• 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?

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.

In a country which relies heavily on business, industry, and capitalism in order to pay its bills and fund all the social programs/interests, here and around the world, that we do fund historically, yes, he's that bad. The last thing that a country like the USA needs, is one that is anti-capitalism and anti-business. Even Bill Clinton had enough sense to understand which side of the bread was buttered.
 
In a country which relies heavily on business, industry, and capitalism in order to pay its bills and fund all the social programs/interests, here and around the world, that we do fund historically, yes, he's that bad. The last thing that a country like the USA needs, is one that is anti-capitalism and anti-business. Even Bill Clinton had enough sense to understand which side of the bread was buttered.
The only goal of business is to make money. Buy it's very nature, a business sees humans as nothing more than another natural resource and a renewable one at that. It does not notice the health of humans, the discomfort if them, or even whether they die as long as there are plenty of replacements to continue business as usual. As long as dead or dying humans are making more money for business than they cost to replace, it's good business to let them die. Indeed, this is already a part of history where many humans have died and many more have become sick from the byproducts of business. Without government to protect humans you have condemned humans to being nothing more than another commodity existing solely to be exploited by business as it sees fit.


Edit:
For historic examples of policies that were not anti-business see: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
 
Last edited:
We are talking about people that could actually win the GOP nomination. The majority of Republicans think Ron Paul is nuts.




Bush increased spending on the military and started two wars. Do you think Obama should have withdrawn all troops from both of the Bush wars immediately upon taking office. He's already ended the GOP war in Iraq, and is winding down the war in Afghanistan and has called for cuts in military spending.

The Gop candidates are calling for increased spending on the military.

Bush cut taxes for the rich. President Obama cut taxes for the working class, and has proposed eliminating the tax cuts for the rich.




Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the financial crisis, and check out H.R. #1489 to reestablish the separation between investment banks and commercial banks.



No difference from the viable GOP candidates. The only hope to address those is add to the Democratic support in congress to end them.
You didn't contradict anything that I said,.
 
The only goal of business is to make money. Buy it's very nature, a business sees humans as nothing more than another natural resource and a renewable one at that. It does not notice the health of humans, the discomfort if them, or even whether they die as long as there are plenty of replacements to continue business as usual. As long as dead or dying humans are making more money for business than they cost to replace, it's good business to let them die. Indeed, this is already a part of history where many humans have died and many more have become sick from the byproducts of business. Without government to protect humans you have condemned humans to being nothing more than another commodity existing solely to be exploited by business as it sees fit.

Consider if you replace the word 'business' with 'war' and see how regardless of the common struggle they are all similar in nature.
 
Consider if you replace the word 'business' with 'war' and see how regardless of the common struggle they are all similar in nature.
Sadly, most governments don't protect us from war, they get us into them.
 
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.

He's not really any different than George Bush.
 
In a country which relies heavily on business, industry, and capitalism in order to pay its bills and fund all the social programs/interests, here and around the world, that we do fund historically, yes, he's that bad. The last thing that a country like the USA needs, is one that is anti-capitalism and anti-business. Even Bill Clinton had enough sense to understand which side of the bread was buttered.

You do realize that Obama has taken many of Bush's pro-business programs from cheap lending and lots of tax deductions/credits to new levels that are directly causing our debt to expand no? If Obama is anti-business, so was Bush.

I honestly see very little difference between Dubya and Obama at this point.

That said, I would vote for Bush over the crop of Republicans left in the Nomination process.
 
In a country which relies heavily on business, industry, and capitalism in order to pay its bills and fund all the social programs/interests, here and around the world, that we do fund historically, yes, he's that bad. The last thing that a country like the USA needs, is one that is anti-capitalism and anti-business. Even Bill Clinton had enough sense to understand which side of the bread was buttered.
This is all opinion, of course, not fact.
I fail to see any real examples of "anti-business".
And regulating business is not "anti-business".
 
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.

For the same reason many who leaned right didn't understand why the liberal base portrayed Bush as an "Anti-Christ" figure practically.

