News Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the intense dislike some individuals have for Obama, prompting questions about the reasons behind such animosity. Critics cite his lack of experience and vague promises of change as significant concerns, while some participants suggest that underlying racism may play a role in the hostility. The conversation also touches on the broader political landscape, with participants expressing frustration over the extreme views held by both supporters and opponents of Obama. Many contributors emphasize that while they may disagree with his policies, they struggle to understand the depth of hatred directed at him. Overall, the thread reflects a complex interplay of political opinion, personal bias, and societal issues.
  • #351
LowlyPion said:
Hate no more.

Just in case it might have been ambiguous, I'm sure that LowlyPion was just playing off of the title of the thread there. No one here, not stewartcs nor anyone else, has been exhibiting hatred, just arguing for their beliefs.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #352
CaptainQuasar said:
Just in case it might have been ambiguous, I'm sure that LowlyPion was just playing off of the title of the thread there. No one here, not stewartcs nor anyone else, has been exhibiting hatred, just arguing for their beliefs.

For the record, and not knowing exactly how it might be read otherwise, let me say that I can't imagine that anyone that has participated here would have expressed any hatred, so much as has been discussing the undercurrents of the society in general. I think in fact those concerns have been shown to be misplaced, as we can now see in the election map, and Obama's over-achievement.

From the outpouring of joy most everywhere, I am left to wonder if the country as a whole didn't as well hold their collective breaths, wondering if they could trust everyone else to set aside whatever imagined prejudice there might be and simply vote on the merits. When the lights came on and the votes counted, I think it was in some small part relief that enough of everyone else had done the right thing.
 
  • #353
Washington Memo, NY Times, November 9, 2008
Harsh Words About Obama? Never Mind Now
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09memo.html
By JIM RUTENBERG
That whole anti-American, friend-to-the-terrorists thing about President-elect Barack Obama? Never mind.

Just a few weeks ago, at the height of the campaign, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that, when it came to Mr. Obama, “I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views.”

But there she was on Wednesday, after narrowly escaping defeat because of those comments, saying she was “extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year.” Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama’s victory, which included her state, “a tremendous signal we sent.”

And it was not too long ago that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, accused Mr. Obama of “palling around with terrorists.”

But she took an entirely different tone on Thursday, when she chastised reporters for asking her questions about her war with some staff members in the McCain campaign at such a heady time. “Barack Obama has been elected president,” Ms. Palin said. “Let us, let us — let him — be able to kind of savor this moment, one, and not let the pettiness of maybe internal workings of the campaign erode any of the recognition of this historic moment that we’re in. And God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family.”

There is a great tradition of paint-peeling political hyperbole during presidential campaign years. And there is an equally great tradition of backing off from it all afterward, though with varying degrees of deftness.

But given the intensity of some of the charges that have been made in the past few months, and the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s election, the exercise this year has been particularly whiplash-inducing, with its extreme before-and-after contrasts.

The shift in tone follows the magnanimous concession speech from Mr. McCain, of Arizona, who referred to Mr. Obama’s victory Tuesday night as “a historic election” and hailed the “special pride” it held for African-Americans. That led the vice president-elect, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., to get into the act. During the campaign, Mr. Biden said he no longer recognized Mr. McCain, an old friend. Now, he says, “We’re still friends.” President Bush, in turn, also hailed Mr. Obama’s victory, saying his arrival at the White House would be “a stirring sight.”

Whether it all heralds a new era of cooperation in Washington remains to be seen, and it may be downright doubtful. But for now, at least, it would seem to be part of an apparent rush to join what has emerged as a real moment in American history.

The presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said she was hard-pressed to find a similar moment when the tone had changed so drastically, and so quickly, among so many people of such prominence.

“I don’t think that’s happened very often,” Ms. Goodwin said. “The best answer I can give you is they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and they recognize how the country saw this election, and how people feel that they’re living in a time of great historic moment.”

. . . .
Some folks have toned down their harsh rhetoric. However, realize that some are still full of hostility toward Obama, probably more out of fear of change. The two skin heads arrested for plotting to kill a large number of African Americans on the way to assassinate Obama represent the extreme, but hopefully very small minority.
 
  • #354
Astronuc said:
Some folks have toned down their harsh rhetoric.

Not so much over at Fox. If anything, it seems to me, if it has lessened, it is only muted by their newly adopted resuscitate Sarah Palin agenda. Their unctuous idolatry simply oozes from their efforts at revisionism.

