Why Does the Right Hate Obama?

[Iriemon]

Who knew that Goldman, Citi, Merryll, AIG were subject to the CALAMITOUS effects OF THE LEFT and their unsound, imprudent and nonvirtuous policy failures?

Uh, they weren't.



Well, you should have told the Republicans who ran the government including the agencies responsible for overseeing Freddie and Fannie. They ignored the problem.

Of course the left wants to focus on the results on the failure inherent in human frailties... BUT NEVER ON THE POLICY WHICH AMPLIFIES THOSE FRAILTIES... NEVER ON THE ABUSE OF POWER WHICH FEEDS ON THOSE FRAILTIES... NEVER on the secular progressives who demand that science is the answer and rejects the moderating effect of sound, virtuous, prudent bed-rock principle.

We didn't elect Republicans to power. You got the wrong group.

Well even a BLIND nut, finds a squirrel now and then... its true that 'you' did not elect Republicans t power and it's also true that there are no American policies being advanced... as it is true that there is no American policy which require actuarial thresholds be lowered to accomodate LOW INCOME BUYERS... because of some principle-less, twisted notions of fairness.

Republicans made MANY attempts to revise the absurd theft which the left was perpetrating through their quasi-federal mortgage banks... Bush noted that BOTH were in deep trouble in his 2000 Campaign... and soon after taking office in 2001.

Sadly, the Minimal majorities that the GOP enjoyed, particularly given the "Moderates" precluded the GOP from overcoming the VOCIFEROUS DEFENSE OF THE POLICY BY THE RADICAL LEFT...

Oh quit making shit up.

The Republicans contolled the Congress and the WH and could have passed about whatever they wanted.

The *only* bill to regulate Fannie/Freddie that was passed during the entire 6 years the Republicans completely controlled the government was a bipartisan bill passed in 2005 by the Republican House with the bipartisan support of Frank and the Dems, and according to the bill's sponsor, Republican Mike Oxely (of Sarbanes-Oxely regulations fame) the bill was shot down by the White House which gave them the "one fingered salute" because the WH wanted to privatize it.

Now again... it's a failure of character... it's a function of human frailty... it's a function of human NATURE; and it's LEFTIST POLICY WHICH PROMOTED THE FAILURE BY ESTABLISHING POLICY WHICH LENT ITSELF TO THE FEEDING ON THOSE FRAILTIES... rewarding bad behavior and lowering standards which are designed to DISCOURAGE bad behavior.

The only human fraility around here is your penchant for making stuff up.

Now the same thing will happen within the relavant circumstances for the normalization of sexual perversion and the attempts to redefine marriage... legalize pot, prostitution, etc, etc...

Nice misdirection.

 

[Iriemon]

august of 96....look it up.....as for blame....just pointing there were 6 attacks on us intersts prior to 2001....with no response......none.....it wouldn't be much of a strech to claim clinton tenant and clarke set bush up....

Yes and that was after Bin Laden left the Suden and was in Afghanistan. Look it up.

There were responses. Clinton sent cruise missiles after Bin Laden, missed him by a couple hours. Which is a lot closer than Bush ever got.

WOW... Cruise missiles which ONLY MISSED HIM BY A COUPLE OF HOURS! No doubt that was because the Cruise missiles got caught up in traffic...

What brand of fool calls a missile shot that MISSES BY TWO HOURS A "RESPONSE"?

ROFLMNAO... You can't make this crap up.

Apparently a much smarter brand of fool that would get the nation bogged down in a going on 6 year war because of a mistake.

And you can't make that crap up.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Bin Laden did not issue Fatwas declaring war against the US until after this event, when he was in Afghanistan.

It's easy to point the finger an assert fault, isn't it.

august of 96....look it up.....as for blame....just pointing there were 6 attacks on us intersts prior to 2001....with no response......none.....it wouldn't be much of a strech to claim clinton tenant and clarke set bush up....

Yes and that was after Bin Laden left the Suden and was in Afghanistan. Look it up.

There were responses. Clinton sent cruise missiles after Bin Laden, missed him by a couple hours. Which is a lot closer than Bush ever got.

and dont forget how when they had OBL in the sights of a drone with a couple of his Lts. Clinton said dont shoot,there is a childrens play area there,there might be some kids around......

 

[edthecynic]

CLINTON ADMITS: I NIXED BIN LADEN EXTRADITION OFFER

I figured, it was the Saudis who said he was a hot potato and didn't want to touch him, not Clinton.

