Naive question: Why is there so much passionate dislike of Obama?

Dav said:

I actually haven't seen even close to the same amount of sheer hatred towards Obama that I saw towards Bush. I mean, not that it doesn't exist, but the same intensity of such hatred just has yet to be so widespread.

I think he's an awful president... but I don't abhor him, or passionately dislike him or anything.

Click to expand...

OK...totally fired that at the wrong person...

German guy said:

Thanks for the explanation. Apparently, American debate is just much more polarized than I am used to over here. I mean sure, we have disagreement, even strong disagreement between the different political camps in Germany too, but the degree of villification and personal rejection in America is stronger.

Click to expand...

LOL! You don't have to explain, I know exactly what you mean. Here in Switzerland, politics are so slow moving and every discussion and public debate is so aimed at finding any shred of consensus, there's really not much room for any sort of animosity.

I wonder if that is a rather new development, or if it has always been that way in America and I just didn't see it before (it seems to me that at least before the impeachment process against Clinton, the camps weren't as polarized as they have been under Bush and Obama). And I wonder why that is, or what's the most important reason: Is the American society just more heterogenous and you have a stronger cultural split than in European countries? Has it to do with the media? Are the politicians more polarizing? Maybe even racism in case of Obama?

Click to expand...

I think Zyphlin's post explains it all quite well.

Also, I think I remember reading an article somewhere about how this is by no means a new phenomenon. Apparently the framers and founding fathers themselves excelled in the art of bashing each other with utmost glee. :lol: I wish I could find that article. It was really informative into how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In all fairness, though, I am not sure I entirely agree that the hatred towards Bush is comparable to that directed against Obama now. It seems to me that in case of Bush, it was more understandable, because Bush's policies were much more controversial, so it makes sense people are so passionate: Starting two wars, both of which were/are very costy, both in terms of human life and money, and at least one of which was extremely risky, regarding the potential consequences. Very far-reaching limitations on civil rights and individual freedom, in the name of fighting terrorism. Even if one agrees with these policies, and thinks the opposition to it is extreme, I think it's not far fetched to recognize they are very far reaching and thus necessarily controversial, resulting in passionate disagreement.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't think it matters what circumstances surround what Presidency. The opposition is going to latch on to anything they can to try and make the current government look bad. Sometimes they'll have very legitimate complaints and sometimes, well... not so much. :lol:

But Obama? I don't see he has done anything remotely as provoking as Bush so far. In fact, many former supporters, who lean to the left, and disappointed by Obama, because his policies are rather centrist and don't go remotely as far as many on the left had hoped. It seems natural to me that the decision to start a war, or even two, will cause more controversy than a health care reform. As I said, in the worst case, a little money is wasted. That may be a good reason to oppose such a reform bill, but hey, that will not cause Nazis riding on dinosaurs to roam the streets. =)

Click to expand...

Well, from what I've noticed, and bear in mind I'm an outsider looking in myself, it seems that the health care debate reared up the ugly head of "socialism" in a very real way. To American conservatives that is almost as bad as being dragged into an expensive, unnecessary war is to liberals. The mere word "socialism" seems to scare the bejeezus out of them for some reason. Which is weird, because when it comes to social programs, some US states are really not that much different from many European countries.

TennesseeRain said:

What rock do you live under?

Click to expand...

:shock:

OK...please tell me you are 14 and werent really following politics during the Bush years...

Try hanging out on college campuses ANYWHERE across the country...

Never mind...dont...just keep pretending that it is even close.

TennesseeRain said:

I beg to differ. First of all, each and every single "birther" is motivated and simulataneously blinded by their sheer hatred.

Secondly, it may not seem quite as vitriolic to you since you agree with it on some level, but that doesn't mean it isn't on the same level as the hatred of Bush. Thirdly, most people hated Bush because of the unnecessary war(s) he pushed us into which cost this country dearly in terms of lives and our economy. So, sending our kids into battle to be killed is kind of a good reason to hate someone if you don't agree with the reasons for the war....what wars has Obama started?

Oh and another thing: Who do you think has had the more serious death threats against him? How about more in terms of sheer numbers? I highly doubt it's Bush.

Click to expand...

