August 24th, 2012

[Cutlass]

"He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N., and what is going to happen when that happens? I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."
—

Texas judge Tom Head, on President Obama

Now I just found this, and it proves my point. This judge is talking about armed insurrection against Obama for an issue that he made up on the spot.

 

[Arwon]

Well, to be fair, he has dark skin and an unconventional background and a weird name. That's pretty scary if you're a sheltered idiot who think "Americans" are all people exactly like them.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, he is from Texas.

 

[Disgustipated]

The problem with saying this is that no one has given a reason, anything that Obama has done, which would result in the hate. So certainly there is some speculation, and some assignment of the basest of motives. But what is the alternative? No one has said anything about any reason for hating Obama. Not anything that isn't blatantly false. They can't hate him for being a Muslim, for no one being honest can think that he is a Muslim. They can't hate him for being a socialist, for no one being honest can think that he is a socialist. They can't hate him for being a radical, for no one being honest can think that he is a radical. They can't hate him for being a Kenyan, for no one being honest can think that he is a Kenyan. They can't hate him for trying to radically change the country, for no one being honest can think that he is trying to radically change the country.

Not to mention that the hate started long before he did anything at all other than run for president.

So where, and for what reason, does such extreme hate come from? What has he done that is divisive? No one has pointed out anything that isn't blatantly and obviously false.

I'm not seeing this much hate. Republicans are republicans. They will try to take anyone down. Need I mention the Monica Lewinsky fiasco in the Bill Clinton years? They tried to take him down, and he's white. And yes there was some Bill Clinton hate. I heard the talk that he sold secrets to China or whatever (sorry, can't remember exactly what the deal was, something about China)

 

[civver_764]

Being American means that, at the end of the campaign season, we set aside our political differences and go back to being ordinary citizens. Even if we think the President is a buffoon. We even offer our support when it's time to go to war. Hence Bush's massive approval ratings after 9/11; not because of anything he did. Because we stand united, when someone comes into our house and kills our own people. Our brothers and sisters, our family. Republican and Democrat alike.

I agree that a lot of the opposition to Obama from the right is based on racism and xenophobia(at least at a subconscious level), but this is ridiculous. Being American means that the American government legally recognizes you as a citizen, trying to attach all these extra labels to it is what leads to xenophobia in the first place. Americans are no more my brothers and sisters than Iraqis or Afghanis are.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I understand there's big money and power involved in politics, but the everyday voter doesn't get a piece of that. What are they getting out of this besides a red-colored banner to cheer for?

You can't tell if someone is a Republican or a Democrat by their appearance or how they live. We do the same things everyday, we pay our taxes, go to work, complain about our jobs, etc. Other than how we vote and who we donate campaign money to, we're identical.

That's a true point. And you're right that we're all Americans. Honestly, sometimes I don't really think that our politicians (And this is a more or less "Period" statement, its not singled out at Obama or the Democrats) are "American." There are a few exceptions, and only a few. Most of them are so corrupt they aren't worth voting for.

Being American means that, at the end of the campaign season, we set aside our political differences and go back to being ordinary citizens. Even if we think the President is a buffoon. We even offer our support when it's time to go to war. Hence Bush's massive approval ratings after 9/11; not because of anything he did. Because we stand united, when someone comes into our house and kills our own people. Our brothers and sisters, our family. Republican and Democrat alike. The Islamic extremist nutholes don't care how we vote.

Indeed.

The anti-Bush sentiment got heated precisely because the reasons for going to war (in Iraq) were largely fabricated. We lost a whole lot of lives, more than we lost on 9/11, and we lost them unnecessarily. We were lied to, deliberately, by our own elected government.

That wasn't partisan. That was based on not even incompetence, but actually un-American behavior by our own President and his administration. He killed our own troops for reasons that were questionable, sold to us as lies. And the Democrats stood right there and supported him throughout all of it, because they're not purely partisan. They're just stupid.

