It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Is ATS Full Of Hate Obama Threads?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:52 PM
Regarding the economy, you should blame globalization and not Obama. The US economy is tanking due to outsourcing. The president has no power to prevent bussinesses move.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by Phlynx

That's easier said then done. Back in the day they use to tell people if you can't change your life, stop yer (well, ya know). You can't do that today cause as time goes on there's less stuff the public can change. Besides the elites pick the president right?

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:40 PM
People expected too much from Obama. They wanted to believe he would be the Savior of the World when he is just a human being. When he didn't do everything they wanted him to in a few short months their response was rage.

Then there are the people who hated him all along and see people's disillusionment as a golden opportunity to restore the Republican party to its former power and (as they see it) glory. These are the ones who liked the world just as it was under Bush and wanted no change at all. Needless to say, these are the people who benefited most from the system the way it was before Obama started making waves.

I understood that no president can do that much without the cooperation of Congress and the establishment. He is getting very little support from those quarters. Any changes he will be able to effect will have to be in spite of the established power structure.

I never expected him to single-handedly change the whole power structure of America. Therefore, I am not disillusioned and have no hate for him.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by Carseller4

Let's get this straight, the use of Teabagger was used by the first modern Tea Party.

First, a little history. After Barack Obama was sworn in as president, with his big majorities in Congress, the Democrats launched quite a bit of federal spending: particularly with the “stimulus” package. Some Americans were determined to counter this. And, before you knew it, we had the “tea party” movement. What protesters were doing, of course, was invoking the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and their Boston Tea Party. According to the website of the Tea Party Patriots, the movement is committed to three “core values”: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets.

The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

Those Tea Partiers wanted you Americans to send tea bags to your congressmen to show support for their cause thus the TeaBaggers. So quit with the revisionist history!

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:03 PM
reply to post by travisirius

The "Tea Parties" started in 2007, far before Obama was elected. It started out as a bipartisan group with libertarian roots. It was originally meant to protest corruption on both sides of the isle. Then, after the neo-cons lost out in the election, they thought it useful to hi-jack the movement in a effort to "rebrand". Then, it became about fighting the Democrats and praising the Republicans, though it certainly didn't start out that way. This was an obvious hijacking by the neo-conservatives in an effort to save their agenda.


posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by atlguy
ATS is run by a Tea Party enthusiast, and threads bashing Obama and the like are encouraged and promoted. Threads slamming the idiocy of the tea-party and/or republicans are downmodded/locked.

OMG these are complete lies.

Anti-right wing threads are a dime a dozen on ATS and if the terms and conditions are followed they never get locked.

Dare I ask, you to PROVE your claims?

You cannot prove it though because it's totally untrue...

I can prove it.

Look at the stickied threads in the Political Ideology forum

Also note what a drama queen SkepticOverlord became in the months follow Obama's inauguration (DA GOVERNMENT GONNA SHUT US DOWN11!!) and the shift and re-design of this site's focus and graphical layout following Obama gaining office.

I don't really care since it's virtually no holds barred here, it's still one of the best places for news on the net, and the ATS powers that be are responsive to the community (for instance the Alternative Substance forum is a great addition and something that people had to fight for... even though ATS hides it, but we're taking small steps here) but it's hard not to notice this site and it's owners certainly lean one way.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by PatesHatriots]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by atlguy

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by atlguy

FYI - it is not "proper English" - it is considered offensive to Democrats and the Democratic Party - much the same as "teabagger".

This is laughably absurd. Democrat Party, Democratic Party - these are extremely common transpositions, and most importantly, as absolutely everyone on the planet knows (including you), the transposition has zero possibility of being interpreted as an insult, because the similarity of the terms makes any transposition definition change irrelevent. Anyone who claims differently is simply lying.

Teabagger, on the other hand, is a sexual act made popular by gays and in porn, and was chosen specifically by Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Communists and Collectivists Democrats of the Democrat and Democratic parties solely, and explicitly as hate speech, with the intention to slander and insult and offend, in the most vile possible way, the people of the Tea Party movement, who only - and ever - referred to them selves as the Tea Party movement, because of it's reference to the Boston Tea Party of US history.

The hallmark of Leftwing shills is to accuse their victims of what they are doing themselves. Your utterly ridiculous declaration of Democrat "offense," while claiming the the Tea Party movement proclaimed themselves teabaggers, is probably one of the ugliest and most deliberately blatant, filthy lies I've read in a long time.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:24 PM
People are still trying to say calling Teabaggers "Teabaggers" is offensive?
Yeah blame everyone else for your lack of foresight in naming your little hobby group The Teabag Party. You old white people probably were confused when people under 30 would laugh every time you said it.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by PatesHatriots]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:24 PM
Huzzah for the double post.

