The Real Reason WHY Obama Is Hated So Much by The Right

[AdamT]

I don't "hate" Obama. I don't even know him, so how could I hate him? I dislike him, distrust him, find him arrogant, and think he's bad for this country. That isn't "hate".

Semantics. You hate the guy -- just admit it.

 

[tres borrachos]

Semantics. You hate the guy -- just admit it.

Not at all. I can't hate someone I don't know. That's what Liberals do.

I hate the guy's politics. I'm honest about it.

 

[Federalist]

Of course, it depends on the reading of the Constitution. We seen people get the reading quite wrong, or ignore better than 200 years of history.

Yes, it depends on the reading.

 

[Amigo]

Semantics. You hate the guy -- just admit it.

Why in the world do you always have to act like such a thug? Very few people hate Obama in the right, and they do not represent conservatives or libertarians.

 

[Fisher]

Wow - another 'independent' spewing the radical DNC party line. I need to go back and refer to my Oxford dictionary on the meaning of 'independence.' Or maybe I just don't understand this site's usage of the word. If it really mean 'independent' as is normally understood, then a lot of people on this board are abusing the privilege of defining their beliefs. But, who cares. It is your commentary that is to be analyzed, regardless of what you call yourself.

First - if anyone alleges that someone else 'hates' someone then it is absolutely incumbent upon them to provide an actual INSTANCE of such hatred. It must be ubiquitous, it must be egregious, it must be a problem to avoid.

SO - all you 'hate' allegators = what is your example. Even ONE example would do - but you should be able to start reeling them off like water over Niagra if it is so ever-present as to make a thread about it or to inject it into every political discussion you come across.

I tire of this unimaginative crap - I think it comes primarily from their fatigue at saying "racism" so much that they need to find another allegation to alternate with.

Those who accuse anyone of 'hating' Obama are just liars who are willfully ignorant of the truth.

Well first, an independent can agree with another party's "line" but if you looked around this site you would hardly see me towing the DNC line on much of anything. There are people who hate Obama and I know several Republicans who do not like Romney as well but are going to vote the ticket because he isn't Obama. It is just the practical reality.

 

[Harshaw]

What on earth do you think this man could have done that he has not done already, that would have caused the unemployment rate to actually be lower than it is right now? Can you answer that question?

In fact, I dare you to answer that question.

Wiping your spittle off my face to answer . . .

He could have scaled back on his zeal to regulate. He could have opened up more areas for oil exploration. He could have kept spending more in line with revenues. He could have refrained from imposing the burdens of Obamacare until after the economy recovered. For starters.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Oh, boy! Here we go! Hang on!




Darn! You let me down again. I was actually hoping that you would actually say something that took a statement from the OP, and showed precisely where and why you disagree. But, alas, I am left once again wanting so much more from you. Look, Fab. I know you have the potential to unleash something that is on-topic and more than mere red herring non-sequitur. We've been down this road on the economy, and Mitt Romney's campaign lies and now you once again offer me nothing but corn syrup as a reply.

If you keep eating a steady diet of sugar based produces with no real nutritional value, you are going to end up just as empty and void of substance as the Romney Campaign.

I already did take a statement from the OP and showed you precisely where and why I disagreed. What you are attempting here is actually a very old and stale tactic. Someone rebuts the argument so you wait a few days hoping that others reading along will forget about it. Then you bring backed the same, already debunked statement in question like it hasn't yet been addressed.

-"Let's face it, the right absolutely hates Barrack Obama"- This is the statement from the OP, isn't it? This is the premise that this entire thread is derived from, isn't it? This is the statement that I already addressed very clearly in my first post on this thread, isn't it?

You're basing your theory of "absolute hatred" on a collection of soundbites made by some inside-the-beltway types that you say "crawled out of the woodwork" after long periods of silence as soon as Obama took office. And that is your "proof"? I say you're full of it. Prior to 2008 these inside-the-beltway types didn't have a Democrat in the Oval Office to oppose. OF COURSE they're going to come out and oppose Obama... THAT'S THEIR FREAKING JOB! Prior to the inauguration they didn't have a job to do. The exact same thing happens every time there is a party change of POTUS. Are you really going to try to convince people that there won't be an army of left leaning pundits lined up to treat Romney like a pinata the day he takes office?

