This is a phenomena that I am actually very interested in. Despite the fact that Obama has yet to be in office for even 100 days, the wailing and gnashing of teeth of partisan shrills has never been higher. As conservatives continue talk out of their ass (Earmarks? we never had those under a republican!), it's funny to see the disconnect between the will of the American people, and the increasingly radical voice of the right.
Now, nobody's saying Obama's perfect, but Conservatives certainly think he's all-powerful, since the amount of things that he is being blamed for is far from the ability of any mortal man.
So I've compiled reasons why people hate Obama, and if somebody disagrees with one, or wants to add another, feel free to do it in the comments.
1. You are an extreme Right-wing Partisan Hack
2. You are a Socialist
3. You get your news from fox/radio
4. You are a racist
5. You are a bigot (Moos-lim option)
6. You are Sarah Palin
7. You are a Right wing Lobbyist
8. You are a Left wing Lobbyist
9. You are Achmedineajad
10. You miss the manliness of Bush (Not gay)
11. You are a gay in California
12. Your political opinions can be summed up by "Ayn Rand" (Silkwizard option)
13. He doesn't like fast food, not American!
14. You are Alan Keyes
15. You are anything but Christian
16. You are Hillary Clinton
17. You are a reactionary day-trader who immediately sells everything on every bit of news from the white-house, and gets mad because the price of stock is falling
18. You want America to fail (Limbaugh option)
ID:55372
 Mar 16 2009, 4:37 am
|
|
|
Mar 16 2009, 7:33 am
|
|
Elation
 |
How is being socialist a bad thing? We're nothing like those gays from california (our mortal enemy).
|
Elation wrote:
How is being socialist a bad thing? We're nothing like those gays from california (our mortal enemy). Never said that, but the head of the socialist party hates Obama because he is nowhere that far left. Being on the list isn't necessarily bad, just means you either have reason to hate Obama, or are in a group that hates him regardless. I was going to add gays, since a bunch were pissed about Prop 8 passing in California despite Obama's huge win, but figures against it. | |
15. You are anything but Christian Eh...I don't agree with that one. Not because of my beliefs(Christian), but because I know a couple Atheists that love the guy. | |
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
15. You are anything but Christian Good point, but on the other hand, I know a few guys who don't like that Obama does have some faith based initiatives, though much much less than Bush. | |
19. You're a capitalist and don't like his policies.
Earmarks themselves are bad, yes, though many other presidents have used them as well. The selling point on that is that Obama contradicted himself and lied to the general public without even acknowledging his change of heart. | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
19. You're a capitalist and don't like his policies. Tell me where in the political process, where the president can write in earmarks on a bill. | |
Techgamer wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote: *kept/allowed | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
Techgamer wrote: So, what makes Obama worse on this than Bush? | |
Techgamer wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote: He isn't. I just dislike his policies. | |
Though I don't know if this is a positive thing, but perhaps the earmarks are getting through because of a lack of time/effort/manpower in finding them, or that weeding them all out would require delays that are deemed not worth it (and/or would ruffle so many feathers that the bill would fail entirely), and not because Obama somehow approves of them?
Of course, his self-contridicton that SilkWizard pointed out isn't a good thing, but it's likely not a case of true flip-flopping, but more of a face-saving move... As in, "well, I'm actually against them, but we can't fight them this time, so I'll have to pretend that they're getting through with my blessing" You know, a "Yeah, that's the ticket!" kind of thing... That in and of itself doesn't speak very highly of his forthrightness, but it's certainly better for him to simply be spinning the situation, instead of actually being in approval of the offending earmarks... | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
Techgamer wrote: Please list some of the ones that you don't like, I know a lot of people, liberal, conservative, and between who say that, but can't really list anything besides the bailout package. | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
Though I don't know if this is a positive thing, but perhaps the earmarks are getting through because of a lack of time/effort/manpower in finding them, or that weeding them all out would require delays that are deemed not worth it (and/or would ruffle so many feathers that the bill would fail entirely), and not because Obama somehow approves of them? Most of the earmarks that I've read about have been positive, not all of them, but I'm a big supporter getting America's infrastructure back to top shape, and that's what a lot of the earmarks are doing. | |
Techgamer wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote: We can start with the bailout, late-term abortion (that stuff is just sick, though I'm all for early-term abortion), and government funded health care. Universal health care I have no problem with. Government run universal health care, no, just no, the government shouldn't influence your daily life that much. | |
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
He's against late term abortions, and UHC would most likely just be heavily subsidized as opposed to the government running it. I think the bailout is mostly a good thing to get the money moving and our infrastructure improved, but that's more of an opinion thing. | |
Techgamer wrote:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm Abortion: Apparently the Bishop lied. Government universal health care: You're assuming, and you know what they say about assuming. | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
Techgamer wrote: I've actually met most of my state's recent/current senators (which includes Tom Daschle, who was going to be running HHS), and on the subject of UHC, they've been really against taking over the hospitals, but then again, Johnson/Daschle/Herseth are pretty moderate anyway. (Thune can die for all I care) | |
Generally, I'm all for free market capitalism, and would prefer to keep government regulation of businesses to the necessary minimum, but in terms of health care, I think they need to step in very heavily...
The big problem is that most people can't afford it, right? Well, has anyone stopped to consider why so few can afford it? The "solutions" offered (even by President Obama, who I voted for) all seem to center around insurance... Making it more affordable, giving more people access to it, trying new systems (like flexible spending accounts and such) and on and on... But this is sidestepping the biggest issue: Hospitals charge far too much for virtually everything that they do... That's ultimately the problem here... For example, when we had our baby, I took a look at some of the bills (which, thanks to having decent insurance, we weren't liable for more than a few hundred dollars' worth), and I saw some of the charges for individual services... For her epidural, which consisted of about 10 minutes of the anesthesiologist's time, plus the cost of a few hours' worth of the anesthesia, the bill has a charge of $1500! Fifteen-frigging-hundred dollars... Now, I don't know the cost of the medicine itself, or the other equipment involved, and the doctor is a highly trained individual performing a very careful procedure (sticking a needle into the area near my wife's spine) but certainly it's not worth nearly that much... I've also read that an MRI costs an average of $800... And these huge prices extend to everything involved in everything they do at a hospital... They even charge per item for consumable materials like cotton swabs, gloves, band-aids, etc. (and we're talking like $2.00 for a cotton ball or some other outrageous ammount) So basically what I believe needs to be done is that the government launches an extensive bit of research into figuring out just how much a hospital actually should be charging for everything across the board... And then place federal limits on the price for every service... Of course, this will never happen because it's a HUGE effort, and would stir up too much controversy... But if they're truly serious about controlling health care costs, this is what needs to be done... Heck, a hospital is a virtual monopoly, anyways... How many people would ever comparison shop to find cheaper care? How many people even consider going out of the area for medical care (unless it's necessary to see a specialist)? And for emergencies, you're almost completely stuck with the local hospital... They can charge whatever they want, because they're virtually unaffected by the rules of competition that govern other industries... Of course, doctors and hospitals claim that they need all of this exorbitant money to make up for deadbeat patients, to keep up on state-of-the-art equipment and facilities, pay for malpractice insurance, etc... But that's all hogwash... Lower prices and more people would be able to pay, for one, and if they really need more money than the maximum pricing allows, then perhaps some sort of government grants could be put into place for hospitals that comply... That would be more of a drain on our tax dollars, but it would likely be a better deal than we get now... | |