My bad

[edit on 30-5-2010 by PatesHatriots]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:24 PM
I need 20 post so I can start a thread that is better than most I have seen here..

Obama... he is just as bad as about all the other presidents...
He is going to help screw everything up worse than it is...
He wasn't born in America....

I think everyone has plenty of reason to be mad... Only Ron Paul would have been a good candidate.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by OrionHunterX

It's called being critical. Has nothing to do with him being black, as those on the left like to accuse it is. In fact, from what I have observed, electing a black President has only amplified false accusations of racism from the left. Who would've predicted that.

Read my sig. And that was from a Democrat during the Bush administration. Too bad Dems can't remember that far back, except of course to blame everything happening today on Bush & Cheney. Then their memories are sharp as tacks.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by travisirius

The "Tea Parties" started in 2007, far before Obama was elected. It started out as a bipartisan group with libertarian roots. It was originally meant to protest corruption on both sides of the isle. Then, after the neo-cons lost out in the election, they thought it useful to hi-jack the movement in a effort to "rebrand". Then, it became about fighting the Democrats and praising the Republicans, though it certainly didn't start out that way. This was an obvious hijacking by the neo-conservatives in an effort to save their agenda.


Nope. A majority of tea parties are not letting this happen, despite what the left likes to think. If you wish to think so, then you're only fooling yourself.

As Rand Wins Kentucky, California State GOP Attempts Hijack of Los Angeles County GOP, Tea Party Fights Back With Lawsuit

A couple months back a known neocon tried to infiltrate our local Tea Party movement to get an 'endorsement', which we don't do, and we shot him down fast. He is still running in November, but his chances of winning are slim at best.

I am so surprised nobody on the left learned anything from their Massachusetts defeat.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by stillessence

Wasn't born in America...this is what's wrong with discussing politics on this site. People ignore the truth. Before Obama won the nomination America started it's downward spiral under Bush. For you revisionists Bush got us in debt over 2 wars "losing" millions of cash flown into Iraq on pallets. Just disappeared! Don't remember that? Where was the outrage? Forget the fact he didn't win ANY election for Pres. Remember no one counting all the votes in Florida & again in Ohio? Then he lost jobs & companies. Then lost lives in Katrina. Repeal of Glass Steagall act by McCain & Phil Gramm and deregulation of banks. Wall Street tanking under Bush not Obama. What has any of this have to do with Obama?
His nomination was looked at as a new start then the Republican ruining of everything we hold dear put him in the position to CONTINUE to pour money into the economy to save it. We would have been in a whole worse mess if the Stimulus bill wasn't passed and now it's working:
Ignoring the truth makes you stupid!
Only half the Stimulus money is spent. If the banks who received their bailout money were forced to lend to the public at 3% interest were would be in a lot better shape. After all it's OUR money, right? He could do better if he would break up the top four banks that got us into this mess into 14 new banks & put the CEOs in jail for their greed most of the US would love him now, except for the minority party (republicans) who would hate anything he did and down play his sucesses. But it seems MOST the posters here at ATS believe in lies like:
Most Americans are against the Health Care reform. It's always been 48% vs 52% or 51% for & 46% against these last 2 years.
Most Americans against the HC bill. 51% against it with 28% being Republicans against it & 23% against it because it doesn't go far enough because it has no single payer to keep the Insurance Companies in check.
The rest hate him for stupid reasons like "he's not born in America" "he's a Muslim" "He's a socalist" But the real reason is he's not a Republican. In the south it's because he's black you'll have to admit. Obama's got it right when he said they want the keys to the car back after driving America into a ditch!
Most here on ATS push the conspiracy that there is no 2 parties that all work for the same masters. Well, don't stop there, we are ALL going into FEMA camps, the Illuminati will have us chipped and the REAL Masters will take over soon....the Aliens! We will all be food for our Alien Overlords.
It's all in your perspective. However Obama will get elected again because the Tea Baggers have split the Republican party and neither one of those parties (Republicans and Tea Baggers)will have a candidate that isn't laughable! Bush got us here in 8 years let Obama have his next 2.5 years left then we'll see what kind of candidate you got to go against him.
For the critics that have lied on this thread about his campaign promises track them yourself & quit with the propaganda:
I never supported a President in the last 40 years because of most of the same reasons most of you haven't but one thing stood out about Obama, most of his support money came from THE PEOPLE not lobbiest not oil companies not millionaires. Look it up and try to prove me wrong.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

What...what..WHAT? You really don't read or watch the news?

