Obama Hate and Consequences

[yeahwho]

It started back during the campaign, an overt racism, he's not an American citizen, he is a practicing Muslim, he's BLACK! McCain's supporters were so fervent about race baiting it made his presidential run a campaign of sideshow racism. Bizarre, but true.

That is why I'm glad to see this aspect of hate being looked at in seriousness, todays NYTimes has a very well written piece by Frank Rich that exposes how the manipulation of media and false claims fuel hatred, nurture hatred, then in it's own fucked up way excuse hatred.

The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=1&em)

This homicide-saturated vituperation is endemic among mini-Limbaughs. Glenn Beck has dipped into O’Reilly’s Holocaust analogies to liken Obama’s policy on stem-cell research to the eugenics that led to “the final solution” and the quest for “a master race.” After James von Brunn’s rampage at the Holocaust museum, Beck rushed onto Fox News to describe the Obama-hating killer as a “lone gunman nutjob.” Yet in the same show Beck also said von Brunn was a symptom that “the pot in America is boiling,” as if Beck himself were not the boiling pot cheering the kettle on.

[RobMoney$]

Yes, because we all know that every single person who supported Obama can't be racist.

[DroppinScience]

Paul Krugman also wrote a similar op-ed in the NY Times a few days before. Also worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html

The cases of the George Tiller murder and the Holocaust Museum shooting (not to mention the church shooting in Tennessee last year) are scary warning signs of right-wing nutjobs acting out on their fears and scapegoating others for their own personal hardships. Besides blaming Jews/liberals and whatever else, they also express an irrational hatred for Obama (the museum shooter said Obama was "created by the Jews").

I guess that DHS report on right-wing extremsim (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html) back in April wasn't nearly as far-fetched as the conservative pundits thought

[yeahwho]

Yes, because we all know that every single person who supported Obama can't be racist.

This goes beyond racism. Comparisons to Hitler and Marx stoke the fire on top of racism. This is about twisting every problem we as Americans have on a man who has been in office under half a year.

It's fucking idiotic and frightening how people will buy into hate.

[RobMoney$]

People hate every president. I've witnessed harsh criticism of:

Reagan- bad

Bush, Sr- moderate

Clinton- Exremely bad

W Bush- very bad, worse than Reagan, not as bad as Clinton.

Up until now, the hatred for Clinton was the worst. He faced the least rational, most vitriolic criticism of any president in my lifetime.
I think Bush II is in second place.
Regan in third.

I think you have to contribute the availability and accessibility of information today vs. previous presidents. Both Bush and Obama were / are being constantly hammered because we have access to everything, even if it's extremely meaningless information.



In fact, I now hate Obama a little more because of this thread

[yeahwho]

In fact, I now hate Obama a little more because of this thread

And what exactly about this thread has made President Obama easier to hate? It is an odd character statement on yourself that you project that hatred. A thread that points out the idiotic consequences of hate and you feel threatened?

Is that part of a chic hip "au contraire mon fraire" that you think makes you the wise man on the topic of presidential hatred? I have to say it generally makes you appear to be very much like Rush Limbaugh.

Is Frank Rich just too radical and leftist for you?

[roosta]

that article is pretty chilling, but at the same time I could see those incidents happening under the reign of any president in the last 30 years. I don't get the Obama connection. Nuts with guns have always hated abortion/Jews.

[DroppinScience]

that article is pretty chilling, but at the same time I could see those incidents happening under the reign of any president in the last 30 years. I don't get the Obama connection. Nuts with guns have always hated abortion/Jews.

Indeed they have festered under presidents of the last 30 years. And we witnessed some of this hatred in the early '90s from right-wing militias under Clinton previously. It is believed that we are seeing a resurgence of this early '90s behavior brewing up right now, only it might be getting worse. Having a visible minority as the head of state (coupled with the fact that the white population is decreasing while the non-white population is growing) will rile up the fury of a violent, racist, paranoid minority to take up arms and act out in whatever way they see fit if we don't watch ourselves here.