Bull****. Peoples hatred of Bush started from before he was even sworn in. Al Gore was the annointed...the chosen one. And Bush stole his ring of power (gollum!). The level of rhetoric and hatred was amped before he ever even took office.

He's not exactly a likeable guy, is he? He's thin-skinned, full of himself, at odds with half of his country - the ones who cling to their guns and religion? He mischaracterizes his opponents, as was seen in the healthcare debates ("They offered nothing") and in AZ's 1070 ("You could be taking your kids out for ice cream...") He's vindicitve and he's petty.

niftydrifty said:

Why do I not post here more often? I wonder.

Click to expand...

You ask as if I care.

All your post was was a ton of belly aching over the fact that the media and individuals ratcheted up things rhetoric that causes people to dislike the President on Bush just like they are on Obama, and a bunch of excuses and rationalizations of "ITS OKAY WHEN MY SIDE DOES IT!" I could've done similar, pointing to some statements on your list that are complaining about Campaign promises he specifically ahs broken and go "what? Should we not hold politicians accountable? Is it okay for them to lie to us Nifty?!" I could've pointed out that who one chooses to associate with and have around them gives us insight into their personal judge of character which could later result in mistakes in who they appoint to places of power. I could make legitimate arguments that his diplomatic strategies are poor and are reasonable to insult. However there's no point, because regardless of what someone may think of the credibility of it all they're all generally presented in hyperbolic means. Hyperbolic, like stating that Bush knew definitively that there were no WMD's or stating we went to War for Oil. All you're doing is making excuses to justify your side and more precisely YOUR hypocrisy in this.

Harshaw said:

As is each and every "truther." (Let me guess; they're not comparable . . . for whatever reason.)

Click to expand...

Oops. Guessed wrong.

VanceMack said:

Bull****. Peoples hatred of Bush started from before he was even sworn in. Al Gore was the annointed...the chosen one. And Bush stole his ring of power (gollum!). The level of rhetoric and hatred was amped before he ever even took office.

Click to expand...

And that differs from Obama exactly how? Are you seriously trying to claim the people who now hate him actually gave him a chance?

LuckyDan said:

He's not exactly a likeable guy, is he? He's thin-skinned, full of himself, at odds with half of his country - the ones who cling to their guns and religion? He mischaracterizes his opponents, as was seen in the healthcare debates ("They offered nothing") and in AZ's 1070 ("You could be taking your kids out for ice cream...") He's vindicitve and he's petty.

Click to expand...

Funny - if you hadn't quoted him out of context, I would have sworn you were talking about Bush.

Funnier - I could have written the same about Carter.

LuckyDan said:

Funnier - I could have written the same about Carter.

Click to expand...

Oh - so you are just an equal opportunity hater of all Democratic Presidents. got it.

Its his politics, he is the most liberal president in the history of our republic. His Approval rating is around 47% and dropping. He will be a one term president.

Really? The sheer number of death threats Obama has received since he announced his candidacy would say otherwise.

"Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service." Full article here

Dav said:

I actually haven't seen even close to the same amount of sheer hatred towards Obama that I saw towards Bush. I mean, not that it doesn't exist, but the same intensity of such hatred just has yet to be so widespread.

I think he's an awful president... but I don't abhor him, or passionately dislike him or anything.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

You ask as if I care.

Click to expand...

If you were capable of reasonable discussion, you would.

Zyphlin said:

All your post was was a ton of belly aching over the fact that the media and individuals ratcheted up things rhetoric that causes people to dislike the President on Bush just like they are on Obama,

Click to expand...

Can you type this in English? No, my post offered an explanation for the phemenon observed by the OP starter.

Zyphlin said:

and a bunch of excuses and rationalizations of "ITS OKAY WHEN MY SIDE DOES IT!"

Click to expand...

Now you're just making stuff up.

Zyphlin said:

I could've done similar, pointing to some statements on your list that are complaining about Campaign promises he specifically ahs broken and go "what?

Click to expand...

You'd be wrong again. Everything I posted was an example of something stated in the media, and parroted elsewhere BEFORE Obama was elected. How could they have been broken? Regardless, you're going on about something not implied by the topic. "Why is there so much passionate dislike of Obama?"

Zyphlin, I'm attempting to answer the question. You nitpick about the reasons given, analyze my alleged bias, and suppose all else, which is unrelated.