That's how you get legitimate anti-President sentiment. Think Nixon: He became massively more unpopular because of stuff he did, not because of his name or his background or his political party.

I agree that the Iraq war was a stupid idea, but how do you know it was a "Lie"? That seems like an assumption to me. While there is the extremely small possibility that WMDs were actually hid, I'd agree with you that Iraq didn't have them, but what's to say that Bush didn't really think they did?

Honestly, I think Bush was a decent person, and a horrible President, so I'm not defending Bush, but when it comes to attacks on his character I'd like a little proof. I'll freely admit the Iraq War was a stupid idea, but that it was a deliberate lie requires proof.

Since it began before he even took his oath of office, we can naturally assume it has nothing to do with his actual record as President. Since Republicans began systematic obstruction, filibustering, delaying approval of appointments of non-political positions in government, and continued lying about what the President wanted to accomplish in office after the campaign season was over, I conclude that the reasons are ad hominem. They have nothing to do with Obama's policies or political party. It's somehow personal.

How has the country changed, in any substantive way, since Obama took over?

Economic recovery has been slow, as every economist predicted. There was no quick fix. McCain wouldn't have pulled magic out of his butt. And the economy became the way it is due to removal of basic oversights in government, which would of course be "free market" conservative drivel proven drastically wrong, as it always is. Not government over-regulation, as the Republicans keep harping on, completely disconnected from all sense of reality, cause or effect.

Is Gitmo closed? No.

There are a couple assumptions here, I know they are generally accepted assumptions, but still, not all of us agree the government SHOULD be trying to get us out of the recession. I think, and I know I'm not the only one, who thinks the government not doing anything about it would get us out of it quicker.

As for Gitmo, why should we close it, exactly? I think not closing it makes perfect sense. Most terrorists aren't US citizens and so really aren't protected by our constitution, so if holding them in Gitmo would save lives, why close it?

Troops on the ground in Afghanistan? Yes.

I know a Republican would be the same, so Obama isn't any worse in that regard (I think we should get out, BTW) but the fact that Obama actually said he'd pull the troops out and then didn't I consider worse than if John Mccain won and never said he would pull the troops out and then didn't.

Tax rate essentially the same? Yup. Tax breaks keep getting extended. Doesn't match the conservative rhetoric that Obama will raise everyone's taxes sky-high. Wake me when we get back up to Clintonian levels.

I think taxes need to go WAY down, there's actually more than just the income tax, if that was all it was I'd be more OK with it, but you're right, they're quibbling over a few percentage points. Worth discussing, sure, but not worth hatred.

Legal rights? The protections for businesses and a much more liberal definition of personhood has actually made businesses stronger, both politically and legally, than ever before. Hardly a communist wasteland where no one wants to operate a business.

Obama isn't a socialist, I'll agree that term really needs to go. True socialists don't really like him anymore than I do

What has Obama done? What has he changed, that so enraged the sane people on the right?

Answer: Absolutely nothing. It's the same country with almost all the same policies put in place. The healthcare legislation was passed without Republican help, but with well more Republican input than they deserved. Repeal and replace is a fantasy, it won't happen, because the Republicans have agreed to replace it with nothing.

Obama is a Muslim socialist commie-Nazi because he's not white and Republican. Near as I can tell, that's the entire reason he's "worse than Jimmy Carter".

In reality, he's a compromising centrist who has done enough to tick off liberals, and continue Bush's policies in many cases, that the Republicans should be championing him as their hero of compromise.

As a President, this is somewhat true. I'll admit he hasn't done all THAT much. Republicans have been stopping him. Truthfully, since I disagree with almost everything he wants to do, I'm happy that the Republicans are stopping him, but he's just a liberal, not really a communist.

And yes, he is a liberal. At least he was as a congressmen. He's "Right wing" in the sense of being "Pro-business" perhaps but he's certainly not "Right-wing" in a free market sense.

That said, he was much more liberal as a congressmen. That, and not racism, is really what I think it is. Republicans are holding him to the types of things he said as a congressman, and exaggerating them a bit, even if he's a little bit more moderate than that now.

