Printable View
His first trip has achieved, shall we say, modest results. Nothing tangible, actually. He has presented himself to the world as a spineless wimp ready to bend in any direction. North Korean openly laughs in his face, Iranian government has largely ignored his good will overtures, Russia and China do not seem to be taking him very seriously. He might be liked abroad, but I don't think he is respected. Very disappointing.
Give him time to build up some gravitas.
A very sexy word but that is what one brings to the office, not gains over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Politics and politicians in general are disappointing. All the more so for Obama because of his rockstar image.
I said this to 'mom' last year. She was overcome with glee when he beat Hilarious to the Democratic nomination. I tried to warn her that all politicians are the same. Cynical Brit that I am. :embarassed:
He's just Blair MKII.
You heard it here first. :shame:
roflmao - at this topic. :laugh4:
You see, I am smart. I got my expectations of Barack Obama so low, that if he does not plunge us into WWIII I will be pleasantly suprised. I think it would be impossible for him to disappoint me now. The only thing that does cause me disappointment is the stupidity and spinelessness of modern Americans. (The same can be said about the rest of the world, but my expectations were so much higher for Americans because of all they have been blessed with) I know people who have voted for Obama because for reasonable considerations that I simply did not agree with, but so many people who I know supported him and voted for him when they knew absolutely nothing about him at all. I hate to say it, but it is mostly women who have dissapointed me with it too. When I ask them why they voted for Obama, it is not because they think he will make a better president, it is:
a) because my friends did
b) because it is kewl
c) I do not know much about politics, but it is my duty to vote, and he looks like a nice guy :wall:
Then in the most blatent show of racism I have ever personally witness in my lifetime: "He is black :wall:, a black man getting into office will be final step in ending racism" Sadly, that is the one I have heard the most. You know when racism ends? When a black guy and a white guy run against each other, and the general public is concerned about their policies, personalities, and experience, and race is NOT an issue. Those people who voted for Obama because he is black did the exact opposite, they showed that this country is not past race (and never will be as long as there are people like them), and that it is a key factor in politics.
If you cannot honestly tell the world that if McCain and Obama were the same people in all other respects, but their races were reversed, that you would have voted the exact same, then you go against everything this country stands for and you do not deserve the right to vote, because you blatantly dishonour those who fought for civil liberties, those who fought for equality in the revolution, and your very country. If you voted because of race, then you are a racist. Plain and simple.
I got nothing against people who vote for what they think is better for their country (whether they vote D or R), but when people base their choice on race, that really does disgust me. Certainly not a majority of the people I know made their decision based on race, but enough to disappoint me in Americans and people in general...way too many for the 21st century in an age where we are supposed to judge people as individuals, not by their skin colour... Almost as disappointing is some of the other brainless reasons I have heard people give, which have to do with popularity rather than ability. Obama cannot disappoint me, but Americans certainly do...
You are correct that some of those voting for Obama soley because of his race -- and I'd agree that the number who'll admit that motivation is likely to be smaller than the number so motivated -- are themselves practicing a brand of racism. Unfortunately, getting to the non-racist end-state you describe probably DOES involve some of this "reverse" racism. Eventually the penduluum begins to gyrate less and less wildly and we will arrive at a new, non-racist balance point. I suspect it is all an inevitable part of the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
As to disappointment, I have to agree I am disappointed. However, given the penduluum of US politics, an Obama was almost inevitable. We'd been under GOP leadership with a "tough" foreign policy for some time. The electorate likes to mix it up a bit and, mostly, wanted someone who'd take a softer approach. They'll learn that softer isn't necessarily better and creates its own raft of problems -- just as did the harder stance effected by the Bush White House.
Exactly. We went from Nixon to Carter.
Man, I so hate these wild swings.
First of all, let's give it a little more time to declare Obama another Carter. Second of all, Nixon was quite a bit more competent, in my view, than Bush 43. Less ethical and more power-hungry, but definitely more competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
To be honest, Obama has grown on me. He wasn't my preferred candidate. He has since overcome many of my reservations about him. He is serious, moderate, flexible, reliable. I get the feeling that he is well respected over here, irrespective of the inevitable disappointment of the Obama = messias crowd.