What you are attempting to do here is to categorize party-line opposition as "hatred" and then project that "hatred" on to everyone that doesn't support Obama. It's transparent and it's bunk.

If you are going to stick with the standard metrics of what can be measured, then please respond to Obama's actual record as President of the United States, instead of making up Tweeting me on why you refuse to believe your own eyes and the history that anyone with a browser and a search engine could easily look up themselves.

Source: http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/138949-president-obamas-real-record-facts.html


Mr, Fabulous! There you go again. eace

Let's see here.... Obama's record as seen through the eyes of PW4000? And that's the record of "record" that you want this POTUS to be evaluated on?

As I said before.... fat chance.

 

[AdamT]

Wiping your spittle off my face to answer . . .

He could have scaled back on his zeal to regulate. He could have opened up more areas for oil exploration. He could have kept spending more in line with revenues. He could have refrained from imposing the burdens of Obamacare until after the economy recovered. For starters.

What regulations has Obama signed that you think have suppressed job creation, and how many jobs do you think were lost as a result?

How many jobs do you think would have been created if he removed all barriers to oil exploration? Keep in mind that he has encouraged more drilling on federal land by instituting his "use it or lose it" rules with respect to leases.

Reducing spending to keep it more in line with revenues would have resulted in significant job losses. That's fundamental economics.

The so-called burdens of Obamacare do not go into effect until 2014, by which time the economy will have recovered even further.

 

[Harshaw]

What regulations has Obama signed that you think have suppressed job creation, and how many jobs do you think were lost as a result?

Every regulation on business puts a burden on business, and every burden threatens employment. This is simple reality. You might know this if you'd ever run a business.

And the sheer number of regulations of every type is staggering.

(To say nothing of things like suing to stop a built and ready Boeing plant from opening.)

How many jobs do you think would have been created if he removed all barriers to oil exploration? Keep in mind that he has encouraged more drilling on federal land by instituting his "use it or lose it" rules with respect to leases.

The "how many" question is silly. You can't ever quantify something like that, but exploration will increase activity which will require employment.

Oil production increasing on land where it's already being done doesn't necessarily result in more jobs, because the operation is already there. Oil and gas leases have decreased by 11% under Obama.

NEW activity creates jobs.

Reducing spending to keep it more in line with revenues would have resulted in significant job losses. That's fundamental economics.

No, that's Keynesian economics, and has never been shown empirically to be true.

And even if Keynesian theory worked, Keynes never advocated a level of spending as far out of whack with revenues as have been the hallmark of the Obama years.

The so-called burdens of Obamacare do not go into effect until 2014, by which time the economy will have recovered even further.

More proof that you don't know how a business is run.

The economic burdens may not (though some have), but the regulatory burdens do. The cost of hiring an employee is already higher NOW because of it.

And here's the part you obviously don't get -- businesses don't make plans to hire people based on what's happening right at this second. They hire people based on long-term plans. They know the burdens of which you speak are coming, so any plans they make NOW are affected by it.

 

[Fisher]

What regulations has Obama signed that you think have suppressed job creation, and how many jobs do you think were lost as a result?

The so-called burdens of Obamacare do not go into effect until 2014, by which time the economy will have recovered even further.

I believe that Obamacare uncertainty has employers worried in already troubled times. Not the uncertainty about the fate, but the uncertainty about the cost when fully implemented. How many jobs has it cost, who knows. It is hard to measure jobs that may not have been created because of the fear of the unknown future cost. That is a flaw of the plan and the plan is a democratic blindspot--Obama is running on the success of a plan that has not been fully implemented so people do not feel its future benefits today. I would have preferred a single payer system myself if we must undertake the endeavor.

