Obama Supporters

You seem to be simply repeating the same thing over and over again. Can you answer a question straight? I mean without all the childish rhetorical flourish.

 

Ouch! I hate it when an oppositional poster gets all sane and reasonable on me. Well, okay, but let's keep this on the quiet, eh? Yes Barack Obama was massively over-hyped by a media that essentially campaigned him into office in 2008. Yes he did exactly what so many opposition voters expected; he entered office as a totally clueless newbie and promptly revealed that he had become president a minimum of eight years too early. If ever there were a fellow who should have gone through an apprenticeship program as either a governor or as a vice president first before becoming president it was Barack Obama. So all of that distorts any sense of who and what he really is as either a human being or as the nation's president in the here and now. In part that's because the worse Obama performed the harder the pro-Obama media spun and covered for him . . . significantly adding to the confusion and outright surrealism.

But all that aside, in practical terms he's demonstrating himself to be a bit over trusting and naive [like Jimmy Carter was] in most aspects of foreign policy while also showing signs of being disturbingly and stupidly ruthless like G.W. Bush was. That's a problem. It's almost like Obama is a schizophrenic in regards to foreign policy, being tough and intransigent when he should be diplomatic and being diplomatic when he should be tough as nails. But . . . and here's the part requiring a touch more fairness toward the man than I like to demonstrate, only time will tell if his approach is correct or as wrong as it appears to be to so many people. Whenever he does occasionally have a foreign policy success it always seems to happen because while stumbling around as an incompetent he simply lucks out. It's the sort of habit that makes allies nervous, if nothing else.

His domestic policies approach seems concocted by a fantasies imbued ideologue who never cast a critical gaze at the radical doctrines he was constantly exposed to in his youth and early adulthood. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals was published in 1971 to help community organizers to get what they wanted for their small community of needy people. It was never meant to be a guideline for running an entire nation and yet it does seem to be Barack Obama's fall-to guide for dealing with Congress and the media [whenever he's dealing with Fox News -- for instance]. When stressed and backed into a corner you tend to go with what you know best rather than what you've gradually learned as a better, smarter approach and what Obama learned first was handed to him as indoctrination from Marxists and Socialists as mentors. He's a man who grew up being tutored by radicals who in many instances utterly hated this nation. Now one can concede that he's a good man at heart and means well, but when most of what you know is based on the teachings of people who only knew things as theory -- none of them ever themselves ran or governed anything -- and when many of them had blind hatreds where this nation is concerned then there's a problem when you get stressed out from opposition and instinctively react along -- unfortunately -- very predictable lines.

What Obama supporters do not understand -- an there are a host of things that they do not understand about Barack Obama -- is that his mentors were NOT on the whole gentle people who considered flower power a viable vehicle for change, they were radicals in the old and traditional sense of the term and their notion of change was subversion and -- yes -- outright violence and extortion, blackmail, and bribery while hiding who and what they were and their true agenda under the cover of things such as Rules for Radicals.

So is Barack Obama a former radical along those lines who one day saw the light of reason and turned his back on those ways and those people? Well, not according to who he was still involved with just before he became president. But even if that were the case, he's still had a lifetime of radical indoctrination in not only pernicious philosophy but in harsh measures as viable solution sets. Ironically none of this meant that he was inevitably doomed to go down in history as a bad president seriously out of his depth but when his approach to dealing with the Legislative Branch consists of a mishmash of Marxist and Socialist indoctrination leavened with a patina of the more revolting aspects of Chicago--machine-style politics then you have a recipe for disaster in the Oval Office.

The Republicans in Congress would have worked with a reasonable president willing to honestly deal and compromise with them but while Obama SAID that he would deal honestly and seek true compromise there have been even some liberal journalists over the years admitting that pretty much what he really meant was "I will pretend to the nation that I am a compromiser and a deal maker but in reality I am standing firm on the principle of 'it's my way or the highway' until in fact I have absolutely no other choice." The handful of compromises Barack has made with Congress since becoming president? They were all conceded only AFTER his back was forced against a wall and the consequences for failing to 'compromise' would have cost him too dearly as a politician. Rather than noting that about the man the pro-Obama media instead cheered him as a Great Politician merely because he was finally FORCED to make a deal.