[yeahwho]

People hate every president. I've witnessed harsh criticism of:

Reagan- bad

Bush, Sr- moderate

Clinton- Exremely bad

W Bush- very bad, worse than Reagan, not as bad as Clinton.

Up until now, the hatred for Clinton was the worst. He faced the least rational, most vitriolic criticism of any president in my lifetime.
I think Bush II is in second place.
Regan in third.

I think you have to contribute the availability and accessibility of information today vs. previous presidents. Both Bush and Obama were / are being constantly hammered because we have access to everything, even if it's extremely meaningless information.



In fact, I now hate Obama a little more because of this thread

The basic thought is if somebody is hated there should be a reason for it, in the scant 146 days since this post please tell us why you have decided to hate Obama even more? He actually has done more to reach across the bipartisan aisle than any of the presidents mentioned above.

What perpetuates this hatred is really nothing new, this has all happened before with dire consequences.

Chet Huntley, NBC News, November 22, 1963 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX7BChan-xg&feature=player_embedded)

Justifying hatred is really the work of minds running out of ideas.

[RobMoney$]

I was making an attempt at being facetious. I don't hate Obama, but my dislike for his policies are well established here.
I made the point that the deluge of meaningless info available to us today such as blogs and THREADS of discussion on message boards are in part to blame for the ever increasing criticism of our government leadership.

I was making a joke that this thread was contributing to that hatred.

Is it really hard to see why so many conservatives dislike the man's policies tho?
$2 trillion of debt is frightening to anyone with common sense. Obama's monetary policy is incredibly reckless.
That kind of debt spending will generate plenty of hate from anyone who realizes it will only transform a banking crisis into a systemic crisis. I realize the establishment in Washington applies keynesian theory of economics. I know that their attempt at a remedy is going to be tons of debt spending and that history shows it will get completely out of control.

For all the talk that Obama is an agent of change, he's been a complete product of the system. He's gone right in line with everything I know the keynesian establishment wants. He's dutifully racked up that debt to terrifying heights. I don't see one shred of leadership in what Obama is doing.
Everyone who understands economics knows you can stop an economic slide with massive debt spending.
Everyone knows it creates immediate short-term benefits.
Everyone also knows the short-term benefit comes at a nasty long-term price.
He'll enjoy a boost in the polls in the early going. It's when the economy spins out of control in a year or two that we'll realize what his lack of true leadership has meant.

Obama is just throwing money at a problem. Anyone could be a good leader if that's all it took. He lacks any sort of leadership experience whatsoever and doesn't recognize the fact that the establishment is using him. When this debt load fully impacts into the economy, the economy will go into septic shock and Barack Obama will be hated by the vast majority of Americans.
He's the fall guy.

[yeahwho]

I was making an attempt at being facetious. I don't hate Obama, but my dislike for his policies are well established here.


So you don't hate him, you dislike his policies. Stating the obvious, he has very little to do with our current fucked up economy. I am agreement that his actions are a band aid, Bill Maher's New Rules (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoFY_UdZNe4) (you have to go to the 3:00 minute mark) made this observation on last Fridays HBO show.

I think he should dismiss the Republican party, they have done nothing to help him in his attempts to bridge ideals. He may as well be stalking them at this point. It isn't working and his vision from the campaign is turning into a muddled scum pond.

[RobMoney$]

Stating the obvious, he has very little to do with our current fucked up economy.

Actually, he does have quite a bit to do with it.
I'm not saying he's entirely to blame, but he's handing out free money everywhere and anywhere, and in his short time in office he's given away more of it than any other President in history, so that makes him more responsible for fucking up the economy than anyone IMO.

What got us into this mess was the government intervention. Specifically, the government guarantees. For decades, whenever we have a financial crisis, the government always steps in somehow to prevent smaller pains and restabilize things. They bailout someone in some way. Every President of the past 30 years is guilty of doing it to some degree, Obama being the biggest offender.

