Loud angry protests have reached, The Captial, and from the look of things, it's looks like people are mad, and looking for Obama, to leave for good.

I haven't see anything like this, since Boris Yeltin was forced to leave office, due to angry people.

I think that unforunatly, Obama's presidency, maybe over, he may to leave, and Biden may take his place, and an early 2010 President election, one that Cheny may try to capitalize, on.

All thanks to Glenn Beck, and his buddies....

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/58407-loud-912-protest-reaches-the-capitol

All I can say to those who want Obama, and out of power, is be careful what you wish for....

You might just get it.

Angry protests have never caused a president to leave office.  Nixon resigned because he was about to be impeached, not because people were up in arms.  And if he is assassinated, which is much more likely, Biden would continue to serve until 2012, and would nominate a replacement VP, just as Nixon replaced Spiro Agnew with Gerry Ford.  There is nothing in the constitution to allow for a special election for Pres.  The worst that can happen is that  Obama's agenda will be side tracked by all this lunacy, which, lets face it, is about race.

Then someone will try to have Obama impeached, my guess that Glenn Beck, will try to lead the charge.

History just repeated itself.

Iraq is my generation's Vietnam and I wouldn't doubt that in the 60's everyone thought LBJ was the worst president ever as well.

Then someone will try to have Obama impeached, my guess that Glenn Beck, will try to lead the charge.


And the democrat majority in the house will vote to impeach?  And the Senate majority would convict?  The Repug majority couldn't get Clinton.  Get real.  And Biden would still become pres etc.  

History just repeated itself.

Iraq is my generation's Vietnam and I wouldn't doubt that in the 60's everyone thought LBJ was the worst president ever as well.


You could be very right on this.

My greatest fear, it would take just one angry anti Obama nut job, with nothing left to lose, with a rifle, who may try to kill Obama.

My greatest fear, it would take just one angry anti Obama nut job, with nothing left to lose, with a rifle, who may try to kill Obama.


I'm sure it'll be one of those nuts that shows up armed at town hall meetings or teabagging rallies as well. 

I'm sure it'll be one of those nuts that shows up armed at town hall meetings or teabagging rallies as well. 


It almost happend, too.

::)

I'm also for Democracry, but please, let's all be civil! 

The founding fathers of America, would really embaressed, if they had an idea of what was going on right now!!!

>:(  ::)

Angry protests have never caused a president to leave office.  Nixon resigned because he was about to be impeached, not because people were up in arms.  And if he is assassinated, which is much more likely, Biden would continue to serve until 2012, and would nominate a replacement VP, just as Nixon replaced Spiro Agnew with Gerry Ford.  There is nothing in the constitution to allow for a special election for Pres.  The worst that can happen is that  Obama's agenda will be side tracked by all this lunacy, which, lets face it, is about race.
Why do you think its about race Carlos? In my opinion its about Obama's "progressive agenda" which Americans are very divided on.

Well Obama's approval rating isn;t that bad I mean in "Gallup" he's at 51% approval and in "Rassmussen" he's at 50% approval rating.

My greatest fear, it would take just one angry anti Obama nut job, with nothing left to lose, with a rifle, who may try to kill Obama.



My fear, too. And if it does happen, of course all these Repubs with Rush, Glenn, & Sean (to name just a few) who are inciting all this anger & fear will be like, "Wow, I didn't see THAT coming?" Look what what happened when Dr. Tiller was murdered. For years, Bill O'Reilly called him "Tiller, the baby killer" and incited the hatred. When a loony on the extreme fringe used O'Reilly's incitement to take action-in this case murder, O'Reilly then condemned the action and of course by that time, it was too late. I really can't believe that these people don't see what is happening.


And people don't realize that these people who claim they love the United States while in the same breath are talking about treason. Yes, my friends, I do mean TREASON!!!! Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


It is a very narrow definition yet some of these fringe groups are inciting people to take over the government. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Ewwmikc9Q

If you look at some of the other videos on the right of the page, you can see that the far-right are trying to incite fear, and violence.


This was a very interesting article in today's local paper.


http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090913/FEATURES05/909130312/1014/FEATURES05

I think we all have cause to be worried & fearful-not because of what those who's voices are the loudest telling us what we SHOULD be afraid of, but what those people who listen to those idiots are libel to do.