Zyphlin said:

Should we not hold politicians accountable? Is it okay for them to lie to us Nifty?!" I could've pointed out that who one chooses to associate with and have around them gives us insight into their personal judge of character which could later result in mistakes in who they appoint to places of power. I could make legitimate arguments that his diplomatic strategies are poor and are reasonable to insult. However there's no point, because regardless of what someone may think of the credibility of it all they're all generally presented in hyperbolic means. Hyperbolic, like stating that Bush knew definitively that there were no WMD's or stating we went to War for Oil. All you're doing is making excuses to justify your side and more precisely YOUR hypocrisy in this.

Click to expand...

Oh, so I'm the topic now. And all of this has what to do with the topic question and my answer for it? Will you even attempt to answer this question? In English?

Shortened some quotes to make it fit but to let you see what I'm replying to

German guy said:

Do you think the major reason was that both Bush sr. and Clinton were more centrist candidates, both regarding stances and culture, than Bush jr and Obama are...?

Click to expand...

First, again, you're comments tell me you're once more gaining your knowledge from generally biased or partisan sources. Bush Sr. could possibly be considered Centrist though it'd be difficult. The second term of Clinton could POSSIBLY be considered Centrist as well, though much of that is attributed to having to compromise with a Republican controlled congress to do anything. However Bill Clinton was solidly left, not "far" left but solidly and unquestionably left leaning, during his first term. He triangulated and moved to the Center only after the Republicans took over Congress.

(Mind you, I'm using left and right references in regards to American politics because that's what we're discussing).

I do think in part one could say that its because Obama and Bush are more ideological, but I'd actually say its because they're PERCIEVED to be more ideological. For example look at Bush objectively. No Child Left Behind was written in part with the biggest Democratic name in the Senate. Passed the medicare reform bill to give more government benefits to people. Push for comprehensive immigration reform that would've included essentially amnesty. The initial bailouts that his party was generally against. I'm not about to call Bush a centrist, but its also hard to call him a strict "Far Right" Conservative either imho. I'm sure someone on the left could try and make a similar argument with regards to Obama. However both are percieved by their side as being "Far [whatever]" and that could account for part of it.

... people who now believe Obama is a Muslim, accuse him of bringing about tyranny, or even suspect him of being the Anti-Christ...

Click to expand...

First, I see three seperate things here. Conspiracy Theory (is a muslim), hyperbole (tyranny), and craziness (anti-christ).

I do think you may find a few more birther's if you were able to get an accurate measurement then you would about 9/11. I think a lot of that is based on 9/11 being such a HUGE event that there are some that would normally be prone to believing such conspiracies that were affected so much even THEY couldn't get into it. That said I don't think the numbers are really that far off.

In regards to the Hyperbole, I think its about equal honesty. For all the "socialist" crap you get from Obama you got "Fascist" stuff for Bush. You can look back at most of the Patriot Act things, "torture" which is still a debate thing, etc and find the claims of Bush and his "Fascist" ways.

The last is the crazies and I think crazies are just crazies. I think they're pretty even across the board.

I do think what you generally find different is the way and frequency its reported. I'll speak only of America as its what I have the best knowledge of, but there is an unquestionable left leaning slant to most media. I'm not saying this as an attack, nor stating an overt intentional bias, but simply that the majority of those within media tend to lean anywhere from moderate to significantly left. Due to that its naturally they're going to come at things from a left viewing mindset which will shape what stories are covered, how they're covered, etc. This is natural. For example look at your own post, and you can see how even though not intentional it is inherently coming from a left leaning view point. As such the natural inclination would be to likely be less interested in looking at "nutjob fringer" people like truthers or some of the farthest out in the anti-war movement but far more interested in looking at the "growing extremism" within the right. This is the case in the majority of televised and written news sources.

On the flip side, outside of a few news magazines and papers and Fox News's news hours, there's few really "right leaning" reporting that occurs. However there is a larger representation of right viewed individuals in OPINION type roles such as pundents on TV or radio show hosts. While "media" they're not generally what you'd considered as "media" when thinking of "news".

