Comments

  1. says

    there are a number of (pathetic) factors, and a biggie is simply the sad case of Identity Politics in America; dem VS repub identity, it’s hard to give up, and people have a strange “pride” in…well…being born into a Republican family, more so than a democratic one…it’s odd.
    i have republicans in my family, michigan republicans. at a recent family even my aunt was angrily talking about Obama (and this is a woman that loved, and LOVES, G.W. Bush); her claim that Obama is “a Socialist” – which pissed me off for a few reasons.
    1. he’s not a Socialist
    2. I’M a socialist. i’d know if Obama was. Obama isn’t liberal enough to be a socialist.

    But when I asked my aunt which policies of his led her to think he’s a Socialist she clammed right up. And that’s the heart of the anti-Obama side; a chosen opinion devoid of rational basis for existing. He’s black, he’s a democrat, his name sounds foreign – it’s enough to rile up anger in the very same folks who years ago participated in a boycott against The Dixie Chicks due to their (HAHA!) “un-Patriotic Un-American stance on the President!”

    or something

    Obama gave a tax break, and millions of angry white conservatives took to the streets over the “tax raise” that they were convinced the Black President instigated….which didn’t happen.

    what’s the problem? Millions of bigots who are Republicans first, and Americans second. And on the same note, they’re “white bigoted christians” first and decent intelligent human beings LAST.

  2. theotherlee says

    GraphicJack .. I have to disagree. I don’t think their racism is deep down at all. As a matter of fact, I believe is just below the surface.

  3. GraphicJack says

    @Theotherlee – LOL… sorry, I didn’t mean “deep down” in terms of “far beneath the surface”, I meant “deep down” as in “when all is said and done” or “basically/fundementally”. In other words, we agree that no matter what Obama does or doesn’t do, to those on the far right, he’s a demon because of no other reason than he’s black and they will never accept him for it.

  4. says

    @Graphic, and then one of them will say “No! he’s HALF WHITE, so it’s NOT RACISM!” which, as every intelligent mind understands, only proves you right.

    you ask you average obama hater why they hate him and you get evasive non-specific buzz-terms. you ask ’em why they love their GOP clows, Palin Santorum Romney et al, and you get a “positive” version of the same thing – no citations of policy or actual work, just flowery ways of saying “I like that they’re white, like me, and love jeebus and hate arab gay abortion weddings”

  5. TJ says

    Ah, yes. They are Republicans first, Americans second, and decent beings last.

    Preach it, Brother KIWI! Good to see you here, with ever-true hammer to nails.

  6. Paul B. says

    @ Kiwi…I find that I don’t even have to post my opinion…just “ditto” yours…thank you! At the root of all of it…racism. Can you imagine that an “uppity black” is now at the helm…and he’s educated & “articulate”…oh my! That kills them, esp the ones with barely a youngins command of “amerikan”…witness NC residents in the news lately. If they don’t hate him cause he’s black they hate him cause the can’t understand him…and deep down they know they should…with that GED they just purchased. How frustrating for them….yuck, yuck!

  7. Paul B. says

    @Juan…a hannity talking point if ever there was one.He would have said “the annointed one” while you actually referred to him by name…brush up on your hannityisms. Is it within your capacity to speak in two or more sentences or does the talking point approach not allow for elaboration. Silly question!

  8. screech says

    I agree with Kiwi in that Obama is not a Socialist. But I also agree with Juan – it is about civil liberties too.

    The federal government is now in effect a king that can wage war as it pleases. This should bother all socialists. One of the central tenets of socialism is the belief in national self determination as a core principle upon which democracy is established. The US has shrugged off this principle and decided it can run the world. Foreign policy is a mess to the extent where the Canadian government, for example, no longer defends the rights of the citizens of Canada but colludes with the US against people like the child-soldier Omar Khadr and Maher Arar. Khadr was tortured into a confession and the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the government of Canada violated the charter by interrogating him and handing the evidence to Khadr’s prosecutors. Maher Arar was an innocent man tortured by the CIA for 10 months in Syria. The United States has tortured Canadian citizens – no due process. And of course there is no self-determination of a state if a government, such as the US or Canada, does not represent the people.

