abortion clinic than they do for why middle eastern people would try to blow up the WTC or a hotel filled with Americans?

Click to expand...

I think so, yes.

Could be an interesting topic for some twin threads. "Why do middle eastern terrorists attack the United States and its people" and "Why do domestic terrorists target locations and people surrounding tied to abortion for attacks".

Zyphlin said:

Could be an interesting topic for some twin threads. "Why do middle eastern terrorists attack the United States and its people"

Click to expand...

I'm sure you could check off most answers on the list. They certainly have many reasons to dislike America, both legitimate and illegitimate. No reason justifies the intentional killing of innocent people though... and this goes for all sides of this fight.

The killing needs to stop. No one is going to say "uncle"... so clearly someone needs to reach out to the other side. I have a feeling America and it's allies will have to be the ones to do the reaching out. In my mind, so be it.

I believe that Obama is a Chicago politician and lawyer and is in most likelihood incredibly corrupt. As such, I believe that no one should trust Obama (as with all Chicago politicians) as he will never be honest and will only do that which benefits himself and his friends above all else. I believe there is very little difference between Obama and Bush, they carry on many of the same policies, increase government at every step, continue with undeclared wars in lands we have no business being in anymore, etc.

In short, Obama is a standard politician and should not be trusted in the least.

I am amazed at how twisted and confused information gets.

He is a socialist, in the good sense. But, I am wonder what kind of negative association socialists have for some. The definitions some have for some things makes the mind boggle.

Though I choose none of the above, I have many issues with Pres. Obama and how he's going about handling things. I honestly think that while he may not be as bad as Bush was in some cases, He certainly is a bit more dangerous mainly because of his background and cool charasmatic character that allows him to get away with some of the bad things he does whereas Bush would have gotten hammered for.

Getting back to the original point, Nothing has really changed. We're still fighting two wars we have no business in and are about to get into another one with Iran if we're not careful, We still haven't closed Guantanamo Bay, We still haven't fixed our broken Health Care system, We still haven't regulated Wall Street and the Bankers, We're still curbing our constitutional rights in the name of anti terrorism, and so forth and so on.... If you just stop and take a look at the major issues he's pretty much lockstep with The Bush Administration, He's just not as open and vocal about it.

One last thing this going out to Obama critics, Obama's not a socialist, He's a corporatist. The things he's done so far can prove that fact.

Progressive86 said:

One last thing this going out to Obama critics, Obama's not a socialist, He's a corporatist. The things he's done so far can prove that fact.

Click to expand...

This is likely true, though I was and still am in favor of the bailouts... less so of the bank bailouts, more so of the auto bailouts.

I would much rather we saved our car manufacturers here in the U.S. than see all those sales go to overseas companies, thus reducing our GDP (by how much I couldn't say) and sending more of our money to foreign companies.

''Nothing has really changed. ''

There have been significant changes. For example: Obama has managed to get the public health care system going, which would have been unheard of 10 years ago. He has managed to get a positive dialogue going with nut cases like Putin. The Ukraine are cooperating with reduction in world nuclear arms, by handing all theirs over. etc

I would put him in the category that he is no different than Geore W Bush and is a puppet for the puppet masters.

There are a few honest politicians but they usually don't last long.

No wonder the country is in the shape it is, today.

I foresee most of the incumbents getting voted out of office in the near future if there is not a world revolution, first.

The worse thing about Obama is you are not allowed to criticize anything he says...I you do you will be called a racist by the left even if what you criticize him about something that has nothing to do with race the left will call you a racist.....

Navy Pride said:

The worse thing about Obama is you are not allowed to criticize anything he says...I you do you will be called a racist by the left even if what you criticize him about something that has nothing to do with race the left will call you a racist.....

Click to expand...

The worst thing about the the right is you cannot criticize anything we do as a country...If you do, you will be called anti-American even if your criticism is intended to make America better, you are still anti-American...

Redress said:

The worst thing about the the right is you cannot criticize anything we do as a country...If you do, you will be called anti-American even if your criticism is intended to make America better, you are still anti-American...

Click to expand...

You lost me on that one...don't be;oeve I ever called you anti american........

Navy Pride said:

You lost me on that one...don't be;oeve I ever called you anti american........

Click to expand...

I don't think you make up the entire "Right" anymore than Redress would make up the entire "left".

Are you saying that every single person on the left ever has called you racist whenever you criticize anything he says?

You're both correct to a point...

It IS obnoxious how annoying it is when the race card gets pulled when it shouldn't when people criticize Obama. It was also very obnoxious when people pulled out the unamerican card when they shouldn't when people criticized Obama.

You know what...

There ARE times I've felt the race card was actually pulled appropriately, and times where I've felt the unamerican one has been. Though often that's few and far between.

The point is though that both sides do this, they just have different cards they throw out there, but neither side is better than the other about it. And, in large part, its both sides continual "well they did it first" routine that causes this ever running circle to continue.