But putting aside that little factual error and the fact that Ijaz's story has been discredited, In 1996 Bin Laden hadn't been indicted of anything against the US. Sure in hindsight it would be great to get him, but of course in 1996 9-11 hadn't happened yet, and didn't happen till Bush was president.

clinton used the term.....in reference to the saudis not wanting him.....in 96 i belive bin laden had declared war on the us....his forces eventually attack several civilian targets several military targets and a couple of embassies....clarke and tennant both claim they knew what he was up to and that he was a danger.....clinton has said the same.....suddenly it is all bush's fault......

Bin Laden was at war with the US long before 1996!!!! 9/11 Reagan knew his "freedom fighter" wanted to kill Americans while he was propping up Bin Laden and the Blind Sheikh in the late 80s. Rohrabacher, who was 9/11 Reagan's point man suppling stinger missiles to freedom fighters like OBL, has talked about the time he met Bin Laden while delivering stingers. So 9/11 Reagan knew his freedom fighter wanted to kill Americans when he armed him.

"We at one point in that march came across a camp of tents," Rohrabacher said of his visit to Jalalabad, then under siege by the Afghan rebels. "I was told at that point I must not speak English for at least another three hours because the people in those tents were Saudi Arabians under a crazy commander named bin Laden and that bin Laden was so crazy that he wanted to kill Americans as much as he wanted to kill Russians."

 

[Iriemon]

august of 96....look it up.....as for blame....just pointing there were 6 attacks on us intersts prior to 2001....with no response......none.....it wouldn't be much of a strech to claim clinton tenant and clarke set bush up....

Yes and that was after Bin Laden left the Suden and was in Afghanistan. Look it up.

There were responses. Clinton sent cruise missiles after Bin Laden, missed him by a couple hours. Which is a lot closer than Bush ever got.

and dont forget how when they had OBL in the sights of a drone with a couple of his Lts. Clinton said dont shoot,there is a childrens play area there,there might be some kids around......

Sure. And how did Bush do capturing Bin Laden attacking the wrong country.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Source that Clinton said Bin Laden was a hot potato and didn't want to touch him?

Clinton made a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002

: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

Yes... So Bubba couldn't hold Bin Laden on anything... NOT EVEN THE 1993 WTC Bombing... He couldn't take him... hold him in a quiet place and 'debrief' him... NOooooooo

And THAT's How we ended up with 9-11.

When was Bin Laden indicted for the 1993 bombing? Oh yeah, 1998, two years later.

Nice try though.

Then Bush was elected, and ignored specific warnings of imminent hijackings by Al Queda and went on vacation.

And THAT's How we ended up with 9-11

ROFLMNAO... Golly... Isn't that cute kids? We call that "PRE-9-11 thinking" and why do we call it that? Well because it is THAT KIND OF THINKING THAT BROUGHT US TO 9-11.

Bin Laden was known to have been incolved in the 93 WTC Bombing LONG before he was indicted... which of course, the very NOTION that resulted in such an indictment, is a position which PREVENTED THE US (Read: CLINTON) from DOING WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO CAPTURE BIN LADEN BEFORE HE WENT INTO HIDING.

Bush on the other hand wasn't looking for indictments; he wasn't trying to prosecute a criminal investigation; he went after those Islamic Terrorists AS THE ENEMY, BECAUSE THEY WAGED WAR ON US...

Now we've returned to this pre-9-11 mentality and we can be sure that we will reap the same result...

They're leftists... and they're PART OF THE PROBLEM; they promote the interests of that enemy... making them... THE ENEMY.

One can't solve a problem until one comes to understand that IT IS A PROBLEM... come to understand that those in power; both those on the ideological left and those who lend credence TO THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... ARE THE PROBLEM.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes and that was after Bin Laden left the Suden and was in Afghanistan. Look it up.

but not after "this event" which in context you were refering to 911....

I was referring to the supposed offer. It was April in 1996 where the supposed "offer" occurred. And the Pakistani's claim that there was such an offer from Sudan is discredited.

FactCheck.org: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

In any event, Obama had not been indicted for anything at that point and the later bombings in Africa had not occurred.

Like I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. With hindsight we could have killed Hitler in 1930 and avoided WWII.

Such is a misnomer... Killing Hitler would likely have not avoided WW2... as the Leftist mindset was entrenched in Europe... The 'have-nots' were on the march towards settling the score with the 'haves.' WW2 was simply the result of that settlement.

Just as the have-nots are on today, AGAIN on the march to settle the score with the haves... Islamic terrorists and their Pirate comrades are at the masthead of that effort... with the ideological left standing directly behind them, cheering them on... rationalizing their rage as being justified by the exploitation of the Corporate West...