A couple months back a known neocon tried to infiltrate our local Tea Party movement to get an 'endorsement', which we don't do, and we shot him down fast. He is still running in November, but his chances of winning are slim at best.
Do you read the news? AT ALL? Clarence Thomas' wife started a Tea Bagger party, believe she isn't Republican?
How about Dick Armey's Tea Party group? Is he a Republican?

I am so surprised nobody on the left learned anything from their Massachusetts defeat.
Believe me Scott Brown is history in November and it isn't going to be a Tea Party candidate or a Republican that wins:

When the Republican senator voted recently to let a financial regulation bill advance in the Senate, many Tea Party activists viewed him as a traitor. As one leader complained to the Globe, “His career as a senator of the people lasted slightly longer than the shelf life of milk.’’ In fact, Brown’s vote served the public interest. What’s surprising is that the Tea Party movement, whose emergence was fueled by outrage over the 2008 bailout, would end up on the same side as Wall Street.

There is more Republican "Tea Party" groups than original Tea Baggers:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by PatesHatriots
I can prove it.

Look at the stickied threads in the Political Ideology forum

Wow... just wow!

I never noticed this until you pointed it out.

I'll provide the cover story: "ATS is just reflecting the political interests of the majority of it's members."

Even though site polling shows a pretty even split. .

You cannot claim no bias and then push an agenda. It is strikingly disingenuous. .

[edit on 5/30/2010 by clay2 baraka]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:27 PM

Why Is ATS Full Of Hate Obama Threads?

Because people are too afraid to admit that they simply will never know what is truly going on behind the scenes.

One of the few people who don't think Obama is pure evil is David Wilcock. Yes, he believes he's a reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, and sometimes talks about his dreams, but he's a pretty solid "truther" with a lot of information.

Two of his recent articles show his thoughts on Obama:

Disclosure: Setting History Free!

Was Oil Spill and Possible Disclosure in the Pyramid Timeline?

They are quite long so you'll have to scroll... and scroll... or do a Find on the page.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Chinesis
-Repeal the Patriot Act.
-Send out troops home. No question, no BS, just sent home.

Easier said than done. You can't just send the troops home in a jiffy. There are geopolitical compulsions that dictate it has to be done in a phased manner. It's extremely naive to think that Obama can just order them back in the blink of an eye.

The problem with guys like you is that you tend to shoot from the hip without knowing full well the implications and intricacies of geopolitics and military strategy. And then, withdrawal of 1,50,000 troops and its supporting logistics infrastructure can't be done overnight. It would take months. And what of the vacuum created after the withdrawal? Exit NATO...Welcome Al Qaeda. And then you're gonna have to deal with a lot of Times Squares. Get what I mean?

I hope you understand Obama is in the loop of EVERYTHING that happens
to our nation (as well as foreign nations) HE failed to act on the BP spill.

Just chill. He failed to act on the BP oil spill? So then, can you list the actions he was supposed to take to prevent the blowout? How was he supposed to know it was to happen? Is he a clairvoyant? What was he to do after it happened? Let’s know and I’ll vote for you in the next Presidential elections!

He studied Constitution Law (at least) and knows where all of most of OUR
inalienable rights are (in the toilet).

Could you care to elucidate?

Bills, BS laws have been passed without having had the chance
to be read by WE, the people.

That’s not the way a government runs. You are represented by the persons you vote for in the Congress. It’s impossible to run a country by allowing every individual to read the bills and vote. That’s why you have representatives, right?

ANY president after JFK has been garbage.

So who do you blame for this? You are the guys who vote and then get what you deserve!

Here is common sense:
We have a right to bear arms
(but we need a PERMIT to obtain one) ???

Huh? And why on Earth do you need arms? Is American society that far gone that you have to protect yourself from your neighbor? Why are Americans killing Americans? You are part of the society. So YOU make the change. Only the Taliban nestled in the badlands of Pakistan possess guns without licenses/permits. Are you in this category? So what’s the big deal in applying for a permit?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by OrionHunterX]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

- Stimulus Package: Passed in the first year of presidency to help with economic recovery.

A majority of Americans were opposed to the bail out which has not worked. He ignored the majority of us and rewarded his buddies with billions in paybacks and yes I believe that is what was going on with both him and Bush. Unemployment skyrocketed. The Deficit skyrocketed.

