Does white America hate Barack Obama?

The simple answer is no. Obama could not have won the election with only the black vote. Even if the got every single black vote, that would only have accounted for around 12%. He won the election with nearly 60% of the vote, so he had a whole lot of the white vote.

Alright, I'll give you my two cents on it.

First off, we knew that we would have a Democrat in as President back during election time. I'd like to claim that first off, I believe that Hillary Clinton was the best person for the job. Sadly, White America is more Sexist America than anything.

History Lesson.

Back after the days of slavery the blacks were treated even better than the women. As a matter of fact they were allowed to vote long before women were. Women were granted the right to vote sometime around 1920, which was a good 40+ years after the Civil War. As far as that goes most blacks were treated well within America at this time. Hell as far as many people know (or don't know) several African Americans were treated well during slavery. Only the absurd insane cases of slavery were that of beating, and working to no end. Yet the history books won't tell you about the blacks who were treated as part of families in that era. Its a sad sad story indeed.

More History.

The Klu Klux Klan was originally a non-racist organization. It was originally formed to prevent Carpetbaggers from forming in the South. I'm assuming you all know what above term means. Anyways, it wasn't until the mid 1900s that the Klan reformed and became a racist organization. Even though most of the original members were part of the Confederate Army of the United States, it was shockingly not a racist organization. Heavy religious group is a different story. They use to beat the hell out of those who weren't Christians. Not only that, but they'd lynch carpetbaggers as well as those who abused women. So as long as you weren't Jewish you really had nothing to worry about. Which is bad now, but if you think about the times it was right on track with the Jewish whiplash from Germany in the 1900s.

That's the backstory for all this. Now moving forward. Barack Obama is a product of a system. He was popular as all get out during the election, he promised change and after 8 years of the current bullshit it was about damn time in America's eyes. I personally think Obama garnered more black voters than any other previous election, the stats my show them but then again what are stats but numbers. So you had the political rally of the African Americans to vote for Obama, and rightfully so as they felt it would overcome the oppression we'd fought for so many years as Americans. Meanwhile you had people ignoring the fact that women were oppressed even longer than the African Americans, sure you had the 1950s but that was mostly a southern thing. Or was it? Actually it wasn't, the Northern United States was more racist by this time and age. Why? More industry had opened in the north causing many southerners to move to the north along with it.

By the 1950's the first generation that was really effected by the right of women voting were starting to have kids of there own, after the quote on quote baby boomer era. Which was the era where Hillary Clinton was born. Even though the mess of the 50s happened, many blacks were allowed the right to vote through that time frame, which is a fact not mentioned a lot of the time. Now onto today's standards, racism is still not dead and sexism is more alive than ever.

Which causes me to make the statement that Barack Obama might not of persay won the election, but maybe the black and mexican vote carried him, while the anti-women in office vote also carried him. Think about it. McCain had Palin in his corner, the other Democratic Canidate was Hillary Clinton. So if you were against women in the White House who would you vote for?

Exactly.

Doesn't matter who wins upcoming elections, Americans are going to be pissed off either way. It is a divided country, which makes things pressing at times. However it is the world we live in, god help us all.

stl311 wrote:

Alright, I'll give you my two cents on it.

First off, we knew that we would have a Democrat in as President back during election time. I'd like to claim that first off, I believe that Hillary Clinton was the best person for the job. Sadly, White America is more Sexist America than anything.

History Lesson.

Back after the days of slavery the blacks were treated even better than the women. As a matter of fact they were allowed to vote long before women were. Women were granted the right to vote sometime around 1920, which was a good 40+ years after the Civil War. As far as that goes most blacks were treated well within America at this time. Hell as far as many people know (or don't know) several African Americans were treated well during slavery. Only the absurd insane cases of slavery were that of beating, and working to no end. Yet the history books won't tell you about the blacks who were treated as part of families in that era. Its a sad sad story indeed.

More History.

The Klu Klux Klan was originally a non-racist organization. It was originally formed to prevent Carpetbaggers from forming in the South. I'm assuming you all know what above term means. Anyways, it wasn't until the mid 1900s that the Klan reformed and became a racist organization. Even though most of the original members were part of the Confederate Army of the United States, it was shockingly not a racist organization. Heavy religious group is a different story. They use to beat the hell out of those who weren't Christians. Not only that, but they'd lynch carpetbaggers as well as those who abused women. So as long as you weren't Jewish you really had nothing to worry about. Which is bad now, but if you think about the times it was right on track with the Jewish whiplash from Germany in the 1900s.

That's the backstory for all this. Now moving forward. Barack Obama is a product of a system. He was popular as all get out during the election, he promised change and after 8 years of the current bullshit it was about damn time in America's eyes. I personally think Obama garnered more black voters than any other previous election, the stats my show them but then again what are stats but numbers. So you had the political rally of the African Americans to vote for Obama, and rightfully so as they felt it would overcome the oppression we'd fought for so many years as Americans. Meanwhile you had people ignoring the fact that women were oppressed even longer than the African Americans, sure you had the 1950s but that was mostly a southern thing. Or was it? Actually it wasn't, the Northern United States was more racist by this time and age. Why? More industry had opened in the north causing many southerners to move to the north along with it.