    There is a very long list of policies undertaken by the White House that make Obama someone that I could not vote for. However, his stance on gay marriage is a brilliant marketing ploy. No, the economy isn’t his fault. Tearing up the Constitution and creating a terrorist empire is a reason to find fault.

  9. BobN says

    They hate him because he appeared to be the man who would reverse four decades of our march to the right and restore America’s focus on progress.

    They still hate him because they think his second term will reveal the “true Obama”.

  10. Juan says

    @Paul B, Why does everything have to be a left vs right issue? The belief that one set of ideology has the solutions to the problems this country face is absurd. President Obama extended the patriot act, Signed NDAA and countless measures. Both the Republican and Democratic party sold this country to the highest bidder. And to blindly follow “elected leaders” is extremely sad.
    Just look at the people who fund the major presidential candidates campaigns.

  11. says

    republicans DON’T care about civil liberties. they pretend to, then they erode them.

    the reason the GOP focuses on things like gays and abortion so much is that if they don’t, or can’t any more, they’ll be forced to actually talk about their fiscal policies, in which case their millions of supporters will realize that they’ve been voting against their own best interests for years.

    every time a politician promotes anti-gay sentiment they’re actually telling their constituents “i think you people are stupid and i’m using your stupidity to make you vote against your own best interests by creating a false spectre of GAY THREAT”

    conservatives talk about social issues that don’t actually negatively affect the lives of their supporters because they can’t talk honestly about their fiscal plans. fact.

  12. Paul B. says

    @Juan…so, what’s your suggestion? He’s working in a disfunctional environment and doing the best he can. If you’re going to suggest Ron Paul…save it. It’s not that I don’t understand his perspective but that it’s not of this world. Maybe in my hippie-dippie days I would have voted for him but the years I’ve put on have taught me the world is not a perfect place…even if we want it to be.

  13. screech says

    Well I agree with what you say about the GOP. But democrats seem to play into the same nonsense. They would rather talk about anything except foreign policy and economy; and those issues are strikingly similar across party platforms. That’s what makes tea party/occupy movements unique. America is having this secondary discussion while the parties pander to idiots.

    Why should I care about gay marriage more than disappearing at the hands of the CIA? Doesn’t it concern you that Canada hands people over to the US? And it isn’t just terrorists. Mark Emery is in a US federal prison, for example.

    It’s not all about gay marriage. We ought to push for it because equality under the law is important. So are civil liberties. And again, you’re right in saying that republicans don’t address fiscal issues, but no one seems to. Obama certainly isn’t reminding people about the economy and the policies that created it. BUT WHAT ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTIES? Libertarians, a large portion of the youth base in the GOP, are concerned with civil liberties issues and would not erode them. I would give more credit to the younger generation of republicans that don’t see being gay as an issue.

  14. Juan says

    Doing the best he can? So by “fixing” the problem he accepts money from the very same people who are responsible from the economic turmoil? And also has several members as advisors in his administration from Companies such JP Morgan, Citi and Chase?
    Who had to be bailed out? Come on.

  15. Swiminbuff says

    I didn’t even think it was a question as to why they hate him. Even though the majority are smart enough not to say so publically, the very idea of a Black man and his Black family sleeping in the family quarters, and not the servants quarters, of the WHITE House is more than many Americans can stand. They wouldn’t appreciate their son or daughter dating or marrying a member of another race so the idea of the President and C in C being a educated Black man is more than they can accept. Look at the delagates to the GOP convention, many are not more than a generation away from the segregation era and probably had parents who were strongly opposed to desegragation.