Concerning Obama's foreign blitztrips of the past weeks, each country's and region's expectations and response to Obama are a different subject altogether. The G20, the EU, NATO, Turkey, and overtures to Russia and Iran each were very different projects. On the whole, I think Obama performed an excellent job. Of course, he's got a truly outstanding Secretary of State who laid the groundwork for him.
Any disappointment I think has got more to do with unrealistic expectations than with failures of policy or 'tone of voice' of the Obama administration.
Racism today I think is even more inexcusable than it was in the 20's. Back then people were raised in an atmosphere and society that taught them that the other race was inhuman and inferior, so it is easier to understand why they themselves held those views (which isn't to say that it is anymore right). Today, in a society that is supposed to espouse equality and teach people to look at people for who they are and not their skin colour, it is a lot less excusable, and requires a much larger ethical jump than it did back then I think. That is why it disappoints me so much, because I expected this election to be based on the people and politics, not the race. Of course I knew that there would be a few people on either of the fringes, but for the most part I expected people not to consider race as a factor. I certainly never thought that any of my own aquaintances would make their selection because of race. It is not "reverse" racism, it is racism. It is the same vehicle, just with a different driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I have been so naive I think, because I always expected racism to come from the other way, because that is what I was taught. It shocked me to see it so alive in today's society, and coming from a direction I did not expect. As a person of mixed race, I feel as much hate toward McCain because of his race as Obama, and as much love of Obama because of his race as McCain. I recognise the good intent a lot of people may have had, but that does not make it anymore right. People need to think. If you are afraid that some people in society are gonna be racist, you counter it by not being racist yourself, and encouraging those you know not to be racist. Not by being racist yourself and encouraging those you know to be racist! It does not fix anything, it just takes us further from the mark.
As for policy, I think you are right about people wanting change. Unfortunately, I think people should have paid attention to the old addage "Out of the frying pan into the fire". Sure, Bush was bad and we want something different, but we should choose that something on its merit, not just because it is "different". I think we did just that though, got our feet burnt, and jumped out first chance right into the fire.
He's a much more experienced campaigner than he is president :book:
You're also viewing Nixon in the light of history. What will you think of Bush '43 in 30 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
The parallels between Obama and Carter are striking, right down to their energy policy.
So, you're asking me what I'll think of Bush 43 in 30 years, but won't ask yourself what you'll think of Obama by the end if his term, let alone 30 years? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
About foreign policy. I think it's better for USA to be liked than feared. The Obama's predecessor put USA in mess esp. in Afghanistan and Iraq. The crisis is also a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Race is a false construct. ESP in America. The fact that you feel hate or love toward a race only shows individual shortcomings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
How exactly? By having the likes of North Korea and Iran scoff at him?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
CR
For real. Obama is good at one thing though: bashing the USA in his speeches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Are you suggesting that insulting, dismissive rhetoric out of North Korea and Iran is a new development? Explain, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
-edit-
Freebie: 8/4/04 "North Korea yesterday called President Bush an 'imbecile' and 'a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade' in a stream of insults that seemed to rule out any progress on nuclear disarmament talks before the US presidential elections. 'The meeting of the working group for the six-party talks cannot be opened because the US has become more undisguised in pursuing its hostile policy toward North Korea,' a foreign ministry spokesman told the state-controlled news agency. [...] Pyongyang's diplomatic spokesman called Mr Bush 'an idiot, an ignorant, a tyrant and a man-killer'. He added: 'Bush's assumption of office turned a peaceful world into a pandemonium unprecedented in history as it is plagued with a vicious circle of terrorism and war. The president's aides and allies are a typical gang of political gangsters'."
And I heard somewhere that throwing your shoe isn't the biggest sign of respect. But please, feel free to explain how North Korea and Iran have been more insulting in some new and ingenious way than they have always been.
Their rhetoric will remain insulting and dismissive regardless of what stance we take towards them, therefore there's no reason to play nice with them: they will not reciprocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Relay? I thought he was saying the USAs government has maid mistakes not bashing the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No reason to play tough with them, they won't change their ways?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This is a non issue. Right wing people like to see their president act tough, left wing people like to seem him be "diplomatic". If it's just acting either way, what's the difference?