By the 1950's the first generation that was really effected by the right of women voting were starting to have kids of there own, after the quote on quote baby boomer era. Which was the era where Hillary Clinton was born. Even though the mess of the 50s happened, many blacks were allowed the right to vote through that time frame, which is a fact not mentioned a lot of the time. Now onto today's standards, racism is still not dead and sexism is more alive than ever.

Which causes me to make the statement that Barack Obama might not of persay won the election, but maybe the black and mexican vote carried him, while the anti-women in office vote also carried him. Think about it. McCain had Palin in his corner, the other Democratic Canidate was Hillary Clinton. So if you were against women in the White House who would you vote for?

Exactly.

Doesn't matter who wins upcoming elections, Americans are going to be pissed off either way. It is a divided country, which makes things pressing at times. However it is the world we live in, god help us all.

The oppression of women angle is way overstated in your point. The reason African American males received more rights than women in the post-Civil War United States, was because they wanted them. The majority of women at the time could have cared less about whether or not they had the right to vote.

It just so happens, historically, the women who tried got much more press than the women who didn't, because women NOT fighting just isn't a good note in history books, so they put forth the cause of the minority, more so than that of what most women wanted.

It wasn't sexism that got Barack Obama into the White House. He was the most popular. Hilary hung on way too long. And if memory serves me correct, Palin was teamed with McCain after Hilary was out of the picture.

America isn't racist. You just have groups notorious for race baiting (such as the shell of what it once was NAACP). Obama is pushing an issue that is unpopular on partisan lines (which pisses me off. I want my government option!), and because one group of people dislikes his policy, they want to say that they are racist.

They aren't. They just disagree. If you want to see a great commentary on being pissed off over the health care reform issue, check out the one on Jim Cornette's website. Brilliant.

But, back to the issue at hand. America is not racist, at least not the extent groups would have you believe. It's just as wrong as what Republicans are doing towards Obama with their cries of Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, what have you.

minasauce wrote:

stl311 wrote:

Alright, I'll give you my two cents on it.

First off, we knew that we would have a Democrat in as President back during election time. I'd like to claim that first off, I believe that Hillary Clinton was the best person for the job. Sadly, White America is more Sexist America than anything.

History Lesson.

Back after the days of slavery the blacks were treated even better than the women. As a matter of fact they were allowed to vote long before women were. Women were granted the right to vote sometime around 1920, which was a good 40+ years after the Civil War. As far as that goes most blacks were treated well within America at this time. Hell as far as many people know (or don't know) several African Americans were treated well during slavery. Only the absurd insane cases of slavery were that of beating, and working to no end. Yet the history books won't tell you about the blacks who were treated as part of families in that era. Its a sad sad story indeed.

More History.

The Klu Klux Klan was originally a non-racist organization. It was originally formed to prevent Carpetbaggers from forming in the South. I'm assuming you all know what above term means. Anyways, it wasn't until the mid 1900s that the Klan reformed and became a racist organization. Even though most of the original members were part of the Confederate Army of the United States, it was shockingly not a racist organization. Heavy religious group is a different story. They use to beat the hell out of those who weren't Christians. Not only that, but they'd lynch carpetbaggers as well as those who abused women. So as long as you weren't Jewish you really had nothing to worry about. Which is bad now, but if you think about the times it was right on track with the Jewish whiplash from Germany in the 1900s.

That's the backstory for all this. Now moving forward. Barack Obama is a product of a system. He was popular as all get out during the election, he promised change and after 8 years of the current bullshit it was about damn time in America's eyes. I personally think Obama garnered more black voters than any other previous election, the stats my show them but then again what are stats but numbers. So you had the political rally of the African Americans to vote for Obama, and rightfully so as they felt it would overcome the oppression we'd fought for so many years as Americans. Meanwhile you had people ignoring the fact that women were oppressed even longer than the African Americans, sure you had the 1950s but that was mostly a southern thing. Or was it? Actually it wasn't, the Northern United States was more racist by this time and age. Why? More industry had opened in the north causing many southerners to move to the north along with it.

By the 1950's the first generation that was really effected by the right of women voting were starting to have kids of there own, after the quote on quote baby boomer era. Which was the era where Hillary Clinton was born. Even though the mess of the 50s happened, many blacks were allowed the right to vote through that time frame, which is a fact not mentioned a lot of the time. Now onto today's standards, racism is still not dead and sexism is more alive than ever.

Which causes me to make the statement that Barack Obama might not of persay won the election, but maybe the black and mexican vote carried him, while the anti-women in office vote also carried him. Think about it. McCain had Palin in his corner, the other Democratic Canidate was Hillary Clinton. So if you were against women in the White House who would you vote for?

