• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

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

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hello,

when debating with Americans online, I discovered there seems to be a lot of passionate dislike of Obama. I am not American, and certainly I don't want to tell you you shouldn't dislike Obama, if you do. I just wonder why you think so many Americans are so passionate when it comes to rejecting Obama.

From what I've read over here in Germany, it seems to me Obama has been doing an ok job so far. Maybe not outstanding, but not horrible either. Take this article from a German paper as an example:

(translation mine, so please excuse mistakes)

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. He has put through a health care reform that slows down the ever growing costs in the past years and integrates most of the 47 million uninsured into the system. 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.

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. Many Presidents had less in their favor even after four years. But the voters are not impressed. Strongly supportive, they voted for him in 2008. When inaugurated, his approval rate was at an average of 67%. Today, support and rejection are equal with 47% each. Only 32% still believe the country is on the right track, 61% think it is heading in the wrong direction. (...)

Why has Obama only limited success in turning his countable successes into approval by the citizens? 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. Despite the new economic growth, the unemployment rate stagnates at 9.5%, an unusually high number for the USA. 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. Financial reform doesn't change that "average Joe" perceives a shortage when looking into his account or moneybag. The dramatically rising public debt causes fear of the future. The oil spill at the Gulf and the experience that even the high tech country USA hasn't been able to solve the problem for months additionally depresses the general atmosphere.

America's reputation may be better today than under Bush. But this won't decide elections. The conservative camp generally refuses to consider the change under Obama as social and international policy successes. And even for his supporters, other topics have priority: Jobs and economic safety in their private lives.
USA: Das Obama-Paradox | Politik | ZEIT ONLINE

What do you think? Is that foreign article spot on, or do you think it is missing essential aspects?

As I said, personally, as a non-American, I believe Obama has been an ok President so far. Certainly better than Bush. I didn't like Bush, because I think his foreign policy was too uncompromising, he didn't think much of diplomacy and the impression arose he is bullying his allies.

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.

On top of that, I didn't really like Bush's rhetorics. Maybe that's a cultural thing, because Germany is a culturally rather "blue" state, by American standards. For example, I don't really understand Bush's religiously toned rhetorics, and his occasional martial attitude. It just made me suspicious.

So when Obama was elected, I was hopeful. At any rate, his rhetorics are more likeable than Bush's, IMHO, and he is a outstanding speaker. I liked his Berlin speech in 2008, it showed that he has a talent for reaching non-Americans too. But of course rhetorics alone are not very important, although I believe it's not for the bad when a President is a good speaker too. But that's just a formal thing.

I am also fond of Obama's foreign policies so far. He put more emphasis on cooperation again, was more inclusive towards America's long time allies again, and his efforts towards Russia and China have yielded a certain positive effect already (for example, Russia and China are more cooperative now when it comes to countering Iran's nuclear program). Also, I think it was a good decision that Obama announced a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

I am disappointed, though, that Obama has not curbed the government pracitizes of extralegal detention and denial of fair trials for suspects, but at least he is planning on closing Guantanamo and has ended torture. But I am disappointed he doesn't go further, and doesn't end these practizes once and for all.

Naturally, I don't have a strong opinion on Obama's domestic policies as Americans probably do, but even here, I am rather supportive than critical. Are stimulus and health care reform really that bad? Chances are, the recession would have been much worse without the stimulus, at least that is what you often read over here, and might even have become a genuine depression. Of course debts are not nice, but still, it seems in this case, it was a necessary evil to avert worse effects.

And health care? This seems to be a real "red flag" (as we say over here) for many Americans. I don't really understand that either (but I am not familiar with the details). It seems that at very least, the new system is better than what you had before. Many uninsured have been included, which certainly will pay off on the long run, because many will get treatment now before it gets worse, and thus higher costs for procrastinated treatment will be minimized. There will be more prevention of chronic illnesses, instead of after-the-fact treatment, which is more expensive.

Many Americans seem to think that is "socialist" and thus bad, but I think that is an exaggeration. Of course I understand too public systems are prone for inefficiency and waste, but that doesn't necessarily need to be a too big problem, and such a public system has many good sides too. Not least that it's more fair and makes sure general public health increases. And it's not necessarily "socialism". I understand many Americans are wary of public programs, because they are not familiar with it, but I can assure you, you are miles away from genuine socialism. We had genuine socialism in the east part of Germany only 20 years ago, and it was nothing like what Obama does, but was much, much more extreme.

So you really shouldn't worry, even if you oppose public health care. Such a system may be good or bad, favorable or unfavorable for good reasons, but you don't need to worry it will bring socialism or even tyranny. At worst, it's a bit inefficient. No need to grab the guns and march towards Washington. :mrgreen:

So what do you think? Do you rather like or dislike Obama, and what do you think of my thoughts? Am I missing anything important?
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,412
Reaction score
4,815
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It's actually very simple: The opposition to the party in power always complains much louder and about practically everything the current President does. It was the exact same thing under Bush. The American left-wing totally lost their minds for 8 years in their abject hate for Bush. The same thing is now happening to the right-wing. Same ol' same ol'.

I think it's hilarious, personally.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's actually very simple: The opposition to the party in power always complains much louder and about practically everything the current President does. It was the exact same thing under Bush. The American left-wing totally lost their minds for 8 years in their abject hate for Bush. The same thing is now happening to the right-wing. Same ol' same ol'.

I think it's hilarious, personally.
i don't. i'm sick of it. personally, i didn't abhor bush until he slammed war down our throats and promised we would be given flowers and candy by iraqis. until that point, i thought he was an idiot, but didn't feel much animosity. of course, i never envisioned the harm he would cause. look at us, almost 10 years after, floundering away in a war we can't win. obama came into this in a very untenable position.......the cards were definitely NOT stacked in his favor.
 