  16. Paul B. says

    @Juan…it’s very easy to complain about
    “what is”…I think we call that “bitching”.
    It’s another thing to suggest a viable alternative…that’s sound you hear is me throwing bait out to you. So, don’t take money from banks, hollywood, special interests…ie, the gays. What have you got for me Juan, besides bitchin? I don’t waste my vote on anyone who can’t win…even if I like him or her. I value my opinion and vote my opinion with some compromise if necessary. BUT…I won’t throw it away on Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rue Paul, Prince or Lady GAGA. Suggest something better I can vote for, not just vote against. I don’t have time for that.

  17. carl says

    Someone like Maher only comes around maybe once a generation – if that often. Someone who can cut through the crap and tell the truth. What is even more incredible is that he has an audience. I just wish that more people would listen.

  18. screech says

    @PaulB

    Nationalize the banks. Lenin was right about that but over-simplistic in his assessment of capital and private enterprise. The banks control the economy and have been bankrupting the West since the mid-eighties. If you control the banks, you control the economy.

    Government has the right to create currency.

  19. screech says

    And to do that, you have to create a political party. You know, Ron Paul gets a lot of flack and no, he will probably not be president. But he IS taking over the GOP and creating future policies. The left needs an equivalent, some movement to lay a foundation that can pull the democrats away from centralist thinking – a leftist party that has clear objectives.

  20. says

    Its because Republicans want offshore drilling off of California and Florida, that did not quite satisfy the Republicans Bill.

    Obama has a safe 27 point lead in California and I am voting for Gary Johnson because Obama refuses to end the drug war.

  21. Paul B. says

    @Screech…I’m sure I would have liked you in the 60’s, along with the Joni Mitchell and Joan Baez. But today, all I can think of to say to you…with love in my heart…GROW UP !

  22. says

    young republicans are idiots. all they’re doing is saying “i don’t mind tha gays” while agreeing with their piece-of-sh*t parents that it’s ok to vote for people that support, and PROMOTE, bigotry and prejudice and institutionalized discrimination against LGBT people.

    “i’m a republican but i don’t hate gays, i just care about the economy”

    then you’re an idiot. voting GOP puts the economy in a tailspin. fact.

  23. screech says

    Remember that Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos (the space aliens) take over both political parties, are revealed to be aliens and then insist that Springfield must choose one? Sometimes by withholding your vote you say more than by spending it.

  24. Paul B. says

    @Screech…you must have a lot of time to waste…I don’t. Oh, I think I’ll sit on my front porch today and protest the bail-out of big banks. I’m sure someone will take notice.

  25. says

    look at how much “fiscal work” that benefits America the GOP has been up to in the last two years.

    oh, that’s right. there is none. but they sure have been working hard to erode and block Equality for LGBT citizens.

    wake up you idiots. the GOP doesn’t give a flying f**k about anyone but the rich white straight men at the top. they don’t care about America one bit, they just pretend to in order to get the votes of people who think patriotism means not being sure if you should call her your wife or your first cousin.

  26. screech says

    lol Then vote for someone whose foreign policy puts bullets in the heads of Afghani nationals – if that reflects your ideology. But just remember no good comes of it. Africa, China and India are the future. They won’t take kindly to bullets in their heads.

  27. screech says

    Well that is true – I don’t agree with the young republican economic policies. There is no socialist platform in the US. But I can talk to libertarians, I can’t talk to evangelical crazies. And I can also recognize that certain central tenets of libertarianism serve socialism to a certain extent (such as in the creation of civil rights). So in the absence of socialism, I would actually prefer a libertarian policy to neo-conservative and neo-liberal policies.

    Purely using a hedonistic calculus, Obamas foreign policy has been immensely destructive. The important thing is to end all these wars. Libertarianism can do that. Neo-cons and neo-dems cannot – they are imperialistic. How many hundreds of thousands dead are there because of America? That is the central reason people hate America and Obama. And he was elected to end the wars, Guantanamo, and change foreign policy. But the banks say no… nationalize the suckers.