Because of this you get two very different things. On the left side you have a continual and constant presentation of the world, the news, and what people think from a left leaning view point that is provided in the traditional formats. This makes their influence on individuals that are generally more passive due to a societal belief of trusting news as being news and going with it, but at the same time requires a more professional presentation. On the right side you have much more specific sources of which people generally need to seek out to be able to get, typically meaning they're appealing to a specific demographic rather than needing to appear neutral enough and general enough for passive viewers/readers to latch on. Due to this there is generally a far higher degree of rhetoric that is tossed around to that specific audience.

The different I'm getting at I guess would be explained this way. Left Leaning "Media" is like a major company selling items. They can advertise in a variety of places in a simple benign 30 second or single page way, doing product placement, etc. Relatively passive things that are definitely manipulative but not over the top or in your face because they know by societal nature you're going to see it a lot anyways and it'll become ingrained. Right Leaning "Media" is like QVC (A TV network that is all about selling things). Its more over the top, more in your face, more hyperbolic, more extravagent because they know you're flipping to their station specifically because you're considering buying something so they're going to throw it all at you.

To bring it all back around to what you were talking about then...I don't necessarily think the conspiracies/hyperbole/craziness is MORE now with Obama than Bush. What I think is that they are carried, focused on, and criticized/negatively presented by the larger "left wing media" far more now than before so it becomes the standard thought process of how things really are. But that is only because most of those that are hearing that are people who generally did not honestly and with an open mind pay attention to the "right wing media" during the 8 years of Bush where the other sides stuff was talked about.

That's all true, and maybe I just fail to see the opposite point. But many accusations just seem ridiculous to me, and not based in reality...

Click to expand...

Some do to you, yes. In part because you distill them to the most hyperbolic and simplistic level of them. For example you saw my example as "Obama hates America!" Now there are some that may actually say and believe that. For many though I'd figure it'd be more (in that situation) "Obama feels America has taken advantage of its position as a super power and owes a debt to the world for those advantages". This is similar to what people did with Bush. Take your statement of Bush acting like a Bully. That's steeped in hyperbole and is incorrect as well. However I know your intention was more that Bush was relatively rigid and unmoving with regards to foreign policy with a blunt nature with regards to allies that worked with him.

Now I am not saying that the article's opinion is necessarily the right one, but I had the impression that economists in general, even those critical of stimulus, acknowledge that in general, such a policy does work...

Click to expand...

First, the problem with "experts" is in many things that are actually debated there tends to be multiple expert opinions and multiple reasons why people think one expert or another isn't right. Second, typically when people suggest that it didn't help its not necessarily saying it had no affect, just that it had no worth while or meaningful affect. If I dump a cup of water in a lake its technically true to say that I had increased the water of the lake. In reality it doesn't mean much though. The other notion, as I said, is that even if it did have a mild affect the amount of debt it caused is actually more damaging then what would've happened if no stimulus was done.

As I understood the article, it didn't compare Obama's reform to a potential other kind of reform, but just the status before the reform to Obama's reform....

Click to expand...

Again, this is based on the mistaken notion that ANY change > no change. Lets say you're getting sick, progressively getting worse week by week, with about 26 weeks to live. Its reasonable to suggset that you believe a change needs to happen so you can get better as doing nothing isn't making it any better. On one side you have an option you think has the best chance at helping you get cured, but for whatever reasons you unable to have that option. The other option is one that MIGHT work, but you're extremely far from confident that it will, and if it doesn't work would make it closer to getting worse day by day rather than week by week and will almost assure that you wouldn't be able to do a new cure if ones found.

Do you go along with the second option simply because you decided the status quo needed to change?

This is the situation we're at with the Health Care bill with Obama and why the notion in the article and you're saying is a false one. Yes, it was generally believed by Republicans and Democrats that reform was needed, that doing nothing was not a good option. Where the problem lies is that Republicans felt like what the Democrats wanted to do was actually WORSE than doing nothing, and Democrats felt doing just what Republicans wanted to do wouldn't be enough but would cause a false sense of something being done and thus would be WORSE than doing nothing.

So you had a situation where both sides want something done, but both thinks what the other wants to do is worse than doing nothing, which led to pretty much one side winning.

To answer your question about viable alternatives? Viable as in they could've potentially worked? Absolutely. Viable as in they'd likely to have passed? With a super majority in government on the part of the Democrats, not at all.