Cat

Why do you think its about race Carlos? In my opinion its about Obama's "progressive agenda" which Americans are very divided on.



Oh please. Obama is far being progressive. The far-right is trying to demean him at every opportunity from claiming his presidency is not even legitimate because they claim he wasn't born in the U.S. (the Birthers), to claiming that his health care program is going to pull the plug on Grandma (the Deathers). Both are just totally wrong and yet these people still cling to it. They even claimed that his addressing the school children of this country he was going to BRAINWASH them and "indoctrinate" all the students into some socialist organization.  These are the same people who claim that he is both a socialist & a fascist at the same time. ???  Of course, that just tells me that these people who use these terms have no idea WTF they mean and the terms are interchangeable. So, if they don't know what they mean and use them anyway-it must mean that he is something else that they can't name-yup, that's right. He is black. And because of that, some people just can't handle the fact that he is indeed the Pres.


I wish his agenda was progressive or socialistic.



Cat

Oh please. Obama is far being progressive. The far-right is trying to demean him at every opportunity from claiming his presidency is not even legitimate because they claim he wasn't born in the U.S. (the Birthers), to claiming that his health care program is going to pull the plug on Grandma (the Deathers). Both are just totally wrong and yet these people still cling to it. They even claimed that his addressing the school children of this country he was going to BRAINWASH them and "indoctrinate" all the students into some socialist organization.  These are the same people who claim that he is both a socialist & a fascist at the same time. ???  Of course, that just tells me that these people who use these terms have no idea WTF they mean and the terms are interchangeable. So, if they don't know what they mean and use them anyway-it must mean that he is something else that they can't name-yup, that's right. He is black. And because of that, some people just can't handle the fact that he is indeed the Pres.


I wish his agenda was progressive or socialistic.



Cat
CAT, I agree it was crazy that some sources were questioning Obama was really born here and some questioning wether he should address school children. Alright maybe some people are uncomfortable with Obama being the Pres. because he is black but most people that don't like him is because of his political agenda I think.

I should say liberal instead of progressive agenda. Is there really much of a diifference? I mean Obama is not a centrist or a moderate democrat he's a liberal democrat. I mean Bill Clinton was a moderate democrat. Obama does want socialized medicine and he keeps on telling us he doesn't? I think Obama is far from being a fascist though but he keeps on telling us his health care plan won;t add to the deficit? I say thats false. Obama told us that he can pay for his health care plan through savings of waste and abuse in medicare and the rest will pay for itself. It just doesn't add up to me.

CAT, I agree it was crazy that some sources were questioning Obama was really born here and some questioning wether he should address school children. Alright maybe some people are uncomfortable with Obama being the Pres. because he is black but most people that don't like him is because of his political agenda I think.

I should say liberal instead of progressive agenda. Is there really much of a diifference? I mean Obama is not a centrist or a moderate democrat he's a liberal democrat. I mean Bill Clinton was a moderate democrat. Obama does want socialized medicine and he keeps on telling us he doesn't? I think Obama is far from being a fascist though but he keeps on telling us his health care plan won;t add to the deficit? I say thats false. Obama told us that he can pay for his health care plan through savings of waste and abuse in medicare and the rest will pay for itself. It just doesn't add up to me.


Obama's plan is not socialized medicine, even with a public option the plan is nothing close to a real universal system like they have in Canada. It is only "reform" and an attempt to improve the current PRIVATE system. OBAMA HAS NEVER ADVOCATED FOR SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

Obama's plan is not socialized medicine, even with a public option the plan is nothing close to a real universal system like they have in Canada. It is only "reform" and an attempt to improve the current PRIVATE system. OBAMA HAS NEVER ADVOCATED FOR SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.


I know, but trust Beck, to "convice" people that Obama is some sort of monster, out to destroy, their country.

A man like Beck, with that much power, scares me.  It should scare others.

But it doesn't.

There's a difference, between reporting, and instigating the masses.

Beck doesn't even know the difference.


::)

Cat and Carlos, thank you.  I have been maintaining for the past few months that all these people that dislike Obama's "agenda" are really just disliking him because he's Black.  I hate to say it about my fellow countrymen, but that is the sad fact about most of them.  If Obama were a White Democrat, there would still be a general loathing from some people, but not the sheer hostility and hatred that I see spewing out of every corner of America.