  28. says

    The Maher piece was why Obama is so outrageously loathed by rightwing nuts, who love to yank out the he’s other he’s socialist etc. card, when in reality his policies are very centrist and should be more disappointing to the left than the right. Obviously, the discussion here went in an, um, different direction, but the Maher analysis was spot-on. There is no reason for the rightwing to be so outraged by Obama except that he’s . . .

  29. Juan says

    What a lovely grown up response.That’s your problem. I prefer Gary Johnson. But the people only them can change this country. Not one men nor one office. People need to rethink the role of government. Only then can we fix the complex problems we face. Its not idealistic, nor utopian. More youths are turning to libertarianism for a reason.

  30. AG says

    I have libertarian views. There’s nothing libertarian about Barack Obama or the Democratic party. Besides gay marriage I oppose Obama’s position on every major economic or social issue. (I’m socially libertarian, not socially liberal.) So, of course, there’s no chance I would support Obama. You see, it’s not difficult to explain strong opposition to Obama and his policies without any hate involved.

  31. says

    Libertarians have a reason not to like Obama, but Maher wasn’t referring to libertarians, he was referring to rightwingers who are no more libertarian than Obama since they believe the government should be intruding in our bedrooms. Their reasons for loathing Obama are less about policy and more about his “personality.” Maher’s point.

  32. Paul B. says

    @KIWI…”ditto” again! Well, they’ll vote for Gary Whats-his-name and make their point…whatever that is. Oh, that’s right…it’s…I’ll vote my way, even though nobody’s listening, nobody cares and it won’t make an ounce of a difference in the real world. But, hell…it’s my right. OK-DOKEY!

  33. says

    exactly.

    “I don’t like either party, so i’m going to vote for this fern over here, because that makes me feel like a unique rebel”

    no it makes you as useful and relevant as tits on a fish.

    they hate Obama enough to not vote for him but don’t hate Romney enough to keep him out of power. why? because they’re stupid as s**t.

  34. screech says

    Frankly the wars are immoral. I called Cheney a war criminal and Obama is no different. And frankly, it’s racist of anyone to defend Obama’s foreign policy. If you think it is a moral issue, then you MIGHT not want to vote. How could I seriously vote for someone who says that a military option with Iran is on the table?

    That said, I favor Obama over Romney. And I certainly wouldn’t stoop to charging Libertarians with using idiocy and false logic. They have genuine concerns (as do socialists).

  35. screech says

    And I think that people are not political enough. I’m not saying you should cross your arms and pout in a corner. I.m saying that the left needs to get as involved as the right. I’ve been watching caucus primaries on the internet, where the youth have literally been locked out/ thrown out of buildings and the neo-cons have at every attempt tried to block political access while with a half-smile and half-sneer still asking for their vote.

    I would like to see the youth of the left try to change the establishment, the neo-dems, in the same way.

  36. Paul B. says

    @Screech…I have no doubt that they have relevant concerns. So do I. Mostly, I want someone “to win” who thinks along the same lines as I do…for the most part. Did you hear that Screech…”TO WIN”.
    Not just to goo-goo-gaa-gaa over. I finished that two decades ago when I realized it was a dead end. Save yourself some time and learn from us old farts…the finish line is the goal, not looking pretty along the way and coming in last. You can dream on if you want…it’s self-indulgent and naive, and I’m sure you’ll feel pretty smug that you “stuck it out” as you tuck your tail between your legs and head back to the start gate again…your own way of course…uncompromising & losing.

  37. says

    Bill Maher asks, “What Exactly Has Obama Done That Has Made Conservatives So Angry?”

    Well, Bill, for starters, he accepted a million dollar campaign donations from a foul-mouthed, misogynistic, hate-mongering, religious bigot, like yourself.

    Next dumb question, please.

  38. Paul B. says

    Thanks LOCO…that was precious. We should all play by the rules…be fair…maintain our integrity and sell lemonade on the corner to fund our campaign. Yep, we’ll win that way won’t we? Because, after all…they’re traveling the high road, aren’t they!