In regards to the Economic Crisis, Obama did end up inheriting it. However some believed the ground work was already laid for a recovery and indeed that a recovery was already beginning to occur and it has since reverted or at the best slowed. There comes a time that whether or not you inherited it, what you do about it is going to reflect on you and you're going to get judged on it? Is it unfair? Perhaps, but that's simply how the world works.

It's just childish and silly to call any kind of diplomacy and cooperation "appeasement...

Click to expand...

Much like suggesting that because an individual prefers the stick to the carrot when engaging in diplomacy that they "didn't think much of diplomacy" or because they were resolute in their belief of what was best for their countries interest abroad that they're a "Bully", no?

Its again, how one views the situation. You keep saying one sides view isn't always reasonable. One could say the exact same thing about your view. Someone could point at the failure at keeping NK from getting a nuke through continual "talks", or how now that Iran knows a U.S. sanctioning of a nuclear strike and a backing off from strict sanctions they suddenly are actually close to capable if not actually capable to have a nuclear weapon, as a sign that continually taking the stick off the table and continually lowering ones head in unneeded humility is a problem.

Maybe I talked with the wrong people, though, and this is not what you mean...

Click to expand...

You're right, military might is not a solution for all problems. That is a fact. However its also fact that refusing to use military might is not a solution for all problems either. It requires a mix of both, and the issues from both sides is thinking the other side uses too much of one or the other. I've seen no majority of individuals on the right saying "Any country that ever does anything we disagree with should be bombed!" anymore than I see individuals on the left saying "We should completely dismantle our military save for defense ONLY".

Your issue is you feel one side uses the Stick far too much compared to the carrot. That's fine for you to feel that way. Your feeling is no more legitimate than those that feel the opposite.

German guy said:

Fair enough. Personal sympathy always played a role, and continues to do so. Sometimes, we just dislike the attitude of someone, but like that of another. It's probably just the way it is.

Click to expand...

Yep. In some ways I think part of it is a simple demographical thing. There are traits about Bush that naturally bothered or were apparent to liberals that didn't bother Conservatives and vise versa with Obama. I don't think this is all simply due to partisanship, but a bit in what kind of personality types that potentially gravitate to either ideology and what said personality types find as vises/pet peeves and what they don't.

If that timetable started with Bush, than kudos to him. But still, it was Bush who started the war in the first place, not Obama. It's not incoherent not to give Bush the same credit. After all, it was him who started the whole mess.

Click to expand...

I agree and its not so much failing to give credit to Bush as much as it is giving Credit to Obama, and I explained that poorly the first time so my apologizes. Its one of those things, its hard ot listen to someone say that we should completely forgive and ignore any short comings with regards to the economy for Obama because he inhereted it but then turn around and give Obama credit for the Iraq pull out when that was entirely inhereted.

And again, I think the claim Obama "attacks" Israel is hyperbole. He has done nothing of that kind. All he did was putting a slight pressure on Israel too, in order to further a peaceful solution. Claiming that means "attacking" Israel, or even "siding with the terrorists" is logically and intellectually flawed, and hardly has the same inherent merit than "the other side of the story". It's hysterics.

Click to expand...

And while you say that, I'd say Obama is doing no less, if not worse, than what Bush did to many of his allies during his years and yet you claimed he was an uncompromising aggressive bully.

See how that goes?

but it's quite a different story to claim that turns America into a "socialist" country...

Click to expand...

Hyperbole is part of the game sadly. In part because a lot of times its easier than going into nuance and that goes both for those trying to push the idea and those trying to slam the other side. For your typical talking hand spouting off about "socialism" is going to be easier to comprehend for a good bit of your audiance then going into detailed policy analysis with more nuanced terms. On the flip side, writing about right wing extremists complaining about the socialism of Obama sounds much catchier than writing about a bunch of people who disagree with the notion of removing choice from the market place while increasing government beuracracy and instituting a system where its counter productive for employers to provide the benefit of Health Care to their employees while giving them no incentive to shift the money formerly spent on a benefit back to the employee.

You must have misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't explaining my point properly....

Click to expand...

No, I get you, but my ponit is you're equivocating here a bit. If I tell a lie, is it a lie? Yes. If I just tell one lie does that necessarily make me a "liar"? No. Can a singular program be socialist? Yes. Does a singular socialist program make a government a "socialist government"? No. Does a cold day in Summer mean its winter? No. But a cold day in summer is still a cold day.