Bear in mind that even all of the above does not automatically make Barack Obama a bad president . . . only the fact that a Legislative Branch that proved it COULD work with the disparate likes of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton [and in the case of Clinton while actively doing their very best to destroy him, mind you] cannot work with Barack Obama, indicates that the Democratic Party really, really should have gone with Hillary Clinton instead back in 2008.

 

So you're expecting Obama to launch a communist revolution soon?

 

Oh now there's a pot accusing the kettle of being sooty.

 

You mean launch yet another starter program such as Obamacare Redux? A man trained by radical socialists immediately forces [after a year and a half of frantic effort] a socialist program down this nation's throat and his supporters wonders when he will reveal socialistic or Marxist tendencies? That's the beauty of the average Obama supporter. They are perfectly capable of standing waist deep in a swamp protesting that draining it will damage the environment including all those darling alligators while one such alligator is just about to take a huge bite out of a buttock. Pssst the alligator has already taken a bite -- it's just that "Hope and Change!" and "Yes we Can!" served to prevent you from realizing what happened.

 

If you think I'm an Obama supporter , I'm not. I'm not even American. Do you think the communist/socialist revolution has already happened in the US under Obama?

 

No, but it has begun and it's beginning actually started with Jimmy Carter when he was president. Well with Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, both of whom threw open the doors and windows of real political power and influence to serious leftwing radicals when they were fighting one another for the presidential nomination. That's when the Democratic Party began pushing its moderates out of control of their party's politics and ideology. The party immediately lurched to the Left.

Clinton's presidency helped to slow it down a bit only because he had to move to the Right in order to remain effective while in office. You do know that he got very little support from the Left during those years of open-ended investigations and during the impeachment? That's because much of the increasingly radicalized Leftwing LEADERS inside the Democratic Party and inside [by that time] the mainstream media despised Bill Clinton -- not because he couldn't keep his junk inside his shorts but because he wasn't himself a radical leftist.

 

Ok,

You’re the type of person that I would classify as having “A Beautiful Mind” you have flashes of genus but it’s mixed in with doses of paranoia and the two can’t possibly co-exist in there without some confusion.

Let’s just break it all down shall we…..

The media’s love fest with the president, you got me on that one, but I would retort back that very soon after the president was elected almost all of his cheerleaders on MSNBC and CNN very quickly started to give him a few bad grades on certain things and even scolded him for a few others.

They still like him, but if you ever tune into the stations that the right calls the lame stream liberal media you’ll see them being quite harsh at times and questioning some of the president’s actions.

The right has been beating this ‘the media swooshed this rock star into prominence and the presidency” thing for quite some time now, and anybody paying attention can tell you what it’s really all about – marginalization.

It’s far easier to say that he won (both times) because the media brainwashed the nation into thinking he was the second coming rather than just admitting that people listened to his speeches, did their research (like me) and made a rational decision to vote for the man.

Did a lot of college kids vote for him simply because they thought it would be cool to vote for the young hip black guy, absolutely. Did a lot of minorities vote for him out of a sense of ethnic pride over political substance, absolutely.

But overwhelmingly the man was voted in from a nation completely fed up with conservative ideals and cowboy conservative foreign policies that made us the laughing stock of the world.

His radicalization……………………dude seriously?

You do realize that in all that talk about indoctrination and radicalization (that all sounded very Glen Beckish to me) you didn’t reference one source, one name, or one institution.

The president’s family initially lived in a neighborhood in the Menteng Dalam administrative village of the Tebet subdistrict in South Jakarta for two and a half years.

From January 1968 to December 1969, Obama's mother taught English and was an assistant director of the U.S. government-subsidized Indonesia-America Friendship Institute, while Barack attended the Indonesian-language Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi) Catholic School around the corner from their house for 1st, 2nd, and part of 3rd grade.