  39. screech says

    Sticking it out can pay off if you believe in the cause. Nobody in the entertainment industry who quit ever made it – to be a star you need talent, luck and hard work. Building political platforms is similar, I think.

    And I would compromise. A socialist adopting a libertarian framework is pretty much the epitome of compromise! But moral issues are not like that. I don’t compromise on issues of war – or, in the least, it would take a LOT to make me vote for Obama. But on the war issue Romney and Obama are beating the same drum – at the behest of banks.

    I know you see not voting as foolish. Sorry, sometimes you cannot compromise. It’s been nice talking to you, though.

  40. Paul B. says

    @Screech…I spent 10 years in British Columbia during the Vietnam War…can’t kill things still. I understand your tenacity and empathize. But, that summer of love I thought would change the world…came & went. Wars persist. Did it mean anything to protest? I felt better…but not much else changed. I suffered for years and figured out that going against the current is futile. Now, I swim sideways…getting what I want…not bumping into anyone….hardly even noticed. It’s not nearly heroic enough…but I can live with it.

  41. Robert says

    It’s educational to read far-left sites where people complain about Obama’s statist, corporatist, accomodationist centrism – then pop over to the far-right sites and read about what a Marxist Maoist Muslim radical he is.

    I’m going to vote for him. Not quite as happily as I did four years ago, but there are very few alternatives at the moment that appeal to me more.

  42. anon says

    BM messes a few things up. The most important is that bank bailout was bipartisan but split the conservative caucus and animated the Tea Party in 2010 (they at the time were opposed–who know was they would say now). Socialists in Greece and the EU generally want bank bailouts because that will preserve existing transfer subsidies, but German fiscal conservatism is opposed. While the bank bailouts here in the US were mostly loans (technically bridge loans) that have since been repaid, the growing web of political cronies lining up for future bailouts continues unabated. US future liabilities are becoming enormous under the weight of Fed Reserve obligations. So that is Obama’s true legacy and it’s very much socialist (at least this time). You have to be careful to speak on behalf of socialism because they can never agree on what utopia looks like and spend their whole time arguing about it.

  43. andrew says

    Bill Maher was funny as usual. I’m a liberal democrat, but a bit to the right of Maher. However, I always enjoy his insightful humor.His take on Ted Numbnuts was right on target.

  44. LincolnLounger says

    I see Delusional Central is open and thriving.

    Did you people hate George W. Bush because he was white? I’m guessing mostly not — that you had honest differences with policies and performance while many of you hurled epithets like “warmonger” and “traitor” at him (but that was OK!).

    Unlike George W. Bush, who told us EXACTLY what he was going to do and was remarkably forthright about his positions and beliefs, Obama is the biggest phony elected to the Presidency in my lifetime. He told us a $9 trillion debt was “unacceptable” and “unpatriotic” and pledged to cut it in half during his first term. Instead it’s $16 trillion and rising with no end in sight.

    His stimulus program was a pathetic joke that was going to keep unemployment below 8%. Instead, millions of Americans have given up or are underemployed and aren’t even counted any longer while billions have been squandered in Democratic and liberal pork like Solyndra.

    He pledged to bring people together in a “purple” America; instead, he is the most divisive class warrior in the White House in my lifetime.

    Obamacare is a disgrace that will cripple our health care system and leave millions of Americans scrambling for any sort of medical care — particularly seniors — all while costing trillions more than admitted while Congress was voting. But for some reason I should be OK with it because it’s not single payer.

    I’m angry because I thought he would be tonic; instead, he is a horrific phony who blames everyone else for the country’s problems.

    It’s so arrogant and simplistic to blame racism for those of us who do not support this President and will, in many cases, hold our noses and vote for Mitt Romney because we fear for our country.

    For the record, I am white and have slept with more black men than I can recall.