It's hysterical. He's literally about as conservative as Reagan, but the Republicans have gone so far off the deep end, that they cannot tell where anything lies on the political compass, they just assume it is to the left of them. The extreme left, mind you. Nothing they say has any connection to anything that could be construed as reality, and more and more, people are proudly flouting how insanely far to the right they are, as if it's some kind of accomplishment, or as if it were a reasonable position to take, or as if wingnut insanity was the solution to bring the country together or move it forward.

As conservative as Reagan? OK, I don't think that one's true. Reagan lowered taxes to like 28% at the highest level, while Obama wants it somewhere in the 40's. Obama is certainly to the left of Reagan. On social issues as well.

Right now it represents nothing but shameful cowardice. And to those of you who will be voting not for Romney, but against Obama, I think I can safely write you all off as political cheerleaders without a thought in your heads at this point. What does Romney actually represent that's different from the last 4, 12, 20 years? What consistent viewpoint has he ever held? Remember, he used to disagree with most of what he's currently saying.

Nothing. But he's saying Obama is wrong for America, so I guess that's a political platform according to some people. I would congratulate these people on how far they've gotten with base, pointless, mindless hatred, but I note the division among the Christian conservatives who think Romney isn't a Christian. It just goes to show you how dumb people get when they're playing the dumb politics game. Eventually it becomes so divisive, that it eats itself. There's a shameful part of me that hopes that is exactly the kind of thing that causes Romney to lose- mindless bigotry. What more fitting end to a movement based on divisiveness and ignorance, than to be devoured by it's own stupidity

I see little point in voting for Romney or Obama. In my mind its more because the current GOP has moved closer to the Democrats than vice versa. Then again, I'm looking at things from a bit lengthier of a mindset. The "Left" completely moved after the New Deal was passed, for good or ill.

Romney is almost the same as Obama I've found. Unless Ron Paul ends up on the ballot somewhere, Gary Johnson is my next choice. I know he won't win, but honestly, since Republicanism tends to be just a tad closer to libertarianism than Democrats are, I'd actually like to see Romney screwed over. I'm not completely unwilling to compromise, but when it comes to things like the Patriot Act or the like I'm not even going to vote for a candidate that supports them. Sadly, or perhaps happily, I'm too young to vote in this one. If I could, it would be a protest vote.

 

[JollyRoger]

Reagan raised taxes 7 out of 8 years and some of his passed tax bills had rates as high as 50%.

 

[Ailedhoo]

And yes, he is a liberal. At least he was as a congressmen. He's "Right wing" in the sense of being "Pro-business" perhaps but he's certainly not "Right-wing" in a free market sense.

Obama is of the ecomonic right. He has appointed figures of deregulation and has continued deregulative policies that Reagan placed down.

As conservative as Reagan? OK, I don't think that one's true. Reagan lowered taxes to like 28% at the highest level, while Obama wants it somewhere in the 40's. Obama is certainly to the left of Reagan. On social issues as well.

Saying someone is left of Reagan is like saying a person is a capitalist for being left of Marx. There is a lot of space between Marx and the mid point known as centralist ecomonics. And considering that Reagan was a ultraconserative saying Obama is less conserative then Reagan is not saying much.

However all presidents from Reagan to now have continued deregulation, a policy to please only the exstream ecomonic right and to cause ecomonic crisis as was of our current recession.

I see little point in voting for Romney or Obama. In my mind its more because the current GOP has moved closer to the Democrats than vice versa. Then again, I'm looking at things from a bit lengthier of a mindset. The "Left" completely moved after the New Deal was passed, for good or ill.

The Republicans are not towards the Democrats.

Where is the Left in America exactly? The Republicans and Democrats are both to the ecoomonic right. Socialism is still a dirty word (sadly) in American politics. And the New Deal was a action commence by a great man in an attempt to counter a depression that was aided to come thanks to the poor policies in ecomonics that was before, especilly from the isolation of America.

