The hate for Obama

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

I wish you'd just come out with it or be quiet. With these vague personal attacks. tbh.

LOL. All you have to do is go back a few pages and see who is defending Obama in that Harvard Prof vs Police Officer debate and see who is defending Obama no matter what despite Obama and his Prof friend being clearly in the wrong. If you want to consider that a personal attack that's your problem not mine. Some of these people have no problem calling me a Beck or O'Reilly hack so I have just as much right to say they're an Obama worshipper.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

no matter what despite Obama and his Prof friend being clearly in the wrong.

....bit of a presumption there.

JohnMc1

Nodin wrote: »

....bit of a presumption there.

Case in point of blind Obama worship on this forum righ here.

sceptre

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Case in point of blind Obama worship on this forum righ here.

Case in point of generalised fodder there. And there are other people on the opposite side with the same electron-wasting.

If everyone knocks that off I won't be keeping a closer eye n the posts of those that are doing the above and similar. There are a few of you. Report posts you've a problem with, don't respond in kind. Vigilantism gets sod-all sympathy from me, ditto the sniping attacks. You know me - I don't care who starts it if I need to finish it.

Politeness is cheap on all sides so spend it without fear of running out.

ChocolateSauce

I like Obama, but he's nothing special. Bush wasn't that bad either; in order for Bush to have been the worst President ever, he'd have to come after a long line of good Presidents- Presidents that didn't lie under oath, deny the rights of citizens, make the poor poorer for the sake of businesses, topple democratic governments because they were left-wing, steal money from the people, escalate a massive and unjust war, bring the world to the brink of armageddon for the sake of saving face, preside over the consolidation of the military industrial complex or use nuclear weapons on civilian targets. But he didn't. Obama isn't a magical chocolate Jesus, he's just the first president since before WWII that hasn't been a lying, cheating scumbag.

As far as we know.

JohnMc1

I was actually agreeing with you until you said Obama wasn't a lying, cheating scumbag.

ChocolateSauce

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I was actually agreeing with you until you said Obama wasn't a lying, cheating scumbag.

Well I did qualify that statement with "as far as we know". Beyond that I suspect he might be lying about believing in god, I can't think of any lie he's possibly said. If you could link to one, I'd be eager to see it. It seems to me his blunders and flip-flops have been out in the open.

JohnMc1

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well I did qualify that statement with "as far as we know". Beyond that I suspect he might be lying about believing in god, I can't think of any lie he's possibly said. If you could link to one, I'd be eager to see it. It seems to me his blunders and flip-flops have been out in the open.

Are you serious? How about no lobbysits in his administration? Not expanding the size of Govt? No tax increase in for the middle class? Being able to see what would be in his much needed stimulus plan? Or his healthcare plan would eliminate private health care companies? I'm sure some others can chime in with more.

ChocolateSauce

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Are you serious? How about no lobbysits in his administration? Not expanding the size of Govt? No tax increase in for the middle class? Being able to see what would be in his much needed stimulus plan? Or his healthcare plan would eliminate private health care companies? I'm sure some others can chime in with more.

Did he lie about those? I'm not making a claim, I'm asking because I don't know.

JohnMc1

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Did he lie about those? I'm not making a claim, I'm asking because I don't know.

Yes he lied about all of those. Ofcourse it was deflected by the media as "misspeaking" [Sort of like Hilary's dodging sniper fire in Dubai or somewhere like that]:rolleyes:

I think anybody believes that a guy from Chicago the most poltically corrupt city in the US would be any different from any other Politician truly deserves to be disappointed right now. He's a politician ofcourse he'll screw us when given the chance. Except he'll dress it up with euphamisms like "Hope and Change" and "Yes we can."

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yes he lied about all of those. ."

You already stated that. I believe he was looking for a detailed answer with examples.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I think anybody believes that a guy from Chicago."

I'm sorry, but he's from (using the normal criteria for determination) Hawaii.

Since when are geographical locations an absolute guide to human character? (I'd like some scientific data on that, just to make sure).

JohnMc1

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sorry, but he's from (using the normal criteria for determination) Hawaii.

Since when are geographical locations an absolute guide to human character? (I'd like some scientific data on that, just to make sure).

Anybody who does not know that Obama got his Political start in Chicago well. I can't say.

Well considering who he has been linked too [and proven too] it is very telling of his true character. And not this beacon of Hope that will take us all to the Utopian Promised Land where we'll all riding on Unicorns [**** Unicorns give me a Pegasus. Flying Horse trumps Horse with a horn anyday]

ChocolateSauce

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yes he lied about all of those. Ofcourse it was deflected by the media as "misspeaking" [Sort of like Hilary's dodging sniper fire in Dubai or somewhere like that]:rolleyes:

I think anybody believes that a guy from Chicago the most poltically corrupt city in the US would be any different from any other Politician truly deserves to be disappointed right now. He's a politician ofcourse he'll screw us when given the chance. Except he'll dress it up with euphamisms like "Hope and Change" and "Yes we can."