Exactly.

Doesn't matter who wins upcoming elections, Americans are going to be pissed off either way. It is a divided country, which makes things pressing at times. However it is the world we live in, god help us all.

The oppression of women angle is way overstated in your point. The reason African American males received more rights than women in the post-Civil War United States, was because they wanted them. The majority of women at the time could have cared less about whether or not they had the right to vote.

It just so happens, historically, the women who tried got much more press than the women who didn't, because women NOT fighting just isn't a good note in history books, so they put forth the cause of the minority, more so than that of what most women wanted.

It wasn't sexism that got Barack Obama into the White House. He was the most popular. Hilary hung on way too long. And if memory serves me correct, Palin was teamed with McCain after Hilary was out of the picture.

America isn't racist. You just have groups notorious for race baiting (such as the shell of what it once was NAACP). Obama is pushing an issue that is unpopular on partisan lines (which pisses me off. I want my government option!), and because one group of people dislikes his policy, they want to say that they are racist.

They aren't. They just disagree. If you want to see a great commentary on being pissed off over the health care reform issue, check out the one on Jim Cornette's website. Brilliant.

But, back to the issue at hand. America is not racist, at least not the extent groups would have you believe. It's just as wrong as what Republicans are doing towards Obama with their cries of Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, what have you.

Yes but lets be honest, if you grow up seeing one thing you more than likely will grow up believing the one thing. 9/10 kids who grow up in a "Christian Enviroment" grow up to be "Christians". However, if a woman was raised primarily by her father she might start to want the rights of a male, which is proven by Psych 101. It is really complex to explain, and with me being so sick I won't get to far in depth with it.

But I would like to point out the huge difference between Socialism and Fascism.

On a scale it would look something like this.

Communist----Socialist----Democrat----Neutral----Republican----Nazi----Facist

And that is that for now.

stl311 wrote:

minasauce wrote:

stl311 wrote:

Alright, I'll give you my two cents on it.

First off, we knew that we would have a Democrat in as President back during election time. I'd like to claim that first off, I believe that Hillary Clinton was the best person for the job. Sadly, White America is more Sexist America than anything.

History Lesson.

Back after the days of slavery the blacks were treated even better than the women. As a matter of fact they were allowed to vote long before women were. Women were granted the right to vote sometime around 1920, which was a good 40+ years after the Civil War. As far as that goes most blacks were treated well within America at this time. Hell as far as many people know (or don't know) several African Americans were treated well during slavery. Only the absurd insane cases of slavery were that of beating, and working to no end. Yet the history books won't tell you about the blacks who were treated as part of families in that era. Its a sad sad story indeed.

More History.

The Klu Klux Klan was originally a non-racist organization. It was originally formed to prevent Carpetbaggers from forming in the South. I'm assuming you all know what above term means. Anyways, it wasn't until the mid 1900s that the Klan reformed and became a racist organization. Even though most of the original members were part of the Confederate Army of the United States, it was shockingly not a racist organization. Heavy religious group is a different story. They use to beat the hell out of those who weren't Christians. Not only that, but they'd lynch carpetbaggers as well as those who abused women. So as long as you weren't Jewish you really had nothing to worry about. Which is bad now, but if you think about the times it was right on track with the Jewish whiplash from Germany in the 1900s.

That's the backstory for all this. Now moving forward. Barack Obama is a product of a system. He was popular as all get out during the election, he promised change and after 8 years of the current bullshit it was about damn time in America's eyes. I personally think Obama garnered more black voters than any other previous election, the stats my show them but then again what are stats but numbers. So you had the political rally of the African Americans to vote for Obama, and rightfully so as they felt it would overcome the oppression we'd fought for so many years as Americans. Meanwhile you had people ignoring the fact that women were oppressed even longer than the African Americans, sure you had the 1950s but that was mostly a southern thing. Or was it? Actually it wasn't, the Northern United States was more racist by this time and age. Why? More industry had opened in the north causing many southerners to move to the north along with it.

By the 1950's the first generation that was really effected by the right of women voting were starting to have kids of there own, after the quote on quote baby boomer era. Which was the era where Hillary Clinton was born. Even though the mess of the 50s happened, many blacks were allowed the right to vote through that time frame, which is a fact not mentioned a lot of the time. Now onto today's standards, racism is still not dead and sexism is more alive than ever.

Which causes me to make the statement that Barack Obama might not of persay won the election, but maybe the black and mexican vote carried him, while the anti-women in office vote also carried him. Think about it. McCain had Palin in his corner, the other Democratic Canidate was Hillary Clinton. So if you were against women in the White House who would you vote for?

Exactly.

Doesn't matter who wins upcoming elections, Americans are going to be pissed off either way. It is a divided country, which makes things pressing at times. However it is the world we live in, god help us all.