 

[Harshaw]

I believe that Obamacare uncertainty has employers worried in already troubled times. Not the uncertainty about the fate, but the uncertainty about the cost when fully implemented. How many jobs has it cost, who knows. It is hard to measure jobs that may not have been created because of the fear of the unknown future cost. That is a flaw of the plan and the plan is a democratic blindspot--Obama is running on the success of a plan that has not been fully implemented so people do not feel its future benefits today. I would have preferred a single payer system myself if we must undertake the endeavor.

The entire overzealous regulatory scheme produces this uncertainty as well. When you never know what's coming next, it's impossible to plan. Uncertainty is very bad for the economy.

 

[AdamT]

Every regulation on business puts a burden on business, and every burden threatens employment. This is simple reality. You might know this if you'd ever run a business.

Total dodge, and not even correct at that.

And the sheer number of regulations of every type is staggering.

(To say nothing of things like suing to stop a built and ready Boeing plant from opening.)

Your response is essentially, "ugh, regulation BAD!!" The fact is that Obama has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor, and the cost of the regulations he has approved is less than those approved by GHWB. According to Bloomberg, as of a year ago, the total cost of Obama's regulation was AT MOST three one-hundredths of a percent of a percent of GDP, and it could be much less. Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush While Costing Business - Bloomberg

The "how many" question is silly. You can't ever quantify something like that, but exploration will increase activity which will require employment.

Well that's of course absurd. These things can and should be quantified before any action is taken. Mr. Romney himself makes a point of saying that every regulation should be subjected to a cost benefit analysis before implementation or repeal. You obviously have never run a business if you think it's a good idea to undertake major policy changes without conducting a cost/benefit review.

Oil production increasing on land where it's already being done doesn't necessarily result in more jobs, because the operation is already there. Oil and gas leases have decreased by 11% under Obama.

NEW activity creates jobs.

Again, this is false. What Obama did was tell oil companies that the could not sit on oil leases indefinitely if they were NOT doing anything with the land. Idle leases are now being rebid to put them in the hands of companies that will develop them. That is why the number of permits have fallen. Oil production fell somewhat between 2010 and 2011, but over the course of the last four years it has increased overall.

No, that's Keynesian economics, and has never been shown empirically to be true.

And even if Keynesian theory worked, Keynes never advocated a level of spending as far out of whack with revenues as have been the hallmark of the Obama years.

It's just common sense, is what it is. Spending creates economic activity which creates jobs. Keynes, of course, advocated deficit spending to counter recessions and economic downturns. That is what Obama has been doing. But Keynes also advocated fiscal restraint during periods of relative economic strength, and that is what Bush failed to do.

More proof that you don't know how a business is run.

The economic burdens may not (though some have), but the regulatory burdens do. The cost of hiring an employee is already higher NOW because of it.

You are talking out of your ass. Prove it.

And here's the part you obviously don't get -- businesses don't make plans to hire people based on what's happening right at this second. They hire people based on long-term plans. They know the burdens of which you speak are coming, so any plans they make NOW are affected by it.

Thanks to Romneycare we have don't have to use your magic eightball to figure this one out. MA has been running a program that is substantially similar to Obamacare for the better part of five years, and the result is that MA has outperformed the rest of the country in terms of unemployment. When O'Bomneycare went into effect unemployment was higher in MA than it was in the country as a whole. Today, unemployment in MA is 1.5% below the level of unemployment in the country as a whole.

 

[Fisher]

If Romney created such an awesome system in Massachusetts that is virtually identical to Obamacare, why aren't democrats or the state of Massachusetts voting for Romney?

 

[Harshaw]

Total dodge, and not even correct at that.



Your response is essentially, "ugh, regulation BAD!!" The fact is that Obama has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor, and the cost of the regulations he has approved is less than those approved by GHWB. According to Bloomberg, as of a year ago, the total cost of Obama's regulation was AT MOST three one-hundredths of a percent of a percent of GDP, and it could be much less. Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush While Costing Business - Bloomberg



Well that's of course absurd. These things can and should be quantified before any action is taken. Mr. Romney himself makes a point of saying that every regulation should be subjected to a cost benefit analysis before implementation or repeal. You obviously have never run a business if you think it's a good idea to undertake major policy changes without conducting a cost/benefit review.