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,539
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's actually very simple: The opposition to the party in power always complains much louder and about practically everything the current President does. It was the exact same thing under Bush. The American left-wing totally lost their minds for 8 years in their abject hate for Bush. The same thing is now happening to the right-wing. Same ol' same ol'.

I think it's hilarious, personally.
Yeah, but why is there so much passionate dislike?

It happens because it has become acceptable for media to air voices discrediting a president (by any means necessary, real or imagined) in place of just plain news or reporting of events.

And then you get a movement of chowderheads passionately disliking the POTUS. And in Obama's case, it's because (choose one or more of these to parrot ... all memes from before he was even elected) ...

* "He associates with a known terrorist!"
* "He IS a terrorist."
* "He has ties to a voter fraud group!"
* "Someone else he knows is in jail!"
* "Some guy named Joe whom admits that he knows nothing, but he still distrusts him!"
* "He's a secret Muslim!"
* "He’s not a Christian!
* "He has never expressed a relationship with his faith!"
* "His church is like the KKK!"
* "He's unpatriotic because he didn't wear a flag pin!"
* "He's anti-American!"
* "He hasn’t worked with Republicans in the Senate!"
* "He’s never passed legislation!"
* "He refused to disclose earmarks!"
* "He paid less than market value for the Rezko property."
* "Rezko bought his house for him."
* "His campaign said that women shouldn't be treated equally."
* "He hasn’t answered the question about Farrakhan."
* "He has a Jew-hating name."
* "He had a Cuban Guevara flag on his campaign headquarters’ wall."
* "He is like Hitler."
* "He's kinda like Saddam."
* "You can draw a line from Mussolini to Clinton and Obama."
* "He's also like bin Laden."
* "And David Duke, too."
* "His wife is a black militant."
* "His church is separatist."
* "He’s never visited a factory."
* "He doesn't mention policy at all in his speeches!"
* "He hasn’t outlined plans for fighting terrorism or paying for health care!"
* "He wouldn’t be running if he wasn’t half-black!!"
* "He admitted that he can't manage his way out of a paper bag!"
* "He said he’d invade Pakistan!"
* "He made a little girl cry!"
* "He’s like a serial killer!"
* "He compared himself to Christ!"
* "He’s a wuss.
* "He's like a woman!"
* "He’s a pothead!"
* "He said he would embrace Ahmadinejad!"
* "His Iran policy 'takes all aggression, all threats, everything serious off the table'."
* "He advocates abandoning economic sanctions against Iran."
* "He bashes America when he criticizes Bush."
* "He sounds so much like Bush that they appear identical."
* "He wants to teach little kids about sex!"
* "He has incited riots!"
* "He misspelled 'flak'!"
* "He might put African tribal interests ahead of US interests."
* "He said he would "leave" Afghanistan now!"
* "He gave a pass to OBL by not revising the FISA act."
* "He didn't do anything to expand Health care in Illinois!"
* "His state senate records don't exist at all!"
* "He waffled on driver's licenses!"
* "His campaign is only bringing up the threat of assassination in order to make him into some kind of mythic hero."
* "He was unresponsive to that voter at a campaign stop."
* "He has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate!"
* "He doesn't have a US birth certificate, so he isn't even eligible to run."
* "He’s dodged all the tough interviews."
* "He and his wife don’t sleep in the same bed."
* "He was endorsed by Castro!"
* "He's a plagiarist."
* "His supporters are like Manson's followers!"
* "He's against protecting babies who survive botched late-term abortions."
* "He doesn’t support the troops."
* "He lacks substance."
* "He had a tryst with Larry Sinclair!"
* "Frank Marshall Davis was his mentor!"
* "OMG! There's an Obama sex perv scandal!"
* "Obama's campaign is funded by foreigners!"
* "He tried to sway the Iraqi government to ignore Bush policy!"
* "He was an organizer for ACORN!"
* "Michelle said 'whitey'!"
 
Last edited:

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's actually very simple: The opposition to the party in power always complains much louder and about practically everything the current President does. It was the exact same thing under Bush. The American left-wing totally lost their minds for 8 years in their abject hate for Bush. The same thing is now happening to the right-wing. Same ol' same ol'.

I think it's hilarious, personally.
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. =)
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think the Rev. Wright scandel really hurt Obama. The fact that Obama was a member of his church and called him a friend shocked the hell out of most Americans. Rev. Wright's hate-speak racist views are hard to ignore. Rightly so. It calls into question the very core of Obama's beliefs.
 

prrriiide

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
202
Reaction score
97
Location
Knoxvega$, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.
That's because Obama wasn't elected by the Supreme Court. ;)
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And then you get a movement of chowderheads passionately disliking the POTUS. And in Obama's case, it's because (choose one or more of these to parrot ... all memes from before he was even elected) ...

