• 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!

Why do you dislike Obama?

What do you Dislike About Obama?

  • He's a Democrat

    Votes: 5 7.9%
  • He's Too Subtle

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • He Didn't Do Anything In Iran

    Votes: 13 20.6%
  • He's Willing To Make Deals With Terrorists

    Votes: 14 22.2%
  • He's Black

    Votes: 8 12.7%
  • He's Wasting Too Much Money

    Votes: 34 54.0%
  • He Is Trying To Socialize America

    Votes: 36 57.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 24 38.1%
  • He's Doing Alright

    Votes: 8 12.7%

  • Total voters
    63

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Title says it all. I personally dislike him because he is too moderate, and level-headed. He needs to be more aggresive.
 
Title says it all. I personally dislike him because he is too moderate, and level-headed. He needs to be more aggresive.
He's already too agressive. I dislike Obama simply because I see him as trying to impose beliefs to our society that are 180 degrees opposite of our founding laws and principles, but I did vote for socialization and high taxation as being two of the issues I dislike about him as they are not based in the natural rights we have as U.S. citizens and they are symptoms of bigger restrictions to come.
 
Title says it all. I personally dislike him because he is too moderate, and level-headed. He needs to be more aggresive.

I don't like him because he is a woose. He is like Stephen Harper, Stephene Dion, Bill Clinton, Tony Blaire and the other wooses. He may have some good policy but is to INCOMPETENT to defend his policy or himself. I don't like politicians like this because they are to weak to represent the people.
 
I don't dislike him, but I think he should have given more criticism to the recent election in Iran.
 
Hypothetically speaking, is it okay to dislike him because he's a smoker, or is that a no-no?
 
I don't dislike him, and generally approve of the job he is doing so far, with major reservations. I am disappointed in him on a number of issues however, and if the economy does not recover with the huge stimulus package, and if he does not manage to cut the budget significantly by the end of his term, I will move to dislike.
 
I guess you could put that under "other"
I mean, is it PC to dislike him for that reason? I wouldn't want to get myself in trouble with the anti-smoking Nazis.
 
To my mind, "dislike" is the wrong word. "Disdain" is much more appropriate, or perhaps "contempt".

The singular problem with Dear Leader is not that he failed to take the right stand on Iran (and failed again on Honduras), is not that he fails to grasp the basic dynamics of capitalist economics, is not that he persists in an inane delusion that government is ever a solution and never the problem, but simply that Dear Leader is the singularly most clueless, visionless, directionless, artless, and careless politician ever elected to the Oval Office.

He is possessed of no defining principle. He illuminates no moral foundation. In all of his many ponderous pontifical speeches will you find anything that defines his ethic or his creed. Of a certainty you will find nothing that speaks to the defining ethic of American governance--namely, the rule of law. When he speaks, he vomits forth a volume of words that serves no purpose but to obscure the fact that he says little, and nothing of significance or of merit.

Dear Leader is a failed leader because in order to lead, one must be willing to stand. One must be willing to declare who and what one is. That is the one thing Dear Leader has scrupulously avoided the entirety of his pseudo-adult life (unless one facetiously counts his persistent refrain of "it's not my fault").
 
To my mind, "dislike" is the wrong word. "Disdain" is much more appropriate, or perhaps "contempt".

The singular problem with Dear Leader is not that he failed to take the right stand on Iran (and failed again on Honduras), is not that he fails to grasp the basic dynamics of capitalist economics, is not that he persists in an inane delusion that government is ever a solution and never the problem, but simply that Dear Leader is the singularly most clueless, visionless, directionless, artless, and careless politician ever elected to the Oval Office.

He is possessed of no defining principle. He illuminates no moral foundation. In all of his many ponderous pontifical speeches will you find anything that defines his ethic or his creed. Of a certainty you will find nothing that speaks to the defining ethic of American governance--namely, the rule of law. When he speaks, he vomits forth a volume of words that serves no purpose but to obscure the fact that he says little, and nothing of significance or of merit.

Dear Leader is a failed leader because in order to lead, one must be willing to stand. One must be willing to declare who and what one is. That is the one thing Dear Leader has scrupulously avoided the entirety of his pseudo-adult life (unless one facetiously counts his persistent refrain of "it's not my fault").

Yes, but how do You really feel about the man? :confused:

:2razz:
 
Yes, but how do You really feel about the man? :confused:
He is a latter day Lepidus....a slight, unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands.
 
I mean, is it PC to dislike him for that reason? I wouldn't want to get myself in trouble with the anti-smoking Nazis.

You need to meet Aps, our resident anti-smoker. She is a wonderful person in every way, except she hates those of us who smoke(well, she hates that we smoke anyway).
 
