This is why you can't disagree with Obama

[eqgumby]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/racist-obama-billboards-c_n_365514.html

Can you believe people actually get away with this? Crap like this is exactly why disagreeing with Obama on any political issue is virtually impossible. As soon as ANYONE says "Whoa, I'm not sure about that health-care bill...", or maybe "Are we sure that's the best way to handle our relationship with Iran Mr. President...?"

POW!

This gets thrown in the face of the dissenters...I am SO sick of there NOT being any political discourse because of these amazingly ignorant, backward, racist pieces of crap! It's just INFURIATING!

[Startraveler]

Might I humbly suggest that some of you seem to no longer have any conception of what "disagreeing...on any political issue" means? Hint: the following isn't an example of a civil disagreement on a public issue:

Edited November 20, 2009 by Startraveler

[shaka5]

Might I humbly suggest that some of you seem to no longer have any conception of what "disagreeing...on any political issue" means? Hint: the following isn't an example of a civil disagreement on a public issue:

umm, what do the article in the link have to do with not agreeing with his healthcare reform??...maybe i missed it, but i read it several times and see no connection

[Mr Honeybadger]

Obama was not responsible for the Ft. Hood Terrorist attack.

However, Political Correctness allowed it to happen much easier.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Oh my gosh! That is awful! Do people not grasp the significance of the things they do?

Do they not understand that they are actually undermining their own cause by doing this? If they don't like our president, that's fine. That's what America is all about, having your own opinions and being able to voice them. . .but I can see this creating more people sympathizing with Obama rather than joining their cause.

And I highly doubt the manager of that store has ever actually read our constitution. If he had, I think he would have had a hard time defending his strange argument if he had.

[preacherman76]

As far as Im concerned he deserves this. He wont call the Shooter at fort Hood a terrorist. But has no problem calling patriots who attended tea parties "extremists". It more than makes me question who's side he is on. The truth isnt always pretty, but it should still be said.

[AROCES]

As far as Im concerned he deserves this. He wont call the Shooter at fort Hood a terrorist. But has no problem calling patriots who attended tea parties "extremists". It more than makes me question who's side he is on. The truth isnt always pretty, but it should still be said.

Very true!

He is more vocal in defending his Presidency than the country really.

Edited November 20, 2009 by AROCES

[IamsSon]

Might I humbly suggest that some of you seem to no longer have any conception of what "disagreeing...on any political issue" means? Hint: the following isn't an example of a civil disagreement on a public issue:

Yeah, I remember how upset and vocal you were when political figures and other well-known liberals were calling for President Bush's assassination....

Oh wait, no I don't.

[Raptor]

As far as Im concerned he deserves this. He wont call the Shooter at fort Hood a terrorist. But has no problem calling patriots who attended tea parties "extremists". It more than makes me question who's side he is on.

Who has he called a terrorist?

[preacherman76]

Very true!

He is more vocal in defending his Presidency than the country really.

The guy has no problem calling folks like me and you possible terrorist, and flat out calls us extremists. Now we should have sympathy over this? Even as he denies the obvious truth that we were dealing with a full blown muslim terrorist who killed 12 of our own in cold blood. These signs should be in every town across the nation.

Who has he called a terrorist?

No one. What are you talking about?

[Startraveler]

Yeah, I remember how upset and vocal you were when political figures and other well-known liberals were calling for President Bush's assassination....

Oh wait, no I don't.

Huh? The relevant point to make here would be that I defended those as valid forms of political criticism and not just manifestations of intense dislike.

Except I never made that argument. Hating Bush and hating Obama are permissible. But claiming that hate speech or juvenile signs against either one is some kind of policy criticism would be inane. The signs against Obama don't upset me. The signs against Bush didn't upset me. But the idea that those signs are part of some sort of intellectual discussion of political issues offends me as a policy guy.

P.S. Which "political figures" called for assassination?

[AROCES]

The guy has no problem calling folks like me and you possible terrorist, and flat out calls us extremists. Now we should have sympathy over this? Even as he denies the obvious truth that we were dealing with a full blown muslim terrorist who killed 12 of our own in cold blood. These signs should be in every town across the nation.

I bet if any Jihadist or Al Qaeda say anything against health care, global warming or renewable energy he would then finally call them terrorist.