Again, this is false. What Obama did was tell oil companies that the could not sit on oil leases indefinitely if they were NOT doing anything with the land. Idle leases are now being rebid to put them in the hands of companies that will develop them. That is why the number of permits have fallen. Oil production fell somewhat between 2010 and 2011, but over the course of the last four years it has increased overall.



It's just common sense, is what it is. Spending creates economic activity which creates jobs. Keynes, of course, advocated deficit spending to counter recessions and economic downturns. That is what Obama has been doing. But Keynes also advocated fiscal restraint during periods of relative economic strength, and that is what Bush failed to do.



You are talking out of your ass. Prove it.



Thanks to Romneycare we have don't have to use your magic eightball to figure this one out. MA has been running a program that is substantially similar to Obamacare for the better part of five years, and the result is that MA has outperformed the rest of the country in terms of unemployment. When O'Bomneycare went into effect unemployment was higher in MA than it was in the country as a whole. Today, unemployment in MA is 1.5% below the level of unemployment in the country as a whole.

Well, gosh; imagine that. Adam blusters and blusters in defense of his king. NEVER would have predicted it.

With the usual mischaracterization of my response:

Your response is essentially, "ugh, regulation BAD!!"

No, it was much more than that; I said why it was bad.

And also:

You obviously have never run a business if you think it's a good idea to undertake major policy changes without conducting a cost/benefit review.

I never said anything remotely like that, and in fact, I think it's part of the problem with Obama's overzealous regulation.

But you have to continually, constantly lie about what I said. It's pathological with you.

The fact is that Obama has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor

5% fewer, eh? For being in office LESS THAN HALF THE TIME?

Never mind the continual need to bring Bush into the conversation. Bush is gone. Bush is not President. And anything Bush did does not excuse what Obama chooses to do.

This crutch is pathetic, but you keep going back to it.

Again, this is false. What Obama did was tell oil companies that the could not sit on oil leases indefinitely if they were NOT doing anything with the land. Idle leases are now being rebid to put them in the hands of companies that will develop them. That is why the number of permits have fallen. Oil production fell somewhat between 2010 and 2011, but over the course of the last four years it has increased overall.

It has increased on private land, not federal land, and more and more federal areas have been declared off limits to possible production, most particularly offshore.

(Never mind the zeal to squash natural gas production, a bright spot in the economy, because of "fracking.")

It's just common sense, is what it is. Spending creates economic activity which creates jobs. Keynes, of course, advocated deficit spending to counter recessions and economic downturns. That is what Obama has been doing. But Keynes also advocated fiscal restraint during periods of relative economic strength, and that is what Bush failed to do.

Keynes never conducted any empirical research, and unfortunately for you, your notion of "common sense" doesn't make anything true.

And, of course, you once again have to invoke Bush, but Bush didn't run the kinds of deficits Obama has for every year, except during his one-off TARP year, which was supposed to be a one-off.

But again, Bush doesn't absolve Obama of anything.

The rest is childish.

 

[AdamT]

If Romney created such an awesome system in Massachusetts that is virtually identical to Obamacare, why aren't democrats or the state of Massachusetts voting for Romney?

Maybe because he's now opposing the same system that's so popular in MA?

 

[AdamT]

Well, gosh; imagine that. Adam blusters and blusters in defense of his king. NEVER would have predicted it.

Well imagine that, Harshaw issues generic right wing broadsides at the president and when challenged cannot back up a single claim. Shocked!

I never said anything remotely like that, and in fact, I think it's part of the problem with Obama's overzealous regulation.

But you have to continually, constantly lie about what I said. It's pathological with you.

Um, you said that Obama should have changed regs to pursue more drilling to create jobs (the benefit), and then you said that there is no way to guess how many jobs might be created. So yeah, you are saying that he should take that action when -- according to you -- the benefit CANNOT be quantified.

5% fewer, eh? For being in office LESS THAN HALF THE TIME?