The oppression of women angle is way overstated in your point. The reason African American males received more rights than women in the post-Civil War United States, was because they wanted them. The majority of women at the time could have cared less about whether or not they had the right to vote.

It just so happens, historically, the women who tried got much more press than the women who didn't, because women NOT fighting just isn't a good note in history books, so they put forth the cause of the minority, more so than that of what most women wanted.

It wasn't sexism that got Barack Obama into the White House. He was the most popular. Hilary hung on way too long. And if memory serves me correct, Palin was teamed with McCain after Hilary was out of the picture.

America isn't racist. You just have groups notorious for race baiting (such as the shell of what it once was NAACP). Obama is pushing an issue that is unpopular on partisan lines (which pisses me off. I want my government option!), and because one group of people dislikes his policy, they want to say that they are racist.

They aren't. They just disagree. If you want to see a great commentary on being pissed off over the health care reform issue, check out the one on Jim Cornette's website. Brilliant.

But, back to the issue at hand. America is not racist, at least not the extent groups would have you believe. It's just as wrong as what Republicans are doing towards Obama with their cries of Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, what have you.

Yes but lets be honest, if you grow up seeing one thing you more than likely will grow up believing the one thing. 9/10 kids who grow up in a "Christian Enviroment" grow up to be "Christians". However, if a woman was raised primarily by her father she might start to want the rights of a male, which is proven by Psych 101. It is really complex to explain, and with me being so sick I won't get to far in depth with it.

But I would like to point out the huge difference between Socialism and Fascism.

On a scale it would look something like this.

Communist----Socialist----Democrat----Neutral----Republican----Nazi----Facist

And that is that for now.

I know the ends of the political spectrum. I'm saying Obama has been called Communist, Socialist, Nazi, etc. because the people calling him that are, basically, retarded.

And your psychological argument is really intriguing,

Psych major, like I said I'll get more into it later when I don't have the swine flu.

Socialist is accurate, but Nazi is just retarded. Those poeple need to try reading a book or something. Just because some idiot calls him a Nazi, that does not mean that all Reps think that he is a Nazi. You are going to find crazy people on both sides. There are fringe elements in all political parties. I am a Rep, I did not vote for him, still would not vote for him, and I disagree with everything he has done so far, but I know that he is not a Nazi.

Concrete Jesus wrote:

Socialist is accurate

No, it's not.

Quote :

How about these accusations that Obama is a "socialist" or is advocating "socialist policies"? Another buzzword of the right to foment unrest amongst the citizenry. Firstly, there is nothing "socialist" about the idea that a government should insist on or provide for it's citizens' wellbeing. Secondly, the original tenet of Socialism according to Karl Marx was, "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs", which basically translated means those who have the ability, care for those who do not. There is nothing inherently evil about the Socialist idea, nor is it interchangeable with Communism--it is a financial system, not a political one--and even though it would not work in this country it does not mean that anyone who espouses it, which Obama of course does not, is the second coming of Adolf Hitler or Chairman Mao.

Socialized medicine and socialism in the word. Obama and the current Dems want the gov. to control every aspect of our lives, but that does not make him a Nazi. I am a white American and I do not hate him, I just think he is doing an awful job as president.

The job he is doing and whether he is a Nazi is different subject. Not a Nazi, not even close to being a Nazi.

Concrete Jesus wrote:

Socialized medicine and socialism in the word. Obama and the current Dems want the gov. to control every aspect of our lives, but that does not make him a Nazi. I am a white American and I do not hate him, I just think he is doing an awful job as president.

The job he is doing and whether he is a Nazi is different subject. Not a Nazi, not even close to being a Nazi.

It's not socialized medicine. That would mean the government was taking over the entire health care sector, which it isn't.

Obama doesn't want government to run anything, he is far too smart to believe that would work. He, just like myself, believes in larger government, but not the Totalitarian state you inaccurately describe him hoping for.

Well we do need a more central power in the government or else you have asshole states like Tennessee taking away heathcare from college students.

Anyways, on with my argument.

In psychology, the mind perceives what it sees. Which is why there is such a big hype upon what media attention is focused on. Parents are so quick to blame the TV, Video Games, and Radio for the issues that it makes all the psychology majors look bad.

For instance, little Jimmy shot someone because he saw it on a movie. Stop. First off if Jimmy saw a movie like that he probably shouldn't of been watching that movie by himself. Second off if as long as a positive influence is in the home of little Jimmy than he shouldn't have the things he sees on TV, Video Games, and Radio influence him. Simply put parents can control what the kids listen to, watch, or play. Laziness is not an excuse to blame media.

Onto the other arguement. In an age where Radio was dominant you didn't have a lot of radio show telling people what to do, or what to believe. Mainly because they weren't exactly that many radio stations. Back then many of people looked up to the parents as role models (as many do now). So if a little girl was looking up to Mommy and noticed Mommy had different rights than Daddy, she probably thought nothing of it considering the fact that it was another female with the same rights as herself.