The free market process works like this:

1. Some smaller banks get into trouble and threaten to collapse.
2. The banks collapse, there is some smaller short-term pain, but the free market cleans itself up and we move forward with a healthy economy.

The government for the past several decades hasn't allowed the free market to do its job. Instead we get this:

1. Some smaller banks get into trouble and threaten to collapse.
2. The government injects money into the system in various ways. They insure deposits, force bad banks into shotgun marriages with healthy banks, etc.
3. Smaller banks begin to consolidate into bigger corporate entities.
4. Depositors stop caring about the arcane maneuvers their banks are doing because, after all, the government pledges to bail them out.
5. The bigger banks get more reckless without the free market watching them. They get into worse trouble.
6. The government steps in again and inject large amounts of money into the system, bail out banks, and force more shotgun marriages.
7. Banks grow into enormous international operations with rules and procedures no one can fathom. The free market is being blocked by government at this point and cannot restrain them. They get into wild derivative and real estate schemes. No one cares. Its all guaranteed, right?
8. We have a colossal world-wide banking crisis in 2008.

And after all of that, the government tries to tell us the free market is the problem. Of course they will say that. They have a vested interest in not taking blame.

Another way to put it is the bankers aren't stupid. If they knew the government bailouts weren't there, they wouldn't have taken those kind of risks. In fact, the banks would never have grown into such large corporate behemoths if not for the guarantees interfering in the free market. The free market enforces discipline.

I don't hate the guy personally. I hope to God he turns this country around, but he absolutely IS a Socialist.
The US now owns the biggest auto dealer, GM.
We also decide what banks and ins. agencies can spend their money on. And next up is socialized Health Care.
Obama also forced banks to take bailout money some didn't want, and wouldn't let them pay it back until the Gov't said it was ok to do so.
Since he's been in office, the government owns 82 billion of our economy, including General Motors.

We are pretty much the USSA now, United Socialist States of America.
Is it any wonder why conservative, free-market loving Republicans are running from this guy?

[Bob]

We are pretty much the USSA now, United Socialist States of America.


do you not think that's a mild exaggeration?

[RobMoney$]

Sure it's a bit of an exaggeration, but were discussing where the hatred for Obama comes from.
Please feel free debate any issue I've raised.

[yeahwho]

Sure it's a bit of an exaggeration, but were discussing where the hatred for Obama comes from.
Please feel free debate any issue I've raised.

You really have nothing to debate, your statements are completely off mark and make 0 sense. What Socialism Looks Like (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php)

[yeahwho]

The hate from the Westboro Baptist Church seems a little bit over the top as far as hate goes. In fact it's like parody of hate. They visited Seattle (my town) this past week and really left quite an impression... of idiocy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKo1PuZWmd8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.seattlepi.com%2Fthebigblog% 2Farchives%2F171331.asp&feature=player_embedded). They're just looking for a few good Jews (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/06/15/2009340088.jpg), but really don't think they'll find any. Seems reasonable.

Anti-gay hate group targets Seattle churches (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/407211_hate0614.html)

Obama is the Anti-Christ and they're touring the USA to get out the word. That is rational. I must of been possessed by Satan when I supported Obama.

[RobMoney$]

What Socialism Looks Like (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php)




No one said he trying to socialize the entire economy. That would be pretty much impossible in 8 years.
That doesn't mean he isn't going to do what he can and, when faced with a decision, he's pretty much always taken the path in that direction.
It's not unfair to characterize the man as a socialist even if our entire economy isn't socialist at this point.

[yeahwho]

No one said he trying to socialize the entire economy. That would be pretty much impossible in 8 years.
That doesn't mean he isn't going to do what he can and, when faced with a decision, he's pretty much always taken the path in that direction.
It's not unfair to characterize the man as a socialist even if our entire economy isn't socialist at this point.