Brace youself sis... that history is about to repeat itself and you, like your early 20th century comrades, are on the wrong side... the side which confuses want for need; and which wouldn't know a sound moral principle if it fell on you. Which of course is hilarious given the enormous sound moral principle on which you're presently leaning... and of which you're blissfully ignorant.

LOOK OUT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes and that was after Bin Laden left the Suden and was in Afghanistan. Look it up.

There were responses. Clinton sent cruise missiles after Bin Laden, missed him by a couple hours. Which is a lot closer than Bush ever got.

and dont forget how when they had OBL in the sights of a drone with a couple of his Lts. Clinton said dont shoot,there is a childrens play area there,there might be some kids around......

Sure. And how did Bush do capturing Bin Laden attacking the wrong country.

ROFLMNAO... Don't uya LOVE the dissembling? It's as if it's all they know...

 

[Iriemon]

and dont forget how when they had OBL in the sights of a drone with a couple of his Lts. Clinton said dont shoot,there is a childrens play area there,there might be some kids around......

Sure. And how did Bush do capturing Bin Laden attacking the wrong country.

ROFLMNAO... Don't uya LOVE the dissembling? It's as if it's all they know...

How is it "dissembling"? The discussion about Clinton stated with a post that both Bush and Clinton had opportunities to kill Obama.

So how did Bush do capturing Bin Laden attacking the wrong country?

 

[Iriemon]

Clinton made a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002



Yes... So Bubba couldn't hold Bin Laden on anything... NOT EVEN THE 1993 WTC Bombing... He couldn't take him... hold him in a quiet place and 'debrief' him... NOooooooo

And THAT's How we ended up with 9-11.

When was Bin Laden indicted for the 1993 bombing? Oh yeah, 1998, two years later.

Nice try though.

Then Bush was elected, and ignored specific warnings of imminent hijackings by Al Queda and went on vacation.

And THAT's How we ended up with 9-11

ROFLMNAO... Golly... Isn't that cute kids? We call that "PRE-9-11 thinking" and why do we call it that? Well because it is THAT KIND OF THINKING THAT BROUGHT US TO 9-11.

Bin Laden was known to have been incolved in the 93 WTC Bombing LONG before he was indicted... which of course, the very NOTION that resulted in such an indictment, is a position which PREVENTED THE US (Read: CLINTON) from DOING WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO CAPTURE BIN LADEN BEFORE HE WENT INTO HIDING.

Bush on the other hand wasn't looking for indictments; he wasn't trying to prosecute a criminal investigation; he went after those Islamic Terrorists AS THE ENEMY, BECAUSE THEY WAGED WAR ON US...

Now we've returned to this pre-9-11 mentality and we can be sure that we will reap the same result...

They're leftists... and they're PART OF THE PROBLEM; they promote the interests of that enemy... making them... THE ENEMY.

One can't solve a problem until one comes to understand that IT IS A PROBLEM... come to understand that those in power; both those on the ideological left and those who lend credence TO THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... ARE THE PROBLEM.

Repetitive, despite the big font.

1. In 1996 there was insufficient information of Bin Laden's role in the 1993 bombing to indict him.

2. In April 1996 Bin Laden hadn't issued his fatwa, bombed the African embassies or the Cole.

3. Suden didn't offer to hand him over to us.

It's just a "divert the blame" game using hindsight.

Bush's efforts to capture Bin Laden involved attacking and getting bogged down in the wrong country.

 

[Iriemon]

but not after "this event" which in context you were refering to 911....

I was referring to the supposed offer. It was April in 1996 where the supposed "offer" occurred. And the Pakistani's claim that there was such an offer from Sudan is discredited.

FactCheck.org: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

In any event, Obama had not been indicted for anything at that point and the later bombings in Africa had not occurred.

Like I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. With hindsight we could have killed Hitler in 1930 and avoided WWII.

Such is a misnomer... Killing Hitler would likely have not avoided WW2... as the Leftist mindset was entrenched in Europe... The 'have-nots' were on the march towards settling the score with the 'haves.' WW2 was simply the result of that settlement.

Thanks for the information, God. It's nice to have an all knowing and forseeing entity on the board so we don't have to speculate.

But had Bin Laden been arrested, Al Queda and 9-11 would never have happened, right?

Just as the have-nots are on today, AGAIN on the march to settle the score with the haves... Islamic terrorists and their Pirate comrades are at the masthead of that effort... with the ideological left standing directly behind them, cheering them on... rationalizing their rage as being justified by the exploitation of the Corporate West...