But what about the fact that many men raised daughters on their own if women became sick? Then you have a girl who sees Daddy and little Jimmy with all these rights, yet she has none. At this point and time unless you were in a big city you were left to teach the kids most of their lives. Which would mean Daddy would have to try an explain while Little Julie had different rights than Little Jimmy. In other words, Daddy treated Julie like a male, thus she expected male rights. Which makes sense.

Look back in the history books at the women who fought for rights. I promise you most of them were raised by fathers or other modern role model men in their lives. Which brings up the valid point of children copying what they see.

For instance, if you took Baby Jack, and put him in an African American family who believed they deserved reparation for slavery causes in this time and age what would he grow up thinking?

Exactly. Getting back off topic here, the reason we can't do the same with media is simple. Media is a controlled factor. In other words, parents can control what their kids see. As well as what they hear, or say, or do. It sickens me that we'd stoop as low as to having artists being blamed for the downfall of things in countries. Than again I'd assume that isn't a first either.

And there is the rest of the story....

Thank you Paul Harvey, you son of a bitch you.

So far, his massive spending bills have done nothing but cause the country more debt. Since he has been in office, he has spent nearly 2 trillion dollars and we are no closer to finding the answer then we were last year at this time. His public option health care bill would cost another trillion dollars. He and the Dems spend massive amounts of money on their liberal agenda, that is not change. During the campaign, all he talked about was change and nothing has changed, at least not for the better.

The Tarp program has stopped the bleeding in the finacial sector, but that is a Bush program that he continued.

Concrete Jesus wrote:

So far, his massive spending bills have done nothing but cause the country more debt. Since he has been in office, he has spent nearly 2 trillion dollars and we are no closer to finding the answer then we were last year at this time. His public option health care bill would cost another trillion dollars. He and the Dems spend massive amounts of money on their liberal agenda, that is not change. During the campaign, all he talked about was change and nothing has changed, at least not for the better.

The Tarp program has stopped the bleeding in the finacial sector, but that is a Bush program that he continued.

The economy is already starting to turn around, after the massive drop during the Bush Administration, recovery is happening, the Stock Market is rising once again.

Of course had Bush not blown through the surplus Clinton gave him when he took office, all this money would not have to be spent. You have to spend money to make money, my friend, and we have to spend it, to get things to a point where they can actually start recovering.

By bitching about the money spent by Obama already, you are essentially saying you WANT to see things get worse financially, because I can guarantee you, without intervention from the government, things would be much, much worse than they were a year ago, rather than slowly turning around like they are now.

And the phrase "Liberal agenda" makes me laugh. What exactly is the liberal agenda? Is it any difference than the Conservative Agenda? (You know, keep the dumb dumb, the rich rich, and given the hicks their guns despite the fact the wording of the amendment doesn't actually give them the rights they claim).

Also, isn't it a bit hypocritical to talk about the positives of the TARP programs, when you complain about spending by the Obama administration?

minasauce wrote:

Concrete Jesus wrote:

So far, his massive spending bills have done nothing but cause the country more debt. Since he has been in office, he has spent nearly 2 trillion dollars and we are no closer to finding the answer then we were last year at this time. His public option health care bill would cost another trillion dollars. He and the Dems spend massive amounts of money on their liberal agenda, that is not change. During the campaign, all he talked about was change and nothing has changed, at least not for the better.

The Tarp program has stopped the bleeding in the finacial sector, but that is a Bush program that he continued.

The economy is already starting to turn around, after the massive drop during the Bush Administration, recovery is happening, the Stock Market is rising once again.

Of course had Bush not blown through the surplus Clinton gave him when he took office, all this money would not have to be spent. You have to spend money to make money, my friend, and we have to spend it, to get things to a point where they can actually start recovering.

By bitching about the money spent by Obama already, you are essentially saying you WANT to see things get worse financially, because I can guarantee you, without intervention from the government, things would be much, much worse than they were a year ago, rather than slowly turning around like they are now.

And the phrase "Liberal agenda" makes me laugh. What exactly is the liberal agenda? Is it any difference than the Conservative Agenda? (You know, keep the dumb dumb, the rich rich, and given the hicks their guns despite the fact the wording of the amendment doesn't actually give them the rights they claim).

Also, isn't it a bit hypocritical to talk about the positives of the TARP

She speaks the truth. Last time I checked it was the Republicans that passed that 500 Billion Dollar Bill to fucking build the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

That is a prime example of "Conservative Agenda" or Pork Barreling at its best.

As far as Obama goes, he isn't my favorite. I just feel Clinton could of done a better job, but I'm glad they're pushing for socialize medicine to take care of those who can't afford healthcare. One good point for Obama. That being said, his numbers are going down. Why? Because he promised "Change" right now, and he hasn't brought it to America. Not his fault clearly, but most Americans can't see that.