You're right, its not "government health care - ? - nazi's!" However I think only the most extremely are truly suggesting that. What is being suggested that when you start nationalizing corporations, nationalizing a huge portion of the economy, setting limits on pay people can get, etc you are setting precedents and new standards that can be built upon. I think its disingenuous to suggest that UHC would necessarily turn us down the road of Nazism. However, it is also dishonest not to suggest that it is not a continued step and an additional cog in the work towards a more socialized government. While Europe is not "socialist"/"communist" as say Russia or Germany were, comparitive to what the United States had been during the present age one could say Europe is rather socialist.

The notion isn't necessarily that its going to turn us into Nazi Germany, but that its moving up closer and closer into the socialized levels that much of Europe is at. Those levels, while seeming common place, common sense, and normal for you, are leaps and bounds farther down that line of the political philosophy than what American's have known for the past 30 years.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply Americans want to be like Europe. It's your country, so of course you should decide how to organize things. My impression, though, is that although many passionately disagree with public health care, quite a few Americans support it, on the other side. So I guess it's not that all Americans in general reject such a system.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. Not eveyone doesn't want it, not everyone wants it. What I'm saying is that simply because Europe has it and you find it good doesn't necessarily mean that's the universal truth and people not wanting it are crazy, ignorant, or illogical.

I understand that America is not as bad as some Europeans believe, but the other side is true as well. I've sometimes met a bit too dramatic opinions of Europe from Americans:

Click to expand...

I agree. I think both the US and the world use hyperbole often when decsribing the others. I don't think any country in Europe is a legitimate "socialist" country. I don't think Europe is necessarily a "hell hole". I do think that much of Europe is far more socialist, as a generalized term and how the government works as a whole, then the United States has been for the past decades and how many people view that the U.S. should be.

Again, thank you very much for your diligent reply!

Click to expand...

You as well, great converesation!

I think you're confused because the article you're reading makes certain assumptions and inaccurately presents what is going on over here. I'll give you my perspective.

The Obama Paradox

(...) 18 months and one day, he is in office now. His achievements are respectable. Within one and a half year, he has countered the threat of a long lasting depression and brought back the USA on a path of growth with a 800 billion stimulus package.

Click to expand...

OK, stop here. There is certainly not a concensus that the stimulus has "countered the threat of a long lasting depression and brought back the USA on a path of growth." Many Americans realize that the stimulus has done nothing measurably constructive--espicially not what obama himself said it would do...much of it hasn't even been spent yet, and the threat of depression is hardly off the table!

He has put through a health care reform that slows down the ever growing costs in the past years

Click to expand...

No proof of this--that's just what apologists say. In fact, the law of supply/demand, and common sense, dictates otherwise--but I won't go into it here, there are already many whole threads on this topic. Let's just say that this statement is overly simplistic at best, and so it is deceptive.

and integrates most of the 47 million uninsured into the system.

Click to expand...

actually...forces everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a fine (which incidentally will be cheaper in many cases than the insurance).

In 2009, he used a vacancy in the Supreme Court to name a Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, constitutional judge for the first time. Before the summer break 2010, the Senat will conform his second nomination for the highest court as well, Elena Kagan, third woman among the nine judges.

Click to expand...

Interesting how the paper plays up race and sex when describing sotomayor and kagan-- in fact, only race and sex. That's all it mentions, almost as if they were somehow qualifications or requirements with regard to being a good supreme court justice. In actual fact, what matters is not their race, nor their sex, but whether or not they will (or are even capable of) doing the job they are being appointed to do. Many americans realize that these appointees, most likely, will not, absolutely regardles of their skin color or their genitalia.

Three large legislation successes and two new female Supreme Court judges, next to management of every day government, innumerable journeys abroad and top summits, the dealing with unexpected crisis -- after 18 months in office, that is respectable.

Click to expand...

Respectability has nothing to do with how much you have done, but the substance of what you have done.

Part of the explanation is that they don't feel positive effects of the reforms yet -- and on top of that, they doubt they will ever come.

Click to expand...

right. they realize the so-called reforms are complete bull****.

Despite the new economic growth, the unemployment rate stagnates at 9.5%, an unusually high number for the USA.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the USA especially doesn't like it when they are fed a line and a promise by a politician, and then when the politician screws up, they don't take responsibility. obama promised that unemployment would only ever be this high if we DIDN'T pass his plans.