- Health: Comprehensive Health care reform passed.

We all want better health care but again a clear majority of us are opposed to the failed European Model. He ignored us and through a string of back room deals, secrecy and manipulation defied us. He clearly told us to go to hell.

- Arms Reduction: Nuclear treaties, including START treaty with Russia.

Iran was not mentioned in any of this and he treats Iran as if he does not care. Otherwise, good for him.

- Funding: For deep space travel by NASA.

You are simply wrong on this one. Completely wrong. He canceled the Moon Base and cut funding. He decided to leave it to the private sector. He funded nothing. Where on Earth did you get that from?

- Financial Aid: For students attending college. A $2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition (among other expenses) for those seeking a college education. Nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion, according to Treasury officials.

What Treasury Officials do you mean? Do you understand what a tax credit is by the way? It's not a reduction in taxes, its a reduction in your gross income. I'm for this, it was just lip service though.

- Communications: A presidential campaign built on innovative messaging and advanced technology.

Yes and he is actively trying to censor the Internet and control the Media. A clear signal that Freedom of the Press and Speech are less important to him than his ability to control the Media and Speech. We have not seen an attempt like this in many decades. Contrary to his fake promise, he is not transparent in the least.

- Transportation: Since the passage of the economic stimulus package in mid-February, the Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects.

Good, but would it not be better if he were concerned about permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs to make the huge unemployment numbers look better for purely political reasons?

- Industrial Recovery: The automobile industry at the White House and Congress's behest has undergone seismic structural changes, and managerial reorganization. He has put in place the framework for an industry recovery. Perhaps the most significant of steps was to allocate $2 billion in stimulus cash for advanced batteries systems, called "the next big frontier" in the automotive world, adding that if the U.S. could dominate this market it would reclaim its perch as the world's premier car manufacturer.

Yes and it failed and is still failing. His first Czar after taking over the Auto Industry had to be fired it is going so badly. Then they ran an add full of lies claiming GM paid back the loan.

- Infrastructure: More than any prior president, Obama has put a spotlight on America's struggling cities, even creating an office of Urban Policy in the White House.

The Federal Government is a huge burden on cities with unfunded mandates just as it is on States. The Federal Government has to pretend it can't read the Constitution to do any of this. It is failing. The Cities, all very Liberal, that were failing are in worse shape now, except we have another useless agency to fund with money we don't have.

- Building Bridges: Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been remarkable but under-appreciated.

He has made zero progress with Iran and in fact they are laughing at him for his perceived weakness. He has alienated one of our best Allies and done not one thing to relieve tension. What are you talking about? You just repeat whatever his talking points are?

- Environmental Conservation: Since taking office, the White House has put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks. The conservation effort - the largest in the last 15 years - came with the stroke of a pen when Obama signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

Sorry but he took those lands to control the resources. They were horrible choices of acreage if he meant to help preserve important habitat. You see any land being reclaimed East of the Mississippi? By either Party? No you have not. Why? The Elites land is off limits. Instead he steals families farms and ranches and locks up resources so they can't be developed to create trade and jobs.


You post a thread making a blanket claim that is absurd. You imply that there is something wrong with anyone who does not agree fully with Obama, when clearly you are in his pocket. Then you run away.

Explain to us now, why exactly you agree with the topics you brought up. How many of the Bills have you read? Do you follow them afterward to see if they actually work or not? Inquiring minds want to know?

Every topic you list is a dupe to existing threads with lots of details. Why not join in those topics instead of Trolling for Flags with threads designed to result in arguments?

[edit on 5/30/2010 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 5/30/2010 by Blaine91555]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by OrionHunterX

You seem to be hiding or ashamed of where you live? Are you an American?

[edit on 5/30/2010 by Blaine91555]

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:54 AM
START I Treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994......The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new START I treaty was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. It will enter into force after its ratification through the parliaments of both countries.

START II (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was signed by United States President George H. W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin on January 3, 1993, banning the use of MIRVs on ICBMs. Hence, it is often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement.

The third Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START III, was a proposed Nuclear disarmament treaty negotiated between the United States and Russia. It was never signed. It meant to drastically reduce the deployed nuclear weapons arsenals of both countries. The treaty was meant to continue the weapons reduction efforts that had taken place in the START I and START II negotiations. The framework for negotiations of the treaty began with talks in Helsinki between President Bill Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin in 1997.

ummm this is not a new thing for obamarama..... nor do i see it as a great achievment by the obama is your mama admin.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in