Republican Agenda of keeping the rich rich, the stupid stupid, and giving us southern people our guns (yes I have them to, as well as a fancy collection of knives, swords, and nunchakyus) is not much different than the Liberal Agenda of keeping the gays happy (no offense), the stoners happy (thank god), and trying to not make the poor as poor by giving them benefits such as healthcare and making education better.

I cannot begin to explain the hardship going to school in the south creates. I breezed so much through high school and knew so little, and America only has ourselves to blame. I mean, anymore we focus more on trying to teach people the bare minimum to get by in life. Which is also so so sad. Trust me, I didn't get to know Psychology, Politics, and Football by just going to high school. It taken a few years at Community College, as well as a venture into trade school. Which is also sad. Why should common Americans have to wait to go to school just because of where they live?

The biggest difference in the South and the North is education. If you go up there you sound stupid if you came from down here. Also, you go to college up there you see 20 year olds, not many close to 30. Here, you see 40, 50, 60 year olds going to college. All the while the hard working students (just imagine myself) get screwed out of financial aid programs because these assholes want a free ride with no intent to actually do anything.

We have the Republicans to thank for it. Had they not moved Corps. away from America and then promised the people of the factories they could go to school on their dime it would be like this at all. And you know why they did it? Because Bush wanted young men and women to feel like they needed to go into the military to pay for schooling.

That my friends, is the epitome of hypocrite.

The reason Obama's approval numbers are going down is because he is President.

Seriously, minus Bush, who had 9/11 to boost his approval ratings, every President since they started tracking the approval ratings has dropped significantly by this point.

The reason his approval rating is dropping is people do not want his public option. Even people that voted for him do not want his health care plan and the Dems refuse to drop the public option. The people have spoken and they continue to speak out against his socialized medicine plan.

That still does not mean white people "hate" him. People are not happy with the job he is doing. As far as Bush's approval rating dropping like a rock, people forgot what we are up against. After 9-11, people finally opned their eyes to the threat, but they closed their eyes just a few years later. Besides, he is supposed to be better then Bush, so his approval rating should be extremely high.

Concrete Jesus wrote:

The reason his approval rating is dropping is people do not want his public option. Even people that voted for him do not want his health care plan and the Dems refuse to drop the public option. The people have spoken and they continue to speak out against his socialized medicine plan.

That still does not mean white people "hate" him. People are not happy with the job he is doing. As far as Bush's approval rating dropping like a rock, people forgot what we are up against. After 9-11, people finally opned their eyes to the threat, but they closed their eyes just a few years later. Besides, he is supposed to be better then Bush, so his approval rating should be extremely high.

No. What I said about approval ratings is right. Don't believe me?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/presidential-approval-ratings-vs-the-stock-market/

Check the chart. The dark green line tells you I am right.

Oops?

And the people haven't spoken about the public option. A bunch of misinformed idiots have spoken on something they haven't actually been told about. So, if by "the people" you mean a few loud mouth idiots who have no idea what they're really talking about, then yes, the people have spoken.

And once again, it isn't a Socialized medicine plan, that would mean the government is taking over the means of making medication... which it isn't. It also isn't a socialized medical plan, which would mean the government is overtaking all aspects of the health sector, which it also isn't.

You know those Medicare and Medicaid plans that have kept old people and poor people who could otherwise NOT afford health insurance insured? Well, THAT is what the Government Option is. A health insurance option that wouldn't be denied to the millions and millions of people who are without health insurance.

The people who die every single year because they can't afford the procedures, services and medications because they don't have insurance, will not HAVE INSURANCE. So, get this: People may have their lives saved because they can actually get the care they need, instead of being denied by the insurance companies, who are out for profit more so than the people that pay for their subpar services.

Of course, the Republicans have regularly lied to their constituents with their talk of death panels, killing seniors, and all this other ridiculous bullshit that are outright lies. The fact of the matter is, they lied to their constituents, because the average conservative voter simply doesn't know any better. So, instead of doing five minutes of research, they jump to the ridiculous conclusions their Representatives have lied to them about and led them to believe. And then they show up at town hall meetings, crying about their America being lost, when all it is, is their America finally taking care of the people who actually NEED help.

And your opinion on the war is ridiculous. What "threat" were we saving ourselves from in Iraq exactly? The most Saddam could've done to us, was essentially nothing. The only reason he held such anti-American sentiments, was because if he didn't, Iran would've curb stomped them. And the country fell to us in less than a week. Where is the threat? It was simply Bush II trying to make up for his fathers failures. He just used 9/11 as an excuse.

Afghanistan is the only other country that may possibly be a threat. Of course, there we're just making the EXACT same mistakes the Soviets made in 1979. Check this out: In 1979 the USSR invades Afghanistan, in 1989 they pull out. Less than three years later there is no Soviet Union.

Of course, the reason they could fight off the Soviets, and the weapons they are using against us now: Weapons WE gave them. Our soldiers are being shot at by our own guns! Where does that make any sense?

And I don't think you quite get the concept of the Presidential Approval Rating system in itself.