When the guy in power tends to lean more in your ideological direction than the other way it becomes harder to understand why the other side hates him so. This isn't new.
 
For the same reason many who leaned right didn't understand why the liberal base portrayed Bush as an "Anti-Christ" figure practically.

When the guy in power tends to lean more in your ideological direction than the other way it becomes harder to understand why the other side hates him so. This isn't new.

You've got it all wrong, CHENEY was the anti-Christ.
 
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.

It's what the right does. It's how they try to win elections. They know Democrat policies appeal to the masses so they rely on fear to try to scare the public into voting for the Republican candidate. Pepper in fringe issues like Democrats will murder your babies and how gay marriage will make homosexuality acceptable and they have all their bases covered with fear and Conservatives running to the polls.
 
It's what the right does. It's how they try to win elections. They know Democrat policies appeal to the masses so they rely on fear to try to scare the public into voting for the Republican candidate. Pepper in fringe issues like Democrats will murder your babies and how gay marriage will make homosexuality acceptable and they have all their bases covered with fear and Conservatives running to the polls.

Oh, right. And Democrats don't try to scare people with, say, images of old people being thrown over cliffs. And that's the mild, penny-ante stuff.

Criticizing the practice? Totally fair. Pretending your side is lily-white? Partisan hackery.
 
Oh, right. And Democrats don't try to scare people with, say, images of old people being thrown over cliffs. And that's the mild, penny-ante stuff.

Criticizing the practice? Totally fair. Pretending your side is lily-white? Partisan hackery.

Finding exceptions that break the rule doesn't help the image of the right who portray Liberals as anti-christs regularly. And by more main stream players than the obscure one you linked.
 
Finding exceptions that break the rule doesn't help the image of the right who portray Liberals as anti-christs regularly. And by more main stream players than the obscure one you linked.

All this shows is that you don't notice what your own side does. So, yeah, partisan hackery.
 
Finding exceptions that break the rule doesn't help the image of the right who portray Liberals as anti-christs regularly. And by more main stream players than the obscure one you linked.
Idiots or fools maybe, anti-Christ is going a bit far.
 
All this shows is that you don't notice what your own side does. So, yeah, partisan hackery.

It shows I don't pay attention to the leftwing fringe, which was what you posted. Those on the right pushing such idiocies are far more mainstream, like Limbaugh and Hannity.
 
My issues with Obama are the same with any fiscal liberal (Myself being a fiscal conservative).
When Obama uses a phrase like, " I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money."
It shows his core believe, that the Government owns the result of your labor first, and allow you
to keep what the Government deems fair. (we are all just part of a large plantation.)
The Government is not charged participating in charity.
When did Liberals become more interested in, is everyone getting an equal amount, vs,
I want to be as free as possible?
 
My issues with Obama are the same with any fiscal liberal (Myself being a fiscal conservative).
When Obama uses a phrase like, " I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money."
It shows his core believe, that the Government owns the result of your labor first, and allow you
to keep what the Government deems fair. (we are all just part of a large plantation.)
The Government is not charged participating in charity.
When did Liberals become more interested in, is everyone getting an equal amount, vs,
I want to be as free as possible?
When they became socialists but were afraid of the stigma. They will say, "I am not a socialist (bad word), I am a liberal (another bad word), so now they are progressives.*

*'Socialist' and 'Liberal' have been historically such failures that they had to adopt 'Progressive', which is being added to the garbage heap. That's why so many of them call themselves 'Centrists' and 'Moderates'. Conservatives have no such qualms.
 
It shows I don't pay attention to the leftwing fringe, which was what you posted. Those on the right pushing such idiocies are far more mainstream, like Limbaugh and Hannity.

This is the "left-wing fringe"?

.Agenda Project.

And obviously you never watch MSNBC. But it's not surprising that you're unaware of how much your own side does it. Partisan hackery.
 
When they became socialists but were afraid of the stigma. They will say, "I am not a socialist (bad word), I am a liberal (another bad word), so now they are progressives.*
Those are three different things.

Do people on the right get daily talking points or something? I see this mentioned constantly on this board.
 
Back
Top Bottom