You said this was the USSA. I didn't say that. The GM plant is our stock, we as taxpayers own GM stock. If we don't purchase GM products well then we just fucking don't care about the stock market, US products or the bailout in particular. As much as I was against GM getting preference at the beginning, I actually now believe it is a brilliant idea.

And you know the government oversight that's been in place since the S&L scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis#Failures)? It did not work, this way of doing business that mainly the rich have embraced has destroyed our economy. You better hope that Obama does things differently if you want to see the United States of America compete on an global economic basis.

We have been screwed blue and tattooed the past 30 years. This is the man the people of the United States voted for, the republican candidates message was off base, they lost.

This is what the last republican left us, the second TARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP#Timeline_of_changes_to_the_initial_program) was inevitable while Bush was your president, Obama carried through with a plan that was already in place.

It is unfair to label Obama as an socialist, I feel as if you're just not reading the mainstream media at all. All of these projects are under scrutiny, all of the media reports on the economy daily and even the most benign conversations I get into daily (clerks, mailman, passers by, customers, etc.) usually evolve into the economy. You RobMoney seem to be about the only one who finds the negativity on doing something every time. I mean that. No one, not even my most hardcore right wing friends can be as negative as you are when Obama is mentioned.

He isn't nearly as fucked up as you portend the man to be.

[RobMoney$]

So now questioning the "socialist" leanings of his policies equates to "negativity"?
You're being too sensitive if you think that, but that's just my opinion.

He may not have full blown socialist views but his comments about redistribution of wealth, his appointing a pay czar, and wanting to socialize medicine are socialist views.

Obama's chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers last week:

Any financial institution that is big enough, interconnected enough or risky enough that its distress necessitates government writing substantial checks, is big enough, risky enough or interconnected enough that it should be some part of the government's responsibility to supervise it on a comprehensive basis.

And you wonder why the word "socialist" gets thrown around?

So now a company can be "too big to fail"?
If that's truly the case, have the FTC set a limit to how big a company can get and then make them split up when they hit that limit.
The implication is that the government can look at any company and say "You're too big to fail so we're going to tell you what to do".
That's just crazy talk, but with this administration it's not surprising.

Considering he's only been in office 5 months, that's enough red flags for me to raise the question of Obama's socialist leanings.

[yeahwho]

Any financial institution that is big enough, interconnected enough or risky enough that its distress necessitates government writing substantial checks, is big enough, risky enough or interconnected enough that it should be some part of the government's responsibility to supervise it on a comprehensive basis.

That statement is what your running with here? This is what has you wound up? Because of this statement your convinced capitalism is going to cave into socialism? That and the .21% of corporate assets which were recently nationalized due to biggest complete fuck off economic failure this generation has ever witnessed occurred? Bush mishandled the government of the United States so incredibly poorly that 90,000 people were killed in Iraq, the economy collapsed and now all of a sudden Obama's (not Obama himself) chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers mentions he is "worried about major corporate oversight"?

Rob, the rationale your asking me to digest is borderline lunacy. Some of the brightest economists on the Planet Earth have already been through our current economic crisis and over 3/4's of them believed we would of already nationalized our banks.

That hasn't even been mentioned by Obama in the face of all of this. If anything he is adamantly opposed of nationalizing corporate assets and banks.

We are way off topic and really, honestly you have to be grasping when unemployment figures are just hitting 10% that we avoid saving some of these jobs. The alternative would be very painful.

[RobMoney$]

even the most benign conversations I get into daily (clerks, mailman, passers by, customers, etc.) usually evolve into the economy. You RobMoney seem to be about the only one who finds the negativity on doing something every time. I mean that. No one, not even my most hardcore right wing friends can be as negative as you are when Obama is mentioned.


You know, most people don't like to talk about politics in their everyday conversations with the average guy on the street.
I know I don't.
And if I encountered someone with your POV in my daily life I'd probably just nod my head and wish you a good day and move on, as opposed to getting into a debate about it the way we do here in a forum that's designed for just that purpose.

Perhaps your mailman thinks you're an Obamaton too, he's just being polite by not confronting you about it?