Are you telling me that you do not see Islamic terrorism as a threat? And don't tell me that the threat was not in Iraq because US troops repeatly found top Al Quida leaders in Iraq and another thing about Iraq. Saddam was a monster that had his own people murdered. He was a threat to humanity and he should have been takin out in the first Gulf War.

I know that the US helped fight off the Soviets by providing weapons, but it was necesary to fight communism where ever it was and now we must fight terrorism where ever it is. It is time for our liberal government to stop handcuffing our millitary and Inteligenc agencies. I am so sick of hearing about terrorists rights. The enemy fights without rules and it is time that the left realizes that. By the way, do you think it is a coincidence that there has not been a terrorist attack in the US, since 9-11? There have been attacks all around the world, but not in the US. Why? Because the Bush admin did what it takes to stop them. The next time it happens in the US and there will be a next time, all the liberal politcians will only have themselves to blame.

Only the people you see on the most liberal news stations, at the town halls on health care, are idiots. There are plenty more reasonable, civilized that are not interested in what Obama is selling. The Obama Network just does not want you to see them.

Concrete Jesus wrote:

Are you telling me that you do not see Islamic terrorism as a threat? And don't tell me that the threat was not in Iraq because US troops repeatly found top Al Quida leaders in Iraq and another thing about Iraq. Saddam was a monster that had his own people murdered. He was a threat to humanity and he should have been takin out in the first Gulf War.

I know that the US helped fight off the Soviets by providing weapons, but it was necesary to fight communism where ever it was and now we must fight terrorism where ever it is. It is time for our liberal government to stop handcuffing our millitary and Inteligenc agencies. I am so sick of hearing about terrorists rights. The enemy fights without rules and it is time that the left realizes that. By the way, do you think it is a coincidence that there has not been a terrorist attack in the US, since 9-11? There have been attacks all around the world, but not in the US. Why? Because the Bush admin did what it takes to stop them. The next time it happens in the US and there will be a next time, all the liberal politcians will only have themselves to blame.

Only the people you see on the most liberal news stations, at the town halls on health care, are idiots. There are plenty more reasonable, civilized that are not interested in what Obama is selling. The Obama Network just does not want you to see them.

Islamic Terrorism? I don't see all Muslims as terrorists, so inherently, no. However I do see terrorism in general (Including things like the Unabomber, Timoth McVay(sp), etc) as a threat. And yes, Saddam was a bad guy, I am not saying he isn't. However, Iraq was a sovereign nation we went in and completely uprooted on the basis of a falsehood.

Necessary to fight Communism wherever it was? Please! We caused much more long term damage by doing that. We have made the world we live in now a much more unstable place because it was "necessary to fight Communism." So, way to go there.

I find it hilarious you are saying a "Liberal government" is "handcuffing" the Military and Intelligence services, when just a few posts ago you were whining about how evil they were for being pro-Big Government. Make up your mind, you can't play both sides of the argument.

And if there is any handcuffing going on, it is simply to prevent further invasion of our Constitutional right by the government, which were violated by the Patriot Act underneath the Bush Administration.

No, I don't think it was a coincidence we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. But then again, I don't think it is a coincidence we haven't been attacked by the Japanese since Pearl Harbor, The Mexicans since 1848, or the British since the War of 1812. This country hasn't been attacked much on our own soil since the British stopped trying to reclaim their colonial holdings.

And no, everyone I see yelling about the stupid bullshit at the town hall meetings are idiots on all the news network. It just happens the commentators on certain stations call them heroes, and others call them misinformed (which they are...). It just so happens, I can see coverage of that stuff on FOX News, and not be lead to believe whatever they tell me.

The Liberals want to investigate our CIA for hunting down terrorist and stopping them. The gov. needs to give them what they need and get out of the way. Our gov. main job is to protect it's citizens, not run their lives, You give them the weapons and technology they need and move the hell out of the way. You let the people in the field decide how to opperate in the field and not some liberal politician that has never been in the counrty they are fighting, let alone in the field. All the while the liberal gov. lets Acorn run wild.

Concrete Jesus wrote:

The Liberals want to investigate our CIA for hunting down terrorist and stopping them. The gov. needs to give them what they need and get out of the way. Our gov. main job is to protect it's citizens, not run their lives, You give them the weapons and technology they need and move the hell out of the way. You let the people in the field decide how to opperate in the field and not some liberal politician that has never been in the counrty they are fighting, let alone in the field. All the while the liberal gov. lets Acorn run wild.

They want to investigate the CIA for torturing people. Which has been shown to get information for the sake of ending the torture, rather than the truth. And, as long as people are being tortured by our government, more people are going to hate our Country, which means more people are going to hate our country, which means more people are going to join these terrorist cells, which means more terrorists.

Where does that solve anything? How does that help?

And I believe all of ACORN's funding has been cut. So, they have a huge fat government check for nothing to run wild on right now. Sweet.