The New Deal also had the conscience nature of training young people by work... which when it came to WW2 was useful to say the least.

Romney is almost the same as Obama I've found.

Err... you are joking right?

Unless Ron Paul ends up on the ballot somewhere, Gary Johnson is my next choice. I know he won't win, but honestly, since Republicanism tends to be just a tad closer to libertarianism than Democrats are, I'd actually like to see Romney screwed over.

What type? Because liberarianism would imply you not want law and order around. And as noted wisely by Something Awful the American liberarianian movement tend to be selfish figures that care not for people and think not of maintaining ballance but of anarchy.

Before you continue to post I suggest you look up definitions. Correcting your poor skills in definitions bores me.

 

[Abegweit]

5 is pure nothing to a debate part from your conpiracy theories and questionable view to anyone not sharing your views.

Really? The scumbag makes jokes about how he is going to send drones after people who cruise his daughters. More importantly, he rains death on people halfway across the planet. These are facts.

So tell me: why do you think that facts are conspiracies or questionable?

No wonder Something Awful dislikes Libertarians...

All statists hate people who tell the truth. There is nothing new here.

 

[Abegweit]

Obama is of the ecomonic right. He has appointed figures of deregulation and has continued deregulative policies that Reagan placed down.

Gawd. This is astonishingly delusional. This has nothing to do with history. Where did Reagan ever deregulate anything? As for Obama, he proudly embraces the thieves. Both says it and does it.

However all presidents from Reagan to now have continued deregulation, a policy to please only the exstream ecomonic right and to cause ecomonic crisis as was of our current recession.

More delusion. What universe do you live in anyway? Just to take one small example, the number of bureaucrats in the SEC increased by 50% under Bush and he approved the Sarbanes-Oxley obscenity.

Because liberarianism would imply you not want law and order around

What utter nonsense.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Really? The scumbag makes jokes about how he is going to send drones after people who cruise his daughters. More importantly, he rains death on people halfway across the planet. These are facts.

Perents are not allowed to joke about their protective nature?

So tell me: why do you think that facts are conspiracies or questionable?

Mate: your entire arguments seem to roll around "ZEE GOVERMENTS (NO EXCEPTION) ARE ALL EVIL!" Realy?

All statists hate people who tell the truth. There is nothing new here.

Your calling Something Awful statists now? How dillustional can you get?

Well... I guess Something Awful have laughed again now. They laugh at your arrogance. Something Awful has proved itself to be a place of observation and of justice. You have just proofed yourself to be arrogant.

Gawd. This is astonishingly delusional. This has nothing to do with history. Where did Reagan ever deregulate anything? As for Obama, he proudly embraces the thieves. Both says it and does it.

Reagan did begin a continued policy of deregulation and lowering of rules for the companies of Ameirca. This... did not go well for the world ecomony, serving in part for the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989, along with continued deregulation since Reagan helping ensure the reskless actions of certain corporations eneded up resulting in the current recession.

The documentery film Inside Job is a recumation for observing this matter.

More delusion. What universe do you live in anyway? Just to take one small example, the number of bureaucrats in the SEC increased by 50% under Bush and he approved the Sarbanes-xley obscenity.

Deregulation has occured mate. I must be in a universe different to yours. In fact ALL OF THIS PLACE is in a different universe then your ego centre. Deregulation continued.

And your obession with "the evils of bureaucrats" leads to wonder. Why is Sir Humphrey evil?

What utter nonsense.

I was making a jesture.

And you give no reason. Reason is a important part of a debate.

 

[bhsup]

Statists!


Link to video.​

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Kick ass music clip kicks ass.

 

[Borachio]

I've just fallen through a time-warp thingy back into progressive rock-land. '83? hrumph!

 

[Traitorfish]

Perents are not allowed to joke about their protective nature?

Not when they are actually responsible for the deaths of thousands of people by the means described, no. It's just poor taste.