Also consider where you live, Seattle. There's probably as many liberals there as the corner of Haight-Asbury in San Fransisco. Just because you're surrounded by like minded people doesn't mean the rest of the country is the same way.

[yeahwho]

You know, most people don't like to talk about politics in their everyday conversations with the average guy on the street.
I know I don't.
And if I encountered someone with your POV in my daily life I'd probably just nod my head and wish you a good day and move on, as opposed to getting into a debate about it the way we do here in a forum that's designed for just that purpose.

Perhaps your mailman thinks you're an Obamaton too, he's just being polite by not confronting you about it?

Also consider where you live, Seattle. There's probably as many liberals there as the corner of Haight-Asbury in San Fransisco. Just because you're surrounded by like minded people doesn't mean the rest of the country is the same way.

Is everything labeled and contrary to you? Obamaton? WTF does that even mean? Your at best just ignoring the topic and at worst oblivious to the current status of financial failure thrust upon this Country/Planet. There are real serious problems and your telling me people basically hate Obama because he's a Socialist? I think you actually believe this too. It's going to be a rough week for you RobMoney, because this is the week Obama is going to ask for the most extensive change in federal regulations regarding business and banking since the 1930's.

You'll have a full plate of criticism because Obama once again is working on changing the dynamic which brought our spoiled broke ass to our knees. He's going to make corporations be more responsible in leveraging stockholders shares.

[RobMoney$]

If his policies are socialist, then he is a socialist.
If he continues to print money, it will lead to an inflationary period that will leave the baby-boomers at the mercy of the welfare system.
That will destroy the country, because boomers are a significant demographic.
If he continues to take over business in the name of governemnt oversight, that is going to destroy the United States.
Free enterprise is what made this nation great.
Government meddling is what's destroying it.

[Dorothy Wood]

rob, what do you think obama's plan for america is?

and why do you think that you know everything and are smarter than our president?

what are you really afraid of?

[Documad]

So few Americans know what socialism is. Don't they teach that in social studies anymore?

[saz]

99.79% is the percentage of american corporate and business assets not held by the united states government ($39.2 trillion).

0.21% is the percentage of american corporate and business assets recently nationalized by the u.s. government ($82.3 billion).






What Socialism Looks Like

Jun 3 2009, 8:55AM
Conor Clarke
The Atlantic


Have you heard that the United States is headed toward socialism? Jonah Goldberg says (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/dont-call-it-socialism.html) it is. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby says (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5048566.shtml) it is. Phyllis Schlafly says (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32095) it is. Richard Viguerie says (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124389683909574071.html) it is. The Republican National Committee says (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/20/rnc-officially-condemns-dems-march-toward-socialism/) it is. We must be getting pretty close.

How close? This is what socialism looks like (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png).

The hot-pink portion of this pie chart is the percentage of listed American business assets that have recently been nationalized by the American government (ie, General Motors). Obama's version of socialism is so sneaky you can hardly see it!

(And there is some reason to think this actually overstates the portion of the corporate landscape that's been nationalized, but more on that at the end of the post.*)

There is a serious discussion to be had here, and I think Jon Henke is having it: Socialism, like farenheit, comes in degrees. Sure, a government that nationalizes GM is "more socialist" than one that does not, even if it doesn't mean we're living "under socialism." But differences of degree shouldn't obscure differences of kind, and as Tim Fernholz says, "it's clear that putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration's guiding philosophy."

If it were, 99.79% of the American corporate assets that existed at the start of the Obama administration would not remain in private hands. The differences of degree are so small that they aren't worth mentioning. And yet, somehow, they keep getting mentioned.

Update: A couple of commenters have asked for a different chart, so I've posted another item on this here (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like_part_two.php).

Update 2: For something that resembles socialism more closely, you might check out Sarah Palin's state of Alaska (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/sarah_palins_economics_lesson.php).


link (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php)

[DroppinScience]

But, but... that's not what Newt Gingrich said!