Oh, you'll be surprised by just how well the *stick* approach works. The problem is that when it comes to North Korea, *our* stick isn't long enough. China and Russia (if they had the will to do it), could easily choke Kim's regime within months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Thats easy to explain .Quote:
Are you suggesting that insulting, dismissive rhetoric out of North Korea and Iran is a new development? Explain, please.
When N.Korea previously did its "bugger off we can do what we like..but please send us food" line it was because they have this crazy shortarse running the country , but now when they say it its because of Obama .
When Iran said "bugger off , lift the sanctions and give us our money back " it was because they were pissed at America , now when they say " nice words , but we want action not words so bugger off , lift the sanctions and give us our money back" its because of Obama .
Surely you can understand that Lemur , after all it make perfect sense .
I think you missed my entire point Strike. My point was that I do not, and could not without hating myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The G20 was a public relations exercise. There was no chance for anytihng to be achieved, merely for the world leaders to get together and see what their minions had been spending the last month or so working over.
If anyone thought that the whole world was suddenly going to change they were morons. The players at this level are not easily swayed hicks. They play the long game. Many don't bother with elections, so 8 years isn't that long either way.
Obama is opening talks with Cuba. The embargo is pointless and has no place. This is a good thing.
Obama has thawed things with Iran slightly. Carrot and stick are far better than just carrot. Talk is cheap, so why not?
Obama is trying to pull out of Iraq. About time!
And what's the problem of gravitas?
The Italians have a leader with hair staples and a perm-tan who manages to hold the world record for gaffes
The British have a dour, obstinate blind dictator who likes to try ot take the world view - especially when assigning blame to events that appeared to the casual observer to have occurred when he was Chancellor
The French a midget who has a mandate for change unless it affects jobs or the 15 hour week
The Germans rather fittingly have a leader of indeterminate gender who nevertheless could headbutt it's way through a wall.
China has a Leader Mk III4b clone who makes the head of the bank of England appear interesting.
Russia has a puppet
South Africa has a criminal.
Obama, you look quite good all things considered!
~:smoking:
He is not a dictator he was elected into parliament last election. Who ever leads the political party which is in power is not up to the public but members of that party just because no one in labour stood to challenge his election to leader of the labour party dose not make him a dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
He is hated by everybody in the UK. I challenged anyone on these boards to defend this moron. The man not a menace, he's a disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerg
Not Zerg, I hasten to add. :oops:
Genius! :jumping:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
:laugh4:Quote:
Not Zerg, I hasten to add.
A useful thought from The American Conservative:
If the GOP is to have any chance of reviving anytime soon, it will be by peeling off disillusioned and dissatisfied Obama supporters. Even if Obama were driving people away (so far, there is little evidence for this), the GOP still has to be able to attract them. At present, the GOP’s powers of repulsion remain far greater. So far, everything the GOP has been doing in Congress and in the media has reinforced all the habits that have pushed so many people into Obama’s arms. Shouting fascism and tyranny in ever-louder voices is not going to change this pattern, but will probably ensure that it keeps getting worse for Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't know if there are similar examples from US political history, but I'm surprised the GOP has not taken on board what happened to the British Conservative party after Tony Blair's win in 1997.
They had developed a belief in the Divine Right of Tory Government and were rather taken aback when the ungrateful peons elected a whippersnapper with no government experience in a landslide. The reaction was to despair of the idiot electorate and embark on a suicidal spiral of pandering to the extremes of the party and electing ever more wingnut leaders to ensure the core vote. It turned out that the core vote was comprised of thirteen ladies of uncertain age in Tunbridge Wells, a couple of retired colonels whose cells had been padded with yellowing copies of the Daily Mail and a dachshund named Colin. Unsurprisingly, they kept being walloped at the polls, even when standing against increasingly vacuous Bliar. Each time they got walloped, they gorged more on crazy flakes. (To steal my currently favourite meme :bow:).