* "He associates with a known terrorist!"
* "He IS a terrorist."
* "He has ties to a voter fraud group!"
* "Someone else he knows is in jail!"
* "Some guy named Joe whom admits that he knows nothing, but he still distrusts him!"
* "He's a secret Muslim!"
* "He’s not a Christian!
* "He has never expressed a relationship with his faith!"
* "His church is like the KKK!"
* "He's unpatriotic because he didn't wear a flag pin!"
* "He's anti-American!"
* "He hasn’t worked with Republicans in the Senate!"
* "He’s never passed legislation!"
* "He refused to disclose earmarks!"
* "He paid less than market value for the Rezko property."
* "Rezko bought his house for him."
* "His campaign said that women shouldn't be treated equally."
* "He hasn’t answered the question about Farrakhan."
* "He has a Jew-hating name."
* "He had a Cuban Guevara flag on his campaign headquarters’ wall."
* "He is like Hitler."
* "He's kinda like Saddam."
* "You can draw a line from Mussolini to Clinton and Obama."
* "He's also like bin Laden."
* "And David Duke, too."
* "His wife is a black militant."
* "His church is separatist."
* "He’s never visited a factory."
* "He doesn't mention policy at all in his speeches!"
* "He hasn’t outlined plans for fighting terrorism or paying for health care!"
* "He wouldn’t be running if he wasn’t half-black!!"
* "He admitted that he can't manage his way out of a paper bag!"
* "He said he’d invade Pakistan!"
* "He made a little girl cry!"
* "He’s like a serial killer!"
* "He compared himself to Christ!"
* "He’s a wuss.
* "He's like a woman!"
* "He’s a pothead!"
* "He said he would embrace Ahmadinejad!"
* "His Iran policy 'takes all aggression, all threats, everything serious off the table'."
* "He advocates abandoning economic sanctions against Iran."
* "He bashes America when he criticizes Bush."
* "He sounds so much like Bush that they appear identical."
* "He wants to teach little kids about sex!"
* "He has incited riots!"
* "He misspelled 'flak'!"
* "He might put African tribal interests ahead of US interests."
* "He said he would "leave" Afghanistan now!"
* "He gave a pass to OBL by not revising the FISA act."
* "He didn't do anything to expand Health care in Illinois!"
* "His state senate records don't exist at all!"
* "He waffled on driver's licenses!"
* "His campaign is only bringing up the threat of assassination in order to make him into some kind of mythic hero."
* "He was unresponsive to that voter at a campaign stop."
* "He has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate!"
* "He doesn't have a US birth certificate, so he isn't even eligible to run."
* "He’s dodged all the tough interviews."
* "He and his wife don’t sleep in the same bed."
* "He was endorsed by Castro!"
* "He's a plagiarist."
* "His supporters are like Manson's followers!"
* "He's against protecting babies who survive botched late-term abortions."
* "He doesn’t support the troops."
* "He lacks substance."
* "He had a tryst with Larry Sinclair!"
* "Frank Marshall Davis was his mentor!"
* "OMG! There's an Obama sex perv scandal!"
* "Obama's campaign is funded by foreigners!"
* "He tried to sway the Iraqi government to ignore Bush policy!"
* "He was an organizer for ACORN!"
* "Michelle said 'whitey'!"
Thanks for posting this list, that's exactly what I mean. Of course I am not saying it's illigetimate to oppose Obama, or that there are no good reasons to do so. But much of what I've encountered seem to be hyperbolic exaggerations or plain resentment. Much of which doesn't seem to be really based on facts.

Not sure if it was similar in case of the left's dislike of Bush. At least I didn't have the impression it was remotely comparable. Sure, there were always a few nuts who claimed Bush staged 9/11, or something of that caliber ... but I think in most cases, the criticism was maybe passionate, but hardly hysteric and uncalled for. Now I have the impression conspiracy theories are much more widespread and mainstream on the right, than they used to be on the left concerning Bush. But I may be wrong.
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think the Rev. Wright scandel really hurt Obama. The fact that Obama was a member of his church and called him a friend shocked the hell out of most Americans. Rev. Wright's hate-speak racist views are hard to ignore. Rightly so. It calls into question the very core of Obama's beliefs.
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.
 
Last edited:

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hi German guy, a few things first.

While there is definite passionate dislike for Obama, I wouldn't say it was much more than George Bush. I would say both are higher than Bill Clinton, who kind of was the forerunner for this. While there's always been dislike for the other side, I believe the cracks in the foundation for the passionate disliking to occur when the Clinton scandal occured as politics and morality collided.

These cracks were then smashed with a hammer and shattered to pieces with the way the 2000 election ended which was going to be bad any way it ended. The next 8 years followed with the most heated and passionate disliking of a President likely in modern U.S. History, with a small reprieve in the time immedietely surrounding 9/11. That essentially took the shattered peices of what used to be how the public reacted to the opposition and scattered them even farther. Leaving us with the what we have now.

As you can see above, I don't blame one particular side for this. The cracks were placed there by the Republicans during the Lewinski stuff, but the Democrats took a sledge hammer to it for the next 8 years.

So that's the first thing to understand.

The second thing to understand is that you seem to be looking at this very much from not just a foreign but from a left leaning view point. That's fine, but its also what's causing your confusion. There was similar passionate dislike for Bush, but you see no problem with that because you disagree with him on everything so that makes sense. The thing is, its equally reasonable and understandable for people to feel that exact same way...but on the other side. What someone could see as brash foreign policy others could see as leadership. What someone could see as humble and realist foreign policy others could see as capitulation and self deprication.

Now, as to your article. I think the problem with it is, much like you, it is looking at it from only one side and believing that view point to be undisputably truth without question and without argument and thus it makes no sense for people to be against it.

For example, it states how his 800 billion stimulus brought America back on the path away from the depression where as there are some who believe that the stimulus and the WAY it was done actually slowered recovery not helped it. Or, at best, they believe it was extremely inefficient in helping it based on the amount spent.

Later on it talks about Health Care and continues to make false assumptions. First, it assumes that the only reform that could potentially be implimented is OBAMA'S reform and thus the alternative is simply no reform. Second, it assumes that the alternative would automatically result in quicker rising costs. Both of these are either implied or flatly stated as if they're fact rather than assumptions.

Your article hits in a general way on one of the issues, the economy. Obama came into office with the notion of "fixing" the economy however with every action it seems to have little, no, or a negative affect on things for most poeple. This is definitely going to affect how people view him. Where it misses is the automatic assumption that people are wrong to believe that is what the actual impact on the economy his actions have caused.

There are definitely other reasons people dislike Obama.

