Obama Derangement Syndrome

Ryan:

Hmm, haven't seen that yet. Sounds like he is being more democratic than republican with his comments about leaving behind fiscal responsibility. Of course, "fiscal responsibility" has been a pretty big joke applied to both R and D in my opinion.

I have always kind of thought that democrats should REALLY be scared of republicans taking power if they actually dropped the "social conservative" ideological plank of the party...(course that would be to my liking...)

What if, hypothetically, the religious, socially conservative part dropped off and you had just small government, low taxes, defense, gun rights, liberty, etc., as the platform, without defense of marriage, abortion stance, prayer in schools, Terri Schiavo sustaining, etc., and yet leaving a lot of the federal structure intact, rather than abolishing this and that as R's sometimes threaten.

I guess you would have a...rep-libertarian party?

But seriously, I have a very unscientific feeling that were true conservatism to make itself well-defined and drop the social stuff, democrats would have a very tough time competing with that "ideology" at the polls.

Not trying to prove anything, just a thought.

"In God We Trust", that is our national motto, and a very good one.

Those who choose not to believe in God are equally at home in America, and I say "God bless them, too."

But what I cannot understand is how someone can claim to believe in God and yet not trust him. Don't you think God had a part in the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States? Or are you saying, "In God We Don't Trust"?

God Blesses America and our President-Elect. If you choose to believe otherwise, you are going against the greatest democracy in the world and, what is worse, you are going against God.

I would agree, however, that most liberals did NOT afford Bush much leeway or respect on his election in 2000. In fact, for those old enough to remember, he was greeted with near riots at his inauguration in 2001.

Before the Iraq War, before 9/11, before anything, he was treated as an usurper.

So, I understand the frustration at now being haughtily asked to show some respect for Obama.

Regardless, to react to the peaceful transfer of power to a president who is as qualified as anybody, and has the potential to be a bad, good, or great president, with the same kind of baseless animosity is to act at the same level of immaturity.

Long-winded way of saying two wrongs don't make a right, as usual.

I voted McCain, and will show Obama respect, just as McCain and President Bush have done. I may agree with some things he does, and disagree with others.

However, I will try to resist the easy path of black and white evaluation of his leadership, just as I have tried to do with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush jr., etc. Not everything Bush did was bad (Obama voted "with" him 40-50%, right?)...so with Obama...

So chillathon! You are making yourselves look wacky, just on the other side...Black Helicopter Republicans are no better than Moonbat Liberals!

"Good! Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you...Good! Your hate has made you powerful." Emperor Palpatine to Luke Skywalker

"The Campaign tends to encourage opponents to exaggerate, unfortunately"

Can you believe Schwartzenegger of all people saying the time for campaign rhetoric was over.

Not that I perceive him as an ideologue, but statesman?!?!

DeefromTexas, you wrote:

“It is possible that Americans should be concerned about Evangelical churches that are teaching hatred and Nazi beliefs, and promoting individuals such as Palin who purposely promoted aggressive reactions from crowds that attended her hatred filled rallies -similar tactics used by Hitler. Remember...the cries of KILL HIM…”

The only thing Gov. Palin was trying to do was to talk about Sen. Obama’s actual record, as she should do as his political opponent in a democracy. Obama and Democrats also talked negatively of McCain and Republicans. And what she said was no smear. She actually brought up very few of the facts that would have put Obama in a very negative light. He has embraced Marxism his whole life, right up until now. He’s only distanced himself enough from it to get elected, and he needed and got the media’s help to whitewash so much of it. I would certainly be willing to review any and all the instances of Marxism in Obama’s life and provide links demonstrating them. Those who deny these links don’t do extensive research into these questions themselves. That research speaks for itself. I’ve also begun to wonder if saying anything critical or negative about Obama is allowable. If isn’t positive about Obama, is then hate?

On the allegation that “kill him” was yelled about Obama, it’s simply untrue. The media reported it, fed the myth, and then never retracted it. There were two alleged incidents, and the Secret Service found nothing to either one. In the first case, the Secret Service said if anything, the outburst a man was made about Ayers, not Obama. In the second case, the Secret Service said they don’t believe it happened. This is the article that started the controversy: “In Fla., Palin Goes for the Rough Stuff as Audience
Boos Obama,” (Washington Post). These are some that clearly show that neither incident happened: “Milbank: Secret Service hasn’t called,” Politico, “Secret Service says ‘Kill him’ allegation unfounded,” Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, “Secret Service looking into Obama threat at rally,” Newsweek, and
“The Secret Service and the Obama Death Threat,” Newsweek. The very last article actually says that Obama angered the Secret Service by saying (during the last debate, I believe) that “kill him” had been yelled about him at Palin rallies, even though the Secret Service had told him the reports were unfounded.