  45. andrew says

    The most important thing for LGBT people is the re-election of Obama in November, taking back the House and increasing the number of Democrats in the Senate. If Romney wins he and his conservative advisors will appoint scores of conservative wingnuts to the U S District Courts, the U S Court of Appeals and the U S Supreme Court. If that happens our march toward equality will be halted for at least a generation. This really is a do or die moment in our history.

  46. Dramaticartchild says

    Alright, libertarians, answer me this:

    If you think Obamacare is awful and single payer beyond the pale, how would you ensure that every single American gets access to healthcare? Millions of Americans cannot afford a doctor; how would you ensure they can see one?
    If you don’t think every single American adult has the right to health care, please explain why. In detail.

    Please explain how you would have gotten the country back on its feet without the bailout. Again, in detail.

    Please explain how Obama’s policies are any more polarizing than GWs. Why is he the most divisive president in history? Were you listening to his campaign speeches? Nearly everything he’s done so far was articulated in them.

    How would you ensure that every American has a living wage? How would you ensure that every able American was guaranteed a job?

    If you don’t believe that this should be a guarantee, please explain why. Why is “every man for himself” any more useful as a national policy in the 21st century than it was on the Titanic as it was slipping into the freezing north atlantic?

    Thank you. I’d really appreciate an answer, since I can’t for the life of me understand what libertarianism wants for society besides transforming us into a giant version of Somalia.

  47. screech says

    Let a socialist play devil’s advocate. To the first question, a libertarian might say that healthcare would be more affordable if federal taxes were cut since the taxpayer would keep their money. This might cover lower cost items such as eye care, dental, emergency stuff, etc. For larger bills such as HIV management, cancer treatments, etc. this would require privatized insurance and is optional. NGO’s and charities might provide coverage for the destitute. The main principle, however, is to get money back into the hands of the people. Furthermore, libertarians would argue that everyone has a right to ACCESS health care – not a right to healthcare itself. Why? Well, the basis for a right to healthcare on the grounds of human rights would extend beyond your borders. Mexicans, on human rights grounds (sanctity of life, etc.) have just as much right to healthcare as Americans. So do Canadians, Iranians, etc. Do you want to pay for everybody? No. So what is a guaranteed right is ACCESS to healthcare not healthcare itself.

    The second problem depends on what you mean by getting the country back on its feet. The banks are not all better. They are too big to fail, but also too big to bail out at a certain point. Libertarians believe that you let the banks die so that they don’t get too big to bail out (ie, the government cannot cover insolvency debt). By letting the banks die, you actually get the country back on its feet.

    Obama’s policies are G. Bush’s policies. I don’t see many libertarians defending G. Bush – they hate him too.

    Well, no government can guarantee a job so your kind of overreaching. But essentially, libertarians think that overhauls in education are needed as well as the creation of more competition. This will probably be in tech development, research, and drugs. Reducing some intellectual property rights might actually allow competitive drug industries instead of drug monopolies. Do you know how much the world needs affordable drugs? There’s a MASSIVE market for decent CHEEP drugs! While China develops Africa, we could supply them with medicine (Canada currently produces cheep drugs).

  48. screech says

    I just want to add that I am NOT a libertarian, but these are still honest assessments of the US problem and in general not bad ideas. You did also ask why it is that libertarians would deny the right to a job. This is a trick question because rights don’t really work like that except under a strict communist government. Obama, Romney, Paul, etc. cannot guarantee a job.

    But the right to a wage is slightly different though you probably meant to ask the same question. So, I think we have to accept the reality that some people cannot work; Jimmy the Downs Syndrome boy or Sally the schizophrenic girl might not ever be capable of maintaining a job. Moreover, they might not have immediate family members to take care of them. So we might want to guarantee a living wage in the absence of a job. This requires social programming, charity, or something. I’m not sure libertarianism as an ideology is built to answer that question about guaranteeing a living wage (as opposed to a job). But there is always room for compromise.

Leave A Reply