You spoke of your dislike for Bush due to (in your views) his uncompromising foreign policy, his aversion to diplomacy, and impression that he bullies allies. On the flip side, many people dislike Obama due to his (in their views) capitulating and self depricating (self = US) style of foreign policy, his aversion to taking action (such as with the Iranian Revolution), and his penchant for lienency with enemies and harshness towards allies.


Your complaints about Bush with regards to his war and national security issues shows a bit of why Obama's approval has dipped with more left leaning libertarians, independents, and some democrats. There are some in this country who don't care about the social side of liberalism but were upset with the national defense policies of Bush that voted for Obama. We're still in Iraq and not moving any faster than the time table that was in the works with Bush. We're ratcheting up in Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open despite the campaign promise. The Patriot Act is still in affect. Etc. This is causing some who were single issue voters that went towards Obama for this to turn on him. Additionally, its not winning him many points with people who favored Bush because its counter balanced by his foreign policy, his believed hand in the shaping of rules of engagement, and his seeming duplicitous motivations when looking at his words and his actions.

While you disliked Bush's rhetoric, again this is a point some dislike Obama on. To many he comes off as arrogant, egocentric, and petty. Some view his continual and repeated throwbacks to the Bush Administration as the exact opposite of Truman's "The Buck Stops Here". His "superstar" or "celebrity" persona which I'd rank similar with rhetoric bothers some as well, with him seeming to have had more time on the likes of Letterman, ESPN, or the View rather than having open question press conferences.

Obama is a great speecher giver, but he's been shown more and more to be a relatively average off the cuff speaker. The problem with stump speeches is that they're great for the campaign, but that kind of fluff and rhetoric becomes more insulting and annoying when actually in power than prior to it.

Your comment about foriegn policy shows some of the flaws in your view, or more the biases. The Iraqi time table was in the works and was being followed by the Bush Administration and to place it as something to Obama's credit while ignoring Bush's role speaks of nothing but bias. While you see his interactions with China and Iran as positive things, others see Iran becoming more nuclear ready while Obama spends time continually chastising and attacking our staunchest middle eastern ally.

In regards to domestic, its a tricky issue. Some believe the Stimulus was a great help. Some think it did more harm than good. Others feel it had little affect. Still there are others that think it may've helped some, but in a far to inefficient way. All the while the deficite has ballooned to extrodinary numbers which, unfortunantly for Obama, came about at a time when "debt" was something a vast majority of Americans could understand all to well. Additionally the notion of bail outs and more precisely buy outs are very, very antithetical to what many American's believe the US government should be doing so just the nature of the government essentially buying a corporation like GM immedietely caused great dislike to arrise in people who felt that the action was a wholey unamerican type of act.

Again, with health care, you show your bias (and I don't mean this as a bad thing, its natural) that YOUR way is right, better, and it should be obvious to people. More than that you again use the same theory of your article, which is that the only kind of reform is the Obama kind of reform. Many people see a non-government ran or subsidized health care system as something that spurs invention and creation which spurs better technologies and medications which lowers the cost of other types and allows for the potential of medical advancement and they don't want to see that go the way side. Many people don't believe that adding to the federal beuracracy and trusting in them is somehow "Better" than trusting insurance companies. Some believe that having the possability of obtaining the best health care possible while some may be left with none is better than giving a situation where everyone has health care but its generally average over all throughout. There's also the general belief that the long term plan was to use various parts of the health care bill, such as the decentives for businesses providing plans to individuals, are set up specifically to create a bad scenario in the future that will be custom made to go "See, those greedy businesses aren't providing insurance, we need to move to a single payer government ran health care system to save you all".

You gave a nice long impassioned speech about why its not "socialism", then went on to essentially go "yeah its socialism but you should like it". While what is in place now may not be, many people see it as simply an end around. A double reverse. A pump fake. Etc. And no matter how you want to spin it or what pretty words you want to put on it, the notion of socialized, or government ran, or government provided, or whatever other word you want to use it, health care is something that's just rings alerts as being antithetical to the American way of life for many people. They don't WANT a European style of life and government, if they did they could move to Europe. As hard as it may be to believe, there's many of us here in the U.S. that don't want to be you.

So to answer your question in summation...

I don't think there's really more passionate dislike for Obama then there was for Bush, and I think that dislike comes from many of the same reasons. Those reasons being people disagreeing with his domestic policies, foreign policies, rhetoric, and attitude as well as the general well being of the country as a whole at any given moment.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, but why is there so much passionate dislike?

It happens because it has become acceptable for media to air voices discrediting a president (by any means necessary, real or imagined) in place of just plain news or reporting of events.

And then you get a movement of chowderheads passionately disliking the POTUS. And in Obama's case, it's because (choose one or more of these to parrot ... all memes from before he was even elected) ...
Seriously, we want to get in a pissing match for stupid things people use to get upset at the President over?

