Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Oct 10, 2013.
As is our politics, the right wing was gunning for Obama before he even did anything in office. They were tripping over themselves with the kind of hatred only seen by extremists. The rise of the tea party is a clear example. Their own disaffection is largely untethered from facts, and driven by self-reinforced hatred. And yes, to be sure, there was certainly some of this on the left when Bush was in office.
But he hasn't been divisive, unless you think it's his job to constantly capitulate the the extremists (it is not). Yet really, it's not even about him, but about what he represents, which is a shrinking hold of power by a segment of the population that enjoyed it for centuries. Society is changing and that is why you see folks like Pat Buchanan constantly harping about these demographic changes. It might not scare you, but it scares many on the right, so much it's debilitating; they can't even manage the type of minority outreach that might help them remain a viable political party.
So instead, pubs have completely eschewed trying to come up real, practical policy ideas, and even their principles. Instead, they opt for mindless opposition and for for immediate tactics, driven largely by their own self-reinforcing groupthink.
So you can make comparisons to Mandela all you want--it doesn't bolster your case.
This is simply because Obama is probably the least qualified president ever elected.
Lets put it in terms of football..
Urban Meyer left so we needed a new coach, lets say there were a few candidates out there who had a little low level D1 experience, someone that had major D1 experience and then someone who coached High school JV.
We hired the JV coach, but he wasn't the head coach, more like the equipment manager and for whatever reason, the team always showed up to the games without uniforms and equipment.
Simply put, Obama never did a single thing, NOT ONE, to justify even being a candidate on any POTUS ballot and he still hasn't done anything while in office to prove otherwise.
Even if that were true, which I don't think it is, it doesn't justify the lies and hatred, just as I don't think Bush was particularly qualified (the guy failed upward) and disagreed with many of his policies, but that wouldn't justify whatever hatred came from the left or any lies about him.
Fair enough, If there was a log of this site that went back that far my posts would show I couldn't stand Bush... but, Bush seemed to at least be mildly more qualified than Obama. I mean, from what I heard from people in Obamas ward in Chicago was that he did nothing and was only around during election time. Then as a Senator he didn't pass one significant piece of legislation, voting mainly "Present"
From there, Im not sure what chain of events lead him to POTUS but he won on teleprompter speeches and promising everyone everything, a sure way to gain votes from the ignorant and/or lazy.
I think the initial hate came from the normal party affiliation back n forth, but after he started making bad decisions and lying every other statement, the hate started to pile on.
He hasn't been lying "every other statement." It's that kind of rhetoric that I think helps to reinforce the myths.
He's certainly made mistakes and even managed to make one for the better (Syria red line)--and lets face it, every pol is going to spin and dissemble here and there, nature of the biz--but I think what should be recognized--and this has little to do with him specifically but presidents in general--is that a lot of the criticism and indeed what I unfortunately termed as "hate" may more accurately reflectpeople's own disaffection with supporting the "other party" and the nature of having a single person to target our own anger, frustration etc...
When it's a member of the other party, it's really easy especially because the opposite is harder--i.e. targeting someone whom we supported, or putting the blame on a legislative body. It just doesn't have the same cathartic effect, even though that legislative body may be more of the problem.
Long story short, it's why I call much of the criticism a caricature of him.
Whatever the case, I hear what you are saying even if I reject a bit of if though, but appreciate your response.
I disagree with much in your post (especially about Obama's purposeful political division of this country) but will only focus on the liberal view that the tea party was a reaction to the man, not the President, Obama. The tea party was started as a reaction to the big government policies under George Bush and then totally run amok by Barak Obama. Their focus is a constitutional one, and if they target certain politicians or groups it is because of their big government, higher taxes and more entitlements policies and laws they support, and not their religious beliefs or the color of their skin. Though I am not a TeaParty member, I am concerned by the coordinated attack on them from the Democrats and this President, including the unconstitutional use of the IRS against them. (Why everyone on this board and those that believe on our constitution isn't appalled by this will never cease to amaze me. but I digress.) Bottom line is the TeaParty is more aligned with conservatives, but they oppose conservatives or Dems that want to impede on our constitutional rights, irresponsibly spend our tax payer dollars (and then want more) with no plan to pay for it with responsible budget cuts, and care more about staying in power then doing the job they were elected to do, which is serve the American citizenry. It's why Obama, the MSM, most Dems and RINO's like McCain attack and mock them with regularity. Anyway, just tired of seeing the falsehoods about TeaParty origins repeated here and elsewhere. Their support has grown under Obama due to his actions, but they started under Bush because of his. BTW, Fred should love this as it bashes Bush, as any true conservative did/does for his betrayal of the fiscally conservative backers that help put him in office.
It is not a shutdown and you know that.
The difference between modern cons and libs 5 years ago is hypocrisy.
They are constantly on here whining about Obama doing things they gave Bush a pass on.
However, when Obama does something like Bush, libs here have no problem saying it sucks. That doesn't mean we believe Obama deserves to be lynched.
Fred, do you really want to go there? Hypocrisy applies to both parties so be careful.
"In 2006 Democrats voted against a debt ceiling increase. Their opinion has changed considerably now that the shoe is on the other foot. Here is another example of Democrat hypocrisy. The national debt increased by about $5 trillion in Obama’s first term. In 2008 Obama criticized George W. Bush, saying “Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome,” calling it irresponsible and unpatriotic. If Bush is irresponsible and unpatriotic, what does that make Obama? So let’s keep everything in perspective and put the blame where it really belongs."
When Bush campaigned in 2000, he said the US should never engage in nation building. Then Iraq happened.
BTW, what changed in the US economy between 06 and 09? Anything major happen?
Obama is the Lane Kiffin of Presidents, using your analogy.
Two weeks into the partial government shutdown, the Obama administration is increasingly easing off some of its most painful cuts -- fueling the perception among critics that the government initially imposed visible, but ultimately unnecessary, cutbacks as a way to pressure Republicans.
The Department of the Interior late last week agreed to let states use their own money to reopen some national parks. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also determined football and other sports could continue at service academies through October.
Following outrage from military groups, the Pentagon contracted with a charity to provide death benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, before President Obama abruptly signed legislation to do just that.
I'd hire him to pull my golf bag out of my car at the country club. He could also clean the clubs at the end of the round. $2 for each event...maybe $3 for cleaning the clubs. That is about all he's good for.
Yes... the big spending Dems took control of both the House and the Senate.
Jd - You come across just like most of the media in that even if you disagree with obama's radical liberalism (obmacare) you must be a racists so don't you dare question him about anything of substance.
Still see that you are comfortably floating in your bubble.
Chompy the direction you want for this country os diametrically opposed to what i want- I want a free market free society and based solely on my perceptions of what you post you would welcome socialism- so I will fight you and those who think like you at every level available to me- if you think that is a bubble then i have to wonder what you are ingesting into your body