Not Liking Obama = Racist?

[daleduke17]

I can only hope. I'm worried about the $10 trillion dollars he's planning on spending. Tim Pawlenty is rumored to be running for president. I like him as governor, may have to vote for him if he makes a run for the White House.

Maybe Bush has turned America off to Republicans and Obama the same with Democrats, maybe a third party may have a chance to win.

[Fashion Lad!]

Maybe Bush has turned America off to Republicans and Obama the same with Democrats, maybe a third party may have a chance to win.

Pawlenty is a Republican.

Bush really did turn America off to Republicans. But, I don't feel that Obama has done so to Democrats. As of right now, I think he would get re-elected. But, I think as time goes on the tides will change for Obama.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Maybe Bush has turned America off to Republicans and Obama the same with Democrats, maybe a third party may have a chance to win.

And THAT, my friends, will be the true "it's about frigging time" I'd love to see come to pass.

[guywithashovel]

And THAT, my friends, will be the true "it's about frigging time" I'd love to see come to pass.

In the past year or so, I've heard a lot of talk about how America needs a new prominent political party because the Dems and Repubs are corrupt and don't have the interest of the people at heart. I'm not saying this sentiment started within the last year or so. I'm just saying that's when I began to notice it.

My question is: Why should I believe that another party would be any different than the two prominent ones we have now? For example, if the Libertarian Party were to rise to power and achieve the status that the Dems and Repubs have now, why should I think they'd be any different?

(Perhaps we need a separate thread for this?)

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I dunno. I am pretty cynical when it comes to politicians. I don't really know that they'd be any different, to be honest. I just don't like only having the two choices, because so far, I really despise both.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I would say racism is a factor, yes...Still I just don't understand the sheer amount of crazy anger some people have towards this president without considering racism as a factor.

This.

Although, I DO think that racism is a big factor behind the hateful bile I've been seeing/hearing. Not even Clinton got this much spew, and I remember well how he was ripped on during his terms even before the Lewinsky scandal broke. (Obama isn't even that liberal; Clinton I was probably more liberal than he is) Most of the people I've seen spouting anti-Obamaisms, if you asked them point-blank to say WHY they don't like him, I'll bet a million bucks they can't come up with any coherent and justifiable reason, other than to parrot back any of the same old claims that - surprise - the right wing has seeded.

It's also why I no longer believe the canard that "both parties are just as bad." No they're not. The Democrats may have their faults (the main one being spineless in standing up to the bullies), but they aren't the ones calling for all manner of abuses the way the GOP and their mouthpieces (i.e., Rush) have. They aren't the ones *encouraging* people to bring GUNS to these town halls (and there is no damn good reason on earth you need to bring a gun to a public place unless you are either some sort of security personnel (cop, military) or you have honest reason to believe your life is in danger (being stalked by an ex) - the ONLY reason these idiots are doing this is to provoke something!).

They are also not the ones purposely stalling and dragging their feet on much-needed reforms just to be a bunch of spiteful pricks instead of actually giving a damn about fixing a major problem. (Whether the Dems have or don't have all the right ideas remains to be seen, but at least they're TRYING, and for that I give them credit - all the GOP wants to do is piss and moan about OMG SOCIALISM! and spread a bunch of bullshit around.)

Third parties haven't gotten much respect in the past and I doubt they will anytime soon, so if the alternative is another batshit crazy GOP pick (and at this point the majority of the GOP IS downright nutters, having been hijacked by religious cults, xenophobes, racists, misogynists, homophobes and all other manner of insanity), I seriously hope Obama sticks around for a second round. (And deficit aside, I still think Obama's nowhere near as bad as he's being made out to be. I wish he'd call out the assholes and bullies for what they are, but I also recognize that he's in the unenviable position where every sneeze is going to be documented on YouTube and he has to watch his step since too many people are too eager to rip him apart without giving him an honest chance. For chrissakes, the man hasn't even been in office a full year yet.)

[HYHYBT]

Isn't The View that show where one of the hosts didn't know that the earth was round?

The View, as best I can tell, is a show for people who are watching television in the late morning, yet inexplicably *don't* want The Price Is Right

I don't understand the assumption that *all* opposition to Obama is racial, but certainly some of it is. I doubt, for example, that if all else were the same except that both his parents were white, the re would be significant numbers of "birthers". And I have a relevant story as well, though it would fit just as well at CS: one night shortly before the election, I was working in the Drive-Thru window and, in the stopped line of cars, one suddenly pulled forward and hit another. The (black) man driving the hit car naturally enough got out, made sure there was no damage, yelled at the girl driving the car that hit him, then got back in his car and pulled up. The other driver, when she got to the window, said something about not knowing what his problem was and that it must be because he's an Obama supporter. (I believe he did have a relevant bumper sticker but still haven't figured out the connection between that and not liking being driven into.) I said something like "what a coincidence, so am I!" and she gave me the two-heads look and said "but you're WHITE!" I took a quick glance at my arm and said "I've noticed" and that was the end of it.