And the latest media travesty on the false “kill him” allegations has just occurred. Newsweek connected a spike in threats against Obama in September and early October to Palin (“Highlights: Newsweek’s Special Election Project”), even though her remarks about Ayers only began in early October and I can’t find any liberal media reports of “frenzied” rallies before then. Now the UK Telegraph has run a story called, “Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service for death threats against Barack Obama,” based on the Newsweek story. It’s really Newsweek blaming her (without reason), not the Secret Service.

Hey Ryan!

Couldn't agree more. I am SMHID*

I might also be WHSCBSPAL**

*(Shaking My Head In Disbelief)

** (Wondering How Someone Could be So Paranoid and Loony)

McCain called Obama a "Socialist" for the same reason that Obama railed against the "failed policies of George Bush" without naming many of them.

The Campaign tends to encourage opponents to exaggerate, unfortunately...the fringe hangs on to the simplistic messages like a dog with a bone...

"The bottom line is this: Almost immediately following the invasion of Iraq, Libya ended its WMD programs. And we are now normalizing relations with Libya."

Considering Libya has not been a threat since we killed Quadaffyi's daughter during the 80's, this is kind of funny.

It also ignores Iran & North Korea ramping up their efforts to become nuclear. It ignores the surge in international terrorism that has followed our invasion of Iraq.

"You can go on and on about the 4,000 plus Americans who lost their lives. Yes it is very sad and tragic that war kills. But had we not invaded; and Saddam Hussein really had WMDs; and had he used them against our allies or had he placed them into the hands of terrorists (whether al Qaeda, Hamas or any other terrorist group) and they used the weapons; you would have been all over President Bush for not doing more."

I love how blithely push aside the deaths of US service men and women, on Veteran's day of all days

What callous turn of phrase do you have to describe the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died in this war?

All to prop up some insane what if scenario that had ZERO basis in reality.

The attack on Iraq was an act of great arrogance on the part of the United States done WITHOUT the support of the United NATIONS - and in the end WITHOUT the support of the majority of Iraqis and WITHOUT justification.

United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD, giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on Iraqi WMDs. After the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion.

Hussein was tried and hung for killing 138 people after an assassination attempt on his life. How many tens of thousands of deaths have resulted from the American ATTACK on Iraq and what fate should await Bush, Cheney and the other possible war criminals?

"Cheney wanted the world to know that he did not request Joe Wilson, but that Joe Wilson's own wife did. NOTE: It was actually Joe Wilson who outed his own wife."

1st off Plame did not request Joe Wilson.

2nd, listing his wife's name is nowhere near the same as calling her an employee of the CIA.

3rd, you're using Cheney as a source? ROFLMAO

"ENJOY THE NEXT FOUR YEARS OF MARXISM. I HOPE YOU DON'T HAVE SONS THAT WILL BE DRAFTED FOR OBAMA'S "CIVILIAN SECURITY". MMM, DIDN'T HITLER DO THE SAME THING? FORM HIS OWN "CIVILIAN SECURITY"?"

Only 70 days until Obama is inaugurated as President of the United States, you had better leave the country to stay safe....ROFLMAO

Ryan C --

"Why the Niger yellow cake forgery?" British Intelligence did not consider that forgery in determining that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium. Their evidence was the fact that Iraq was seeking to reestablish a trade agreement Niger--which by the way, Joe Wilson confirmed. British Intelligence determined that the only purpose for reestablishing trade with Niger would have to be uranium.

"Why the retaliation toward Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame?" In a nutshell -- Vice President Cheney heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In his briefing Cheney asked "What do we know about this?" Later he hears that it was upon his request that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to confirm this. Knowing that he (Cheney) had not done so, he inquired as to who did request Joe Wilson. It turned out to be Joe Wilson's wife. Joe Wilson denied this. Cheney wanted the world to know that he did not request Joe Wilson, but that Joe Wilson's own wife did. NOTE: It was actually Joe Wilson who outed his own wife. In his biography in Who's Who, it stated that he married "the former Valerie Plame" long before Bob Novak's article was published.

Joe Wilson came back and wrote his article that stated that Iraq never purchased any yellowcake uranium. But that was not the issue. British Intelligence never claimed they had. The report was that Iraq was SEEKING to purchase yellowcake uranium. BIG DIFFERENCE!

"Why was Scotter Libby pardoned?" HE WASN'T! President Bush commuted his sentence. Again...BIG DIFFERENCE!

"At one time..." Yes, in the 1980s (quite a bit more recent than when we supported slavery and were "mortal enemies" with England) Saddam not only had WMDs but he used them during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds in 1988. The IAEA went in following the 1991 cease fire to rid Iraq of its WMDs, as part of the conditions of the cease fire.