There's a word for judging someone based on where they're from (Hawaii in his case).

jank

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There's a word for judging someone based on where they're from (Hawaii in his case).

And this is also the reason why the GOP are in deep $hit!

ChocolateSauce

jank wrote: »

And this is also the reason why the GOP are in deep $hit!

I personally would have put that down to almost every one of them in the party, and the vast majority of their supporters, are far-right religious lunatics, many of whom are so ignorant they would choke on their own stupidity and hate if such a thing were possible.

JohnMc1

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There's a word for judging someone based on where they're from (Hawaii in his case).

What does that have to do with it? He was a Politician in Chicago. I love how certain people love to ignore certain facts here.:rolleyes:

janks wrote:

And this is also the reason why the GOP are in deep $hit!

Considering you're one of the most blatant Obama lovers here I expected the point to go over your head.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I personally would have put that down to almost every one of them in the party, and the vast majority of their supporters, are far-right religious lunatics, many of whom are so ignorant they would choke on their own stupidity and hate if such a thing were possible.

Well thats not quite true. Its really only since 1980 or so they've gotten so influential.

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Considering you're one of the most blatant Obama lovers here I expected the point to go over your head.

I dont have to listen to you because you are a racist.

JohnMc1

I personally would have put that down to almost every one of them in the party, and the vast majority of their supporters, are far-left Socialist lunatics, many of whom are so ignorant they would choke on their own stupidity and hate if such a thing were possible.

See how that can easily work on the Left the "Enlightened" and "Intelligent" side too? Nobody here wants to admit Obama practiced Politics in Chicago but please keep up your Conservative insults. Its working out so well for you and your pals. :rolleyes:

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

What does that have to do with it? He was a Politician in Chicago. I love how certain people love to ignore certain facts here..

So you're saying all politicians assocaited with Chicago are corrupt. Rather a simplistic and childish generalisation. We might as easily take George Bush's association with Texas - a state with a tendency to racism in some parts - and label him a white supremacist on that basis alone.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Nobody here wants to admit Obama practiced Politics in Chicago ..

Nobody has disputed the fact, merely the implications drawn from it.

JohnMc1

jank wrote: »

I dont have to listen to you because you are a racist.

Typical Libera. Playing the race card because you have nothing whatsoever to say.

Nodin wrote:

So you're saying all politicians assocaited with Chicago are corrupt.

Its known as the Politically corrupt city in the US. Whether you like it or not is your problem. Obama counts many shady figures from there as his friends, mentors or spiritual advisors,etc. His cabinet picks have proven he learned his lessons well.

Nodin wrote:

Nobody has disputed the fact, merely the implications drawn from it.

Yeah the nerve of me expecting people to wake up from their "Hope & Change" pipe dream. Again its not my problem if you and others can't accept the fact that Obama got his political start in the most corrupt city in the US.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its known as the Politically corrupt city in the US..

"poisoning the well" on an epic scale..

JohnMc1 wrote: »

. His cabinet picks have proven he learned his lessons well...

Names and some back up to that please. This anonymous sweeping accusation stuff is becoming tiresome.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Obama got his political start in the most corrupt city in the US.

Yes, yes....as if that was conclusive of anything...

JohnMc1

Nodin wrote: »

"poisoning the well" on an epic scale..

Again tough luck if you don't want to accept it.

Names and some back up to that please. This anonymous sweeping accusation stuff is becoming tiresome.

If you expect me to list everyone that of his cabinet picks thatwere confirmed or dropped that had trouble with their taxes, or pay to play scandals you know as well as I do that would be quite a list.

Yes, yes....as if that was conclusive of anything...

Hope&Change:rolleyes: You're not going to give up this "He's a saint amongst sinners" fantasy without a fight are you?

Scofflaw

Infraction for jank - don't insult other posters - week's ban for JohnMc1 for trolling and flaming.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ilkhanid

One thing looks obvious to me. While George Bush, rightly or wrongly, was hated for what he did, Barack Obama, right from the word go,was hated-for a large number of Americans-for what he was, or what they imagined him to be. Bush had at least a year before his opponents had ammunition to use, but the Obama-haters were at Barack Obama, before he was even inaugarated, with a catalogue of jibes, smears, lies and calumny.
Even before he was sworn in, I was looking at subject headings in forums like "secession threats if Obama becomes President" and then of course we had and still have the usual lunatics like the "He is the Antichrist/Communist/Islamic infiltrator/un-American/elitest (take your pick)". We still have the looney "birthers" taking up the time and money of courts with their frivolous nonsense. This comment in the Tribune sums them up well...
"That rag-tag coalition of shock-jocks, publicity-hungry attorneys, the credulous and simple-minded, plain nutters and above all frustrated racists known collectively as "the birthers" have spent a year banging on about Obama....With the hissing wrath of those struggling ferociously to suppress the volcanic pressure to screech "uppity n**ger" at their head of state, these people conveniently conclude that Obama isn't their head of state at all.
What is intriguing about the birther "movement" is the light it casts on the necrotic state of the Republican right....What leadship there is comes from the grass-roots- the sort of god-fearin', gun-totin, sister-shagging sweethearts who screeched "terrorist" and "kill him" when McCain mentioned Obama on the stump. Unable to compute that America elected a black man, they have decided that he isn't their president after all. No longer can they use the 'n' word or fantasize publicly about lynch mobs, But they can divert their rage into a bogus legalistic dispute,rejected time and again by the Supreme Court, as freely as they like" .