Universally their analysis seems to pick apart every potential suggestion for nominees or policy statements.

And they were just so shocked that their reporter was snubbed at the Press Conference. Perhaps if Fox represented something other than the Roger Ailes Hate Arm of the Far Right Propaganda machine, they might actually be judged as belonging to the Press Corps?
 
  • #355
LowlyPion said:
And they were just so shocked that their reporter was snubbed at the Press Conference. Perhaps if Fox represented something other than the Roger Ailes Hate Arm of the Far Right Propaganda machine, they might actually be judged as belonging to the Press Corps?

Sure, but at the other extreme you have the McCain Double Talk Express that only let reporters who were friendly to him interview him. That's not change we can believe in, folks.

So do you snub a reporter because all he ever does is make up lies and false accusations, risking the slippery slope of destroying freedom of the press, or do you let this *** through to ask what color turban you will be wearing on inauguration day?
 
  • #357
WarPhalange said:
Sure, but at the other extreme you have the McCain Double Talk Express that only let reporters who were friendly to him interview him. That's not change we can believe in, folks.

So do you snub a reporter because all he ever does is make up lies and false accusations, risking the slippery slope of destroying freedom of the press, or do you let this *** through to ask what color turban you will be wearing on inauguration day?

It surely wasn't change that many more than 46% of the people believed in anyway.

While I am certainly for freedom of the Press, and I think that some latitude should be given their expression, I do think that there needs to be quite a bit more balance than Fox has managed.

I understand there is a presumption that there is some kind of cabal of the Eastern media elite, presumably based on the tenuous perception of there being some correlation between Jews, liberals, media property owners and intellectuals - but I rather think the naked agenda of Fox to propagandize the Republican Party talking points represents some kind of failure to provide "fair and balanced" time to public issues is a bit of an over reaction to that idea.
 
  • #358
LowlyPion said:
It surely wasn't change that many more than 46% of the people believed in anyway.

While I am certainly for freedom of the Press, and I think that some latitude should be given their expression, I do think that there needs to be quite a bit more balance than Fox has managed.

I understand there is a presumption that there is some kind of cabal of the Eastern media elite, presumably based on the tenuous perception of there being some correlation between Jews, liberals, media property owners and intellectuals - but I rather think the naked agenda of Fox to propagandize the Republican Party talking points represents some kind of failure to provide "fair and balanced" time to public issues is a bit of an over reaction to that idea.
What would you have done about this 'failure to provide'?
 
  • #359
mheslep said:
What would you have done about this 'failure to provide'?

I'd look into having the FCC consider fines against Fox. Maybe even the FEC given that their air time represents an unbalanced unreported partisan contribution to the McCain and Palin campaign efforts.

And even now Fox is extending their programming to include specials from Alaska and indulging in Palin revisionist history in an attempt to resurrect her apparently for 2012. (Personally I'd think a fully loaded brain transplant would likely be a better tactic. How much education can she absorb in 4 years?)
 
  • #360
So you don't think FOX 'news' is part of a liberal media conspiracy to make all republicans look bad?

Like the way that all supermarket tabloids are run by the CIA in order to ridicule UFO and bigfoot spotters and keep the secret under wraps.
 
  • #361
LowlyPion said:
I'd look into having the FCC consider fines against Fox.
On what legal basis? That they're biased?
 
  • #362
FOX has arrived at that far-reaching altar of a basis all their own.
 
  • #363
mheslep said:
On what legal basis? That they're biased?

That would be a start.

Certainly they do not serve the public interest in their 24/7 propagandizing of the Republican talking points.
 
  • #364
LowlyPion said:
And even now Fox is extending their programming to include specials from Alaska and indulging in Palin revisionist history in an attempt to resurrect her apparently for 2012.

Dehh, I just realized that the Mayan end-times prophecy is 2012. My God! It's true!


-I can't be the first to notice this. *hits search bar*
 
  • #365
OAQfirst said:
-I can't be the first to notice this. *hits search bar*

No. You're close to being the first.

Only half a million hits.
 
  • #366
Funny: Before the election and according to the righties, Obama was an extreme lefty. But now, according the lefties, he was a secret righty all along.

I have a strongly left leaning friend who is complaining by email. And Obama hasn't even assumed office yet!