Finally--and for like the third or fourth time--we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire. The UN Security Council gave its final ultimatum after 12 year of diplomatically trying to convince Saddam Hussein to comply. When the UN made it known they had no intention to follow through on the threat, President Bush issued his own final ultimatum. When Saddam Hussein failed to comply, President Bush kept his word.

You can go on and on about the 4,000 plus Americans who lost their lives. Yes it is very sad and tragic that war kills. But had we not invaded; and Saddam Hussein really had WMDs; and had he used them against our allies or had he placed them into the hands of terrorists (whether al Qaeda, Hamas or any other terrorist group) and they used the weapons; you would have been all over President Bush for not doing more.

The bottom line is this: Almost immediately following the invasion of Iraq, Libya ended its WMD programs. And we are now normalizing relations with Libya. It may have taken 5 1/2 years, but Iraq is slowly but surely improving. We shall see how their new elections take place. NOTE: Our own Revolutionary War took eight years!

"you still don't notice the tendency to describe all his critics racists?"

I don't see that tendency at all.

Its when right wingers bring Obama's race into it or make some kind of racist remarks usually stereotyping African Americans that they are called racists.

If you have been called a racist more than once, chances are good you were acting like one.

Wow, how can this guy have any credibility. He bases his entire argument on a comparison to Adolph Hitler, beginning with the fact that Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. In fact, Hitler lost that election.

To Ryan C.:
"What kind of person attacks the newly elected president of his own country?That doesn't sound like an American to me. It sounds like somebody who wants to destroy America instead, to divide and conquer, to spread rot and disease within."

HOW CONVENIENT TO USE THIS ARGUMENT NOW, AFTER LIBERALS HAVE BEEN ATTACKING THE OUR PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS!
REMINDS ME OF THE KID THAT PUNCHED A LITTLE BOY ON THE PLAYGROUND, AND THEN CRIED AND TOLD THE TEACHER WHEN HE GOT PUNCHED BACK.
ENJOY THE NEXT FOUR YEARS OF MARXISM. I HOPE YOU DON'T HAVE SONS THAT WILL BE DRAFTED FOR OBAMA'S "CIVILIAN SECURITY". MMM, DIDN'T HITLER DO THE SAME THING? FORM HIS OWN "CIVILIAN SECURITY"?

There is nothing deranged about this. He said that he wants to do something that Americans have always avoided because it is immensely dangerous to liberty.

Sad, really. Everyone is so sure that their vision for the U.S. is the right one. Everyone is so sure that his neighbor is so wrong. It won't surprise me one whit if we end up embroiled in another Civil War in the near future. From what I can see, through the comments displayed on this blog, it is inevitable.

Ryan C,
you still don't notice the tendency to describe all his critics racists? Look at the comments below. It shows often enough. What I choose to base my critics on does not matter anymore, because even though I base it on his political views, everyone keeps yelling in my face one word - racist.
"Evil Clinton" - no, he's not the main reason, it's global this time. All I am saying - look at dems and libs with constructive criticism, not blindly follow them. Dems do have problems with resolving economy issues.
Why straw men argument? Just set us conservative an example.

"Ryan C, then be that awesome dem who stops it. The point still is, that critics against this person who was elected, is called racism."

This is called a straw man argument.

Criticism of Obama is not racist unless the commenter chooses to make that criticism based on race.

They are then called out as racists.

"Don't you think Bush just had to deal with the mess Clinton had created in his 8 yrs?"

ROFLMAO.

Huge budget surpluses and being the world's only unquestioned super power, the evil Clinton!

If you have not read the entire speech and understand the context of these "pinched" words I can see how you would be afraid. The almighty context seems to be grossly ignored in this country, in politics, beliefs, social interaction, and education. I cite this article and its comments as proof.

Im all for thoughtful discourse and debates with open eyes and hearts, but the ferocity with which people are grasping onto non-issues created by out of context words is astounding. The use of simplified catch phrases in a discussion whose memes are perhaps twisted or misunderstood in the context of the argument is also not helpful. Extremes of all "sides" have resorted to doing this, creating a lot of what at this point sounds like a lot of infuriatingly useless noise.

In order to change, in order for these discourses to be useful, for the goal of keeping a prosperous democracy, we as a population must independently consider the context of our discourse and in doing so come to our own (hopefully strong but flexible) opinions. This is the foundation of a healthy democracy: diversity of thought, spirit, race, ideology, and values. To not do so and to latch onto the ideas of others without thought but with conviction will lead inevitably toward a situation in which you/we are taken advantage of and dictatorship.

Cutting diversity of thought for simplicity (ala over worked people and a money grubbing media) is a pox of which we have demonstrated remarkably low resistance.