From January 1970 to August 1972, Barack’s mother taught English and was a department head and a director of the Institute of Management Education and Development. Barack attended the Indonesian-language government-run Besuki School, one and half miles east in the exclusive Menteng administrative village, for part of 3rd grade and for 4th grade.

By this time, he had picked up on some Indonesian in addition to his native English. He also joined the Cub Scouts.

I don’t know about you but all of this is sounding pretty damn radical to me so far and I think he might have learned how to plant bombs while in the Cub Scouts.

In the summer of 1970, Barack returned to Hawaii for an extended visit with his maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham. His mother had also arranged an interview for possible admission to the Punahou School in Honolulu, one of the top private schools in the city.

In mid-1971, Obama moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attend Punahou School starting in 5th grade.

So somehow in-between the 1st and 5th grade while most of us are learning our colors and how to put on smocks for art class, the president was hidden away in some underground bunker being taught that America is evil and for recess he was in bomb making class 101??????

Dude seriously, see this is where the right (and I’m not saying your with them) is completely out of their rocker, clueless, and out of touch with reality. They WANT to believe that somehow just because he lived abroad that he was somehow radicalized over the course of his life and it’s all sheer madness.

I’ve got news for you buddy; thousands of American kids (mostly of privilege) have these same style backgrounds. The president’s mother didn’t have money, she was just in the rare circumstance that she married men with ties to other countries besides the U.S. and lived in one of them.

Her parents were not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but they were lucky enough to have the opportunity to move to Hawaii before it became the super expensive getaway for rich folks that it’s become today.

What exactly made any of those early experiences for the president so dark, evil, and distrusting……………..the fact that he joined the Cub Scouts or the fact that his parents moved around to places that HE HAD NO CONTROL OVER AS A CHILD?

Let’s talk about Reverend Wright…….all politicians unfortunately have to do the “look at me, I’m a good Christian and I’m going to church” thing, otherwise they’ll never get elected to public office. Shameful thing when no one religion should have that much power or sway but it’s a reality that all young congressman & senators know so they all play the part.

Some of them truly do go for reasons of faith but for most it’s just a show. I’ll admit that for President Obama it was half & half. His wife grew up in the Baptist faith and so shortly after they were married they started attending church.

All preachers are a little whacky my friend, and Jeremiah Wright is no different. He’s a man that grew up in a time of racial unrest and carries a lot of that anger around to this day. But to connect the president with the reverend is ridiculous, or to say that just because the president spent time in his church and his ideology was changed by a radical preacher is ridiculous.

I would defend Mitt Romney for the same reasons. Just because the Mormons were infamous for being vile racists for years, it doesn’t mean that Mitt felt or feels that way.

You & I, and millions of other people have NO idea how many sermons the president attended, how many times the reverend held services where he had those fire & brimstone speeches, or how they affected the president if & when he heard them.

Bill Ayres………………..no words for that except:

I grew up in a town in New Jersey where almost everyone I knew was part of “a family” if you know what I mean. Does that make me a mobster, does that mean that I think like a member of “the family”?

Guilty by association………………..I don’t think so. So when, where, and exactly how was the president so radicalized with all of these Marxist, Socialist values, and what exactly has he done that has shown you that he thinks or behaves like a Marxist, Socialist?

And what exactly is “your” definition of a Marxist, Socialist????

I would offer that you read the president books that he wrote (not a ghost writer) and educate yourself on his true background. I guarantee you, and I’ll bet you an ice cream that you’ll feel silly and bad for thinking about him the way you do presently after reading them.

The dig at comparing him to President Carter is pretty standard fare as well from the more extreme voices on the right. Carter was seen as a mild-mannered almost bewildered, weak president so it’s only natural for the right to continually want to tie this president & his legacy to President Carters………………….

No thanks we’re not buying it. They are two completely different men from two completely different times with two completely different schools of thought.

For you to put the words “republicans” and “reasonable” in the same sentence is almost laughable really. This is the heart of the original question I asked you and you didn’t fail me in that – like a lot of other people that don’t care for this president you didn’t come clean.

Look, you’d have to be blind, deaf, and or dead not to see what’s been going on since Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of this country.