Edited November 20, 2009 by AROCES

[Raptor]

Yeah, I remember how upset and vocal you were when political figures and other well-known liberals were calling for President Bush's assassination....

Oh wait, no I don't.

I don't recall irrational hate for Bush spilling from every facet of the country since his inauguration. Can you provide a link to an anthology documenting the slew of hate from every liberal* in the country and calls for assassinations? Which political figures?

*I know you said well-known liberals, not every, but if we're going to be making comparisons, let's make sure they're fair ones, eh?

Edited November 20, 2009 by Raptor

[preacherman76]

Huh? The relevant point to make here would be that I defended those as valid forms of political criticism and not just manifestations of intense dislike.

Except I never made that argument. Hating Bush and hating Obama are permissible. But claiming that hate speech or juvenile signs against either one is some kind of policy criticism would be inane. The signs against Obama don't upset me. The signs against Bush didn't upset me. But the idea that those signs are part of some sort of intellectual discussion of political issues offends me as a policy guy.

P.S. Which "political figures" called for assassination?

You are right, this has nothing to do with discussion. Nor was it meant to be. That doesnt make it anyless the truth.

[IamsSon]

I don't recall irrational hate for Bush spilling from every facet of the country since his inauguration. Can you provide a link to an anthology documenting the slew of hate from every liberal* in the country and calls for assassinations? Which political figures?

*I know you said well-known liberals, not every, but if we're going to be making comparisons, let's make sure they're fair ones, eh?

OK, here we go:

Air America Radio

And Another one

Even a video, and don't forget to read all the comments

and yet more

Just one more

[Raptor]

No one. What are you talking about?

The word "terrorist" isn't just a buzzword used to refer to 'those guys'. Terrorism is the act of instilling a widespread sense of fear in a population to aid in fulfilling a primary goal. An example of this would be causing two iconic skyscrapers in the world's most powerful nation to fall to the ground in front of every person in the world.

Is a single shooting an attempt at instilling fear in a large population? I don't think so, so I'd hesitate to refer to the shooter as a terrorist.

If Obama hasn't called anyone a terrorist then it's possible that he's trying to refrain from the incessant use of inaccurate buzzwords.

Having said that, even if he did consciously decide against using the word despite thinking it to be appropriate, there are a dozen other reasons he might have opted not to.

[preacherman76]

I don't recall irrational hate for Bush spilling from every facet of the country since his inauguration. Can you provide a link to an anthology documenting the slew of hate from every liberal* in the country and calls for assassinations? Which political figures?

*I know you said well-known liberals, not every, but if we're going to be making comparisons, let's make sure they're fair ones, eh?

I dont recall Bush stealing from the American people trillions of dollars, and giving it to bankster's. He didnt do that till the end of his presidency, and he went out as one of the most unpopular POTUS ever. It should be no surprise the hate for 0bama, considering he is towing the same exact line.

Edited November 20, 2009 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

The word "terrorist" isn't just a buzzword used to refer to 'those guys'. Terrorism is the act of instilling a widespread sense of fear in a population to aid in fulfilling a primary goal. An example of this would be causing two iconic skyscrapers in the world's most powerful nation to fall to the ground in front of every person in the world.

Is a single shooting an attempt at instilling fear in a large population? I don't think so, so I'd hesitate to refer to the shooter as a terrorist.

If Obama hasn't called anyone a terrorist then it's possible that he's trying to refrain from the incessant use of inaccurate buzzwords.

Having said that, even if he did consciously decide against using the word despite thinking it to be appropriate, there are a dozen other reasons he might have opted not to.

Yes, it most certainly is. I cant even conceive how you dont think so.

If a terrorist puts on a suicide vest and only kills 12 people while blowing himself up, is he still not a terrorist??

[Raptor]

Yes, it most certainly is. I cant even conceive how you dont think so.

Sorry, you're right, I simplified my statement nonsensically. I think such an act certainly can be an act of terrorism, but I don't think that because someone carries out such an act that it must necessarily be one. If, for example, it was a psycho that just wanted to cause damage then I wouldn't call that terrorism, and in my opinion calling it so would be diluting the significance of the word.

I hope that makes a bit more sense.