Reading comprehension! The article clearly stated that Obama had created 5% fewer regulations than Bush did AT THE SAME POINT IN HIS PRESIDENCY.

Never mind the continual need to bring Bush into the conversation. Bush is gone. Bush is not President. And anything Bush did does not excuse what Obama chooses to do.

This crutch is pathetic, but you keep going back to it.

I understand that your constant attacks on the president lose their force when they are put in historical context, so naturally you do not want me to put them in context. Par for the course.

It has increased on private land, not federal land, and more and more federal areas have been declared off limits to possible production, most particularly offshore.

(Never mind the zeal to squash natural gas production, a bright spot in the economy, because of "fracking.")

Look, you should not parrot Romney because it's well established that he lies and misleads all the time. Repeating his claims will make you look stupid when the claims are fact checked.

But is the 14 percent figure cherry picked?

Yes, says Jay Hakes, who directed the independent U.S. Energy Information Administration for seven years during the Clinton administration. "From a statistical standpoint, to take one year out of three — one year is not indicative of a trend," he said.

So we pulled the numbers from when George W. Bush was in office -- January 2001 to January 2009 -- as well as from when Obama was in office. In our chart, we’ve italicized the years he was in office and put in bold the years Obama led.

We note that:

• From 2004-08, well into Bush’s tenure, oil production on federal lands and waters fell in four of five years, for a net decrease of 16.8 percent.

• From 2009-11, the Obama years, oil production rose two of three years, for a net increase of 10.6 percent.

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says 'oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land'

Keynes never conducted any empirical research, and unfortunately for you, your notion of "common sense" doesn't make anything true.

And, of course, you once again have to invoke Bush, but Bush didn't run the kinds of deficits Obama has for every year, except during his one-off TARP year, which was supposed to be a one-off.

But again, Bush doesn't absolve Obama of anything.

The rest is childish.

Simple math makes things true. When the government spends it is paying money for someone to do something (a job), or buying something that someone has to produce, which supports jobs. Simple math -- common sense. Even Romney accepts that that there is a direct connection between federal spending and employment.

And again, I know you don't ever want to put Obama in context, but I'm not going to let you get away with that. Obviously much of our current problem is owing to the fact that Bush inherited a balanced budget and immediately proceeded to cut revenue and raise spending, which doubled the national debt and severely hamstrung the next president's ability to deal with the crisis he inherited.

 

[Rainman05]

It's not one or the other. Some people hate Obama, just like they hated Clinton, because he's a Democrat. They hate him like an Auburn fan hates the Crimson Tide. Others, and I think it's a relatively small minority, hate him because he's an uppity black man in the highest office in the land ... AND he's the Crimson Tide.

Imagine what would happen if a mexican gets elected into office:

"Damned mexicans, coming over the borders and stealing jobs"

Come to think of it... that will happen if Romney gets elected.

 

[Fisher]

Maybe because he's now opposing the same system that's so popular in MA?

Well, sure that must be it LOL.

As I said I would have rather we done a single payer system so that we could have more control over cost if it is going to be mandated and because it avoids that whole iffy legal precedent about the government now being able to compel by taxing powers people to contract privately. My druthers, however, would have been for us to just fill the gap for the uninsureable with something more akin to Indiana's Healthy Indiana plan.

 

[Harshaw]

One of the more amusing things about Adam is that he constantly blames everything on Bush, to wit, it was Bush policy which caused the economic dire straits Obama has to deal with.

But whenever Obama policy on the economy is criticized, his go-to response is that Bush did it, too. (See above.)

So, Obama does the things Bush did -- and in many cases, more intensely -- but somehow, they're not responsible for economic problems when Obama does them.

 

[Carleen]

Oh, I know how Obama has destroyed the democrats.



I'd like to see proof! :mrgreen:



WAIT!!!!! "Them" or "him"???? Could you be more clear?!? :doh



he we go! :roll:



Don't see how that is hate, but rather just making sure Obama isn't lying about being a Christian. I myself know he just a narcissists.