He's in bed with the Saudi's!
He's in bed with Halliburton
He stole the election!
He rigged the election!
Some woman who has no foreign policy experience at all but still demands she can give war strategy!
He's thinks he literally speaks with god!
He's Christian!
He expressed a relationship with faith!
He doesn't care about America because he finished reading to the kids!
He's anti-American
He has'nt worked with Democrats in the Senate!
He did signing statements!
He went AWOL!
He gave out no bid contracts!
He's privledged!
He's just there because of his daddy.
He is like Hitler
His vice President is the Devil
His Vice President is like Darth Vader
He is just a puppet of his Vice President
His Vice President really runs everything
You can draw a line from Mussolini to Reagan to Obama
He's also like Bin laden
And David Duke, too
His VP and staff have plans for World Domination
He didn't have good ivy league grades
He speaks funny!
He hasn't outlined plans to fight global warming!
He wouldn't be running if he wasn't a Bush!
He is going to invade North Korea
He is going to invade Iran
He is going to invade Pakistan
He is going to cause World War 3
He's a bully
He's like a cowboy
He's the village idiot
He's a crackhead
He wouldn't eembrace Ahmadinejad!
His Iran Policy "Do as we say or we'll bomb you"
He advocates for sanctions against Iran.
He embarrasses America when he says we're right
He thinks kids should never learn about a condom!
He misprounced Nuclear
He might put oil interests ahead of the US interests
He said there'd be no nation building
He didn't actually want to catch OBL
He was unrepsonsive to that voter at a campaign stop
He is a right wing extremist!
He outed valie Plame so he should be arrested for treason
He's dodged all the tough interviews
He probably secretly still is an alcoholic
He supported Israel!
His supporters are mind numbed robots
He just does the bidding of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like.
He's for taking away women's control of their body.
He doesn't care about the troops.
He lacks class.
He was part of Skull and Bones!
Bush's campaign funded by foreigners!
He fired Clinton appointees!
He owned the Houston Astros
He went to war for Oil
He went to war for his Daddy
He went to war to start a New American Century
He went to war knowing 100% there were no WMD's
He specifically said Iraq helped with 9/11
He knew about 9/11 and purposefully did nothing
He helped plan 9/11
He signed off on explosives as it was an entirely inside job
He was blind to cheney setting up 9/11
He covered up the governments role in 9/11
He's going to use the Patriot Act to create internment camps throughout the U.S.
He's going to use the Patriot Act to arrest all muslims
He's going to use the Patriot Act to refuse to leave office.
He's going to use the Patriot Act to declare martial law.
He's helped stage when terrorist attacks happen or are reported on to help out Republicans.
He can't eat a pretzel.
Huga Chavez doesn't like him!
Ahkmadinijad doesn't like him!
He speaks with a southern accent!
He says stupid things!
He looks like a monkey!
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,167
Reaction score
30,789
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
Maybe there are a lot of reasons...

For example...maybe people are disgusted by the blatant hypocricy of people on the left. You know...people who spent 8 year writhing in a hatred that rivaled Gollum...and now would ask with big sad Doe eyes..why are people upset?
Or maybe its the excuses...SURE he spent 20 YEARS in the church...but then he DISTANCED himself from the comments...you know...AFTER the comments were brought to public light.
Maybe its the pathetic excuses and lack of leadership...because "its not my fault" and "gosh its HARD" are JUST the kind of things you want to hear from the president.
Maybe its the pathetic fallback on cries of racism...because Bill Clinton was a democrat HERO until he dared to question Obamas lack of experience and then he was suddenly a racist...and anyone that disagrees with the One is a racist...and racial racists are racing to conduct racism at every racist venue. Maybe we are a little tired of THAT tired pathetic bull****.
MAYBE it has something to do with passage of a healthcare bill the great majority are opposed to?
Or Maybe it has to do with the kneejerk cries of racism against Arizona when they then come out and admit...umm...well...we never really READ it...but its racist just the same!
Maybe it has something to do with open criticism of past policies, then adoption OF those polices...and again the mindless minions and sheep say nothing.
Maybe its the campaign rhetoric on the budget, then the adding of 4 trillion to the budget in 2 years and the congress making way for the federal debt ceiling to be raised to 15 trillion...PROBABLY for a reason...like...they are planning on SPENDING it.
Maybe its not even hatred at all...maybe its just disgust at the whole process and the continued ideological policies.

I dont know Bambi...WHY?
 
Last edited:

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,539
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Seriously, we want to get in a pissing match for stupid things people use to get upset at the President over?

He's in bed with the Saudi's!
He's in bed with Halliburton
He stole the election!
He rigged the election!
Some woman who has no foreign policy experience at all but still demands she can give war strategy!
He's thinks he literally speaks with god!
He's Christian!
He expressed a relationship with faith!
He doesn't care about America because he finished reading to the kids!
He's anti-American
He has'nt worked with Democrats in the Senate!
He did signing statements!
He went AWOL!
He gave out no bid contracts!
He's privledged!
He's just there because of his daddy.
He is like Hitler
His vice President is the Devil
His Vice President is like Darth Vader
He is just a puppet of his Vice President
His Vice President really runs everything
You can draw a line from Mussolini to Reagan to Obama
He's also like Bin laden
And David Duke, too
His VP and staff have plans for World Domination
He didn't have good ivy league grades
He speaks funny!
He hasn't outlined plans to fight global warming!
He wouldn't be running if he wasn't a Bush!
He is going to invade North Korea
He is going to invade Iran
He is going to invade Pakistan
He is going to cause World War 3
He's a bully
He's like a cowboy
He's the village idiot
He's a crackhead
He wouldn't eembrace Ahmadinejad!
His Iran Policy "Do as we say or we'll bomb you"
He advocates for sanctions against Iran.
He embarrasses America when he says we're right
He thinks kids should never learn about a condom!
He misprounced Nuclear
He might put oil interests ahead of the US interests
He said there'd be no nation building
He didn't actually want to catch OBL
He was unrepsonsive to that voter at a campaign stop
He is a right wing extremist!
He outed valie Plame so he should be arrested for treason
He's dodged all the tough interviews
He probably secretly still is an alcoholic
He supported Israel!
His supporters are mind numbed robots
He just does the bidding of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like.
He's for taking away women's control of their body.
He doesn't care about the troops.
He lacks class.
He was part of Skull and Bones!
Bush's campaign funded by foreigners!
He fired Clinton appointees!
He owned the Houston Astros
He went to war for Oil
He went to war for his Daddy
He went to war to start a New American Century
He went to war knowing 100% there were no WMD's
He specifically said Iraq helped with 9/11
He knew about 9/11 and purposefully did nothing
He helped plan 9/11
He signed off on explosives as it was an entirely inside job
He was blind to cheney setting up 9/11
He covered up the governments role in 9/11
He's going to use the Patriot Act to create internment camps throughout the U.S.
He's going to use the Patriot Act to arrest all muslims
He's going to use the Patriot Act to refuse to leave office.
He's going to use the Patriot Act to declare martial law.
He's helped stage when terrorist attacks happen or are reported on to help out Republicans.
He can't eat a pretzel.
Huga Chavez doesn't like him!
Ahkmadinijad doesn't like him!
He speaks with a southern accent!
He says stupid things!
He looks like a monkey!
Wow, no "He's going to reinstate the draft!"? I'm surprised.