Only when David Cameron got elected to the leadership (rather accidentally, since Colin was chasing rabbits at the time and there was a jumble sale on at the Women's Institute) did the party finally start to realise that out-Blairing Blair was the way to go. Wingnuts safely retired to the hinterlands, and with the electoral gift that is Gordon Brown (and the seemingly inevitable poisonous corruption that afflicts all parties after two terms) Cameron's party is all but indistinguishable from New Labour on policy, but more importantly, says almost nothing meaningful on anything. They watch from the sidelines as the government destroys itself, safely anodyne. Cameron understands that governments lose elections, oppositions do not win them.
Fascinatingly, this is almost exactly the same evolution that the Labour Party went through when Mrs Thatcher crushed them in 1979. Being socialists, their wingnuttery knew no bounds - they got so few votes in one election that it was clear Michael Foot didn't even vote for himself. It's been said that Thatcher's greatest legacy was to disband the Labour Party forever. Tony Blair's great victory was to invent the successor party to Thatcherism, whilst the party that spawned her consumed itself.
Lessons from history. It amazes me to see experienced politicians doing the same thing all over again. Mature democracies are all about the middle ground - get a reputation for extremist lunacy and you can spend a long time in the wilderness shouting at tumbleweed.
:strawman1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
No, I'm simply saying that's not going to get him gravitas, and asked how exactly he'd get it.
CR
Banquo:
But the GOP HAS been trying that, progressively more and more, since the advent of Bush 41. In strict electoral terms it works well, but does NOTHING to promote a vision of the future that has anything different in substance.
Bush 41 was conservative, but very much beleived in "going along" in the interest of governance and let a number of the federal devolution efforts begun by Reagan go fallow. He did little to reverse the Reagan revolution, but he very much stalled it. Facing solid Dem opposition, he accepted a massive tax increase to curtail the deficit, got a modest recession thereby, and had the recession used to beat him over the head and shove him from office.
Dole took the standard in 1996 and proved that he was a good Senate leader but a lousy national candidate. Clinton had done too well for too many and, having given the GOP the House after 40 years, the electorate decided to keep power split a bit.
Bush 43 (no, I don't like the dynasty stuff here either, their were 3 full presidencies between Adams and Adams), following 9-11-01, took a tough guy stance in foreign affairs that appealed to neo-cons and an angry electorate...but aside from one round of tax cuts early on managed to outspend the Clinton's on a host of social projects and grew government as thoroughly as any adminstration since Johnson. Set aside the WoT and you have someone out-Clintoning Clinton (though much less glibly and with fewer pecadillos). He began his 2nd term with an effort to make real change toward the conservative agenda and got his head handed to him.
McCain's philosophy of governance and track record show him to be a good late 1950s early 1960s democrat. Inclined, shallowly, toward fiscal responsibility. Solid on defense and security. Somewhat liberal on many issues on the social side of the spectrum. Had no problems with federal government being THE force for governance in the USA. Given a choice between this Dem-lite and a Dem who was glib, new and promised change, the electorate told John "no."
In short, there has been no national champion for conservatism who could appeal to the mainstream by educating them as to how conservatism works for THEM. We're left with the fruit-bats who'd prefer theocracy-lite or the "lets go back to modified isolationism" crowd.
We are not suffering simply because we're left with purists who won't compromise, we're suffering because we don't have anyone who can bring people into the fold with reason, appropriate passion and a clear link between the ideas that are conservatism and the intellectual and economic values that do connect with most of America.
Okay, finally I have an issue that truly disappoints me. This is the kind of this Chicagons will kill you for.
Obama orders pizza from St. Louis
The news is hitting Chicago deep dish pizza makers' eye like a big pizza pie. President Barack Obama is having 140 people over to the White House Friday night for a some deep-dish pizza — St. Louis deep dish pizza. It seems during his campaign he had pizza from a restaurant called Pi in St. Louis. That's the story Pi assistant manager Lindsey Tornetto tells. Whatever happened, the restaurant says the owner and his partner packed dough, cheese and pizza pans in their suitcases and flew to Washington.
C'mon, the Prez is from Chicago, a lot of his staff is from Chicago, and he orders pizza from St. Louis? WHAT? This is heresy. This is madness. This is not Sparta.
I suppose that when you are the messiah anything that you do makes the news...:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Headline: Obama did a #2! It was big!
