For the anti Obama people: What made you hate him in the first place (FBI, deaths)

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by Iamme73

I stereotype no one. conservatives are liars who hide. Look man, I'll say it again, the same conservatives that LOVE social security and medicare which are huge government programs are saying that the new Healthcare bill is the end of the USA.

Medicare is much more government control it is an objective fact yet conservatives love medicare. They don't hate the healthcare bill because of government control because they love medicare in huge numbers. They hate the ACA bill because they associate it with President Obama whom they hate with a passion.

I am not going to pretend otherwise.

Your definition of "objective fact" and mine must be completely different. While I don't fit the full 'conservative' definition due to my views on certain social issues, I am a fiscal conservative, and I absolutely abhor the ACA. Unlike most (probably including you), I've actually read that 900 page travesty of a law, and it's far more governmentally controlled than Medicare is. The number one thing that makes it abhorrent is that it is designed specifically to make sure that everyone has to contribute to lining the pockets of insurance companies, while taking out any chance of competitive pricing. The mantra of "it will reduce healthcare costs" sounds good until you get about a third of the way through the law and realize that the supposed rate controls have more holes for the insurance companies to slip through than swiss cheese. Sit back and read the ACA, compare it to other countries that have gone to universal healthcare plans, then get back to me with your opinion on how good the ACA is.

The ACA was written by insurance lobbyists, passed by people whose main purpose in life is to make sure that nobody will be allowed to question the elite, and signed by a President who has succeeded in his goal to "fundamentally change America." The downsides to his fundamental change are that it is change that not only does over half of the country does not want, but also that most of the resulting fallout won't even be truly felt until after Obama is safely out of office and out of the public eye. Seriously, if you think the ACA is a great law, you must be living in Colorado or Washington, because those are the only 2 places I know of in the Continental United States where you can legally get that high.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Frediano

Both Reagan and Obama became president primarily because they were charismatic. Both were/are advocates of policies destructive to the nation, as were LBJ and Nixon. It is a total distraction to perseverate on a blue vs. red horserace of sameness. The Bloods battle the Crips and hate each other; so which ones aren't the street thugs? Should we back red or blue in their turf war over power?



Clinton arrives in 1992 and campaigns on the following must haves, predicting dire consequences for the nation if not passed: His Stimulus Program, the BTU Tax, and Nationalize Health Care. None of them pass, even though he has both housed of Congress. Instead, what he gets is a symbolic 3.6% surcharge on income over six times AWI, to "make those who benefitted from the 80s finally pay their fair share.' So few people have earnings over six times AWI that this can't possible raise the revenues associated with the mid 90s surplussed. This mathematical fact is confirmed by Dr. Laura D'ANdrea Tyson in a talk at UCAL/Berkley in Nov 1997, still viewable for free on CSPAN Videos.("Making Economic Policy.")

However what Clinton reasonably did do was to cut the Reagan Era defense buildup in the wake of the collapse of the USSR. He simply leveled off defense spending, cancelling the Reagan era every year buildup. He lowered federal spending...and the economies grew. He did not pass his Stimulus Plan...and the economies grew, creating surplusses. He did not pass Nationalized Health Care...and the economies grew. He did not get his BTU Tax...and the economies grew. When he over-reached and failed in 92-93, and was spanked in the 94 elections, the nation was relieved ... and the economies grew. When he announced in 95 that "The Era of Big Goverment is Over"... the nation was relieved...and the economies grew, creating surplusses. And when the federal government between 94 and 2000 was a gridlock of do nothing nonsense over Monica Lewinsky, the nation laughed and the economies grew.


In the self inflicted financial crisis of 2008-2013 and counting, those that brought us the crisis are clinging to the gig by bringing the nation ever more. Bush and Obama did the exact opposite of what Clinton did -- implement Stimulus, increase the size of the federal government, pass Obamacare -- and have achieved the opposite results with the economies, which are still languishing with massive unemployment as a result.