Obama promised a balanced approach, so I would expect objections from the left and the right. And as we know, the right has been very happy with many of Obama's decisions. He has shown extremely good judgement.

Of course, many will spew vile and venom at his meeting with Gore, and and his comments on climate change, today.

Good job so far, Obama!

Reminds of a quote from a judge: ~"If everyone leaves unhappy, then I probably made a good decision"
 
Last edited:
  • #367
He calls Obama, Obomba, :smile:, because Obama plans to continue in Afghanistan.

He also begins his emails by calling me a butthead. :smile: I have been accused here of being a closet liberal, and now I'm a closet righty.
 
  • #368
Remember this one?

COLMUBUS, Oh (AP) - John McCain has called on a political
heavyweight to give his campaign a lift -- Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The California governor told a rally in Ohio that "Mac" is
back.
He ribbed McCain rival Barack Obama by saying Obama has "skinny
legs" and "scrawny arms"...
http://www.wkrg.com/politics/article/schwarzenegger_obama_has_scrawny_arms/20527/

And now we get this.

WASHINGTON - Forget Barack Obama's staff making contact with a governor charged with corruption. What's got everyone talking is the president-elect's fine first form.

"FIT FOR OFFICE: Buff Bam is Hawaii hunk," the New York Post gushed on its cover Tuesday above a photo of the future president strolling without a shirt in Hawaii. The Drudge Report called him "President Beefcake," while TMZ said the president-elect is "still humble enough to do laundry -- ON HIS ABS!"...
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2008/dec/25/beach-photos-push-obama-toward-first-hunk-status/living/

Obama is probably the most physically fit President that we have ever seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #369
Guvernor Arny said:
He ribbed McCain rival Barack Obama by saying Obama has "skinny
legs" and "scrawny arms"...
Compared to who? :smile:
 
  • #370
OAQfirst said:
Compared to who? :smile:

:smile: Maybe we should have allowed the ladies to decide who is the most buff by judging McCain and Obama in their swimming trunks.
 
  • #371
Ivan Seeking said:
Obama is probably the most physically fit President that we have ever seen.

I dunno, I'd put my money on Bush in a running race against Obama.
 
  • #372
maze said:
I dunno, I'd put my money on Bush in a running race against Obama.

:smile: At least we are finally getting down to substance!
 
  • #373
maze said:
I dunno, I'd put my money on Bush in a running race against Obama.
Running away from responsibility and accountability, running away from his record? Bush hands-down.
 
  • #374
Bush did pretty good ducking those shoes.
 
  • #375
Ivan Seeking said:
Of course, many will spew vile and venom at his meeting with Gore, and and his comments on climate change, today.
Did he say something condemnable?
 
  • #377
LowlyPion said:
And on other fronts the RNC continues to endear itself to minorities with the "Barack the Magic Negro" flap.

"sending a CD with those lyrics shortly after electing the first African-American president -- one supported by nearly 97 percent of the African-American community -- shows a serious lack of judgment, tact "

Presumably a plan to get rid of the 3% that support your candidate?
 
  • #379
mheslep said:
That phrase was coined in an LA Times article by left winger David Ehrenstein.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...r19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Unfortunately context is everything. And the tin ears of Republicans looks to be further marginalizing themselves with such insensitive appeals to divisiveness. Serves them right after having botched up the economy under their loathsome stewardship these past 8 years. It looks like the country will be turning the page on unrestrained indulgence, not so much by choice as by the ruin that these ideologues have brought to all our doorsteps.

And Dick Cheney wonders why no one likes him I recently read?
 
  • #380
Ouch. Here are some haters that got a smack down.
Judge assails cases doubting Obama's citizenship
By NEDRA PICKLER
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD96O5TV03

Make them pay for the waste of the court's time as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #381
Ivan Seeking said:
So as not to derail other threads, it seemed best to start this one.


I am starting to think that the most vocal opponents are simply racists.

I am not "starting to think" that Democrats play the race card excessively. I know they have been playing it, for decades.

Nobody can say anything negative about a "person of color" without being branded by Democrats as "racists" and worse.

Point of reference: Robert Byrd, senator from West Virginia.

He is the only Ku Klux Klansman in the United States Congress.

Oh yes, and he's a Democrat.

Until Democrats stop playing the cynical race card, rational debate is impossible for them.

On national television, a room full of Obama supporters were asked by the newscaster to name ONE accomplishment of Senator Obama. A room full of people, mind you.

Between them, they could not name one single thing.

