Unbelievable hatred of Obama (status, children, jobs, african)

[Katarina Witt]

Part 2 (Sorry guys, I had to work this morning, couldn't respond to each of these individually)

Originally Posted by REIRehabber

The poster didn't want me to say that his name was his "God given name".

Of course it wasn't "God given"! Parents/others name babies, not God.

Originally Posted by Wapasha

The spelling of the name as "Dubya" was a dig at G.W. Bush, because of southern heritage, so as to denigrate him for his accent and their narrative of him being a dumb-ass, like all those southern hicks, that libs look down on as inbred, southern imbeciles.

Sort of like that southern university, the U of Washington, is called "U Dub"?

Originally Posted by WhistlerMCMLV

I still remember people referring to a certain president as Milhous. (I think there was a stage play based on him called Milhous.)

Come to think of it, the lyrics to the Clash's "The Magnificent Seven" included this line: "Socrates and Milhous Nixon/both went the other way through the kitchen."

That was a mockery, just like hussein (which is how the most frequent user of it always spells it, small "h", to further show her contempt.

Originally Posted by REIRehabber

+1. I also find it disturbing that he screwed up at the swearing in ceremony when he actually had his hand on the bible and when they had him redo the swearing in hours later, the bible was no where to be seen. Was there a reason?

Yes, John Roberts got the words wrong.

Originally Posted by Jadex

No its you missing the point.

But I am not going to keep going on about this because its his middle name and I really dont care if someone uses it or not.

Its not like they are changing his name to something else like happened with Bush

People over react to crap that really doesnt matter.

It matters when it is used as a mockery, or to "prove" he is a Muslim, etc.

[silas777]

Originally Posted by manicotti

I don't particularly believe a word out of any politician's mouth, but this hatred of Obama is out of control. He has been president for roughly a year and there are over twenty pages worth of results from his name in these forums. Bush was president for eight years and there are about 11 pages of results when a search is done on him. Quite a few of these threads with Bush's name are actually about Obama. Why the hatred besides racism? Bush did an incredible amount of damage and stripped America of many rights. He lied outright to this country's people and failed to stop the single most horrendous terrorist attack on American soil. I am not partisan. It just disturbs me to see such a mindset of hatred over such simple (in comparison) acts while president. What do people think is the real reason? I tend to think there is still a lot of closet racism against others in this country. I also tend to think part of this is from the even worse economic situation which tends to drive people over the edge. What do you think?

Racism!! It can be the only answer! You might want to spend a little more time looking at all the hateful threads about Bush on here and see if it bothers you as much...

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

I have never, nor would I ever, demean or denigrate the Founding Fathers. I still periodically study the writings of Jefferson and others, which is why I am so often surprised by how little of their actual philosophies the NeoCons and Tea Party attendees are actually familiar with.

You cannot ignore there are liberals who snarl at the mere mention of our founding fathers, and even going so far as to rename grade schools because the name of our founding fathers was too repugnant to them.

Just because you do not consider yourself in the same group as other liberals, where our founding fathers are concerned, does not mean that other liberals do not share your views.

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

It doesn't bother me in the least,. If the party of Lincoln still represented the ideals that it represented then, I would identify as a Republican.

No quarrel there, and the losses republicans suffered in 2006 and 2008 were due to exactly what you stated, they drifted off course.

If you ask me the current Democratic Party has sailed too far to the left and are even less like their former selves then the republicans.

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

I will remind you, however, that it was President Johnson, a democrat, who pushed hardest for civil rights legislation despite the resistance from his own party.

I'm well aware who was president at the time, and for the record I'm not a party man.

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

How is it, do you suppose, that the Democrats became the party that it is today? Have you ever investigated that?

It's simple, the democrats offer up an endless box of goodies, paid for with the taxpayer's dime. When politicians claim something is free, or worse yet is present it as if its something the person is owed and has a right to, then many people will cast their votes to get it, e.g... Universal health care.

Its easy to demonize the other side, you present it as if you are simply trying to give the people their well deserved and rightful bag of goodies and free stuff, and those evil, meanies are trying to deny it.

It's easy to get elected if you campaign to use the endless coffers of taxpayer money to give away free this and free that. By the time the bills come due for all the "free" goodies, the politicians who promised them will be long gone. Looting the treasury in this way, is like the greedy CEO of a corporation, who rapes the land of all its resources, and once the land is stripped bare, the rich CEO will already be long buried, but what the hell, he got his.

Being a conservative is a tougher sell, because we know our resources are limited, and there will always be people who would rather have their self indulgences catered to, and will nor accept the concept of tough love and self reliance.

Both liberals and conservatives believe the very poor and those in dire circumstances need assistance from government, even the chronically il need our help. The difference is conservatives search for a line to be drawn between those who genuinely need help and the rest of the people.

The vast majority of Americans do not need the warm vampiric embrace of government, they are totally capable of making their own way, as long as government does not stand in the way. Even then, we believe the states should be the ones taking care of the needs of their citizens and not the dysfunctional federal government.

Liberals want the federal government to be the all powerful central planner, they want the line to be redrawn so that only the top 10% should have to make their own way, the other 90% should rely completely on that vampiric embrace of the federal government.

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

You choose to paint all democrats and liberals with one broad brush as if the beliefs of George Wallace were completely aligned with those of Robert Kennedy. Do you believe that they were?