Anyway, I *think* my point was that, although they shouldn't assume someone opposed has to be racist, you really can't assume they're *not* either.

[daleduke17]

you really can't assume they're *not* either.

There's my point. No matter what is said, there will be that sentiment.

[Boozy]

My question is: Why should I believe that another party would be any different than the two prominent ones we have now?

We currently have MPs from four different parties holding seats in parliament, and they're all childish assholes. I suppose I like having options, but those options are still basically a douche, a turd, a super-douche, and a super-turd.

The View, as best I can tell, is a show for people who are watching television in the late morning, yet inexplicably *don't* want The Price Is Right

This is what I'm saying. Watchers of The View are clearly touched in the head.

[Fashion Lad!]

This.

Although, I DO think that racism is a big factor behind the hateful bile I've been seeing/hearing.

Remember, people were comparing Bush to Hitler, Stalin the devil.... Bush was white, right? Still is? OK

Very little has to do with racism. You have remember that around 75% of America is white. So, President Obama got a lot of white votes. Last I hear, about 50% of America doesn't agree with the bill for health care reform. I guess they're all of a sudden racist. I know my preferences of race change on a dime. (Biggest fucking EYE ROLL you'll EVER see in your LIFE.)

It's also why I no longer believe the canard that "both parties are just as bad." No they're not. The Democrats may have their faults (the main one being spineless in standing up to the bullies), but they aren't the ones calling for all manner of abuses the way the GOP and their mouthpieces (i.e., Rush) have. They aren't the ones *encouraging* people to bring GUNS to these town halls (and there is no damn good reason on earth you need to bring a gun to a public place unless you are either some sort of security personnel (cop, military) or you have honest reason to believe your life is in danger (being stalked by an ex) - the ONLY reason these idiots are doing this is to provoke something!).

Both parties ARE just as bad. Neither one of them really have your interests at heart because you don't give them boat loads of cash.

I'm not going to argue about the one representative encouraging people to bring guns to town hall meetings. Because clearly if one is doing it, they speak for the entire GOP. I can't argue such logic.

They are also not the ones purposely stalling and dragging their feet on much-needed reforms just to be a bunch of spiteful pricks instead of actually giving a damn about fixing a major problem.

Fucking Republicans, always getting what they want. HOW DARE THEY FILIBUSTER what's good for America?! Wait... the Democrats had a Filibuster proof majority until Ted Kennedy died? There are Democrats that don't agree with some of the bills that their own party are trying to force through? Get the fuck out! How is this possible?!

Third parties haven't gotten much respect in the past and I doubt they will anytime soon, so if the alternative is another batshit crazy GOP pick (and at this point the majority of the GOP IS downright nutters, having been hijacked by religious cults, xenophobes, racists, misogynists, homophobes and all other manner of insanity), I seriously hope Obama sticks around for a second round. (And deficit aside, I still think Obama's nowhere near as bad as he's being made out to be. I wish he'd call out the assholes and bullies for what they are, but I also recognize that he's in the unenviable position where every sneeze is going to be documented on YouTube and he has to watch his step since too many people are too eager to rip him apart without giving him an honest chance. For chrissakes, the man hasn't even been in office a full year yet.)

It's not the fact that you call Republicans what you call them that bothers me. Republicans are calling Obama Hitler just like Democrats did when Bush was in office. That's back and forth bickering that at this day in age is to be expected. Not liked, but expected.

What really concerns me is that you do not put more emphasis on the spending that Obama is proposing. The fact that you will let your hate one party completely override the fact that the other party will spend America into a debt that could lead to an obligation of the United States that exceed the GDP of the world. What really concerns me is your love-affair with Obama is not leading to questions about where his $10 trillion dollars is going to go and he expects to pay for it. He has to raise taxes on EVERYONE to make that work.

[Arcade Man D]

This is what I'm saying. Watchers of The View are clearly touched in the head.

To be perfectly fair, I haven't watched much Price is Right since Bob Barker retired. With Rod Roddy already having been gone, it's not the same any more.

[protege]

What really concerns me is your love-affair with Obama is not leading to questions about where his $10 trillion dollars is going to go and he expects to pay for it. He has to raise taxes on EVERYONE to make that work.

That's why I don't like Obama either. All of those grandiose plans, yet where was the money to *pay* for them...coming from? Plus, what about all the money used to bail out GM/Chrysler/AIG/etc that has already been spent? Do you really think that taxes aren't going to go up for everyone? Somehow I doubt it--you can only "cook the books" for so long, until it eventually falls apart.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Very little has to do with racism.