Silly me, thinking people were colorblind now.

The birther thing is 100% racial, it's all because he's black and has a funny name so he can't be one of us. There's really nothing more to it. ::)

The nutjobs are revolting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Ewwmikc9Q

::)

I wouldn't worry too much.  They're not very well infromed.

http://unrepentantoldhippie.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/moran1.jpg

I wouldn't worry too much.  They're not very well infromed.

http://unrepentantoldhippie.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/moran1.jpg


Not very well informed, if you ask me.

I'm just amazed that they didn't bother to check their spelling.

Why do you think its about race Carlos? In my opinion its about Obama's "progressive agenda" which Americans are very divided on.


There are 3 things motivating the opposition in general.  First there is the normal opposition every pres faces from the party on the outs.  That is normal politics and has little to do with agenda.  Second there is the opposition based on ideology, although as Cat said, Obama is far from being a radical.  In fact, he is barely a liberal.  His policies are just slightly left of center.  We see these forms of opposition all the time, and they are relatively harmless and in fact healthy.  But third, in this case, we see such an outpouring of vitriol, hatred, and hostility that there must be more to it than legitimate policy disagreements.  The only explanation for it is race.  Angry white people fearing the loss of their privileged position to those people.  No white politician advocating these policies would face what Obama is facing.

There are 3 things motivating the opposition in general.  First there is the normal opposition every pres faces from the party on the outs.  That is normal politics and has little to do with agenda.  Second there is the opposition based on ideology, although as Cat said, Obama is far from being a radical.  In fact, he is barely a liberal.  His policies are just slightly left of center.  We see these forms of opposition all the time, and they are relatively harmless and in fact healthy.  But third, in this case, we see such an outpouring of vitriol, hatred, and hostility that there must be more to it than legitimate policy disagreements.  The only explanation for it is race.  Angry white people fearing the loss of their privileged position to those people.  No white politician advocating these policies would face what Obama is facing.


Exactly. If he was white, they would give the benfit of the doubt, and wait to see what the policy holds.

But because he isn't, the angry white people, are really upset.

The only explanation for it is race.  Angry white people fearing the loss of their privileged position to those people.  No white politician advocating these policies would face what Obama is facing.

I don't think that the only explanation is race: the last three elections over there have had some of the basest, most divisive campaigning by Republicans - in many cases little more than lies told about the Democratic candidates.  These people have been stoked by hate-based right-wing broadcasting before, during and since the election - sure, race is probably a factor, but ISTM that the splenetic hatred shown is an almost inevitable consequence of the sorts of campaigning over the last decade.

I have no expectation for Obama to leave office.  Why would he do that?

The "worst case scenario" is that he and the Democratically controlled Congress go to war, and Washington DC goes into gridlock.  Been there done that.

But I would not expect O'bama to assume a "bunker mentality" and instead he would continue to try and find some areas of middle ground.  I suspect, however, that he takes a more pragmatic view of politics than some other members of Congress who have seen his presidency as the basis for a feeding frenzy of legislation.

As to the matter of race:  Yeah no doubt... there are some real wingnuts out there who would like to snuff the President because he is black.  As a result there are more viable threats against this president than most. I hope the Secret Service is keeping good tabs on these a-holes.

But the majority of vehement opposition to O'bama's pet programs has nothing to do with his race.  "Card Check" union practices, Government takeover of health care, abortion, stem cell research... have been virulently opposed since well before O'bama was even considered a presidential candidate.

People like to speak of the "vitriol" against O'bama as if it were racially motivated.  But look at the vitriol that was launched against Bush II, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Johnson.  (Note very little vitriol against Carter or Ford because you actually have to do something to attract vitriol).

Exactly. If he was white, they would give the benfit of the doubt, and wait to see what the policy holds.

But because he isn't, the angry white people, are really upset.



Uh, I'm pretty sure that the O'bama policies on abortion, union card-check, health care, and a host of other issues would not simply have been rubbber stamped by the Repubs if he were a white guy.

Generally speaking his positions on these issues are more extreme than Bill Clinton's (extreme here meaning to the opposite of the Repubs) and the Repubs were vehemently against Clinton.