Oh but this guy is "good." (Hint: He's black.)
 
  • #382
BarackZero said:
Between them ...
Among them ...
 
  • #383
BarackZero said:
Robert Byrd, senator from West Virginia.

He is the only Ku Klux Klansman in the United States Congress.

Nobody's perfect.

Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama.
 
  • #384
LowlyPion said:
Nobody's perfect.

Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama.

Yeah how can you be sure he isn't also a member? hmm?
 
  • #385
neu said:
Yeah how can you be sure he isn't also a member? hmm?

If he is, he hides it well.
 
  • #386
LowlyPion said:
If he is, he hides it well.

With a pointy white hat
 
  • #387
BarackZero said:
Point of reference: Robert Byrd, senator from West Virginia.

He is the only Ku Klux Klansman in the United States Congress.

Oh yes, and he's a Democrat.
I believe he's an ex klansman who left the organization before he even assumed his current office back in the 50's.
if I remember correctly Obama mentions in The Audacity of Hope that on his first day at senate he visited with senator Byrd, received some good advice, and had a nice conversation with him.
 
  • #388
We can start a new rumour about Obama: He is secretly a Klansman!
 
  • #389
I don't hate him, but I am beginning to get annoyed. He hasn't exactly been very honest with us. Particularly with the issue of AIG. Same thing with congress. They go and talk strong words when the public is listening, they talk strong words to AIG in congress, but it seams it is all for show, and many of the same people who talk tuff are the ones who are making it possible for AIG to keep on scamming us. For example Chris Dodd. But, it isn't just Chris Dodd, Apparently Chris was ordered by the Treasury to slip in the provision to let AIG give out excessive undeserved bonuses with bailout money before there was time to review it. Well, Obama is the Boss of the Treasury, so I guess he is responsible, and he admits it. But why? I the whole, this is a big mess and we have a bad hand of cards thing only goes so far.

I am also a little displeased to see the vast lists of "pork barrel" projects and earmarks that he has signed off of so far. He flat out lied when he campaigned on a no earmarks, no pork barrel policy. And he then has the nerve to go and lie about the obvious saying "there are no earmarks in this bill". If we don't start demanding some honesty out of Obama, we may end with a new Bush in the white house.
 
  • #390
jreelawg said:
For example Chris Dodd. But, it isn't just Chris Dodd, Apparently Chris was ordered by the Treasury to slip in the provision to let AIG give out excessive undeserved bonuses with bailout money before there was time to review it.
Treasury cannot order a Senator. Does one have evidence to support this allegation? The bonuses were apparently determined last year before the company acknowledged it was is trouble.

I expect that Dodd will not be re-elected. Hopefully, he'll retire.

The current CEO, Edward M. Liddy, has indicated that AIG's Financial Products business was too complex to fully understand or manage.

Back in June 2008 however, there was indications of trouble.

Probe focuses on AIG financial products: WSJ
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSN1340737120080613
NEW YORK (Reuters) - American International Group Inc's (AIG.N) financial-products division, already burnt by accounting issues, is coming under scrutiny in government probes, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Justice Department are investigating whether the insurer intentionally overstated the value of subprime mortgage-linked contracts.

The division specializes in credit-default swaps, contracts that are at the heart of the mortgage crisis.

Regulators are focused on an investor presentation held on December 5, the Journal said, at which both AIG Chief Executive Martin Sullivan and former financial-products chief Joseph Cassano said risks from the roiling subprime crisis were unlikely to cause the insurer major damage.

. . . .
Those dudes should be investigated.
 
  • #391
"Dodd told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change."

"As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications to it," he said. "They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous."...

When asked how administration officials have this kind of leverage over members of Congress, Dodd said, "The administration has veto power. ... No one suggested a veto to me, I don't want to imply that to you. But certainly that's not an insignificant tool."...

"Senator Dodd's reversal on this issue is both astonishing and alarming," the National Republican Senatorial Campaign said in a written statement. "Contrary to his statements and denials over the last 24 hours, Senator Dodd has now admitted that he and his staff did in fact change the language in the stimulus bill to include a loophole for AIG executive bonuses."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/

"CNN) -- Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored."...

"On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #392
Astronuc said:
Those dudes should be investigated.

I'd say at this point there will be an investigation.