Brace youself sis... that history is about to repeat itself and you, like your early 20th century comrades, are on the wrong side... the side which confuses want for need; and which wouldn't know a sound moral principle if it fell on you. Which of course is hilarious given the enormous sound moral principle on which you're presently leaning... and of which you're blissfully ignorant.

LOOK OUT!

The really sad thing is that our last commander in chief has left us bogged down in a mistaken war and a nation $11 trillion in debt and a great recession, and because of these huge blunders we don't have the resources to go into a country where intervention is really justified. And guys like you just excuse it and blame the guy whose been in office all of three months.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, I'm not an Obama lover. I voted for him, but that's because I voted against McCain-Palin. Obama was, for me, just the lesser of two evils. But I'm curious. People whose political perspective falls more to the Conservative side of the political spectrum really hate Obama. I'm a little confused about this because the man hasn't even been in office long enough for his policy changes to have any real results. The Right is screaming about his budget, but I think back to Bush II and see that he did A LOT of spending too. Why wasn't the Right screaming then?

Where the hell were you? We screamed and hollered ourselves hoarse about excessive spending, although I realize it was still probably hard to hear us over all the leftists with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Some people are 100%, fanatically certain that his policies will fail and even want them to (Why? I don't know. What kind of national pride is that?

National pride? What's this got to do with national pride? "Oh, hey, your policies are diametrically opposed to my position and what I think is best for the country, but hey, I'm so proud of my country that I'm dying to see you implement things I think will destroy it!" This isn't rocket magic here.

If he can jump start the economy - and I'm not saying he will - but if he does, then what will those who want him to fail think then?).

That's a pretty tall "if" there. Call me if his insane policies actually provably produce any positive results and we'll talk. Meanwhile, people oppose his policies precisely because they don't believe the results will be positive.

You can espouse your fiscally conservative policies all you want, but Japan did the same thing in the 1990's that Obama is doing now and it "worked". You might hate his policies, but they haven't even had a chance to make an impact yet. I've heard people angry over the bail-outs as though Obama is the originator of the bail-outs. Its like they forgot that Bush II ended his term bailing out the banks and Wallstreet.

No, it's like you forget that none of these people was a blind cheerleader for Bush, either. That doesn't mean Obama doesn't deserve his own share of excoriation for continuing something that's such a bad idea.

He hasn't started any wars. He's getting us out of an unpopular invasion of a sovereign nation which became a political quagmire for the Bush Administration.

Gosh. He's doing stuff that the left really likes, so damn it, why aren't you righties thrilled with how wonderful that is? Gee, why do you THINK?

He's attempting to fix the problems that Bush II's policies encountered either by tweaking the policies or scrapping them and starting over (using research-based evidence).

If I attempt to fix the faulty wiring in my house by burning the house down, do I get credit for having "attempted to fix it"? I just don't get what you're finding so hard to understand here. You're looking for people on the right to give Obama kudos for doing things that conservatives disagree with, in order to accomplish goals they ALSO disagree with. Tell me, how much dancing in the street would YOU be doing if the situation was reversed?

He's a Christian but is constantly called a Muslim by rightwing extremists. He's not a socialist despite what rightwing extremists might think.

Well, that's all certainly your opinion, anyway.

For liberals Obama isn't even very liberal, he's way more Moderate or middle of the road, but Conservatives cry communist and socialist every time he talks about health care (which, according to his plan, isn't even socialist - it isn't free for all citizens).

Who cares what liberals think of him? You're asking why CONSERVATIVES are reacting a certain way, and I can guarantee you it has no basis whatsoever in whatever it is that liberals think.

I wonder if it has to do with partisanship, with political propaganda, with team spirit-rivalry, with Obama's race, and with social pressures (i.e. Obama is so popular with the media and has become an icon of popular culture here and around the world that I wonder if some people are just reacting to it negatively - which I can understand to a ceratin degree).

Of course you wonder that, because you could never consider the possibility of honest, rational disagreement of political positions. No, it MUST be partisanship, and personal hatred, and racism. God forbid anyone just think that the liberal position is stupid and ill-advised.

Anyway, for those who hate the new POTUS, here's thread for you to let the left know why.

Anyway, I'd like to see some evidence that there's widespread expression of personal hatred for Obama, as opposed to disagreement with his policies and criticism of his clumsy attempts at diplomacy. And no, I don't want to hear about "Well, this particular extremist or that one said [fill in the blank]." I can find you an extremist on the Internet to take any position you care to name. I said "widespread".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Obama was, for me, just the lesser of two evils.