Fun game: see how many of these you can find that would be considered racist if said about Obama. Inspired by the last entry, but by no means limited to it.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
i don't. i'm sick of it. personally, i didn't abhor bush until he slammed war down our throats and promised we would be given flowers and candy by iraqis. until that point, i thought he was an idiot, but didn't feel much animosity. of course, i never envisioned the harm he would cause.
That is exactly how most passionate critics of Obama feel about Obama. Just switch out some of the details.
 

Helvidius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't like President Obama and I didn't like President Bush. From what I understand, many Americans blindly base their support on party as opposed to principle or the actual agenda. This country has a left-right paradigm that I believe is fueled by the media. What most Americans see is seen through the lens of the American political landscape. For example, many conservatives will complain about the out of control spending that has taken place under Obama and the Democrats. However, these same conservatives said nothing when Bush and a Republican Congress were wildly spending money. Similarly, liberals demonized Bush for signing into law the Patriot Act. Obama has extended this Act and many liberals have given little criticism to the President on that. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but I am just writing about what I have seen from many conservatives and liberals.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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 has always been that way. In fact, it has been much much worse, which people tend to conveniently forget. (Civil War, ...hello?) In American history there is a strong, strong heritage of outrageous beliefs and resulting cognitive dissonance. People on a grand scale believing in memes fed to them in order to get them to believe and act in shameful ways. There was a "patriotic" thing called manifest destiny, which was just another way to say, "we must kill them all." And a shameful thing called slavery. There's an entire culture of people here that believe America must always be fighting in a war (or perpetually preparing for one), and as long as we are, it will help to keep us "free." The revolutionary impulse has apparently never left, and some so want to believe, that they do. And when you challenge people's deluded beliefs with reason, they don't see the light, instead, they become angry--that is the natural reaction.

Shoot, at the outset, we had George Washington not wanting to be an ideologue or a member of a party, but immediately, factions appeared, extremely entrenched factions. Pistol duels, grown men beating each with canes on the floor of congress, outrageous smear campaigns in the nation's newspapers. And the newspapers were much more overtly biased then.

Probably the only difference between then and now is that everybody hears about it all much quicker. Ironically, technological advances in media have served to produce a less informed and less reasonable populace. A single propagandist can, say, have a radio show listened to by millions and millions of people in all 50 states. The truth is often boring. People's ears perk up here when they are fed hyperbole, whether it's Obama's secret Islamist desires, or Bush's alleged coke use, or whatever.
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hi German guy, a few things first.
Hi Zyphlin! Thank you very much for taking the time to explain these things to me. I may have guessed some of it, but it still gives me a good insight into the American situation. It's always nice to learn more. :)

While there is definite passionate dislike for Obama, I wouldn't say it was much more than George Bush. I would say both are higher than Bill Clinton, who kind of was the forerunner for this. While there's always been dislike for the other side, I believe the cracks in the foundation for the passionate disliking to occur when the Clinton scandal occured as politics and morality collided.

These cracks were then smashed with a hammer and shattered to pieces with the way the 2000 election ended which was going to be bad any way it ended. The next 8 years followed with the most heated and passionate disliking of a President likely in modern U.S. History, with a small reprieve in the time immedietely surrounding 9/11. That essentially took the shattered peices of what used to be how the public reacted to the opposition and scattered them even farther. Leaving us with the what we have now.
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? Or do you think it has more to do what a changing media landscape has made of them? Or maybe entirely different factors?

As you can see above, I don't blame one particular side for this. The cracks were placed there by the Republicans during the Lewinski stuff, but the Democrats took a sledge hammer to it for the next 8 years.
Thank you, I am glad that you take a fair view on the topic, despite your personal convictions (which, of course, are fine, and as you said, we all have them, which is no reason to attack each other rather than debate).

The second thing to understand is that you seem to be looking at this very much from not just a foreign but from a left leaning view point. That's fine, but its also what's causing your confusion.
Agreed. I guess I cannot deny that. My views are probably rather progressive/liberal, at least by American standards, although they are closer to the center by German standards (from what I can tell, we hardly have a strong right here anymore, and even a relatively strong far-left minority). Maybe the fact that the German center is more to the left than the American, is a main reason for the fondness of many people here towards Obama. We neither have a religious right, nor a gun lobby, and most people are relaxed when it comes to public welfare, so I guess Obama just speaks a language we understand, and he doesn't seem as culturally alien as Bush did.

There was similar passionate dislike for Bush, but you see no problem with that because you disagree with him on everything so that makes sense.
Well, not entirely. For example, I do believe that people who invoked conspiracy theories against Bush, like that he staged 9/11, or that he is a second Hitler, were and are nuts. I did disagree with much of what Bush did, but I did not question his sincerity; his policies may be wrong, but I don't think Bush was ill-meaning. And I never had the impression people on the left believing that were as numerous as people who now believe Obama is a Muslim, accuse him of bringing about tyranny, or even suspect him of being the Anti-Christ.

It's my impression these kinds of hysterics and conspiracy theories are more widespread today on the right, than they used to be on the left under Bush. But I may be wrong.

The thing is, its equally reasonable and understandable for people to feel that exact same way...but on the other side. What someone could see as brash foreign policy others could see as leadership. What someone could see as humble and realist foreign policy others could see as capitulation and self deprication.
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. After all, it is not always the case that two sides to a story naturally have the same merit. No, they have so because of their inherent merit. Some accusations against Obama seem so silly and ridiculous to me, that I really don't think they have any merit at all. "Obama hates America!" What kind of an argument is that even supposed to be?

Now, as to your article. I think the problem with it is, much like you, it is looking at it from only one side and believing that view point to be undisputably truth without question and without argument and thus it makes no sense for people to be against it.

For example, it states how his 800 billion stimulus brought America back on the path away from the depression where as there are some who believe that the stimulus and the WAY it was done actually slowered recovery not helped it. Or, at best, they believe it was extremely inefficient in helping it based on the amount spent.
Ok, I see your point. I am sure good arguments can be made it was very inefficient. But if it did the opposite of what it was supposed to do is not an ideological question where both sides automatically have the same merit. It's an expert question. 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 (although there may be different reasons to still oppose it, like for example negative impact of debts).

Later on it talks about Health Care and continues to make false assumptions. First, it assumes that the only reform that could potentially be implimented is OBAMA'S reform and thus the alternative is simply no reform. Second, it assumes that the alternative would automatically result in quicker rising costs. Both of these are either implied or flatly stated as if they're fact rather than assumptions.
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. Is it true that there was more or less a consensus that the old system cannot be maintained, and something has to be done? And if so, were there serious opposing drafts that were more popular than the one that was implemented?

Your article hits in a general way on one of the issues, the economy. Obama came into office with the notion of "fixing" the economy however with every action it seems to have little, no, or a negative affect on things for most poeple. This is definitely going to affect how people view him. Where it misses is the automatic assumption that people are wrong to believe that is what the actual impact on the economy his actions have caused.
I just wonder how people could forget we were and still are dealing with one of the worst crisis since the Great Depression, and that this wasn't Obama's fault. Now maybe again, I may be wrong and just read the wrong sources, but I remember that there was more or less consensus that this one could have easily become as bad as the Great Depression. This hasn't happened, fortunately. So maybe Obama just has bad luck, because people don't subscribe to him what he has done to prevent worse, but instead blame him for the lower bad effects he was not successful at preventing after all.

There are definitely other reasons people dislike Obama.

You spoke of your dislike for Bush due to (in your views) his uncompromising foreign policy, his aversion to diplomacy, and impression that he bullies allies. On the flip side, many people dislike Obama due to his (in their views) capitulating and self depricating (self = US) style of foreign policy, his aversion to taking action (such as with the Iranian Revolution), and his penchant for lienency with enemies and harshness towards allies.
Again, I think this view does not necessarily have the same merit as the opposing view, just because it's the second side to the same story, and because the different party takes that stance. It's just childish and silly to call any kind of diplomacy and cooperation "appeasement", as many do, and I have even seen people accusing Obama of "hating America", because apparently, everything short of short-handedly bombing a place into the ground or smashing chairs over foreign leaders' heads is "appeasement", "making America weak" etc. Since when has military action become so popular as a means for solving conflicts? Is this trend towards a total mental militarization of international relations become en vogue?

Maybe I talked with the wrong people, though, and this is not what you mean. But judging from my experience, it seems to me that many who hold these kind of views have a severely distorted perception of what foreign relations should look like. America neither can, nor should use war and military force as the solution to basically all problems (and that's just fact, there is no legitimate different side to the same story with the same inherent intellectual merit), and bragging rhetorics may please the souls of simple minded macho guys, but hardly achieve much on the international scale.

Your complaints about Bush with regards to his war and national security issues shows a bit of why Obama's approval has dipped with more left leaning libertarians, independents, and some democrats. There are some in this country who don't care about the social side of liberalism but were upset with the national defense policies of Bush that voted for Obama. We're still in Iraq and not moving any faster than the time table that was in the works with Bush. We're ratcheting up in Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open despite the campaign promise. The Patriot Act is still in affect. Etc. This is causing some who were single issue voters that went towards Obama for this to turn on him. Additionally, its not winning him many points with people who favored Bush because its counter balanced by his foreign policy, his believed hand in the shaping of rules of engagement, and his seeming duplicitous motivations when looking at his words and his actions.
Yes, I see how people can be disappointed with this.
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
While you disliked Bush's rhetoric, again this is a point some dislike Obama on. To many he comes off as arrogant, egocentric, and petty. Some view his continual and repeated throwbacks to the Bush Administration as the exact opposite of Truman's "The Buck Stops Here". His "superstar" or "celebrity" persona which I'd rank similar with rhetoric bothers some as well, with him seeming to have had more time on the likes of Letterman, ESPN, or the View rather than having open question press conferences.
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.

Your comment about foriegn policy shows some of the flaws in your view, or more the biases. The Iraqi time table was in the works and was being followed by the Bush Administration and to place it as something to Obama's credit while ignoring Bush's role speaks of nothing but bias.
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.

While you see his interactions with China and Iran as positive things, others see Iran becoming more nuclear ready while Obama spends time continually chastising and attacking our staunchest middle eastern ally.
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.

In regards to domestic, its a tricky issue. Some believe the Stimulus was a great help. Some think it did more harm than good. Others feel it had little affect. Still there are others that think it may've helped some, but in a far to inefficient way. All the while the deficite has ballooned to extrodinary numbers which, unfortunantly for Obama, came about at a time when "debt" was something a vast majority of Americans could understand all to well. Additionally the notion of bail outs and more precisely buy outs are very, very antithetical to what many American's believe the US government should be doing so just the nature of the government essentially buying a corporation like GM immedietely caused great dislike to arrise in people who felt that the action was a wholey unamerican type of act.
Yes, I understand that, I am personally not very fond of stimulus programs either, although I believe that under certain circumstances, they can be a necessary, or at least favorable evil. It's not so much the criticism of it that I don't understand, but the hyperbole that comes along with it. There may be good reasons to oppose a stimulus, or parts of it, but it's quite a different story to claim that turns America into a "socialist" country, or to say it will bring Hitler-style tyranny.