Vuk, dude, you need to calm down. Obama is just a politician. It's not healthy for you to think of him as a Messiah. It's kind of worrying that you see him as a religious figure. I wouldn't equate him to a priest, much less a bishop, much less the Savior come again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
You need to really look at your own thought process and see where this idea came from. Therapy may be in order.
Since when does the ingredients in a politician's phillywhich make headlines? Since when does the pizza a politician order make headlines?
Sadly I am one of the few people who realise that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Wow, it must be lonely being one of The Select Few. Does it make you believe that you are a special genius, or that the rest of your countrymen are corrupted fools? Or both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I enjoy your sarcasm Lemur, it speaks loads. Maybe it just makes me think that people should get down to earth and realize that the Chicago Saint IS indeed only a politician, and stop following the suit of the the media and their professors in proclaiming him a messiah. (yes, I have heard him quasi-seriously being called that by several real life acquaintances, and by a certain media person we both know who gets a hardon every time he sees him)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I have been excited when people who I thought were good people have been put into office or ran for office, but I have never deluded myself about them enough to not realize that they are human, and to not be very critical of them. I think a lot of people just need to get a life (and some like Chris Matthews just need an enema).
Based on that response, I'm guessing you went with (b) the rest of your countrymen are corrupted fools. You could have just said so.
corrupted? No. Rest? As in everyone but me? No. Fools? We all are in our own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So you tell me, how does it feel to be one of the modern, enlightened, educated ones who looks down on primitives like me?
EDIT: Rather than getting into a back and forth Lemur, let's be a little more productive about this.
Do you deny that the world is having a love affair with obama? Do you think it is good to throw reason out like that?
No, no, I'm one of the Select Few, at least according to your reckoning, since I have been blessed with the rare and special insight that President 44 is just a politician. This sets me apart from the "sheeple".
-edit-
Excuse me, I didn't really answer your question. "How does it feel"? Well, I just finished a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, so I can safely say that it feels both nutty and fruity. It's kinda filling, too, but not too filling. I'm going to wash it down with some tea. That will change the feeling.
He is just a politician, but he is one that can do no wrong, and if you disagree with him at all, you are a wacky rightwing extremist who is stuck in the darkages and full of hate, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As I said in a different thread, you're just freaking out because you're stuck on campus. We've had this conversation, Vuk.
Here's a legitimate, non-sarcastic question for ya: Is there a moral difference between people for whom President 44 can do no wrong, no matter what he does, and people (like some on this board) for whom President 44 can do no right, no matter what he does?
-edit-
Sorry, I missed your edit above. My bad.
Sure, our Prez is a bit of a media star right now, and moreso than the usual God-King treatment that all of our Presidents get. And as with all things, some people are taking it too far. However, this has as much to do with his predecessor as it does with the man himself. If President 43 had not provoked so much fear and loathing, President 44 would not get this treatment. He probably would never have been elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
The people who believe that Obama is some sort of mixture between Neo from The Matrix and JC from Jesus Christ Superstar will come down to earth. I'm not particularly worried about them. The non-stop conspiracy theories and crazy flakes being dished out by Fox News and the rightwing mediasphere, however, are more troubling. When you're encouraging people to "teabag" one another without realizing that it's a common reference to testicles, well, it shows a bit of a basic disconnect. Actual transcript from one of these "Tea Parties":
Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
Woman: “I am too.”
Man: “Burn all the books?!”
Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
Woman: “Yes.”
Man: “Which ones are those?”
Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
Video.
"Is it good to throw reason out"? And when will you stop beating your dog? How did you fare in that date-rape trial? Is it good to stick needles under your fingernails? Ask me a non-rhetorical question and I'll give you a serious answer.
He hasn't even been in office for six months, it's only fair we give him some more time before we judge him. It has been said, no harm in saying it again though.
Carry on :beam:
:balloon2:
I watched the video. I laughed. I cried. I cringed.
The rhetorical 180 made by the American conservatives is stunning, to say the least.
After 8 years of "give him (Dubya) some time", they go crazy on Obama's back as soon as something happen. Notwithstanding the fact that Dubya basically failed at everything, they kept on supporting him, because you know, with the war on terror and stuff, you can't criticize the head of the country.
Dudes, chill out, "give him some time" :yes:
Edit: Holy crap, this video is scary as ****. I'm glad right-wing nutcrackers fascist wanabes left western europe and moved to the US.