Some people in this country like to use Obama's race as the reason for all of his difficulties or failures.  Interestingly I do not think that you would find Obama agreeing with that viewpoint.  I seriously doubt that he is thinking to himself  "hey if I were a white guy this health care would be a walk in the park".

Uh, I'm pretty sure that the O'bama policies on abortion, union card-check, health care, and a host of other issues would not simply have been rubbber stamped by the Repubs if he were a white guy.

Generally speaking his positions on these issues are more extreme than Bill Clinton's (extreme here meaning to the opposite of the Repubs) and the Repubs were vehemently against Clinton.

Some people in this country like to use Obama's race as the reason for all of his difficulties or failures.  Interestingly I do not think that you would find Obama agreeing with that viewpoint.  I seriously doubt that he is thinking to himself  "hey if I were a white guy this health care would be a walk in the park".


True, but it seems like the Republicians are extra hard on Obama, more than any other President, in history.

If it was John McCain up there, they would have given him a circle jerk.

Just don't ask me to define a circle jerk!

Chuck would have me booted off of this board, right away!

;D

I'm just amazed that they didn't bother to check their spelling.


Me too.

But because he isn't, the angry white people, are really upset.



Those type of people really need to grow up.

Those type of people really need to grow up.


Agreeded.

As the folks back home say, "Smell my finger!"  No, I mean, one of those other things:

Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk.  Big pharma and big insurance are the skunk, and Obama is the pisser.

:-[ ::)

The birther thing is 100% racial, it's all because he's black and has a funny name so he can't be one of us. There's really nothing more to it. ::)


http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4498/teapartymarchdc05.jpg

PROTIP: Accusing your opponent of racism - even when, for about 5-10% of the crowd attending the protests, it's probably true - doesn't win over moderates - it keeps them in league with the extremists.  ("If you're already been found guilty, you might as well do the crime with a clean conscience!")

The way to retain control of the Party is to ignore the extremists themselves, and concentrate on pulling the moderates away from the extremists, a strategy which has worked pretty consistently since the Schiavo debacle, and turned the official seal of the Elephant wing of the Party into this:

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r1/sid_fark/deadelephantclub.jpg

For those of you who still think there are two parties, just let the Elephantine extremists have enough rope, and they'll hang themselves with it, ensuring that the Jackass wing of the Party can have undisputed power for the next 20-30 years.  You can use the threat of Elephantine extremists to scare the moderates into voting for Jackassian candidates, same way as the Elephants did since the 80s. 

As the Silents die, the old bogeymen of Godless Russian Communism and Those Icky Homerseckshuals just don't rake in the votes the way they used to.  And as the Boomers age, so goes Social Security - the Boomers are done with earning and producing, so why end Social Security just when they're about to stop paying into it and start living off the taxes of the Xers?  Elephants never forget a bogeyman, but they also never learned demographics.

Give the Republicians enough rope, and they will hang themselves, each and every time.

Give the Republicians enough rope, and they will hang themselves, each and every time.


They're the ones who believe in capital punishment!
;)

They're the ones who believe in capital punishment!
;)


You just made me remember of a song from Ren and Stimpy!

;D

Oh, Lord loves a hangin'.
That's why He gave us necks.
It tightens up our vocal cords
And loosens up our pecs.

So if you are a horse theif
And guilty to the bone,
Go ahead and blame a friend
And you won't hang alone.

It may be hard to swaller,
But you'll be three feet taller.
It's a dandy way to entertain your friends.

You say you are a villain,
But can't abide by killin';
Go ahead a steal yourself a horse.

Oh,  Lord loves a hangin'.
And so do we, by heck;
So get yerself a lasso
And decorate your neck.

Oh, we is awful ignorant
And uglier 'n sin;
So go ahead 'n cut us down
And hang us all again,

Hangin' that is.  Swing a spell...

The birther thing is 100% racial, it's all because he's black and has a funny name so he can't be one of us. There's really nothing more to it. ::)


Actually this statement is not true.

Back during the primary season, there were "birthers" leveling similar accusations at John McCain, who indeed was not born in the United States but instead (if I recall correctly) in the Panama Canal Zone, as his father was in the Navy and the family lived all over the world.

There are 3 things motivating the opposition in general.  First there is the normal opposition every pres faces from the party on the outs.  That is normal politics and has little to do with agenda.  Second there is the opposition based on ideology, although as Cat said, Obama is far from being a radical.  In fact, he is barely a liberal.  His policies are just slightly left of center.  We see these forms of opposition all the time, and they are relatively harmless and in fact healthy.  But third, in this case, we see such an outpouring of vitriol, hatred, and hostility that there must be more to it than legitimate policy disagreements.  The only explanation for it is race.  Angry white people fearing the loss of their privileged position to those people.  No white politician advocating these policies would face what Obama is facing.


According to your theory of the "angry white person", how would you explain the election of Obama, who received far more white votes than black votes?  One would think that he would have LOST by a wider-than-usual margin instead of winning by a wide margin.

I definitely agree that there are some people out there who don't like the idea of a black president, for sure.  But bottom line, Obama won by a handsome margin amongst the white electorate.

The concentration of racists hardly falls along party lines.  I live in an area that is extremely skewed to Democratic registration (like 3:1 Democrat to Republican) and have heard racist comments about Obama from more Dems than Repubs around here, as statistically I would expect.  The Dems who are carping about a black president down at the bar are the same ones who were carping about the prospects of a female president when Hillary was a frontrunner, and they were all jerked off about Palin too.  I surmise those Democrats voted for McCain, but it is clear that the racist vote was in the minority last November.  Had our share of Repubs talking the same nonsense too.

It is interesting... Democrats control the Executive branch and have handy majorities in both chambers of Congress.  Yet they have appeared hamhanded in actually being able to pass legislation as a cohesive unit.  So instead of focusing inward at their incapability to articulate a vision and execute it, we hear more and more accusations of racism.  If every single Republican in Congress were a flaming racist who voted against every idea that Obama ever had, you would still have the Democratic majority to pass the legislation.

We have a black President who has an overwhemling legislative branch majority of his own party.  I doubt racism in the root cause for the majority of the opposition and resultant inability to pass legislation.

Actually this statement is not true.

Back during the primary season, there were "birthers" leveling similar accusations at John McCain, who indeed was not born in the United States but instead (if I recall correctly) in the Panama Canal Zone, as his father was in the Navy and the family lived all over the world.



The same issue was raised in 1964 regarding Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona territory in 1907, before its 1912 admission.  The point was moot as Goldwater took only the deep south and his home state.  However, nobody really took the controversy seriously...nor did anybody take seriously the Panama Canal Zone birth of McCain as a legit issue.  Like Goldwater, McCain was a warmongering nutjob from Arizona...

Anyway, the perpetual delusion that Obama was born in Kenya is a disturbing sublimation of race hatred against the president, and its staying power among a segment of rage-aholics is frightening.

Certainly there are those who have legit policy issues with Obama's agenda.  My point is that those in the streets, at the 9/12 rally, and the right wing punditry are demonstrating a knee jerk racist reaction to a black pres. whom they see as illegitimate.  Certainly there are racist dems as well, although I would guess that there are more repugs that are racist, at least overtly.  And clearly, the fact that very few are throwing around racist epithets is no evidence that what they are throwing around isn't based on racism.  That language is just out of vogue.

Let's see what the two presidents (current and past have done in their first 8 months in office)

So far Obama has...


revoked Executive Order 13233, which had been initiated by the Bush administration to limit access to the records of former presidents
Signed an executive order announcing the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year
Lifted the abortion "gag rule"
Signed the the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which promotes fair pay regardless of sex, race, or age
Announces that TARP program precipitants must cap top executive pay at US$500,000
Overturned rules limiting federal money being used for human embryonic stem cell research.
Dealt with the GM and Chrysler mini-loans to keep them afloat until purchased
Increased in automobile fuel efficiency standards
he Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 which is designed to reduce financial burdens for mortgage holders at risk
Giant spending package for stimulating business
The Cash-for-Clunkers bill


Bush, so far as I could find (even on so called Conservative sites) passed a huge tax giveaway to his donors in June.

In August he was working on clearing brush on his "ranch".  Obama spent most of August attending meetings and trying to gather support for his health care package.

so do I think things look bad for Obama?  Well for a comparable time period he accomplished more than GW did.

It is starting to get VERY scary and I think the parties leadership really needs to reign in some of the rhetoric.


Check out this segment from Rachel Maddow:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UswzauSJpcE

When I was looking for the footage of Nancy's remarks on YouTube-some of the comments on that video was nasty and EXTREMELY hateful.



Cat

 

It is starting to get VERY scary and I think the parties leadership really needs to reign in some of the rhetoric.


Check out this segment from Rachel Maddow:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UswzauSJpcE

When I was looking for the footage of Nancy's remarks on YouTube-some of the comments on that video was nasty and EXTREMELY hateful.



Cat

 



I am scared that Nancy, could be right, and that some nut job could do something like that.  And unfortuntaly, he/she who does carry it out, would be considered "a hero", for killing "delivering the States from the man, who "destroyed America".

I am scared that Nancy, could be right, and that some nut job could do something like that.  And unfortuntaly, he/she who does carry it out, would be considered "a hero", for killing "delivering the States from the man, who "destroyed America".


Nancy somehow is trying to resurrect the memory of Harvey Milk, George Moscone, and Dan White.

However, Dan White was a self-stoked nut job who had planned on killing more people than he ended up killing, and contrary to popular believe, he did not kill Harvey because Harv was gay but rather because Harv had recommended to Moscone that Moscone reject White's withdrawal of his resignation as a city supervisor.

There is no analogy between the Harvey Milk murder and today's politics.

There is, of course, a naturally higher risk of political assassination of the President, sadly, because there are quite a few militia types (and lone whack jobs) who don;t like the idea of a Black president.  Let's hope that the Secret Service is on its game...

Nancy somehow is trying to resurrect the memory of Harvey Milk, George Moscone, and Dan White.

However, Dan White was a self-stoked nut job who had planned on killing more people than he ended up killing, and contrary to popular believe, he did not kill Harvey because Harv was gay but rather because Harv had recommended to Moscone that Moscone reject White's withdrawal of his resignation as a city supervisor.

There is no analogy between the Harvey Milk murder and today's politics.

There is, of course, a naturally higher risk of political assassination of the President, sadly, because there are quite a few militia types (and lone whack jobs) who don;t like the idea of a Black president.  Let's hope that the Secret Service is on its game...



Oh please. Look what happened to Dr. Tiller. How many years did Bill O'Reilly call him "Tiller the baby killer" and some nutjob took it upon himself to murder him. You don't think the same thing can happen in this climate? It doesn't take much for some nutjob who carries a gun to want to use it. He (or she) will think that they will be doing the world a favor. THAT is what Nancy was saying-all this rhetoric is just fueling some loony to do the unthinkable. 



Cat

Oh please. Look what happened to Dr. Tiller. How many years did Bill O'Reilly call him "Tiller the baby killer" and some nutjob took it upon himself to murder him. You don't think the same thing can happen in this climate? It doesn't take much for some nutjob who carries a gun to want to use it. He (or she) will think that they will be doing the world a favor. THAT is what Nancy was saying-all this rhetoric is just fueling some loony to do the unthinkable. 



Cat


And that's why I said before, it takes only one nutjob, who's crazy to do what happend to Harvey Milk, JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X.

If someone does take out Obama, and claims that they spured on by Beck or Limbaugh, they would would have aloit to answer for.

::)

And what O'Reilly did was stupid and irresponsible.

Cat and Carlos, thank you.  I have been maintaining for the past few months that all these people that dislike Obama's "agenda" are really just disliking him because he's Black.  I hate to say it about my fellow countrymen, but that is the sad fact about most of them.  If Obama were a White Democrat, there would still be a general loathing from some people, but not the sheer hostility and hatred that I see spewing out of every corner of America.

Silly me, thinking people were colorblind now.
Look at the hatred that liberals had for George W. Bush and your telling me that people who don;t like Obama's agenda are racist?