So far, I've not seen much to indicate that Obama has a backbone. He seems to be a pansy who is more concerned with his popularity than doing the job he was elected to do. I also think he needs a crash course in diplomatic protocol. That's why God invented the Office of the Chief of Protocol. He should consult with that resource more often than he seems to. As others have mentioned, he is intent on turning us into a socialist state. Such is not what the founding fathers had in mind and it sickens me to think how much worse off we may be by the time his term is up if he succeeds in implementing his plans.
 
I dislike him because he is a liar and he purposely misrepresents the truth.

He arguments for specific policies are filled with so many logical fallacies that it boggles the mind.
 
I dislike him because he is a liar and he purposely misrepresents the truth.

He arguments for specific policies are filled with so many logical fallacies that it boggles the mind.

In all fairness, he is a politician. I think that's a qualifying attribute :unsure13:
 
To my mind, "dislike" is the wrong word. "Disdain" is much more appropriate, or perhaps "contempt".

The singular problem with Dear Leader is not that he failed to take the right stand on Iran (and failed again on Honduras), is not that he fails to grasp the basic dynamics of capitalist economics, is not that he persists in an inane delusion that government is ever a solution and never the problem, but simply that Dear Leader is the singularly most clueless, visionless, directionless, artless, and careless politician ever elected to the Oval Office.

He is possessed of no defining principle. He illuminates no moral foundation. In all of his many ponderous pontifical speeches will you find anything that defines his ethic or his creed. Of a certainty you will find nothing that speaks to the defining ethic of American governance--namely, the rule of law. When he speaks, he vomits forth a volume of words that serves no purpose but to obscure the fact that he says little, and nothing of significance or of merit.

Dear Leader is a failed leader because in order to lead, one must be willing to stand. One must be willing to declare who and what one is. That is the one thing Dear Leader has scrupulously avoided the entirety of his pseudo-adult life (unless one facetiously counts his persistent refrain of "it's not my fault").

I think you just described nearly all politicians of every category in America, and beyond.



As for me; I don't particularly dislike him, but he annoys me to no end when I hear him speak (about anything). His aim, in his speeches, is to inspire. He's still going with the Hope motif. For once, I would just like him to be real, to be blunt.

It's like a parent telling their child that their dead dog is going to doggy heaven. The child probably already figured out that there is no such thing as doggy heaven, and that there is no Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, etc etc. At this point, it's just insulting the child's intelligence. In the economic situation we're in, it really annoys me that he keeps saying something like "rough times are ahead, but we'll pull thru". For once, I'd like to hear, "Yep. We'd done ****ed up. Whatever we do now, will not please everyone. Someone amongst us will be screwed over, either the rich, poor, or middle class. Somebody up in here will be crucified sooner or later."
 
Ohh I know but he is a bit more repugnant to me.

I ended a psychology class about a month and a half ago, what I have learned has left me a bit scornful of all politicians.

I hear ya. Politicians and their actions were the reasons I've never been much into politics until recently.
 
I think you just described nearly all politicians of every category in America, and beyond.
I disagree. Both Presidents Bush spoke from clear moral conviction. You might disagree with their positions, but there was no doubt that they had a defined position and were willing to defend it. The same was true for President Reagan. Even Jimmy Carter possessed at least a moral core if not the backbone to go with it.

When Dear Leader speaks, he avoids if at all possible declaring himself for or against; he avoids if at all possible saying what is right and what is wrong. Iran and Honduras are but the most recent examples of this.

As a senator, his most favorite vote was "Present".

The only time Dear Leader takes a stand is when he is forced. For a President, that is an offensive lack of competence.
 
Voted that he wastes too much money, but the bigger issue is closer to the stuff he's socializing.

It isn't that he's socializing things. I support that. It's that he's socializing them in ways that are disastrous to the American people, for the short-term (and short-sighted) benefit of special interest groups. Misguided and directionless "stimulus" bills, cap and trade-- during a depression no less-- subverting bankruptcy law to short-change bondholders and put the unions in control of a corporation that had no small part in destroying...

He isn't just a bad President. He's a living, breathing stereotype of the Bad Liberal. It's like, over the past eight years, our political system has finally refined itself down to the least common denominators of American political thought.
 
In addition to socializiaton and wasting money he is trying to impose the Chicago Machine style of governance and election on this country. Not to Kenyan Thug rule.
 
Your response to "What? No Birth certificate option?" by The silenced majority:

That could go under black.

Ok I'll bite. Why would put the issue of Obama's possible non-citizenship under the category of black? Are you implying that those who are concerned about this think black people are not eligible for the office of President? Or do you think they are RACISTS. Just needing the point clarified.:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom