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.
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. =)
What rock do you live under?
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.
Why do I not post here more often? I wonder.
As is each and every "truther." (Let me guess; they're not comparable . . . for whatever reason.)
Bull****. Peoples hatred of Bush started from before he was even sworn in. Al Gore was the annointed...the chosen one. And Bush stole his ring of power (gollum!). The level of rhetoric and hatred was amped before he ever even took office.
He's not exactly a likeable guy, is he? He's thin-skinned, full of himself, at odds with half of his country - the ones who cling to their guns and religion? He mischaracterizes his opponents, as was seen in the healthcare debates ("They offered nothing") and in AZ's 1070 ("You could be taking your kids out for ice cream...") He's vindicitve and he's petty.
Funnier - I could have written the same about Carter.
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.
If you were capable of reasonable discussion, you would.You ask as if I care.
Can you type this in English? No, my post offered an explanation for the phemenon observed by the OP starter.All your post was was a ton of belly aching over the fact that the media and individuals ratcheted up things rhetoric that causes people to dislike the President on Bush just like they are on Obama,
Now you're just making stuff up.and a bunch of excuses and rationalizations of "ITS OKAY WHEN MY SIDE DOES IT!"
You'd be wrong again. Everything I posted was an example of something stated in the media, and parroted elsewhere BEFORE Obama was elected. How could they have been broken? Regardless, you're going on about something not implied by the topic. "Why is there so much passionate dislike of Obama?"I could've done similar, pointing to some statements on your list that are complaining about Campaign promises he specifically ahs broken and go "what?
Oh, so I'm the topic now. And all of this has what to do with the topic question and my answer for it? Will you even attempt to answer this question? In English?Should we not hold politicians accountable? Is it okay for them to lie to us Nifty?!" I could've pointed out that who one chooses to associate with and have around them gives us insight into their personal judge of character which could later result in mistakes in who they appoint to places of power. I could make legitimate arguments that his diplomatic strategies are poor and are reasonable to insult. However there's no point, because regardless of what someone may think of the credibility of it all they're all generally presented in hyperbolic means. Hyperbolic, like stating that Bush knew definitively that there were no WMD's or stating we went to War for Oil. All you're doing is making excuses to justify your side and more precisely YOUR hypocrisy in this.
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...?
... people who now believe Obama is a Muslim, accuse him of bringing about tyranny, or even suspect him of being the Anti-Christ...
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...
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...
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....
It's just childish and silly to call any kind of diplomacy and cooperation "appeasement...
Maybe I talked with the wrong people, though, and this is not what you mean...
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.
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.
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.
but it's quite a different story to claim that turns America into a "socialist" country...
You must have misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't explaining my point properly....
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:
Again, thank you very much for your diligent reply!
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.
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.
The conservative camp generally refuses to consider the change under Obama as social and international policy successes.
And that differs from Obama exactly how? Are you seriously trying to claim the people who now hate him actually gave him a chance?
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.
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. =)
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.
Trust your own eyes, believe what you see. If you've been watching all along, and it looks so much worse now, that's because it is.
I've never been afraid for the life of a President like I am now. I just figured Secret Service blah-blah, everybody will be fine yada-yada. But people Truly Despise Obama. And they are armed, and making noise about taking him down so yes. This isn't just your perception. Things are ugly over here.
Do you usually make sense? That question made no sense.
Do you usually make sense? That question made no sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?