There are 3 things motivating the opposition in general.  First there is the normal opposition every pres faces from the party on the outs.  That is normal politics and has little to do with agenda.  Second there is the opposition based on ideology, although as Cat said, Obama is far from being a radical.  In fact, he is barely a liberal.  His policies are just slightly left of center.  We see these forms of opposition all the time, and they are relatively harmless and in fact healthy.  But third, in this case, we see such an outpouring of vitriol, hatred, and hostility that there must be more to it than legitimate policy disagreements.  The only explanation for it is race.  Angry white people fearing the loss of their privileged position to those people.  No white politician advocating these policies would face what Obama is facing.
Carlos, Obama is a flat out liberal in my opinion.

As far as Obama's policy's if he were white the US is a centrist political  nation we are not a liberal country politically

Obama's plan is not socialized medicine, even with a public option the plan is nothing close to a real universal system like they have in Canada. It is only "reform" and an attempt to improve the current PRIVATE system. OBAMA HAS NEVER ADVOCATED FOR SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
I think thats false. I saw a tape of Obama from 2003 saying we can have a single payer system in like 15-20 years.

I think thats false. I saw a tape of Obama from 2003 saying we can have a single payer system in like 15-20 years.


Actually that's true, I have read that at one point Obama did advocate for Single Payer, I guess I meant he never supported it as a Presidential candidate. Now he barely supports the public option...

Lets step back for a sec and look at how things work.  Lots of what we as a society have chosen to do could be called "socialist".  Vermont's constitution (1799) called for free (read tax supported) public schools.  In the early 1800's cities and towns all over the country created tax supported fire and police departments.  We take care of our roads with tax dollars.  Social Security is a "socialist" retirement program.  Medicare and Medicaid are "socialist" programs.  There are just some things that can be done better and more efficiently by society as a  whole that my the market.  Clearly, we can disagree on where the line should be drawn on a case by case basis, but we should have that debate over facts, like cost/benefits rather than over emotions and labels.  The same is true when it comes to regulations.  How much should the food industry be regulated (read The Jungle, or workplace safety, or any of a hundred other topics.  We need to get back to rational discussion and away from the inflammatory rhetoric we have been hearing.

Lets step back for a sec and look at how things work.  Lots of what we as a society have chosen to do could be called "socialist".  Vermont's constitution (1799) called for free (read tax supported) public schools.  In the early 1800's cities and towns all over the country created tax supported fire and police departments.  We take care of our roads with tax dollars.  Social Security is a "socialist" retirement program.  Medicare and Medicaid are "socialist" programs.  There are just some things that can be done better and more efficiently by society as a  whole that my the market.  Clearly, we can disagree on where the line should be drawn on a case by case basis, but we should have that debate over facts, like cost/benefits rather than over emotions and labels.  The same is true when it comes to regulations.  How much should the food industry be regulated (read The Jungle, or workplace safety, or any of a hundred other topics.  We need to get back to rational discussion and away from the inflammatory rhetoric we have been hearing.



Well said, My Love.




Cat

Lets step back for a sec and look at how things work.  Lots of what we as a society have chosen to do could be called "socialist".  Vermont's constitution (1799) called for free (read tax supported) public schools.  In the early 1800's cities and towns all over the country created tax supported fire and police departments.  We take care of our roads with tax dollars.  Social Security is a "socialist" retirement program.  Medicare and Medicaid are "socialist" programs.  There are just some things that can be done better and more efficiently by society as a  whole that my the market.  Clearly, we can disagree on where the line should be drawn on a case by case basis, but we should have that debate over facts, like cost/benefits rather than over emotions and labels.  The same is true when it comes to regulations.  How much should the food industry be regulated (read The Jungle, or workplace safety, or any of a hundred other topics.  We need to get back to rational discussion and away from the inflammatory rhetoric we have been hearing.


Absolutely.  But unfortunately, a large portion of the public doesn't bother to educate itself on the nuances of policy or the history of it.

It's much easier to fall prey to hysteria generated by talking heads.

If there are no major screwups, and the economy is solid, then it will be pretty hard for Obama not to be reelected in 2012.


Under those circumstances, the only way the gop could win, is if they nominated a really charismatic right leaning libertarian type. Kind of like Ronald Reagan.

If there are no major screwups, and the economy is solid, then it will be pretty hard for Obama not to be reelected in 2012.


Under those circumstances, the only way the gop could win, is if they nominated a really charismatic right leaning librartarian type. Kind of like Ronald Reagan.


Well the GOP has that in Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.