But Obama is a charismatic, likable guy. So was Reagan.

My 25 yr old son recently graduated with a degree in economics. He has been working for a couple years in business. And he has two years more actual business experience than Barack Obama and Karl Marx combined, who were both lifelong academics/politicians. And yet, we entrust this charismatic man with his pet Soc grad school theories to "Run The Economy," turning the health care marketplace over to Obamacare.

If Clinton is an admired recent president, then ... why aren't we doing what he actually did to create surplusses? He didn't get his Stimulus Plan...Btu Tax....Nationalized Health Care. He did decrease federal spending by leveling off the Reagan era defense buildup.

So...why do we applaud Obama for doing the exact opposite...and achieving the opposite results? Because we like him?

Clinton did get a stimulus. im guessing you arent calling it a stimulus simply because they(dems in 1993) didnt call it a stimulus, but he did have one. There also the problem with your argument that, even if you dont want to call 100 billion a stimulus back in 1993, Bill Clinton himself said that we needed one in 2009 and he also advocated that the one we did get was to small.

I am trying to find the right way to word this. You are arguing that if National Health Care and BTU had passed, then the economy would not have grown and that is something you can not prove. It would have been different if you had said that was your opinion, but it seems you are stating it as fact and that isnt true.

Clinton implemented a 40 million dollar stimulus which ended up costing 100 million and his (or rather GWHB's recession) was far shallower than the ones Obama inherited from GWB.

I have no idea what your definition of opposite is, because the economy has grown for 2 full years under Obama,and it did for 6 years under Bush.

There needs to be a Godwin law for bring up Karl Marx when discussing a Democrat.

I always find it moronic that you guys compare people based on their qualifications in ONE field instead of an overall look. President Obama was part of the State delegation a and then U.S delegation for 14 years. Your son does not have that experience and neither Did Clinton who you just praised.

You dont applaud Obama, you attack him for doing exactly what Bill Clinton did while praising Clinton. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.

Clinton did get a stimulus, just as Obama. CLinton raised taxes, just like Obama. Clinton tried to get national health care, just like Obama.

again, your argument against NHC is that clinton failed which caused the economy to grow yet you have no proof of that.

[truthseeking]

Bush 'morphed' into him!

I, Pet Goat II by Heliofant - YouTube
Illustrates it well.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Arjay51

You continue to make my point for me. Only what you call "conservatives" had anything to do with these budgets, right? 100%, no dem support at all, right? Even the cited (by you) 2009 budget when there was a dem president and super majority in both houses, right?

And of course, since 2009 there has not been a budget passed by the dems so it just must be the fault of the cons, right?

And never has a dem lied to anyone, right?

I don't know what fantasy world you live in but it certainly is not this one.

The Budget year starts in october of the previous year.


The fiscal year of 2009 started in October of 2008. SO that line should not read "DDD" it should read

"D D(49/49/2) R"

and President Bush signed that 1.2 trillion in spending in September of 2008, AND it was his budget that was a proved, not the Dems.

And yes, it is the fault of Republicans that we do not have a budget, they filibuster or say they will vote against it and we need a super majority to pass it.

also, there is no such thing as a super majority in The House and Obama did not have a Super majority in the Senate. he had only 59 votes, Al Frankin had not won his seat yet because the current senator refused to admit defeat.

infact, Frankin wasnt sworn in till the middle of July in 2009, Ted Kennedy died in August, that means the dems only had a super majority for 10 working days in congress the first 6 months of the Obama administration. Then Kennedy's replacement was sworn in during september, and then Scott Brown won a special election in November.

now to rewind. The Senate adjourned on october 30, 2009. Meaning the democrats only had a filibuster proof senate for a grand total of 35 working days in the entire Obama adminsitration.

contrary to the "2 years" you cons keep bringing up.

[Don Draper]

Originally Posted by workaholics

Liberals need to stop attacking everybody as racist. It's about as effective in a political debate as accusing liberals and Democrats of being communist.