Now, without going to Wikipedia, or Googling it, can you even tell me what ACORN does? Or are you just ranting at them because His Almighty Highness, Lord Bill of O'Reill has told you to? Or Rushy has?

Acorn is a "community group" that has been linked to voter fraud and prostitution. The gov. cut their funding way to late. So yeah, I know what they do. They spend gov money and break federal laws. The investigation is not about torture this time. It is about the secret CIA program thats job was to hunt and assianate leaders of terrorist groups and by the way, they never even acted on it. The Messiah Obama said that there would be no ivestigation and yet he is letting his AG do whatever he wants. Obama is a tool of the Dem party. He is the "Manchurian Candidate" so to speak. He is the face, but Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, and the other Dems on the Hill are ideas behind the face. George W. Bush condemed torture while he was president. He shut down water boarding, but the Liberal want to put all interagation techniques as torture. They expect us the hug it out or something.

Your idea is to ignore violent aggression toward the US, to prevent violent aggression, what planet do you live on? If we do not act, it will keep coming. America did not ask for 9-11 and the people who died sure as hell did not ask for 9-11. It was a cowardly attack on innocent citizens. Do you propose Americ does nothing?

Concrete Jesus wrote:

Acorn is a "community group" that has been linked to voter fraud and prostitution. The gov. cut their funding way to late. So yeah, I know what they do. They spend gov money and break federal laws. The investigation is not about torture this time. It is about the secret CIA program thats job was to hunt and assianate leaders of terrorist groups and by the way, they never even acted on it. The Messiah Obama said that there would be no ivestigation and yet he is letting his AG do whatever he wants. Obama is a tool of the Dem party. He is the "Manchurian Candidate" so to speak. He is the face, but Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, and the other Dems on the Hill are ideas behind the face. George W. Bush condemed torture while he was president. He shut down water boarding, but the Liberal want to put all interagation techniques as torture. They expect us the hug it out or something.

Your idea is to ignore violent aggression toward the US, to prevent violent aggression, what planet do you live on? If we do not act, it will keep coming. America did not ask for 9-11 and the people who died sure as hell did not ask for 9-11. It was a cowardly attack on innocent citizens. Do you propose Americ does nothing?

You didn't tell me what ACORN does. You told me what they're accused of. Which, makes me think you don't actually know what the group does. So, no, you don't know what they do.

Your whole rant on the CIA actually frightens me a bit. I didn't think real people actually felt that way about programs designed to make us no better than the terrorists. I guess dignity isn't a part of the Republican credo. Though that does explain Rush Limbaugh's popularity.

George W. Bush didn't shut down Waterboarding. Are you smoking crack!? His administration did nothing close to that. And the Liberals only want prisoners to be treated with some form of human decency so we are not, as mentioned before, just as bad as the people we are supposed to be interrogating.

And never once did I advocate not retaliating to 9/11. But, unless you mistakenly think Iraq organized it, then you must know we attacked people who weren't responsible for something they didn't do. And if that's okay with you, then besides being sick in the head, that's good for you. However, I would have much rather preferred we attack the people responsible.

Why did we focus so much firepower on Iraq, when we literally let Osama Bin Ladin slip right through our fingers by allowing the Afghan troops be the ones to catch him. We let the man who holds the most responsibility for 9/11 RUN RIGHT PAST US, while we were busy bombing a country that had almost nothing to do with it. How is that right!?

Oh, and LOL at Obama being a tool of the Democratic party. Things would be so much easier if that were the case. But Satan Spawn herself Nancy Pelosi is busy screwing that up. It was a cute idea though.

I don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh's. I don't need some talkin head to explain what is going when the answer is right in the story.

You are right that we let Osama slip through our grasp, but diplomacy is getting in the way of finding. Pakistan allows terrorist to run across their border and we are to worried about the rest of the world "liking" us to sack up and go in there. Diplomacy is far less important then finding the man behind the worst moment in American history.

We found and caputure/killed dozens of Al Quida leaders in Iraq. If they were not in Iraq, how did we find them in Iraq?

As long as we do not target innocent lives, nothing we do to terrorist will make us "worse then them." I say drown one if front of a group of Gitmo detainees and tell them that is their future if they don't tell us what they know. I could give a damn about the human rights of anyone that has anything to do with or knows about terrorist plots against my country. What about the human rights of the people that died in the 9/11 attack and the families they left behind? These scum lost their human rights when they stopped acting like humans.

That may not be what Kieth Oberman or Racheal Middows will tell you, but they are part of the problem.

What do you think Acorn does? and the prostitution accusation has been proven by video tape. It took a couple of teenagers to shut down a group that the American gov. should have shut down years ago.

Am I on crack? Absolutely not. I just don't drink the Obama/Liberal Kool Aid. I don't hang on every word Oberman or Chris Mathews says.

You want to respect the human rights of people who use menatlly handicaped children as suicide bombs? Now who is on crack?