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Well thats not quite true. Its really only since 1980 or so they've gotten so influential.

1980 at the earliest it seems to me....it used to be the GOP that was the liberal party, not the democrats. I was referring to the present-day party only. The Whig party is being revived as a middle road for conservative Democrats and Liberal republicans. That would be very good IMO- it would consign the GOP to the religious oblivion they've started, and would grant the democrats the ability to operate as a truly liberal party.

Johnmc wrote:

See how that can easily work on the Left the "Enlightened" and "Intelligent" side too? Nobody here wants to admit Obama practiced Politics in Chicago but please keep up your Conservative insults. Its working out so well for you and your pals.

You say "Enlightened" and "Intelligent" too much. You throw the term at people you disagree with in an effort to appear like an even-minded moderate who dislikes extreme arrogance, and you honestly don't do a good job of it. Also, it's good practice to but into bold any changes you make to a person's quote.

worldrepublic

Obama's popularity has fallen sharply, granted, but...

It has very little to do with the internet films being made against him ("Obama Deception" etc. etc..)
Equally, it has very little to do with his "fan" base or what has been called "Obama worship".

So, why has his popularity dropped so much so quickly??

The unemployment figure in the US is in the double digits. 10% means if you are in a dentist's waiting room and there are 10 people there, 1 of them is unemployed. 12%....13%....14%...well, the number of people in that waiting room gets smaller, and smaller...how would you feel in that room, even if you *still* had a job?

Unemployment is quickly becoming the only issue in peoples minds. THAT is why he is losing popularity.

As for "comments" and videos, and fan sites, and hate sites.... more or less irrelevant.

is_that_so

Falling popularity is to be expected anyway. Part of the problem I think he has now is his inexperience and what appears to be his determination to stick to the election promises. Many a politician in many parts of the world has discovered that a manifesto promise can very quickly end up on the dust heap as they discover that it is impossible to implement. There is also a perception in some quarters that he is still campaigning and not running the country. In Obama's case his approach and the claims he made also meant that he was also far more likely to disappoint far more quickly than a typical politician like Clinton or a Bush.

Add this to his vain and, IMO, ultimately doomed attempts to get all of America to go with him, and you can see that he is likely to have more problems along the way. But that's part and parcel of being the president. As for people attacking him, well it is no different than FG/Labour and most of the country here giving the government grief. We'd be more annoyed if they weren't being critical.

Through his consensus building , especially on healthcare, he has invited critics to have a go at him. Our own experiences with the health service/HSE is clear evidence of how hard it is to fix something that is entrenched and has any number of vested interests and lobby groups. It's like trying to stop and turn an oil tanker. It is a massively high risk strategy and even if he get it through it is unclear if he will get any credit for it.

I don't doubt that there are some who just don't like him. Personally would give him a 6/10 and he seems to be making progress on that more important issue of the economy. However , the "obsession" with healthcare reform runs the risk of him being seen as a typical politician who promises a lot and delivers little. That can only push his ratings lower again.

worldrepublic

All lies and "conspiracy theories". Obama has so delivered on his promises of hope, and change. He is also under pressure fighting the War on Terror. Now he even has a major problem in Pakistan. Luckily the Nobel Prize winner Henry Kissinger has met up with Obama and they discussed the Nuclear aspect of the move against Pakistan. All he is doing is trying to bring more change and hope to the poor parts of the world and to endure that oil is traded fairly and that Al Qaeda types like Sadam Hussain and Pakistan do not interfere with the project of getting oil to everyone who need it, especially to Europe and the USA so as to maintain stability in the world.

is_that_so

worldrepublic wrote: »

All lies and "conspiracy theories". Obama has so delivered on his promises of hope, and change. He is also under pressure fighting the War on Terror. Now he even has a major problem in Pakistan. Luckily the Nobel Prize winner Henry Kissinger has met up with Obama and they discussed the Nuclear aspect of the move against Pakistan. All he is doing is trying to bring more change and hope to the poor parts of the world and to endure that oil is traded fairly and that Al Qaeda types like Sadam Hussain and Pakistan do not interfere with the project of getting oil to everyone who need it, especially to Europe and the USA so as to maintain stability in the world.

Politics in the real world is a lot different to what you envision it to be.
Which part is a lie? That he is having problems with healthcare reform? That he appears to be obsessed with it? That he is attempting to get consensus on it? That the economy is not responding to the stimulus package? Or that he hasn't managed to implement what he promised to do for America?

Much of what you've mentioned here doesn't matter a damn to the people who voted for him , the people of the USA, which explains his reduced ratings. Healthcare and the economy are a lot easier to understand. Like Clinton his ratings are higher abroad.