You'd be surprised. Depends on where you live and who's controlling things. There are areas in rural Texas where black people don't dare get caught even on a good day, if you catch my drift.

Conversely, where I live, there are areas in Chicago where white people if they value staying alive don't dare venture into; not even some of the police will go into certain neighborhoods unless it's a serious bloodbath (and I mean that in every sense of the word).

The kind of racism I'm seeing in regards to Obama has less to do with the overt KKK sheet-parties and more to do with a subtle and insidious form of it. The kind that says "okay, we'll let [insert name of group here] people do this, but they better not get uppity or we'll knock 'em back down to their place." I actually find this more disturbing than the overt form; at least with the blatant white hoods and burning crosses, you can see the assholes coming from miles away.

(And ftr, I'm whiter than a white cake with white frosting. Just sayin', since I know folks are wondering.)

Both parties ARE just as bad.

No. They are not. When you can show me that the Democrats are trying to incite violence and hatred, and stomp on rights the likes of what we're seeing/have seen with the Rethugs, THEN I'll buy that crock.

Neither one of them really have your interests at heart because you don't give them boat loads of cash.

So things like teachers' unions and laborers' unions (both of which exist to protect workers' rights) aren't good? I know a couple laborers (one of whom was laid off this past spring and was forced to join the Army in order to provide for his family) who might disagree there.

Not all special-interests groups are Evil Incarnate. Some of them actually do some good. Even the NRA, as batshit crazy as they mostly are, manages to get one or two things right on rare occasion. (Though personally I wouldn't trust 'em any further than I could throw 'em.)

I'm not going to argue about the one representative encouraging people to bring guns to town hall meetings. Because clearly if one is doing it, they speak for the entire GOP. I can't argue such logic.

It isn't just your one little rep. It's crazies like this guy helping to foster it too: http://www.daily-chronicle.com/artic...6/04/60205365/

Kentucky, FYI, is a MAJOR player in the not-so-wonderful world of dominionism, and the Assembly of God faction mentioned in the article is VERY much a dominionist training grounds for, among other nuggets of joy, armed anti-government militants. AKA, domestic terrorists. We've seen individuals with connections to this 'underground' carry out or attempt to carry out violence against specific targets:

- Neal Horsley ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley - Yes, this is Wikipedia; however, they are a decent starting point to search out further information), who was noted for his belief that anti-US-government militants should seize and use nuclear weapons.

- Eric Robert Rudolph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph ), the Olympic Park bomber.

- Shelley Shannon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_Shannon ), the first terrorist who shot Dr. George Tiller though the assassination was not successful; Dr. Tiller was as you may remember assassinated earlier this year on May 31 by terrorist Scott Roeder, who, interestingly and NOT surprisingly, is strongly suspected to ALSO have ties to the Army of God ( brief bio here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA) ), which in turn has been noted to be linked with dominionist operations in Kentucky.

Say what one will about the Second Amendment (which my eeeeeevil liberal self supports; I even own a gun myself, how about that?), there is NO damned good reason you need to be packing a gun in a place of worship, or any other public place intended for peaceful purposes (save for the reasons I already mentioned in my previous post). The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to bring a gun to a town hall discussion meeting is so they can show off how big and bad they are. This sort of behavior used to be called troublemaking. A gun has no other purpose but to kill or maim. They can be used for simple sport-shooting (which my rifle is), which obviously isn't lethal, but they were created with the purpose of death first and foremost in mind. You bring a gun into an already hostile and volatile environment, sooner or later somebody's going to get hurt. I won't be in the least surprised when that day comes that the news reports that a shooting broke out at one of these town halls.

And because it's Obama, funny how it's ok to bring these weapons around, whereas if you'd tried that when a certain 43rd was in office, you'd have likely been packed off to Gitmo before you could blink, because 43rd did NOT allow for dissent when he was in town - he had protesters who had nothing more than shirts and signs forcibly escorted off the premises despite the fact that said protesters's adornments were *not* threatening and they were obeying the limits of their permissible grounds. (This happened most notably during the 2004 elections.)

What really concerns me is that you do not put more emphasis on the spending that Obama is proposing.

It depends on what that money's being spent on. I don't have as big of a problem with money spent on healthcare as I do money (and lives) wasted on a personal vendetta to see whose daddy's/god's dick is bigger (which is what 43rd did by stormtrooping into Iraq).

Does money suck? Sure. But I'm a pragmatist. I have no problem with people complaining about money, but I'm not real fond of people complaining about money that could be going to a legitimate cause as opposed to bullshit like abstinence-only "education". Will there be waste and pork? Of course, and I don't have a problem with trying to stem that flow. But the benefits of money directed towards things like healthcare outweigh the drawbacks in this case, IMO.