Maybe because he is! :doh



He isn't the next Hitler, but rather a follower of Hitler's propaganda tactics.



Again, that isn't hate, just a misunderstanding that Obama wants us to think he is a Kenyan....Until he is president, then he has to cover up a hoax that he created.



He hates success..and since he is narcissist, he only wants him and his cronies to be successful.



Yeah, and Osama was irrelevant by then. Since Obama is a narcissist, he killed Osama to help his reelection chances.



Umm, no, the only reason the unemployment is down is because more and more keep GIVING UP! And the rules of the stocks have changed, and it only favors the rich people now.



Yeah, because he has!

You have just proved to me that you are in fact a racist!!

 

[H. Lee White]

I wrote this as part of a response to another question, but after thinking about it, I think the topic deserves its own OP niche.
Let's face it - the Right absolutely hates Barack Obama:

Chuckle...
The only reason the left/Dems -don't- hate Him is that He has a (D) next to His name; if Obama were a Republican, those who so desperately support Him now would tell us, at the top of their lungs, about how He is the Worst President Ever.

 

[AdamT]

One of the more amusing things about Adam is that he constantly blames everything on Bush, to wit, it was Bush policy which caused the economic dire straits Obama has to deal with.

But whenever Obama policy on the economy is criticized, his go-to response is that Bush did it, too. (See above.)

So, Obama does the things Bush did -- and in many cases, more intensely -- but somehow, they're not responsible for economic problems when Obama does them.

One of the weird things about Harshaw, and the right in general, is that they either pretend not to understand, or just CAN'T understand, that it's necessary to compare Obama's performance to that of Bush and other presidents to establish that the right wing reaction to Obama is not policy based. Thus Harshaw is HORRIFIED by the supposed tsunami of regulation that Obama has unleashed, but when it's pointed out that he has actually created less regulation than Bush did at the same point in his presidency, his only response is -- don't talk about Bush. Sorry, I know you want us to forget all about those eight years, but context matters. :shrug:

 

[Bobcat]

One of the weird things about Harshaw, and the right in general, is that they either pretend not to understand, or just CAN'T understand, that it's necessary to compare Obama's performance to that of Bush and other presidents to establish that the right wing reaction to Obama is not policy based. Thus Harshaw is HORRIFIED by the supposed tsunami of regulation that Obama has unleashed, but when it's pointed out that he has actually created less regulation than Bush did at the same point in his presidency, his only response is -- don't talk about Bush. Sorry, I know you want us to forget all about those eight years, but context matters. :shrug:

Bush did not increase the national debt by 6 trillion in 4 years, Bush did not cause 8%+ unemployment from 2009-2012. Bush did not lie about Benghazi, Bush did not have trillion dollar deficits for 4 years in a row, Bush did not ram obamacare up our butts on a partisan vote on Christmas eve in the dark of night,
What has happened during the obama years belongs to obama.

You can continue the bush blaming Adam, but no one is listening.

 

[H. Lee White]

One of the weird things about Harshaw, and the right in general, is that they either pretend not to understand, or just CAN'T understand, that it's necessary to compare Obama's performance to that of Bush and other presidents to establish that the right wing reaction to Obama is not policy based.

If this is true, then it is equally true that the Dem/left's support FOR The Obama is similarly not based on policy, as The Obama has continued or expanded almost all of the GWB policies He ran against - policies that He said He'd save us from - in 2008.

 

[Boo Radley]

Bush did not increase the national debt by 6 trillion in 4 years, Bush did not cause 8%+ unemployment from 2009-2012. Bush did not lie about Benghazi, Bush did not have trillion dollar deficits for 4 years in a row, Bush did not ram obamacare up our butts on a partisan vote on Christmas eve in the dark of night,
What has happened during the obama years belongs to obama.

You can continue the bush blaming Adam, but no one is listening.

Largely presidents don't do those things. Congress passes laws and control the purse. I think you are ignoring may of the causes that don't involve the president. What you really suggest when you write things like this is that government is the answer. With a better government, we'll all be saved.