Again, with health care, you show your bias (and I don't mean this as a bad thing, its natural) that YOUR way is right, better, and it should be obvious to people. More than that you again use the same theory of your article, which is that the only kind of reform is the Obama kind of reform. Many people see a non-government ran or subsidized health care system as something that spurs invention and creation which spurs better technologies and medications which lowers the cost of other types and allows for the potential of medical advancement and they don't want to see that go the way side. Many people don't believe that adding to the federal beuracracy and trusting in them is somehow "Better" than trusting insurance companies. Some believe that having the possability of obtaining the best health care possible while some may be left with none is better than giving a situation where everyone has health care but its generally average over all throughout. There's also the general belief that the long term plan was to use various parts of the health care bill, such as the decentives for businesses providing plans to individuals, are set up specifically to create a bad scenario in the future that will be custom made to go "See, those greedy businesses aren't providing insurance, we need to move to a single payer government ran health care system to save you all".

You gave a nice long impassioned speech about why its not "socialism", then went on to essentially go "yeah its socialism but you should like it".
You must have misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't explaining my point properly. I do neither think public health care alone is socialism, much like a cold day in summer does not make winter yet, nor do I say you should like it. Of course you are perfectly legitimate to dislike and oppose it. After all, it's your country, you live there and you should decide what kind of system you want to live in.

I just wanted to address the more hysteric claims I've heard, and explain why I think certain fears are exaggerated. For example, that public health care directly paves the road into genuine socialist tyranny à la East Bloc, and/or Hitler-style society. My point was that even if you oppose it, you don't need to fear that happens. A lot of other, different things would have to happen before America became a socialist dictatorship like East Germany during the Cold War, and there are many free countries with free market economies that have more encompassing public systems, which you may like, or dislike, but at least acknowledge has not destroyed and devastated them, or caused tyranny.

While what is in place now may not be, many people see it as simply an end around. A double reverse. A pump fake. Etc. And no matter how you want to spin it or what pretty words you want to put on it, the notion of socialized, or government ran, or government provided, or whatever other word you want to use it, health care is something that's just rings alerts as being antithetical to the American way of life for many people. They don't WANT a European style of life and government, if they did they could move to Europe. As hard as it may be to believe, there's many of us here in the U.S. that don't want to be you.
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.

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: That our countries are socialist hellholes, etc. I just want to assure you that it isn't that bad. Our systems may have bad sides, sure, but it's not as dramatic as some seem to believe. After all, we still have a high standard of living, we are politically free and economically successful, despite a higher degree of wealth redistribution and public systems. And we aren't "socialist". Much like America is not a hellhole of poverty, where poor people get no chance and people constantly shoot each other. Our differences are often exaggerated, IMHO, and I believe that in the end, there is more what unites us, than what devides us.

Again, thank you very much for your diligent reply!
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seriously, we want to get in a pissing match for stupid things people use to get upset at the President over?
Hm, I'm looking at the title of the thread. Then I look at my post. Then I look at your post. You're confused, Zyph. But I'll play, despite your pointless attempt to obfuscate and derail [again]. Do I want to get in a pissing match? How about we just examine reality, instead? My list represents a list of lies told about Obama in the US media. None of them are true. The list was presented to serve as evidence to support my point, which was a direct response to a question asked. Meanwhile, many of the things in your list are untrue, while many of the things in your list are also true. You missed key ingredients, the reason why my list was even posted, chief among them. Pissing can be fun, ...when it's even relevant. Your piss is typically reactionary, but more importantly it misses the target, ...by dozens of miles. In fact, it serves as an example for what the OP is asking about in the first place. Much beating of chest, and puffed up partisan pointlessness...provoked the red/blue thing invented by the media and designed to get higher ratings.

If you really think it's stupid to be disappointed when reasons given for going to war (and not just any war, but PRE-EMPTIVE war) turn out to be false, [wow...amongst other things, such as the pointless creation of your list in the first place] then I really can't help you.

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

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
i don't. i'm sick of it. personally, i didn't abhor bush until he slammed war down our throats and promised we would be given flowers and candy by iraqis. until that point, i thought he was an idiot, but didn't feel much animosity. of course, i never envisioned the harm he would cause. look at us, almost 10 years after, floundering away in a war we can't win. obama came into this in a very untenable position.......the cards were definitely NOT stacked in his favor.



:lol:





...............
 

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,539
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What rock do you live under?
Reality. I seriously doubt the net hatred towards Obama approaches one fifth of that towards Bush at his peak.

Though that doubt could be the result of one being despised by the mass media, and one being admired by it. Or the fact that I live in Northern Virginia. But in terms of sheer levels of mouth-foaming vitrol, Bush wins by ten thousand miles, hands-down.
 

TennesseeRain

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
222
Reaction score
87
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Reality. I seriously doubt the net hatred towards Obama approaches one fifth of that towards Bush at his peak.

Though that doubt could be the result of one being despised by the mass media, and one being admired by it. Or the fact that I live in Northern Virginia. But in terms of sheer levels of mouth-foaming vitrol, Bush wins by ten thousand miles, hands-down.
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.
 
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I beg to differ. First of all, each and every single "birther" is motivated and simulataneously blinded by their sheer hatred.
As is each and every "truther." (Let me guess; they're not comparable . . . for whatever reason.)
 
Top Bottom