[RobMoney$]

Saz, what do you think those numbers will look like if Obama gets his socialized medicine plan passed?


Also, do you ever do any thinking on your own or do you just subscribe to everything someone else writes in the lefty news columns you paste in every post?
It's like you have a column to explain how you feel on every issue.

It'd be like me pasting an O'Reily video in response to every topic.
You're becoming a sheep of your party's pundits. You're better than that.

[saz]

"socialized medicine" as you phrase it, is just like how the right-wing fear mongers do it, you know, like it's stalin himself coming to get you. actually, what obama wants is the choice or option of public health insurance, so the citizen can choose private insurance (you know, those insurance companies who turn a profit by fucking people out of medical coverage), or guaranteed health insurance, just like i receive here and those in every other western, industrialized nation. so, in regards to the numbers, obama isn't nationalizing the private health maintenance organizations. private health insurance firms will still be in operation, but they'll have some competition, as i suspect more and more americans (ie the overwhelming majority of your fellow countrymen who want a public option) will turn to health coverage they know that they won't be screwed out of. just because canada and the rest of the western, industrialized world has public health care, doesn't mean that we have less freedom or do not have a capitalist financial system. and hey, we're not the ones who have to endure the patriot act, nor illegal eavsdropping as well.

and no, i do all of my own thinking and don't "subscribe to everything someone else writes in the lefty news columns". what i'm doing is backing up my points, you know providing credibility. and incidently, the atlantic isn't a "lefty news column".

well, if you agree with bill o'reilly on certain issues, then post away. and sorry, but i'm not a democrat. they're not my party. i don't know how you'd think that with the negative obama threads i've posted. and i was the most ardent ralph nader supporter on here during the last election, despite the heat i took. i also encouraged conservatives to support bob barr.

[DroppinScience]

well, if you agree with bill o'reilly on certain issues, then post away. and sorry, but i'm not a democrat. they're not my party. i don't know how you'd think that with the negative obama threads i've posted. and i was the most ardent ralph nader supporter on here during the last election, despite the heat i took. i also encouraged conservatives to support bob barr.

It doesn't matter to Rob. If you do not spout some form of conservatism, you'll automatically be labeled an "Obamat(r)on" or a "Democrat" even if you continually profess support for Nader (most certainly to the left of the Democrats). It's all the same and can't be comprehended.

[yeahwho]

The Repugnant Party: GOP bigots on parade (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009360802_pitts21.html)

Don't kid yourself if you think that black America isn't keeping tabs on even the smallest of fuck ups.

In embracing its new southern base, the Republican Party became the Repugnant Party on matters of race, a distinction it has done little to shed. So some of us were disappointed but not surprised last week when Sherri Goforth, an aide to Tennessee state Sen. Diane Black, came under fire for an e-mail she sent out. It depicted the 44 U.S. presidents, showing the first 43 in dignified, statesmanlike poses. By contrast, the 44th, the first African American, is seen as a pair of cartoon spook eyes against a black backdrop (http://www.angloshpear.com/discus/messages/9439/26849.jpg). Goforth's explanation: the e-mail, which went to GOP staffers, was sent "to the wrong list of people."

Sort of makes me think socialism isn't the only reason some of the hate is spread around so generously.

[RobMoney$]

I expect a little more from you, yeahwho.
That's a pretty shitty post.

[yeahwho]

I expect a little more from you, yeahwho.
That's a pretty shitty post.

Sure it is, keep telling yourself that none of the hate has anything to do with a segment of America that is still pissed a Black man is in office.

Oddly enough the post is saying quite the contrary. That there is still a bit of racism in the halls of the senate right here in the "Good 'ol USA"

[Burnout18]

99.79% is the percentage of american corporate and business assets not held by the united states government ($39.2 trillion).

0.21% is the percentage of american corporate and business assets recently nationalized by the u.s. government ($82.3 billion).




hey now, That is one hell of a stat. That should shut up the people crying about socialism.