So, you admit you voted for something you think is evil.
Aren't you just brilliant?

Wow. You're right, I'm not brilliant cause I voted for someone I didn't like that much over someone else who I really didn't like. Isn't that a really good point. You, sir, however, certainly are brilliant...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Iriemon-

Don't even try to reason with Pube-lickus Anal-teasium. There are a few folks on this board who, no matter how polite, reasonable, and straight forward you are with them, will react irrationally because their hatred of an entire side of the political spectrum clouds their ability to see "the other side" as people. Perverticus is one of them. All it will do is cause you frustration and anger. Trust me. AllieBaba, AgainSheila, Cecilie, Diamond Dave, Willow Tree, Manifold, and DavidS are some of the others. I've come to learn to just try to ignore them until they seem calm and sane enough with which to have a reasonable interaction. And then I still don't get my hopes up that they won't insult me or get personal somehow.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon-

Don't even try to reason with Pube-lickus Anal-teasium. There are a few folks on this board who, no matter how polite, reasonable, and straight forward you are with them, will react irrationally because their hatred of an entire side of the political spectrum clouds their ability to see "the other side" as people. Perverticus is one of them. All it will do is cause you frustration and anger. Trust me. AllieBaba, AgainSheila, Cecilie, Diamond Dave, Willow Tree, Manifold, and DavidS are some of the others. I've come to learn to just try to ignore them until they seem calm and sane enough with which to have a reasonable interaction. And then I still don't get my hopes up that they won't insult me or get personal somehow.

Thanks, but I'm willing to defend my positions and arguments with reference to reliable sources of data and logic.

I agree that it is common to see a side losing a debate resort to flaming and name calling like "dumbass" "retard" "ignoramous" and the like. It's infantile, but common. And you see folks from both sides doing it.

Not all do that of course, just some, and usually by those with the weakest positions and arguments, in my experience.

 

[Newby]

It is more about power and the loss of control. There is this sense in the right that they know better, it is part of the hierarchical ideological frame they operate in. Clinton faced the same 'hate' - call it what you will - and was hounded till a private incident gave the conservatives their high moral (?) ground. Ask which party wants to control your actions and you get a sense of why conservatism is so lost after a democratic majority told them go away.

That's hilarious after hearing eight years of Bush hatred... So, the 'left' doesn't think they 'know better' then? How you can honestly not see how the left wants to control your actions is beyond me. How can so many people be so stupidly blind in this country? It's an amazing thing to watch from the sidelines. I honestly wonder what it would take for someone such as yourself to see reality.

 

[txlonghorn]

Does anybody else out there agree with me that this may be one of the dumbest questions ever posted???

The answer is within your own political views and the basis for why you hated bush so much. Because he didn't think like you. He didn't feel the way you do. He didn't act the way you do. He didn't believe or disbelieve in things the way you do.

It's so simple and obvious that I'm embarrassed to have to answer this question for you!

The right, as a whole, (this does not include the extremists on the right, like yourself on the left) doesn't hate Obama. But we do hate what he stands for and the damage that he is doing to this country. It's not just about the economy and whether or not you'll be able to afford to live the same way you do a year from now, it's about the complete and utter disdain for the pride this nation has stood for! Yeah! We are a proud and sometimes arrogant nation. Because we know we have what EVERYBODY wants! Freedom. And that is now being threatened. And encouraged by the apologetic grandstanding of this weak minded president.

You can call Bush all those horrible names and still cast judgement on others views of another???? Who the hell do you think you are?

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Why do the "Left" and "Right" hate each other so much that they can't just see a moron for a moron?

We do, we all know that Bush is a complete fucking moron.

You may not like Obama, but to call him a moron shows just how stupid some of you can be. His IQ DWARFS yours

 

[DiamondDave]

Why do the "Left" and "Right" hate each other so much that they can't just see a moron for a moron?

We do, we all know that Bush is a complete fucking moron.

You may not like Obama, but to call him a moron shows just how stupid some of you can be. His IQ DWARFS yours

And what exactly is his IQ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do the "Left" and "Right" hate each other so much that they can't just see a moron for a moron?

We do, we all know that Bush is a complete fucking moron.

You may not like Obama, but to call him a moron shows just how stupid some of you can be. His IQ DWARFS yours

How do you know what his IQ is, or anyone else's? Did you administer the tests?

And "moron" isn't about IQ so much as it is common sense and reason. I've known people with PhDs and college professorships who didn't have the abiity to wipe their own asses without a set of instructions posted on the bathroom door. They were like turkeys, looking up to see where the rain was coming from, then drowning.