OK, here we go:

Air America Radio

And Another one

Even a video, and don't forget to read all the comments

and yet more

Just one more

Thanks for the contribution, the two still seem incomparable to me though.

[Startraveler]

I dont recall Bush stealing from the American people trillions of dollars, and giving it to bankster's. He didnt do that till the end of his presidency, and he went out as one of the most unpopular POTUS ever. It should be no surprise the hate for 0bama, considering he is towing the same exact line.

C'mon. If the argument is that Bush wasn't fiscally irresponsible that fails at around June 2001 when he signed a trillion dollar plus tax cut that wasn't paid for. Then it extends into 2002 when he signed No Child Left Behind, which didn't cover the fiscal burden that its provisions imposed on cash-strapped states. Then it extended into 2003 when he signed the bill creating Medicare Part D--a bill that made no attempt to pay for this expansion (at the time CBO estimated it would cost $394 billion over ten years, CMS estimated it would cost $534 billion--but that doesn't really matter because, again, no attempt was made to pay for this bill). Then there was something about a war that was supposed to pay for itself but shockingly didn't.

TARP is just the cherry on top of Bush's spending. So if you want to distinguish between Obama and Bush, try something other than fiscal responsibility.

edit: I should add that I don't think Obama has been particularly irresponsible so far. Despite the large deficit this year, the only chunk of it that is entirely Obama (ARRA, the stimulus bill, which is temporary spending aimed to provide a boost during an economic crisis in which interest rates couldn't be lowered) is less than a fifth of that budget:

Even his big elective domestic policy initiative, health care reform, will be the fusion of two bills that 1) pay for the initiative and 2) actually reduce the deficit. Contrast that with domestic initiatives like Medicare Part D that didn't pay for themselves.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Startraveler

[Splodgenessabounds]

OK, here we go:

Air America Radio

And Another one

Even a video, and don't forget to read all the comments

and yet more

Just one more

Link one was disgraceful no doubt about that.

Link two was a commentary written by comedian and TV critic Charlie Brooker, he did not seriously call for Bush to be killed but simply repeated a variation of a tasteless joke used during the Thatcher years. He's a very close to the edge comic and you either love him or hate him, this time I agree he probably overstepped the mark, but that's the price you pay for cutting things to close to the edge.

Link three to the video was a documentary by Channel 4 in the UK highlighting the methods and flaws of racial profiling. The fictional scenario they used to explore this avenue was a successful assassination attempt on Bush. Once again, highly inappropriate but not a call for him to be actually assassinated. And everyone knows that a comment on YouTube has a 90% chance of being written by a complete moron, so they can be safely ignored and in no way representative of an entire group or demographic.

Link four is to a forum thread discussing link one.

Link five, well Gore Vidal is just another idiot. He believes 9/11 was an inside job, enough said.

As for trying to prove there is a slew of left wing liberals who wanted Bush to be assissinated, the links do a poor job of it. The only two which can be considered to be calls for his death are from hardcore left wing radicals, hardly representative of the entire left.

[danielost]

Oh my gosh! That is awful! Do people not grasp the significance of the things they do?

Do they not understand that they are actually undermining their own cause by doing this? If they don't like our president, that's fine. That's what America is all about, having your own opinions and being able to voice them. . .but I can see this creating more people sympathizing with Obama rather than joining their cause.

And I highly doubt the manager of that store has ever actually read our constitution. If he had, I think he would have had a hard time defending his strange argument if he had.

how quickly we forget that the dems in the senate and house were calling bush, hitler. samething

Edited November 21, 2009 by danielost

[THE MATRIX]

how quickly we forget that the dems in the senate and house were calling bush, hitler. samething

Daniel, unlike Obama Bush actually fit the description based on how he violated the Constitution, Civil Rights, International Laws, and any other Laws and Legislation that he and his cronies didn't like.

[Paranormalcy]

Well, leaving aside for now the fiscal responsibility issues, how bout that Patriot Act that was supposed to "sunset" and then, in a surprise twist, didn't. I'd say taking rights away is a little more nefarious than money.

[ninjadude]

As far as Im concerned he deserves this. He wont call the Shooter at fort Hood a terrorist.

because he was not. He is a criminal. Terrorism didn't enter into it.