In any case, I'm willing to give Obama a chance to prove that his ideas work. We haven't even SEEN his ideas at work before we can say that they're wholly good or bad. And I think this is what grates on the Rethugs most: because if Obama's ideas DO work, then they'll HAVE to admit that they work (and, by extension, that liberal-leaning politics works better than self-proclaimed "conservative" style), and the Rethugs would rather see this country sink (thank you Rush) and blame a liberal for it than have to admit their own crappy ideologies are what's behind the majority of problems.

What really concerns me is your love-affair with Obama is not leading to questions about where his $10 trillion dollars is going to go and he expects to pay for it. He has to raise taxes on EVERYONE to make that work.

So because I'm stepping up to combat the bullshit being spread, that means I must automatically rubber-stamp everything Obama says and does. Kindly excuse me while I go to bow down before my Obama shrine and pray to his Holy Almighty Obamaness for pure and true guidance.

Yes, I voted for the man. Yes, I support him, and yes, for the most part, I respect him. That does NOT mean I think he drools lavender and farts rainbows. I think he's trying too hard to make nice with people who have clearly proven they refuse to play fair and nice, and I want him to fight harder for womens' rights than he has so far. And while I don't necessarily disagree with the bailout of auto industry (or perhaps we should just let all those workers go unemployed, screw 'em, right?), I think we should've just let AIG piss its way to the graveyard. But nobody and nothing is perfect and bad comes with good. The way Obama's being portrayed by the right wing now, you'd swear he boiled live puppies for breakfast and broke elderly people's legs for amusement.

Name me one government that HASN'T raised taxes. Nobody ever believes that campaign claim; politicians use it because it makes them look good. The sticking point is how *much* in taxes gets jacked up. I'm sure it won't be cheap bottom-barrel-bargain, but I don't think it's going to be the gouger that the neocons are saying it will be.

(Funny, too, how neocons get all red-faced when you point out that historically, the economy has usually done better under a Democratic president than a GOP one. Doesn't necessarily mean that that's going to be the case with this one, granted, but the odds look to be in his favor even if it doesn't look like it right now. We are, after all, still in recession (sorry, Bernanke) so we'll have to wait and see. As I recall, we weren't in too good of a place either when Clinton I first showed up, and we ended up having a surplus by the time he vacated. I don't expect the same of Obama but I don't think he'll fare as horribly as the doomsayers predict.)

[Gravekeeper]

Oi, Amethyst already did a good job. But I have to come in and take a swing at a few choice bits of that myself, Lad. >.>

Remember, people were comparing Bush to Hitler, Stalin the devil.... Bush was white, right? Still is? OK

Yes, some left wing extremists did compared Bush to Hitler, which is just as stupid, mind you. But no one really paid attention to them and they most definitely did not have the highest rated news network in the country not just supporting them but helping them organize. Thus legitimizing them in the perceived main stream.

Last I hear, about 50% of America doesn't agree with the bill for health care reform. I guess they're all of a sudden racist. I know my preferences of race change on a dime. (Biggest fucking EYE ROLL you'll EVER see in your LIFE.)

Ummm....read your own link. The polls also say 67% of Americans have little to NO idea about the fucking bill at all or what it contains. How the same hell can you make an informed decision off that? Simple, you can't. So 50% disagreeing with a bill 67% know shit about doesn't say much to be honest.

Heck I can use the exact same polls you linked to show that 48% of Americans are in favour of his plan while 42% oppose.

I can also use them to show that those same people that answered the above question actually SUPPORT the major goals of his bill by a margin of 78.5% when they were asked about each point individually. Rather than an over all.

It also says that 30% of Americans believe the death panel bullshit.

Sooo...honestly all the polls in your link demonstrate is that people are ignorant morons. ><

What really concerns me is your love-affair with Obama is not leading to questions about where his $10 trillion dollars is going to go and he expects to pay for it. He has to raise taxes on EVERYONE to make that work.

You know, no offense, but for someone that argues so viciously against being grouped in with Republicans, you're awful quick to instantly group other people in with the Democrats. -.-

[Fashion Lad!]

Don't confuse needing health care reform with agreeing with the current proposals. That's wrong. I agree we need health care reform, but I don't agree with the president's plan. a lot of people feel the same way I do.

Then you quote me accusing me of grouping people in with democrats, but the quote you used proved nothing.

People can be in love with Obama and not be a democrat. And I never said that anyone said Obama can do no wrong. I said I was concerned that more people weren't more concerned with his spending.

When our obligations exceed the world's gdp, no one will like it.