Health care reform draws attention -- despite a stop of costs -- due to higher fees. That they would rise even quicker without the reform, only few attribute to Obama.

Click to expand...

this again. No proof of this. In fact, just like the whole "jobs created or saved" line they keep throwing out there, this administration constantly uses unproveable hypotheticals as justifications after-the-fact. In other words. They don't point to actual numbers that show improvement, instead they just push the numbers to the side and say "well, if we would have (or wouldn't have) done this, we'd be much worse off." This crap doesn't fool most americans.

The conservative camp generally refuses to consider the change under Obama as social and international policy successes.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you've ever read the US constitution, but if you read it and understand the circumstances behind its creation, then it is very easy to undertand why most conservatives oppose the constant expansions of the federal gov't. Other than what I've outlined above, the article is generally close to being on the mark--ie. where it points out how the economy is still pretty much in a shambles and that pisses people off. But I can easily see why this article might lead to confusion because it tries its best to paint obama in a positive light when he has not really done anything to deserve the praise.

TennesseeRain said:

And that differs from Obama exactly how? Are you seriously trying to claim the people who now hate him actually gave him a chance?

Click to expand...

I wont SPEAK for everyone...I WILL speak for me...I ABSOLUTELY believed his policies were goint to be wrong but I ABSOLUTELY supported him and PRAY for his success. I care for my country, not a bunch of power crazed party dickweeds. Im not married to an ideology. I HOPE he is successful and it does good things for the country. So far all I have seen is more of the same with some additional destructive policies sprinkled in for seasoning.

What REALLY makes me laugh are the idiots on the left that worship the guy. After 8 years of hatred towards Bush and the incessant ranting against the evil Patriot Act (has anyone EVER shown who was 'victimized' by the PA???) this guy comes along...DOESNT close GITMO, rescinds his rhetoric and DENIES terrorists their constitutional rights, opens GITMO middle east and does the SAME THINGS THERE, has announced that not only are they a fan of wiretaps but by damn, they have a right to your email, text messages, and cell phone conversations without having to seek legal precedence. THey have slogged along with NO leadership in Afghanistan. Unemployment has CLIMBED. Cities have gotten radically worse. He has added trillions to the debt with no end in sight. He passed a 'health care' plan that before it was even IMPLEMENTED they had to admit they fudged the numbers...and BTW...how is all that health care working for you? Oh yeah...it wont even KICK IN for another few years...because they have to pay it forward. Their leadership in the gulf is a joke (come on...TELL me the left wouldnt have eviscerated Bush if he was president). They stir up race hatred at the drop of a hat out of ****ing political expediency (how can you NOT be dusgusted by that)...

...tell me again why the left supports him? I mean...other than the fact that they are moronic ideologues.

This paragraph especially hit home for me. I don't understand why people are defending Bush when he has himself stated that waterboarding is something he does not regret, and he would do it again.

And then people wonder why we feel he should be charged with war crimes.

German guy said:

Also, I am skeptical of many of Bush's policies. For example, I opposed the Iraq war, for good reasons, and although the worst case has not become reality, many of the concerns have been confirmed. I am not fond of the abrogation of many civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism, especially extralegal detentions, denial of fair trials and torture. My stomach just aches when I think of that. I believe we shouldn't violate our basic values just because we are afraid, because we are not giving a good example when doing so. Is it just our greatest strength that we even give horrible criminals a fair trial and the right on defense? Isn't that exactly what makes us better than other countries? And the government shouldn't have so much power it can easily imprison suspects, that is dangerous and invites abuse; The government shouldn't be above the law. A little less safety just is the price of freedom, in my opinion, but it's worth being paid.

Click to expand...

Trust your own eyes, believe what you see. If you've been watching all along, and it looks so much worse now, that's because it is.

I've never been afraid for the life of a President like I am now. I just figured Secret Service blah-blah, everybody will be fine yada-yada. But people Truly Despise Obama. And they are armed, and making noise about taking him down so yes. This isn't just your perception. Things are ugly over here.