Of course not, even as Ron Paul is not just like John McCain. Interesting that you mention JFK, since I believe he would feel alien to the current Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

No democrat or liberal I know disputes that fact that Lincoln was a Republican or that Wallace and his ilk argued for segregation and retention of the Jim Crow laws. It is people on the right who want to rewrite history by insisting that the Founding Fathers were all Christians (they weren't) or by insisting that the party of Lincoln is the same party today.

Lincoln was a republican, even opinions about him cannot change that fact. As I pointed out, 2006 & 2008 were landslides for democrats because the conservatives have kicking out the RINOs. And I do not know any conservatives who claim Jefferson was a very religious person, in fact this quote comes from Heritage.com, a very conservative web site:

Men are equal not because governments grant equality but because God created them equal. And men require freedom to exercise the duty of discerning God's will. This God is a just judge who is going to hold us to account at the end of this life. Jefferson himself, the least religious of the Founders, wrote, "I tremble when I reflect that God is just." This is how the Founders understood God and man. I wouldn't ask American diplomats necessarily to agree with this principle--that natural rights derive from a Creator who is a just judge--but I would ask them to recall it, to recover it, to acknowledge it as a fundamental part of American history.

Diplomacy in an Age of Faith: How Failing to Understand the Role of Religion Hinders America's Purposes in the World

In fact, the founders never mentioned any specific deity, they only mention God, which could be represented in almost any religion.

[Factsplease]

Bottom line, those of you who refer to the president as Hussein Obama or have a wierd obsession with his middle name know exactly why. You know why and we know why. You are not clever and the only ones you're fooling is yourself.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by mirriam

I agree. It's disgusting. I had no love for Bush, but I didn't make it public right away. And I didn't have a problem with the man, but I couldn't stand his ideaology or his policies. Honestly, I remember that if you barely questioned Bush or any of his policies, people would freak out and call you a traitor or unpatriotic. I used to laugh it off, but boy, was it scary. Now, these same people think you are not patriotic if you LIKE the president. What a bunch of fools.

Questioning Bush's policies was not seen as unpatriotic. Calling our troops murderers, Nazis, and terrorizing women and children and stating the Iraq war was a fraud concocted in Texas for political gain, and Reid stating the war was lost and the surge had failed, or prominent democrats going before the news cameras each election that took place in Iraq, stating how this was Bush's Vietnam, and we need to pull the troops out, those were not just stating policy differences. Plenty of republicans criticized Bush's policies, even his war strategies were given to open public disagreement.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Factsplease

Bottom line, those of you who refer to the president as Hussein Obama or have a wierd obsession with his middle name know exactly why. You know why and we know why. You are not clever and the only ones you're fooling is yourself.

They are pushing your buttons with "Hussein obama" and if it gets a rise out of you, then they succeeded, which was the reason for doing it in the first place

[Factsplease]

Originally Posted by REIRehabber

The reason we lost the election was due to "Bush" and "McCain". There's no denial. What are you reading and where are you getting your expert analysis on conservatives trying to tie him to radical terrorists?

Economy started falling apart way back in the late 90's when Clinton tried to warn the leftists morons in congress about the potential collapse of the housing market due to irregulations and lending pratices promoted by his own party. The Demos were in denial and didn't want anything to do with fixing the problem. They were giving away mortgages like a kid in a candy store. Giving mortgages to people who would otherless be denied a loan to finance a CANDY BAR. Take off your blinders and stop blaming everything on "BUSH". It's so simple for you leftists to point fingers and blame, then to take any responsibilities whatsoever for your screwup.

First of all, I don't need an expert analysis. Anyone with half a brain cell can see through the Conservative hate mongering and fear tactics. Secondly, you're the one that needs to remove your partisan glasses. If Clinton is completely responsible for the failing economy (BS), why didn't Bush fix it? Why did the Bush adminstration stand by and watch it continue to fail? Don't give me the BS about congress. It takes much longer than a two year majority to get to this point. BTW, let's not forget what the house majority was during the Clinton years. Clearly no one man is responsible for this mess so stop trying to make Obama or democrats the fall guys. The thing is, I don't blame everything on Bush. I said that this didn't start during Obama's presidency but did not say it was all Bush so get it right. In case you haven't noticed, both parties are in bed with big business and corporate greed is running rampant. However, that has nothing to do with the hatred toward Obama which is the topic at hand.

[Factsplease]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

They are pushing your buttons with "Hussein obama" and if it gets a rise out of you, then they succeeded, which was the reason for doing it in the first place

Not really...not pushing my buttons but clearly having Obama in office is pushing yours and theirs. Calling him by his middle name and criticizing his every move makes that clear. I know why they do it and so do you. Again, it is childish and petty.

[jackmccullough]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

Be Fair - It was Supreme Court Justice Roberts that screwed up the wording of the oath during the swearing
in ceremony. The second swearing in was just a legal technicality to correct it.

Exactly.

And it's immaterial whether a bible was present or not. It's not necessary for the oath of office, and taking the oath of office is not a condition for the president-elect to become president: that is a matter of time, regardless of whether the oath of office is recited timely, correctly, or at all.

[jackmccullough]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

You cannot ignore there are liberals who snarl at the mere mention of our founding fathers, and even going so far as to rename grade schools because the name of our founding fathers was too repugnant to them.

Name three.