I have conservative friends at work that have even admitted to me that they are completely sick of tuning into Fox just to waist hours listening to folks who obviously hate the president and aren’t interested what-so-ever in anything he’s got to say.

Even they can see all of the blatant character assassination coming from that side, and their sick of it.

I will agree that the president could have spent more time in the senate before running, and I’ll agree that Hillary would have made a great president. I’m looking forward to helping her win in 2016 because she’s definitely running, and she will definitely win.

But the president did run when he ran, and we have the president we have, and if you could just take those tainted glasses off long enough to see that he doesn’t have 666 stamped in his forehead, you’ll see that he’s not the lame, incompetent, boob people want him to be just because their guy didn’t win.

 

Minus the rhetoric there's really nothing left for you to say, is there.

 

Republicans have no idea what a radical leftist looks like. Everyone looks that way to them because they've moved so far to the right. I think radical right wing would be the most appropriate and accurate
description of Republicans. They apparently don't know what the word conservative means.

 

Hahahahaha! You sound exactly like Chris Matthews going to bat for the fellow who made your legs tingle whenever he spoke. You ignored his various mentors altogether, and concentrated only on the stuff issued by Obama's campaign people and only the stuff sanitized for public presentation by the various pro-Obama media outlets and call that the whole story? Nice!

Now I could generate reference after reference giving you the real background information on Obama but I've seen that game played before. It becomes only a back and forth, "Oh look where you got that from. So and so is a nutter!" Or a case of, "Those sources do not come from sources I trust and therefore they are wrong." You already played that game in your rebuttal, and I long ago lost interest in such juvenile approaches to intellectualism.

I saw much the same with Bush deadenders during 2007 and 2008 among posters who will go to their graves thinking that he was a great president done dirty by propagandists working for the Left. No, Bush was simply a bad president and Obama is also a bad president. Everything I wrote about Obama was true and -- this is the really amusing bit -- could be confirmed by you were you honest enough to do the research. Start on it now, reading the stuff you always avoided in the past, and you could have a fair idea of who and what Obama really is by the end of the day. All it takes is a bit of courage and ethics. But that's your choice.

The Left twice turned this nation over to a socialist, but twice did so either because they do not understand the radicalism of true socialists -- confusing them with liberals -- or because to them any sort of leftwinger automatically had to make him better than any sort of a rightwinger. That's just sad. Well, there was a third category of voter, obviously, the type that went for the fad candidate backed by the media. They went for that big time in 2008 and they went for that again in 2012 because they were intellectually or emotionally too immature to separate the deliberate political filtering and spin of the traditional broadcast networks from reality. Too lazy to do honest research, and if it's not honest research then you just might buy into all that Chris Matthews style "Obama is a really great guy with no skeletons in his closet" garbage.

The truly sad thing however were the numbers of people on the Right that did the exact same equivalent in 2004 when they had the opportunity to break a bad presidency by replacing the terribly flawed Bush with the flawed but not as flawed John Kerry but went with Bush again for mostly the same reasons that the other bunch went for Obama again in 2012. So there are lazy and stupid, and gullible idiot voters in both camps. But what are you gonna do. Our Democratic Republic is a terrible form of governance with the only saving grace being that it still remains better than all other forms of governance. Sigh.

 

Every once in a while an intelligent poster will ponder whether or not a loyalist has ever been permanently swayed to change his or her mind after reading a segment of opposition posting and the answer is almost invariably no. Pretty much we post to ourselves in these forums to people who more or less believe as we do or we post to opposition posters either to clarify our own thoughts a bit more or because we simply want to draw a harmless bit of emotional blood from the other party. But, no, none of it makes one iota of a difference one way or the other. It can be fun though.

 

It was a lot earlier than that....

In my memory it was when Oprah started wetting herself on camera at the mention of his name. He had a the easiest walk of ANY candidate that ever sought the presidency. Other presidents have "media honeymoons" Obama has had the mainstream media as LOVE SLAVE.