German guy said:

Thanks for the explanation. Apparently, American debate is just much more polarized than I am used to over here. I mean sure, we have disagreement, even strong disagreement between the different political camps in Germany too, but the degree of villification and personal rejection in America is stronger. I wonder if that is a rather new development, or if it has always been that way in America and I just didn't see it before (it seems to me that at least before the impeachment process against Clinton, the camps weren't as polarized as they have been under Bush and Obama). And I wonder why that is, or what's the most important reason: Is the American society just more heterogenous and you have a stronger cultural split than in European countries? Has it to do with the media? Are the politicians more polarizing? Maybe even racism in case of Obama?

In all fairness, though, I am not sure I entirely agree that the hatred towards Bush is comparable to that directed against Obama now. It seems to me that in case of Bush, it was more understandable, because Bush's policies were much more controversial, so it makes sense people are so passionate: Starting two wars, both of which were/are very costy, both in terms of human life and money, and at least one of which was extremely risky, regarding the potential consequences. Very far-reaching limitations on civil rights and individual freedom, in the name of fighting terrorism. Even if one agrees with these policies, and thinks the opposition to it is extreme, I think it's not far fetched to recognize they are very far reaching and thus necessarily controversial, resulting in passionate disagreement.

But Obama? I don't see he has done anything remotely as provoking as Bush so far. In fact, many former supporters, who lean to the left, and disappointed by Obama, because his policies are rather centrist and don't go remotely as far as many on the left had hoped. It seems natural to me that the decision to start a war, or even two, will cause more controversy than a health care reform. As I said, in the worst case, a little money is wasted. That may be a good reason to oppose such a reform bill, but hey, that will not cause Nazis riding on dinosaurs to roam the streets. =)

Click to expand...

I heard that all the damn time in an Assembly of God church from the ages of 14 til gone. "America isn't in the Book of Revelations". "With all our sin, of course we are damned", "This country is not of God, it is following Satan and it will perish". ALL the damn time.

German guy said:

Just my two cents: Personally, I don't see anything Wright preached is any more absurd or idiotic than what's preached in many other, more mainstream churches. Churches are usually not a place of reason, in general.

So Wright said "God damn America". Big deal. I fail to understand what's so bad about that. I strikes me as natural that a black man, member of a minority that has been oppressed and discriminated for centuries, has a more critical attitude towards that country than a white rah rah patriot. I would take it with a grain of salt. Such heated rhetoric makes sense within the black community, especially among the older generation who still remembers official, legal discrimination first hand. It was the natural reaction on racism and oppression, and probably doesn't mean much more than giving blacks a sense of identification and self-awareness. It's a kind of folklore, much like other ancestry have weird traditions too. And after all, this too is part of the American society and culture, isn't it? Angry African American people are just as American as, say, Irish-Americans or German Americans, and their culture is just as American as their's. When you are born into the African American community, it just happens that you end up in such churches. But that doesn't mean you take all of that seriously.

That so many whites take this so seriously, and can't have a relaxed attitude towards it, makes me think that racism against blacks is still rather prevalent among whites. Or, at very least, a suspicious distance.

On top of that, Obama openly distanced himself from Wright's more wacky statements, and nothing he said or did fueled the suspicion he may share many of Wright's views. So I fail to see why people make such a fuss about it. I may be wrong, but I think it's residue racism: Of course blacks are tolerated and considered equal, but only as long as they shut up and pretend to be white, and as long as they don't display pride on their ancestry group or their subculture.

Click to expand...

BDBoop said:

Trust your own eyes, believe what you see. If you've been watching all along, and it looks so much worse now, that's because it is.

I've never been afraid for the life of a President like I am now. I just figured Secret Service blah-blah, everybody will be fine yada-yada. But people Truly Despise Obama. And they are armed, and making noise about taking him down so yes. This isn't just your perception. Things are ugly over here.

Click to expand...

Can you name any plays, books, or movies made about the assassination of Barack Obama?

Do you usually make sense? That question made no sense.

BDBoop said:

Do you usually make sense? That question made no sense.

Click to expand...

Death of a President - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BDBoop said:

Do you usually make sense? That question made no sense.

Click to expand...

That's probably because you are unaware of the atmosphere of threat against George W. Bush and the books, plays, amd movies made around the theme of HIS assassination. Thus, you believe that there's an unprecedented atmosphere of threat against Obama's life. But it's just not so.