And racists need to stop whining about being called racist.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Harrier

If he doesn't mean what he says, then he shouldn't talk.

The way I understood it, the poster answered how many liberals EXPECT the rest of us to answer. They didn't take the thread seriously.

Originally Posted by Harrier

They do it because they have no defense for the absolute failure that the president has been, and it is a convenient deflection, because the man happens to be black.

They are intentionally sowing division where only unity should be harvested.

They are among the lowest forms of creatures - those who would slander those with whom they disagree simply to shut down any debate.

When you race baiting liberals man up and are ready to have an adult discussion about the president's policies - let me know.

And you just illustrated what that poster was already thinking, hence their joke of a post that you took seriously.

To OP:

In all honesty, the first person I was not fond of was Michelle. I watched the elections in 2004, all of them, and I will never forget her saying, when Barack won and she was introducing him, "My baby's daddy...."

People like to deny that was ever said but I sat right in front of that television and heard it with my own ears. I thought, "What trash!"

Then I paid attention to what he did. Can't say that I'm very impressed with someone who votes, "present".

"Present" doesn't tell me squat. It's a lame, bow out vote and it's not what that person is paid to do. That's like showing up for work, clocking in, going to your boss, "Present!" and then sitting on your duff and doing nothing the rest of the day. You are not paid for that.

It showed me that he was one who would pander to whatever audience he thought would gain him the most and it appears to have worked.

By the way, I watch C-Span, not the alphabet, biased networks.

[FancyFeast5000]

Originally Posted by Scotty011

I don't hate the man at all. I don't think that he is a good President, and I don't like his policies. I have felt the same about other Presidents. This group of Obama supporters are a different breed. Presidents have faced the same criticisms over the years, but if you criticise Obama you hate him. Why?

The language of hate which is used. The language used by those who do not "like" Obama is almost always the language of HATE. One can express dislike for policies without using words which attack on such a personal level, like "scum" etc., etc., to describe the President, and then on to enormously scurrilous attacks on Michelle Obama. Check out the thread in re the photo of Obama shooting a gun.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The Budget year starts in october of the previous year.


The fiscal year of 2009 started in October of 2008. SO that line should not read "DDD" it should read

"D D(49/49/2) R"

and President Bush signed that 1.2 trillion in spending in September of 2008, AND it was his budget that was a proved, not the Dems.

And yes, it is the fault of Republicans that we do not have a budget, they filibuster or say they will vote against it and we need a super majority to pass it.

also, there is no such thing as a super majority in The House and Obama did not have a Super majority in the Senate. he had only 59 votes, Al Frankin had not won his seat yet because the current senator refused to admit defeat.

infact, Frankin wasnt sworn in till the middle of July in 2009, Ted Kennedy died in August, that means the dems only had a super majority for 10 working days in congress the first 6 months of the Obama administration. Then Kennedy's replacement was sworn in during september, and then Scott Brown won a special election in November.

now to rewind. The Senate adjourned on october 30, 2009. Meaning the democrats only had a filibuster proof senate for a grand total of 35 working days in the entire Obama adminsitration.

contrary to the "2 years" you cons keep bringing up.

A great fact filled post. Sadly, I'm sure the wing nuts will continue to ignore the facts just like they ignore reality. Still, great post.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

A great fact filled post. Sadly, I'm sure the wing nuts will continue to ignore the facts just like they ignore reality. Still, great post.

been posting that same type comment since i first started posting here, and the cons dont listen so you are right.

But i dont really fault them, the media (especially Fox) pretended as if President Obama had a super majority for 2 years. Unless people do the research themselves, they will never know these things.

[NHartphotog]

It amazes me that with all the people posting the numerous valid reasons they think Obama is bad for America, every single liberal response is this: "See! I told you it was just because he was black!"

To me, someone who ignores everything other than skin color (actions, deeds, words, accomplishments and experience, or lack thereof) is a racist--and that defines every liberal so far posting the above response on this thread.