Even this day, this day when hundreds of thousands of Americans are suffering and worried about their futures, how to feed their children, what is the American media concerned with regarding "The One"...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-05-10-21-17


That's right, a little bit of fantasy about what he would do if he were owner of the Washington Redskins....

Hundreds of thousands of people, more than at any other time in America's history, have been worried about how to provide for themselves and their families since Obama took office, more are on the streets because of a stupid, petty, political game and the headline is about a guy waxing fantasy as if being president isn't enough...

Bad enough he's never run or owned a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing in his life, he's never once had to put his own future on the line, never had to worry at all in his life.....

Oh how GOOD for the country is that?

 

I agree with you that it can be difficult to detect who is or is not a radical. The proof of that is that otherwise intelligent people twice put Barack Obama into the Oval Office.

 

Every once in a while the open minded actually do change their position and actually learn something, but not often in the American mileau these days...

90% of the give and take is posturing as you say with the usual suspects doing the usual and aborting the debate with name calling or the generalized "you really don't have anything to say do you?" or some such (*)(*)(*)(*).

What I find here is the opposite of the US, where the intellectual debate is usually carried by the left in a challenging progressive conversation as opposed to the neo-liberal Obamabot gutter propaganda.

What has always amused me in these forums is that most liberals THINK the objective is to convince the other and don't realize the real audience is the great numbers who "view" and don't comment....the middle majority who opinions are being shaped by the childish antics and stupid remarks of Obamaworld.

Believe me, pointing out the trend to "It's Bush's Fault" for five years and Obama's insecurity has had an effect.....

 

While you work in sly shots at your debating opponent you use many of the techniques you blame in others..

Note above, the subject is about "fixing" the economic mess, and the minute it takes the path of PROVING things are better, which cannot be substantiated, you revert to the same old Obama bull(*)(*)(*)(*) of deflecting to WHO CAUSED IT...

In fact, the world's leading and liberal economists agree that the TREND to the financial collapse was begun in the Carter administration, aided and abetted in the Reagan years and worsened under Clinton and "W"..

So let's, for the sake of the debate, say that EVERYONE is to blame, remove the "I inherited this mess" meme and actually FACE the question of whether Obama's Bail Out actually worked. Please supply valid comparisons with other countries like Canada, Germany, Britain and Sweden, faced with the same situation far OUTPACED the Obama recovery.

You can't suck and blow at the same time, either Obama's "Stimulus" worked as you claim on the one hand, or it failed because "we inherited this mess" as you claim on the other."

 

I agree to a certain extent. I know that most people going to political chat-rooms do just lurk and think about what is posted rather than don an anonymous nic and wade into the stuff themselves. Once upon a time I posted almost exclusively to those types via ponderous and semi-weighty essays; but it's rather like punching fog. There's no sensation of movement. Now I mostly post simply to clarify my thoughts or because I want to play with -- um -- rather easily tweakable opposition posters. I never said that I was a nice guy.

I rather think, though, that whatever influence on the silent majority of lurkers these chat-rooms once had has been supplanted on the whole by Twitter and by other and newer forms of communication. I could be wrong about that, however. It wouldn't surprise me one way or the other.

 

It's called journalism.

I once did a live remote stand up [reporter talking into the camera] about what people might expect from our newly elected premier. It was NOT complimentary....

It was though, an astonishing 2 minutes and 11 seconds long and my field producer was screaming into my ear piece to (*)(*)(*)(*)! It was one of the most insightful and probig commentaries I had ever done. The major of calls to the station were about the tie I was wearing.

They eventually got though, just before he bankrupted the province and was forced to resign.

There is no instant gratification.

And, I think one result of the Socmed phenomenon is that a percentage of the recipients WILL then go on line to learn more.

 

Life is full of these little learning packets, isn't it? There's nothing quite like the exhilaration of being at the top of your form and doing what feels right to you even while knowing that you are going to get in huge trouble for doing it. It's even better when you turned out to correct after the fact because then there's the vindication element. Of course that doesn't make the penalty payment go away -- a penalty that you already paid.

I rather pity people who've never felt that . . . even when I stop to occasionally count my own scars for having done it myself a time or two in the past.