Le Front National? The English BFN? You have your group of such wanabes as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Lemur/Vuk:
Thank you for dialing it back a notch.
https://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6721/lepen.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
5,525,032 Frenchman are still there. Send us the good looking ones!
Some presidents have got it easier than others:
https://img238.imageshack.us/img238/...0714522372.jpg
Quote:
I'm glad right-wing nutcrackers fascist wanabes left western europe and moved to the US.
That's unfair on Americans. Back when they left, they were sane people whose only fault was that they were unemployed and couldn't make it in Europe and
We've all got our weirdo's.
Uh, no. We really can't afford to give Obama time to 'figure things out'. One would think Americans learned some serious lessons about not taking things for granted given the legacy of the Clinton & Bush administrations but the election of Obama tells me this is not the case. So pray tell what is Obama doing right? What actions do you think he's taken that will mean a better future for Americans? By all means, please be specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Let me ask a very frank and serious question.
Obama detractors:
You know he won't have Republican-like policies while in office. So setting that aside, WHAT must he do to gain your support or respect? Be honest and serious. I want to know.
I am getting sick of conservatives calling him the Messiah when no one else does, wanting him to fail and abusing the symbols of Americas past for their own ridiculous message. It makes actual, sane conservatives look bad.
EDIT: Also, Obama not doing what half the country wants is not tyranny, its called losing.
Sorry, but if you don't want people to say that he is the Messiah, then do one of two things:
1) Stop making out that he is a hero coming to save us.
2) Criticize him for encouraging things like that on his campaign.
That being said, ATPG's question is a valid one.
My political affiliations, in case you're wondering, are admittedly ambiguous. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat; I liked Bush I and Clinton I. I hated Bush II and Clinton II. I thought Gulf War I was good, I thought the present war (the sequel) sucked big time.
I am economically conservative and socially liberal. I like more liberties and less government involvement, but I also see the merits of government intervention and regulation, to prevent terrible disasters, but not to attempt to "make everything all better".
Right now I can't find a job, and my college savings are all dried up. I'm in a miserable situation, and I could really use the help. But frankly, I'm not dying, and others could use it more.
I consider myself fair-minded and less partial to partisanship than most. That being said, I voted Obama and was appalled by McCain's campaign and Bush and Cheney in general.
This describes me perfectly as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Because I have been totally riding on the Obama train. /sQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The second one makes me laugh, because the job of a politician is to pretend as if you have all the answers and solutions.
The right in question here is not mocking anyone who supports Obama, they are mocking those who give him an air not seen since Trudeaumania or Beatlemania - and rightly so, if I may add.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Having all the answers (or pretending to) does not make you Obamamessiah. That isn't what I said at all.Quote:
The second one makes me laugh, because the job of a politician is to pretend as if you have all the answers and solutions.
Ummmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Thats what being a hero politician is. Coming in with all the answers and solutions and fixing America up single handily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Since my point isn't getting through, I'll try a new tactic. Answer me this question - do the Obama worshippers recognize that he is imperfect?
BLASPHEMER!!! KILL THE HERETIC!!! DEATH TO THE REPUBLICANS!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
:laugh4:
Anyone 25 and above, yeah probably. The only ones who truly believe he can do no wrong, is the young people who are are just getting involved in politics and are mostly likely getting swept up in a movement due to inexperience not because Obama portrays himself as a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Agreed so far, except that there are quite a few people over 25 who are taken in by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Not literally, of course, but he was certainly effective in creating - or at least encouraging - the image he received as the Obamamessiah. The right mocks because some of the left created this image, and we find it amusing.Quote:
Obama portrays himself as a god.
To be fair, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage are beyond making me laugh. Their bloviating hyperpartisan hysterics are shameful beyond belief, just like the nonsense you'd hear on anarchist blogs or militant communist websites. It's sickening some of the stuff that comes from the "good Christian family-oriented" fighters for the so-called right wing. This "us or them" mentality is damaging to our country and our sanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Don't worry, I don't think most of the right likes them either. Alright, Hannity can be OK sometimes, and I've never heard of Savage, but O'Reilly and Limbaugh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Agreed so far, except that there are quite a few people over 25 who are taken in by it.