Here's Barney Frank's thoughts on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG8grrJX_xQ

I think as McCain like to say in the campaign, we will get their names and make them famous. Apparently too there is a possibility that those bonuses may be subject to an onerous tax. Personally I think Frank has the better approach. Sue them. That will make their names public. Let them defend their egregious demands.

To be blaming Obama for this is simply not credible.
 
  • #393
I like the idea of taxing the bonuses at 90+%, but it is hard for me to believe this would be legal.

It is a bit disheartening to see this become such a distraction as we [Obama and Congress] have more important things to think about. But it is interesting. I don't think I can recall a time when the entire country was gunning for a few individuals like this.
 
  • #394
Obama stated it was his fault, so either he isn't credible, or blaming him is credible.

I for one think maybe it wasn't Obama's idea, but Obama is just defending his staff. After he responded to this controversy in a town hall, he made a point that we should be angry, but in a contructive way and made a point that trivializing government decisions and pointing fingers isn't going to help.

The way I took it was that he is asking the public to not be critical of government and to kind of mind their own business. Basically it was like he was asking us to look the other way.

While I disagree with his approach of not holding people accountable for things in the past, asking to not hold accountability for things that happened days ago is a little trivial.
 
  • #395
Dodd top 5 contributors 2003-2008 from opensecrets.org

Citigroup Inc $316,494
United Technologies $264,400
SAC Capital Partners $248,500
American International Group $223,478
Royal Bank of Scotland $218,500
 
  • #396
How can you hate Obama?

Here's his basketball bracket.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/brackets2009c.jpg

I don't have a lot of quarrels with it. I might even play it, were it not for the fact that everyone and his brother may be using it as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #397
LowlyPion said:
How can you hate Obama?

Here's his basketball bracket.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/brackets2009c.jpg

I don't have a lot of quarrels with it. I might even play it, were it not for the fact that everyone and his brother may be using it as well.
What would people have said if Bush had posted his baseball playoff picks on the White House website?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #398
jreelawg said:
I don't hate him, but I am beginning to get annoyed. He hasn't exactly been very honest with us. Particularly with the issue of AIG. Same thing with congress. They go and talk strong words when the public is listening, they talk strong words to AIG in congress, but it seams it is all for show, and many of the same people who talk tuff are the ones who are making it possible for AIG to keep on scamming us. For example Chris Dodd. But, it isn't just Chris Dodd, Apparently Chris was ordered by the Treasury to slip in the provision to let AIG give out excessive undeserved bonuses with bailout money before there was time to review it. Well, Obama is the Boss of the Treasury, so I guess he is responsible, and he admits it. But why? I the whole, this is a big mess and we have a bad hand of cards thing only goes so far.
The problem here is that everyone wants to think that these bank/corporations are terrible, greedy, evil ***holes that ought to all be thrown in prison. And if we do that we will tank our economy. These companies actually do provide services that help out common people and small business owners (no they are not on the up and up all the time in everything they do but neither are most businesses big and small or people or politicians ect). There's a really big domino effect of all the various sectors and industries that could be effected by the failure of these companies and are currently effected by them not doing so well. So they need to be saved or the economy goes to hell. Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I understand from what I have seen and read.

Regarding AIG, the man currently in charge of the company isn't even getting paid and has no stake in the success or failure of the company other than his own reputation. He's not getting some giant bonus for having signed off on these expenditures. He's not going to retire with a big severence package even if he he tanks the company. Its in his best interest to make the best of possible decisions and he has decided that if he intends to keep the top talent in the company and actually save it he needs to honour these contracts or they may very well leave to try finding a job at a company that isn't on the verge of collapse. Aswell supposedly all of the persons responsable for the AIG failure have been fired, so (if this is true) we are not talking about people who have driven the company into the ground getting giant bonuses, we're talking about people who may well be the key to the companies survival being taken care of so they don't jump ship.
 
  • #399
russ_watters said:
What would people have said if Bush had posted his baseball playoff picks on the White House website?

I would have had no problem with that.

I did notice that Obama went statistically very conservative with his pick (Com'on Barack where are the upsets?!)

Man I am happy I had to finish my dissertation in the football off season (GO STEELERS!)

the rest is just crumbs
 
  • #400
russ_watters said:
What would people have said if Bush had posted his baseball playoff picks on the White House website?

No idea. That seems overly speculative to me.

With Bush though you would have to wonder if they really weren't Cheney's picks anyway wouldn't you?
 

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
24
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
34
Views
7K
Back
Top