 

Once again, great rebuttal with some solid points……….except for the Glen Beck whiteboard schematics on how Barack Obama is secretly a Kenyan born Muslim sent here by Al Qaida to destroy America.

You seem way too intelligent for that stuff man, seriously, anybody with two brain cells could see that you think for yourself, your no push-over, and that your extremely intelligent.

So I’m going to take one last stab at this………………

The President of the United States was born in Hawaii, his mother is a white woman from Kansas (which is probably the whitest state in the United States) and his father is from Kenya (yes with a Muslim background).

I know many Muslims my friend, I have family members living in Morocco from my mother’s side, and some of them are practicing Muslims.

None of them make bombs in their basements, all of them love me (a U.S. citizen), and this country. Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States as a new country and has a long & standing good relationship with the United States. (look it up for yourself)

If your wondering, no I am not a practicing Muslim, but I hold no negative views towards any religion, I am extremely "non-religious" myself.

Barack’s father wasn’t around long enough to influence his young son, and even if he had been, his father wasn’t a radical extremist. The guy was a nerd for God’s sake, an academic complete with Coke bottle glasses’ and a pocket protector.

The presidents step father was an Indonesian Geographer with no real political or religious ties to anything; his mother was your typical 60’s hippie (complete with colored men for boyfriends and/or husbands) like a lot of other white women during those times.

The president spent some time in Indonesia and even less in Kenya as a young adult while attending college to meet his other half-brothers & sisters, and to get to know some other family members he never met before. (big conspiracy there huhh?)

He had a chance run-in with Bill Ayres a long time ago (that meant nothing and went nowhere) and I’ll bet you a million dollars he’s wishing now that if he had known then that by having a harmless, casual relationship with the guy would have caused the firestorm that it had, he would have never returned the guys phone call or met with him. Why, because for all they did or didn't do, it wasn't worh all the headaches the right gave him (a 100 years later) for knowing the guy.

He eventually went to Harvard on hard work and loans, became the first black class president of the Harvard Law Review, graduated, and instead of going straight to Wall Street to make millions of dollars (which he could have). He went to the most dire neighborhood he could find in his home town of Chicago and tried to help people by making a difference. (real rotten guy huhh?)

He met a tall attractive young woman while working at his first law gig, got married, had kids and yes………..attended a church where the pastor was a little crazy at times. (well that’s never happened to anybody else in the history of mankind now has it?)

Look man seriously the same way you told me that I could do some research, well so can you. And your right, we’ll both claim that our sources are legit and not skewed politically with agendas but what else have we got?

I got almost 100% of my information from the man’s writings himself (years before he became president) where’d you get yours from?

Be honest, was it from Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Red State, or a host of other right-wing folks and/or web sites that foam at the mouth at the mere mention of Barack Obama.

We started this (what I believe has been a pleasant exchange) with each other over one simple question: do you believe that everything the president has been put through and has gone through regarding republicans the last five years has been above board and fair?

My vote is no, and no one will ever convince me that they have negotiated or played fair in the game we know as politics……………………..

 

And what exactly has Obama done that was better? That's kind of my point.

 

Of course, we certainly wouldn't want to assign blame to anyone while discussing the cause. And what would the cause of the economic crisis have to do with the current state of affairs anyway? How could there possibly be any connection?

 

And look, no mindless rhetorical BS......see how easy that was.

 

One thing we do know for sure is that the economy definitely took a giant **** during the Bush Administration. The other thing we know for sure is that all the idle speculation about what might have subsequently happened instead is just that.....idle speculation.

 

How productive is it to wallow in blame for five long, lean and hard years.

"It's Bush's fault" deserves a burial.

It's time for grown ups to roll up their sleeves, stop fighting over the toys in the sand box and provide some relief to a America's sinking ship of state.

But, we wouldn't want to forgive or anything like that now, would we? I mean why should you forget blame when its so easy to use to avoid taking responsibility?

Hey, it doesn't bother me, you're the country getting your clocks cleaned by the economies of countries like Sweden and baby seal clubbing Canada.