Maybe, those just might be hardcore Democrats.
Not literally, of course, but he was certainly effective in creating - or at least encouraging - the image he received as the Obamamessiah. The right mocks because some of the left created this image, and we find it amusing.
This image though, if you look at it deeper, was not created and endorsed by Obama and his group. Essentially, what you had was a massive resentment toward the Republicans for quite a while (since late 2003, after the Iraq invasion), but none of the candidates the Democrats had were strong or charismatic enough to win. Now suddenly, in the 2008 Democratic primaries, you had two strong candidates, Hillary and Obama and the tough battle between the two of them created the situation where both looked ready to pounce on the weakened Republicans with renewed momentum after the primary. So after the primary what you had was not an image of a Messiah, you just had a complete reversal of what had been hapening for the past 8 years. Now the Republicans were the weak ones, and the Democrats were the strong ones. This caused the public to flock away from the Republicans in large numbers. Not realizing what was going on, the right has been attempting to write this off as Obama trying to seem as a messiah when in actually, it was a mass rejection of Republican ideals not smoke and shadow from the Democrats. All Obama had to do (and did) was say I am completely different from George Bush and McCain is exactly like him, and boom he wins the election. No tricks, no messiah, just a simple change in momentum combined with public resentment, along with a few catchphrases that tempted many apathetic young voters to come out.
To be clear, I do not equate the right and the Republicans with those hacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Hannity... oh dear. I really have to send you some clips of his more unforgivable stuff. He's like Keith Olbermann.... sometimes Olbermann makes me laugh, but in every show, he says something inexcusably blind and partisan.
I wash my hands of him.
Michael Savage? Oh my god. This guy is a dangerous hateful lunatic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...e_(commentator)
His page: (I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT)
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/
O'Reilly and Limbaugh should be kept in a cardboard box for their protection, and ours.
now, feel free to name the lefty liberal loons. I'll probably agree.
With that one line, you showed my point. Why did they come out? Answer: Messiah. The right didn't create the image of Obama as a Messiah.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Family. Taxes. Limited Government. Security. Socialism. Communism. Terrorism. Un-Americanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
America will fall to dust if Obama gets elected. He's an evil socialist communist anarchist terrorist who is not really American and hates this country and worships the Koran.
Trust me, the right created lots of images of Obama to scare people into voting against him. The Democrats painted an image of him as a hopeful visionary, but didn't turn McCain into a hateful, vile, anti-American terrorist.
I'm afraid you will never convince me that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans in this regard. They clearly aren't.
I hardly think change and hope portrays someone as a messiah, or maybe my version of what a messiah is is different then others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Yes, the Dems are the only political party to have a problem with people on the fringes thinking that their man is sent by God. This is a failing exclusive to them. Oh, wait ...
Okay, that may have been a bit too much. I am just saying, Obama's win was more 'sick of Republicans' then 'Democrats are so great'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Oh SNAP! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Hmmm.... beloved President who is restoring our image throughout the world and getting big ratings overseas and at home....Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Or, our previous president, who is largely despised both at home and abroad.
It just seems like, if Obama were truly messing up, Republicans would be upset. If Obama were doing a mediocre job, Republicans would be upset. If Obama is doing a good job, and by most accounts, he is, Republicans are still upset. Is there nothing this man can do which would seem right in your eyes? And why, pray tell, is his popularity either a bad thing, or something evil he concocted?
I am most puzzled by the consistently negative, in spite of any real reasons why, assessment of Obama after only a few months. What's he done that is so bad?
PS- I just want to say I am not trying to bait anyone. I'm actually, genuinely curious to hear what is wrong with him. You have the floor.
You know who else was popular? HITLER!
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
See? Jokes can be healing! :bow:
Cleary when conservative presidents get elected its a well researched decision made by clear thinking, on the other hand when people elect a non conservative president it is through hysteria or some kind of delusion or clever marketing campaign...
Those damn opposition we had the better ideas but they had the snazzy market campaign or the better soundbytes or more advertising or a better speaker...
It happens to lots of opposition parties and they don't attribute it to some messiah perception... some people just don't take losing that well i guess...